[General] De Broglie Wave
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Tue Feb 9 10:18:47 PST 2016
Hi Al,
the choice of de Broglie is not suboptimal, it is clearly wrong. Badly
wrong. The wave he has introduced does not exist, and if it would exist
its behaviour would cause a physical behaviour which is in conflict with
measurements (if those are comprehensively done).
I agree with you that the main object now is to move forward. But we
will not move successfully forward if we carry millstones with us. De
Broglie's wave is a millstone. I just had a look into a new textbook
about QM, which was highly recommended by our university. It makes full
use of de Broglie's relation between momentum and wavelength, so this is
unfortunately not just history.
But looking into the history: Bohr, Sommerfeld and others have used the
result of de Broglie to explain quantum numbers. Particularly the
quantisation of the angular momentum on atomic shells is explained by
"standing waves" where the wavelength is the one defined by dB. This
obviously hides the true reason of this quantisation, but as anyone
believes that the Ansatz using de Broglie is right, nobody is looking
for the correct cause. - This is one of the reasons for our sticking
physics.
Tschüss back
Albrecht
Am 09.02.2016 um 14:57 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
> Hi Albrecht:
> As you fully know, the very same idea can be expressed in various
> languages. This is true of physics also. The very same structure can
> be attached to variuos words and images. I do not defend deBroglie's
> choice of words and images. I too find his choice suboptimal and
> somewhat contrdictory. So what? He was playing his hand at that time
> with the hand he was delt at that time. Since then, other ideas have
> been found in the deck, as it were. I find that, without changing any
> of his math, one can tell a story that is vastly less etherial and
> mysterious and, depending on the reader's depth of analysis, less
> self-contradictory. I think my story is the one DeBrogle would have
> told if he had been inspired by some facits of SED. And, some people
> have a greater affinty and interest in abstract structures, in
> particular when their mathematical redintion seems to work, that for
> the stories told for their explication. This is particularly true of
> all things QM.
> Anyway, the main object now (2016) is to move forward, not critique
> historical personalitites. So, I'm trying to contribute to this
> discussion by adding what I know now, and what I have found to be
> useful. We are "doing" physics, not history. Let's make new errors,
> not just grind away on the old ones!
> BTW, to my info, both Dirac and Schrödinger would agree that deBroglie
> proposed some not too cogent arguments regarding the nature of QM-wave
> functions. Still, the best there at that time. All the same, they too
> went to their graves without having found a satisfactory
> interpretation. SED throws some new ingredients into the mix.
> Tschuss, Al
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 09. Februar 2016 um 13:41 Uhr
> *Von:* "Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
> *Cc:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org, "Richard Gauthier"
> <richgauthier at gmail.com>
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] De Broglie Wave
> Hi Al,
>
> I have the impression that you have a solution for particle scattering
> which is in some way related to the idea of de Broglie. (I also have
> of course a solution). But was this the goal of our discussion and of
> my original contribution? It was not! My objection was de Broglie's
> original idea as stated in his thesis and as taken over by Schrödinger
> and Dirac.
>
> You have a lot of elements in your argumentation which I do not find
> in the thesis of de Broglie. (There is e.g. nothing at dB about SED
> ore background.)
>
> The essential point of our discussion is the meaning of his wave - and
> his wavelength. I think it is very obvious from his thesis (which you
> clearly know) that his "fictitious wave" accompanies a particle like
> the electron/all of the time/. There is no interaction mentioned
> except that there is an observer at rest who measures the frequency of
> the particle. But without influencing the particle.
>
> Now it is normal knowledge that a frequency and as well a wavelength
> appears changed for an observer who is in motion. This is caused by
> the Doppler effect. But the Doppler effect will never cause that a
> finite wavelength changes to Infinite if an observer moves at some
> speed unequal to c. But just that happens to the wave invented by de
> Broglie. It follows the equation
>
> lambda = h/(m*v) where v is the speed difference between the
> particle and the observer (to say it this time this way). And this is
> in conflict to any physics we know.
>
> Best, Albrecht
>
> Am 08.02.2016 um 17:20 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>
> Hi Albrecht:
> Your challenge is easy! In fact my last responce covered it.
> The RELEVANT velocity is the relative velocity between the
> particle and the slit; not that between the observer-particle or
> observer-slit. An observer will see all kinds of distortions of
> the events, starting with simple persepctive due to being at some
> distance from the slit and its registration screen. In additon
> this observer will see those deB waves affecting the particle (NOT
> from the particle, nor from the slit, but from the universal
> background there before either the particle or slit came into
> being) as perspectively-relativistically distorted (twin-clock
> type distortion). BUT, the observer will still see the same
> over-all background because the totality of background signals
> (not just those to which this particle is tuned), i.e., its
> spectral energy density, is itself Lorentz invariant. That is,
> the observer's motion does not enable it to empirically
> distinguish between the background in the various frames, nor does
> the background engender friction forces.
> You have got to get your head around the idea that deB waves are
> independant of particles whatever their frame.
> Schrördinger did toy with some aspects that deBroglie used, but
> never did succeed in rationalizing his eq. in those or any other
> terms. For him, when died, wave functions were ontologically
> completely mysterious. From SED proponents, I'm told, my thoughts
> in #7 on www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com, are unique in formulating
> S's eq. in terms of deB concepts. Try it, maybe you'll like it.
> There are other SED-type stories too, but as they are based on
> diffusion (parabolic, not hyperbolic) precesses, I find them self
> contradictory.
> ciao, Al
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 08. Februar 2016 um 141 Uhr
> *Von:* "Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
> *Cc:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org, "Richard
> Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] De Broglie Wave
> Hi Al,
>
> if you follow de Broglie, you should have an explanation for the
> following experiment (here again):
>
> Electrons move at 0.1 c towards the double slit. Behind the double
> slit there is an interference pattern generated, which in the
> frame of the slit follows the rule of de Broglie. But now there is
> an observer also moving at 0.1 c parallel to the beam of
> electrons. In his frame the electrons have momentum=0 and so
> wavelength=infinite. That means: No interference pattern. But
> there is in fact a pattern which does not disappear just because
> there is another observer. And the moving observer will see the
> pattern. - This is a falsification of de Broglie's rule. What else?
>
> The understanding that the de Broglie wave is a property of the
> particle (even though depending on their speed, but not on an
> interaction) was not my idea but the one of Schrödinger and Dirac
> and many others. Also by de Broglie himself.
>
> Ciao Albrecht
>
> Am 08.02.2016 um 03:30 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>
> Hi Albrecht:
> BUT, the laws of Physics for "being" in a frame are not the
> laws for interacting between frames! The deB. wave is not a
> feature of a particle in its own frame, but a feature of the
> interaction of such a particle with at least one other
> particle in another frame. When the two frames are moving
> with respect to each other, then the features of the
> interaction cannot be Lorentz invariants. When one particle
> is interacting with another particle (or ensemble---slit say)
> the relevant physics is determined by the deB wave in that
> sitation, whatever it looks like to an observer in a third
> frame with yet different relative velocities. It is a
> perspective effect: a tree is the same ontological size in
> fact no matter how small it appears to distant observers.
> Observed diminished size(s) cannot be "invriant."
> Appearances =/= ,,so sein''.
> You have gotten your head stuck on the idea that deB. waves
> are characteristics intrinsic to particles in an of
> themselves. Recalibrate! DeB waves are charactteristics of
> the mutual interaction of particles.
> Best, Al
> *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 07. Februar 2016 um 22:10 Uhr
> *Von:* "Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
> *Cc:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org, "Richard
> Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] De Broglie Wave
> Hi Al,
>
> at one of your points I really disagree. The physical laws
> have to be fulfilled in every frame. That means that all
> physical processes have to obey the same laws in all frames.
> So also the process at the double slit. But the rule given by
> de Broglie looks correct in only one frame, that is the frame
> where the double slit is at rest. For an observer in motion
> the diffraction pattern looks very similar as for the observer
> at rest, but for the observer in motion the results according
> to de Broglie are completely different, because the momentum
> of the particle is different in a wide range in the frame of a
> moving observer and so is the wavelength assigned to the particle.
>
> The specific case: At electron scattering, the observer
> co-moving with the electron will see a similar pattern as the
> observer at rest, but de Broglie says that for this observer
> there does not exist any pattern. That is strongly incorrect.
>
> The Schrödinger equation and also the Dirac function should
> have correct results in different frames, at least at
> non-relativistic speeds. This requirement is clearly violated
> through their use of de Broglie's rule.
>
> Grüße
> Albrecht
>
> PS: Your article refers to "Stochastic Electrodynamics". That
> is in my knowledge not standard physics and so a new assumption.
>
> Am 07.02.2016 um 19:03 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>
> Hi Albrecht:
> In my view the story in my paper has no new assunptions,
> rather new words for old assumptions. As I, along with
> most others, see it, there is no conflict with experiment,
> but a less than fully transparent explantion for
> experimental observations (particle beam diffrction)
> otherwise unexplained. At the time of writing, and
> nowadays too (although I'd to think that my paper
> rationalizes DeB's story) it was the most widely accepted
> story for this phenomna.
> The only entities that logically need to be Lorentz
> invariant are the particle. I the deB wave is not a
> 'Bestandteil' of the particle, but of its relations with
> its envionment, then invariance is not defined nor useful.
> M.f.G. Al
> *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 07. Februar 2016 um 14:39 Uhr
> *Von:* "Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
> *Cc:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org,
> "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] De Broglie Wave
> Hi Al,
>
> thank you for your reference. Your paper has a lot of
> intelligent thoughts but also a lot of additional
> assumptions. With reference to the de Broglie wave, I
> think, is the situation much simpler on the level of
> conservative knowledge. De Broglie has misunderstood
> relativity (particularly dilation) and so seen a conflict
> which does in fact not exist. He has solved the conflict
> by inventing an additional "fictitious" wave which has no
> other foundation in physics, and also his "theorem of
> harmonic phases" which as well is an invention without
> need. And his result is in conflict with the experiment if
> we ask for Lorentz invariance or even for Galilean
> invariance. - If we follow the basic idea of de Broglie
> by, however, avoiding his logical error about relativity,
> we come easily to a description of matter waves without
> logical conflicts. This does not need new philosophy or
> other effort at this level.
>
> Best, Albrecht
>
> Am 06.02.2016 um 03:15 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>
> Hi Albrecht:
> DeBroglie's verbage is indeed quite rococo!
> Nonetheless, his machinations, although verbalized,
> in the true tradtion of quantum mechanics,
> mysteriously, can be reinterpreted (i.e., alternate
> verbage found without changing any of the math) so as
> to tell a fully, if (somewhat) hetrodoxical, story.
> See #11 on www.Nonloco-Physics.0catch.com.
> cc: Waves are never a characteristic of a single,
> point-like entity, but colletive motion of a medium.
> IF they exist at all. My view is that E&M waves are
> a fiction wrought by Fourier analysis. The only real
> physical part is an "interaction", which mnight as
> well be thought of an absract string between charges.
> Also, neutrons have electric multipole moments; i.e.,
> they are totally neutral but not charge-free.
> Best, Al
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 05. Februar 2016 um 21:43 Uhr
> *Von:* "Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de,
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Cc:* "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] De Broglie Wave
> Hi Al,
>
> true, in the frame of the particle the dB wavelength
> is infinite. Because in its own frame the momentum of
> the particle is 0. The particle oscillates with the
> frequency of the particle's Zitterbewegung (which
> background fields do you have in mind? De Brogie does
> not mention them). This oscillation is in no
> contradiction with this wavelength as the phase speed
> is also infinite. For the imagination, the latter
> means that all points of that wave oscillate with the
> same phase at any point.
>
> Which background waves do you have in mind? What is
> the CNONOICAL momentum? And what about E&M
> interactions? De Broglie has not related his wave to a
> specific field. An E&M field would anyway have no
> effect in the case of neutron scattering for which the
> same de Broglie formalism is used. And into which
> frame do you see the wave Lorentz-transformed?
>
> So, an electron in his frame has an infinite
> wavelength and in his frame has the double slit moving
> towards the particle. How can an interference at the
> slits occur? No interference can happen under these
> conditions. But, as I have explained in the paper, the
> normal wave which accompanies the electron by normal
> rules (i.e. phase speed = c) will have an interference
> with its own reflection, which has then a wavelength
> which fits to the expectation of de Broglie. But that
> is a very local event (in a range of approx. 10^-12 m
> for the electron) and it is not at all a property of
> the electron as de Broglie has thought.
>
> To say it again: The de Broglie wavelength cannot be a
> steady property of the particle. But Schrödinger and
> Dirac have incorporated it into their QM equations
> with this understanding.
>
> If I should have misunderstood you, please show the
> mathematical calculations which you mean.
>
> Ciao, Albrecht
>
> Am 05.02.2016 um 19:20 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>
> Hi: Albrecht:
> Your arguments don't resonate with me. The deB'
> wave length is infinite in the particles frame: it
> is the standing wave formed by the inpinging
> background waves having a freq. = the particle's
> Zitterbewegung. If these TWO waves are each
> Lorentz x-formed to another frame and added there,
> they exhibit exactly the DeB' modulation
> wavelength proportional to the particle's
> momentum. The only mysterious feature then is
> that the proportionality is to the CNONICAL
> momentum, i.e., including the vector potential of
> whatever exterior E&M interactions are in-coming.
> Nevertheless, everything works our without
> contradiction. A particle oscillates in place at
> its Zitter freq. while the Zitter signals are
> modulated by the DeB' wavelength as they move
> through slits, say.
> ciao, L
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 05. Februar 2016 um 12:28 Uhr
> *Von:* "Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:* "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>,
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] De Broglie Wave
> Hi Richard and Al, hi All,
>
> recently we had a discussion here about two topics:
>
> 1. The functionality of the de Broglie wave,
> particularly its wavelength
> if seen from a different inertial system. Such
> cases lead to illogical
> situations.
> 2. The problem of the apparent asymmetry at
> relativistic dilation.
>
> I have investigated these cases and found that
> they are in some way
> connected. Relativistic dilation is not as simple
> as it is normally
> taken. It looks asymmetric if it is incorrectly
> treated. An asymmetry
> would falsify Special Relativity. But it is in
> fact symmetrical if
> properly handled and understood.
>
> It is funny that both problems are connected to
> each other through the
> fact that de Broglie himself has misinterpreted
> dilation. From this
> incorrect understanding he did not find another
> way out than to invent
> his "theorem of phase harmony"; with all logical
> conflicts resulting
> from this approach.
>
> If relativity is properly understood, the problem
> seen by de Broglie
> does not exist. Equations regarding matter waves
> can be derived which
> work properly, i.e. conform to the experiments but
> avoid the logical
> conflicts.
>
> As announced, I have composed a paper about this.
> It can be found at:
>
> https://www.academia.edu/21564534/The_Conflict_with_the_De_Broglie_Wavelength
> .
>
> I thank Richard Gauthier for the discussion which
> we had about this
> topic. It caused me to investigate the problem and
> to find a solution.
>
> Albrecht
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software
> auf Viren geprüft.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication
> from the Nature of Light and Particles General
> Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer
> gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird.
> www.avast.com
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer
> gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird.
> www.avast.com
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet,
> der von Avast geschützt wird.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der
> von Avast geschützt wird.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von
> Avast geschützt wird.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>
>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160209/7899f5e1/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list