[General] De Broglie Wave
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Tue Feb 9 11:53:08 PST 2016
Albrecht:
I understand but why do you think assuming a new set of orbiting
particles , using a force you made up to fit your desired result, that
also happens to propagate at "c", through no media, and then conducting
a derivation based upon external forces that effect only one of the
particles so you can calculate a reaction force from the other
stationary one is easier than to assume an internal property of inertia,
basta!
To get attention new theories must predict new phenomena
Wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 2/9/2016 9:02 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
> Hi Wolf,
>
> regarding my mass model (i.e. the fact that any extended object must
> have inertia):
>
> You suspect that there are hidden assumptions which I did not state.
> Yes, there are more assumptions, but those are so much common sense
> that it did not find it necessary to mention them explicitly. I can
> make that up here.
>
> If an object is extended there must be on the one hand a forces which
> binds the constituents to each other. On the other hand the force has
> to be in a way that there is a distance maintained, otherwise an
> extension does logically not exist. (There is one other possibility
> for an extension, that is a planetary system. But this has to be
> excluded here as it needs massive constituents. Now the goal here is
> to deduce mass and so mass cannot be assumed as a pre-condition. That
> excludes this possibility.)
>
> Now, if we have this situation that there is an extended object with
> some kind of force which makes the extended object possible in some
> way, and the propagation of this force takes place with c, then this
> is sufficient to have inertia; then we have necessarily inertia, there
> is no other outcome possible.
>
> I have made another further assumption in my derivation. That is the
> shape of the binding field. For the field shape which I have chosen
> the result of my derivation is Newton's law of motion (in the
> non-relativistic case). If we assume a different shape then there will
> be still inertia, however Newton's law will not be fulfilled. Resumé
> again: inertia cannot be avoided for an extended object.
>
> Best, Albrecht
>
>
> Am 08.02.2016 um 20:26 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>> To All:
>> This is a very interesting discussion, although I feel you two
>> (Albrecht, Al) and are talking past each other.
>> The repetition of Albrecht's call to read his derivation is
>> appropriate. I have done so and see no problem with the conclusion
>> that extended particles will have inertia if c is finite. The problem
>> is not with the derivation but with the insistence that the speed of
>> light and particle extension are all that is required. There are a
>> lot of hidden assumptions (like what holds the extended particle
>> together, and why does a force on one side of an extended particle
>> not also move the other side) and if one adds them all up does one
>> come up with a simpler overall explanation for inertial mass than
>> just assuming inertial mass to begin with.
>>
>> However the issue I would like to question is ""interaction", which
>> mnight as well be thought of an absract string between charges."
>> I've been trying to get an answer to the question "what are strings
>> made of" on ResearchGate and the best answer besides that it is an
>> abstract useful concept has been "Strings are made of smoke and
>> mirrors", However I lean toward Strings are made of Action, i.e. the
>> material of a world line. Is this what you ,Al, had in mind with the
>> quoted passage?
>>
>> Wolf
>>
>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>> Research Director
>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>> On 2/5/2016 6:15 PM, af.kracklauer at web.de wrote:
>>> 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 <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>> </a>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.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 <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160209/46f77e89/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list