[General] De Broglie Wave

Wolfgang Baer wolf at nascentinc.com
Tue Feb 9 12:19:28 PST 2016


Al:
I fully agree with your sentiments
Kant believed das-ding-an-sich though the basis for classical mechanics 
was absolutely unknowable.
If Kant is right all theories about the causes of our sensations are 
just calculation tools
Nevertheless even incorrect theories can provide temporary correct 
guidance to decision making and that temporary success can lead to 
permanent laws and beliefs that are very hard to change unless one can 
show real benefits.

so lets concentrate on benefits.
If Albrecht could show how his insight into inertia could lead to anti 
gravity devices his photo and his theory would be in the front pages of 
TIME or Der Spiegel

Certainly simplification can be a benefit on its own, especially for 
teachers and students

I myself have given myself the goal of integrating subjective and 
objective experience into a single theory with the benefit of placing 
our lives into a larger context that should prevent us from bankrupting 
ourselves with the ridiculous battle against death.

best,
wolf




Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com

On 2/8/2016 5:15 PM, af.kracklauer at web.de wrote:
> Hi Wolfgang & all:
> I am not now deliberatly trying to say something about the origin of 
> inertia or mass.  In general I do not try to explain such things, 
> rather to zero in on what strike me as egriegious errors.
> Otherwise, from familiarity with formal logic, I think I know that, 
> all "explication, explantion, modeling" in the end (actually 
> beginning) is based on essentially unknowable (in the sense of logic) 
> assertions.  What all humans seem to me to mean by these words is: to 
> associate whatever is to be explained with some common, mesoscopic 
> experience---even while that experience itself remains in the 
> formal-logic sense absolutely "out of the blue."  From this view 
> point, efforts to explain everything are bound, at best, to wind up 
> being circular, at worst: self-inconsistent or just another urban 
> legend or ersatz religion.  Science, then, becomes an effort to 
> mathematiclly encode material processes so as to better manipulate 
> then in the construction of better mouse-traps.  In the end, 
> everything fundamental will remain beyond grasp, starting with life 
> and death.
> An example of a faux explantion is the reduction of some microscopic 
> force to a "contact force", which we humans feel we understand from 
> everyday experience.  Trouble is, that experience is misunderstood! 
>  At the microscopic level we now know that no electron in the 
> molecules of our fingers ever "contacts" an electron in the molecules 
> of a pencil we pick up.  ALL force, therefore, has an 
> "action-at-a-distance" character when considered at the micro-nano 
> scale. Our human contact-experience is a delusion.  Explanations 
> reducing force to contact are essentially mistaken.
> For what it's worth, Al
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 08. Februar 2016 um 20:26 Uhr
> *Von:* "Wolfgang Baer" <wolf at nascentinc.com>
> *An:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] De Broglie Wave
> 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 at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to 
> unsubscribe 
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf 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>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160209/f87db985/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list