[General] De Broglie Wave
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Wed Feb 10 06:37:54 PST 2016
Hi Al,
You say “DeB's formuals give results in accord with empirical
observations “.
I am very surprised about this repeated statement. I think our past
discussion has shown that the concept of de Broglie is completely wrong
– except his statement that there exist matter waves. He has postulated
a wave which in fact does not exist and which does not have any
foundation in physics. It has a wavelength which – by his rule –
disappears when an observer moves at some medium speed.
Electron scattering does happen, I have shown in my paper that the
experimental results can be quantitatively explained on the basis of
standard physics. Indeed very funny that also the concept of deB works
in a special case (but else not).
Counter evidence? Assume we can perform an experiment of electron
scattering (e.g. the one of Jönsson in 1957) in a moving lab. And we
observe it from our position at rest. Then we will see that the results
based on the rules of deB are completely wrong. - It is of course
difficult to perform such experiment at high speed and at the same time
with high precision. But I have shown that it is a simple calculation to
predict this (failing) result on the basis of deB's rules. Should I
explain it again? (It is in my paper).
Or alternatively we have to give up the Symmetry of Space - believed
unrestrictedly since Newton. Give it up just to save de Broglie? For no
other use?
E&M waves on the other hand are fully consistent with the standard rules
for waves. No E&M wave will disappear just because there is an observer
moving at some medium speed.
Ciao, Albrecht
Am 09.02.2016 um 20:46 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
> Hi Albrect:
> DeB's formuals give results in accord with empirical
> observations---your claim notwithstanding. (BTW, what are you refering
> to as counter evidence?) Thus, they are useful and in this sense
> correct. The story he told himself and used to derive his formulas
> is, actually, immaterial insofar as he got a useful conception and
> useful formulas. Stories are a dime-a-dozen, you have some that many
> consider as off-track as you appear to consider DeB's. That matters
> only as "philosphy" but not as techinical physics. Anyway, I suspect
> that your deep antiaffection for this "wrong" deB wave is grounded on
> the notion that this wave is a characteristic of the particle instead
> of its interaction with the rest of the universe as described by the
> SED background (AKA: the 1/h h-bar x omega of the quantized free E&M
> wave).
> The stories told by conventional physicists to motivate QM are of
> course just so much blather. Mostly also inconsistent too---a capital
> crime for those bragging about their rational thinking! And,
> obviously, that is the push behind my efforts leading to #7 on
> www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com!
> In any case, your fixation with a fictitious wave should be extended
> to all E&M waves. None of them exist as they are described---there is
> no media. Here DeB is much less the offender than Bohr, Bell,
> Heisenberg, Von Neumann, and whole flock of 2nd generation QM
> enthusiasts. Still, QM works. To me that means there is a coherent
> story to tell for the math, we just have to find it.
> ciao, Al
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 09. Februar 2016 um 19:18 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,
>
> 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
>
> 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/20160210/d7d2f7c5/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list