[General] De Broglie Wave

Wed Feb 10 08:42:23 PST 2016

Hi Albrecht: You are tackling a tough problem and the mainstream would not show sympathy because, for them, the prevailing framework is “working”! Why rock the boat?
I do not have much to contribute. But, I would suggest that you pay attention to the details of measuring process (Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology, or IPM-E). How do we draw the conclusion that a body has “inertia of motion”. We always need two or more bodies to somehow interact and display some changes (data). What is the interaction mediating force (potential gradient)? From  what outcome do we draw the conclusion that one or both the bodies are displaying the property we have named “inertia”?
Remember, humans are interpreters of observed changes in a controlled environment (our experimental data). We are not the observers. Human interpretations can vary widely for the same observed effect. That is why we get stuck on interpretations that appear to be reasonable during the cultural period they were made.
I am clearly of the opinion that we must re-evaluate and re-interpret all the fundamental postulates of all the theories and all the interpretations. Only this way can we move forward; rather than piling up new rationalizations over older interpretations made based upon earlier insufficient information.
Chandra.

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Albrecht Giese
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 9:38 AM
To: af.kracklauer at web.de
Cc: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Subject: Re: [General] De Broglie Wave

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<mailto: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<http://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><mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>
An: af.kracklauer at web.de<mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
Cc: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com><mailto: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><mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>
An: af.kracklauer at web.de
Cc: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org, "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com><mailto: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<mailto: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<http://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><genmail at a-giese.de>
An: af.kracklauer at web.de<mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
Cc: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com><mailto: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<mailto: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><mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>
An: af.kracklauer at web.de<mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
Cc: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com><mailto: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<mailto: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><mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>
An: af.kracklauer at web.de<mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
Cc: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com><mailto: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<mailto: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<http://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><mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>
An: af.kracklauer at web.de<mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>, general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com><mailto: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<mailto: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><mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>
An: "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com><mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>, general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto: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<mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"<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<http://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>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160210/22b25e82/attachment.htm>