[General] De Broglie Wave
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Thu Feb 11 09:12:03 PST 2016
Hi Al,
your are right that we are sticking in a circle. But we can see the point.
If I look into the paper of de Broglie again (your translation), there
is nothing of an interaction. DeB argues about the wave which
accompanies the particle. And for a particle of a certain speed this is
a property of the particle (in relation to some frame) but nothing about
an interaction. Or where do you see in his text an interaction mentioned?
If we Lorentz-transform the interference pattern of an electron to the
frame of a moving observer, there will be a change, you may call it
distortion. But the change of the de Broglie wavelength in relation to a
moving observer is a complete different category. I have given a
numerical example: If an electron moves at 0.1 c and an observer moves
as well at 0.1 c into the same direction towards the double slit, the
Lorentz transformation of the pattern into the frame of this observer
will have a length change of < 0.1%. But the change of the de Broglie
wavelength is in this case from some finite lambda to /infinite/. Not
the same, I would say.
And again a look into the use in the Schrödinger equation. The temporal
part of this equation uses the law E = h*frequency. That frequency is a
property of the free moving particle. And it can be correctly
Lorentz-transformed into any other frame. Schrödinger has then used the
de Broglie relation lambda = h/p with the same understanding (otherwise
his equation would be internally conflicting). So he also in this part
describes a free moving particle. But a Lorentz-transformation will
terribly fail in this case.
Again: Where do you see in the text of de Broglie a relation to an
interaction?
Best, Albrecht
Am 10.02.2016 um 19:41 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
> Albrecht:
> You are locked in a "do-loop." Appropos the experiment metioned below
> (Jönssen), you are discussing your misunderstaning not deBroglie's or
> mine. The deB wave that matters is not that between the
> particle-observer or slit (crystal)-observer, but the particle-slit
> (with registration screen). All the observer does, no matter how fast
> or complex his manuevers, is look at the registration to see the
> diffreaction pattern. What he sees, of course, will be distorted by
> perspective, both geometric/optical and relativistic, but the rulers
> in the frame of the slit are likewise distorted in appearance, so if
> the observer reads the relevant displacements from comparison with, as
> it were, the slit's rulers, the results (data) will agree with those
> from all other observers who do the same no matter what their
> individual motion is or was.
> Of course, the observer could, as you suggest, calculate the deB wave
> acting between the particle and himself, but that would determine the
> diffraction of the particle beam off the observer, not through the
> slit! Even deBroglie saw that. [Actually it's the same deB wave, but
> Lorentz x-formed to each other observer's frame. Thus same thing,
> looks, and acts, different.]
> Again: deB waves are NOT a characteristic of a particle, but of its
> interaction with other objects, and for each other object there is a
> different deB wave, because each interaction is different.
> THINK about it. best, Al
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 10. Februar 2016 um 15:37 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,
>
> 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/
>
---
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/20160211/36a5792d/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list