[General] De Broglie Wave
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Thu Feb 11 12:09:00 PST 2016
Al and Albrecht:
you are having an interesting discussion and I would like to ask a
question that has always bothered me regarding the assignment of
wavelength using Einstein and deBroglie.
The normal calculation assume the mass of a finite size body is
concentrated at a point.
The mass is equated to energy which is then converted to a wave of a
specific frequency
m c^2 / h = f
However the point particles are an approximation and the mass is spread out
If I divide a point mass into a million small spread out pieces ( dv/V =
1/ million) I would calculate a much lower frequency for each piece
m*dV* c^2 / h*V = f *dV/V
in the limit dV=>0 the frequency goes to zero. This means an actual
finite sized particle would be more correctly described by a frequency
density of very low frequencies and long wavelengths.
So should we assign half the frequency to a particle described by
Albrechts 2 rotating particle model.
How can any of these calculations be justified when the point particle
idealization is eliminated.
Or do we just say " shut up and calculate" it works.
wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 2/11/2016 11:19 AM, af.kracklauer at web.de wrote:
> Hi Albrectht:
> Another round! We are doing Physics. As such, we don't care about
> stories. We care more about formulas. DeB's formulas have been
> verified empirically beyound doubt (when used correctly as he did,
> you'r not!). His story is another matter; it was cooked up when he
> was faced with sparce empirical info and vague theory. By virtue of
> inspired imagination he found some words and images that helped him
> find his formulas.
> His story is not religion: infalible fabel in a holy book; it is just
> a story for what it is good for. Nowadays most of us find his story
> unclear and fragmented. I did while trying to understand QM; so, I
> struggled until I found a new story. I think it is much superior to
> his, therefore in discussing deB. waves I use my story. All it does
> is relate the fancyful images and notions used by deB to concepts
> closer to classical Physics. My srory is fully compatible with deB's
> story in that no different formulas come from it, but it does not
> strain one's credulity as do the quantum ideas of his age. While deB
> doesn't use the word "interaction" he is talking about E&M waves
> (which I hold do not exist as ontological entities, even while charges
> INTERACT, however they do it.)
> Regarding the experiment. The pattern recorded behind the slit is
> fully independant of whatever any passing observer does. It is printed
> on the screen, for once and for all. Observers looking at that
> pattern from frames other than that of the slit will see it in optical
> and relativistic perspcetive, just like the trees out your window
> appear smaller than when standing next to them---no mystery here!
> DeB's story takes all this for granted.
> As for Schröedinger's use of deB' waves, see #7 on my web page
> (www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com)! There the deB-wave notion is used
> to relate Schröedonger's eq. to Liouville eq. from statistics. It all
> hangs together. My story removes much mystical gush from QM but is,
> as it is at the moment, not complete insofar as the hypothetical input
> on which is it based is a divergent quantity. Somewhere there is a
> story about that quantitiy (present in classical E&M and QED too) that
> will resolve this Schönheitsfehler.
> ciao, Al
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 11. Februar 2016 um 18:12 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,
>
> 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 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 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/20160211/608753d3/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list