[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