[General] De Broglie Wave
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Fri Feb 12 06:28:54 PST 2016
Wolf,
I apologize if I have not answered questions which you have asked. I am
preparing for a conference where I will give 7 contributions and that
keeps me quite busy.
I think that I have already answered some of the questions which you are
asking in this mail. But no problem, I shall do it again.
You have looked at my web site "the Origin of Gravity". My model of
gravity uses (and needs) this particle model, at least certain
properties of it. But otherwise the fact of inertia has nothing to do
with gravity.
To start with your questions regarding inertial mass: The basic point is
that any extended object necessarily has inertia. Just for this fact -
without details of parameters - there are no preconditions needed except
the assumption that there are forces which cause the object to exist and
to have an extension, and that these forces propagate at speed of light c.
I have explained details earlier. It is also explained as a step by step
process on my web site "The Origin of Mass". So I do not repeat the
basic explanation again here. But I can do so if you (ore someone else)
will ask for it. - But this is the fundamental and essential fact.
Next answers in the text below.
Am 10.02.2016 um 20:28 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
> Albrecht;
> Sorry to mistake your feelings it sounded like you were getting
> frustrated at not being understood.
>
> However I'm getting frustrated since I've read much of your work and
> have asked questions which have not been answered. Perhaps they have
> not been clear or gotten lost, so here they are again.
> Ref: Albrecht;
> Sorry to mistake your feelings it sounded like you were getting
> frustrated at not being understood.
>
> However I'm getting frustrated since I've read much of your work and
> have asked questions which perhaps have not been clear or gotten lost,
> so here they are again ref: The Origin of Gravity Figure 3.1: Basic
> Particle Model
> It looks like you are presenting a new explanation of inertial mass
> with a theory which has a large number of assumptions:
> a) a new set of orbiting particles that are made of What?
The minimum assumptions for my model is that an elementary particle has
an extension; as said above in the beginning. To further detail it, I
assume that the sub-particles have charges which cause a binding field.
This field has also to achieve a distance between the sub-particles.
(Such a field structure is known in physics in the binding of atoms to
molecules; but there it is caused by a different type of charge.) In the
case of electrically charged elementary particles there are also
electrical charges in the sub-particles. The sub-particles may have
further properties, but those are not essential for this model.
> b) a force between those particles you made up to fit your desired
> result, where does this force come from?
> why is the minimum not a combination of two forces like a
> coulomb attraction and centrifugal repulsion
I have only assumed that there are charges in it, positive and negative
ones (to cause attraction and repulsion). The strength of the force is
determines later by the calibration.
Centrifugal repulsion is of course not possible as it would need that
the sub-particles have inertial mass each. I do not assume an inertial
mass as a precondition as this would subvert my goal to explain mass
fundamentally. (This also conforms to the position of present main
stream physics.)
>
> c) assume this force also propagates at light speed "c" and Why does
> rapid rotation not change the interaction energy curve?
> I always have trouble understanding the stability of particles
> rotating at or near the speed of light when the force signals
> are also moving at this speed.
With this respect my model is presented a bit simplified in most of my
drawings. If one assumes that the sub-particles move at c and also the
field (maybe represented by exchange particles) moves at c, then the
force coming from one particle does not reach the other sub-particle
when it is opposite in the circuit but at a different position. This
changes the calculation by a certain, fixed factor. But this effect is
compensated by the calibration. - You find a drawing showing this on my
site "Origin of Mass" in Figure 6.1 .
> d) a media or space of propagation between those particles that is flat
I find it practical to assume that the forces are realized by exchange
particles (also moving at c). In a space without gravity they move
undisturbed. If there is gravity then the speed of light is reduced
which changes the forces a little, little bit.
> e) a force on one of the particles from an outside agent that does not
> effect the other particle
> so you can calculate the reaction force. Would the outside force
> not introduce asymmetries depending on the angle of incidence?
If there is a force from the outside (like an electrical one) it will
touch both sub-particles. There might be a very small time delay
reaching both. And it will be in practice a very, very small influence
in relation to the forces within the particle. The fact that /both
/sub-particles are affected will not change the process of inertia as
these forces are always very weak in relation to the forces inside.
>
> My question is not that your calculations are wrong but given the
> above hidden assumptions
> 1) why would I not simply say inertial mass is an intrinsic property
> of matter?
This "intrinsic mass" was the old understanding in physics. Since
several decades also Main Stream has changed its opinion to it
(otherwise there would not have been a search for the Higgs). And with
this assumption of an intrinsic a-priory-mass we would not have an
explanation for the further properties of a particle (like spin and
magnetic moment). Particularly no explanation for the relativistic
behaviour like relativistic mass increase and the relation E = mc^2.
These relations are results of this model. (Einstein and QM have given
us these relations, but a physical cause was never given by both).
> 2) What advantage or new phenomena are you predicting?
The advantage of my model is similar like with Copernicus: We have
physical explanations for facts which we already knew, but up to now
without an explanation. So a better understanding of physics in general.
To be able to predict something is always the greatest situation. Up to
now I do not have any in mind. (Also Copernicus did not have any, even
though he has in fact caused a great step forward.)
> 3) It looks like you are throwing out Mach's Principle since the
> existence of distant masses
> has no effect on your calculations since inertia is now
> still intrinsic to your orbiting particles rather than a point mass
A point mass does not exist in my understanding. Regarding Mach's
Principle: I assume like Mach that there is a fundamental frame in this
world. Maybe caused by distant masses, I think it is better to relate it
to the Big Bang. That means for my model that the speed of light
effective in the particle is related to a specific fixed frame. - This
is in contrast to Einstein but in accordance to the Lorentzian
interpretation of relativity.
>
> That said I agree with most of your criticism of current
> interpretations, the most interesting for me is the simplicity
> introduced by the use of a variable speed of light and a refraction
> model to explain light bending.
Thank you! (The latter point has to do with gravity, not with inertia.)
>
> Best,
> Wolf
If you have further question or concerns, please ask again. I appreciate
very much that you have worked through my model
Best
Albrecht
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
> On 2/10/2016 5:13 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>> Hi Wolf,
>>
>> why do you think that I am frustrated? Why should I? Since I found 17
>> years ago the mechanism of inertia, which functions so straight and
>> logical with precise results, I am continuously happy. And the
>> appreciation by interested physicists is great. Since 14 years my
>> site about mass in internationally #1 in the internet. Only sometimes
>> the mass site of Nobel Prize winner Frank Wilzcek is one step higher.
>> But that is good companionship.
>>
>> True that it is a problem with Main Stream. They do not object but
>> just do not care. They love the Higgs model even though it is proven
>> not to work. - It just need patience. I still have it.
>>
>> Yes, quantum numbers work fine, but they are physically little or not
>> founded. It is similar to the known Pauli Principle. That also works,
>> but nobody knows why. And the bad thing is that nobody from Main
>> Stream concerned about this non-understanding. That is the biggest
>> weakness in today's physics in my view.
>>
>> Albrecht
>>
>>
>> Am 09.02.2016 um 20:35 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>> I can feel your frustration, Albrecht,
>>> The oldies are probably all wrong, but it's important to remember
>>> that right or wrong they give us the platform from which to see farther.
>>> "standing on the shoulders of others", and right or wrong they give
>>> us something tangible to argue about
>>> and what quantum numbers have done for us to organize chemistry is
>>> amazing.
>>>
>>> wolf
>>>
>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>> Research Director
>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>> On 2/9/2016 10:18 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>> Hi Al,
>>>>
>>>> the choice of de Broglie is not suboptimal, it is clearly wrong.
>>>> Badly wrong. The wave he has introduced does not exist, and if it
>>>> would exist its behaviour would cause a physical behaviour which is
>>>> in conflict with measurements (if those are comprehensively done).
>>>>
>>>> I agree with you that the main object now is to move forward. But
>>>> we will not move successfully forward if we carry millstones with
>>>> us. De Broglie's wave is a millstone. I just had a look into a new
>>>> textbook about QM, which was highly recommended by our university.
>>>> It makes full use of de Broglie's relation between momentum and
>>>> wavelength, so this is unfortunately not just history.
>>>>
>>>> But looking into the history: Bohr, Sommerfeld and others have used
>>>> the result of de Broglie to explain quantum numbers. Particularly
>>>> the quantisation of the angular momentum on atomic shells is
>>>> explained by "standing waves" where the wavelength is the one
>>>> defined by dB. This obviously hides the true reason of this
>>>> quantisation, but as anyone believes that the Ansatz using de
>>>> Broglie is right, nobody is looking for the correct cause. - This
>>>> is one of the reasons for our sticking physics.
>>>>
>>>> Tschüss back
>>>> Albrecht
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 09.02.2016 um 14:57 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>>>>> Hi Albrecht:
>>>>> As you fully know, the very same idea can be expressed in various
>>>>> languages. This is true of physics also. The very same structure
>>>>> can be attached to variuos words and images. I do not defend
>>>>> deBroglie's choice of words and images. I too find his choice
>>>>> suboptimal and somewhat contrdictory. So what? He was playing
>>>>> his hand at that time with the hand he was delt at that time.
>>>>> Since then, other ideas have been found in the deck, as it were.
>>>>> I find that, without changing any of his math, one can tell a
>>>>> story that is vastly less etherial and mysterious and, depending
>>>>> on the reader's depth of analysis, less self-contradictory. I
>>>>> think my story is the one DeBrogle would have told if he had been
>>>>> inspired by some facits of SED. And, some people have a greater
>>>>> affinty and interest in abstract structures, in particular when
>>>>> their mathematical redintion seems to work, that for the stories
>>>>> told for their explication. This is particularly true of all
>>>>> things QM.
>>>>> Anyway, the main object now (2016) is to move forward, not
>>>>> critique historical personalitites. So, I'm trying to contribute
>>>>> to this discussion by adding what I know now, and what I have
>>>>> found to be useful. We are "doing" physics, not history. Let's
>>>>> make new errors, not just grind away on the old ones!
>>>>> BTW, to my info, both Dirac and Schrödinger would agree that
>>>>> deBroglie proposed some not too cogent arguments regarding the
>>>>> nature of QM-wave functions. Still, the best there at that time.
>>>>> All the same, they too went to their graves without having found a
>>>>> satisfactory interpretation. SED throws some new ingredients into
>>>>> the mix.
>>>>> Tschuss, Al
>>>>> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 09. Februar 2016 um 13:41 Uhr
>>>>> *Von:* "Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
>>>>> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
>>>>> *Cc:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org, "Richard
>>>>> Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>
>>>>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] De Broglie Wave
>>>>> Hi Al,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have the impression that you have a solution for particle
>>>>> scattering which is in some way related to the idea of de Broglie.
>>>>> (I also have of course a solution). But was this the goal of our
>>>>> discussion and of my original contribution? It was not! My
>>>>> objection was de Broglie's original idea as stated in his thesis
>>>>> and as taken over by Schrödinger and Dirac.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have a lot of elements in your argumentation which I do not
>>>>> find in the thesis of de Broglie. (There is e.g. nothing at dB
>>>>> about SED ore background.)
>>>>>
>>>>> The essential point of our discussion is the meaning of his wave -
>>>>> and his wavelength. I think it is very obvious from his thesis
>>>>> (which you clearly know) that his "fictitious wave" accompanies a
>>>>> particle like the electron/all of the time/. There is no
>>>>> interaction mentioned except that there is an observer at rest who
>>>>> measures the frequency of the particle. But without influencing
>>>>> the particle.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now it is normal knowledge that a frequency and as well a
>>>>> wavelength appears changed for an observer who is in motion. This
>>>>> is caused by the Doppler effect. But the Doppler effect will never
>>>>> cause that a finite wavelength changes to Infinite if an observer
>>>>> moves at some speed unequal to c. But just that happens to the
>>>>> wave invented by de Broglie. It follows the equation
>>>>>
>>>>> lambda = h/(m*v) where v is the speed difference between the
>>>>> particle and the observer (to say it this time this way). And this
>>>>> is in conflict to any physics we know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best, Albrecht
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 08.02.2016 um 17:20 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Albrecht:
>>>>> Your challenge is easy! In fact my last responce covered it.
>>>>> The RELEVANT velocity is the relative velocity between the
>>>>> particle and the slit; not that between the observer-particle
>>>>> or observer-slit. An observer will see all kinds of
>>>>> distortions of the events, starting with simple persepctive
>>>>> due to being at some distance from the slit and its
>>>>> registration screen. In additon this observer will see those
>>>>> deB waves affecting the particle (NOT from the particle, nor
>>>>> from the slit, but from the universal background there before
>>>>> either the particle or slit came into being) as
>>>>> perspectively-relativistically distorted (twin-clock type
>>>>> distortion). BUT, the observer will still see the same
>>>>> over-all background because the totality of background signals
>>>>> (not just those to which this particle is tuned), i.e., its
>>>>> spectral energy density, is itself Lorentz invariant. That
>>>>> is, the observer's motion does not enable it to empirically
>>>>> distinguish between the background in the various frames, nor
>>>>> does the background engender friction forces.
>>>>> You have got to get your head around the idea that deB waves
>>>>> are independant of particles whatever their frame.
>>>>> Schrördinger did toy with some aspects that deBroglie used,
>>>>> but never did succeed in rationalizing his eq. in those or any
>>>>> other terms. For him, when died, wave functions were
>>>>> ontologically completely mysterious. From SED proponents, I'm
>>>>> told, my thoughts in #7 on www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com, are
>>>>> unique in formulating S's eq. in terms of deB concepts. Try
>>>>> it, maybe you'll like it.
>>>>> There are other SED-type stories too, but as they are based on
>>>>> diffusion (parabolic, not hyperbolic) precesses, I find them
>>>>> self contradictory.
>>>>> ciao, Al
>>>>> *Gesendet:* Montag, 08. Februar 2016 um 141 Uhr
>>>>> *Von:* "Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
>>>>> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
>>>>> *Cc:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org, "Richard
>>>>> Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>
>>>>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] De Broglie Wave
>>>>> Hi Al,
>>>>>
>>>>> if you follow de Broglie, you should have an explanation for
>>>>> the following experiment (here again):
>>>>>
>>>>> Electrons move at 0.1 c towards the double slit. Behind the
>>>>> double slit there is an interference pattern generated, which
>>>>> in the frame of the slit follows the rule of de Broglie. But
>>>>> now there is an observer also moving at 0.1 c parallel to the
>>>>> beam of electrons. In his frame the electrons have momentum=0
>>>>> and so wavelength=infinite. That means: No interference
>>>>> pattern. But there is in fact a pattern which does not
>>>>> disappear just because there is another observer. And the
>>>>> moving observer will see the pattern. - This is a
>>>>> falsification of de Broglie's rule. What else?
>>>>>
>>>>> The understanding that the de Broglie wave is a property of
>>>>> the particle (even though depending on their speed, but not on
>>>>> an interaction) was not my idea but the one of Schrödinger and
>>>>> Dirac and many others. Also by de Broglie himself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ciao Albrecht
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 08.02.2016 um 03:30 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Albrecht:
>>>>> BUT, the laws of Physics for "being" in a frame are not
>>>>> the laws for interacting between frames! The deB. wave is
>>>>> not a feature of a particle in its own frame, but a
>>>>> feature of the interaction of such a particle with at
>>>>> least one other particle in another frame. When the two
>>>>> frames are moving with respect to each other, then the
>>>>> features of the interaction cannot be Lorentz invariants.
>>>>> When one particle is interacting with another particle
>>>>> (or ensemble---slit say) the relevant physics is
>>>>> determined by the deB wave in that sitation, whatever it
>>>>> looks like to an observer in a third frame with yet
>>>>> different relative velocities. It is a perspective
>>>>> effect: a tree is the same ontological size in fact no
>>>>> matter how small it appears to distant observers.
>>>>> Observed diminished size(s) cannot be "invriant."
>>>>> Appearances =/= ,,so sein''.
>>>>> You have gotten your head stuck on the idea that deB.
>>>>> waves are characteristics intrinsic to particles in an of
>>>>> themselves. Recalibrate! DeB waves are charactteristics
>>>>> of the mutual interaction of particles.
>>>>> Best, Al
>>>>> *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 07. Februar 2016 um 22:10 Uhr
>>>>> *Von:* "Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
>>>>> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
>>>>> *Cc:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org,
>>>>> "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>
>>>>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] De Broglie Wave
>>>>> Hi Al,
>>>>>
>>>>> at one of your points I really disagree. The physical laws
>>>>> have to be fulfilled in every frame. That means that all
>>>>> physical processes have to obey the same laws in all
>>>>> frames. So also the process at the double slit. But the
>>>>> rule given by de Broglie looks correct in only one frame,
>>>>> that is the frame where the double slit is at rest. For an
>>>>> observer in motion the diffraction pattern looks very
>>>>> similar as for the observer at rest, but for the observer
>>>>> in motion the results according to de Broglie are
>>>>> completely different, because the momentum of the particle
>>>>> is different in a wide range in the frame of a moving
>>>>> observer and so is the wavelength assigned to the particle.
>>>>>
>>>>> The specific case: At electron scattering, the observer
>>>>> co-moving with the electron will see a similar pattern as
>>>>> the observer at rest, but de Broglie says that for this
>>>>> observer there does not exist any pattern. That is
>>>>> strongly incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Schrödinger equation and also the Dirac function
>>>>> should have correct results in different frames, at least
>>>>> at non-relativistic speeds. This requirement is clearly
>>>>> violated through their use of de Broglie's rule.
>>>>>
>>>>> Grüße
>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>
>>>>> PS: Your article refers to "Stochastic Electrodynamics".
>>>>> That is in my knowledge not standard physics and so a new
>>>>> assumption.
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 07.02.2016 um 19:03 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Albrecht:
>>>>> In my view the story in my paper has no new
>>>>> assunptions, rather new words for old assumptions. As
>>>>> I, along with most others, see it, there is no
>>>>> conflict with experiment, but a less than fully
>>>>> transparent explantion for experimental observations
>>>>> (particle beam diffrction) otherwise unexplained. At
>>>>> the time of writing, and nowadays too (although I'd to
>>>>> think that my paper rationalizes DeB's story) it was
>>>>> the most widely accepted story for this phenomna.
>>>>> The only entities that logically need to be Lorentz
>>>>> invariant are the particle. I the deB wave is not a
>>>>> 'Bestandteil' of the particle, but of its relations
>>>>> with its envionment, then invariance is not defined
>>>>> nor useful.
>>>>> M.f.G. Al
>>>>> *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 07. Februar 2016 um 14:39 Uhr
>>>>> *Von:* "Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
>>>>> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
>>>>> *Cc:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org,
>>>>> "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>
>>>>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] De Broglie Wave
>>>>> Hi Al,
>>>>>
>>>>> thank you for your reference. Your paper has a lot of
>>>>> intelligent thoughts but also a lot of additional
>>>>> assumptions. With reference to the de Broglie wave, I
>>>>> think, is the situation much simpler on the level of
>>>>> conservative knowledge. De Broglie has misunderstood
>>>>> relativity (particularly dilation) and so seen a
>>>>> conflict which does in fact not exist. He has solved
>>>>> the conflict by inventing an additional "fictitious"
>>>>> wave which has no other foundation in physics, and
>>>>> also his "theorem of harmonic phases" which as well is
>>>>> an invention without need. And his result is in
>>>>> conflict with the experiment if we ask for Lorentz
>>>>> invariance or even for Galilean invariance. - If we
>>>>> follow the basic idea of de Broglie by, however,
>>>>> avoiding his logical error about relativity, we come
>>>>> easily to a description of matter waves without
>>>>> logical conflicts. This does not need new philosophy
>>>>> or other effort at this level.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best, Albrecht
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 06.02.2016 um 03:15 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Albrecht:
>>>>> DeBroglie's verbage is indeed quite rococo!
>>>>> Nonetheless, his machinations, although
>>>>> verbalized, in the true tradtion of quantum
>>>>> mechanics, mysteriously, can be reinterpreted
>>>>> (i.e., alternate verbage found without changing
>>>>> any of the math) so as to tell a fully, if
>>>>> (somewhat) hetrodoxical, story. See #11 on
>>>>> www.Nonloco-Physics.0catch.com.
>>>>> cc: Waves are never a characteristic of a single,
>>>>> point-like entity, but colletive motion of a
>>>>> medium. IF they exist at all. My view is that
>>>>> E&M waves are a fiction wrought by Fourier
>>>>> analysis. The only real physical part is an
>>>>> "interaction", which mnight as well be thought of
>>>>> an absract string between charges. Also, neutrons
>>>>> have electric multipole moments; i.e., they are
>>>>> totally neutral but not charge-free.
>>>>> Best, Al
>>>>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 05. Februar 2016 um 21:43 Uhr
>>>>> *Von:* "Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
>>>>> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de,
>>>>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>>> *Cc:* "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>
>>>>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] De Broglie Wave
>>>>> Hi Al,
>>>>>
>>>>> true, in the frame of the particle the dB
>>>>> wavelength is infinite. Because in its own frame
>>>>> the momentum of the particle is 0. The particle
>>>>> oscillates with the frequency of the particle's
>>>>> Zitterbewegung (which background fields do you
>>>>> have in mind? De Brogie does not mention them).
>>>>> This oscillation is in no contradiction with this
>>>>> wavelength as the phase speed is also infinite.
>>>>> For the imagination, the latter means that all
>>>>> points of that wave oscillate with the same phase
>>>>> at any point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which background waves do you have in mind? What
>>>>> is the CNONOICAL momentum? And what about E&M
>>>>> interactions? De Broglie has not related his wave
>>>>> to a specific field. An E&M field would anyway
>>>>> have no effect in the case of neutron scattering
>>>>> for which the same de Broglie formalism is used.
>>>>> And into which frame do you see the wave
>>>>> Lorentz-transformed?
>>>>>
>>>>> So, an electron in his frame has an infinite
>>>>> wavelength and in his frame has the double slit
>>>>> moving towards the particle. How can an
>>>>> interference at the slits occur? No interference
>>>>> can happen under these conditions. But, as I have
>>>>> explained in the paper, the normal wave which
>>>>> accompanies the electron by normal rules (i.e.
>>>>> phase speed = c) will have an interference with
>>>>> its own reflection, which has then a wavelength
>>>>> which fits to the expectation of de Broglie. But
>>>>> that is a very local event (in a range of approx.
>>>>> 10^-12 m for the electron) and it is not at all a
>>>>> property of the electron as de Broglie has thought.
>>>>>
>>>>> To say it again: The de Broglie wavelength cannot
>>>>> be a steady property of the particle. But
>>>>> Schrödinger and Dirac have incorporated it into
>>>>> their QM equations with this understanding.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I should have misunderstood you, please show
>>>>> the mathematical calculations which you mean.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ciao, Albrecht
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 05.02.2016 um 19:20 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi: Albrecht:
>>>>> Your arguments don't resonate with me. The
>>>>> deB' wave length is infinite in the particles
>>>>> frame: it is the standing wave formed by the
>>>>> inpinging background waves having a freq. =
>>>>> the particle's Zitterbewegung. If these TWO
>>>>> waves are each Lorentz x-formed to another
>>>>> frame and added there, they exhibit exactly
>>>>> the DeB' modulation wavelength proportional to
>>>>> the particle's momentum. The only mysterious
>>>>> feature then is that the proportionality is to
>>>>> the CNONICAL momentum, i.e., including the
>>>>> vector potential of whatever exterior E&M
>>>>> interactions are in-coming. Nevertheless,
>>>>> everything works our without contradiction. A
>>>>> particle oscillates in place at its Zitter
>>>>> freq. while the Zitter signals are modulated
>>>>> by the DeB' wavelength as they move through
>>>>> slits, say.
>>>>> ciao, L
>>>>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 05. Februar 2016 um 12:28 Uhr
>>>>> *Von:* "Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
>>>>> *An:* "Richard Gauthier"
>>>>> <richgauthier at gmail.com>,
>>>>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] De Broglie Wave
>>>>> Hi Richard and Al, hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> recently we had a discussion here about two
>>>>> topics:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. The functionality of the de Broglie wave,
>>>>> particularly its wavelength
>>>>> if seen from a different inertial system. Such
>>>>> cases lead to illogical
>>>>> situations.
>>>>> 2. The problem of the apparent asymmetry at
>>>>> relativistic dilation.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have investigated these cases and found that
>>>>> they are in some way
>>>>> connected. Relativistic dilation is not as
>>>>> simple as it is normally
>>>>> taken. It looks asymmetric if it is
>>>>> incorrectly treated. An asymmetry
>>>>> would falsify Special Relativity. But it is in
>>>>> fact symmetrical if
>>>>> properly handled and understood.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is funny that both problems are connected
>>>>> to each other through the
>>>>> fact that de Broglie himself has
>>>>> misinterpreted dilation. From this
>>>>> incorrect understanding he did not find
>>>>> another way out than to invent
>>>>> his "theorem of phase harmony"; with all
>>>>> logical conflicts resulting
>>>>> from this approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> If relativity is properly understood, the
>>>>> problem seen by de Broglie
>>>>> does not exist. Equations regarding matter
>>>>> waves can be derived which
>>>>> work properly, i.e. conform to the experiments
>>>>> but avoid the logical
>>>>> conflicts.
>>>>>
>>>>> As announced, I have composed a paper about
>>>>> this. It can be found at:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/21564534/The_Conflict_with_the_De_Broglie_Wavelength
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> I thank Richard Gauthier for the discussion
>>>>> which we had about this
>>>>> topic. It caused me to investigate the problem
>>>>> and to find a solution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast
>>>>> Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication
>>>>> from the Nature of Light and Particles General
>>>>> Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de
>>>>> <a
>>>>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>> </a>
>>>>>
>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer
>>>>> gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird.
>>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer
>>>>> gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird.
>>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer
>>>>> gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird.
>>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet,
>>>>> der von Avast geschützt wird.
>>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der
>>>>> von Avast geschützt wird.
>>>>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von
>>>> Avast geschützt wird.
>>>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf 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>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>> </a>
>>
>>
>> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von
>> Avast geschützt wird.
>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>
>>
>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160212/6857ec71/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list