[General] De Broglie Wave
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Fri Feb 12 10:20:20 PST 2016
Hi Al,
You say: "DeB's formulas have been verified empirically beyound doubt
(when used correctly as he did, you'r not!)"
Yes, his formulas have been verified. But only because the experimenters
have not been able to perform experiments which include relativity.
I am showing in my paper that those experiments verifying de Broglie can
be explained classically without that extra wave invented by de Broglie.
If the electron moves through the double slit it is accompanied by a
wave which is the wave assumed also by QM. If the electron passes the
slit there is a new wave created following the Huygens Principle. Both
waves as superposed, one of them slightly changed by the Doppler as the
electron moves away from the slit. The wave caused by the superposition
controls the scattering. The wavelength of this wave is exactly the one
given by de Broglie. But it is caused by a classical process with forces
which are anyway existent. Nothing new invented. And this process is of
course LORENTZ-INVARIANT.
So, what shall physics gain with the extra-idea of de Broglie? It needs
additional assumptions about physics which are in no way needed. It
violated space symmetry. It causes the important QM equations to be
incorrect.
I find the situation very clear. - It was the great merit of de Broglie
to postulate matter wave and he has correctly earned the Nobel Prize.
But his calculations are pure fantasy (based on an incorrect
understanding of relativity) which by some funny coincidence work at
some occasions. However unnecessary.
Ciao, Albrecht
Am 11.02.2016 um 20:19 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
> 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>
>
---
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/dfd9455e/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list