[General] De Broglie Wave
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Sun Feb 14 08:46:34 PST 2016
Hi Wolf,
why is there a frequency which accompanies a particle, if moving or at
rest? I refer it to my model. The binding field of the two sub-particles
has a bi-polar component which causes an attraction of both sub-particle
should their distance increase. This attracting effect is the dominating
one if seen from outside the elementary particle. Now a full period of
the external field appears when both sub-particles have finalized one
orbit. Consequently the existence of two sub-particles does not double
the frequency.
In QM it is just assumed that a frequency is assigned to a particle.
This conforms to the observation. But as usual in QM, there was never a
mechanism given for this frequency or for a wave belonging to the
frequency. In my understanding my model is the first explanation of a
process causing this.
Albrecht
Am 11.02.2016 um 21:09 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
> 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-mailwolf 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 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 at phys 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 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/20160214/c75f79d7/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list