[General] De Broglie Wave
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Sun Feb 14 09:04:02 PST 2016
Al says:
"His (Albrecht's) latest surprise is a wave that is the same as that in
QM! Where the hell does that come from; why is it different from deB's
wave?"
As I have explained, the wave used by QM can be easily explained by my
particle model.
And the difference to de Broglie? Very simple: For de Broglie the
wavelength there is lambda = h/(m*v). For the QM wave (and mine) there
is lambda = h/(m*c). (m is the dynamical mass). And this latter relation
avoids the weird situation coming up with the de Broglie wave.
Albrecht
Am 12.02.2016 um 20:35 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
> Wolfgang:
> Perhaps an ommision in my previous responce is here at fault. What I
> sould have added is that "particle's" deB wave, per both deB himself
> and my SED based model, is not the wave but modulation on the wave.
> The SED addition is just that the wave is an E&M signal at the
> particle's Compton/Zitter frequency. The point then is that the
> constituents, being smaller can be though of as having internal
> structure that that resonates, couples, to this signal. The total
> object built up of the consitutents, then, being larger, can be though
> of as having inner-constiuent resonances that then couple to a lower
> freq. back ground signal, etc. [I don't need to burn bandwidth---it's
> laid out in papers #7 & #11 on www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com]
> As for exploring the inner construction of particles, etc. I am
> subject to a strong sense that "there is no point in building a roof
> on a building for which the foundation is crumbling." Given the
> lacuna in explication of E&M, QM, SR, etc. I have never been able to
> get myself motivated to jump into high energy physics, etc. Others
> are, of course, free to do as they choose.
> Albrectht's story, however, always seems to me to be a fully
> successful enterprise to explain one mystical aspect of physics by
> hypothtically assuming two more! His latest surprise is a wave that
> is the same as that in QM! Where the hell does that come from; why is
> it different from deB's wave? And so on.
> Best, Al
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 12. Februar 2016 um 19:57 Uhr
> *Von:* "Wolfgang Baer" <wolf at nascentinc.com>
> *An:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] De Broglie Wave
> Al;
>
> This sounds like if it acts like a single particle whether we idealize
> it as a point or as a single coherent wave does not matter it works.
> That stops a lot of further discussion and speculation regarding the
> interior of those particles.
> However does not String Theory and Albrecht's efforts precisely
> attempt to ask further questions about the internal structure?
> Could such speculation not lead to understanding mechanisms that go
> beyond the point particle approximation by asking why does this
> approximation work?
>
> For example Lande's Quantization ( see Quantum Mechanics in a New Key
> orFoundations of Quantum Theory: A Study in Continuity and Symmetry)
> rules explain all wave properties an quantum transition in terms of
> internal structure of finite particles. If the finite particle has
> certain symmetries expressed by dx the it can only exchange momentum
> dpx , in quantized steps so that dpx= h/dx.
> This formulation requires no waves at all
> (http://www.pnas.org/content/9/5/158) it was successfully used to
> explain Bragg diffraction in the 30's.
>
> best, wolf
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer Research Director Nascent Systems Inc. tel/fax
> 831-659-3120/0432 E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
> On 2/11/2016 5:46 PM, af.kracklauer at web.de wrote:
>
> Hi Wolfgang:
> I would say that the "divide it up" argument is a variation of
> Albrecht's error. He is fixsated on the conception that the deB
> "wave" is an intrinsic property of the particle in stead of a
> characterization of its interaction with other particles (a
> subtilty that deB himself only passivly/subconsciulsy incorporated
> in his understanding and therefore did not feature in his
> story---it is however impicit when he assigns momentum).
> Specifically, if "the" particle is conceptually divided up but
> held together in such a way that its reaction to its enviorment
> (exterior forces), is characterizable as if the totality of the
> pieces respond identically in unison, then the total of the pieces
> is "a" single entity with a single interaction, as so with a
> single deB wave length. If the dividen or fractional portion
> respond separately and independantly to the envoronment, then each
> gets it own deB wave. This has all been empirically observed in
> experiments which diffact beams of Buckky-ball assemblies of
> molecules: a beam of balls has its own deB wave different from a
> beam of the constuent molecules.
> ciao, Al
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 11. Februar 2016 um 21:09 Uhr
> *Von:* "Wolfgang Baer" <wolf at nascentinc.com>
> *An:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] De Broglie Wave
> 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 af.kracklauer at web.de Click
> here to unsubscribe
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to
> unsubscribe
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/b4a2fa94/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list