[General] De Broglie Wave

Tue Feb 16 14:49:52 PST 2016

John W:

There’s some things about the LIGO news that bothers me. 

Light curves because the speed of light is spatially variable: 

You can appreciate why an electron falls down when you think of it as light
going round and round in a closed path, then simplify the path to a square
path. The horizontals curve down:

and the deflection of matter is half the deflection of light
<http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/deflection-delay.html> . But a black hole
is a place where the speed of light is zero. So why does a black hole fall
down? 

Regards

John D

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpar
ticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: 15 February 2016 05:48
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Richard Gauthier
<richgauthier at gmail.com>
Cc: Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de>; Mark, Martin van der
<martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
Subject: Re: [General] De Broglie Wave

Hello everyone,

This is correct. It is a modulation of the underlying lightspeed oscillation
- the zitterbewegung. It is a neccessary property of all light-speed
theories such as Dirac's.  

de Broglie derived the relation from relativity and it is a hundred percent
consistent with it. This is also how Martin derived the result
(independently!) in 1991. It was a few years later that it was pointed out
to us (by Ulrich Enz) that it had been done before.  Martin is giving a talk
on this shortly and, at some stage it would be worth giving this to the
group (perhaps in 18 months time!).

Light in a box exhibits the same effect - as both Martin and I have
explained many times already in this forum, and as is argued in our 1997
paper.

Regards, JGW.

P.S. utterly stunning results on gravitational waves. Now that is really
meaty experiment to get our teeth into.

  _____  

From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
[af.kracklauer at web.de]
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 1:02 AM
To: Richard Gauthier
Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Albrecht Giese
Subject: Re: [General] De Broglie Wave

Hi all:

This analysis is symptomatic of the pointlessness of fixsating on what deB
said in deducing (huristically, i.e., by lucky guessing) his formulas.
Forget THAT story; he got an empirically substantiated result, however he
did it.  Would we do as well!!

As an alternate story, consider that the deB wave is modulation on the
Zitter freq. of a particle which is in its frame in energy equlibrium with
background signals (= QED ground state), from both the left and right wrt
axis of motion.  In the frame of the slit get the Lorentz x-formed version
of these same signals and add them.  The result is that, in the slit frame
the deB "wave" is mdulation on those Zitter-background signals with which
the particle is in equlibrium.  Take it from there, or see: #11 on
www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com <http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com> .

---Al

Gesendet: Montag, 15. Februar 2016 um 00:34 Uhr
Von: "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com
<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> >
An: "Albrecht Giese" <phys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de> >, "Albrecht
Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de> >
Cc: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion"
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >, "Roychoudhuri,
Chandra" <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu
<mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> >, "af.kracklauer at web.de
<mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de> " <af.kracklauer at web.de
<mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de> >, "Wolfgang Baer" <wolf at nascentinc.com
<mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com> >
Betreff: Re: [General] De Broglie Wave

Hello Albrecht,

   I tend to agree with you here. The internal frequency of a moving
electron as measured in a stationary frame and characterized by hf=gamma
mc^2)  CANNOT both increase and decrease with the electron speed. Therefore
time dilation is related to something other than the vibration rate of the
electron’s internal frequency, which always increases (not decreases) with
the energy of the moving electron. The internal frequency of the electron
(corresponding to the electron’s energy gamma mc^2) does therefore NOT
correspond to a clock which shows relativistic time dilation as observed in
a stationary rest frame.

      Richard

On Feb 14, 2016, at 9:23 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:

Hello Richard,

I think that de Broglie's problem was not so much that he did not have a
more detailed model of an elementary particle. De Broglie has described very
clearly what his problem was. It was the same question which you have asked
my after my talk in San Diego. It is the following apparent conflict:

As there is E = h * frequency = mc^2, (where m is the dynamical mass), the
frequency must increase by the factor gamma in the case that this object is
set to motion and so its energy increases. On the other hand he concluded
that at motion the frequency has to be reduced by this factor gamma because
of relativistic dilation. - This latter conclusion was his error. For an
observer at rest, dilation does not mean a decrease, but an increase of the
frequency. Formally this is given by the time-related Lorentz
transformation: t' = gamma* (t-vx/c^2) . In the case of an observer at rest,
there is v=0, so t' = gamma*t , and this is an increase in the speed of time
and so an increase in frequency. If this is understood and taken into
account, then de Broglie's motivation for his wave is without a reason. And
all the rest is covered by normal physics.

Albrecht

Am 11.02.2016 um 02:40 schrieb Richard Gauthier:

Hello Albrecht,

    I think you are on to a good line of thinking here. De Broglie derived
his wavelength Ldb = h/(gamma mv) using incomplete knowledge of the
electron, i.e. without knowing what was the source of the electron's
fundamental frequency f in his relationship E = hf = gamma mc^2 . He assumed
that every particle with mass m has a fundamental frequency f which is
proportional to its energy E=hf= gamma mc^2, and which increases with the
speed of a moving particle. At the end of his thesis de Broglie admitted
that his derivation was only formal and lacked a knowledge of the physical
source of this frequency. E=hf is Einstein's relationship for the energy to
frequency of a PHOTON, as de Broglie knew. But de Broglie missed the idea
that this frequency f in an electron is actually the frequency of an
electrically charged photon composing the electron. (He was pursuing his
idea that matter might have wave properties just as light can have particle
properties.) (Of course, a charged photon will also have wavelike
properties!)  

As the frequency f of this charged photon increases with electron speed
through hf=gamma mc^2, the charged photon's wavelength LAMBDA = h/(gamma mc)
decreases with the electron's speed (since c = f LAMBDA is constant for the
charged photon.) The de Broglie wavelength is simply derived from the
charged photon’s LAMBDA and therefore is a real, measurable wavelength in a
particular reference frame (just like a photon’s wavelength is a real,
measurable wavelength in a particular reference frame.) Schrodinger took the
de Broglie wavelength h/(gamma mv) into Schrodinger's non-relativistic
equation as h/mv = h/p , also without recognizing that the electron is a
circulating charged photon.   The quantum operator (-hbar^2)/2m
d^2(PSI)/dx^2 in Schrodinger’s equation pulls out the electron’s (charged
photon’s) non-relativistic kinetic energy p^2/2m from the eigenfunction
function PSI, while the operator ihbar d(PSI)/dt pulls out the electron’s
(charged photon’s) non-relativistic total energy from the eigenfunction PSI.
For example, in the ground state of the hydrogen atom, when the eigenvalue
energy for n=1  is E1= -13.6 eV, the total energy of the bound electron
(charged photon) is E=mc^2 - 13.6 eV .

     Richard

On Feb 10, 2016, at 1:24 PM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:

Hi Chandra,

my concern is that de Broglie violated an essential point of our physical
understanding. That is the equivalence of all frames. If this would be
violated, then we would have to find a new set of physical laws as soon as
we are in a different frame. That means for instance, if we have a lab on a
ship, the physical results there would be different from the physical laws
on land and we had to re-invent our complete physical system there. Similar
in any plane, similar on the Moon. I am afraid that we would have to give up
doing physics if this would be the case. So the independence of the frame,
which is philosophically the symmetry of space, is an essential precondition
to do physics as we know it. 

This fundamental rule is violated by de Broglie. He has related the
wavelength of his "fictitious wave" to the momentum of the particle which is
guided by this wave. Now there is always a frame in which the particle is at
rest and so momentum = zero. Consequently the wavelength is infinite. But a
wave with infinite length does not have the properties which de Broglie
needs to explain the phenomena he is interested in. (And he only saw the
need to introduce such wave as he misunderstood relativistic dilation.) And
it is also unnecessary in so far as electron scattering (as an example) can
be perfectly explained with the normal understanding of waves, as we have it
for EM waves. 

The biggest impact which I see is the fact that this relation between
wavelength and momentum was incorporated into the QM equations of
Schrödinger and of Dirac (and of others) to describe the spatial part of
that equation. That can never be correct. Why is it not noticed? The other
relation used, the one of energy and frequency (E = h * frequency) for the
temporal development, is correct, and most calculations in QM are about
energy. So the error seems acceptable for the normal business. But that does
not change the fact that the rest is incorrect (even though rewarded by the
Nobel Prize).

I find it funny that there is such a big error in the middle of QM since 90
years and nobody becomes aware of it. If we want a development in physics,
we have at the first place to get rid of errors which are so obvious.

Albrecht

Am 10.02.2016 um 17:42 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:

Hi Albrecht: You are tackling a tough problem and the mainstream would not
show sympathy because, for them, the prevailing framework is “working”! Why
rock the boat?

I do not have much to contribute. But, I would suggest that you pay
attention to the details of measuring process (Interaction Process Mapping
Epistemology, or IPM-E). How do we draw the conclusion that a body has
“inertia of motion”. We always need two or more bodies to somehow interact
and display some changes (data). What is the interaction mediating force
(potential gradient)? From  what outcome do we draw the conclusion that one
or both the bodies are displaying the property we have named “inertia”?

Remember, humans are interpreters of observed changes in a controlled
environment (our experimental data). We are not the observers. Human
interpretations can vary widely for the same observed effect. That is why we
get stuck on interpretations that appear to be reasonable during the
cultural period they were made. 

I am clearly of the opinion that we must re-evaluate and re-interpret all
the fundamental postulates of all the theories and all the interpretations.
Only this way can we move forward; rather than piling up new
rationalizations over older interpretations made based upon earlier
insufficient information.

Chandra.

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightan
dparticles.org]On Behalf Of Albrecht Giese
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 9:38 AM
To: af.kracklauer at web.de
Cc: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Subject: 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 schriebaf.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 onwww.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 schriebaf.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_Wavelengt
h
.

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 ataf.kracklauer at web.de
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to
unsubscribe
</a>

Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von Avast
geschützt wird.
www.avast.com

Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von Avast
geschützt wird. 
www.avast.com

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160216/df062dcd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 93453 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160216/df062dcd/attachment.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2555 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160216/df062dcd/attachment-0001.jpeg>