[General] De Broglie Wave

Wolfgang Baer wolf at nascentinc.com
Mon Feb 22 12:58:29 PST 2016


Yes I think Al has described things well.
My only additional comment is not to feel rejected and disappointed.
It is very difficult to write  from the perspective of a new reader when 
one has been involved in ones own ideas for a long time.
It is already a major break through in communication when people have 
enough interest to point out what they do not understand about your work.

wolf

Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com

On 2/19/2016 5:15 PM, af.kracklauer at web.de wrote:
> Hi Albrecht & all:
> Let me formulate Wolfgang's point in my prefered style.  In telling 
> your story, for my taste, you do not follow a structure in accord with 
> formal logic.  That is, you do not FIRST list all of your hypothetical 
> inputs, which are things (mysteries) that you do not intend to prove 
> or explain.  Then with  something like sylogisims prove or deduce new 
> outputs, i.e., the benefits of the story.  In stead, you tell a 
> chapter or so of your story, at which point further development 
> requires a so far unused hypothtical new input, and then, zipp!, in 
> she goes, without mostly, proper introduction.   In the end, the 
> reader or consumer of your story is unsure that the number of benefits 
> is actually larger than the number of inputs, thereby making the 
> effort to ingest and digest the complexitites of the story worth the 
> effort. It's like reading a poorly composed Russian novel: the reader 
> loses all coherance with respect to characters coming and going and 
> has the feeling of being swept along as if in a megacity's rush hour 
> subway throng!
> Also, some of your points are manifestly dimentional analysis---they 
> prove nothing new, they just reshuffel the building blocks.  Some see 
> this a proof of internal consistency, but without recognizing that the 
> consistency thereby proved, if any, is within the inputs taken from 
> previous work (often tautological definitions of terms), most often 
> somebody else's.  Such consistency is not to the credit of the results 
> of the supposed new structure/story.
> For what it's worth,  Al
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 19. Februar 2016 um 21:14 Uhr
> *Von:* "Wolfgang Baer" <wolf at nascentinc.com>
> *An:* "Albrecht Giese" <phys at a-giese.de>
> *Cc:* "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'" 
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] De Broglie Wave
> Albrecht:
>
> Thank you for , yes more of an explanation than I was expecting.
>  And I certainly agree with your motives and your examples from high 
> energy physics.
>  You are being motivated by all the applications to simplify physics 
> and see this reward immediately in front of you.
>
> I and it looks like Kracklauer are in a different position. We first 
> see a model we cannot understand that eliminates inertial mass and the 
> centrifugal force which is largely responsible for holding things 
> apart in he old concepts. We must understand your model first before 
> we can appreciate the benefits.
>
> >From my point of view you have not described the nature of the two 
> particles or the nature of the force that holds them in their orbits.
>
> If they are charges, how do charges perhaps "assemblies of charges 
> build  multi-pole field" that maintains incredible stability of a 
> minimum energy at a specific distance when moving in a circle at the 
> speed of light?
> What is the nature of the external force that acts on one charge and 
> not the other to generate the internal resistance you identify as inertia?
>
> You must answer these simple technical questions first even if the 
> answers are not simple.
>
> best wishes,
> wolf
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
> On 2/18/2016 7:35 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
>     Wolf,
>
>     do I explain one mystery by another one? I think that the
>     situation should be envisioned in a different way.
>
>     Our physical understanding and our ongoing follows the
>     reductionism. That means that we explain physical phenomena on a
>     specific level by use of facts, which are taken as facts on a more
>     fundamental level. And later the more fundamental level has to be
>     explained. Example from astronomy: Kepler's law was at first
>     stated as a formula, then it could be explained by Newton's laws
>     of motion and of gravity. Next step now in reductionism is to
>     explain, how the law of gravity and the law of motion is caused.
>
>     I am using the fact that there are forces in physics which bind
>     objects to each other and at the same time cause a distance
>     between these objects. This fact is universal in physics. If
>     elementary particles or atoms or molecules would not keep
>     distances then our whole universe could be but into a ball of,
>     say, 10 meters diameter. - In few cases the distance can be
>     explained by a planetary model, in most cases (in particle
>     physics) this is not the solution. The bind of atoms in a molecule
>     is an example. And quarks are bound to build a proton or neutron,
>     and this is not caused by a planetary process. The size of the
>     nucleon is by a factor of >1000 greater than the one of a quark.
>     Who causes the distance? As it is not a planetary system then
>     there must be a force between the quarks which just causes this
>     distance even though it binds them. - I do not think that the bind
>     of atoms in a molecule are a mystery. To my knowledge the (two)
>     types of bind are well understood.
>
>     I assume the same for the sub-particles in my model. And a fact is
>     that a distance causes inertia without the need of further
>     assumptions (except the finiteness of c).
>
>     I have assumed a certain shape of that field which leads to
>     Newton's law of inertia. - Now one can ask how this field is
>     built. I have assumed that it is caused by a collection of
>     charges. This is my attempt to have an explanation on the next
>     more fundamental level. Perhaps I should not publish such
>     thoughts. Necessary is only the field as it is. And if I stick at
>     this level now, I am not weaker than Main Stream physics, as they
>     also assume distances without any explanation for it. (Yes, they
>     talk about "principles", but that does not mean explanations.)
>
>     I use this configuration it explain inertia. It is a fundamental
>     explanation that any extended object must have inertia. An
>     extended object cannot exist without having inertia. - Another
>     fundamental explanation of inertia is the Higgs model (if one
>     likes QM as explanation). But Higgs is lacking by the fact that
>     measurements deny the Higgs field. And the theory is very
>     incomplete as it does not give us a result for particles for which
>     everything is known except the mass. - The other models of inertia
>     discussed here are  not fundamental in so far as they refer to
>     momentum, which is physically identical to inertia.
>
>     Why does a charge not radiate when orbiting? In my view it is a
>     fundamental error in present physics that an accelerated
>     electrical charge radiates. This is concluded from the Maxwell
>     equations. But Maxwell has given us a formal mathematical system
>     which in the daily work of a technician works fine, but it does
>     not tell us the physics behind. So he has postulated a symmetry
>     between electricity and magnetism. Completely wrong as we
>     understand it meanwhile. Magnetism is a relativistic side effect
>     of the electrical field. Very well explained by a video clip of
>     veritasium:
>
>     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0
>
>     An electric charge does not "know" what acceleration is. It only
>     "knows" what an electrical field is. And if this field changes
>     then the charge will radiate. That is the reason that an electron
>     normally radiates at acceleration. Because during acceleration the
>     electron is relativistically distorted. This causes that one
>     sub-particle senses a changing field from the other partner.
>
>     What is strong force? What is electrical force? I have no
>     explanation for that (reductionistic) level where charges are
>     caused. Why do I say that the force in my model is the strong
>     force? The reconstruction of the force from a known mass shows
>     that this force is at least by a factor of 300 stronger than the
>     electrical one. And the only force with this strength which I know
>     is the strong one. - Perhaps I should keep this open.
>
>     Is this more like an explanation which you are expecting?
>
>     Albrecht
>
>     Am 18.02.2016 um 05:46 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
>         Albrecht:
>         I tend to be skeptical as well about the gravity wave
>         announcement.
>         But then I generally discount a lot of high energy work since
>         without extremely detailed knowledge it is hard to trust
>         anything as complex and deeply imbedded in statistics.
>
>         Regarding your model I basically have the same problem as
>         Kracklauer, is your particle model not simply a substitution
>         of one mystery with another?
>
>         otherwise I'll just follow up on one question. You said
>         "They( the two charges) have assemblies of charges to build a
>         multi-pole field which has a minimum of potential at some
>         distance."
>
>         So does this mean that the two particle drawings you publish
>         are approximations to assemblies of charges?
>         I and probably anyone would need a clear derivation of the
>         force curve
>
>         Although molecular forces gives an analogy such an analogy
>         assumes all the things you are trying to explain
>         (mass, inertia, etc.) and even that makes the whole question
>         of how atoms are held together a pandora's box of mystery.
>          why no radiation from a bound accelerating electron, why the
>         exclusion principle in the first place. Principles principles
>         everywhere.
>
>         Wolf
>
>         Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>         Research Director
>         Nascent Systems Inc.
>         tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>         E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>
>         On 2/14/2016 12:43 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
>             Hi Wolf,
>
>             my answers in the text.
>             Am 12.02.2016 um 21:28 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
>                 Albrecht
>
>                 What do you think of the gravity wave detection
>                 announcement?
>
>             I would be happier with this discovery if some other lab
>             would have seen it as well. They say that the significance
>             is better than 5 sigma. That is in fact a lot. However we
>             still have to believe it. The chirp did have a length of
>             200 ms. Such "chirp" signals are in some way similar.
>             During 100 days there are approx. 50 million windows of
>             200 ms. So, a coincidence may happen. Of course one has to
>             assume that this was taken into account by the team. But I
>             would feel better to see details.
>
>             Another uncomfortable feeling is that it has taken only
>             200 ms to merge two black holes with masses of approx. 50
>             suns. Can this happen that quickly? We know from
>             Einstein's theory that any temporal process in the
>             vicinity of the event horizon slows down until no motion.
>             I see this as a strong argument against such short time. I
>             have asked this question in the forum of the German
>             version of Nature. My question was not published. - Very
>             funny!
>
>
>                 thank you for your answers, and I appreciate your time
>                 constraints, we are all busy so answer when you can.
>
>                 There are a few comments
>                 a) so your two particles are two oppositely charged
>                 charges?
>
>             They have assemblies of charges to build a multi-pole
>             field which has a minimum of potential at some distance.
>             That is similar to the situation in a molecule where atoms
>             are bound to each other. But the force here is stronger.
>
>                 b) Calibration is an after the fact fitting that is
>                 not a bad technique but cannot be considered first
>                 principle derivation.
>                 In addition the force you define has an attraction,
>                 repulsion and a minimum that keeps the particles in a
>                 fixed orbit when not disturbed.
>                 How is this minimum established out of rotating
>                 electric charges? Are we talking a kind of strong
>                 force or something new? What about magnetic forces
>                 between two moving charges.
>
>             >From my model it follows that the force between the
>             sub-particles is ca. 300 - 500 times the electrical force.
>             To have a better precision I have used the measurements to
>             determine Planck's constant or equivalently the
>             measurements to determine the magnetic moment. From
>             comparison with measurements it follows that my constant
>             is S = h*c. In my understanding this is the square of the
>             field constant of the strong force . - This is however not
>             the position of Main Stream. On the other hand, Chip Akins
>             has just yesterday presented ideas which conform to this
>             result.
>
>
>                 c) "Origin of Mass" in Figure 6.1 shows the drawing of
>                 a retarded interaction which I think is used to
>                 explain the 1/2 factor in spin.
>                 However the effective radius is now smaller and thus
>                 if your potential curve fig 2.1 is accurate the
>                 particles would be repelled along the retarded
>                 potential line. Would you not have to show a radial
>                 and tangential component?
>
>             It would be at the end better to show a radial and a
>             tangential component. But independent of this, the
>             effective distance between the charges is less than twice
>             the radius. But this is covered by a fixed correction
>             factor which is implicitly taken into account by the
>             calibration. This calibration would mean nothing if it
>             would be used only for the electron. But the result is
>             then valid for all leptons and for all quarks (in a
>             limited way also for the photon.)
>
>
>                 e) should an outside force impulse when the particles
>                 are aligned along the force vector effecting one
>                 particle first and then the other producing your
>                 inertia result. However when the particle separation
>                 is perpendicular both particles would see the same
>                 force. If its an electric impulse on plus and negative
>                 charge it would introduce a rotation. This introduces
>                 an asymmetry.
>                 Is this eliminated by averaging ? If so your
>                 derivation is an instantaneous approximation and if a
>                 smeared out calculation is made would much of your
>                 result not cancel or show oscillations?
>
>             The electrical charges on the sub-particles have the same
>             sign in all cases, 2x 1/2 elementary charge in case of the
>             electron. So, an external electrical force does not impose
>             an angular momentum or an asymmetry. The force needed for
>             acceleration depends on the direction. It has to be
>             integrated over all directions. This is normally however
>             not necessary as this is also covered by the calibration.
>             Only in the moment when I take into account the general
>             influence of the electric charges to calculate the Landé
>             factor, the directions have to be taken into account more
>             individually. I my according calculation I do it and the
>             result is the correct factor.
>
>             Best, Albrecht
>
>
>                 best,
>                 Wolf
>
>                 Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>                 Research Director
>                 Nascent Systems Inc.
>                 tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>                 E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>
>                 On 2/12/2016 6:28 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
>                     Wolf,
>
>                     I apologize if I have not answered questions which
>                     you have asked. I am preparing for a conference
>                     where I will give 7 contributions and that keeps
>                     me quite busy.
>
>                     I think that I have already answered some of the
>                     questions which you are asking in this mail. But
>                     no problem, I shall do it again.
>
>                     You have looked at my web site "the Origin of
>                     Gravity". My model of gravity uses (and needs)
>                     this particle model, at least certain properties
>                     of it. But otherwise the fact of inertia has
>                     nothing to do with gravity.
>
>                     To start with your questions regarding inertial
>                     mass: The basic point is that any extended object
>                     necessarily has inertia. Just for this fact -
>                     without details of parameters - there are no
>                     preconditions needed except the assumption that
>                     there are forces which cause the object to exist
>                     and to have an extension, and that these forces
>                     propagate at speed of light c.
>                     I have explained details earlier. It is also
>                     explained as a step by step process on my web site
>                     "The Origin of Mass". So I do not repeat the basic
>                     explanation again here. But I can do so if you
>                     (ore someone else) will ask for it. - But this is
>                     the fundamental and essential fact.
>
>                     Next answers in the text below.
>                     Am 10.02.2016 um 20:28 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
>                         Albrecht;
>                         Sorry to mistake your feelings it sounded like
>                         you were getting frustrated at not being
>                         understood.
>
>                         However I'm getting frustrated since I've read
>                         much of your work and have asked questions
>                         which have not been answered. Perhaps they
>                         have not been clear or gotten lost, so here
>                         they are again.
>                         Ref: Albrecht;
>                         Sorry to mistake your feelings it sounded like
>                         you were getting frustrated at not being
>                         understood.
>
>                         However I'm getting frustrated since I've read
>                         much of your work and have asked questions
>                         which perhaps have not been clear or gotten
>                         lost, so here they are again   ref: The Origin
>                         of Gravity Figure 3.1: Basic Particle Model
>                         It looks like you are presenting a new
>                         explanation of inertial mass with a theory
>                         which has a large number of assumptions:
>                         a) a new set of orbiting particles that are
>                         made of What?
>
>                     The minimum assumptions for my model is that an
>                     elementary particle has an extension; as said
>                     above in the beginning. To further detail it, I
>                     assume that the sub-particles have charges which
>                     cause a binding field. This field has also to
>                     achieve a distance between the sub-particles.
>                     (Such a field structure is known in physics in the
>                     binding of atoms to molecules; but there it is
>                     caused by a different type of charge.) In the case
>                     of electrically charged elementary particles there
>                     are also electrical charges in the sub-particles.
>                     The sub-particles may have further properties, but
>                     those are not essential for this model.
>
>                         b) a force between those particles you made up
>                         to fit your desired result, where does this
>                         force come from?
>                                     why is the minimum not a
>                         combination of two forces like a coulomb
>                         attraction and centrifugal repulsion
>
>                     I have only assumed that there are charges in it,
>                     positive and negative ones (to cause attraction
>                     and repulsion). The strength of the force is
>                     determines later by the calibration.
>                     Centrifugal repulsion is of course not possible as
>                     it would need that the sub-particles have inertial
>                     mass each. I do not assume an inertial mass as a
>                     precondition as this would subvert my goal to
>                     explain mass fundamentally. (This also conforms to
>                     the position of present main stream physics.)
>
>
>                         c) assume this force also propagates at light
>                         speed "c" and Why does rapid rotation not
>                         change the interaction energy curve?
>                                 I always have trouble understanding
>                         the stability of particles rotating at or 
>                         near the speed of light when the force signals
>                                 are also moving at this speed.
>
>                     With this respect my model is presented a bit
>                     simplified in most of my drawings. If one assumes
>                     that the sub-particles move at c and also the
>                     field (maybe represented by exchange particles)
>                     moves at c, then the force coming from one
>                     particle does not reach the other sub-particle
>                     when it is opposite in the circuit but at a
>                     different position. This changes the calculation
>                     by a certain, fixed factor. But this effect is
>                     compensated by the calibration. - You find a
>                     drawing showing this on my site "Origin of Mass"
>                     in Figure 6.1 .
>
>                         d) a media or space of propagation between
>                         those particles that is flat
>
>                     I find it practical to assume that the forces are
>                     realized by exchange particles (also moving at c).
>                     In a space without gravity they move undisturbed.
>                     If there is gravity then the speed of light is
>                     reduced which changes the forces a little, little
>                     bit.
>
>                         e) a force on one of the particles from an
>                         outside agent that does not effect the other
>                         particle
>                             so you can calculate the reaction force.
>                         Would the outside force not introduce
>                         asymmetries depending on the angle of incidence?
>
>                     If there is a force from the outside (like an
>                     electrical one) it will touch both sub-particles.
>                     There might be a very small time delay reaching
>                     both. And it will be in practice a very, very
>                     small influence in relation to the forces within
>                     the particle. The fact that /both /sub-particles
>                     are affected will not change the process of
>                     inertia as these forces are always very weak in
>                     relation to the forces inside.
>
>
>                         My question is not that your calculations are
>                         wrong but given the above hidden assumptions
>                         1) why would I not simply say inertial mass is
>                         an intrinsic property of matter?
>
>                     This "intrinsic mass" was the old understanding in
>                     physics. Since several decades also Main Stream
>                     has changed its opinion to it (otherwise there
>                     would not have been a search for the Higgs). And
>                     with this assumption of an intrinsic a-priory-mass
>                     we would not have an explanation for the further
>                     properties of a particle (like spin and magnetic
>                     moment). Particularly no explanation for the
>                     relativistic behaviour like relativistic mass
>                     increase and the relation E = mc^2. These
>                     relations are results of this model. (Einstein and
>                     QM have given us these relations, but a physical
>                     cause was never given by both).
>
>                         2) What advantage or new phenomena are you
>                         predicting?
>
>                     The advantage of my model is similar like with
>                     Copernicus: We have physical explanations for
>                     facts which we already knew, but up to now without
>                     an explanation. So a better understanding of
>                     physics in general. To be able to predict
>                     something is always the greatest situation. Up to
>                     now I do not have any in mind. (Also Copernicus
>                     did not have any, even though he has in fact
>                     caused a great step forward.)
>
>                         3) It looks like you are throwing out Mach's
>                         Principle since the existence of distant masses
>                                     has no effect on your calculations
>                         since inertia is now still intrinsic to your
>                         orbiting particles rather than a point mass
>
>                     A point mass does not exist in my understanding.
>                     Regarding Mach's Principle: I assume like Mach
>                     that there is a fundamental frame in this world.
>                     Maybe caused by distant masses, I think it is
>                     better to relate it to the Big Bang. That means
>                     for my model that the speed of light effective in
>                     the particle is related to a specific fixed frame.
>                     - This is in contrast to Einstein but in
>                     accordance to the Lorentzian interpretation of
>                     relativity.
>
>
>                         That said I agree with most of your criticism
>                         of current interpretations, the most
>                         interesting for me is the simplicity
>                         introduced by the use of a variable speed of
>                         light and a refraction model to explain light
>                         bending.
>
>                     Thank you! (The latter point has to do with
>                     gravity, not with inertia.)
>
>
>                         Best,
>                          Wolf
>
>
>                     If you have further question or concerns, please
>                     ask again. I appreciate very much that you have
>                     worked through my model
>
>                     Best
>                     Albrecht
>
>                         Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>                         Research Director
>                         Nascent Systems Inc.
>                         tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>                         E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>
>                         On 2/10/2016 5:13 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
>                             Hi Wolf,
>
>                             why do you think that I am frustrated? Why
>                             should I? Since I found 17 years ago the
>                             mechanism of inertia, which functions so
>                             straight and logical with precise results,
>                             I am continuously happy. And the
>                             appreciation by interested physicists is
>                             great. Since 14 years my site about mass
>                             in internationally #1 in the internet.
>                             Only sometimes the mass site of Nobel
>                             Prize winner Frank Wilzcek is one step
>                             higher. But that is good companionship.
>
>                             True that it is a problem with Main
>                             Stream. They do not object but just do not
>                             care. They love the Higgs model even
>                             though it is proven not to work. - It just
>                             need patience. I still have it.
>
>                             Yes, quantum numbers work fine, but they
>                             are physically little or not founded. It
>                             is similar to the known Pauli Principle.
>                             That also works, but nobody knows why. And
>                             the bad thing is that nobody from Main
>                             Stream concerned about this
>                             non-understanding. That is the biggest
>                             weakness in today's physics in my view.
>
>                             Albrecht
>
>                             Am 09.02.2016 um 20:35 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
>                                 I can feel your frustration, Albrecht,
>                                 The oldies are probably all wrong, but
>                                 it's important to remember that right
>                                 or wrong they give us the platform
>                                 from which to see farther.
>                                 "standing on the shoulders of others",
>                                 and right or wrong they give us
>                                 something tangible to argue about
>                                 and what quantum numbers have done for
>                                 us to organize chemistry is amazing.
>
>                                 wolf
>
>                                 Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>                                 Research Director
>                                 Nascent Systems Inc.
>                                 tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>                                 E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>
>                                 On 2/9/2016 10:18 AM, Albrecht Giese
>                                 wrote:
>
>                                     Hi Al,
>
>                                     the choice of de Broglie is not
>                                     suboptimal, it is clearly wrong.
>                                     Badly wrong. The wave he has
>                                     introduced does not exist, and if
>                                     it would exist its behaviour would
>                                     cause a physical behaviour which
>                                     is in conflict with measurements
>                                     (if those are comprehensively done).
>
>                                     I agree with you that the main
>                                     object now is to move forward. But
>                                     we will not move successfully
>                                     forward if we carry millstones
>                                     with us. De Broglie's wave is a
>                                     millstone. I just had a look into
>                                     a new textbook about QM, which was
>                                     highly recommended by our
>                                     university. It makes full use of
>                                     de Broglie's relation between
>                                     momentum and wavelength, so this
>                                     is unfortunately not just history.
>
>                                     But looking into the history:
>                                     Bohr, Sommerfeld and others have
>                                     used the result of de Broglie to
>                                     explain quantum numbers.
>                                     Particularly the quantisation of
>                                     the angular momentum on atomic
>                                     shells is explained by "standing
>                                     waves" where the wavelength is the
>                                     one defined by dB. This obviously
>                                     hides the true reason of this
>                                     quantisation, but as anyone
>                                     believes that the Ansatz using de
>                                     Broglie is right, nobody is
>                                     looking for the correct cause. -
>                                     This is one of the reasons for our
>                                     sticking physics.
>
>                                     Tschüss back
>                                     Albrecht
>
>                                     Am 09.02.2016 um 14:57 schrieb
>                                     af.kracklauer at web.de:
>
>                                         Hi Albrecht:
>                                         As you fully know, the very
>                                         same idea can be expressed in
>                                         various languages.  This is
>                                         true of physics also. The very
>                                         same structure can be attached
>                                         to variuos words and images.
>                                          I do not defend deBroglie's
>                                         choice of words and images. I
>                                         too find his choice suboptimal
>                                         and somewhat contrdictory.  So
>                                         what?  He was playing his hand
>                                         at that time with the hand he
>                                         was delt at that time.  Since
>                                         then, other ideas have been
>                                         found in the deck, as it were.
>                                          I find that, without changing
>                                         any of his math, one can tell
>                                         a story that is vastly less
>                                         etherial and mysterious and,
>                                         depending on the reader's
>                                         depth of analysis, less
>                                         self-contradictory.  I think
>                                         my story is the one DeBrogle
>                                         would have told if he had been
>                                         inspired by some facits of
>                                         SED.  And, some people have a
>                                         greater affinty and interest
>                                         in abstract structures, in
>                                         particular when their
>                                         mathematical redintion seems
>                                         to work, that for the stories
>                                         told for their explication.
>                                          This is particularly true of
>                                         all things QM.
>                                         Anyway, the main object now
>                                         (2016) is to move forward, not
>                                         critique historical
>                                         personalitites.  So, I'm
>                                         trying to contribute to this
>                                         discussion by adding what I
>                                         know now, and what I have
>                                         found to be useful.  We are
>                                         "doing" physics, not history.
>                                          Let's make new errors, not
>                                         just grind away on the old ones!
>                                         BTW, to my info, both Dirac
>                                         and Schrödinger would agree
>                                         that deBroglie proposed some
>                                         not too cogent arguments
>                                         regarding the nature of
>                                         QM-wave functions. Still, the
>                                         best there at that time. All
>                                         the same, they too went to
>                                         their graves without having
>                                         found a satisfactory
>                                         interpretation.  SED throws
>                                         some new ingredients into the
>                                         mix.
>                                         Tschuss, Al
>                                         *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 09.
>                                         Februar 2016 um 13:41 Uhr
>                                         *Von:* "Albrecht Giese"
>                                         <genmail at a-giese.de>
>                                         *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
>                                         *Cc:*
>                                         general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org,
>                                         "Richard Gauthier"
>                                         <richgauthier at gmail.com>
>                                         *Betreff:* Re: [General] De
>                                         Broglie Wave
>                                         Hi Al,
>
>                                         I have the impression that you
>                                         have a solution for particle
>                                         scattering which is in some
>                                         way related to the idea of de
>                                         Broglie. (I also have of
>                                         course a solution). But was
>                                         this the goal of our
>                                         discussion and of my original
>                                         contribution? It was not! My
>                                         objection was de Broglie's
>                                         original idea as stated in his
>                                         thesis and as taken over by
>                                         Schrödinger and Dirac.
>
>                                         You have a lot of elements in
>                                         your argumentation which I do
>                                         not find in the thesis of de
>                                         Broglie. (There is e.g.
>                                         nothing at dB about SED ore
>                                         background.)
>
>                                         The essential point of our
>                                         discussion is the meaning of
>                                         his wave - and his wavelength.
>                                         I think it is very obvious
>                                         from his thesis (which you
>                                         clearly know) that his
>                                         "fictitious wave" accompanies
>                                         a particle like the
>                                         electron/all of the time/.
>                                         There is no interaction
>                                         mentioned except that there is
>                                         an observer at rest who
>                                         measures the frequency of the
>                                         particle. But without
>                                         influencing the particle.
>
>                                         Now it is normal knowledge
>                                         that a frequency and as well a
>                                         wavelength appears changed for
>                                         an observer who is in motion.
>                                         This is caused by the Doppler
>                                         effect. But the Doppler effect
>                                         will never cause that a finite
>                                         wavelength changes to Infinite
>                                         if an observer moves at some
>                                         speed unequal to c. But just
>                                         that happens to the wave
>                                         invented by de Broglie. It
>                                         follows the equation
>
>                                         lambda = h/(m*v) where v is
>                                         the speed difference between
>                                         the particle and the observer
>                                         (to say it this time this
>                                         way). And this is in conflict
>                                         to any physics we know.
>
>                                         Best, Albrecht
>
>                                         Am 08.02.2016 um 17:20 schrieb
>                                         af.kracklauer at web.de:
>
>                                             Hi Albrecht:
>                                             Your challenge is easy!
>                                              In fact my last responce
>                                             covered it. The RELEVANT
>                                             velocity is the relative
>                                             velocity between the
>                                             particle and the slit; not
>                                             that between the
>                                             observer-particle or
>                                             observer-slit.   An
>                                             observer will see all
>                                             kinds of distortions of
>                                             the events, starting with
>                                             simple persepctive due to
>                                             being at some distance
>                                             from the slit and its
>                                             registration screen.  In
>                                             additon this observer will
>                                             see those deB waves
>                                             affecting the particle
>                                             (NOT from the particle,
>                                             nor from the slit, but
>                                             from the universal
>                                             background there before
>                                             either the particle or
>                                             slit came into being)  as
>                                             perspectively-relativistically
>                                             distorted (twin-clock type
>                                             distortion).  BUT, the
>                                             observer will still see
>                                             the same over-all
>                                             background because the
>                                             totality of background
>                                             signals (not just those to
>                                             which this particle is
>                                             tuned), i.e., its spectral
>                                             energy density, is itself
>                                             Lorentz invariant.  That
>                                             is, the observer's  motion
>                                             does not  enable it to
>                                             empirically distinguish
>                                             between the background in
>                                             the various frames, nor
>                                             does the background
>                                             engender friction forces.
>                                             You have got to get your
>                                             head around the idea that
>                                             deB waves are independant
>                                             of particles whatever
>                                             their frame.
>                                             Schrördinger did toy with
>                                             some aspects that
>                                             deBroglie used, but never
>                                             did succeed in
>                                             rationalizing his eq. in
>                                             those or any other terms.
>                                              For him, when died, wave
>                                             functions were
>                                             ontologically completely
>                                             mysterious.  From SED
>                                             proponents, I'm told, my
>                                             thoughts in #7 on
>                                             www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com,
>                                             are unique in formulating
>                                             S's eq. in terms of deB
>                                             concepts.  Try it, maybe
>                                             you'll like it.
>                                             There are other SED-type
>                                             stories too, but as they
>                                             are based on diffusion
>                                             (parabolic, not
>                                             hyperbolic) precesses, I
>                                             find them self contradictory.
>                                             ciao, Al
>                                             *Gesendet:* Montag, 08.
>                                             Februar 2016 um 141 Uhr
>                                             *Von:* "Albrecht Giese"
>                                             <genmail at a-giese.de>
>                                             *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
>                                             *Cc:*
>                                             general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org,
>                                             "Richard Gauthier"
>                                             <richgauthier at gmail.com>
>                                             *Betreff:* Re: [General]
>                                             De Broglie Wave
>                                             Hi Al,
>
>                                             if you follow de Broglie,
>                                             you should have an
>                                             explanation for the
>                                             following experiment (here
>                                             again):
>
>                                             Electrons move at 0.1 c
>                                             towards the double slit.
>                                             Behind the double slit
>                                             there is an interference
>                                             pattern generated, which
>                                             in the frame of the slit
>                                             follows the rule of de
>                                             Broglie. But now there is
>                                             an observer also moving at
>                                             0.1 c parallel to the beam
>                                             of electrons. In his frame
>                                             the electrons have
>                                             momentum=0 and so
>                                             wavelength=infinite. That
>                                             means: No interference
>                                             pattern. But there is in
>                                             fact a pattern which does
>                                             not disappear just because
>                                             there is another observer.
>                                             And the moving observer
>                                             will see the pattern. -
>                                             This is a falsification of
>                                             de Broglie's rule. What else?
>
>                                             The understanding that the
>                                             de Broglie wave is a
>                                             property of the particle
>                                             (even though depending on
>                                             their speed, but not on an
>                                             interaction) was not my
>                                             idea but the one of
>                                             Schrödinger and Dirac and
>                                             many others. Also by de
>                                             Broglie himself.
>
>                                             Ciao Albrecht
>
>                                             Am 08.02.2016 um 03:30
>                                             schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>
>                                                 Hi Albrecht:
>                                                 BUT, the laws of
>                                                 Physics for "being" in
>                                                 a frame are not the
>                                                 laws for interacting
>                                                 between frames!  The
>                                                 deB. wave is not a
>                                                 feature of a particle
>                                                 in its own frame, but
>                                                 a feature of the
>                                                 interaction of such a
>                                                 particle with at least
>                                                 one other particle in
>                                                 another frame.  When
>                                                 the two frames are
>                                                 moving with respect to
>                                                 each other, then the
>                                                 features of the
>                                                 interaction cannot be
>                                                 Lorentz invariants.
>                                                  When one particle is
>                                                 interacting with
>                                                 another particle (or
>                                                 ensemble---slit say)
>                                                 the relevant physics
>                                                 is determined by the
>                                                 deB wave in that
>                                                 sitation, whatever it
>                                                 looks like to an
>                                                 observer in a third
>                                                 frame with yet
>                                                 different relative
>                                                 velocities.  It is a
>                                                 perspective effect: a
>                                                 tree is the same
>                                                 ontological size in
>                                                 fact no matter how
>                                                 small it appears to
>                                                 distant observers.
>                                                  Observed diminished
>                                                 size(s) cannot be
>                                                 "invriant."
>                                                  Appearances =/= ,,so
>                                                 sein''.
>                                                 You have gotten your
>                                                 head stuck on the idea
>                                                 that deB. waves are
>                                                 characteristics
>                                                 intrinsic to particles
>                                                 in an of themselves.
>                                                  Recalibrate!  DeB
>                                                 waves are
>                                                 charactteristics of
>                                                 the mutual interaction
>                                                 of particles.
>                                                 Best, Al
>                                                 *Gesendet:* Sonntag,
>                                                 07. Februar 2016 um
>                                                 22:10 Uhr
>                                                 *Von:* "Albrecht
>                                                 Giese"
>                                                 <genmail at a-giese.de>
>                                                 *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
>                                                 *Cc:*
>                                                 general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org,
>                                                 "Richard Gauthier"
>                                                 <richgauthier at gmail.com>
>                                                 *Betreff:* Re:
>                                                 [General] De Broglie Wave
>                                                 Hi Al,
>
>                                                 at one of your points
>                                                 I really disagree. The
>                                                 physical laws have to
>                                                 be fulfilled in every
>                                                 frame. That means that
>                                                 all physical processes
>                                                 have to obey the same
>                                                 laws in all frames. So
>                                                 also the process at
>                                                 the double slit. But
>                                                 the rule given by de
>                                                 Broglie looks correct
>                                                 in only one frame,
>                                                 that is the frame
>                                                 where the double slit
>                                                 is at rest. For an
>                                                 observer in motion the
>                                                 diffraction pattern
>                                                 looks very similar as
>                                                 for the observer at
>                                                 rest, but for the
>                                                 observer in motion the
>                                                 results according to
>                                                 de Broglie are
>                                                 completely different,
>                                                 because the momentum
>                                                 of the particle is
>                                                 different in a wide
>                                                 range in the frame of
>                                                 a moving observer and
>                                                 so is the wavelength
>                                                 assigned to the particle.
>
>                                                 The specific case: At
>                                                 electron scattering,
>                                                 the observer co-moving
>                                                 with the electron will
>                                                 see a similar pattern
>                                                 as the observer at
>                                                 rest, but de Broglie
>                                                 says that for this
>                                                 observer there does
>                                                 not exist any pattern.
>                                                 That is strongly
>                                                 incorrect.
>
>                                                 The Schrödinger
>                                                 equation and also the
>                                                 Dirac function should
>                                                 have correct results
>                                                 in different frames,
>                                                 at least at
>                                                 non-relativistic
>                                                 speeds. This
>                                                 requirement is clearly
>                                                 violated through their
>                                                 use of de Broglie's rule.
>
>                                                 Grüße
>                                                 Albrecht
>
>                                                 PS: Your article
>                                                 refers to "Stochastic
>                                                 Electrodynamics". That
>                                                 is in my knowledge not
>                                                 standard physics and
>                                                 so a new assumption.
>
>                                                 Am 07.02.2016 um 19:03
>                                                 schrieb
>                                                 af.kracklauer at web.de:
>
>                                                     Hi Albrecht:
>                                                     In my view the
>                                                     story in my paper
>                                                     has no new
>                                                     assunptions,
>                                                     rather new words
>                                                     for old
>                                                     assumptions.  As
>                                                     I, along with most
>                                                     others, see it,
>                                                     there is no
>                                                     conflict with
>                                                     experiment, but a
>                                                     less than fully
>                                                     transparent
>                                                     explantion for
>                                                     experimental
>                                                     observations
>                                                     (particle beam
>                                                     diffrction)
>                                                     otherwise
>                                                     unexplained.  At
>                                                     the time of
>                                                     writing, and
>                                                     nowadays too
>                                                     (although I'd to
>                                                     think that my
>                                                     paper rationalizes
>                                                     DeB's story) it
>                                                     was the most
>                                                     widely accepted
>                                                     story for this
>                                                     phenomna.
>                                                     The only entities
>                                                     that logically
>                                                     need to be Lorentz
>                                                     invariant are the
>                                                     particle.  I the
>                                                     deB wave is not a
>                                                     'Bestandteil' of
>                                                     the particle, but
>                                                     of its relations
>                                                     with its
>                                                     envionment, then
>                                                     invariance is not
>                                                     defined nor useful.
>                                                     M.f.G.  Al
>                                                     *Gesendet:* Sonntag,
>                                                     07. Februar 2016
>                                                     um 14:39 Uhr
>                                                     *Von:* "Albrecht
>                                                     Giese"
>                                                     <genmail at a-giese.de>
>                                                     *An:*
>                                                     af.kracklauer at web.de
>                                                     *Cc:*
>                                                     general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org,
>                                                     "Richard Gauthier"
>                                                     <richgauthier at gmail.com>
>                                                     *Betreff:* Re:
>                                                     [General] De
>                                                     Broglie Wave
>                                                     Hi Al,
>
>                                                     thank you for your
>                                                     reference. Your
>                                                     paper has a lot of
>                                                     intelligent
>                                                     thoughts but also
>                                                     a lot of
>                                                     additional
>                                                     assumptions. With
>                                                     reference to the
>                                                     de Broglie wave, I
>                                                     think, is the
>                                                     situation much
>                                                     simpler on the
>                                                     level of
>                                                     conservative
>                                                     knowledge. De
>                                                     Broglie has
>                                                     misunderstood
>                                                     relativity
>                                                     (particularly
>                                                     dilation) and so
>                                                     seen a conflict
>                                                     which does in fact
>                                                     not exist. He has
>                                                     solved the
>                                                     conflict by
>                                                     inventing an
>                                                     additional
>                                                     "fictitious" wave
>                                                     which has no other
>                                                     foundation in
>                                                     physics, and also
>                                                     his "theorem of
>                                                     harmonic phases"
>                                                     which as well is
>                                                     an invention
>                                                     without need. And
>                                                     his result is in
>                                                     conflict with the
>                                                     experiment if we
>                                                     ask for Lorentz
>                                                     invariance or even
>                                                     for Galilean
>                                                     invariance. - If
>                                                     we follow the
>                                                     basic idea of de
>                                                     Broglie by,
>                                                     however, avoiding
>                                                     his logical error
>                                                     about relativity,
>                                                     we come easily to
>                                                     a description of
>                                                     matter waves
>                                                     without logical
>                                                     conflicts. This
>                                                     does not need new
>                                                     philosophy or
>                                                     other effort at
>                                                     this level.
>
>                                                     Best, Albrecht
>
>                                                     Am 06.02.2016 um
>                                                     03:15 schrieb
>                                                     af.kracklauer at web.de:
>
>                                                         Hi Albrecht:
>                                                         DeBroglie's
>                                                         verbage is
>                                                         indeed quite
>                                                         rococo!
>                                                          Nonetheless,
>                                                         his
>                                                         machinations,
>                                                         although
>                                                         verbalized, in
>                                                         the true
>                                                         tradtion of
>                                                         quantum
>                                                         mechanics,
>                                                         mysteriously,
>                                                         can be
>                                                         reinterpreted
>                                                         (i.e.,
>                                                         alternate
>                                                         verbage found
>                                                         without
>                                                         changing any
>                                                         of the math)
>                                                         so as to tell
>                                                         a fully, if
>                                                         (somewhat)
>                                                         hetrodoxical,
>                                                         story.  See
>                                                         #11 on
>                                                         www.Nonloco-Physics.0catch.com.
>                                                         cc:  Waves are
>                                                         never a
>                                                         characteristic
>                                                         of a single,
>                                                         point-like
>                                                         entity, but
>                                                         colletive
>                                                         motion of a
>                                                         medium.  IF
>                                                         they exist at
>                                                         all.  My view
>                                                         is that E&M
>                                                         waves are a
>                                                         fiction
>                                                         wrought by
>                                                         Fourier
>                                                         analysis.  The
>                                                         only real
>                                                         physical part
>                                                         is an
>                                                         "interaction",
>                                                         which mnight
>                                                         as well be
>                                                         thought of an
>                                                         absract string
>                                                         between
>                                                         charges.
>                                                          Also,
>                                                         neutrons have
>                                                         electric
>                                                         multipole
>                                                         moments; i.e.,
>                                                         they are
>                                                         totally
>                                                         neutral but
>                                                         not charge-free.
>                                                         Best,  Al
>                                                         *Gesendet:* Freitag,
>                                                         05. Februar
>                                                         2016 um 21:43 Uhr
>                                                         *Von:* "Albrecht
>                                                         Giese"
>                                                         <genmail at a-giese.de>
>                                                         *An:*
>                                                         af.kracklauer at web.de,
>                                                         general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>                                                         *Cc:* "Richard
>                                                         Gauthier"
>                                                         <richgauthier at gmail.com>
>                                                         *Betreff:* Re:
>                                                         [General] De
>                                                         Broglie Wave
>                                                         Hi Al,
>
>                                                         true, in the
>                                                         frame of the
>                                                         particle the
>                                                         dB wavelength
>                                                         is infinite.
>                                                         Because in its
>                                                         own frame the
>                                                         momentum of
>                                                         the particle
>                                                         is 0. The
>                                                         particle
>                                                         oscillates
>                                                         with the
>                                                         frequency of
>                                                         the particle's
>                                                         Zitterbewegung
>                                                         (which
>                                                         background
>                                                         fields do you
>                                                         have in mind?
>                                                         De Brogie does
>                                                         not mention
>                                                         them). This
>                                                         oscillation is
>                                                         in no
>                                                         contradiction
>                                                         with this
>                                                         wavelength as
>                                                         the phase
>                                                         speed is also
>                                                         infinite. For
>                                                         the
>                                                         imagination,
>                                                         the latter
>                                                         means that all
>                                                         points of that
>                                                         wave oscillate
>                                                         with the same
>                                                         phase at any
>                                                         point.
>
>                                                         Which
>                                                         background
>                                                         waves do you
>                                                         have in mind?
>                                                         What is the
>                                                         CNONOICAL
>                                                         momentum? And
>                                                         what about E&M
>                                                         interactions?
>                                                         De Broglie has
>                                                         not related
>                                                         his wave to a
>                                                         specific
>                                                         field. An E&M
>                                                         field would
>                                                         anyway have no
>                                                         effect in the
>                                                         case of
>                                                         neutron
>                                                         scattering for
>                                                         which the same
>                                                         de Broglie
>                                                         formalism is
>                                                         used. And into
>                                                         which frame do
>                                                         you see the
>                                                         wave
>                                                         Lorentz-transformed?
>
>                                                         So, an
>                                                         electron in
>                                                         his frame has
>                                                         an infinite
>                                                         wavelength and
>                                                         in his frame
>                                                         has the double
>                                                         slit moving
>                                                         towards the
>                                                         particle. How
>                                                         can an
>                                                         interference
>                                                         at the slits
>                                                         occur? No
>                                                         interference
>                                                         can happen
>                                                         under these
>                                                         conditions.
>                                                         But, as I have
>                                                         explained in
>                                                         the paper, the
>                                                         normal wave
>                                                         which
>                                                         accompanies
>                                                         the electron
>                                                         by normal
>                                                         rules (i.e.
>                                                         phase speed =
>                                                         c) will have
>                                                         an
>                                                         interference
>                                                         with its own
>                                                         reflection,
>                                                         which has then
>                                                         a wavelength
>                                                         which fits to
>                                                         the
>                                                         expectation of
>                                                         de Broglie.
>                                                         But that is a
>                                                         very local
>                                                         event (in a
>                                                         range of
>                                                         approx. 10^-12
>                                                         m for the
>                                                         electron) and
>                                                         it is not at
>                                                         all a property
>                                                         of the
>                                                         electron as de
>                                                         Broglie has
>                                                         thought.
>
>                                                         To say it
>                                                         again: The de
>                                                         Broglie
>                                                         wavelength
>                                                         cannot be a
>                                                         steady
>                                                         property of
>                                                         the particle.
>                                                         But
>                                                         Schrödinger
>                                                         and Dirac have
>                                                         incorporated
>                                                         it into their
>                                                         QM equations
>                                                         with this
>                                                         understanding.
>
>                                                         If I should
>                                                         have
>                                                         misunderstood
>                                                         you, please
>                                                         show the
>                                                         mathematical
>                                                         calculations
>                                                         which you mean.
>
>                                                         Ciao, Albrecht
>
>                                                         Am 05.02.2016
>                                                         um 19:20
>                                                         schrieb
>                                                         af.kracklauer at web.de:
>
>                                                             Hi: Albrecht:
>                                                             Your
>                                                             arguments
>                                                             don't
>                                                             resonate
>                                                             with me.
>                                                              The deB'
>                                                             wave
>                                                             length is
>                                                             infinite
>                                                             in the
>                                                             particles
>                                                             frame: it
>                                                             is the
>                                                             standing
>                                                             wave
>                                                             formed by
>                                                             the
>                                                             inpinging
>                                                             background
>                                                             waves
>                                                             having a
>                                                             freq. =
>                                                             the
>                                                             particle's
>                                                             Zitterbewegung.
>                                                              If these
>                                                             TWO waves
>                                                             are each
>                                                             Lorentz
>                                                             x-formed
>                                                             to another
>                                                             frame and
>                                                             added
>                                                             there,
>                                                             they
>                                                             exhibit
>                                                             exactly
>                                                             the DeB'
>                                                             modulation
>                                                             wavelength
>                                                             proportional
>                                                             to the
>                                                             particle's
>                                                             momentum.
>                                                              The only
>                                                             mysterious
>                                                             feature
>                                                             then is
>                                                             that the
>                                                             proportionality
>                                                             is to the
>                                                             CNONICAL
>                                                             momentum,
>                                                             i.e.,
>                                                             including
>                                                             the vector
>                                                             potential
>                                                             of
>                                                             whatever
>                                                             exterior
>                                                             E&M
>                                                             interactions
>                                                             are
>                                                             in-coming.
>                                                              Nevertheless,
>                                                             everything
>                                                             works our
>                                                             without
>                                                             contradiction.
>                                                              A
>                                                             particle
>                                                             oscillates
>                                                             in place
>                                                             at its
>                                                             Zitter
>                                                             freq.
>                                                             while the
>                                                             Zitter
>                                                             signals
>                                                             are
>                                                             modulated
>                                                             by the
>                                                             DeB'
>                                                             wavelength
>                                                             as they
>                                                             move
>                                                             through
>                                                             slits, say.
>                                                             ciao,  L
>                                                             *Gesendet:* Freitag,
>                                                             05.
>                                                             Februar
>                                                             2016 um
>                                                             12:28 Uhr
>                                                             *Von:* "Albrecht
>                                                             Giese"
>                                                             <genmail at a-giese.de>
>                                                             *An:* "Richard
>                                                             Gauthier"
>                                                             <richgauthier at gmail.com>,
>                                                             general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>                                                             *Betreff:* Re:
>                                                             [General]
>                                                             De Broglie
>                                                             Wave
>                                                             Hi Richard
>                                                             and Al, hi
>                                                             All,
>
>                                                             recently
>                                                             we had a
>                                                             discussion
>                                                             here about
>                                                             two topics:
>
>                                                             1. The
>                                                             functionality
>                                                             of the de
>                                                             Broglie
>                                                             wave,
>                                                             particularly
>                                                             its wavelength
>                                                             if seen
>                                                             from a
>                                                             different
>                                                             inertial
>                                                             system.
>                                                             Such cases
>                                                             lead to
>                                                             illogical
>                                                             situations.
>                                                             2. The
>                                                             problem of
>                                                             the
>                                                             apparent
>                                                             asymmetry
>                                                             at
>                                                             relativistic
>                                                             dilation.
>
>                                                             I have
>                                                             investigated
>                                                             these
>                                                             cases and
>                                                             found that
>                                                             they are
>                                                             in some way
>                                                             connected.
>                                                             Relativistic
>                                                             dilation
>                                                             is not as
>                                                             simple as
>                                                             it is normally
>                                                             taken. It
>                                                             looks
>                                                             asymmetric
>                                                             if it is
>                                                             incorrectly treated.
>                                                             An asymmetry
>                                                             would
>                                                             falsify
>                                                             Special
>                                                             Relativity. But
>                                                             it is in
>                                                             fact
>                                                             symmetrical if
>                                                             properly
>                                                             handled
>                                                             and
>                                                             understood.
>
>                                                             It is
>                                                             funny that
>                                                             both
>                                                             problems
>                                                             are
>                                                             connected
>                                                             to each
>                                                             other
>                                                             through the
>                                                             fact that
>                                                             de Broglie
>                                                             himself
>                                                             has
>                                                             misinterpreted
>                                                             dilation.
>                                                             From this
>                                                             incorrect
>                                                             understanding
>                                                             he did not
>                                                             find
>                                                             another
>                                                             way out
>                                                             than to invent
>                                                             his
>                                                             "theorem
>                                                             of phase
>                                                             harmony";
>                                                             with all
>                                                             logical
>                                                             conflicts
>                                                             resulting
>                                                             from this
>                                                             approach.
>
>                                                             If
>                                                             relativity
>                                                             is
>                                                             properly
>                                                             understood, the
>                                                             problem
>                                                             seen by de
>                                                             Broglie
>                                                             does not
>                                                             exist.
>                                                             Equations
>                                                             regarding
>                                                             matter
>                                                             waves can
>                                                             be derived
>                                                             which
>                                                             work
>                                                             properly,
>                                                             i.e.
>                                                             conform to
>                                                             the
>                                                             experiments but
>                                                             avoid the
>                                                             logical
>                                                             conflicts.
>
>                                                             As
>                                                             announced,
>                                                             I have
>                                                             composed a
>                                                             paper
>                                                             about
>                                                             this. It
>                                                             can be
>                                                             found at:
>
>                                                             https://www.academia.edu/21564534/The_Conflict_with_the_De_Broglie_Wavelength
>                                                             .
>
>                                                             I thank
>                                                             Richard
>                                                             Gauthier
>                                                             for the
>                                                             discussion
>                                                             which we
>                                                             had about this
>                                                             topic. It
>                                                             caused me
>                                                             to
>                                                             investigate the
>                                                             problem
>                                                             and to
>                                                             find a
>                                                             solution.
>
>                                                             Albrecht
>
>
>
>
>
>                                                             ---
>                                                             Diese
>                                                             E-Mail
>                                                             wurde von
>                                                             Avast
>                                                             Antivirus-Software
>                                                             auf Viren
>                                                             geprüft.
>                                                             https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>                                                             _______________________________________________
>                                                             If you no
>                                                             longer
>                                                             wish to
>                                                             receive
>                                                             communication
>                                                             from the
>                                                             Nature of
>                                                             Light and
>                                                             Particles
>                                                             General
>                                                             Discussion
>                                                             List at
>                                                             af.kracklauer at web.de
>                                                             <a
>                                                             href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>                                                             Click here
>                                                             to unsubscribe
>                                                             </a>
>
>                                                         Diese E-Mail
>                                                         wurde von
>                                                         einem
>                                                         virenfreien
>                                                         Computer
>                                                         gesendet, der
>                                                         von Avast
>                                                         geschützt wird.
>                                                         www.avast.com
>
>                                                     Diese E-Mail wurde
>                                                     von einem
>                                                     virenfreien
>                                                     Computer gesendet,
>                                                     der von Avast
>                                                     geschützt wird.
>                                                     www.avast.com
>
>                                                 Diese E-Mail wurde von
>                                                 einem virenfreien
>                                                 Computer gesendet, der
>                                                 von Avast geschützt wird.
>                                                 www.avast.com
>
>                                             Diese E-Mail wurde von
>                                             einem virenfreien Computer
>                                             gesendet, der von Avast
>                                             geschützt wird.
>                                             www.avast.com
>
>                                         Diese E-Mail wurde von einem
>                                         virenfreien Computer gesendet,
>                                         der von Avast geschützt wird.
>                                         www.avast.com
>                                         <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>
>
>                                     Diese E-Mail wurde von einem
>                                     virenfreien Computer gesendet, der
>                                     von Avast geschützt wird.
>                                     www.avast.com
>                                     <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>
>
>                                     _______________________________________________
>                                     If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>                                     <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>                                     Click here to unsubscribe
>                                     </a>
>
>                                 _______________________________________________
>                                 If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
>                                 <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>                                 Click here to unsubscribe
>                                 </a>
>
>                             Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien
>                             Computer gesendet, der von Avast geschützt
>                             wird.
>                             www.avast.com
>                             <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>
>
>                     Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer
>                     gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird.
>                     www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>
>
>             Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer
>             gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird.
>             www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>
>
>     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 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 Wolf 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>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160222/aa335025/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list