[General] De Broglie Wave
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Fri Feb 26 12:01:29 PST 2016
Hello Richard,
in _no way _I /assume /inertia in my derivation.
My derivation goes logically in two steps:
Step 1: It is inevitable that an extended object has inertia. This works
for any shape of a field as long as it has a potential minimum which
defines the distance between the partners.
Step 2: To reproduce Newton's law of motion, it is necessary to assume a
certain shape (some call it reverse engineering).
In my case I was lucky in so far as I have initially looked for the
simplest shape which I could find in order to make a numerical
deduction. I took the 1/r^2 law for attraction and the 1/r^3 law for
repulsion. And with this assumption the result was Newton's law.
But again: Logically the steps have to be done in sequence.
Albrecht
Am 25.02.2016 um 05:58 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
> Hello Albrecht,
> You wrote
>>>
>>> I have assumed a certain shape of that field which leads to
>>> Newton's law of inertia.
>>>
>
> How can you claim that you are deriving inertia for an extended body
> when you are assuming that inertia exists in your derivation?
> Richard
>
>
>> On Feb 23, 2016, at 6:26 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de
>> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Wolf,
>>
>> who is the addressee of your mail? Where do you see a specific
>> difficulty?
>>
>> With respect to my first step of explaining inertia caused by
>> extension: Was that explanation understandable? I would appreciate to
>> have a feedback.
>>
>> Albrecht
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 22.02.2016 um 21:58 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>> 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-mailwolf 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
>>>>
>>>> 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 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>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
>> Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
>> <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
>> <a
>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160226/5d1f4377/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list