[General] De Broglie Wave

Albrecht Giese genmail at a-giese.de
Wed Mar 9 12:21:58 PST 2016


Wolf,

first I have to apologize that I did not respond earlier. Reason was 
that I was off for a week to a conference and then ill. But now I am back.

The question (or problem) you address here is somewhat unexpected to me 
and in some aspects difficult to understand. Of course it is my 
intention to declare new assumptions which I have to use to develop my 
model. But on the other hand there is a general understanding about 
physics where I did not find it necessary to list them explicitly. If I 
had the idea what could be not seen as common sense in physics, I would 
not hesitate to list more and more of them even if it looks funny to me.

I shall give some examples:
Common understanding in physics is that there are electrical charges, 
two signs of it, and they attract or repel. The forces are governed by 
the Coulomb law. An elementary charge has a small geometric size, 
measurements tell that it is < 10^-18 m. We have also charges which 
cause the strong force. The strong force causes a strong bind. But the 
strong force also causes the fact that object connected by the strong 
force keep a certain distance to each other. Yukawa has once described 
quite roughly how such a bind has to look like (regarding a distance 
law). He did not give a detailed mechanism why it works in the way it 
works. He refers to the Pauli principle and uses quantum numbers as is 
common practice in QM. No further modelling of it. That is accepted by 
main stream physics.

What I need for my model of inertia is just the fact that such force 
exists. If this force has specific properties then this has consequences 
for the behaviour of inertia. We can, if we want, use reversed 
conclusions to describe this field in more detail from the observed 
properties. That is an option then.

Another common assumption in my understanding is the fact that a 
mass-less object always moves at c, speed of light. Do you feel that 
this is an extra-assumption to be named?

The nature of my two sub-particles: They need this strong force with 
them which is common understanding in physics, which keeps them at a 
distance. (Maybe Yukawa potential or Pauli principle, those are all 
names in present physics for this behaviour without explaining any 
detail.) I have ideas for further details, but that would be in 
addition, not necessary. Then they have an electrical charge, otherwise 
they cannot build an electron (or tau or muon etc.). If you have 
concerns regarding  "assemblies of charges build multi-pole field"   
then forget the whole stuff. It is nothing more than my attempt to give 
an idea of an explanation. We do not need it here as main stream physics 
uses it without any explanation, just as a fact.

The external force which can cause an acceleration of the whole particle 
and in this way shows inertia, is normally an electric field, but can 
also be the strong field or the gravitational one (which may cause then 
some special restrictions). This force will of course not act only on 
one of the sub-particles but on both. Why only one?

Is this a bit more of an explanation as you expect it? And do you see 
further assumption which have to be named to complete the model? I am 
curious.

Best wishes
Albrecht



Am 19.02.2016 um 21:14 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
> 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>
>>
>



---
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/20160309/c4a4cf9e/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list