[General] De Broglie Wave

AlbrechtG phys at a-giese.de
Mon Mar 14 07:28:03 PDT 2016


Hello Richard,

First I have to apologize very much that I am so late answering. I was off for a week to a conference and then quite sick. So, sorry for the delay.

Von meinem iPad gesendet



Von meinem iPad gesendet
Am 10.03.2016 um 20:13 schrieb Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de>:

> 
>> Am 26.02.2016 um 22:09 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>> Hello Albrecht,
>> 
>>    Is the 1/r^3 repulsive force that you mention a universal law of nature? Are you claiming that Newton’s 3 laws of motion require the existence of such a law of repulsive force (or even a law of attraction of 1/r^2 for that matter?)  I found a reference to a 1/r^3 force in a discussion of Yukawa’s work at http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/NuclearForces.htm . 
>> but the 1/r^3 force postulated by Yukawa was an ATTRACTIVE  force, while he postulated a 1/r^4 REPULSIVE force !  :

The fundamental assumption which I have to make so that my modell for mass can work is than there is a bind between fundamental objects which takes care that a certain distance between these objects is kept. This is the fundamental requirement. The rest are refinements. 

I am presently travelling, so it is difficult to invoce the paper you give above. I shall try to answer in the following text.
>> 
>> "In 1935 a scientist by the name of Hideki Yukawa hypothesised that there exists a force that could bind nucleons (protons and neutrons) together. He called this the ‘strong nuclear force’ because it had to be stronger than the electrical force that would otherwise push protons apart.
>> 
>> The strong nuclear force (SNF) was a curious contrivance that required some unusual properties:
>> 
>> 1. The force, while stronger than the electrical force, needed to operate only within a short range. Otherwise it would attract protons at any distance.
>> 
>> 2. The force needed to become neutral at even shorter distances. Otherwise protons would be forced together, possibly extinguishing themselves as an electron and positron are said to do.
>> 
>> 3. The force also needed to work on neutrons which have neutral electric charge. Thus the possibility exists that the force should probably affect all subatomic particles and also cause electrons to cling together.
>> 
>> To overcome the first problem it was proposed that the SNF’s strength might vary with the inverse cube of the distance, i.e. 1/r3. To overcome the second it was proposed that a repulsive SNF also exists. This would need to be even stronger than the first and work at an even shorter range, for example as the inverse forth power of the distance, i.e. 1/r4.
>> 
>> With such an unusual range of forces, the SNF was shaping up to be somewhat bizarre. Normally in three-dimensional space we would expect a force function to vary with the inverse square of distance. Yet here were cubed and forth powers. What have we now: 4D and 5D space?" 

I was told at the university that the Yukawa potential has a plateau in the center, further out steep walls and then a fall-off which in an exponential way. (I have understood that QM likes exponential rules.) 

To my knowledge Yukawa has developed his potential to explain scattering processes. So the conclusions for the potential cannot be very precise. 

If we use the mass mechanism of my model to conclude back from Newton's law to the shape of the binding potential of the strong force, then the result for the shape should be much closer to the physical relality. If you take the shape which have proposed for the mechanism of inertia, then the shape proposed does not have any problems with keeping a distance and with a long range attraction. There must be a long range attraction which, however, must not be too strong, because otherwise protons and neutrons could not be bound in a nucleus. 
>> 
>>    But Yukawa’s hypothesis of such forces has anyway been superseded by quantum chromodynamics, quarks and gluons, hasn’t it?
That is surely true but the old problem that QM does not explain physics, only presents abstract rules.

>>      By the way, what do you think of the work of Vernon Brown, who mentions you in his website photontheory.com

With the approach of Vernon Brown I have the problem already mentioned here some times: For him a photon is the most fundamental object in the physical world. In my view, however, the photon is much too complicated as to be used as a really fundamental object.
>>        Richard

Albrecht
>> 
>>> On Feb 26, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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> 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-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>>>> On 2/19/2016 5:15 PM, af.kracklauer at web.de wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Albrecht & all:
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Let me formulate Wolfgang's point in my prefered style.  In telling your story, for my taste, you do not follow a structure in accord with formal logic.  That is, you do not FIRST list all of your hypothetical inputs, which are things (mysteries) that you do not intend to prove or explain.  Then with  something like sylogisims prove or deduce new outputs, i.e., the benefits of the story.  In stead, you tell a chapter or so of your story, at which point further development requires a so far unused hypothtical new input, and then, zipp!, in she goes, without mostly, proper introduction.   In the end, the reader or consumer of your story is unsure that the number of benefits is actually larger than the number of inputs, thereby                                       making the effort to ingest and digest the complexitites of the story worth the effort. It's like reading a poorly composed Russian novel: the reader loses all coherance with respect to characters coming and going and has the feeling of being swept along as if in a megacity's rush hour subway throng!
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Also, some of your points are manifestly dimentional analysis---they prove nothing new, they just reshuffel the building blocks.  Some see this a proof of internal consistency, but without recognizing that the consistency thereby proved, if any, is within the inputs taken from previous work (often tautological definitions of terms), most often somebody else's.  Such consistency is not to the credit of the results of the supposed new structure/story.
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> For what it's worth,  Al
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 19. Februar 2016 um 21:14 Uhr
>>>>>>> Von: "Wolfgang Baer" <wolf at nascentinc.com>
> 
> 
> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Gerät gesendet, geschützt von Avast. 
> www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160314/b8111fc7/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list