[General] light and particles group

[Albrecht]

Hi Chip, hi all,

regarding the ongoing confusion about the "wave structure" of particles 
I would like to remind you all of the approach of Louis de Broglie to 
this problem. In his view a particle is a bullet surrounded by a "pilot 
wave" which accompanies this bullet and guides it. - This approach was 
once strictly rejected by Heisenberg. But John Bell writes in his famous 
book "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics" that he has 
investigated the discussion about the pilot wave and that he did not 
find any serious physical counter-arguments to it. According to him, 
Heisenberg's activities against it were nothing else but bashing of de 
Broglie.

I like this approach of de Broglie. I like it particularly because it 
fits seamlessly into my model of two orbiting massless sub-particles.

Albrecht


Am 24.01.2017 um 12:35 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> Hi Chandra
>
> Yes. Momentum is measured as you indicated.
>
> But if the electron is a circulating “wave structure”, and has the 
> property of inertial mass, then momentum is likely an inherent part of 
> the “wave” itself.
>
> As we have discovered, the inherent momentum of the confined wave can 
> cause the property if inertial mass, which further clearly illustrates 
> why E=mc^2.
>
> But since space is massless, there must be a mechanism which creates 
> momentum for these waves, which is different from the way longitudinal 
> momentum is carried by a wave in a material medium made of particles 
> of mass.
>
> This more fundamental form of momentum must be created without using 
> mass, since no mass is present in “empty” space.
>
> So if this is how things work then we may have the most fundamental 
> form of energy = differential displacement of space.
>
> And now perhaps we have the most fundamental form of momentum = delta 
> Fc sine(theta) t = E/c.
>
> If this is true then delta Fc/Fc = pi, simply because that is the only 
> form which yields the correct momentum of such a wave.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General 
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] 
> *On Behalf Of *Roychoudhuri, Chandra
> *Sent:* Monday, January 23, 2017 1:10 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion 
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] light and particles group
>
> Chip: I like your thinking approach.
>
>           Measurable “momentum” arises through energy exchange between 
> scattering entities; specifically, when one of the entity possess the 
> “inertial property”, we call particles. And, Newton correctly 
> postulated that they tend to stay “inertial”, “until acted upon by a 
> force” (an entity that can “donate” energy to create kinetic motion).
>
> Chandra.
>
> *From:*General 
> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] 
> *On Behalf Of *Chip Akins
> *Sent:* Monday, January 23, 2017 9:28 AM
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> *Subject:* Re: [General] light and particles group
>
> Hi Dr. Grahame Blackwell
>
> What I was considering is trying to understand the mechanism for 
> momentum in the propagation of energy in space. Whether that energy is 
> in the form of light or confined in particles of matter. For if we can 
> show exactly how it is that momentum is a fundamental feature of 
> energy, as it moves in space, we then have specifically identified and 
> understood the source for inertial mass.
>
> This may help us refine our models.  I think that it will help us 
> understand Planck’s quantization of action and its causes as well. 
> This research has already helped me understand how light can have both 
> spin and orbital angular momentum, and it may well lead to a better 
> grasp of other basic principles.
>
> Other reasons for looking into this in detail, are to better 
> understand the correct set of wave equations, and spin.  To understand 
> the causes for what we observe.
>
> I agree that a transfer of energy must implicitly also transfer 
> momentum. Momentum is a measureable result of energy.
>
> But to me E=hf means that more energetic waves or particles are 
> smaller. If that is correct then there is a cause. Probably the 
> simplest explanation is that space has an inherent opposition to 
> displacement, which creates this force Fc I have been discussing.  
> That is nice, simply because this force is also perfectly suited to 
> cause confinement, not only of waves in space, but also of elementary 
> fermions.
>
> So if we can explore this possibility further, and create wave 
> equations for waves which would be caused by the displacement and this 
> opposing force, complete with momentum and all the other measurables, 
> then we may have foundations upon which we can model everything.
>
> I do not think that wave interference is sufficient to cause 
> confinement. I have studied waves in great detail and still find that 
> more than self-interference is required for confinement of waves into 
> soliton (circularly or spherically confined) solutions. So for me, it 
> seems that this equal and opposite reaction of space to the 
> displacement caused by energy is the only logical path to explore.
>
> It is my hope (and intuition) that this path will lead to 
> understanding the mass formation thresholds for electrons so that we 
> might know why the electron’s rest mass is the specific value we measure.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General 
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] 
> *On Behalf Of *Dr Grahame Blackwell
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 5:40 PM
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' 
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org 
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] light and particles group
>
> Hi Chip,
>
> I got a working copy, thanks.
>
> I see that of course you're going into far more intricate details 
> mathematically than I was looking at.  In this case, it seems to me, 
> the question becomes: "How is it that a photon travels through 
> space?".  As I've said, once that's tied down the fact that it carries 
> momentum follows as a natural consequence.
>
> (To some extent it depends on how one defines momentum.)
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Grahame
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>
>     *From:*Chip Akins <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
>
>     *To:*'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
>     <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>
>     *Sent:*Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:54 PM
>
>     *Subject:*Re: [General] light and particles group
>
>     Once more.
>
>     Chip
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys 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>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170124/a0773675/attachment.htm>