[General] light and particles group; Pilot Wave unnecessary

Mon Jan 30 13:46:45 PST 2017

*Hi Andrew *- and hi All,

you raise here again the topic "pilot wave".

That was (in my view) a plausible idea of Louis de Broglie to explain 
the particle-wave phenomenon and at the same time to avoid the usual 
mystification done by quantum mechanics. I think that this idea was 
basically very good but a stable model to explain why this wave could 
exist was missing. This made it easy for Heisenberg and others to fight 
it. Also other physicists who liked the idea did not have an appropriate 
particle model. The criticism about their detailing versions reflected 
this problem.

I have developed  the twin particle model for all leptons and all quarks 
(and with some restrictions also for photons) which I did not develop to 
cope with this pilot wave problem. But after it was created I detected 
that it fulfilled the plan which was in the mind of de Broglie. - I 
have, as a consequence of this discussion here, looked at the popular 
versions of the pilot wave created by Bohm and others, and I see the 
arguments in disfavour of their versions, but they are not applicable to 
my model. So, I still believe that the pilot wave in this version is the 
best solution of the particle wave problem, particularly to explain the 
double slit experiment.

*Chan**dra*, also your counter-argument that a pilot wave would be a 
physically separate phenomenon which has no explanation and makes 
physics unnecessarily complicated seems not applicable to my model. 
Maybe I did not explain this sufficiently clearly.

If someone of you detects discrepancies regarding this position, I am 
very much interested to know them.

On the other hand you, *And**rew*,  mention the phase wave having a 
phase velocity of  v_w = c^2 / v. . This was also an idea of de Broglie, 
but unfortunately an awkward one.  As I have explained at earlier 
occasions, here de Broglie has fundamentally misunderstood relativistic 
dilation, and he has looked for a solution of a problem which in fact 
does not exist. There is no reason that this phase wave should exist. 
Its creation was not logical on the one hand and on the other hand its 
use to explain double slit experiments fails in the general case.

I find it very shocking that a genius which Louis de Broglie clearly was 
has run into such an error, but we can see that this can happen.

Sincerely
Albrecht

Am 29.01.2017 um 10:24 schrieb ANDREW WORSLEY:
> Hi All,
>
> Agreed there is no pilot wave as such, just a phase wave velocity Vw, as opposed to group wave velociity (v).
>
> This is an accepted physical quantity, such that phase wave velocity Vw = c^2/v, and Vw.v =c^2.
>
> It's all, that is quantum mechanics, explained here.
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271959433_Everything_is_Physics_Book_1_Understanding_physics_at_the_fundamental_level
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
> ========================================
> Message Received: Jan 24 2017, 11:21 PM
> From: "Roychoudhuri, Chandra"
> To: "phys at a-giese.de"
> , "Nature of Light and Particles -
> General Discussion"
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [General] light and particles group; Pilot Wave unnecessary
>
> Hi Albrecht: Greetings,
>
> All of our thoughts and models are evolving. Nobody has a definite model, as yet, at least not me.
>
> However, I strongly disagree with the de Broglie "Pilot Wave" concept. It demands extra unnecessary complexities. If this model is to be a REAL physical one,
> then we would need a separate physical pilot wave, guiding the physical "particle". Built out of what? This pilot wave expands with time making the localization of
> the particle impossible after a very long time!
>
> In the tension filed oscillating model, only the tension filed is the physical field; the localized oscillation represent the physical particle, emergent as a complex
> excited state of the field. The oscillator does not expand its shape with time. Otherwise free electrons and protons could not have been tracked in long-path
> accelerators. Indeterminacy is limited only by our limited capability to assign the right initial conditions, as in the LHC or in other accelerators. Nature does not
> suffer from "Uncertainty Principle", like human math does!
>
> The grand MISTAKE of old times was the assumption that, exp[iwt] = exp[i2.pi.ft] = exp.[i2.pi.(E/h)t], as in Schrodinger's equation, was thought to represent a
> "plane wave"! Unfortunately, the expression represents any harmonic oscillator - it could be a pendulum, or an LCR circuit, and hence it can also represent a
> localized a harmonic oscillator of a tension filed, albeit complex in spatial structure. This is a conceptually simpler model without the need for any well-trained
> "Pilot", while keeping Schrodinger very happy since "f" is the internal harmonic frequency of the new "model" particle! De Broglie would also have been happy with
> this model since he also struggled for the rest of his life to make it more realistic! We do have a more realistic concept; albeit, not the final, detailed model.
>
> Chandra.
>
> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Albrecht
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 5:34 PM
> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> Subject: Re: [General] light and particles group
>
> 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
> 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' >
> 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
> To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> 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
>
> Click here to unsubscribe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

---
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/20170130/6a482d59/attachment.htm>