[General] Compton and de Broglie wavelengththe "error"

Thu Nov 23 10:36:29 PST 2017

Hello André, Chip, John and all,

    I also think that there is “an additional factor” that settles an electron into an atomic resonant state. In my view the electron is composed of this additional factor, a charged superluminal energy quantum that circulates and generates quantum waves having the de Broglie wavelength. These quantum waves self-resonate in regions around an atomic nucleus. When an available resonant region around an atomic nucleus is found, the superluminal energy quantum settles into this region and continues to emit quantum waves that for some period of time maintain it in this resonance state in the atom. The electron is more likely to be detected wherever the amplitude of this resonant state (the electron’s eigenfunction for this state) is larger.

   This idea is not fully developed but is hinted at in “Transluminal Energy Quantum Model of a Spin-½ Charged Photon Composing an Electron”, “Electrons Are Spin-½ Charged Photons Generating the de Broglie Wavelength”, “The Charged-Photon Model of the Electron Fits the Schrödinger Equation” and “The Charged-Photon Model of the Electron, the de Broglie Wavelength, and a New Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" at https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research#papers <https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research%23papers>. What I called a charged photon in theses articles I am now calling a charged half-photon.

  Richard

> On Nov 23, 2017, at 8:52 AM, André Michaud <srp2 at srpinc.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Chip, and all
> 
> You write: "I prefer the second option, there is some additional factor interacting with the electron, to cause these quantized orbitals, and understand from Andre’s writings that he feels the same way."
> 
> You are exactly right about what I think. I came to the same conclusion as yourself (the second option) way back in fact when I finally lighted up to the fact that the wave function originally was related to electrons orbitals  by Schrödinger because he was inspired in this direction by a conclusion of de Broglie that electrons had to be captive in some form of resonance state about nuclei.
> 
> I think that this was sort of lost sight of in the community due to the acrimonious debate that raged on afterwards between the proponents of the Copenhagen school and the determinists, which indeed was fundamentally whether the first or second option applied in physical reality.
> 
> After I came to the second option conclusion, I started to look around for descriptions of this resonance state that could be related to the wave function but found nothing, as if the only option that had been explored was the first one, with which the Heisenberg solution was in harmony and also later Feynman's path integral.
> 
> To me, the idea of "resonance" always made me think of a vibrating guitar string, whose shape and extent of the volume visited by the transversally oscillating string can be described by the wave function.  
> 
> I suspected that this might have been what de Broglie had in mind also, and became convinced that the electron could remain localized while being captive within the theoretical volume defined by the wave function, on an axial resonance trajectory (sort of stochastic maybe to some extent) that may be describable mathematically and that could be due to electric versus magnetic interaction between the electron and the nuclei.
> 
> I see that you lean in a similar direction Chip. I have explored the possible electric vs magnetic potential explanation to a large extent, but I am at a loss as to how to exactly mathematize the localized resonance trajectory proper within the volume definable by the wave function. You seem to be better equipped mathematically than me to address such an issue, with your ¼ de Broglie wavelengthexploration.
> 
> For a general overview of how the trispatial geometry allows defining this type of electromagnetic electron equilibrium states involving both electric and magnetic aspects of energy, here is my final paper on the whole concept:
> 
> https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/gravitation-quantum-mechanics-and-the-least-action-electromagneticequilibrium-states-2329-6542-1000152.pdf <https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/gravitation-quantum-mechanics-and-the-least-action-electromagneticequilibrium-states-2329-6542-1000152.pdf>
> Even though it involves an entirely new paradigm that may feel very unfamiliar at first, I hope it nevertheless makes some sense to you.
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> ---
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/ <http://www.gsjournal.net/>
> http://www.srpinc.org/ <http://www.srpinc.org/>
> 
> 
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 05:16:52 -0600, "Chip Akins" wrote:
> 
> Hi All
> But in all this, regarding de Broglie’s wavelength and the electron orbitals, there is still something missing.
> Either we have to assume that the electron occupies the entire circumference of the orbital simultaneously by its wavefunction, or there is some additional factor interacting with the electron, to cause these quantized orbitals.
> I prefer the second option, there is some additional factor interacting with the electron, to cause these quantized orbitals, and understand from Andre’s writings that he feels the same way.
> In the hydrogen atom there is a simple, naturally occurring cause, for a “matter wave” which is exactly ¼ the de Broglie wavelength. This “matter wave” is a beat frequency created by the perceived frequency difference with motion, of the outer radius and inner radius of the electron as it circulates about the proton. I found this to be interesting, and wanted to share this observation.
> Chip
> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of André Michaud
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 10:52 PM
> To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> Subject: Re: [General] Compton and de Broglie wavelengththe "error"
> Hello John,
> You are absolutely right.
> 
> In fact de Broglie derived this relation with respect to the values of the Bohr ground state orbit energy parameters.
> 
> Heisenberg did the same, except that he formulated the relation so that it could account for a precision drift of the chosen velocity on either side of the selected velocity value about the ground orbit of the Bohr atom.
> 
> In 1923, he himself expressed his uncertainty principle as delta_x delta_p equal-or-larger-than h, which is the same as delta_x approx_equal to h / (m delta_v_x), which is fundamentally de Broglie's single valued h/mv for the Bohr ground state orbit.
> 
> This is at the origin of Heisenberg's statistical solution.
> 
> Best Regards ---
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/ <http://www.gsjournal.net/>
> http://www.srpinc.org/ <http://www.srpinc.org/>
> 
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 03:17:31 +0000, John Williamson wrote:
> 
> Dear Albrecht,
> 
> Your error is more fundamental than you know. See below in green. 
> From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] on behalf of Viv Robinson [viv at universephysics.com <mailto:viv at universephysics.com>]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 10:49 PM
> To: Albrecht Giese; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> Subject: Re: [General] Compton and de Broglie wavelengththe "error"
> Dear Albrecht,
> IMHO you have a fundamental flaw in your first paragraph below. A single electron cannot generate an interference pattern, any more than can a single photon. An observer moving with a single electron will, if the screen is angled towards him, see only a single spot where the electron impinged upon that screen. That is all. If he repeats that observation say 10,000 times he will still only see on spot each time the electron impinges upon the screen. If the spots are recorded, each time he travels with another electron he will see an interference image slowly appear because it is dependent upon the frame of reference of the slit and screen. The motion of the observer does not interfere with that pattern.
> Sincerely
> Vivian Robinson
> On 23 November 2017 at 8:24:21 AM, Albrecht Giese (phys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>) wrote:
> Dear André,
> the "error" which I see for de Broglie is his assumed relation lambda = h / momentum . 
> Your error, and this is an error not an "error" is that you assume that de Broglie "assumed lambda = h / momentum. Louis de Broglie did not assume lambda = h / momentum - he derived it. From relativity. Please do not assume what you think other people assume. Remember, de Broglie was very smart, and this relation had to come from somewhere, no? It would be instructive for you to understand the how and why he did this before making uninformed comments on it.
> This relation fails at any linear transformation. Take as an example the scattering of electrons at a multi-slit. If you look at it from the rest frame of the multi-slit then de Broglie's wavelength describes correctly the generated interference pattern. However, if this situation is observed by someone moving at the side of the electron the result is completely wrong. Assume as an extreme situation that the observer moves together with the electron. Then in the frame of the observer the electron has the momentum = 0 and so the wavelength is infinite. This means: no interference! But the pattern does of course not disappear and will be visible to the observer. This shows that de Broglie does not even fulfil Galileo's physical rule of relativity believed and proven since 600 years.
> Regarding the particle mass: My equation is simple: m = h(bar) / (c*R) , where R is the radius of the particle. And R can be easily determined by use of the known magnetic momentum of the particle.
> The mag. momentum of a circling elementary charge is classically: mm = (1/2)*c*e0*R
> The mag. moment of particles is known. So, R can be determined. This R inserted into the equation above yields the particle mass with an accuracy of about 10-3. - This is now based only on the strong force. If the result is corrected by the influence of the electrical charge, this yields the Landé factor in case of the electron. This applied yields the mass with an accuracy of 2*10-6.
> References for this are:www.ag-physics.org/rmass <http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass> andwww.ag-physics.org/electron <http://www.ag-physics.org/electron>.
> Hope this explains it. Otherwise please ask.
> 
> Albrecht
> Am 18.11.2017 um 22:54 <http://airmail.calendar/2017-11-18%2022:54:00%20AEST>schrieb André Michaud:
> Dear Albrecht,
> 
> I must say that I don't see as "errors" conclusions that were drawn before more precise knowledge was discovered. For example, I don't think that Newton made an "error" by not immediately concluding to the possibility the fixed velocity of light. He simply did not know about it because this had not yet been discovered.
> 
> The same for de Broglie in my opinion, he worked with the knowledge available a the time.
> 
> As i understand it, what we call the de Broglie wave is simply a representation of the sum of the energies of the rest mass of the electron plus the translational energy related to its momentum. How can this be wrong at the general level, unless I misunderstand the whole concept?
> 
> As for Hönl and the mass of the electron, I was meaning this rhetorically. I simply mean that any solution that exactly provides the exact mass of the electron as experimentally measured by numerous means can only be a proper description, so your description has to be correct. The exact mass of the electron has been experimentally confirmed for over 1 century. I do not know where to look to examine your solution. Can you provide a link?
> 
> ---
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/ <http://www.gsjournal.net/>
> http://www.srpinc.org/ <http://www.srpinc.org/>
> 
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 21:56:34 +0100 <http://airmail.calendar/2017-11-19%2006:56:34%20AEST>, Albrecht Giese wrote:
> Dear André,
> there is no doubt that de Broglie has made great contributions to the development of physics. So, if there is an anniversary in honour of him and even the Nobel price, then as many as possible of his achievements are of course presented.
> My concern, however, refers to a specific result of his early activities. The assumed necessity to introduce the "harmony of waves" and to deduce the "de Broglie" wavelength are based on a logical error and on a misunderstanding of SR.
> It is a quite funny situation that in spite of this error his result seems usable to explain certain physical processes. It is one goal of my physical activities to understand this. In one fundamental case I have found an explanation. That is the scattering of electrons at a double / multiple slit. If such experiment is viewed from a specific inertial frame (the one normally used), de Brolgie's calculation conforms to the measurement. However in any other frame it fails. - I can explain why the de Broglie wave seems to work even though it is erroneous. (Not here but I can give you a reference if you want it.)
> Regarding Hönl I do not understand what you say. Hönl did NOT get a correct mass by assuming only the electrical force in the electron. He was wrong by a factor of about 300 as I wrote earlier. But the calculation which I did is correct with high precision and the formula does not have any free parameters, only the standard ones. I do not know any other model which has this. Do you? Then please give me a reference.
> Best regards
> Albrecht
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at srp2 at srpinc.org <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>
> 
> Click here to unsubscribe <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/srp2%40srpinc.org?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?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/20171123/c8816493/attachment.html>