[General] Compton and de Broglie wavelengththe "error"
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Fri Nov 24 14:25:09 PST 2017
Hi André, Chip, and all,
if we discuss de Broglie's concept of a particle wave, we should in my
view refer to his original work and not to others who have used the
results (well understood or misunderstood) in other applications.
So, de Broglie in original:
It is of course correct that de Broglie did not just “assume” his wave
but he has deduced it from considerations about relativity. But his
deduction is based on a severe error as I have explained in detail
earlier. So, let’s do it again.
De Broglie has seen a logical conflict between the Einstein- Planck
relation (1) E=h*frequency and (2) relativistic dilation; because
according to (1) the frequency has to increase at motion and according
to (2) dilation will cause the frequency to decrease. But his concern is
an error as this conflict does not exist. Because we have to look at an
interaction of particles, which is the relevant situation. Any
interaction sees frequencies which are increased by the Doppler effect.
And the Doppler effect gives an over-compensation of the normal
relativistic slow down so that both frequencies above will fit on their
own. The same result is achieved if the temporal Lorentz transformation
is properly applied. - For de Broglie's new wave no justification exists
at all.
The comment of two of you that a single electron does not produce an
interference pattern is of course correct. One electron only produces
one dot on the screen. But if we assume that a bunch of electron flies
to the multi-slit with same speed then the argument works. There will be
an interference pattern behind the multi-slit. But if we transform the
experiment into the frame of the electrons then the momentum of the
electrons is zero, and so the wavelength is infinite, and seen from that
frame no interference pattern can occur. But it does occur, also visible
for a co-moving observer, and that shows that de Broglie's idea is
erroneous. - I have shown in calculations (but not in this place) why
under certain circumstances the impression occurs that de Broglie is
correct. But in general it is wrong. De Broglie's approach violates
Galileo's relativity as well as Lorentzian relativity.
You have mentioned the good results of the use of the de Broglie wave to
determine the quantization of atomic orbits. It is true that it works,
but it has a similar problem like for the scattering of electrons.
Assume a hydrogen atom moving into axial direction with a similar speed
as the speed of the electrons in the orbits. Then the resulting momentum
of the orbiting electrons increases by about 40% seen from the frame at
rest. So the de Broglie wavelength has to decrease by this factor and
the energy of these states has to change accordingly. But in practice
there will be a much smaller energy change. So also in this case de
Broglie fails at a more thorough look.
In the mails there have been some considerations about what de Broglie
did "have in mind". But what he had in mind he has written in his PhD
thesis. Anything about the energy states of atoms came later and by
others (like Schrödinger and Bohr).
Now I will be wondering about objecting arguments.
Albrecht
I thank you for your answers and arguments. I will now answer to it, of
course. Which means to repeat my arguments of the last three weeks here
where I have given argument which seem to have been overlooked.
Am 24.11.2017 um 01:20 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
> Hi John, André, Chip and all,
> Deriving the de Broglie wavelength of an electron model without
> superluminal motion is easy (in hindsight, since de Broglie did it
> using special relativity.) But try getting, without superluminal
> motion, the spin-1 of a non-pointlike photon model (for a
> photon-in-a-box or otherwise) AND the spin-1/2 of a highly
> relativistic non-pointlike electron model. In either case there will
> be some longitudinal momentum Plong, at light speed for a photon model
> and at very near light speed for a highly relativistic electron model,
> as well as some significant locally transverse linear momentum Ptrans
> (even if the net transverse linear momentum of the photon model is
> zero as in the double-helix photon model) that generates spin Sz = R x
> Ptrans = 1 hbar for a photon model or 1/2 hbar for a highly
> relativistic electron model . A longitudinal light-speed or
> near-light-speed linear momentum vector plus a significant local
> transverse linear momentum vector gives a diagonal local linear
> momentum vector with a corresponding diagonal velocity vector whose
> magnitude is greater than c. Putting a photon model’s or electron
> model's transverse oscillatory motion, that generates its spin, into
> two different transverse dimensional spaces is ingenious, but if the
> photon is to move along longitudinally as a whole and not leave the
> two transverse dimensional spaces behind, I think there will still be
> some diagonal superluminal motion. I would be happy to see a proved
> counterexample.
> Richard
>
>> On Nov 23, 2017, at 12:19 PM, John Williamson
>> <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk
>> <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Richard and everyone,
>>
>> You do not need to add anything. "Superluminal" is not needed. If
>> you consider light-in-a-box (including light in a box of its own
>> making) the de Broglie wavelength follows from the beat frequencies
>> of the proper relativistic transformations of the light going with
>> the motion and that going against. Remeber, one needs to consider
>> BOTH the Doppler shift AND the SR transformations. Then everything
>> works. Martin is writing a definitive paper on this.
>>
>> Regards, John.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *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 Richard Gauthier [richgauthier at gmail.com
>> <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>]
>> *Sent:*Thursday, November 23, 2017 6:36 PM
>> *To:*srp2 at srpinc.org <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>; Nature of Light and
>> Particles - General Discussion
>> *Subject:*Re: [General] Compton and de Broglie wavelengththe "error"
>>
>> 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-½Charged 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"
>> athttps://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
>>> <mailto: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 your¼ 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
>>>
>>> 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.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]*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.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*e_0 *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.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 atsrp2 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 atrichgauthier 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">
>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>> </a>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
>> Light and Particles General Discussion List atrichgauthier 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">
>> 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 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/20171124/f79d0994/attachment.html>
More information about the General
mailing list