[General] Compton and de Broglie wavelength the "error"
Andrew Meulenberg
mules333 at gmail.com
Sat Nov 25 08:12:28 PST 2017
Dear Chip and all,
Thank you for the deBroglie paper. It surprised me in several ways.
1. The biggest surprise was that the word *wavelength* does not appear
at all.
- even tho lambda appears in eq 1, it is not defined. So,
- while it may have been modesty or lost in translation, wavelength
was not important for his story.
2. deBroglie emphasized frequency and the, now near-universal, use of
deBrogle wavelength rather than frequency was a convenience for
experimentalists.
3. deBroglie talks of the wave as being 'physical' (unlike that of the
wave function of QM), yet as far as I could tell, he does not mention what
is 'waving'.
4. The word *spin* does not appear in the paper.
- deBroglie's original work evolved at the same time at the concept
of spin and therefore, as a thesis, would likely not include
such esoterica.
- the fact that this present (1970) paper does not include spin (as a
potential source of the frequency) in a relativity and QM-driven paper
appears inexcusable.
- However, that apparent 'failure' is based on my concept that the
physical 'wave' is a relativistic effect driving the precession of the
physical spin vector.
- The nearly 50 years since 1970 has produced many changes. However,
I have not seen anything written on a possible connection
between intrinsic
spin and the deBroglie wavelength (or frequency).
The concept of an electron being a bound photon feeds the information base
on spin and its implications. I hope that some others in the group, who
have more ease with mathematics than I, will be able to contribute to this
development.
Andrew M.
._________________
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Andre
>
>
>
> I don’t know if you have read this, I suspect you have.
>
> Attached is de Broglie’s “The Reinterpretation of Wave Mechanics”.
>
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.
> natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *André Michaud
> *Sent:* Friday, November 24, 2017 4:54 PM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Compton and de Broglie wavelengththe "error"
>
>
>
> Hi Albrecht,
>
> It seems that you "assume" that de Broglie deduced his wave from
> considerations about relativity.
>
> To my knowledge, this is not the case.
>
> If you can substanciate your claim by referring us to a verifiable text
> from de Broglie that explains his deduction from SR, this would be greatly
> appreciated. I am still in learning mode.
>
> Best Regards ---
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
>
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 23:25:09 +0100, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> 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> 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] on behalf of Richard Gauthier [
> richgauthier at gmail.com]
> *Sent:*Thursday, November 23, 2017 6:36 PM
> *To:*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. 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 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
> <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
>
> *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] on behalf of Viv Robinson [
> 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) 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/rmassand
> 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
>
> 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
> <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
> <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 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" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>
> Click here to unsubscribe
>
> </a>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at 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 mules333 at gmail.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
> natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%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/20171125/ec8bd4cd/attachment.html>
More information about the General
mailing list