[General] Compton and de Broglie wavelength the "error"

Sun Nov 26 09:01:05 PST 2017

Dear Andrew,

My comments will be inline with blue color.

---
André Michaud
GSJournal admin
http://www.gsjournal.net/
http://www.srpinc.org/

On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 11:12:08 -0500, Andrew Meulenberg  wrote:

Dear Andre,

Thank you for the link to Hofmann's supplement on the Heitler/ London model. It is well done and good to review things in light of what I have been thinking about recently. However, it was not until I went back into his chapter 8 that it suddenly hit me what the magnetic quantum numbers are all about - and how they relate to the deBroglie wavelength (via the orbital Q#s). My lack of understanding previously may have been a result of poor teaching - or of the fact that, what I consider to be, the proper basis is not taught in any texts.

Some comments on your paper:

1)  I find it interesting that you propose (on pp 3&5) the "... single magnetic component of the photon can be dipolar only along the time dimension," and a "... space-wise electric dipole" and "... a time-wise magnetic dipole," whereas I consider nearly the opposite. However, I propose the electric charge to be a time-varying potential rather than a spatial dipole and fixed charges. We might want to explore these 2 options (and their bases) together at some point.

I see what you mean. Actually, within the photon, mentioning the space-wise electric dipole vs the time-wise magnetic dipole is to illustrate that electromagnetic symmetry is satisfied. Indeed, I also agree that the space-wise electric dipole also varies time-wise within the trispatial photon model because in this structure, the charges do not have a fixed value as in the electron. The twin charges intensity vary from max to zero and back to max at each cycle as illustrated with figures 8 and 9 as their energy transfers from zero to max and then back to zero into magnetostatic space.

	2) I mentioned before your statement:

		"... protons and neutrons could be stable adiabatic equilibrium states involving triads of electrons and positrons that could have interacted in such a way that they could have locally adiabatically accelerated until they reach these two ultimate and irreversible equilibrium bound states [15]." 
		Did you consider the triad to be the 3 quarks or (as I do) each of the 3 quarks to be an electron/positron triad?

I consider each up quark as being a positron having been accelerated so that it displays these warped characteristics of slightly increased mass, greatly increased magnetic field and correspondingly lower electric charge due to the electromagnetic stresses imposed by the very intense energy level of the equilibrium state inside protons or neutrons.

The same for each down quark being an elecron whose normal characteristics are warped into their own stressed  characteristics by the inner proton or neutron environment.
3)   You comment on the primacy of longitudinal components for linear motion. Have you done any thinking on the longitudinal vs transverse amplitudes for angular motion (of photon or electron) near a strong charge?

Yes. But at the fundamental where only elementary charged particles can be interacting, there is no such thing as a "strong charge". There are only the known unit charges -1 and +1 of the electron and positron, and the fractional 2/3 charge of the up quark and the -1/3 charge of the down quark.

You will find how the transverse oscillating component of the trispatial photon is described if you get into the second part of the paper where the expanded space geometry is described as well as what the double particle photon can be described as in this geometry.

There is no angular amplitude involved in the trispatial geometry, but a linear reciprocating swing between electric and magnetic states. There is a transverse electric swing amplitude of (alpha lambda)/2 pi, as you will see.
4) Your fig 5, with its 90 deg phase shift between E- & M-field components used to be my model for the photon. But, I could not reconcile it with Maxwell's equations, which demand that they be in phase (or 180 deg out). After finally accepting the in-phase requirement, I found the 90 deg phase condition in the 180 deg phase shift during reflections (a period of standing waves as you mention). Studying the standing wave potentials led to my proposal that charge in a photon is only the time-varying E-fields from the potential oscillating along the time axis.

I agree with you that the E-field of the photon is time varying as you mention inside the photon, but not along any time axis in the trispatial geometry, but in opposite directions on the Y-y/Y-z plane, which is what explains polarisation in the trispatial geometry, because this swing in opposite directions can be oriented at any angle on that plane, which is perpendicular to the direction of motion of the photon.
5) I have not had time to go thru your 2-photon model. It may be correct; however, is it simpler than a 4-D time-oscillating model?

If you go into the description of the trispatial twin-particle photon, you whould see, after a first rather destabilizing contact, that its description is much simple than any possible description that can be made from the 4D perspective.

Best Regards,

André

________________________________
On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 12:07 AM, André Michaud <srp2 at srpinc.org> wrote:

Dear Andrew,

Pending receiving your comments on my paper, here is a link to work done by Heitler and London in 1927 on the spin for covalent bounding of a hydrogen molecule:

http://www.philiphofmann.net/book_material/notes/heitlerlondon2.pdf

I learned about their work because because de Broglie refers to them in his books.

To my knowledge, they went very deep into the concept.
Best Regards
---
André Michaud
GSJournal admin
http://www.gsjournal.net/
http://www.srpinc.org/ 

On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 21:55:01 -0500, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:

Dear Andre,
Having glanced thru your paper, I see that you may have answers to some questions that I have had. Some other questions may be important to you. 

On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 3:49 PM, André Michaud <srp2 at srpinc.org> wrote: 

Hi Andrew,

I have been thinking on your comment: "However, I have not seen anything written on a possible connection between intrinsic spin and the deBroglie wavelength (or frequency)."

Thinking about it, frequency and wavelength describe the observed and measurable "oscillating behavior" of energy, frequency being the number of time a quantum will complete its EM cycle per second, while the wavelength is the distance the quantum can cover during one such cycle at its natural velocity.

You have here the answer to part of the problem of the deBroglie wavelength. The rest of the problem involves which cycle is important. I would contend that it is the precession of its spin vector. This requires the assumptions that 1) all particles have, or are composed of particles that have, spin and charge and that 2) relativistic contraction causes a torque, which will cause the precession with a frequency dependent on the velocity and inversely on the mass (I haven't yet determined if this model works for compound particles and mixed masses. However, since Compton frequencies work by summing mixed masses, it could be expected that summing spin angular momenta would work also.)

Spin on its part has to do with how EM particles relate to each other, either parallel spin alignment or antiparallel spin alignment. Parallel spin alignment is related to repulsion between particles while antiparallel spin alignment, which is associated to covalent bounding and orbital pair filling, is related to attraction.

This raises the point about how 2 randomly oriented particles always haveparallel spin alignment or antiparallel spin alignment. It can't happen in 3-space. However, if the intrinsic spin axis is primarily aligned along the time axis thenparallel or antiparallel spin alignment is natural. Since leptons are bound photons, any lepton velocity, v, will introduce relativistic effects that appear as a torque which will cause precession (with a velocity-dependent frequency) about the velocity vector. Thus, the deBroglie wavelength is the distance traveled during a single precession cycle of the spin axis.

My model further assumes that all particles are, or are composed of, leptons. Thus, in agreement with your statement in the paper, all nucleons are composed of relativistic lepton triads (i.e., quarks). Since charge may be a consequence of spin direction, and attraction or repulsion is independent of spin up or down, there are consequences of this assumption that I have not fully explored.

We know that this is not due to electric charges, because 2 electrons (same sign of electric charges by definition, thus electrically repelling) can be joined in covalent pairs by antiparallel spin alignment, so this leaves only the magnetic aspect of the energy making up the substance of the electron mass to be related to spin.

This answers my question above about the consequences.

This is examplified by this experiment carried out by Kotler et al. in 2014 with two electrons from two different atoms forced to interact in parallel magnetic spin alignment, which reveals the inverse cube interaction involved, which is different from the inverse square electric interacton:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13403.epdf?referrer_access_token=yoC6RXrPyxwvQviChYrG0tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PdPJ4geER1fKVR1YXH8GThqECstdb6e48mZm0qQo2OMX_XYURkzBSUZCrxM8VipvnG8FofxB39P4lc-1UIKEO1

>From my understanding, magnetic spin and charges have to do with the nature of the "substance" that electromagnetic energy is, while frequency and wavelength have to do with the nature of its "oscillating behavior".

I may agree here; however, I would suggest that the"oscillating behavior" is precession based and therefore rotational.

This would be my 2 cents contribution to your other comment: "I hope that some others in the group, who have more ease with mathematics than I, will be able to contribute to this development.".

By the way, I don`t feel particulary mathematically apt either. I think we each become more familiar with what part of math we needed to clarify issues we were interested in in the past. 

I agree. I have also come to the conclusion that physicists sometimes make assumptions to simplify the math and then try to fit the physics to the assumptions. This can lead to major problems.

More comments on your paper later.

Best regards,

Andrew M.

Best Regards

---
André Michaud
GSJournal admin
http://www.gsjournal.net/
http://www.srpinc.org/ 

On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 11:12:28 -0500, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:

Dear Chip and all,
Thank you for the deBroglie paper. It surprised me in several ways.

	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.

	deBroglie emphasized frequency and the, now near-universal, use of deBrogle wavelength rather than frequency was a convenience for experimentalists.
	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'.
	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]On Behalf OfAndré 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/rmassandwww.ag-physics.org/electron.

Hope this explains it. Otherwise please ask.

Albrecht

Am 18.11.2017 um 22:54schrieb 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, 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

_______________________________________________
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">

Click here to unsubscribe

</a>

			Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
			www.avast.com

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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/20171126/8fa1151e/attachment.html>