[General] Compton and de Broglie wavelengththe "error"

[André Michaud]

Hi Richard,

Forgotten added embedded inline comment in blue below, regarding where where the extra 1/2 mv^2 of kinetic energy of the particle go when the particle slows down to v=0 and gives up its standard kinetic energy 1/2 mv^2 to its environment.


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




On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 18:40:12 -0500, André Michaud  wrote:






Hi Richard (and all)

I'll comment in red.

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

On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:53:35 -0800, Richard Gauthier  wrote:


Hello André (and all),

 

What you seem to be saying is that the transverse velocity component of each of the two charges in yourtri-space composite photon model changes from zero to c and back to zero (twice) in one transverse cycle from your electric space to your magnetic space, while the photon as a whole moves forward with a longitudinal velocity of c in normal space. This tells me that the minimum total vector velocity (the transverse velocity component combined vectorially with the longitudinal velocity) of the chargeduring a transverse cycle is c (when the transverse component of the charge's velocity is zero), while the maximum total vector velocity of the charge (combining its its maximum transverse velocity component c with the constant longitudinal velocity component c) is c sqrt(2). I don’t see how compartmentalizing your composite photon’s total motion into three mutually orthogonal spaces (where the component of the charge’s speed is less than or equal to c in each of these three component spaces) gets you“off the hook” from this resultant superluminal speed of up to c sqrt(2) of the two charges in your composite photon model as a whole.

You are thinking about this as if this was occurring in 4D normal space. In the trispatial geometry, the minor unit vectors in each space operate independently of those in in the other two. It is the Major unit vectors that represent the separate spaces orientations that can be mutually correlated since it is the 3 spaces themselves that are perpendicular to each other.

Remember that these 3 spaces are only 3D-exploded occurrences of the triple orthogonal vector relation of Maxwell's electromagnetic wave fields configuration. What happens in electrostatic space is now coupled to Maxwell's electric field's major unit vector, what happens in magnetostatic space is coupled to Maxwell's magnetic field's major unit vector, the cross product of which is then the normal space major unit vector coupled in the phase velocity of the particle moving at c in normal space, propelled by half the photon's energy (velocity related momentum energy), which remains unidirectional within normal space (propelling the particle). This remains the same as in original Maxwell.


I can't get past the words of your kinetic energy formula explanation which leads to a particle kineticenergy that is twice the standard, experimentally accepted (and experimentally verified over many decades ofhigh-energy physics research) relativistic kinetic energy formula ofKE=moc2(γ-1). Your derived formulaKE=2moc2(γ-1) gives, in the limit of very small velocities v << c, the formula KE= 2 x 1/2 mv^2 = mv^2 while the standard relativistic KE formula in the limit of very small velocitiesv << cgives KE = 1/2 mv^2 , the standard non-relativistic kinetic energy formula which is equal to the work W= Fxd done on a particle to give it that kinetic energy 1/2 mv^2. Where did your extra 1/2 mv^2 of energy come from in your formula (apparently representing a serious violation of conservation of energy)? And also, where does your extra 1/2 mv^2 of kinetic energy of the particle go when the particle slows down to v=0 and gives up its standard kinetic energy 1/2 mv^2 to its environment?

Well, seems to me that it always was double. You put down the equation yourself:

K=1/2 mv2 so doesn't this mean that 2K=mv2?

Let's now look at energy calculated from momentum, we have p=mv, so v=p/m

If we replace v by p/m in K=1/2 mv2 we end up with K=m (p/m)2/2 and finally

K=p2/2m and then 2K=p2/m 

Seems to me that this is consistent with my derivations, no?

There always was twice the amount of kinetic energy energy involved in calculating mass velocities from Newton. The pecularity is that it was coherently divided by 2 to isolate the momentum component, since he did not know what to do with the other half (mass increase with velocity was an unknown concept at the time).

The second K is the part that converts to the transversely oscillating half, which is the relativistic mass increment that was measured by Kaufmann.

Newton`s equations were ok in this regard. The only missing parameter was the gamma factor, that he couldn't know about and that allows calculating the energy according to the proper electromagnetism compliant growth curve.

I invite you to try any relativistic velocities calculations with my equations. You will see that they all pan out. The proof is in the pudding as the saying goes.

Looks like it is the SR version that is erroneous: KE=moc2(γ-1), because it calculates only the momentum amount, not the other half that goes into velocity related mass increment. It is not even in sync with Newton at low velocities. Seems to me that it should be corrected to KE=2moc2(γ-1) to even conform to Newton at low velocities.

regarding where where the extra 1/2 mv^2 of kinetic energy of the particle go when the particle slows down to v=0 and gives up its standard kinetic energy 1/2 mv^2 to its environment.

Remember that the only way an electron can be naturally stopped in physical reality is for it to stabilize in resonance state in an atomic orbital.

when this occurs, a photon carries away its momentum translational complement of carrying energy, but since it is subject to the Coulomb force between it and the nucleus, it is synchronously induced with a replacement equal amount of kinetic energy that now applies pressure towards the nucleus. The other half that makes up the relativistic mass increment remains unaffected.

Ref:  https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-adiabatic-processes-at-the-elementary-particle-level-2090-0902-1000177.pdf
 


Yes, I think that kinetic energy is made of something physical (in its broadest sense.) But the word “substance” — from Latin “substantia”= “being, essence” -- like the word “matter” from Latin “mater”= “mother"), is a metaphysical term that cannot be clearly defined by physics experiments. Even the word “physical” is from Latin “physica” = “things related to nature” and is a metaphysical term.


>From my perspective, if it can be scattered against, it is physically there. So it has to be made of "something that physically exists to be scattered against". Confirmed out of any doubt in my view in countless scattering experiments. From my analysis, this substance is physically existing kinetic energy.

Are you familiar with the demonstration that the well-known relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 for a particle of mass m is mathematically equivalent to (E/c)^2 = p^2 + (mc)^2 where mc can be interpreted as the transverse circling internal linear momentum of a resting particle of mass m, p is the particle's longitudinal linear momentum p=gamma mv and E/c is the Pythagorean total linear momentum P=E/c = gamma mc of the particle? 

Regarding the energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4, I invite you to do a google search about it. You will discover that everywhere it is erroneously written E^2 = p^2 c^2 + mo^2 c^4.

Note the (mo).

You will also find it in immediate access on wikipedia, which is bound to misinform all those who trust the site.

This is an erroneous representation because the gamma factor is simplified out of this form of the equation, and reduces it to Newton`s non-relativistic form. I append the complete and proper derivation that was published as Appendix B in my recently published monograph.

These relations can be seen in Figure 1 of my spin-1/2 charged half-photon electron model in my article athttps://www.academia.edu/15686831/Electrons_are_spin_1_2_charged_photons_generating_the_de_Broglie_wavelength. What is called a charged photon in this figure and article I am now calling a charged half-photon. Nothing is superluminal in this figure.

I had a look. Looks quite interesting as all your other papers. I downloaded a copy for reading at leasure.

Best Regards

André


 



 



 





On Nov 28, 2017, at 9:20 AM, André Michaud <srp2 at srpinc.org> wrote:

 






Hi Richard and all,

I understand that your composite photon model involves no extra energy associated with the internal superluminal motion of the charged half-photons.

But the thing is (not meant here as a negative point) that by structure, in your model, the half photons longitudinally progress on spiral paths at some distance from the axis of motion of the linearly moving photon, they have to move "by structure" at a velocity slightly higher than c otherwise, they could not keep up with the axial linear motion that is defined as being c. Just geometric logic irrespective of any math considerations.

I'll try to explain more clearly about what I understand of kinetic energy, but to remain with the photon structure, by contrast to your "longitudinally" spiralling half photons (moving charges), in the trispatial model, the two charges are oscillating "transversally" with respect to the direction of motion, which is in sync with the established understanding that electromagnetic energy oscillates transversally.

As the related "kinetic energy" of which the half photons are made cyclically transfers from twin-particle state (charges state) to single magnetic particle state in the trispatial model, it accelerates from zero transverse velocity at maximum transverse extent to transverse velocity c at mid transfer to zero transverse velocity again when completely transferred to magnetostatic space. Then in reverse motion, from zero transverse velocity at maximum magnetic spherical extent to transverse velocity c at mid transfer to twin electric charges state to zero transverse velocity at maximum half photon state. Ready for the next transverse reciprocating cycle again. All the while, the complete photon translationally progresses at c, propelled by the other half of the photon's total quantum of energy, that remains permanently unidirectional while the transversally oriented half oscillates.

 







This is why c is never exceeded in the trispatial model.

Now to the nature of kinetic energy.

You mention that when I call kinetic energy a “substance”, this confuses you.

I know. I observed that it confuses everybody.

I have a question that may help you seeing what I mean. In you own photon model, what do you think your half photons are made of really? Charges, would you say! What are charges then? We don't really know. 

But whatever what we name "charges" may be, don't you think that a physically existing "substance" has to be involved, that they must be quantities of "something" that physically exists?

Now what could this "something" be?

Remember that we talked about the 13.6 eV electromagnetic photon that is evacuated when an electron is captured by an ionized hydrogen atom (a proton)?

You certainly observed already that this amount of energy corresponds exactly to the kinetic energy that can be calculated due to the acceleration of the electron until it reaches the velocity related to the Bohr radius, which is 2187691.253 m/s classical (2187647.561 m/s relativistic).

Since the electron is now "immobilized", we know that this energy is indeed the energy corresponding to the maximum momentum that the electron had before "hitting the wall" so to speak. Now instead of converting to "potential energy" as classical physics assume, "we observe" that it escapes as an electromagnetic photon.

This means that unidirectional momentum related kinetic energy that propelled the electron is of the same nature as electromagnetic energy, and that in fact the complete complement of any electromagnetic quantum is actual kinetic energy "that-did-not-convert-to-potential-energy", half of which transfers to transverse orientation to henceforth electromagnetically oscillate, in transverse reciprocating motion (in the trispatial geometry), and spiralling about the axis of motion in your model. 

This is why I concluded that "kinetic" energy is a "physically existing substance". 

When 1.022 MeV photon sare made to convert to massive electro-positron pairs, this means that even the mass of electrons and positrons can also only be the very same substance also. What else could it be since the mother photon was entirely made of only this kinetic energy substance. Whatever it may turn out to really be in reality. Whatever it really is, it has to be a really and physically existing "substance", that we need to study. That's my conclusion.

Now to the extra fact or 2 that you mention, 

You mention "KE=moc2(γ-1) wheremois usually just written m"

To remain strictly consistent with mathematical representation, m is the relativistic mass of the electron that was measured by transverse interaction by Kaufmann 100 years ago, which is made of mo + [KE=moc2(γ-1)]/c2. Here [KE=moc2(γ-1)]/c2 is the relativistic mass "increment".

Now KE=moc2(γ-1) also happens to also be equal to the unidirectional momentum related kinetic energy amount that propels the electron at velocity v (embedded in the gamma factor).

Consequently, the complete complement of kinetic energy that an electron possesses at any velocity in excess of its own mo energy value is KE=moc2(γ-1) + [KE=moc2(γ-1)]/c2 both of which physically exist (my conclusion), and can be summarily calculated with:

KE=2moc2(γ-1)

This stems from correlating the Kaufmann electron deflection experiment with Marmet's discovery that the magnetic field of a moving electron increases in sync with its velocity. Explained at the beginning of the "From Classical to Relativistic Mechanics via Maxwell" paper, but as analyzed completely in this other paper:

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/2257


You ask: "Are you claiming that a moving massive particle has twice as much kinetic energy as is predicted by standard relativity kinematics?"

My answer is YES. 

Grounded on the Kaufmann experiment PLUS Marmet's converging derivation, that is one half remaining unidirectional (momentum kinetic energy) plus the other equal amount transferring to transverse orientation to henceforth oscillate electromagnetically in reciprocal swing between twin component electric and single component magnetic states, displaying omnidirectional inertia (mass) like the invariant rest mass mo of the electron.

Hope this helps understanding how I see "kinetic energy".

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

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 22:15:30 -0800, Richard Gauthier  wrote:



HelloAndré (and all),

Thank you.

 

I want to clarify that in my composite photon model, there is no extra energy associated with the internal superluminal motion of the spin-1/2 charged half-photons composing the composite photon model, whose superluminal energy quanta both move helically at c sqrt(2). The energy of each half-photon is given by E=hf = h/lambda where f is the frequency of the half-photon (here E is not the energy of the composite photon which is 2E) and lambda is the wavelength of the half photon. Remember that the half-photon makes two helical turns per half-photon wavelength, so its apparent frequency 2f (due to its double-looping, like the zitterbewegung frequency) is twice its energy-related frequency f, and its apparent wavelength lambda/2 (due to its double-looping per wavelength lambda) is half of its energy-related wavelength lambda.



I’ve been working on understanding your tri-space approach to the photon and electron. I am trying to understand your approach to kinetic energy of a massive particle. In one place you call kinetic energy a “substance”, which confused me. What does this mean? Is this substance different from energy?

Also, in standard special relativity kinematics, the formula for the kinetic energy of a massive particle is

KE=moc2(γ-1) wheremois usually just written m

while in your article "From “Classical to Relativistic Mechanics via Maxwell”athttp://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3197

you write: "So from equation (42) we can now directly calculate the associated kinetic energy even if we know only the relativistic velocity of a particle

K=2moc2(gamma-1) (43)

You write the same equation in a slightly different form in your article “On De Broglie’s Double-particle Photon Hypothesis”

at: https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.php?aid=70373:

“ From equation (39) can be derived the following equation that allows calculating the kinetic energy that must be communicated to an electron for it to move at relativistic velocity v, when only this velocity is known:

x = 2a(γ-1) (40)

Where “x” is the added kinetic energy, “a” is the energy making up the rest mass of the electron and γ is the Lorentz gamma factor. Any relativistic velocity plugged into the gamma factor will allow obtaining the amount of kinetic energy required for the particle to move at this velocity.”

So my question is, where does this extra factor of 2 come from in thetheoretical derivation of your formula for the relativistic kinetic energy of a massive particle as a function of gamma, compared to the standard relativistic formula for kinetic energy, which is well-established experimentally?Are you claiming that a moving massive particle has twice as much kinetic energy as is predicted by standard relativity kinematics?



Richard




On Nov 27, 2017, at 4:51 PM, André Michaud <srp2 at srpinc.org> wrote:

 








Hi Richard,

I agree with you here that this is an incremental progress over the previous view, Moreover it is now in sync with de Broglie's original twin halph-photons hypothesis.

As I already mentioned, possibly the best that can be had in 4D geometry.

Note that In the trispatial geometry, all of this is accomplished without the energy involved ever exceeding the speed of light.

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

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 16:15:08 -0800, Richard Gauthier  wrote:


HI Ray (and all),

You are right that an electron logically can’t be composed of a photon which is composed of an electron-positron pair (or other dipole particle structure) where each half of the dipole is composed of a photon which is composed of… ad infinitum. I think that an electron that is composed from its beginning as a spin-1/2 charged half-photon (not a photon) solves this logical dilemma. I think most of us started out thinking that an electron, if it is composed of a light-speed object, must be composed of a uncharged photon of spin 1 which somehow curls up to become a charged spin-1/2 electron with rest mass m. But I now think that this approach has become a dead-end. Rather, a pre-electron (a spin-1/2 charged half-photon) produced with pre-positron in e-p pair production from a sufficiently energetic spin-1 photon (having net charge zero) starts out already electrically charged and having spin 1/2, so it doesn’t have to change from a spin-1 uncharged particle into a a spin-1/2 charged particle by curling up and losing half its spin while gaining its charge and mass due to its being curled up in a double-loop. Rather the spin-1/2 charged photon retains the spin-1/2 and electric charge e and inertial mass (and its rest mass m) that it started with coming (with a positron) from a photon in e-p pair production. This light-speed (in its longitudinal direction) charged spin-1/2 particle composing an electron is not curled up anyway when the electron it composes is moving very highly relativistically at v < c. Then the light-speed particle composing the relativistic electron retains its charge e, its spin-1/2 and its mass m while moving at light-speed c (longitudinally) along its helical trajectory with forward helical angle theta given by cos (theta) = v/c and with an electron velocity (along its helical axis) of v < c. The spin-1/2 charged photon maintains its spin-1/2 at highly relativistic velocities because it retains the same internal superluminal speed c sqrt (2) (and transverse momentum component value p= h/lambda and its helical radius value R= lambda/4pi) that it had while composing the composite photon from which it emerged in e-p pair production. Only now lambda is much shorter when the electron is very highly relativistic. So at highly relativist velocities the charged photon’s spin remains Sz = R x p = lambda/4pi x h/lambda = h/4pi = hbar/2 = spin-1/2 . To me this understanding represents real, if incremental, progress in understanding photons and electrons (and particles in general.)

Richard



On Nov 27, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Ray Fleming <rayrfleming at gmail.com> wrote:



Richard,

 

As I mentioned. The De Broglie quote in your recent paper expresses that the half-wavelength photons are Dirac Fermions. So a photon can be treated a a series of pairs of Dirac Fermions.

 

So I see these models of an electron as a photon are saying that the electron is made of a pair of Dirac Fermions while not showing why the electron is matter with negative charge rather than the opposite. Then there is the circularity issue an electron is made of a photon which is an electron-positron pair, which are both photons, which are both electron-positron pairs,...

 

Of course Dirac Fermions will behave like Dirac Fermions, but unless we break the circular logic we cannot achieve anything definitive. For my part I see The Dirac Fermion, the electron as what is fundamental. That said, I do not have a model for it. I do appreciate all the fine work on the problem.

 

One thing a lot of papers have in common is talking about the point like nature of an electron, while several including my own derivation of electron mass show that it relates to a size around the Compton wavelength. If we are to understand the true structure of an electron we need to perform scattering experiments with electrons and photons rather than protons, and at lower energies that allow us to see what is going on an the Compton scale. As I say in a couple of my books, proton scattering to find the size of an electron is simply an attempt to find the diameter of the center of a hole.

 

Ray



On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com> wrote:




Hello John, Martin, Vivian, Chip,André, Grahame, Albrecht, Rayand all, 

Three of our members, that I know of, have derived the de Broglie wavelength in different ways from our double-looping-photon-like-object electron models having spin-1/2: John (and Martin), Vivian and myself. I don’t know if Grahame, André, Chip or Albrecht have derived the de Broglie wavelength from their electron models (and if so, where), but I would like to know.

The three de Broglie wavelength derivations from the above electron models are at:

 

 

1. Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?”, J.G. Williamson and M.B.van der Mark, http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf, section 6, pp15-16.

2 “A Proposal on the Structure and Properties of an Electron”, VNE Robinson,https://www.academia.edu/10819172/A_Proposal_on_the_Structure_and_Properties_of_an_Electron , section 9, p.13

3. “Electrons are spin 1/2 charged photons generating the de Broglie wavelength”, Richard Gauthier,https://www.academia.edu/15686831/Electrons_are_spin_1_2_charged_photons_generating_the_de_Broglie_wavelength, section 11, pp 9-11. What I call “charged photons” in my article I am now calling “charged half-photons”, but this does not affect the derivation.

Since we are focusing on the validity of the de Broglie wavelength relation in this email thread, I would like to know if anyone, besides myself, sees any serious error in any of the three de Broglie wavelength derivations above. If there is an error in the derivation in my electron model, I would certainly like to know what it is, and I think that the others feel the same about theirs. Thanks!

 

Richard




On Nov 24, 2017, at 3:41 PM, André Michaud <srp2 at srpinc.org> wrote:


Hello Chip,

You touch an important point by highlighting that at α*cvelocity, would-be dilation or contraction tiny at these velocities, since it lies in the very low relativistic velocity range.

A note however regarding motion at such velocity on a "trajectory" about the nucleus of the hydrogen atom, Heisenberg concluded that the electron did not have to translate at any velocity to remain captive on the ground state orbital. From my analysis from the trispatial perspective, I tend to agree with him. Considering how both electrons have to remain by structure midway between the two protons in a hydrogen molecule for their covalent bounding to be logically explainable, this seems to be factual from my perspective.

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

On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 17:13:54 -0600, "Chip Akins"wrote:


Hi Albrecht and Andre

 

First, Albrecht, I agree that the de Broglie wave, as envisioned by de Broglie, leaves much unexplained, and may well be simply wrong, even though it sort of fits partial mathematical descriptions which seem to be shedding some light on the atomic orbitals in a narrow set of circumstances. This failure of the de Broglie hypothesis to work in all circumstances is a part of the reason I started looking into this subject more. The de Broglie wave also seems to fit double slit experiments, but does not really offer a foundation of physical cause. It just seems to work that way without really disclosing the physical reasons for the de Broglie wave itself. So I think we should look for a better foundation, a causal and concrete explanation, instead of building elaborate theoretical structure on speculation which still remains unexplained. So, yes, there are occasions where the speculation of de Broglie can be applied, and we get the right numbers, but that does not mean the theory is correct and we should stop looking for the actual answers.

 

Andre is onto something when he looks for a relationship between the fields of the proton and the fields of the electron to sort out these issues of the quantization of orbitals. However I will have to do some more math to see if the magnetic field relationships can actually be the answer. At this point, prior to doing the requisite math, I think there is also the possibility that certain dynamics of the electric fields created by the proton and electron will explain the quantization of orbitals. But this is premature speculation. And is sort of a moot point because the dynamics of electric fields are the cause of magnetic fields.

 

There exists a beat frequency which is ¼ the de Broglie wavelength, and this beat frequency is a natural condition of the electron in the significantly sub-light speed orbital (example: a mean circular path at α*cvelocity), so it requires no speculation about dilation or contraction (which are tiny at these velocities).

 

So I think you are both quite correct to look into these issues. We have a lot to gain by reexamining our theoretical basis.

 

Chip

 



From:General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]On Behalf OfAlbrecht Giese
Sent:Friday, November 24, 2017 4:25 PM
To:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Subject:Re: [General] Compton and de Broglie wavelengththe "error"



 

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 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>











-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171129/65dd34ca/attachment.html>