[General] closed paths

Andrew Meulenberg mules333 at gmail.com
Fri Jan 12 12:29:33 PST 2018


Dear André,

Thanks for your comments; even tho they reflect our differing models.

A question, which answer was/is important to me, comes from your response
to item 1. If "E=(lambda h)/c," then this refers only to light speed items
(light) in a medium with refractive index of 1. However, the de Broglie
wavelength (lambda = h)/mv) only applies to bodies with mass. The de
Broglie frequency is independent of medium and applies to massive items.
So, I doubt that de Broglie would have equated the frequency and wavelength
relations.

How do you interpret physic's emphasis on the wavelength and the ignoring
of the frequency and what is actually waving? What is your
guess/interpretation as to what is waving? Despite some good descriptions
and meaning of the deBroglie wavelength, I've not seen anyone in this group
(or anywhere) give what I consider to be a valid answer to the frequency
question, which I consider to be fundamental to the nature of the electron.

Andrew M.

_ _ _

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:15 PM, André Michaud <srp2 at srpinc.org> wrote:

> Dear Andrew,
>
> Thank you so much for your appreciation. I think no lead should be
> neglected in trying to figure out what is really happening at the
> fundamental level. I simply share those that I know of, when occasion
> arises.
>
> Relative to what you perceive as missing in relation to path independence,
> remember where de Broglie was at when he wrote this. This was 2 years
> before Schrödinger came up with the wave function. He was ears deep in the
> same sort of research that we are in now, about the same issues, but
> without the knowledge accumulated since. This paper plus one other, I
> think, is what inspired Schrödinger to use the wave equation.
>
> To the 3 points you raised, here is what I think:
>
> 1. I think that he saw frequency and wavelength as amounting to two
> equivalent references to the related amount of energy, and that he
> considered that mentioning one always implied the other. Lets remember that
> E= hf, but that also E=(lambda h)/c.
>
> 2. On page 509, when he writes : "the wave of frequency nu and of velocity
> c/beta must be in resonance over the whole length of the trajectory. This
> leads to condition", he was talking about the Bohr orbit in the Bohr atom
> as a starting point, thus his reference to a "closed path" no doubt. This
> is how I interpret this.
>
> 3. As for his use of the gamma factor, I have not specifically analyzed
> this particular issue, but I know now that he was deeply aware of Special
> relativity (thanks to Albrecht) and certainly was aware that the energy
> level calculable for the Bohr orbit was sufficient to warrant a
> relativistic velocity of the electron on this orbit, if the electron
> actually ran this orbit (Heisenberg came to the conclusion in the same
> decade that it was possible that the electron may not have been running
> this orbit, but could be stabilized at this distance without translating
> about the proton). Indeed, I also think that this is possible. What seems
> to matter is that in both cases, the energy level is the same. But yes, I
> also think that the implications of his use of the gamma factor  warrants
> investigation.
>
> For my mention of a "precision drift" of the velocity, I simply refer to
> the fact that if the electron were to orbit at Chip' inner radius limit
> distance, the more energetic electron's velocity would be higher, while as
> the radius expands towards his outer radius limit, the less and less
> energetic electron's velocity would diminish in sync.
>
> The word precision, simply highlight that the velocity on the exact Bohr
> orbit is precise, while the possible spread of all orbits between r_outer
> and r_inner of Chip and Heisenberg equation amount to a precision drift of
> this velocity.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Best Regards
>
> André
> ---
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
>
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 14:39:08 -0500, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:
>
> Dear Andre,
>
> In your replies to Chip, you show what I consider to be a sign of the true
> scholar "the desire and ability to acquire, remember, and utilize
> information from many diverse sources." Thank you for your link to de
> Broglie's 1923 paper. My French is not good enough to be sure that I was
> not interpreting his points as (rather than because of) his supporting of
> some of my views. In particular:
>
>    1. His emphasis on frequency (or period) rather than wavelength.
>    2. His mention of closed path,
>    3. I'm not quite sure what to do with his association of the
>    relativistic gamma factor with the wave frequency. It looks interesting;
>    but, I need to figure out the implications. Do you have an answer? It does
>    get included in his resonant energy relationship (which has a mv^2 rather
>    than 1/2(mv^2) basis).
>
> His single mention of closed path, compared to his wave-based emphasis on
> frequency, misses statement of the importance of path independence of the
> closed or contour integral about non-singular regions. While his wave
> functions provide cyclic examples of these closed paths, the importance to
> conservation laws is seldom (if ever?) mentioned in physics.
>
>
>
> I also have a question on a comment you made to Chip. In
>
> "Heisenberg equation turns out to be de Broglie's equation for the Bohr
> orbit adapted to account for a* precision *drift of the chosen velocity
> on either side of the selected velocity value on the ground orbital of the
> hydrogen atom."
> you mention "precision drift." Could you explain this a bit? I had
> originally thought that you meant *precession drift*, which I consider to
> be very important (the basis of the de Broglie frequency). However, I don't
> think you had that in mind.
>
> Andrew M.
> André Michaud <srp2 at srpinc.org>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Chip,
>
> As I signaled the typo in your equation on page 36, I forgot to mention
> something else that struck me (this is a part that I read carefully)
>
> I notice that you mention that you noticed what you named a "beat
> frequency" with regard to the hydrogen ground state.
>
> Just to mention that this the exact term that de Broglie used in French
> (un battement) to describe the resonance state that he associated with the
> hydrogen ground state. Here is a link to the paper that inspired
> Schrödinger to introduce the wave function on account of this observation
> by de Broglie:
>
> http://www.academie-sciences.fr/pdf/dossiers/Broglie/Broglie
> _pdf/CR1923_p507.pdf
>
> The interesting part is in page 509.
>
> I also noted that your outer and inner radii for the ground state can be
> directly related to Heisenberg's equation
>
> Heisenberg equation turns out to be de Broglie's equation for the Bohr
> orbit adapted to account for a precision drift of the chosen velocity on
> either side of the selected velocity value on the ground orbital of the
> hydrogen atom.
>
> This range lies between your outer and inner radii.
>
> But you probably already were aware of this latter detail
>
> Best Regards
> ---
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180112/2a1bbf1f/attachment.html>


More information about the General mailing list