[General] closed paths

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear André,

comments below

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 4:43 PM, André Michaud <srp2 at srpinc.org> wrote:

> Dear Andrew,
>
> Indeed, this is a fundamental question.
>
> I will try to explain how I see this. Note that my angle of "observation",
> so to speak, is strictly electromagnetic, meaning that to me energy, either
> free moving or stabilized as the invariant rest mass of elementary
> particles such as the electron, can only be "electromagnetic" in nature.
> *[OK]*
>
>   We know that the electromagnetic oscillation is transverse with respect
> to the direction of motion. We know then that the "frequency" of a
> localized photon can only be the actual number of times the transverse
> electromagnetic mutual induction cycle of its electric and magnetic aspects
> occur in 1 second. *[OK]*
>
> BUT, the wavelength that we associate with it happens to be the
> "longitudinal distance" that the photon will travel during one of its
> cycles at velocity c. *[OK]*
>
The deBroglie wavelength is of the same nature. It is the longitudinal
> distance that the carrying-photon of the electron can travel during one of
> its cycle, which happens to be the length of the Bohr orbit because it is
> now slowed down by having to "carry", so to speak, the inert mass of the
> electron.
>
You appear to have taken the Bohr orbit to be fundamental rather than
consequential. While that may not be wrong, I don't find it any more
satisfying than the Planck constant being the universal.


> Note: My blooper in my previous answer. the correct equations are of
> course: E= hf and E=(h c)/lambda.
>
> A free moving photon of 4.359743805E-18 J, has frequency of 6.579683917E15
> Hz and a wavelength of 4.556335256E-8 m when calculated with lambda=hc/E.
>
> A photon of 4.359743805E-18 j carrying an electron still has frequency of
> 6.579683917E15 Hz, but has an effective longitudinal wavelength of
> 3.32491846E-10 m only, that is the length of the Bohr orbit, whether you
> calculate it with Lambda=h/mv or with lambda = hv/E, because when you
> equate (h/mv)=(hv/E) and simplify, you end up with E=mv^2, which restitutes
> 4.359743805E-18j, that is the amount of electromagnetic energy that carries
> the electron.
>
> My interpretation of the wavelength is that I don't think that anything is
> actually "longitudinally waving" with regard to the displacement of
> electromagnetic energy, whether free photons or electron carrier-photon.
> From my perspective, the "classical wavelength" simply is synonymous with
> "distance travelled in space on a longitudinal trajectory during one
> electromagnetic cycle of the photon energy".
>
I agree with both the distance traveled during one cycle and the no
"longitudinal
waving". However, your use of "carrying energy" (non-mass portion of total
energy?) as a photon with a wavelength does not seem to match for particles
with mass. (Consider a 1 eV photon with ~ 1 micron wavelength compared to a
KE = 1 eV electron with a very long de Broglie wavelength.) So, we disagree
on what cycle must be used. There must be another cycle that we need to
consider. (This goes to the 'forbidden' variable of QM.)


> The actual "waving" can only be cyclically transverse in my view and I
> found that the maximum amplitude of this waving for any photon corresponds
> to (lambda alpha)/(2 pi), so the longitudinal wavelength is nevertheless
> related to the EM transverse frequency when related to alpha/(2 pi).
>
I can consider the waving to be a rotation (but not that of a
circularly-polarized photon), a change in orientation rather than any
transverse or longitudinal motion. I consider the radius of a photon
to be (lambda)/(2
pi), so the alpha in your (lambda alpha)/(2 pi) might still relate to the
lowest stable condensation of light into matter.


> I analyse this from another perspective in section "Defining a Distance
> Based Quantum of Action" in pages 8 and 9 of this paper:
>
> https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-last-challenge-o
> f-modern-physics-2090-0902-1000217.pdf
>
>  I hope I am not confusing things still more with my unorthodox viewpoints.
>
I do have some questions about your equations 11 & 12 (I have had the same
questions in conventional descriptions, sometimes including that of the
Poynting vector). You have *E *& *B* values as steady state. However, these
EM fields both either oscillate in magnitude (for linearly-polarized light)
or rotate in direction (for circularly-polarized light). How do you
rationalize the fixed values of eq. 11 for light in your system? Eq 12 has
a fixed value of both for an electron. How does that agree with the zero
magnetic field of the electron? I must assume that you are considering the
fields of the composite photon rather than those of the electron. Do you
describe somewhere how the composite fields of the photon sum to those of
the electron?

Andrew M.
_ _ _ _


> Best Regards
>
> André
> ---
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
>
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 15:29:33 -0500, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:
>
> 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/20180113/446f4535/attachment.html>