<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:CMR10;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:CMR7;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:CMTI10;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.hoenzb
{mso-style-name:hoenzb;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1027" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Hi Adam<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Sure. Close articles attached.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Below is some of my, perhaps naive, conjecture.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>Wave function collapse</b><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>There are many different views of wave function collapse. And many different conditions where QM invokes the use of this term. Just as in QM there are many views of several different types of terminology. Like “superposition of states.” The nomenclature of QM is rather ambiguous and unspecific. The more unspecific a theory is in its use of terms and nomenclature, the more valid the theory may seem, because it can be made to fit many more explanations for the observable. Some view this “flexibility” of QM as a strength. But scientifically we need to be very specific with nomenclature and completely separate definitions for different things. In that sense QM is not a clean theory. It is very messy and ill defined. And again we quote John Stuart Bell, <i>”</i><i><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:CMR10'>the orthodox theory [QM] is “unprofessionally vague and ambiguous”</span></i><i><span style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:CMR7'> </span></i><i><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:CMR10'>in so far as its fundamental dynamics is expressed in terms of words which, however legitimate and necessary in application, have no place in a </span></i><i><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:CMTI10'>formulation </span></i><i><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:CMR10'>with any pretension to physical precision</span> … “.</i> And “<i><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:CMR10'>I think there are </span></i><i><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:CMTI10'>professional </span></i><i><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:CMR10'>problems. That is to say, I’m a professional theoretical physicist and I would like to make a clean theory. And when I look at quantum mechanics I see that it’s a dirty theory. The formulations of quantum mechanics that you find in the books involve dividing the world into an observer and an observed, and you are not told where that division comes... So you have a theory which is fundamentally ambiguous</span>”.<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter" />
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0" />
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0" />
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1" />
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2" />
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth" />
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight" />
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1" />
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2" />
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth" />
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0" />
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight" />
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0" />
</v:formulas>
<v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect" />
<o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t" />
</v:shapetype><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_6" o:spid="_x0000_s1026" type="#_x0000_t75" style='position:absolute;margin-left:-2.3pt;margin-top:119.55pt;width:189pt;height:128.3pt;z-index:-251658752;visibility:visible;mso-width-percent:0;mso-height-percent:0;mso-wrap-distance-left:10.92pt;mso-wrap-distance-top:1.92pt;mso-wrap-distance-right:10.91pt;mso-wrap-distance-bottom:.49pt;mso-position-horizontal:absolute;mso-position-horizontal-relative:text;mso-position-vertical:absolute;mso-position-vertical-relative:text;mso-width-percent:0;mso-height-percent:0;mso-width-relative:page;mso-height-relative:page'>
<v:imagedata src="cid:image003.jpg@01D10E53.CF79DE80" o:title="" />
<o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="f" />
<w:wrap type="tight"/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><![if !vml]><img width=252 height=171 src="cid:image003.jpg@01D10E53.CF79DE80" align=left hspace=15 style='margin-top:3px;margin-bottom:1px' v:shapes="Picture_x0020_6"><![endif]>We suggest that the normal use of “superposition of states” is not a real phenomenon, but simply a way to avoid the extensive work of creating the real (but somewhat difficult) definition of what is going on in the particle. But as long as QM assumes point charges, it will remain burdened with the requirement to be ambiguous in these and many other regards. With point charges as a foundation of QM, it will always require renormalization and experience infinities and singularities in situations where they do not exist in nature. When two sets of fields interact in such a way that all of the energy in one field is transferred to the other, the interaction will have a specific location which is its center of action. This center of action location resolves to a point. But neither field is point-like. So photon-fermion, or even photon-atom, interactions do not really have any wave function collapse in the QM sense, they simply have wave function interaction and an assignable “center of action” location for that interaction. The simplified illustration here shows the overlapping fields of fermionic particles as they interact. The “location” of the particle is the black dot at the center of each field. The fields emanate from, and are part of, the particle’s energy structure.<span style='mso-bevel-captop-bevelstyle:2;mso-bevel-captop-dpiwidth:2.0pt;mso-bevel-captop-dpiheight:0pt;mso-bevel-capbot-bevelstyle:0;mso-bevel-capbot-dpiwidth:0pt;mso-bevel-capbot-dpiheight:0pt;mso-bevel-material:8;mso-bevel-dpiextrusion:0pt;mso-bevel-dpicontour:0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal>Point particles cannot and do not exist. They are a physical impossibility. They engender infinities where those infinities do not exist in nature. They are an imaginary concept, erroneously conjured, to try to explain various experiment, and to try to remain consistent with the current structure of QM. But the fictitious point particle, creates more problems than it solves in our theories, and now stands in the way of progress in physics research. There are many attributes of physics which can, in certain ways, lead to point-like mathematical solutions for various forces, charges, or fields, but that is a generally mathematical artifact, due to the structure and limitations of the math, or due to making too many assumptions and approximations, and not due to the physical structure of the particle.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>While understanding the probability of finding a particle in a specific state or location is valuable information, QM does not adequately explain why. QM is, more or less, a statistical analysis of the behavior of particles, but not a causal derivation of the particle’s properties or action. So it is not a complete or sufficiently rigorous theory. This does not imply that QM has no value, on the contrary QM provides us with a <i>tremendous insight</i> and much data and information, but it is a theory which is not yet fully developed, and which may prevent, <i>due to interpretation</i>, further development, unless its weaknesses, and the causes for those weaknesses are recognized.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Back to the point, if “wave function collapse” does not exist, then it cannot be the mechanism at work in supposed “entanglement” experiments where the wave function of one particle is envisioned to collapse at the instant of measurement of its “entangled” particle. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>So next let’s discuss the assumption that -- Non-local “Entanglement” of particles is a real phenomenon.<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class=MsoNormal>Entanglement has been suggested by so much literature, and by QM philosophy, to such an extent that many assume that particle pairs are indeed entangled and that there is a “spooky action at a distance” in particle physics. Ever since the EPR controversy, much of the physics community has considered the topic settled, and would argue that entanglement is a real phenomenon. Especially since Bell’s work, most of the physics community has regarded the QM interpretation of these events to be the correct view.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>John Stuart Bell wrote, <i>“For me <b>this is the real problem with quantum theory</b>: the apparently essential conflict between any sharp formalism and fundamental relativity. That is to say, we have an apparent incompatibility, at the deepest level, between the two fundamental pillars of contemporary theory…”</i><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Understanding, in detail, the relationship between the mathematics and the physical, is a very important part of physics. This is not always an easy task, because the physics dictates the proper mathematics, not the other way around. It is very easy to miss something when reducing the physical to concise mathematics. But once we have done this task correctly, we then have a new and powerful way of communicating, and analyzing the physics. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>J.S. Bell underwent a valiant attempt to reduce the physics to mathematical proofs. His was a daunting task, because so many issues had to be considered.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Before his work, these issues were more vague and ambiguous to us, but now they are so much better defined, due to his efforts. However, it appears he missed at least one important consideration. If he had considered the scenario we have outlined, where particles are not point-like, and particles are made of the same EM fields as light, but the fields are confined in circular or spherical trajectories, he may have not missed this important detail. It has been shown, by <b>Robert Close[], and by Joy Christian[], </b>that considering the “spherical” nature of particles, the angular momentum or “spin”, requires us to use a class of “local” variables involving rotations, occupying space, which Bell did not consider in his proofs. It seems that Bell’s mathematics assume that the “local” variables are standard commuting variables or functions based on the principle of “point particles”, however it is well known that spatial rotations (and therefore spins for non-point like entities) do not commute. It has also been shown that, if we consider these rotations as the important local deterministic variables, and dismiss the notion of point particles, Bell’s inequality and CSHS inequality are achieved in a local variable theory. This is a scenario where “entanglement” is shown to be an illusion and does not really exist. This scenario duplicates the predictions of QM in a causal “local variable” manner, removing the need for any “spooky action at a distance” to explain the results of experiment. So in this case of “entanglement”, <b><i>a misinterpretation of experiment has caused us to waste much time and pursue years of research looking for things which do not exist.</i></b> Part of the cause for the misinterpretation of experiment is due to flaws in Quantum theory itself. Error in QM theory dictated the assumption of entanglement.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>So let us review some of the issues to more clearly illustrate this point. Probably the easiest approach is to now quote Robert A. Close in <u>“A Geometrical Model of Fermion Spin Correlations” </u>from the <i><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:CMTI10'>Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics November 2012. </span></i><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:CMTI10'>“</span><i>Bell’s derivation assumes that the density of states, or sampling rate, is independent of the orientation of the measuring device. However, points on a rotating sphere are sampled at different rates at different positions, making Bell’s Theorem inapplicable…” to “…spin one-half fermions as having a spherical distribution of observables with azimuthal symmetry, and assuming that a Stern-Gerlach device uniformly samples points on a spherical surface. Application of Bayes’ Theorem yields the joint density of states for two device orientations. Numerical calculations based on this model yield the fermion spin correlations observed in Stern-Gerlach experiments.”…<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><i>Bell’s assumption appears to be motivated by the common interpretation of matter as “particles”. A point-like particle might be described by a fixed set of parameters such as Bell used. Measurements of vector quantities would still depend on the relative orientation between the vector and the measuring device, but any measuring device would sample only the single point where the particle is located at a given time. Hence the unique density of states of the particle is also the density of states sampled by any measuring device. However, matter may also be interpreted as consisting of waves, which are extended through space. There is a plethora of evidence for the wave nature of matter:”…<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><i>“With a wave theory of matter, massive particles must be interpreted as soliton waves which extend through space. Any property of the wave, such as spin or polarization, may have different values at different points in space. In particular, an observable may have an angular distribution, so that measurements made at one orientation sample points of the wave differently than measurements made at a different orientation. For example, in Stern-Gerlach experiments with a primary magnetic field B<sub>z</sub> increasing in the z-direction, a spherical wave surface may be regarded as being preferentially sampled at the highest point of the sphere along the z-axis.”… And …“the key assumption in Bell’s derivation is </i><i><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>not locality</span> but the integral form of the correlation function.”<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><i><o:p> </o:p></i></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><i><o:p> </o:p></i></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Chip<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Adam K<br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, October 24, 2015 11:17 AM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br><b>Cc:</b> Joakim Pettersson <joakimbits@gmail.com>; ARNOLD BENN <arniebenn@mac.com>; Anthony Booth <abooth@ieee.org>; Ariane Mandray <ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] [SPAM?] Re: research papers<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Chip,<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Can you resend the attached files of Close's work? They have been buried and lost in this extensive email thread. Can't find em.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br>Adam<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Adam K <<a href="mailto:afokay@gmail.com" target="_blank">afokay@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal>Chip,<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks for that.The orthodoxy has a collapsed lung now, but Bell was really great for taking on the orthodoxy when it was going so strongly. I love the honesty of his investigations. Were you citing the pre-Einstein idea as something you're sympathetic with? I would agree with Bell that it is 'cheap'. I don't have his book here, but if I'm not mistaken in the same paper you cited he talks about other resolutions. One which I find interesting is his idea that the problem could be resolved by denying that the physicist actually had any choice in the setting of the detector angle. I was thinking about this today. There is something of a strange dissonance between the human assumption of free will, which is kind of like a folk psychological universal (we <i>must</i> act as though we have it), and the very largely vindicated goal of physics, which is (roughly speaking) to reduce the time evolution of events to LAWS. If the second is true the first cannot be, and the physicist never did have a choice in setting the apparatus to this or that angle. Well, I tend to go in for the non-local explanation (this is very vague in my mind at the moment so I might not be able to make it clearer) which is explicit in Bohm's analysis and introduction of the quantum potential: namely, that the experimental apparatus is ALREADY PRESENT in the source of the particles which it will ultimately detect. I have a sense that the non-locality and the non-free-will roads are potentially the same. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Al: <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>"Bohr recognized the problems, but talked as if his "word salad" resolved them... "</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hahahaha!!!<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#888888'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#888888'>Adam<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 12:21 AM, <<a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Hi Martin et al.:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Some points to ponder:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>The zero-length notion from Minkowski analysis pertains to simultaniously RECEIVED signals; they cannot be resolved by the seer in terms of their origin's location or time-instant, thus, for him (i.e., anyone at his light cone vertex) they have zero diffentiation. This cannot be turned on its head to say that the two source events communicate instantaniously.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Tetrode, and others of his era, developed a field-free form of mechanics that evades the famouls self field divergecies (as well as other, from this point of view, spurious field-theory effects). In doing so, however, therir arguments were huristic and sleightly faulty so that they concluded that there is both backwards (on the light cone) and forwards (i.e. from the future) interaction. If true, this ould mean that the present is 1/2 determined by the future! Not only is this a serious philosopical issue for "causality" (although diminished by 50%) but even for rock-headed, nonphilosophical mathematical physicists a serious problem in so far as it renders the coupled equations of motion deduced by this school unsolvable in that the whole solution must be known aforehand as initial conditions to find a solution! Go figure. BTW, this problem was fixed in part by Schwartzshild, but ignored ever since. Also, I have taken my own shots at this target; see No. 6 on: </span><a href="http://www.non-loco-physics.0catch.com" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>www.non-loco-physics.0catch.com</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Anyone wishing to support SR completely should feel compelled to enlighten the critics as to the solution to the Eherenfest paradox. (Recall: the issue is: what happens to the edge of a rapidly rotatiing disk---so much so that its outer circumfeance should suffere Lorentz-contraction.) Estimates indicate that at least stresses should be engendered that would be visible as the bending of filer markks made across the diameter of the disk. T. Phipps mounted a small disk on a dimond tip, drove it with compressed air to >20K revs/sec. (my best recall) for 6 months. The filer mark did not bend. Even under a microscope.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Modern field theories, including the so-called "Standard Model," inherited these issues. There is LOTS of room for rumination. Even among the QM founding fathers, only for Heisenberg and Bohr can it be thought that today they would be truly orthodox. (Of course, even Bohr recognized the problems, but talked as if his "word salad" resolved them. Perhaps it may be noticed that, mental illness was no stranger in his family).<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>For what it's worth, Al <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid #C3D9E5 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt;word-wrap:break-word' name=quote><div style='margin-bottom:7.5pt'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Gesendet:</span></b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> Freitag, 23. Oktober 2015 um 21:40 Uhr<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><br><b>Von:</b> "Mark, Martin van der" <</span><a href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>><br><b>An:</b> "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <</span><a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>><br><b>Cc:</b> "Joakim Pettersson" <</span><a href="mailto:joakimbits@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>joakimbits@gmail.com</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>>, "ARNOLD BENN" <</span><a href="mailto:arniebenn@mac.com" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>arniebenn@mac.com</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>>, "Anthony Booth" <</span><a href="mailto:abooth@ieee.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>abooth@ieee.org</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>>, "Ariane Mandray" <</span><a href="mailto:ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>><br><b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] [SPAM?] Re: research papers<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div><div><div><div name=quoted-content><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Dear Al,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>yes I know and agree. That is, I'm not compleyely sure yet about Bell's inequality, i need to study it more but have not found the time yet. In my previous answers i have only addressed the things that I found to be relevant for the discussion, such as getting the order of events correct and giving some lead to understand why quantum mexhanics and special relativity are in fact intimately related, and that this is de Broglie's contribution.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>The whole EPR discussion between Bohr and Einstein took place much, much later indeed. Here I tried to point out that there is a very strong idea that is apparently to hard to digest by many and perhaps therefore not too well known. It is the concept of zero interval for light speed waves by Tetrode, Feynman and Wheeler that implies that emission and absorption are part of the same event. Which in turn explains why quantum mystiscism only looks mystical because we are tempted to take the causality assumptions that may not be applied as we do.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Unfortunately, sorry Adam, many in this group still do not have a clue what the EPR experiments are really telling us, but indeed it takes some frustration, energy and preserverance to get it.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Very best,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Martin<br><br>Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><br>Op 23 okt. 2015 om 18:42 heeft "</span><a href="http://af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>af.kracklauer@web.de</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>" <</span><a href="http://af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>af.kracklauer@web.de</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>> het volgende geschreven:<br> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Hi Martin:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>For whatever reason your review of history neglected the discussion of the physical nature of a wave function. AE criticised its interpretation in 1927 at the Solvey Conf. it terms of a beam passing through a pin hole centered on a semispherical detector. The detector, he noted, does not respond at once over the whole of its surface, but only at flash points. That is, the wave function for beam particles "collapses" to points instantiously from its immediately preceeding finite existence just above the detector surface. That is, superluminally. Singlet states and entanglement, therefore, enter the story first about 35-40 years latter, and don't seem relevant for these early criticisms. Also, von Neumann dogmatized the collapse notion in 1923 with the idea of the "Projection Hypothesis." Then proceeded to make a famous error, since noticed by many. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>BTW, Bell did not employ conditionnal probabilities correctly in his inequality derivation; so that it is correct only for uncorrelated events actually. But he then used it for correlated events. Etc. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>If you chose to respond, please don't do so sociologiclly, i.e., "everybody knows" or the like. In stead, go straight for a logical or mathematical error in the story as I unfolded it. Thanks.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>ciao, Al <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid #C3D9E5 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt'><div style='margin-bottom:7.5pt'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Gesendet:</span></b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> Donnerstag, 22. Oktober 2015 um 17:25 Uhr<br><b>Von:</b> "Mark, Martin van der" <</span><a href="http://martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>><br><b>An:</b> "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <</span><a href="http://general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>><br><b>Cc:</b> "Joakim Pettersson" <</span><a href="http://joakimbits@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>joakimbits@gmail.com</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>>, "ARNOLD BENN" <</span><a href="http://arniebenn@mac.com" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>arniebenn@mac.com</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>>, "Anthony Booth" <</span><a href="http://abooth@ieee.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>abooth@ieee.org</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>>, "Ariane Mandray" <</span><a href="http://ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>><br><b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] [SPAM?] Re: research papers<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Dear Adam, Richard and John W,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Thank you very much for the conversation and the links.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Adam, </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>indeed I was thinking of EPR and wave function collapse like spooky action at a distance when I said that special relativity and quantum mechanics do not seem to match. This is where Einstein was right and wrong at the same time: Quantum mechanics is incomplete (right) but spooky action can and does actually happen! Special relativity must and does still apply, but in an unexpected way.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>What Einstein helped to bring to the world was the idea that light is both a wave and a particle (waves can behave as a particle: the photon). De Broglie did the opposite: particles can be waves, and he did it all using Einstein’s theory of relativity, E=hf and E=mc^2. De Broglie realized that both time and frequency are important and that there must be harmony between them. If I am correct, Schroedinger then made a wave theory out of this, first a relativistic one which was second order in the time derivative, and didn’t know how to deal with it. Then he invented the famous Schroedinger equation that deals with it at non-relativistic speeds, but that also screws up the phase and harmony of the wave function. Low speed energy and momentum are fine, but all connection with the roots of it (special relativity) are lost.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>What then about the non-local or non-causal aspects of the EPR experiment? In essence, when we create a singlet state of two particles, the particles share their phase(s). For example two phases (making a two-component spinor) with a definite mutual relationship with each of the particles, if we have two photons of arbitrary (but entangled) polarization. Wherever the photons may, be upon projection of the singlet state, as happens during a measurement of one of the particles, it will be the same for both, and be travelling at the PHASE velocity. For massive particles this is essential. This is all standard textbook stuff really, but from here we come on less accepted ground, I am warning. For the photons, we only have to bring in the fact that there is a zero interval for light-speed objects to understand that emission and absorption are part of the same event (Tetrode, Feynman). Causality is not in the direction of time, but in the transport of energy, it seems…</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Best, Martin</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> General [</span><a href="http://general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Adam K<br><b>Sent:</b> donderdag 22 oktober 2015 7:21<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <</span><a href="http://general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>><br><b>Cc:</b> Joakim Pettersson <</span><a href="http://joakimbits@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>joakimbits@gmail.com</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>>; ARNOLD BENN <</span><a href="http://arniebenn@mac.com" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>arniebenn@mac.com</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>>; Anthony Booth <</span><a href="http://abooth@ieee.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>abooth@ieee.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>>; Ariane Mandray <</span><a href="http://ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] [SPAM?] Re: research papers</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>John,<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>YES! Schrodinger said that the mathematical difficulties were always trivial in the end. The real difficulties are conceptual. Anyone who tries to discover knows this to be true. When you solve a math problem, the math disappears, the symbols all speak for themselves and are perfectly transparent. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Since we both love Einstein and Leonardo, here are my two favorite quotes from both men: <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>"The Heisenberg-Bohr tranquilizing philosophy -- or religion? -- is so delicately contrived that, for the time being, it provides a gentle pillow for the true believer from which he cannot very easily be aroused. So let him lie there." (Letter to Schrodinger) <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>and<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>"He who can go to the fountain does not go to the water jar." (Speaking of taking knowledge from nature, rather than people. This is just my favorite at the time, almost everything he says is phenomenal.)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>I am pretty strongly convinced that within the next several years we will see The Tranquilizing Philosophy revealed for the medieval, ridiculous sham it is. When the curtain is drawn and the naked whelp revealed it will become, for all posterity, far more interesting for what it says about the fallibility and sociology of science than for any of its constitutive ideas (insofar as it has any). <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Adam<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:30 PM, John Williamson <<a href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:black'>Dear Adam,<br><br>Thank you for your mail and your quotes and references about Einstein and de Broglie.<br><br>I could not agree more. The process of making REAL progress in physics is, pretty much, entirely intuition. Intuition where one keeps, at once, the whole of physics-as-we-know-it in mind. It is, pretty much, absolutely nothing to do with mere mathematics.<br><br>Making REAL progress is very very hard indeed. THis is why, pretty much, it only happens about once a century - if that.<br><br>It must be carefully felt, tested against a host of things one thinks one knows. Written down. Have pictures drawn of it. Talk about it with friends over a beer. Throw away many, many (MANY!) tentative trials and ideas. Explore many possibilities. Eventually, try to slot it carefully into the (eventually) ONE thing that is the whole of natural philosophy and compare it with its match both to that and to ALL of experiment. Tricky. Fun! It is even fun to try, and fail.<br><br>I, too, think that Einstein was on the right path (or at least lost in the woods where I think the right path lay) for the majority of his later career where most people now think he was wasting his time. For me it is tragic and almost physically painful to see him lose the important thread, of understanding how (4) current and field intertwined, and then see that huge intellect struggle with the consequences of missing the start of that path. Waite talks about this (see ref in my papers). Einstein was so very very good that no one else, as far as I know, was even in the same wood at the time (even de Broglie and Dirac, who, in this analogy, were up on nearby hilltops at the time). Most, now, dismiss the area as a useless wasteland (including in this both Dirac and de Broglies hilltops). I just wish I could have met Einstein there (and had a nice wee chat over a cup of tea made on a campfire) - but he died at just about the point I was conceived. I love the man - and have tried to read everything he has written (in whatever language he wrote it). The only others who give me quite so much pure intellectual pleasure (if anyone is up for that) are, indeed, Leonardo and de Broglie (even just his exquisite French is pure joy) . Feynmann and Dirac come close - but not very close. One possible chap at the same sort of level, for me,is a man called (Gordon) Pask – but I would not recommend anyone trying his stuff unless they feel they have a strong constitution. If you do talk to Nick Green.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:black'>For what it is worth, for me, de Broglies pinnacle is his "harmony of phases" and Dirac's his ideas about charge as gauge (series of 3 papers in the fifties - thread now closed - except for me) .</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:black'>Martin and have a camp in the wood now if anyone would like to visit!<br><br>Regards, John.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></span></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Richard Gauthier [richgauthier@gmail.com]<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, October 22, 2015 4:49 AM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Cc:</b> Joakim Pettersson; ARNOLD BENN; Anthony Booth; Ariane Mandray<br><b>Subject:</b> [SPAM?] Re: [General] research papers</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>Hello Adam and others,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> The book “Quantum theory at the crossroads” is also available online at </span><a href="http://arxiv.org" target="_blank">arxiv.org</a><span style='color:black'> at </span><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609184" target="_blank">http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609184</a><span style='color:black'> .</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> Richard</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>On Oct 21, 2015, at 6:20 PM, Adam K <</span><a href="mailto:afokay@gmail.com">afokay@gmail.com</a><span style='color:black'>> wrote:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>Martin, </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>So the story of Einstein vs Bohr at Solvay is exceedingly interesting, as is de Broglie's attempt there to interpret quantum physics in a non-crazy way. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>This book </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Theory-Crossroads-Reconsidering-Conference/dp/1107698316" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Theory-Crossroads-Reconsidering-Conference/dp/1107698316</a><span style='color:black'> is pretty interesting on the subject. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>It is specifically cast as a revisitation of de Broglie's pilot wave hypothesis, and why it gained no traction at the time. Pauli is made into something of a villain. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>This review </span><a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.5956.pdf" target="_blank">http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.5956.pdf</a><span style='color:black'> is not particularly sympathetic to the authors' thesis, but is an interesting quick read and contains some great quotes by de Broglie. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>I am not sure what you mean about people thinking QM cannot be reconciled with special relativity. Are you talking about entanglement and spooky action at a distance? (EPR).</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>Adam </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Mark, Martin van der <</span><a href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a><span style='color:black'>> wrote:</span><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Dear Adam, </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>thank you for that, I do agree. Contrary to popular believes, I think Einstein was more right about almost anything than he perhaps believed himself. But this is just my personal opinion.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>But that does not mean I disagree very much with Richard. In fact Einstein and the rest of physicists were not yet ready for the next thing after relativity: quantum mechanics. Planck was there, but he had his own opinion. Einstein did actually get the photon concept, of course. Rutherford added an important piece of the puzzle.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>And then came Bohr with his model of the atom. And then the other famous quantum people.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>There is one that got famous, but not quite as famous as he should have been. At one Solvay conference Bohr’s PR and style of arguing apparently won at the cost of the point of view of Louis de Broglie’s.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>As a consequence, we still suffer and the masses believe that quantum mechanics cannot be reconciled with special relativity. The opposite is true: Louis de Broglie DERIVED quantum mechanics from special relativity. Even better, EPR experiments are in accordance with special relativity, see Feynman, Wheeler, Tetrode and Carver Mead.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>All that is left from de Broglie is his wavelength, and his Harmony of Phases, which he derived from special relativity, is hardly known by the physics community.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Cheers, Martin</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'> Adam K [</span><a href="mailto:afokay@gmail.com"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>mailto:afokay@gmail.com</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>]<br><b>Sent:</b> donderdag 22 oktober 2015 0:06<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <</span><a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>><br><b>Cc:</b> Mark, Martin van der <</span><a href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>>; Joakim Pettersson <</span><a href="mailto:joakimbits@gmail.com"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>joakimbits@gmail.com</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>>; ARNOLD BENN <</span><a href="mailto:arniebenn@mac.com"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>arniebenn@mac.com</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>>; Anthony Booth <</span><a href="mailto:abooth@ieee.org"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>abooth@ieee.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>>; Ariane Mandray <</span><a href="mailto:ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>></span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><br><b><span style='color:black'>Subject:</span></b><span style='color:black'> Re: [General] research papers</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.5pt;color:black'>"If he had been more clever and intuitive,"</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.5pt;color:black'>My own beliefs impel me point out that this is a hugely presumptuous thing to say about Einstein, even as a joke. Einstein was arguably the paradigm of intuition. All of the below quotes on intuition are by him: </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>“Indeed, it is not intellect, but intuition which advances humanity. Intuition tells man his purpose in this life.”</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>“The mind can proceed only so far upon what it knows and can prove. There comes a point where the mind takes a leap—call it intuition or what you will—and comes out upon a higher plane of knowledge, but can never prove how it got there. All great discoveries have involved such a leap.”</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='color:black'>“</span></b><span style='color:black'>I believe in intuition and inspiration. At times I feel certain I am right while not knowing the reason. When the eclipse of 1919 confirmed my intuition, I was not in the least surprised. In fact I would have been astonished had it turned out otherwise. “</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>“The supreme task of the physicist is the discovery of the most general elementary laws from which the world-picture can be deduced logically. But there is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance, and this <i>Einfühlung </i>(feeling-one’s-way-in) is developed by experience.”</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.5pt;color:black'>L. de Broglie referred to Einstein's theory of relativity as "</span><span style='color:black'>un effort intellectuel peut-être sans exemple.</span><span style='font-size:9.5pt;color:black'>" His own investigations were a matter of passion for him, "</span><span style='color:black'>une difficulté qui m'a longtemps intrigué"</span><span style='font-size:9.5pt;color:black'> and he would not have thought Einstein should have been more clever or intuitive. Finally, it was Einstein's intuition that led him to recognize immediately that de Broglie was onto something serious with his thesis, when it was passed to him from de Broglie's examiners, who had no clue what to make of it. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.5pt;color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.5pt;color:black'>Adam</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Richard Gauthier <</span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><span style='color:black'>> wrote:</span><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>Hi Martin,</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> Right you are. As I remember Einstein's 1905 article “Is the inertia of matter a measure of its energy content?" (it’s been a while), Einstein imagined two emitted rays of light of equal frequency moving in opposite directions coming from a stationary mass. When the rest frame of the mass and the two oppositely moving rays of light is shifted to a moving frame and the mass is moving in the same direction as one of the light rays, the light ray moving in the direction of the mass’ velocity gains more energy from the relativistic Doppler shift than the light ray moving in the other direction loses, leaving a net gain in the energy of the two light rays from the moving mass, as measured in this moving frame. Einstein equated this net gain in energy of the two oppositely moving light rays with the energy lost by the mass when it emitted the two light rays, and from this he derived E= mc^2 (modern terms). If he had been more clever and intuitive, he would have also in 1905 derived the de Broglie wavelength for a moving electron, which comes from setting his two energy formulas — E = hf for a photon’s energy and E = gamma mc^2 for an electron's total energy — equal to each other: hf = gamma mc^2 , which together imply (not logically but intuitively) that an electron is a circulating charged photon generating the de Broglie wavelength. But he unfortunately didn’t do this, and missed out on a second Nobel. If he had done this we would unfortunately never have heard of M. Louis de Broglie and "la comedie francaise". Instead it would have been "la comedie suisse". With these two “errors” (photons and matter waves) on his scientific resume, instead of just one, Einstein probably would never have received Planck’s recommendation for a job in Berlin.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> all the best,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> Richard</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>On Oct 21, 2015, at 10:18 AM, Mark, Martin van der <</span><a href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a><span style='color:black'>> wrote:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>Hi Richard, just for the record, E=mc^2 came before de Broglie and he in turn came before schroedinger and quantummechanics,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>Cheers, Martin</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><br><br><span style='color:black'>Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br><span style='color:black'>Op 21 okt. 2015 om 18:40 heeft Richard Gauthier <</span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><span style='color:black'>> het volgende geschreven:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>Hello John and Albrecht and all,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> Yes, I’m very much aware that the de Broglie wavelength can be generated from the relativistic Doppler interference of two Compton wavelength waves moving in opposite directions. This is the light-in-a-box-standing-wave-transferred-into-another-relativistic-frame explanation and I used it also in a previous circulating-photon electron model to generate the de Broglie wavelength, just as Martin did in 1991 and you and Martin did in your 1997 paper and John M also did. I think Einstein used it in his 1905 paper to derive E=mc^2. My derivation was independent of your paper, which I hadn’t read when I gave my derivation, which was borrowed from the derivation of an electron modeler with a “space resonance” model of the electron. He though my approach to the electron was “clever, but wrong”. I refrained from returning the compliment. All these derivations requires that there are waves moving in opposite directions and interfering to generate the de Broglie wavelength. In my spin-1/2 charged photon model however, the de Broglie wavelength is generated, without wave interference, from a helically circulating charged photon moving in a longitudinally forward direction and emitting plane waves along the direction the charged photon is moving along the helix. This derivation generates along the helical z-axis the de Broglie relativistic matter-wave equation PHI = A e^i(kz-wt) for a moving electron having the relativistic de Broglie wavelength h/(gamma mv). </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> Albrecht, a reply for your "fundamental objection” to my model is in process. Don’t worry, I can answer it.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>with best wishes,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> Richard</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>On Oct 21, 2015, at 7:34 AM, John Williamson <</span><a href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a><span style='color:black'>> wrote:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>Dear all,<br><br>The de Broglie wavelength is best understood, in my view, in one of two ways. Either read de Broglies thesis for his derivation (if you do not read french, Al has translated it and it is available online). Alternatively derive it yourself. All you need to do is consider the interference between a standing wave in one (proper frame) as it transforms to other relativistic frames. That is standing-wave light-in-a-box. This has been done by may folk, many times. Martin did it back in 1991. It is in our 1997 paper. One of the nicest illustrations I have seen is that of John M - circulated to all of you earlier in this series.<br><br>It is real, and quite simple.<br><br>Regards, John.</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></span></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Dr. Albrecht Giese [genmail@a-giese.de]<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 21, 2015 3:14 PM<br><b>To:</b> Richard Gauthier<br><b>Cc:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; David Mathes<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] research papers</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span style='color:black'>Hello Richard,<br><br>thanks for your detailed explanation. But I have a fundamental objection.<br><br>Your figure 2 is unfortunately (but unavoidably) 2-dimensional, and that makes a difference to the reality as I understand it. <br><br>In your model the charged electron moves on a helix around the axis of the electron (or equivalently the axis of the helix). That means that the electron has a constant distance to this axis. Correct? But in the view of your figure 2 the photon seems to start on the axis and moves away from it forever. In this latter case the wave front would behave as you write it. <br><br>Now, in the case of a constant distance, the wave front as well intersects the axis, that is true. But this intersection point moves along the axis at the projected speed of the photon to this axis. - You can consider this also in another way. If the electron moves during a time, say T1, in the direction of the axis, then the photon will during this time T1 move a longer distance, as the length of the helical path (call it L) is of course longer than the length of the path of the electron during this time (call it Z). Now you will during the time T1 have a number of waves (call this N) on the helical path L. On the other hand, the number of waves on the length Z has also to be N. Because otherwise after an arbitrary time the whole situation would diverge. As now Z is smaller than L, the waves on the axis have to be shorter. So, not the de Broglie wave length. That is my understanding. <br><br>In my present view, the de Broglie wave length has no immediate correspondence in the physical reality. I guess that the success of de Broglie in using this wave length may be understandable if we understand in more detail, what happens in the process of scattering of an electron at the double (or multiple) slits.<br><br>Best wishes<br>Albrecht</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'>Am 21.10.2015 um 06:28 schrieb <br>Richard Gauthier:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'>Hello Albrecht,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> Thank you for your effort to understand the physical process described geometrically in my Figure 2. You have indeed misunderstood the Figure as you suspected. The LEFT upper side of the big 90-degree triangle is one wavelength h/(gamma mc) of the charged photon, mathematically unrolled from its two-turned helical shape (because of the double-loop model of the electron) so that its full length h/(gamma mc) along the helical trajectory can be easily visualized. The emitted wave fronts described in my article are perpendicular to this mathematically unrolled upper LEFT side of the triangle (because the plane waves emitted by the charged photon are directed along the direction of the helix when it is coiled (or mathematically uncoiled), and the plane wave fronts are perpendicular to this direction). The upper RIGHT side of the big 90-degree triangle corresponds to one of the plane wave fronts (of constant phase along the wave front) emitted at one wavelength lambda = h/(gamma mc) of the helically circulating charged photon. The length of the horizontal base of the big 90-degree triangle, defined by where this upper RIGHT side of the triangle (the generated plane wave front from the charged photon) intersects the horizontal axis of the helically-moving charged photon, is the de Broglie wavelength h/(gamma mv) of the electron model (labeled in the diagram). By geometry the length (the de Broglie wavelength) of this horizontal base of the big right triangle in the Figure is equal to the top left side of the triangle (the photon wavelength h/(gamma mc) divided (not multiplied) by cos(theta) = v/c because we are calculating the hypotenuse of the big right triangle starting from the upper LEFT side of this big right triangle, which is the adjacent side of the big right triangle making an angle theta with the hypotenuse. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> What you called the projection of the charged photon’s wavelength h/(gamma mc) onto the horizontal axis is actually just the distance D that the electron has moved with velocity v along the x-axis in one period T of the circulating charged photon. That period T equals 1/f = 1/(gamma mc^2/h) = h/(gamma mc^2). By the geometry in the Figure, that distance D is the adjacent side of the smaller 90-degree triangle in the left side of the Figure, making an angle theta with cT, the hypotenuse of that smaller triangle, and so D = cT cos (theta) = cT x v/c = vT , the distance the electron has moved to the right with velocity v in the time T. In that same time T one de Broglie wavelength has been generated along the horizontal axis of the circulating charged photon. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> I will answer your question about the double slit in a separate e-mail.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> all the best,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> Richard</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'>On Oct 20, 2015, at 10:06 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese <</span><a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a><span style='color:black'>> wrote:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span style='color:black'>Hello Richard,<br><br>thank you for your explanations. I would like to ask further questions and will place them into the text below.</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'>Am 19.10.2015 um 20:08 schrieb Richard Gauthier:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'>Hello Albrecht,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> Thank your for your detailed questions about my electron model, which I will answer as best as I can. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> My approach of using the formula e^i(k*r-wt) = e^i (k dot r minus omega t) for a plane wave emitted by charged photons is also used for example in the analysis of x-ray diffraction from crystals when you have many incoming parallel photons in free space moving in phase in a plane wave. Please see for example </span><a href="http://www.pa.uky.edu/%7Ekwng/phy525/lec/lecture_2.pdf" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>http://www.pa.uky.edu/~kwng/phy525/lec/lecture_2.pdf</span></a><span style='color:black'> . When Max Born studied electron scattering using quantum mechanics (where he used PHI*PHI of the quantum wave functions to predict the electron scattering amplitudes), he also described the incoming electrons as a plane wave moving forward with the de Broglie wavelength towards the target. I think this is the general analytical procedure used in scattering experiments. In my charged photon model the helically circulating charged photon, corresponding to a moving electron, is emitting a plane wave of wavelength lambda = h/(gamma mc) and frequency f=(gamma mc^2)/h along the direction of its helical trajectory, which makes a forward angle theta with the helical axis given by cos (theta)=v/c. Planes of constant phase emitted from the charged photon in this way intersect the helical axis of the charged photon. When a charged photon has traveled one relativistic wavelength lambda = h/(gamma mc) along the helical axis, the intersection point of this wave front with the helical axis has traveled (as seen from the geometry of Figure 2 in my charged photon article) a distance lambda/cos(theta) = lambda / (v/c) = h/(gamma mv) i.e the relativistic de Broglie wavelength along the helical axis.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span style='color:black'>Here I have a question with respect to your Figure 2. The circling charged photon is accompanied by a wave which moves at any moment in the direction of the photon on its helical path. This wave has its normal wavelength in the direction along this helical path. But if now this wave is projected onto the axis of the helix, which is the axis of the moving electron, then the projected wave will be shorter than the original one. So the equation will not be lambda<sub>deBroglie</sub> = lambda<sub>photon</sub> / cos theta , but: lambda<sub>deBroglie</sub> = lambda<sub>photon</sub> * cos theta . The result will not be the (extended) de Broglie wave but a shortened wave. Or do I completely misunderstand the situation here?<br><br>Or let's use another view to the process. Lets imagine a scattering process of the electron at a double slit. This was the experiment where the de Broglie wavelength turned out to be helpful. <br>So, when now the electron, and that means the cycling photon, approaches the slits, it will approach at a slant angle theta at the layer which has the slits. Now assume the momentary phase such that the wave front reaches two slits at the same time (which means that the photon at this moment moves downwards or upwards, but else straight with respect to the azimuth). This situation is similar to the front wave of a <i>single</i> normal photon which moves upwards or downwards by an angle theta. There is now no phase difference between the right and the left slit. Now the question is whether this coming-down (or -up) will change the temporal sequence of the phases (say: of the maxima of the wave). This distance (by time or by length) determines at which angle the next interference maxima to the right or to the left will occur behind the slits. <br><br>To my understanding the temporal distance will be the same distance as of wave maxima on the helical path of the photon, where the latter is lambda<sub>1</sub> = c / frequency; frequency = (gamma*mc<sup>2</sup>) / h. So, the geometric distance of the wave maxima passing the slits is lambda<sub>1</sub> = c*h / (gamma*mc<sup>2</sup>). Also here the result is a shortened wavelength rather than an extended one, so not the de Broglie wavelength.<br><br>Again my question: What do I misunderstand?<br><br>For the other topics of your answer I essentially agree, so I shall stop here.<br><br>Best regards<br>Albrecht</span><br> <o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> Now as seen from this geometry, the slower the electron’s velocity v, the longer is the electron’s de Broglie wavelength — also as seen from the relativistic de Broglie wavelength formula Ldb = h/(gamma mv). For a resting electron (v=0) the de Broglie wavelength is undefined in this formula as also in my model for v = 0. Here, for stationary electron, the charged photon’s emitted wave fronts (for waves of wavelength equal to the Compton wavelength h/mc) intersect the axis of the circulating photon along its whole length rather than at a single point along the helical axis. This condition corresponds to the condition where de Broglie said (something like) that the electron oscillates with the frequency given by f = mc^2/h for the stationary electron, and that the phase of the wave of this oscillating electron is the same at all points in space. But when the electron is moving slowly, long de Broglie waves are formed along the axis of the moving electron.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> In this basic plane wave model there is no limitation on how far to the sides of the charged photon the plane wave fronts extend. In a more detailed model a finite side-spreading of the plane wave would correspond to a pulse of many forward moving electrons that is limited in both longitudinal and lateral extent (here a Fourier description of the wave front for a pulse of electrons of a particular spatial extent would probably come into play), which is beyond the present description.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> You asked what an observer standing beside the resting electron, but not in the plane of the charged photon's internal circular motion) would observe as the circulating charged photon emits a plane wave long its trajectory. The plane wave’s wavelength emitted by the circling charged photon would be the Compton wavelength h/mc. So when the charged photon is moving more towards (but an an angle to) the stationary observer, he would observe a wave of wavelength h/mc (which you call c/ny where ny is the frequency of charged photon’s orbital motion) coming towards and past him. This is not the de Broglie wavelength (which is undefined here and is only defined on the helical axis of the circulating photon for a moving electron) but is the Compton wavelength h/mc of the circulating photon of a resting electron. As the charged photon moves more away from the observer, he would observe a plane wave of wavelength h/mc moving away from him in the direction of the receding charged photon. But it is more complicated than this, because the observer at the side of the stationary electron (circulating charged photon) will also be receiving all the other plane waves with different phases emitted at other angles from the circulating charged photon during its whole circular trajectory. In fact all of these waves from the charged photon away from the circular axis or helical axis will interfere and may actually cancel out or partially cancel out (I don’t know), leaving a net result only along the axis of the electron, which if the electron is moving, corresponds to the de Broglie wavelength along this axis. This is hard to visualize in 3-D and this is why I think a 3-D computer graphic model of this plane-wave emitting process for a moving or stationary electron would be very helpful and informative.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> You asked about the electric charge of the charged photon and how it affects this process. Clearly the plane waves emitted by the circulating charged photon have to be different from the plane waves emitted by an uncharged photon, because these plane waves generate the quantum wave functions PHI that predict the probabilities of finding electrons or photons respectively in the future from their PHI*PHI functions. Plus the charged photon has to be emitting an additional electric field (not emitted by a regular uncharged photon), for example caused by virtual uncharged photons as described in QED, that produces the electrostatic field of a stationary electron or the electro-magnetic field around a moving electron. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> I hope this helps. Thanks again for your excellent questions.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> with best regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> Richard</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'>On Oct 19, 2015, at 8:13 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese <</span><a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a><span style='color:black'>> wrote:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span style='color:black'>Richard:<br><br>I am still busy to understand the de Broglie wavelength from your model. I think that I understand your general idea, but I would like to also understand the details. <br><br>If a photon moves straight in the free space, how does the wave look like? You say that the photon emits a plane wave. If the photon is alone and moves straight, then the wave goes with the photon. No problem. And the wave front is in the forward direction. Correct? How far to the sides is the wave extended? That may be important in case of the photon in the electron.<br><br>With the following I refer to the figures 1 and 2 in your paper referred in your preceding mail.<br><br>In the electron, the photon moves according to your model on a circuit. It moves on a helix when the electron is in motion. But let take us first the case of the electron at rest, so that the photon moves on this circuit. In any moment the plane wave accompanied with the photon will momentarily move in the tangential direction of the circuit. But the direction will permanently change to follow the path of the photon on the circuit. What is then about the motion of the wave? The front of the wave should follow this circuit. Would an observer next to the electron at rest (but not in the plane of the internal motion) notice the wave? This can only happen, I think, if the wave does not only propagate on a straight path forward but has an extension to the sides. Only if this is the case, there will be a wave along the axis of the electron. Now an observer next to the electron will see a modulated wave coming from the photon, which will be modulated with the frequency of the rotation, because the photon will in one moment be closer to the observer and in the next moment be farer from him. Which wavelength will be noticed by the observer? It should be lambda = c / ny, where c is the speed of the propagation and ny the frequency of the orbital motion. But this lambda is by my understanding not be the de Broglie wave length.<br><br>For an electron at rest your model expects a wave with a momentarily similar phase for all points in space. How can this orbiting photon cause this? And else, if the electron is not at rest but moves at a very small speed, then the situation will not be very different from that of the electron at rest.<br><br>Further: What is the influence of the charge in the photon? There should be a modulated electric field around the electron with a frequency ny which follows also from E = h*ny, with E the dynamical energy of the photon. Does this modulated field have any influence to how the electron interacts with others? <br><br>Some questions, perhaps you can help me for a better understanding.<br><br>With best regards and thanks in advance<br>Albrecht<br><br>PS: I shall answer you mail from last night tomorrow.</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'>Am 14.10.2015 um 22:32 schrieb Richard Gauthier:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'>Hello Albrecht,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> I second David’s question. The last I heard authoritatively, from cosmologist Sean Carroll - "The Particle at the End of the Universe” (2012), is that fermions are not affected by the strong nuclear force. If they were, I think it would be common scientific knowledge by now. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'>You wrote: "</span><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black;background:white'>I see it as a valuable goal for the further development to find an answer (a </span><i><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black'>physical </span></i><span style='font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black;background:white'>answer!) to the question of the de Broglie wavelength."</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> My spin 1/2 charged photon model DOES give a simple physical explanation for the origin of the de Broglie wavelength. The helically-circulating charged photon is proposed to emit a plane wave directed along its helical path based on its relativistic wavelength lambda = h/(gamma mc) and relativistic frequency f=(gamma mc^2)/h. The wave fronts of this plane wave intersect the axis of the charged photon’s helical trajectory, which is the path of the electron being modeled by the charged photon, creating a de Broglie wave pattern of wavelength h/(gamma mv) which travels along the charged photon’s helical axis at speed c^2/v. For a moving electron, the wave fronts emitted by the charged photon do not intersect the helical axis perpendicularly but at an angle (see Figure 2 of my SPIE paper at </span><a href="https://www.academia.edu/15686831/Electrons_are_spin_1_2_charged_photons_generating_the_de_Broglie_wavelength" target="_blank">https://www.academia.edu/15686831/Electrons_are_spin_1_2_charged_photons_generating_the_de_Broglie_wavelength</a><span style='color:black'> ) that is simply related to the speed of the electron being modeled. This physical origin of the electron’s de Broglie wave is similar to when a series of parallel and evenly-spaced ocean waves hits a straight beach at an angle greater than zero degrees to the beach — a wave pattern is produced at the beach that travels in one direction along the beach at a speed faster than the speed of the waves coming in from the ocean. But that beach wave pattern can't transmit “information” along the beach faster than the speed of the ocean waves, just as the de Broglie matter-wave can’t (according to special relativity) transmit information faster than light, as de Broglie recognized. As far as I know this geometric interpretation for the generation of the relativistic electron's de Broglie wavelength, phase velocity, and matter-wave equation is unique.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> For a resting (v=0) electron, the de Broglie wavelength lambda = h/(gamma mv) is not defined since one can’t divide by zero. It corresponds to the ocean wave fronts in the above example hitting the beach at a zero degree angle, where no velocity of the wave pattern along the beach can be defined.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> </span><span style='color:#252525;background:white'>Schrödinger</span><span style='color:black'> took de Broglie’s matter-wave and used it non-relativistically with a potential V to generate the </span><span style='color:#252525;background:white'>Schrödinger</span><span style='color:black'> equation and wave mechanics, which is mathematically identical in its predictions to Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics. Born interpreted Psi*Psi of the </span><span style='color:#252525;background:white'>Schrödinger</span><span style='color:black'> equation as the probability density for the result of an experimental measurement and this worked well for statistical predictions. Quantum mechanics was built on this de Broglie wave foundation and Born's probabilistic interpretation (using Hilbert space math.)</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> The charged photon model of the electron might be used to derive the </span><span style='color:#252525;background:white'>Schrödinger</span><span style='color:black'> equation, considering the electron to be a circulating charged photon that generates the electron’s matter-wave, which depends on the electron’s variable kinetic energy in a potential field. This needs to be explored further, which I began in </span><a href="https://www.academia.edu/10235164/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_Fits_the_Schr%C3%B6dinger_Equation" target="_blank">https://www.academia.edu/10235164/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_Fits_the_Schrödinger_Equation</a><span style='color:black'> . Of course, to treat the electron relativistically requires the Dirac equation. But the spin 1/2 charged photon model of the relativistic electron has a number of features of the Dirac electron, by design.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> As to why the charged photon circulates helically rather than moving in a straight line (in the absence of diffraction, etc) like an uncharged photon, this could be the effect of the charged photon moving in the Higgs field, which turns a speed-of-light particle with electric charge into a less-than-speed-of-light particle with a rest mass, which in this case is the electron’s rest mass 0.511 MeV/c^2 (this value is not predicted by the Higgs field theory however.) So the electron’s inertia may also be caused by the Higgs field. I would not say that an unconfined photon has inertia, although it has energy and momentum but no rest mass, but opinions differ on this point. “Inertia” is a vague term and perhaps should be dropped— it literally means "inactive, unskilled”.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> You said that a faster-than-light phase wave can only be caused by a superposition of waves. I’m not sure this is correct, since in my charged photon model a single plane wave pattern emitted by the circulating charged photon generates the electron’s faster-than-light phase wave of speed c^2/v . A group velocity of an electron model may be generated by a superposition of waves to produce a wave packet whose group velocity equals the slower-than-light speed of an electron modeled by such an wave-packet approach.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'>with best regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> Richard</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><hr size=2 width=819 style='width:614.25pt' noshade style='color:#A0A0A0' align=center></span></div><table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 style='border-collapse:collapse'><tr><td style='padding:0in 11.25pt 0in 6.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank"><span style='text-decoration:none'><img border=0 width=32 height=32 id="_x0000_i1029" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p></td><td style='padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#3D4D5A'>Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft. <br></span><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank"><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>www.avast.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p></div></td></tr></table><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at </span><a href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a><span style='color:black'><br><a href="</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a><span style='color:black'>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></span></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:gray'>The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>_______________________________________________</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at </span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><span style='color:black'><br><a href="</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a><span style='color:black'>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br><span style='color:black'>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at afokay@gmail.com<br><a href="</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a><span style='color:black'>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a></span><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier@gmail.com<br><a href="</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a><span style='color:black'>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at afokay@gmail.com<br><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>_______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at </span><a href="http://af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>af.kracklauer@web.de</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> </span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Click here to unsubscribe </span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at </span><a href="http://martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><br><a href="</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>_______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at </span><a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>af.kracklauer@web.de</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> </span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Click here to unsubscribe </span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:afokay@gmail.com" target="_blank">afokay@gmail.com</a><br><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>