<html><head></head><body><div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;"><div>
<div>Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You are qutie correct, when focusing on the historically pure story. What deBroglie himself did was too "huristic" to make real good sense---I seem to recall reading somewhere that he himself said as much. The deBroglie wave I tend to ralk about is the version I used to rationalize QM. It's different from the origional deBroglie wave, but I can't get myself to call it the Kracklauer wave (although I am unaware of any competing priority claims). Further, the modifications actually pertain virtually exclusively to the palaver and not the math involved. In the mean time, others, including yourself, have come up with similar explantions (not really new models) for the original form. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>In any case, I find serious fault only with those models that require continious emission as they don't explain where the energy for such a process comes from. Upon reflection, it seems im fact that this objection pertains to all photon and wave models of light in general. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>regards, Al</div>
<div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px; padding: 10px 0 10px 10px; border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Mittwoch, 04. November 2015 um 16:52 Uhr<br/>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht Giese" <phys@a-giese.de><br/>
<b>An:</b> af.kracklauer@web.de<br/>
<b>Cc:</b> "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier@gmail.com>, "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, "Joakim Pettersson" <joakimbits@gmail.com>, "Ariane Mandray" <ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr><br/>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: Aw: Re: [General] research papers</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div>
<div>Hi Al,</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature"> </div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">I think that you meet the point quite well. However, the restriction which we both see on the de Broglie wave does not follow from the deduction done by de Broglie. For him this "ficticious wave" is not related to an interaction but accompanies the particle all the time. And otherwise it would not have been logical for Schrödinger to incorporate de Broglie's Ansatz into his wave function.</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature"> </div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">Tschüß</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">Albrecht</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature"> </div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature"><br/>
<br/>
Von meinem iPad gesendet</div>
<div><br/>
Am 04.11.2015 um 07:33 schrieb <a href="af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_parent">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:<br/>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi Albrecht & readers:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Seems to me that your resolution (proposed) for the problem you have with deBroglie waves actually points at the reason there is no problem. The key: deBroglie waves are a characteristic of the interaction of the particle with other particles, not an intrinsic property of only the particle. In this sense it "worls" in (better put: with respct to) in all frames, as the "other" particles can be in any frame. There is no reason to demand that it be Lorentz invariant. Doing so is mechanically applying a notion without regard for its originor or function.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The drawback (as I see it) to your "reflection-conception" is that it requires the primary particle to be continiously emmiting waves (to get reflected) without providing (so far at least) an energy source for this continious emission.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Tuschss, Al</div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 10.0px 5.0px 5.0px 10.0px;padding: 10.0px 0 10.0px 10.0px;border-left: 2.0px solid rgb(195,217,229);">
<div style="margin: 0 0 10.0px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Dienstag, 03. November 2015 um 17:58 Uhr<br/>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht Giese" <<a href="phys@a-giese.de" target="_parent">phys@a-giese.de</a>><br/>
<b>An:</b> "Richard Gauthier" <<a href="richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_parent">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>><br/>
<b>Cc:</b> "(<a href="af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_parent">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>)" <<a href="af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_parent">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>>, "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <<a href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_parent">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>>, "Joakim Pettersson" <<a href="joakimbits@gmail.com" target="_parent">joakimbits@gmail.com</a>>, "Ariane Mandray" &</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></body></html>