<html><head></head><body><div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;"><div>
<div>Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The main objection, not just mine, would be that two particles orbiting each other are never really alone. The whole universe in the stage on which their dance takes place. It cannot be turned off! Much of the universe is very distant, but this compensated by the fact that the further away one considerers, the more matter/universe/charges there are, and it adds up. Thus if the the two are emitting "something," then to remain in equilibrium that likewise have to be absorbing something. In the end, what we have here then is two charges, that is, every pair of charges in which any one charge of interest is involved, will be mutually "interacting" just as Gauss (but with delay) found in the first place. This can be seen then, as the most basic statement that can be made about E&M interaction. In consequence, "photons" and "waves" are imaginary constructs to help describe this Gaussian interaction. Mystical, contradictory characteristics of these paradigms are irrelevant. What has to be selfconsistent is/are the mutual coupled equations of motion with delay. Problem is: differential-delay equations are relatively seldom, in comparison to ordiary coupled differential equaitons, studied. In addition, of course, this mutual intereaction in the theory has to be augmented with something to account for the rest of the uinverse---the something is surely the machinery of QM. So, what the Physics world needs, is a fully manifestly covariant set of mutually coupled WAVE equations. All currently discussed wave equations fail on one or another of the criteria. Mostly, they are not mutually interacting, one paticle is a small statillite orbiting a large entity but not affecting it. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>best, 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> Samstag, 07. November 2015 um 14:58 Uhr<br/>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail@a-giese.de><br/>
<b>An:</b> af.kracklauer@web.de, "Albrecht Giese" <phys@a-giese.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: [General] research papers</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div style="background-color: rgb(255,255,255);">Hi Al,<br/>
<br/>
I share your concern about continuous emission. But I think that this concern does not apply to a simple model of charged particles not being photons. If e.g. two charges or two charged objects orbit each other in free space where there is no else interaction, this configuration does not consume any energy, so it should orbit forever. If these two charges would be at rest, there would be a static field around this configuration. If the charges circle around each other, then this field is a changing field. The field is generally able to interact with other charges (however it will not interact as long as this configuration is alone in space). As this field propagates into all directions (normally with c) it will cause an alternating field which looks like a wave. Of course this field can interact with other charges which react back to the particle configuration. In this way a guiding effect is possible. And when this happens, there can be of course an exchange of energy.<br/>
<br/>
Do you have any problems with this view?<br/>
<br/>
Regards, Albrecht<br/>
<br/>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 04.11.2015 um 17:35 schrieb <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_parent">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<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 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> Mittwoch, 04. November 2015 um 16:52 Uhr<br/>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht Giese" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="phys@a-giese.de" target="_parent"><phys@a-giese.de></a><br/>
<b>An:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_parent">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br/>
<b>Cc:</b> "Richard Gauthier" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_parent"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a>, "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_parent"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a>, "Joakim Pettersson" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="joakimbits@gmail.com" target="_parent"><joakimbits@gmail.com></a>, "Ariane Mandray" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr" target="_parent"><ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr></a><br/>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: Aw: Re: [General] research papers</div>
<div>
<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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" 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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="phys@a-giese.de" target="_parent">phys@a-giese.de</a>><br/>
<b>An:</b> "Richard Gauthier" <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_parent">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>><br/>
<b>Cc:</b> "(<a>af.kracklauer@web.de</a>)" <<a>af.kracklauer@web.de</a>>, "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_parent">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>>, "Joakim Pettersson" <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" 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>
</blockquote>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr style="border: none;color: rgb(144,144,144);background-color: rgb(176,176,176);height: 1.0px;width: 99.0%;"/>
<table style="border-collapse: collapse;border: none;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border: none;padding: 0.0px 15.0px 0.0px 8.0px;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank"><img alt="Avast logo" border="0" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"/> </a></td>
<td>
<p style="color: rgb(61,77,90);font-family: Calibri , Verdana , Arial , Helvetica;font-size: 12.0pt;">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.<br/>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></body></html>