<html><head></head><body><div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;"><div>
<div>Vivian:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Seems I missed your point, not mine. I propound no encompassing theory, rather have focused on fixing certain defects in otherwise current theories. But, I crtainly do not accept that overwhelmingly interpreted results obtained from a cascade of deductions based on popular but otherwise only indirectly supported abstract social conventions "prove" much of anything decisevly. Fact is, human imagination is sufficietly inventive and self dilusional to convince itself of the rectitude of whatever it wants to beleive. Espeically self-serving stuff.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Back to the start: "Waves" (in fields or whereever) are collective motion in a medium. No medium ===> no waves. Especially if these "waves" are described by the solution of homogenious Maxwell eqs. (no sources), as is the practice via Fourier analysis. Of course there is "interaction". So much can be observed (Millican), again only indirectly with the social convention of accepting the existence of particle charges---as can be done self conssistently and so without objection on my part. Jumping to the conclusion that there is a field present everywhere in space from a source, or worse that there are fields without sources at all (!) is profoundly logically defective.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You are invited to read as much as you can digest on: www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com. Virtually every physics-idea of mine that I consider worthwhile is laid out there. So far as I know it all agrees with "observation" and then without need to call on mystical interpretation. However, actually my first goal was to exculpate logical and mathematical errors in othrwise useful theories.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best 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> Samstag, 06. Februar 2016 um 13:56 Uhr<br/>
<b>Von:</b> "Vivian Robinson" <viv@universephysics.com><br/>
<b>An:</b> "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br/>
<b>Cc:</b> "Nick Bailey" <nick@bailey-family.org.uk>, "Manohar ." <manohar_berlin@hotmail.com>, "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark@philips.com>, "Ariane Mandray" <ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr><br/>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] De Broglie Wave</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div>Al,
<div> </div>
<div>You are missing the point. All you have to do to show the worth of your work is give us an indication of how your model matches observed properties of the electron, or other particles and make some physically testable predictions. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I look forward to reading about the matches and testable predictions your theory makes. That is by far the best way, indeed the only way, that you, or any other theoretician, can demonstrate the accuracy and worth of your work. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Vivian Robinson</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>
<div>On 06/02/2016, at 10:58 PM, <a href="af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_parent">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> wrote:</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>John:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Since you do know what my spcific background is, it might be better to refrain from assigning yourself senior guru status and preach as if to the unwashed masses.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In those experiments and other technical developments in which I was involved, energies, momentum, field srengths, fields and all that were NOT "observed." In fact, what was "observed" were needle positions, LED readouts, processed computer output, oscilloscope displays, etc. These were then interpreted on the basis of customary theory, whereupon energies, voltages, field strengths etc. were ASSIGNED to PRESUMED ontic entities. If you think you did differently in your experiments, sadly, we have little to discuss. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>This is not to say that you will not prosper in the SOCIAL contex of modern "big science." But that is from the perspective to which I'm inclined, actually an insult. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Your new theory of everthing might well become the latest in the urban-myth or religion-ersatz drill so often fostered by the commercial science press nowadays---right up there with big-bang, multiverse, nonlocal entanglement, etc. etc. and all variants of fanticies about things and events for which human direct empirical experience is zero, and for which undiciplined day-dreaming and have-baked legend concockting provide such convenient opportunitites to play high priest and brainiak.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Back to Earth, Al </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </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> Samstag, 06. Februar 2016 um 12:31 Uhr<br/>
<b>Von:</b> "John Williamson" <<a href="John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_parent">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>><br/>
<b>An:</b> "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <<a href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_parent">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br/>
<b>Cc:</b> "Manohar ." <<a href="manohar_berlin@hotmail.com" target="_parent">manohar_berlin@hotmail.com</a>>, "Nick Bailey" <<a href="nick@bailey-family.org.uk" target="_parent">nick@bailey-family.org.uk</a>>, "Ariane Mandray" <<a href="ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr" target="_parent">ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr</a>>, "Mark, Martin van der" <<a href="martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target="_parent">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a>><br/>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] De Broglie Wave</div>
<div>
<div>
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;font-size: 10.0pt;">Dear Al,<br/>
<br/>
I respect your desire to reduce things to what can be known, the onta. I think you. as a theorist, are misguided as to the set of things that can be known. That is, just what the onta are. One can (usually) measure energies and momenta quite precisely. One can measure fields. One cannot (usually) measure positions or times. Energies and momenta are usually well defined at the elementary particle level. Accordingly, positions and times are not. You may not like this, but it is the case.<br/>
<br/>
I am not just saying this as something I have read or heard. I know it as I have been involved, first hand, in such experiments. I am telling you that is what you can know. Please feel free to give me (experimental) counter-examples.<br/>
<br/>
As Viv says - you have to start from what you know -not would you like to be the case.<br/>
<br/>
Sorry if this comes as bad news.<br/>
<br/>
Regards, John.
<div style="font-family: "Times New Roman";font-size: 16.0px;">
<hr/>
<div id="divRpF16866" style="direction: ltr;"><font face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b> General [<a href="general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_parent">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] on behalf of <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>]<br/>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, February 06, 2016 10:21 AM<br/>
<b>To:</b> <a href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_parent">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br/>
<b>Cc:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Mark, Martin van der<br/>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] De Broglie Wave</font><br/>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi All & Vivian:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This is all very good and wise advice; but, there is a little complication! Namely, at the micro, nano, etc., and cosmic level we humans can observe essentially nothing! We can only infer "facts" at those scales. The "observation" involves a long string of physical and SOCIAL processes, each of which muddies the waters. Maybe we are best advised to adhear as best possible to formal-logic so as to avoid simple contradictions or inconsistencies. Avoiding patent misuse of terminology or the uncritical use of terms given their histroical pedagree should be a good first shot. One glaring example is the use of the term "field." It was not at the start intended to be a label of some kind of onta or stuff. It was a abstraction to portray the force per unit charge as it would be experienced by a "test charge" at a given position and given a source charge. Thus, where there is no test (or source) charge, there is no force and therefore no field---in sharp contrast to the current popular use of the term as if fields also exist even when there is no source charge. Theories build on this kind of talking/thinking cannot help but be cultural mythology: snazzy, fun but nonsense!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>For what it is worth, 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> Samstag, 06. Februar 2016 um 10:00 Uhr<br/>
<b>Von:</b> "Vivian Robinson" <<a href="viv@universephysics.com" target="_parent">viv@universephysics.com</a>><br/>
<b>An:</b> "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <<a href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_parent">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br/>
<b>Cc:</b> "Mark, Martin van der" <<a href="martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target="_parent">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a>><br/>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] De Broglie Wave</div>
<div>
<div>Hi All,
<div> </div>
<div>I have been "on the road" for some time and haven't had an opportunity to respond. However I must endorse John Williamson's comments. Experiment is reality. If you want to introduce a new concept, at least base it on experimental observation. You can't ignore experimental facts because they don't fit your theory. Fit your theory to experimental observation. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The other reason I haven't joined in is because I see so many participants "going off at a tangent", trying to justify their theory to others. If your theory is good, all you have to do is show how it fits observation and preferably make an experimentally testable prediction. If you want to see what others have done with their theories you need look no further than cosmologists explanation of the universe. It goes something like this:-</div>
<div>"I<i>n the beginning there was nothing (or something we don't know) and it exploded in a Big Bang. When it settled down over 13.8 billion years later, it had a 1 : 10^^60 chance of being this stable and requires 24 times the mass of the observable universe to explain its observed properties."</i> Reworded, it means theoretical cosmologists explanation for the universe differs from the observed universe by 24 times the mass of the observed universe, not to mention the other 10^^60 non observable universes. Seriously folks, an error of 24 times the mass of the observable universe is bad enough, let alone 10^^60 other non observable universes. Errors of this magnitude are due to mathematicians extending their calculations to areas where the physics behind them is not established. The worst part is they are proud of their theory that has errors that large. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>They aren't the only physicists with errors that large. Astronomers detect a universe with an energy density of ≈ 10^^-10 Joule per cubic metre (J/m^^3). Quantum mechanics requires an energy density ≈ 10^^120 times that to get some of their calculations correct. An impartial evaluation of quantum mechanics shows it is based upon wave equations. For the uninitiated, a wave extends some distance, expressed mathematically as from minus infinity to plus infinity. An unbiased observer would suggest that if you can't get an expression that matches observation when you have a position that extends between plus and minus infinity and you have 10^^120 more variables to play with than are observed to exist, there is no hope for you. Then physicists wonder why their funding for their studies is being reduced? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Back to my original comment on observation. If you wan't to introduce a new concept, you should base it upon some observed physical principle. Then show how known physical properties enable the mathematics associated with that concept to match known physical properties of, in this case, the electron. When you have gone through a few properties, you should make a prediction or two that can be tested experimentally. Only then should it be considered that you have some merit in your theory.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>John Williamson, myself and others (Martin vdM included) have made similar comments to this effect in the past. Yet all I see is some participants ignoring known physical facts, claiming working theories like special relativity are wrong (probably because they don't understand them) without replacing them with a workable theory, and similar. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Working in industry and running my own high tech companies for over 30 years has taught me, among other features, that an honest critic is your best friend. He (or she) will tell you where you are going wrong. If you listen to the advice and follow it, you will progress. Your "friend" who agrees with you and says "yes" frequently is your worst enemy. He (or she) will encourage you on the same path towards going "round in circles" or "nowhere". </div>
<div> </div>
<div>IMHO those errors I mentioned earlier, 24 times the mass of the observed universe with 10^^60 other universes in a multiverse; and 10^^120 times the observed energy density of the universe come about because their practitioners don't want to listen to others who say they must be wrong. Trying to convince others in this group discussion that your theory is correct will never replace showing it is correct by matching a dozen properties of the electron and making a few predictions that can be tested experimentally. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>IMHO, John Williamson and Martin van der Mark have a reasonable understanding of properties of the photon in particular and physics in general. If I remember correctly, MvdM indicated some time ago he would drop out of this discussion group because it was going nowhere. He hasn't made many contributions over the past few months. I am not speaking for him, but I suspect it was due to his belief the discussion was going nowhere. I will confess that my non participation lately has also been due to what I perceive is the discussion group going "round in circles and "nowhere". </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I think John W's apology for being blunt was not needed. IMHO, for this discussion group to make progress, someone has to be a "best friend" and point out the "errors of you ways". I concur with some of his phrases. The only people who take offence at words like that are those who are happy "going round in circles " and getting "nowhere". </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I wonder how many times it is necessary to ask participants to relate their work to known physical properties! John W is this group's "best friend". Going off at a tangent because you don't agree with him is going to result in these group discussions finishing up with the same massive errors and cosmology and quantum mechanics.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In summary, stick to physical facts, not mathematical space.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Vivian Robinson</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>
<div>On 06/02/2016, at 4:31 PM, John Williamson <<a>John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>> wrote:</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica;font-size: medium;font-style: normal;font-variant: normal;font-weight: normal;letter-spacing: normal;line-height: normal;orphans: 2;text-indent: 0.0px;text-transform: none;white-space: normal;widows: 2;word-spacing: 0.0px;">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;font-size: 10.0pt;">Dear Al et al,<br/>
<br/>
The Maxwell equations describe electro-magnetic waves. Both electric and magnetic fields can be measured. Are you really serious that you think they are a "fiction"?<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br/>
<br/>
Cheers, John.
<div style="font-family: "Times New Roman";font-size: 16.0px;">
<hr/>
<div id="divRpF873716" style="direction: ltr;"><font face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General [<a>general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] on behalf of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a>af.kracklauer@web.de</a>[<a>af.kracklauer@web.de</a>]<br/>
<b>Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Saturday, February 06, 2016 2:15 AM<br/>
<b>To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a>phys@a-giese.de</a><br/>
<b>Cc:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a>general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br/>
<b>Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] De Broglie Wave</font><br/>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>DeBroglie's verbage is indeed quite rococo! Nonetheless, his machinations, although verbalized, in the true tradtion of quantum mechanics, mysteriously, can be reinterpreted (i.e., alternate verbage found without changing any of the math) so as to tell a fully, if (somewhat) hetrodoxical, story. See #11 on<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a>www.Nonloco-Physics.0catch.com</a>.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>cc: Waves are never a characteristic of a single, point-like entity, but colletive motion of a medium. IF they exist at all. My view is that E&M waves are a fiction wrought by Fourier analysis. The only real physical part is an "interaction", which mnight as well be thought of an absract string between charges. Also, neutrons have electric multipole moments; i.e., they are totally neutral but not charge-free. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best, Al </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_parent">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> <a> Click here to unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_parent">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"> Click here to unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br/>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="viv@universephysics.com" target="_parent">viv@universephysics.com</a><br/>
<a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br/>
Click here to unsubscribe<br/>
</a></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer@web.de <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"> Click here to unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></body></html>