<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><small>Hi Al,<br>
<br>
your are right that we are sticking in a circle. But we can see
the point.<br>
<br>
If I look into the paper of de Broglie again (your translation),
there is nothing of an interaction. DeB argues about the wave
which accompanies the particle. And for a particle of a certain
speed this is a property of the particle (in relation to some
frame) but nothing about an interaction. Or where do you see in
his text an interaction mentioned?<br>
<br>
If we Lorentz-transform the interference pattern of an electron
to the frame of a moving observer, there will be a change, you
may call it distortion. But the change of the de Broglie
wavelength in relation to a moving observer is a complete
different category. I have given a numerical example: If an
electron moves at 0.1 c and an observer moves as well at 0.1 c
into the same direction towards the double slit, the Lorentz
transformation of the pattern into the frame of this observer
will have a length change of < 0.1%. But the change of the de
Broglie wavelength is in this case from some finite lambda to <i>infinite</i>.
Not the same, I would say.<br>
<br>
And again a look into the use in the Schrödinger equation. The
temporal part of this equation uses the law E = h*frequency.
That frequency is a property of the free moving particle. And it
can be correctly Lorentz-transformed into any other frame.
Schrödinger has then used the de Broglie relation lambda = h/p
with the same understanding (otherwise his equation would be
internally conflicting). So he also in this part describes a
free moving particle. But a Lorentz-transformation will </small></font><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><small>terribly </small></font><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><small>fail </small></font><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><small>in this case. <br>
<br>
Again: Where do you see in the text of de Broglie a relation to
an interaction?<br>
<br>
Best, Albrecht</small><br>
</font><br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 10.02.2016 um 19:41 schrieb
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-8c572595-bcb9-41a4-bc76-ee81e77abf5e-1455129685450@3capp-webde-bap43"
type="cite">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You are locked in a "do-loop." Appropos the experiment
metioned below (Jönssen), you are discussing your
misunderstaning not deBroglie's or mine. The deB wave that
matters is not that between the particle-observer or slit
(crystal)-observer, but the particle-slit (with registration
screen). All the observer does, no matter how fast or
complex his manuevers, is look at the registration to see
the diffreaction pattern. What he sees, of course, will be
distorted by perspective, both geometric/optical and
relativistic, but the rulers in the frame of the slit are
likewise distorted in appearance, so if the observer reads
the relevant displacements from comparison with, as it were,
the slit's rulers, the results (data) will agree with those
from all other observers who do the same no matter what
their individual motion is or was.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Of course, the observer could, as you suggest, calculate
the deB wave acting between the particle and himself, but
that would determine the diffraction of the particle beam
off the observer, not through the slit! Even deBroglie saw
that. [Actually it's the same deB wave, but Lorentz
x-formed to each other observer's frame. Thus same thing,
looks, and acts, different.]</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Again: deB waves are NOT a characteristic of a particle,
but of its interaction with other objects, and for each
other object there is a different deB wave, because each
interaction is different.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>THINK about it. 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> Mittwoch,
10. Februar 2016 um 15:37 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht Giese" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>,
"Richard Gauthier" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] De Broglie Wave</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div style="background-color: rgb(255,255,255);">Hi Al,<br>
<p class="MsoNormal"><big><span>You say “</span></big><big><span><span>DeB's
formuals give results in accord with empirical
observations </span>“.</span></big></p>
<big> </big>
<p class="MsoNormal"><big><span>I am very surprised
about this repeated statement. I think our past
discussion has shown that the concept of de
Broglie is completely wrong – except his
statement that there exist matter waves. He has
postulated a wave which in fact does not exist
and which does not have any foundation in
physics. It has a wavelength which – by his rule
– disappears when an observer moves at some
medium speed. </span></big></p>
<big> </big>
<p class="MsoNormal"><big><span>Electron scattering
does happen, I have shown in my paper that the
experimental results can be quantitatively
explained on the basis of standard physics.
Indeed very funny that also the concept of deB
works in a special case (but else not). </span></big></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><big>Counter evidence? Assume we
can perform an experiment of electron scattering
(e.g. the one of Jönsson in 1957) in a moving lab.
And we observe it from our position at rest. Then
we will see that the results based on the rules of
deB are completely wrong. - It is of course
difficult to perform such experiment at high speed
and at the same time with high precision. But I
have shown that it is a simple calculation to
predict this (failing) result on the basis of
deB's rules. Should I explain it again? (It is in
my paper).</big></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><big>Or alternatively we have to
give up the Symmetry of Space - believed
unrestrictedly since Newton. Give it up just to
save de Broglie? For no other use?</big></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><big>E&M waves on the other
hand are fully consistent with the standard rules
for waves. No E&M wave will disappear just
because there is an observer moving at some medium
speed. </big></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><big>Ciao, Albrecht</big></p>
<style type="text/css"><!--p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {
margin-top: 0.0cm;
margin-right: 0.0cm;
margin-bottom: 8.0pt;
margin-left: 0.0cm;
line-height: 107.0%;
font-size: 11.0pt;
font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;
}
*.MsoChpDefault {
font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;
}
*.MsoPapDefault {
margin-bottom: 8.0pt;
line-height: 107.0%;
}
div.WordSection1 {
page: WordSection1;
}
--></style>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 09.02.2016 um 20:46
schrieb <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 Albrect:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>DeB's formuals give results in accord with
empirical observations---your claim
notwithstanding. (BTW, what are you refering
to as counter evidence?) Thus, they are useful
and in this sense correct. The story he told
himself and used to derive his formulas is,
actually, immaterial insofar as he got a
useful conception and useful formulas.
Stories are a dime-a-dozen, you have some
that many consider as off-track as you appear
to consider DeB's. That matters only as
"philosphy" but not as techinical physics.
Anyway, I suspect that your deep
antiaffection for this "wrong" deB wave is
grounded on the notion that this wave is a
characteristic of the particle instead of its
interaction with the rest of the universe as
described by the SED background (AKA: the 1/h
h-bar x omega of the quantized free E&M
wave).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The stories told by conventional physicists
to motivate QM are of course just so much
blather. Mostly also inconsistent too---a
capital crime for those bragging about their
rational thinking! And, obviously, that is
the push behind my efforts leading to #7 on <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com">www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com</a></a>! </div>
<div> </div>
<div>In any case, your fixation with a
fictitious wave should be extended to all
E&M waves. None of them exist as they are
described---there is no media. Here DeB is
much less the offender than Bohr, Bell,
Heisenberg, Von Neumann, and whole flock of
2nd generation QM enthusiasts. Still, QM
works. To me that means there is a coherent
story to tell for the math, we just have to
find it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>ciao, 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,
09. Februar 2016 um 19:18 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="genmail@a-giese.de"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_parent">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>,
"Richard Gauthier" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="richgauthier@gmail.com"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] De Broglie
Wave</div>
<div>
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
the choice of de Broglie is not
suboptimal, it is clearly wrong. Badly
wrong. The wave he has introduced does
not exist, and if it would exist its
behaviour would cause a physical
behaviour which is in conflict with
measurements (if those are
comprehensively done).<br>
<br>
I agree with you that the main object
now is to move forward. But we will not
move successfully forward if we carry
millstones with us. De Broglie's wave is
a millstone. I just had a look into a
new textbook about QM, which was highly
recommended by our university. It makes
full use of de Broglie's relation
between momentum and wavelength, so this
is unfortunately not just history.<br>
<br>
But looking into the history: Bohr,
Sommerfeld and others have used the
result of de Broglie to explain quantum
numbers. Particularly the quantisation
of the angular momentum on atomic shells
is explained by "standing waves" where
the wavelength is the one defined by dB.
This obviously hides the true reason of
this quantisation, but as anyone
believes that the Ansatz using de
Broglie is right, nobody is looking for
the correct cause. - This is one of the
reasons for our sticking physics.<br>
<br>
Tschüss back<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
09.02.2016 um 14:57 schrieb <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As you fully know, the very
same idea can be expressed in
various languages. This is true
of physics also. The very same
structure can be attached to
variuos words and images. I do
not defend deBroglie's choice of
words and images. I too find his
choice suboptimal and somewhat
contrdictory. So what? He was
playing his hand at that time
with the hand he was delt at
that time. Since then, other
ideas have been found in the
deck, as it were. I find that,
without changing any of his
math, one can tell a story that
is vastly less etherial and
mysterious and, depending on the
reader's depth of analysis, less
self-contradictory. I think my
story is the one DeBrogle would
have told if he had been
inspired by some facits of SED.
And, some people have a greater
affinty and interest in abstract
structures, in particular when
their mathematical redintion
seems to work, that for the
stories told for their
explication. This is
particularly true of all things
QM. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Anyway, the main object now
(2016) is to move forward, not
critique historical
personalitites. So, I'm trying
to contribute to this discussion
by adding what I know now, and
what I have found to be useful.
We are "doing" physics, not
history. Let's make new errors,
not just grind away on the old
ones!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>BTW, to my info, both Dirac
and Schrödinger would agree that
deBroglie proposed some not too
cogent arguments regarding the
nature of QM-wave functions.
Still, the best there at that
time. All the same, they too
went to their graves without
having found a satisfactory
interpretation. SED throws some
new ingredients into the mix. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Tschuss, 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,
09. Februar 2016 um 13:41
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht Giese"
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="genmail@a-giese.de"
target="_parent"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>,
"Richard Gauthier" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De Broglie Wave</div>
<div>
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
I have the impression that
you have a solution for
particle scattering which
is in some way related to
the idea of de Broglie. (I
also have of course a
solution). But was this
the goal of our discussion
and of my original
contribution? It was not!
My objection was de
Broglie's original idea as
stated in his thesis and
as taken over by
Schrödinger and Dirac.<br>
<br>
You have a lot of elements
in your argumentation
which I do not find in the
thesis of de Broglie.
(There is e.g. nothing at
dB about SED ore
background.)<br>
<br>
The essential point of our
discussion is the meaning
of his wave - and his
wavelength. I think it is
very obvious from his
thesis (which you clearly
know) that his "fictitious
wave" accompanies a
particle like the electron<i>
all of the time</i>.
There is no interaction
mentioned except that
there is an observer at
rest who measures the
frequency of the particle.
But without influencing
the particle.<br>
<br>
Now it is normal knowledge
that a frequency and as
well a wavelength appears
changed for an observer
who is in motion. This is
caused by the Doppler
effect. But the Doppler
effect will never cause
that a finite wavelength
changes to Infinite if an
observer moves at some
speed unequal to c. But
just that happens to the
wave invented by de
Broglie. It follows the
equation<br>
<br>
lambda = h/(m*v) where
v is the speed difference
between the particle and
the observer (to say it
this time this way). And
this is in conflict to any
physics we know.<br>
<br>
Best, Albrecht<br>
<br>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
08.02.2016 um 17:20
schrieb <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Your challenge
is easy! In fact
my last responce
covered it. The
RELEVANT velocity
is the relative
velocity between
the particle and
the slit; not that
between the
observer-particle
or observer-slit.
An observer will
see all kinds of
distortions of the
events, starting
with simple
persepctive due to
being at some
distance from the
slit and its
registration
screen. In
additon this
observer will see
those deB waves
affecting the
particle (NOT from
the particle, nor
from the slit, but
from the universal
background there
before either the
particle or slit
came into being)
as
perspectively-relativistically
distorted
(twin-clock type
distortion). BUT,
the observer will
still see the same
over-all
background because
the totality of
background signals
(not just those to
which this
particle is
tuned), i.e., its
spectral energy
density, is itself
Lorentz invariant.
That is, the
observer's motion
does not enable
it to empirically
distinguish
between the
background in the
various frames,
nor does the
background
engender friction
forces.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You have got to
get your head
around the idea
that deB waves are
independant of
particles whatever
their frame.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Schrördinger
did toy with some
aspects that
deBroglie used,
but never did
succeed in
rationalizing his
eq. in those or
any other terms.
For him, when
died, wave
functions were
ontologically
completely
mysterious. From
SED proponents,
I'm told, my
thoughts in #7 on
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com">www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com</a></a>,
are unique in
formulating S's
eq. in terms of
deB concepts. Try
it, maybe you'll
like it. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>There are other
SED-type stories
too, but as they
are based on
diffusion
(parabolic, not
hyperbolic)
precesses, I find
them self
contradictory.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>ciao, 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> Montag,
08. Februar
2016 um 141
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>,
"Richard
Gauthier" <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="richgauthier@gmail.com"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div>
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
if you follow
de Broglie,
you should
have an
explanation
for the
following
experiment
(here again):<br>
<br>
Electrons move
at 0.1 c
towards the
double slit.
Behind the
double slit
there is an
interference
pattern
generated,
which in the
frame of the
slit follows
the rule of de
Broglie. But
now there is
an observer
also moving at
0.1 c parallel
to the beam of
electrons. In
his frame the
electrons have
momentum=0 and
so
wavelength=infinite.
That means: No
interference
pattern. But
there is in
fact a pattern
which does not
disappear just
because there
is another
observer. And
the moving
observer will
see the
pattern. -
This is a
falsification
of de
Broglie's
rule. What
else?<br>
<br>
The
understanding
that the de
Broglie wave
is a property
of the
particle (even
though
depending on
their speed,
but not on an
interaction)
was not my
idea but the
one of
Schrödinger
and Dirac and
many others.
Also by de
Broglie
himself.<br>
<br>
Ciao Albrecht<br>
<br>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
08.02.2016 um
03:30 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>BUT, the
laws of
Physics for
"being" in a
frame are not
the laws for
interacting
between
frames! The
deB. wave is
not a feature
of a particle
in its own
frame, but a
feature of the
interaction of
such a
particle with
at least one
other particle
in another
frame. When
the two frames
are moving
with respect
to each other,
then the
features of
the
interaction
cannot be
Lorentz
invariants.
When one
particle is
interacting
with another
particle (or
ensemble---slit
say) the
relevant
physics is
determined by
the deB wave
in that
sitation,
whatever it
looks like to
an observer in
a third frame
with yet
different
relative
velocities.
It is a
perspective
effect: a tree
is the same
ontological
size in fact
no matter how
small it
appears to
distant
observers.
Observed
diminished
size(s) cannot
be "invriant."
Appearances
=/= ,,so
sein''.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You have
gotten your
head stuck on
the idea that
deB. waves are
characteristics
intrinsic to
particles in
an of
themselves.
Recalibrate!
DeB waves are
charactteristics
of the mutual
interaction of
particles.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best, 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> Sonntag,
07. Februar
2016 um 22:10
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="genmail@a-giese.de" target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>,
"Richard
Gauthier" <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="richgauthier@gmail.com"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div>
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
at one of your
points I
really
disagree. The
physical laws
have to be
fulfilled in
every frame.
That means
that all
physical
processes have
to obey the
same laws in
all frames. So
also the
process at the
double slit.
But the rule
given by de
Broglie looks
correct in
only one
frame, that is
the frame
where the
double slit is
at rest. For
an observer in
motion the
diffraction
pattern looks
very similar
as for the
observer at
rest, but for
the observer
in motion the
results
according to
de Broglie are
completely
different,
because the
momentum of
the particle
is different
in a wide
range in the
frame of a
moving
observer and
so is the
wavelength
assigned to
the particle.<br>
<br>
The specific
case: At
electron
scattering,
the observer
co-moving with
the electron
will see a
similar
pattern as the
observer at
rest, but de
Broglie says
that for this
observer there
does not exist
any pattern.
That is
strongly
incorrect.<br>
<br>
The
Schrödinger
equation and
also the Dirac
function
should have
correct
results in
different
frames, at
least at
non-relativistic
speeds. This
requirement is
clearly
violated
through their
use of de
Broglie's
rule.<br>
<br>
Grüße<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
PS: Your
article refers
to "Stochastic
Electrodynamics".
That is in my
knowledge not
standard
physics and so
a new
assumption.<br>
<br>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
07.02.2016 um
19:03 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In my
view the story
in my paper
has no new
assunptions,
rather new
words for old
assumptions.
As I, along
with most
others, see
it, there is
no conflict
with
experiment,
but a less
than fully
transparent
explantion for
experimental
observations
(particle beam
diffrction)
otherwise
unexplained.
At the time
of writing,
and nowadays
too (although
I'd to think
that my paper
rationalizes
DeB's story)
it was the
most widely
accepted story
for this
phenomna. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The only
entities that
logically need
to be Lorentz
invariant are
the particle.
I the deB
wave is not a
'Bestandteil'
of the
particle, but
of its
relations with
its
envionment,
then
invariance is
not defined
nor useful.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>M.f.G.
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> Sonntag,
07. Februar
2016 um 14:39
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="genmail@a-giese.de" target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>,
"Richard
Gauthier" <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="richgauthier@gmail.com"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div>
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
thank you for
your
reference.
Your paper has
a lot of
intelligent
thoughts but
also a lot of
additional
assumptions.
With reference
to the de
Broglie wave,
I think, is
the situation
much simpler
on the level
of
conservative
knowledge. De
Broglie has
misunderstood
relativity
(particularly
dilation) and
so seen a
conflict which
does in fact
not exist. He
has solved the
conflict by
inventing an
additional
"fictitious"
wave which has
no other
foundation in
physics, and
also his
"theorem of
harmonic
phases" which
as well is an
invention
without need.
And his result
is in conflict
with the
experiment if
we ask for
Lorentz
invariance or
even for
Galilean
invariance. -
If we follow
the basic idea
of de Broglie
by, however,
avoiding his
logical error
about
relativity, we
come easily to
a description
of matter
waves without
logical
conflicts.
This does not
need new
philosophy or
other effort
at this level.<br>
<br>
Best, Albrecht<br>
<br>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
06.02.2016 um
03:15 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<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 <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.Nonloco-Physics.0catch.com"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.Nonloco-Physics.0catch.com">www.Nonloco-Physics.0catch.com</a></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
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> Freitag,
05. Februar
2016 um 21:43
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="genmail@a-giese.de" target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> "Richard
Gauthier" <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="richgauthier@gmail.com"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div>
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
true, in the
frame of the
particle the
dB wavelength
is infinite.
Because in its
own frame the
momentum of
the particle
is 0. The
particle
oscillates
with the
frequency of
the particle's
Zitterbewegung
(which
background
fields do you
have in mind?
De Brogie does
not mention
them). This
oscillation is
in no
contradiction
with this
wavelength as
the phase
speed is also
infinite. For
the
imagination,
the latter
means that all
points of that
wave oscillate
with the same
phase at any
point.<br>
<br>
Which
background
waves do you
have in mind?
What is the
CNONOICAL
momentum? And
what about
E&M
interactions?
De Broglie has
not related
his wave to a
specific
field. An
E&M field
would anyway
have no effect
in the case of
neutron
scattering for
which the same
de Broglie
formalism is
used. And into
which frame do
you see the
wave
Lorentz-transformed?<br>
<br>
So, an
electron in
his frame has
an infinite
wavelength and
in his frame
has the double
slit moving
towards the
particle. How
can an
interference
at the slits
occur? No
interference
can happen
under these
conditions.
But, as I have
explained in
the paper, the
normal wave
which
accompanies
the electron
by normal
rules (i.e.
phase speed =
c) will have
an
interference
with its own
reflection,
which has then
a wavelength
which fits to
the
expectation of
de Broglie.
But that is a
very local
event (in a
range of
approx. 10^-12
m for the
electron) and
it is not at
all a property
of the
electron as de
Broglie has
thought.<br>
<br>
To say it
again: The de
Broglie
wavelength
cannot be a
steady
property of
the particle.
But
Schrödinger
and Dirac have
incorporated
it into their
QM equations
with this
understanding.<br>
<br>
If I should
have
misunderstood
you, please
show the
mathematical
calculations
which you
mean.<br>
<br>
Ciao, Albrecht<br>
<br>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
05.02.2016 um
19:20 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi:
Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Your
arguments
don't resonate
with me. The
deB' wave
length is
infinite in
the particles
frame: it is
the standing
wave formed by
the inpinging
background
waves having a
freq. = the
particle's
Zitterbewegung.
If these TWO
waves are each
Lorentz
x-formed to
another frame
and added
there, they
exhibit
exactly the
DeB'
modulation
wavelength
proportional
to the
particle's
momentum. The
only
mysterious
feature then
is that the
proportionality
is to the
CNONICAL
momentum,
i.e.,
including the
vector
potential of
whatever
exterior
E&M
interactions
are in-coming.
Nevertheless,
everything
works our
without
contradiction.
A particle
oscillates in
place at its
Zitter freq.
while the
Zitter signals
are modulated
by the DeB'
wavelength as
they move
through slits,
say.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>ciao, L</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> Freitag,
05. Februar
2016 um 12:28
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="genmail@a-giese.de" target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> "Richard
Gauthier" <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="richgauthier@gmail.com"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></a>, <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div>Hi
Richard and
Al, hi All,<br>
<br>
recently we
had a
discussion
here about two
topics:<br>
<br>
1. The
functionality
of the de
Broglie wave,
particularly
its wavelength<br>
if seen from a
different
inertial
system. Such
cases lead to
illogical<br>
situations.<br>
2. The problem
of the
apparent
asymmetry at
relativistic
dilation.<br>
<br>
I have
investigated
these cases
and found that
they are in
some way<br>
connected.
Relativistic
dilation is
not as simple
as it is
normally<br>
taken. It
looks
asymmetric if
it is
incorrectly
treated. An
asymmetry<br>
would falsify
Special
Relativity.
But it is in
fact
symmetrical if<br>
properly
handled and
understood.<br>
<br>
It is funny
that both
problems are
connected to
each other
through the<br>
fact that de
Broglie
himself has
misinterpreted
dilation. From
this<br>
incorrect
understanding
he did not
find another
way out than
to invent<br>
his "theorem
of phase
harmony"; with
all logical
conflicts
resulting<br>
from this
approach.<br>
<br>
If relativity
is properly
understood,
the problem
seen by de
Broglie<br>
does not
exist.
Equations
regarding
matter waves
can be derived
which<br>
work properly,
i.e. conform
to the
experiments
but avoid the
logical<br>
conflicts.<br>
<br>
As announced,
I have
composed a
paper about
this. It can
be found at:<br>
<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.academia.edu/21564534/The_Conflict_with_the_De_Broglie_Wavelength"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.academia.edu/21564534/The_Conflict_with_the_De_Broglie_Wavelength">https://www.academia.edu/21564534/The_Conflict_with_the_De_Broglie_Wavelength</a></a><br>
.<br>
<br>
I thank
Richard
Gauthier for
the discussion
which we had
about this<br>
topic. It
caused me to
investigate
the problem
and to find a
solution.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
---<br>
Diese E-Mail
wurde von
Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft.<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a></a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
If you no
longer wish to
receive
communication
from the
Nature of
Light and
Particles
General
Discussion
List at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<a href=<a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank">"<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/</a></a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br />
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #aaabb6;">
<tr>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 20px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird. <br /><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email" target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</table>
</body>
</html>