<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Al and Albrecht:<br>
you are having an interesting discussion and I would like to ask a
question that has always bothered me regarding the assignment of
wavelength using Einstein and deBroglie.<br>
<br>
The normal calculation assume the mass of a finite size body is
concentrated at a point. <br>
The mass is equated to energy which is then converted to a wave of a
specific frequency<br>
m c^2 / h = f<br>
<br>
However the point particles are an approximation and the mass is
spread out <br>
If I divide a point mass into a million small spread out pieces (
dv/V = 1/ million) I would calculate a much lower frequency for each
piece<br>
m*dV* c^2 / h*V = f *dV/V<br>
in the limit dV=>0 the frequency goes to zero. This means an
actual finite sized particle would be more correctly described by a
frequency density of very low frequencies and long wavelengths.<br>
<br>
So should we assign half the frequency to a particle described by
Albrechts 2 rotating particle model.<br>
<br>
How can any of these calculations be justified when the point
particle idealization is eliminated. <br>
Or do we just say " shut up and calculate" it works.<br>
<br>
wolf <br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/11/2016 11:19 AM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-634e351d-6071-4d25-b9be-4461f7797ba8-1455218388545@3capp-webde-bap46"
type="cite">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi Albrectht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Another round! We are doing Physics. As such, we don't
care about stories. We care more about formulas. DeB's
formulas have been verified empirically beyound doubt (when
used correctly as he did, you'r not!). His story is another
matter; it was cooked up when he was faced with sparce
empirical info and vague theory. By virtue of inspired
imagination he found some words and images that helped him
find his formulas. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>His story is not religion: infalible fabel in a holy
book; it is just a story for what it is good for. Nowadays
most of us find his story unclear and fragmented. I did
while trying to understand QM; so, I struggled until I found
a new story. I think it is much superior to his, therefore
in discussing deB. waves I use my story. All it does is
relate the fancyful images and notions used by deB to
concepts closer to classical Physics. My srory is fully
compatible with deB's story in that no different formulas
come from it, but it does not strain one's credulity as do
the quantum ideas of his age. While deB doesn't use the
word "interaction" he is talking about E&M waves (which
I hold do not exist as ontological entities<span
style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif, Arial, 'Trebuchet
MS'; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.6em;">, even while
charges INTERACT, however they do it.)</span></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Regarding the experiment. The pattern recorded behind
the slit is fully independant of whatever any passing
observer does. It is printed on the screen, for once and for
all. Observers looking at that pattern from frames other
than that of the slit will see it in optical and
relativistic perspcetive, just like the trees out your
window appear smaller than when standing next to them---no
mystery here! DeB's story takes all this for granted.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As for Schröedinger's use of deB' waves, see #7 on my web
page (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com">www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com</a>)! There the deB-wave
notion is used to relate Schröedonger's eq. to Liouville eq.
from statistics. It all hangs together. My story removes
much mystical gush from QM but is, as it is at the moment,
not complete insofar as the hypothetical input on which is
it based is a divergent quantity. Somewhere there is a
story about that quantitiy (present in classical E&M and
QED too) that will resolve this Schönheitsfehler.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>ciao, Al</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </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> Donnerstag,
11. Februar 2016 um 18:12 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);"><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></font><br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 10.02.2016 um 19:41
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>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 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,
10. Februar 2016 um 15:37 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>
<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"><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 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">www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com</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"><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>
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" 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>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"><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>
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" 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>
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><a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/"
target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/</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>
<table style="border-top: 1.0px solid
rgb(170,171,182);">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 470.0px;padding-top:
20.0px;color: rgb(65,66,78);font-size:
13.0px;font-family: Arial , Helvetica ,
sans-serif;line-height: 18.0px;">Diese E-Mail
wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet,
der von Avast geschützt wird.<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email"
style="color: rgb(68,83,234);"
target="_blank">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>