<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Wolf,<br>
<br>
I apologize if I have not answered questions which you have asked. I
am preparing for a conference where I will give 7 contributions and
that keeps me quite busy.<br>
<br>
I think that I have already answered some of the questions which you
are asking in this mail. But no problem, I shall do it again.<br>
<br>
You have looked at my web site "the Origin of Gravity". My model of
gravity uses (and needs) this particle model, at least certain
properties of it. But otherwise the fact of inertia has nothing to
do with gravity. <br>
<br>
To start with your questions regarding inertial mass: The basic
point is that any extended object necessarily has inertia. Just for
this fact - without details of parameters - there are no
preconditions needed except the assumption that there are forces
which cause the object to exist and to have an extension, and that
these forces propagate at speed of light c. <br>
I have explained details earlier. It is also explained as a step by
step process on my web site "The Origin of Mass". So I do not repeat
the basic explanation again here. But I can do so if you (ore
someone else) will ask for it. - But this is the fundamental and
essential fact.<br>
<br>
Next answers in the text below.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 10.02.2016 um 20:28 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB8F4F.9080506@nascentinc.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Albrecht;<br>
Sorry to mistake your feelings it sounded like you were getting
frustrated at not being understood.<br>
<br>
However I'm getting frustrated since I've read much of your work
and have asked questions which have not been answered. Perhaps
they have not been clear or gotten lost, so here they are again. <br>
Ref: Albrecht;<br>
Sorry to mistake your feelings it sounded like you were getting
frustrated at not being understood.<br>
<br>
However I'm getting frustrated since I've read much of your work
and have asked questions which perhaps have not been clear or
gotten lost, so here they are again ref: The Origin of Gravity
Figure 3.1: Basic Particle Model<br>
It looks like you are presenting a new explanation of inertial
mass with a theory which has a large number of assumptions:<br>
a) a new set of orbiting particles that are made of What?<br>
</blockquote>
The minimum assumptions for my model is that an elementary particle
has an extension; as said above in the beginning. To further detail
it, I assume that the sub-particles have charges which cause a
binding field. This field has also to achieve a distance between the
sub-particles. (Such a field structure is known in physics in the
binding of atoms to molecules; but there it is caused by a different
type of charge.) In the case of electrically charged elementary
particles there are also electrical charges in the sub-particles.
The sub-particles may have further properties, but those are not
essential for this model.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB8F4F.9080506@nascentinc.com" type="cite">
b) a force between those particles you made up to fit your desired
result, where does this force come from?<br>
why is the minimum not a combination of two forces
like a coulomb attraction and centrifugal repulsion</blockquote>
I have only assumed that there are charges in it, positive and
negative ones (to cause attraction and repulsion). The strength of
the force is determines later by the calibration.<br>
Centrifugal repulsion is of course not possible as it would need
that the sub-particles have inertial mass each. I do not assume an
inertial mass as a precondition as this would subvert my goal to
explain mass fundamentally. (This also conforms to the position of
present main stream physics.)<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB8F4F.9080506@nascentinc.com" type="cite">
<br>
c) assume this force also propagates at light speed "c" and Why
does rapid rotation not change the interaction energy curve?<br>
I always have trouble understanding the stability of
particles rotating at or near the speed of light when the force
signals<br>
are also moving at this speed. <br>
</blockquote>
With this respect my model is presented a bit simplified in most of
my drawings. If one assumes that the sub-particles move at c and
also the field (maybe represented by exchange particles) moves at c,
then the force coming from one particle does not reach the other
sub-particle when it is opposite in the circuit but at a different
position. This changes the calculation by a certain, fixed factor.
But this effect is compensated by the calibration. - You find a
drawing showing this on my site "Origin of Mass" in Figure 6.1 . <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB8F4F.9080506@nascentinc.com" type="cite">
d) a media or space of propagation between those particles that is
flat<br>
</blockquote>
I find it practical to assume that the forces are realized by
exchange particles (also moving at c). In a space without gravity
they move undisturbed. If there is gravity then the speed of light
is reduced which changes the forces a little, little bit.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB8F4F.9080506@nascentinc.com" type="cite">
e) a force on one of the particles from an outside agent that does
not effect the other particle<br>
so you can calculate the reaction force. Would the outside
force not introduce asymmetries depending on the angle of
incidence?<br>
</blockquote>
If there is a force from the outside (like an electrical one) it
will touch both sub-particles. There might be a very small time
delay reaching both. And it will be in practice a very, very small
influence in relation to the forces within the particle. The fact
that <i>both </i>sub-particles are affected will not change the
process of inertia as these forces are always very weak in relation
to the forces inside.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB8F4F.9080506@nascentinc.com" type="cite">
<br>
My question is not that your calculations are wrong but given the
above hidden assumptions<br>
1) why would I not simply say inertial mass is an intrinsic
property of matter?<br>
</blockquote>
This "intrinsic mass" was the old understanding in physics. Since
several decades also Main Stream has changed its opinion to it
(otherwise there would not have been a search for the Higgs). And
with this assumption of an intrinsic a-priory-mass we would not have
an explanation for the further properties of a particle (like spin
and magnetic moment). Particularly no explanation for the
relativistic behaviour like relativistic mass increase and the
relation E = mc^2. These relations are results of this model.
(Einstein and QM have given us these relations, but a physical cause
was never given by both).<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB8F4F.9080506@nascentinc.com" type="cite">
2) What advantage or new phenomena are you predicting?<br>
</blockquote>
The advantage of my model is similar like with Copernicus: We have
physical explanations for facts which we already knew, but up to now
without an explanation. So a better understanding of physics in
general. To be able to predict something is always the greatest
situation. Up to now I do not have any in mind. (Also Copernicus did
not have any, even though he has in fact caused a great step
forward.)<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB8F4F.9080506@nascentinc.com" type="cite">
3) It looks like you are throwing out Mach's Principle since the
existence of distant masses<br>
has no effect on your calculations since inertia is
now still intrinsic to your orbiting particles rather than a point
mass<br>
</blockquote>
A point mass does not exist in my understanding. Regarding Mach's
Principle: I assume like Mach that there is a fundamental frame in
this world. Maybe caused by distant masses, I think it is better to
relate it to the Big Bang. That means for my model that the speed of
light effective in the particle is related to a specific fixed
frame. - This is in contrast to Einstein but in accordance to the
Lorentzian interpretation of relativity.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB8F4F.9080506@nascentinc.com" type="cite">
<br>
That said I agree with most of your criticism of current
interpretations, the most interesting for me is the simplicity
introduced by the use of a variable speed of light and a
refraction model to explain light bending.</blockquote>
Thank you! (The latter point has to do with gravity, not with
inertia.)<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB8F4F.9080506@nascentinc.com" type="cite">
<br>
Best,<br>
Wolf<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
If you have further question or concerns, please ask again. I
appreciate very much that you have worked through my model<br>
<br>
Best<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB8F4F.9080506@nascentinc.com" type="cite">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/10/2016 5:13 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB3790.2040700@a-giese.de" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Hi Wolf,<br>
<br>
why do you think that I am frustrated? Why should I? Since I
found 17 years ago the mechanism of inertia, which functions so
straight and logical with precise results, I am continuously
happy. And the appreciation by interested physicists is great.
Since 14 years my site about mass in internationally #1 in the
internet. Only sometimes the mass site of Nobel Prize winner
Frank Wilzcek is one step higher. But that is good
companionship.<br>
<br>
True that it is a problem with Main Stream. They do not object
but just do not care. They love the Higgs model even though it
is proven not to work. - It just need patience. I still have it.<br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<big> </big>Yes, quantum numbers work fine, but they are
physically little or not founded. It is similar to the known
Pauli Principle. That also works, but nobody knows why. And the
bad thing is that nobody from Main Stream concerned about this
non-understanding. That is the biggest weakness in today's
physics in my view.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 09.02.2016 um 20:35 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BA3F8C.7000106@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
I can feel your frustration, Albrecht, <br>
The oldies are probably all wrong, but it's important to
remember that right or wrong they give us the platform from
which to see farther.<br>
"standing on the shoulders of others", and right or wrong they
give us something tangible to argue about<br>
and what quantum numbers have done for us to organize
chemistry is amazing.<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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/9/2016 10:18 AM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BA2D87.5090908@a-giese.de" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
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>
<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="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-72537819-ce78-41a7-b82e-b4d7545f4651-1455026275771@3capp-webde-bs59"
type="cite">
<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 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> Dienstag,
09. Februar 2016 um 13:41 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht Giese" <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><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="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>,
"Richard Gauthier" <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
<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">af.kracklauer@web.de</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
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com"><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
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>,
"Richard Gauthier" <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><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
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><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
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>,
"Richard Gauthier" <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><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
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><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
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>,
"Richard
Gauthier" <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><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
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><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
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.Nonloco-Physics.0catch.com"><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
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>,
<a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> "Richard
Gauthier" <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><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
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><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
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><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
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></a>,
<a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><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
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.academia.edu/21564534/The_Conflict_with_the_De_Broglie_Wavelength"><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
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"><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
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<a href=<a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a></a>><br>
Click here to
unsubscribe<br>
</a></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
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</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
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</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
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</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
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</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>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #aaabb6;">
<tbody>
<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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email"
target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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>
<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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #aaabb6;">
<tbody>
<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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email" target="_blank"
style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
<br>
</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>