<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Al says:<br>
<br>
"His (Albrecht's) latest surprise is a wave that is the same as
that in QM! Where the hell does that come from; why is it different
from deB's wave?"<br>
<br>
As I have explained, the wave used by QM can be easily explained by
my particle model.<br>
<br>
And the difference to de Broglie? Very simple: For de Broglie the
wavelength there is lambda = h/(m*v). For the QM wave (and mine)
there is lambda = h/(m*c). (m is the dynamical mass). And this
latter relation avoids the weird situation coming up with the de
Broglie wave.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 12.02.2016 um 20:35 schrieb
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-1772dc8d-b604-404e-a58a-7c6fdadee239-1455305739791@3capp-webde-bap39"
type="cite">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Wolfgang:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Perhaps an ommision in my previous responce is here at
fault. What I sould have added is that "particle's" deB
wave, per both deB himself and my SED based model, is not
the wave but modulation on the wave. The SED addition is
just that the wave is an E&M signal at the particle's
Compton/Zitter frequency. The point then is that the
constituents, being smaller can be though of as having
internal structure that that resonates, couples, to this
signal. The total object built up of the consitutents,
then, being larger, can be though of as having
inner-constiuent resonances that then couple to a lower
freq. back ground signal, etc. [I don't need to burn
bandwidth---it's laid out in papers #7 & #11 on
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com">www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com</a>] </div>
<div> </div>
<div>As for exploring the inner construction of particles,
etc. I am subject to a strong sense that "there is no point
in building a roof on a building for which the foundation is
crumbling." Given the lacuna in explication of E&M, QM,
SR, etc. I have never been able to get myself motivated to
jump into high energy physics, etc. Others are, of course,
free to do as they choose. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Albrectht's story, however, always seems to me to be a
fully successful enterprise to explain one mystical aspect
of physics by hypothtically assuming two more! His latest
surprise is a wave that is the same as that in QM! Where
the hell does that come from; why is it different from deB's
wave? And so on.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best, Al</div>
<div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px; padding:
10px 0 10px 10px; border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Freitag,
12. Februar 2016 um 19:57 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Wolfgang Baer" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"><wolf@nascentinc.com></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] De Broglie Wave</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div style="background-color: rgb(255,255,255);">Al;<br>
<br>
This sounds like if it acts like a single particle
whether we idealize it as a point or as a single
coherent wave does not matter it works.<br>
That stops a lot of further discussion and speculation
regarding the interior of those particles.<br>
However does not String Theory and Albrecht's efforts
precisely attempt to ask further questions about the
internal structure?<br>
Could such speculation not lead to understanding
mechanisms that go beyond the point particle
approximation by asking why does this approximation
work?<br>
<br>
For example Lande's Quantization ( see Quantum
Mechanics in a New Key or<small><span class="fn"><span>
Foundations of Quantum Theory</span></span>: <span
class="subtitle"><span>A Study in Continuity and
Symmetry</span></span></small><big><big><big>)</big></big></big>
rules explain all wave properties an quantum
transition in terms of internal structure of finite
particles. If the finite particle has certain
symmetries expressed by dx the it can only exchange
momentum dp<small><small>x</small></small> , in
quantized steps so that dp<small><small>x</small></small>=
h/dx.<br>
This formulation requires no waves at all (<a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.pnas.org/content/9/5/158"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.pnas.org/content/9/5/158">http://www.pnas.org/content/9/5/158</a></a>)
it was successfully used to explain Bragg diffraction
in the 30's.<br>
<br>
best, wolf<br>
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="wolf@NascentInc.com" target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></a>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/11/2016 5:46 PM, <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>
wrote:</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi Wolfgang:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I would say that the "divide it up"
argument is a variation of Albrecht's error.
He is fixsated on the conception that the deB
"wave" is an intrinsic property of the
particle in stead of a characterization of its
interaction with other particles (a subtilty
that deB himself only passivly/subconsciulsy
incorporated in his understanding and
therefore did not feature in his story---it is
however impicit when he assigns momentum).
Specifically, if "the" particle is
conceptually divided up but held together in
such a way that its reaction to its enviorment
(exterior forces), is characterizable as if
the totality of the pieces respond identically
in unison, then the total of the pieces is "a"
single entity with a single interaction, as so
with a single deB wave length. If the dividen
or fractional portion respond separately and
independantly to the envoronment, then each
gets it own deB wave. This has all been
empirically observed in experiments which
diffact beams of Buckky-ball assemblies of
molecules: a beam of balls has its own deB
wave different from a beam of the constuent
molecules. </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> Donnerstag,
11. Februar 2016 um 21:09 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Wolfgang Baer" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="wolf@nascentinc.com"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"><wolf@nascentinc.com></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_parent">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] De Broglie
Wave</div>
<div>
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">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>
<pre class="moz-signature">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">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On
2/11/2016 11:19 AM, <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>
wrote:</div>
<blockquote>
<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>, 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 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>)!
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 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> Donnerstag,
11. Februar 2016 um 18:12
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);"><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"><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>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"><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>
<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"><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"><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"><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>
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" 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>
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"><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>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"> </fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
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">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" target="_blank">"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>
_______________________________________________
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">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank"> Click here to
unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"> </fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
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="Wolf@nascentinc.com" target="_parent">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" target="_blank">"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>
_______________________________________________ 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">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank"> Click here to unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<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:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a 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;">
<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>