<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Wolf,<br>
<br>
do I explain one mystery by another one? I think that the situation
should be envisioned in a different way. <br>
<br>
Our physical understanding and our ongoing follows the reductionism.
That means that we explain physical phenomena on a specific level by
use of facts, which are taken as facts on a more fundamental level.
And later the more fundamental level has to be explained. Example
from astronomy: Kepler's law was at first stated as a formula, then
it could be explained by Newton's laws of motion and of gravity.
Next step now in reductionism is to explain, how the law of gravity
and the law of motion is caused.<br>
<br>
I am using the fact that there are forces in physics which bind
objects to each other and at the same time cause a distance between
these objects. This fact is universal in physics. If elementary
particles or atoms or molecules would not keep distances then our
whole universe could be but into a ball of, say, 10 meters diameter.
- In few cases the distance can be explained by a planetary model,
in most cases (in particle physics) this is not the solution. The
bind of atoms in a molecule is an example. And quarks are bound to
build a proton or neutron, and this is not caused by a planetary
process. The size of the nucleon is by a factor of >1000 greater
than the one of a quark. Who causes the distance? As it is not a
planetary system then there must be a force between the quarks which
just causes this distance even though it binds them. - I do not
think that the bind of atoms in a molecule are a mystery. To my
knowledge the (two) types of bind are well understood.<br>
<br>
I assume the same for the sub-particles in my model. And a fact is
that a distance causes inertia without the need of further
assumptions (except the finiteness of c). <br>
<br>
I have assumed a certain shape of that field which leads to Newton's
law of inertia. - Now one can ask how this field is built. I have
assumed that it is caused by a collection of charges. This is my
attempt to have an explanation on the next more fundamental level.
Perhaps I should not publish such thoughts. Necessary is only the
field as it is. And if I stick at this level now, I am not weaker
than Main Stream physics, as they also assume distances without any
explanation for it. (Yes, they talk about "principles", but that
does not mean explanations.)<br>
<br>
I use this configuration it explain inertia. It is a fundamental
explanation that any extended object must have inertia. An extended
object cannot exist without having inertia. - Another fundamental
explanation of inertia is the Higgs model (if one likes QM as
explanation). But Higgs is lacking by the fact that measurements
deny the Higgs field. And the theory is very incomplete as it does
not give us a result for particles for which everything is known
except the mass. - The other models of inertia discussed here are
not fundamental in so far as they refer to momentum, which is
physically identical to inertia.<br>
<br>
Why does a charge not radiate when orbiting? In my view it is a
fundamental error in present physics that an accelerated electrical
charge radiates. This is concluded from the Maxwell equations. But
Maxwell has given us a formal mathematical system which in the daily
work of a technician works fine, but it does not tell us the physics
behind. So he has postulated a symmetry between electricity and
magnetism. Completely wrong as we understand it meanwhile. Magnetism
is a relativistic side effect of the electrical field. Very well
explained by a video clip of veritasium:<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0</a><br>
<br>
An electric charge does not "know" what acceleration is. It only
"knows" what an electrical field is. And if this field changes then
the charge will radiate. That is the reason that an electron
normally radiates at acceleration. Because during acceleration the
electron is relativistically distorted. This causes that one
sub-particle senses a changing field from the other partner. <br>
<br>
What is strong force? What is electrical force? I have no
explanation for that (reductionistic) level where charges are
caused. Why do I say that the force in my model is the strong force?
The reconstruction of the force from a known mass shows that this
force is at least by a factor of 300 stronger than the electrical
one. And the only force with this strength which I know is the
strong one. - Perhaps I should keep this open.<br>
<br>
Is this more like an explanation which you are expecting?<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 18.02.2016 um 05:46 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56C54CA5.3030400@nascentinc.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Albrecht:<br>
I tend to be skeptical as well about the gravity wave
announcement.<br>
But then I generally discount a lot of high energy work since
without extremely detailed knowledge it is hard to trust anything
as complex and deeply imbedded in statistics. <br>
<br>
Regarding your model I basically have the same problem as
Kracklauer, is your particle model not simply a substitution of
one mystery with another? <br>
<br>
otherwise I'll just follow up on one question. You said <br>
"They( the two charges) have assemblies of charges to build a
multi-pole field which has a minimum of potential at some
distance."<br>
<br>
So does this mean that the two particle drawings you publish are
approximations to assemblies of charges?<br>
I and probably anyone would need a clear derivation of the force
curve <br>
<br>
Although molecular forces gives an analogy such an analogy assumes
all the things you are trying to explain<br>
(mass, inertia, etc.) and even that makes the whole question of
how atoms are held together a pandora's box of mystery.<br>
why no radiation from a bound accelerating electron, why the
exclusion principle in the first place. Principles principles
everywhere.<br>
<br>
Wolf<br>
<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 2/14/2016 12:43 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56C0E70F.6090401@a-giese.de" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Hi Wolf,<br>
<br>
my answers in the text.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 12.02.2016 um 21:28 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BE4050.3060001@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Albrecht <br>
<br>
What do you think of the gravity wave detection announcement?<br>
</blockquote>
I would be happier with this discovery if some other lab would
have seen it as well. They say that the significance is better
than 5 sigma. That is in fact a lot. However we still have to
believe it. The chirp did have a length of 200 ms. Such "chirp"
signals are in some way similar. During 100 days there are
approx. 50 million windows of 200 ms. So, a coincidence may
happen. Of course one has to assume that this was taken into
account by the team. But I would feel better to see details. <br>
<br>
Another uncomfortable feeling is that it has taken only 200 ms
to merge two black holes with masses of approx. 50 suns. Can
this happen that quickly? We know from Einstein's theory that
any temporal process in the vicinity of the event horizon slows
down until no motion. I see this as a strong argument against
such short time. I have asked this question in the forum of the
German version of Nature. My question was not published. - Very
funny!<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BE4050.3060001@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"> <br>
thank you for your answers, and I appreciate your time
constraints, we are all busy so answer when you can. <br>
<br>
There are a few comments<br>
a) so your two particles are two oppositely charged charges?</blockquote>
They have assemblies of charges to build a multi-pole field
which has a minimum of potential at some distance. That is
similar to the situation in a molecule where atoms are bound to
each other. But the force here is stronger.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BE4050.3060001@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"> b) Calibration is an after the fact fitting that
is not a bad technique but cannot be considered first
principle derivation.<br>
In addition the force you define has an attraction, repulsion
and a minimum that keeps the particles in a fixed orbit when
not disturbed.<br>
How is this minimum established out of rotating electric
charges? Are we talking a kind of strong force or something
new? What about magnetic forces between two moving charges. <br>
</blockquote>
From my model it follows that the force between the
sub-particles is ca. 300 - 500 times the electrical force. To
have a better precision I have used the measurements to
determine Planck's constant or equivalently the measurements to
determine the magnetic moment. From comparison with measurements
it follows that my constant is S = h*c. In my understanding this
is the square of the field constant of the strong force . - This
is however not the position of Main Stream. On the other hand,
Chip Akins has just yesterday presented ideas which conform to
this result.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BE4050.3060001@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"> <br>
c) "Origin of Mass" in Figure 6.1 shows the drawing of a
retarded interaction which I think is used to explain the 1/2
factor in spin.<br>
However the effective radius is now smaller and thus if your
potential curve fig 2.1 is accurate the particles would be
repelled along the retarded potential line. Would you not have
to show a radial and tangential component?<br>
</blockquote>
It would be at the end better to show a radial and a tangential
component. But independent of this, the effective distance
between the charges is less than twice the radius. But this is
covered by a fixed correction factor which is implicitly taken
into account by the calibration. This calibration would mean
nothing if it would be used only for the electron. But the
result is then valid for all leptons and for all quarks (in a
limited way also for the photon.)<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BE4050.3060001@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"> <br>
e) should an outside force impulse when the particles are
aligned along the force vector effecting one particle first
and then the other producing your inertia result. However when
the particle separation is perpendicular both particles would
see the same force. If its an electric impulse on plus and
negative charge it would introduce a rotation. This introduces
an asymmetry. <br>
Is this eliminated by averaging ? If so your derivation is an
instantaneous approximation and if a smeared out calculation
is made would much of your result not cancel or show
oscillations?<br>
</blockquote>
The electrical charges on the sub-particles have the same sign
in all cases, 2x 1/2 elementary charge in case of the electron.
So, an external electrical force does not impose an angular
momentum or an asymmetry. The force needed for acceleration
depends on the direction. It has to be integrated over all
directions. This is normally however not necessary as this is
also covered by the calibration. Only in the moment when I take
into account the general influence of the electric charges to
calculate the Landé factor, the directions have to be taken into
account more individually. I my according calculation I do it
and the result is the correct factor.<br>
<br>
Best, Albrecht<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BE4050.3060001@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"> <br>
best,<br>
Wolf<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 2/12/2016 6:28 AM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BDEC26.4030906@a-giese.de" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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"><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 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="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 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"><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="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"><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="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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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"><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="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
moz-do-not-send="true" 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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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"><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="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
moz-do-not-send="true" 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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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"><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"
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
moz-do-not-send="true" 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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true" 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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
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"><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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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"
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"
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"
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;">
<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;">
<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>