<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Albrecht:<br>
<br>
Thank you for , yes more of an explanation than I was expecting.<br>
And I certainly agree with your motives and your examples from high
energy physics.<br>
You are being motivated by all the applications to simplify physics
and see this reward immediately in front of you.<br>
<br>
I and it looks like Kracklauer are in a different position. We first
see a model we cannot understand that eliminates inertial mass and
the centrifugal force which is largely responsible for holding
things apart in he old concepts. We must understand your model first
before we can appreciate the benefits. <br>
<br>
From my point of view you have not described the nature of the two
particles or the nature of the force that holds them in their
orbits.<br>
<br>
If they are charges, how do charges perhaps "assemblies of charges
build multi-pole field" that maintains incredible stability of a
minimum energy at a specific distance when moving in a circle at the
speed of light?<br>
What is the nature of the external force that acts on one charge and
not the other to generate the internal resistance you identify as
inertia?<br>
<br>
You must answer these simple technical questions first even if the
answers are not simple.<br>
<br>
best wishes,<br>
wolf
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/18/2016 7:35 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56C5E4BF.5010309@a-giese.de" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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;">
<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>
</body>
</html>