<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Yes I think Al has described things well.<br>
My only additional comment is not to feel rejected and disappointed.<br>
It is very difficult to write from the perspective of a new reader
when one has been involved in ones own ideas for a long time.<br>
It is already a major break through in communication when people
have enough interest to point out what they do not understand about
your work. <br>
<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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/19/2016 5:15 PM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-2c83b610-0b3e-4cd4-8028-e6315d7792c2-1455930903868@3capp-webde-bs13"
type="cite">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi Albrecht & all:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Let me formulate Wolfgang's point in my prefered style.
In telling your story, for my taste, you do not follow a
structure in accord with formal logic. That is, you do not
FIRST list all of your hypothetical inputs, which are things
(mysteries) that you do not intend to prove or explain.
Then with something like sylogisims prove or deduce new
outputs, i.e., the benefits of the story. In stead, you
tell a chapter or so of your story, at which point further
development requires a so far unused hypothtical new input,
and then, zipp!, in she goes, without mostly, proper
introduction. In the end, the reader or consumer of your
story is unsure that the number of benefits is actually
larger than the number of inputs, thereby making the effort
to ingest and digest the complexitites of the story worth
the effort. It's like reading a poorly composed Russian
novel: the reader loses all coherance with respect to
characters coming and going and has the feeling of being
swept along as if in a megacity's rush hour subway throng!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Also, some of your points are manifestly dimentional
analysis---they prove nothing new, they just reshuffel the
building blocks. Some see this a proof of internal
consistency, but without recognizing that the consistency
thereby proved, if any, is within the inputs taken from
previous work (often tautological definitions of terms),
most often somebody else's. Such consistency is not to the
credit of the results of the supposed new structure/story.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>For what it's worth, Al</div>
<div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px; padding:
10px 0 10px 10px; border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Freitag,
19. Februar 2016 um 21:14 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Wolfgang Baer" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"><wolf@nascentinc.com></a><br>
<b>An:</b> "Albrecht Giese" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"><phys@a-giese.de></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> "'Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion'"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] De Broglie Wave</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div style="background-color: rgb(255,255,255);">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">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="wolf@NascentInc.com" target="_parent">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/18/2016 7:35 AM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:</div>
<blockquote>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"
target="_blank">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>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 18.02.2016 um 05:46
schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</div>
<blockquote>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>
<pre class="moz-signature">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="wolf@NascentInc.com" target="_parent">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/14/2016 12:43
PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:</div>
<blockquote>Hi Wolf,<br>
<br>
my answers in the text.<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 12.02.2016 um
21:28 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</div>
<blockquote>Albrecht<br>
<br>
What do you think of the gravity wave
detection announcement?</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!
<blockquote><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.
<blockquote>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.</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.
<blockquote><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?</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.)
<blockquote><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?</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>
<blockquote><br>
best,<br>
Wolf
<pre class="moz-signature">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="wolf@NascentInc.com" target="_parent">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/12/2016 6:28
AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:</div>
<blockquote>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>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 10.02.2016
um 20:28 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</div>
<blockquote>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?</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.
<blockquote>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.)
<blockquote><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.</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 .
<blockquote>d) a media or space of
propagation between those particles that
is flat</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.
<blockquote>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?</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.
<blockquote><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?</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).
<blockquote>2) What advantage or new
phenomena are you predicting?</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.)
<blockquote>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</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.
<blockquote><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.)
<blockquote><br>
Best,<br>
Wolf</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>
<blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="wolf@NascentInc.com" target="_parent">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/10/2016
5:13 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:</div>
<blockquote>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>
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>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
09.02.2016 um 20:35 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:</div>
<blockquote>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>
<pre class="moz-signature">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="wolf@NascentInc.com" target="_parent">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On
2/9/2016 10:18 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:</div>
<blockquote>Hi Al,<br>
<br>
the choice of de Broglie is not
suboptimal, it is clearly wrong.
Badly wrong. The wave he has
introduced does not exist, and if it
would exist its behaviour would
cause a physical behaviour which is
in conflict with measurements (if
those are comprehensively done).<br>
<br>
I agree with you that the main
object now is to move forward. But
we will not move successfully
forward if we carry millstones with
us. De Broglie's wave is a
millstone. I just had a look into a
new textbook about QM, which was
highly recommended by our
university. It makes full use of de
Broglie's relation between momentum
and wavelength, so this is
unfortunately not just history.<br>
<br>
But looking into the history: Bohr,
Sommerfeld and others have used the
result of de Broglie to explain
quantum numbers. Particularly the
quantisation of the angular momentum
on atomic shells is explained by
"standing waves" where the
wavelength is the one defined by dB.
This obviously hides the true reason
of this quantisation, but as anyone
believes that the Ansatz using de
Broglie is right, nobody is looking
for the correct cause. - This is one
of the reasons for our sticking
physics.<br>
<br>
Tschüss back<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
09.02.2016 um 14:57 schrieb <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As you fully know, the
very same idea can be
expressed in various
languages. This is true of
physics also. The very same
structure can be attached to
variuos words and images. I
do not defend deBroglie's
choice of words and images.
I too find his choice
suboptimal and somewhat
contrdictory. So what? He
was playing his hand at that
time with the hand he was
delt at that time. Since
then, other ideas have been
found in the deck, as it
were. I find that, without
changing any of his math,
one can tell a story that is
vastly less etherial and
mysterious and, depending on
the reader's depth of
analysis, less
self-contradictory. I think
my story is the one DeBrogle
would have told if he had
been inspired by some facits
of SED. And, some people
have a greater affinty and
interest in abstract
structures, in particular
when their mathematical
redintion seems to work,
that for the stories told
for their explication. This
is particularly true of all
things QM. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Anyway, the main object
now (2016) is to move
forward, not critique
historical personalitites.
So, I'm trying to
contribute to this
discussion by adding what I
know now, and what I have
found to be useful. We are
"doing" physics, not
history. Let's make new
errors, not just grind away
on the old ones!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>BTW, to my info, both
Dirac and Schrödinger would
agree that deBroglie
proposed some not too cogent
arguments regarding the
nature of QM-wave functions.
Still, the best there at
that time. All the same,
they too went to their
graves without having found
a satisfactory
interpretation. SED throws
some new ingredients into
the mix. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Tschuss, Al </div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 10.0px
5.0px 5.0px
10.0px;padding: 10.0px 0
10.0px 10.0px;border-left:
2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div style="margin: 0 0
10.0px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Dienstag,
09. Februar 2016 um
13:41 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="genmail@a-giese.de" target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>,
"Richard Gauthier" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="richgauthier@gmail.com"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De Broglie
Wave</div>
<div>
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">Hi
Al,<br>
<br>
I have the impression
that you have a
solution for particle
scattering which is in
some way related to
the idea of de
Broglie. (I also have
of course a solution).
But was this the goal
of our discussion and
of my original
contribution? It was
not! My objection was
de Broglie's original
idea as stated in his
thesis and as taken
over by Schrödinger
and Dirac.<br>
<br>
You have a lot of
elements in your
argumentation which I
do not find in the
thesis of de Broglie.
(There is e.g. nothing
at dB about SED ore
background.)<br>
<br>
The essential point of
our discussion is the
meaning of his wave -
and his wavelength. I
think it is very
obvious from his
thesis (which you
clearly know) that his
"fictitious wave"
accompanies a particle
like the electron<i>
all of the time</i>.
There is no
interaction mentioned
except that there is
an observer at rest
who measures the
frequency of the
particle. But without
influencing the
particle.<br>
<br>
Now it is normal
knowledge that a
frequency and as well
a wavelength appears
changed for an
observer who is in
motion. This is caused
by the Doppler effect.
But the Doppler effect
will never cause that
a finite wavelength
changes to Infinite if
an observer moves at
some speed unequal to
c. But just that
happens to the wave
invented by de
Broglie. It follows
the equation<br>
<br>
lambda = h/(m*v)
where v is the speed
difference between the
particle and the
observer (to say it
this time this way).
And this is in
conflict to any
physics we know.<br>
<br>
Best, Albrecht<br>
<br>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
08.02.2016 um 17:20
schrieb <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Your
challenge is
easy! In fact
my last
responce
covered it.
The RELEVANT
velocity is
the relative
velocity
between the
particle and
the slit; not
that between
the
observer-particle
or
observer-slit.
An observer
will see all
kinds of
distortions of
the events,
starting with
simple
persepctive
due to being
at some
distance from
the slit and
its
registration
screen. In
additon this
observer will
see those deB
waves
affecting the
particle (NOT
from the
particle, nor
from the slit,
but from the
universal
background
there before
either the
particle or
slit came into
being) as
perspectively-relativistically
distorted
(twin-clock
type
distortion).
BUT, the
observer will
still see the
same over-all
background
because the
totality of
background
signals (not
just those to
which this
particle is
tuned), i.e.,
its spectral
energy
density, is
itself Lorentz
invariant.
That is, the
observer's
motion does
not enable it
to empirically
distinguish
between the
background in
the various
frames, nor
does the
background
engender
friction
forces.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You have
got to get
your head
around the
idea that deB
waves are
independant of
particles
whatever their
frame.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Schrördinger
did toy with
some aspects
that deBroglie
used, but
never did
succeed in
rationalizing
his eq. in
those or any
other terms.
For him, when
died, wave
functions were
ontologically
completely
mysterious.
From SED
proponents,
I'm told, my
thoughts in #7
on <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com">www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com</a></a>, are unique in
formulating
S's eq. in
terms of deB
concepts. Try
it, maybe
you'll like
it. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>There are
other SED-type
stories too,
but as they
are based on
diffusion
(parabolic,
not
hyperbolic)
precesses, I
find them self
contradictory.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>ciao, Al</div>
<div>
<div
style="margin:
10.0px 5.0px
5.0px
10.0px;padding:
10.0px 0
10.0px
10.0px;border-left:
2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div
style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Montag,
08. Februar
2016 um 141
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="genmail@a-giese.de" target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>,
"Richard
Gauthier" <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="richgauthier@gmail.com"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div>
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
if you follow
de Broglie,
you should
have an
explanation
for the
following
experiment
(here again):<br>
<br>
Electrons move
at 0.1 c
towards the
double slit.
Behind the
double slit
there is an
interference
pattern
generated,
which in the
frame of the
slit follows
the rule of de
Broglie. But
now there is
an observer
also moving at
0.1 c parallel
to the beam of
electrons. In
his frame the
electrons have
momentum=0 and
so
wavelength=infinite.
That means: No
interference
pattern. But
there is in
fact a pattern
which does not
disappear just
because there
is another
observer. And
the moving
observer will
see the
pattern. -
This is a
falsification
of de
Broglie's
rule. What
else?<br>
<br>
The
understanding
that the de
Broglie wave
is a property
of the
particle (even
though
depending on
their speed,
but not on an
interaction)
was not my
idea but the
one of
Schrödinger
and Dirac and
many others.
Also by de
Broglie
himself.<br>
<br>
Ciao Albrecht<br>
<br>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
08.02.2016 um
03:30 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>BUT, the
laws of
Physics for
"being" in a
frame are not
the laws for
interacting
between
frames! The
deB. wave is
not a feature
of a particle
in its own
frame, but a
feature of the
interaction of
such a
particle with
at least one
other particle
in another
frame. When
the two frames
are moving
with respect
to each other,
then the
features of
the
interaction
cannot be
Lorentz
invariants.
When one
particle is
interacting
with another
particle (or
ensemble---slit
say) the
relevant
physics is
determined by
the deB wave
in that
sitation,
whatever it
looks like to
an observer in
a third frame
with yet
different
relative
velocities.
It is a
perspective
effect: a tree
is the same
ontological
size in fact
no matter how
small it
appears to
distant
observers.
Observed
diminished
size(s) cannot
be "invriant."
Appearances
=/= ,,so
sein''.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You have
gotten your
head stuck on
the idea that
deB. waves are
characteristics
intrinsic to
particles in
an of
themselves.
Recalibrate!
DeB waves are
charactteristics
of the mutual
interaction of
particles.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best, Al</div>
<div>
<div
style="margin:
10.0px 5.0px
5.0px
10.0px;padding:
10.0px 0
10.0px
10.0px;border-left:
2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div
style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Sonntag,
07. Februar
2016 um 22:10
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="genmail@a-giese.de" target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>,
"Richard
Gauthier" <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="richgauthier@gmail.com"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div>
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
at one of your
points I
really
disagree. The
physical laws
have to be
fulfilled in
every frame.
That means
that all
physical
processes have
to obey the
same laws in
all frames. So
also the
process at the
double slit.
But the rule
given by de
Broglie looks
correct in
only one
frame, that is
the frame
where the
double slit is
at rest. For
an observer in
motion the
diffraction
pattern looks
very similar
as for the
observer at
rest, but for
the observer
in motion the
results
according to
de Broglie are
completely
different,
because the
momentum of
the particle
is different
in a wide
range in the
frame of a
moving
observer and
so is the
wavelength
assigned to
the particle.<br>
<br>
The specific
case: At
electron
scattering,
the observer
co-moving with
the electron
will see a
similar
pattern as the
observer at
rest, but de
Broglie says
that for this
observer there
does not exist
any pattern.
That is
strongly
incorrect.<br>
<br>
The
Schrödinger
equation and
also the Dirac
function
should have
correct
results in
different
frames, at
least at
non-relativistic
speeds. This
requirement is
clearly
violated
through their
use of de
Broglie's
rule.<br>
<br>
Grüße<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
PS: Your
article refers
to "Stochastic
Electrodynamics".
That is in my
knowledge not
standard
physics and so
a new
assumption.<br>
<br>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
07.02.2016 um
19:03 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In my
view the story
in my paper
has no new
assunptions,
rather new
words for old
assumptions.
As I, along
with most
others, see
it, there is
no conflict
with
experiment,
but a less
than fully
transparent
explantion for
experimental
observations
(particle beam
diffrction)
otherwise
unexplained.
At the time
of writing,
and nowadays
too (although
I'd to think
that my paper
rationalizes
DeB's story)
it was the
most widely
accepted story
for this
phenomna. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The only
entities that
logically need
to be Lorentz
invariant are
the particle.
I the deB
wave is not a
'Bestandteil'
of the
particle, but
of its
relations with
its
envionment,
then
invariance is
not defined
nor useful.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>M.f.G.
Al</div>
<div>
<div
style="margin:
10.0px 5.0px
5.0px
10.0px;padding:
10.0px 0
10.0px
10.0px;border-left:
2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div
style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Sonntag,
07. Februar
2016 um 14:39
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="genmail@a-giese.de" target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>,
"Richard
Gauthier" <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="richgauthier@gmail.com"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div>
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
thank you for
your
reference.
Your paper has
a lot of
intelligent
thoughts but
also a lot of
additional
assumptions.
With reference
to the de
Broglie wave,
I think, is
the situation
much simpler
on the level
of
conservative
knowledge. De
Broglie has
misunderstood
relativity
(particularly
dilation) and
so seen a
conflict which
does in fact
not exist. He
has solved the
conflict by
inventing an
additional
"fictitious"
wave which has
no other
foundation in
physics, and
also his
"theorem of
harmonic
phases" which
as well is an
invention
without need.
And his result
is in conflict
with the
experiment if
we ask for
Lorentz
invariance or
even for
Galilean
invariance. -
If we follow
the basic idea
of de Broglie
by, however,
avoiding his
logical error
about
relativity, we
come easily to
a description
of matter
waves without
logical
conflicts.
This does not
need new
philosophy or
other effort
at this level.<br>
<br>
Best, Albrecht<br>
<br>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
06.02.2016 um
03:15 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>DeBroglie's
verbage is
indeed quite
rococo!
Nonetheless,
his
machinations,
although
verbalized, in
the true
tradtion of
quantum
mechanics,
mysteriously,
can be
reinterpreted
(i.e.,
alternate
verbage found
without
changing any
of the math)
so as to tell
a fully, if
(somewhat)
hetrodoxical,
story. See
#11 on <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.Nonloco-Physics.0catch.com"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.Nonloco-Physics.0catch.com">www.Nonloco-Physics.0catch.com</a></a>.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>cc:
Waves are
never a
characteristic
of a single,
point-like
entity, but
colletive
motion of a
medium. IF
they exist at
all. My view
is that
E&M waves
are a fiction
wrought by
Fourier
analysis. The
only real
physical part
is an
"interaction",
which mnight
as well be
thought of an
absract string
between
charges.
Also,
neutrons have
electric
multipole
moments; i.e.,
they are
totally
neutral but
not
charge-free. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best,
Al </div>
<div>
<div
style="margin:
10.0px 5.0px
5.0px
10.0px;padding:
10.0px 0
10.0px
10.0px;border-left:
2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div
style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Freitag,
05. Februar
2016 um 21:43
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="genmail@a-giese.de" target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_parent">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> "Richard
Gauthier" <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="richgauthier@gmail.com"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div>
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
true, in the
frame of the
particle the
dB wavelength
is infinite.
Because in its
own frame the
momentum of
the particle
is 0. The
particle
oscillates
with the
frequency of
the particle's
Zitterbewegung
(which
background
fields do you
have in mind?
De Brogie does
not mention
them). This
oscillation is
in no
contradiction
with this
wavelength as
the phase
speed is also
infinite. For
the
imagination,
the latter
means that all
points of that
wave oscillate
with the same
phase at any
point.<br>
<br>
Which
background
waves do you
have in mind?
What is the
CNONOICAL
momentum? And
what about
E&M
interactions?
De Broglie has
not related
his wave to a
specific
field. An
E&M field
would anyway
have no effect
in the case of
neutron
scattering for
which the same
de Broglie
formalism is
used. And into
which frame do
you see the
wave
Lorentz-transformed?<br>
<br>
So, an
electron in
his frame has
an infinite
wavelength and
in his frame
has the double
slit moving
towards the
particle. How
can an
interference
at the slits
occur? No
interference
can happen
under these
conditions.
But, as I have
explained in
the paper, the
normal wave
which
accompanies
the electron
by normal
rules (i.e.
phase speed =
c) will have
an
interference
with its own
reflection,
which has then
a wavelength
which fits to
the
expectation of
de Broglie.
But that is a
very local
event (in a
range of
approx. 10^-12
m for the
electron) and
it is not at
all a property
of the
electron as de
Broglie has
thought.<br>
<br>
To say it
again: The de
Broglie
wavelength
cannot be a
steady
property of
the particle.
But
Schrödinger
and Dirac have
incorporated
it into their
QM equations
with this
understanding.<br>
<br>
If I should
have
misunderstood
you, please
show the
mathematical
calculations
which you
mean.<br>
<br>
Ciao, Albrecht<br>
<br>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
05.02.2016 um
19:20 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi:
Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Your
arguments
don't resonate
with me. The
deB' wave
length is
infinite in
the particles
frame: it is
the standing
wave formed by
the inpinging
background
waves having a
freq. = the
particle's
Zitterbewegung.
If these TWO
waves are each
Lorentz
x-formed to
another frame
and added
there, they
exhibit
exactly the
DeB'
modulation
wavelength
proportional
to the
particle's
momentum. The
only
mysterious
feature then
is that the
proportionality
is to the
CNONICAL
momentum,
i.e.,
including the
vector
potential of
whatever
exterior
E&M
interactions
are in-coming.
Nevertheless,
everything
works our
without
contradiction.
A particle
oscillates in
place at its
Zitter freq.
while the
Zitter signals
are modulated
by the DeB'
wavelength as
they move
through slits,
say.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>ciao, L</div>
<div>
<div
style="margin:
10.0px 5.0px
5.0px
10.0px;padding:
10.0px 0
10.0px
10.0px;border-left:
2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div
style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Freitag,
05. Februar
2016 um 12:28
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="genmail@a-giese.de" target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> "Richard
Gauthier" <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="richgauthier@gmail.com"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></a>, <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div>Hi
Richard and
Al, hi All,<br>
<br>
recently we
had a
discussion
here about two
topics:<br>
<br>
1. The
functionality
of the de
Broglie wave,
particularly
its wavelength<br>
if seen from a
different
inertial
system. Such
cases lead to
illogical<br>
situations.<br>
2. The problem
of the
apparent
asymmetry at
relativistic
dilation.<br>
<br>
I have
investigated
these cases
and found that
they are in
some way<br>
connected.
Relativistic
dilation is
not as simple
as it is
normally<br>
taken. It
looks
asymmetric if
it is
incorrectly
treated. An
asymmetry<br>
would falsify
Special
Relativity.
But it is in
fact
symmetrical if<br>
properly
handled and
understood.<br>
<br>
It is funny
that both
problems are
connected to
each other
through the<br>
fact that de
Broglie
himself has
misinterpreted
dilation. From
this<br>
incorrect
understanding
he did not
find another
way out than
to invent<br>
his "theorem
of phase
harmony"; with
all logical
conflicts
resulting<br>
from this
approach.<br>
<br>
If relativity
is properly
understood,
the problem
seen by de
Broglie<br>
does not
exist.
Equations
regarding
matter waves
can be derived
which<br>
work properly,
i.e. conform
to the
experiments
but avoid the
logical<br>
conflicts.<br>
<br>
As announced,
I have
composed a
paper about
this. It can
be found at:<br>
<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.academia.edu/21564534/The_Conflict_with_the_De_Broglie_Wavelength"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.academia.edu/21564534/The_Conflict_with_the_De_Broglie_Wavelength">https://www.academia.edu/21564534/The_Conflict_with_the_De_Broglie_Wavelength</a></a><br>
.<br>
<br>
I thank
Richard
Gauthier for
the discussion
which we had
about this<br>
topic. It
caused me to
investigate
the problem
and to find a
solution.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
---<br>
Diese E-Mail
wurde von
Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft.<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a></a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
If you no
longer wish to
receive
communication
from the
Nature of
Light and
Particles
General
Discussion
List at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<a href=<a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank"><a 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"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</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"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</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"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</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"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<table
style="border-top:
1.0px solid
rgb(170,171,182);">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="width:
470.0px;padding-top:
20.0px;color:
rgb(65,66,78);font-size:
13.0px;font-family:
Arial ,
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;line-height:
18.0px;">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von einem
virenfreien
Computer
gesendet, der
von Avast
geschützt
wird.<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email" style="color: rgb(68,83,234);"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</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>
<fieldset
class="mimeAttachmentHeader"> </fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="Wolf@nascentinc.com" target="_parent">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"> </fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="phys@a-giese.de" target="_parent">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" target="_blank">"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>
<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>
</blockquote>
</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>
</blockquote>
</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>
</blockquote>
</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>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________ If you
no longer wish to receive communication from the
Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List
at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank"> Click here to unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>