<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Hello Albrecht,</div><div class=""> You wrote </div><blockquote cite="mid:56CB7675.1020905@nascentinc.com" type="cite" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><blockquote cite="mid:trinity-2c83b610-0b3e-4cd4-8028-e6315d7792c2-1455930903868@3capp-webde-bs13" type="cite" class=""><div style="font-family: Verdana;" class=""><div name="quote" style="margin: 10px 5px 5px 10px; padding: 10px 0px 10px 10px; border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(195, 217, 229); word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div name="quoted-content" class=""><blockquote class="">I have assumed a certain shape of that field which leads to Newton's law of inertia.</blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div>How can you claim that you are deriving inertia for an extended body when you are assuming that inertia exists in your derivation?<div class=""> Richard</div><div class=""><br class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Feb 23, 2016, at 6:26 AM, Albrecht Giese <<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" class="">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
Hi Wolf,<br class="">
<br class="">
who is the addressee of your mail? Where do you see a specific
difficulty?<br class="">
<br class="">
With respect to my first step of explaining inertia caused by
extension: Was that explanation understandable? I would appreciate
to have a feedback.<br class="">
<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 22.02.2016 um 21:58 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56CB7675.1020905@nascentinc.com" type="cite" class="">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
Yes I think Al has described things well.<br class="">
My only additional comment is not to feel rejected and
disappointed.<br class="">
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 class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
wolf<br class="">
<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 2/19/2016 5:15 PM, <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>
wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:trinity-2c83b610-0b3e-4cd4-8028-e6315d7792c2-1455930903868@3capp-webde-bs13" type="cite" class="">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi Albrecht & all:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class="">For what it's worth, Al</div>
<div class="">
<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;" class="">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;" class=""><b class="">Gesendet:</b> Freitag,
19. Februar 2016 um 21:14 Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Wolfgang Baer" <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"><wolf@nascentinc.com></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> "Albrecht Giese" <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"><phys@a-giese.de></a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> "'Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion'" <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re: [General] De Broglie Wave</div>
<div name="quoted-content" class="">
<div style="background-color: rgb(255,255,255);" class="">Albrecht:<br class="">
<br class="">
Thank you for , yes more of an explanation than I
was expecting.<br class="">
And I certainly agree with your motives and your
examples from high energy physics.<br class="">
You are being motivated by all the applications to
simplify physics and see this reward immediately in
front of you.<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
>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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
You must answer these simple technical questions
first even if the answers are not simple.<br class="">
<br class="">
best wishes,<br class="">
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="x-msg://12/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 class="">Wolf,<br class="">
<br class="">
do I explain one mystery by another one? I think
that the situation should be envisioned in a
different way.<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
<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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
Is this more like an explanation which you are
expecting?<br class="">
<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 18.02.2016 um
05:46 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</div>
<blockquote class="">Albrecht:<br class="">
I tend to be skeptical as well about the gravity
wave announcement.<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
otherwise I'll just follow up on one question.
You said<br class="">
"They( the two charges) have assemblies of
charges to build a multi-pole field which has a
minimum of potential at some distance."<br class="">
<br class="">
So does this mean that the two particle drawings
you publish are approximations to assemblies of
charges?<br class="">
I and probably anyone would need a clear
derivation of the force curve<br class="">
<br class="">
Although molecular forces gives an analogy such
an analogy assumes all the things you are trying
to explain<br class="">
(mass, inertia, etc.) and even that makes the
whole question of how atoms are held together a
pandora's box of mystery.<br class="">
why no radiation from a bound accelerating
electron, why the exclusion principle in the
first place. Principles principles everywhere.<br class="">
<br class="">
Wolf<br class="">
<br class="">
<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="x-msg://12/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 class="">Hi Wolf,<br class="">
<br class="">
my answers in the text.<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 12.02.2016 um
21:28 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</div>
<blockquote class="">Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class=""><br class="">
thank you for your answers, and I appreciate
your time constraints, we are all busy so
answer when you can.<br class="">
<br class="">
There are a few comments<br class="">
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 class="">b) Calibration is an after the
fact fitting that is not a bad technique but
cannot be considered first principle
derivation.<br class="">
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 class="">
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 class=""><br class="">
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 class="">
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 class=""><br class="">
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 class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
Best, Albrecht<br class="">
<blockquote class=""><br class="">
best,<br class="">
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="x-msg://12/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 class="">Wolf,<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
Next answers in the text below.<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 10.02.2016
um 20:28 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</div>
<blockquote class="">Albrecht;<br class="">
Sorry to mistake your feelings it
sounded like you were getting frustrated
at not being understood.<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
Ref: Albrecht;<br class="">
Sorry to mistake your feelings it
sounded like you were getting frustrated
at not being understood.<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
It looks like you are presenting a new
explanation of inertial mass with a
theory which has a large number of
assumptions:<br class="">
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 class="">b) a force between those
particles you made up to fit your
desired result, where does this force
come from?<br class="">
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 class="">
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 class=""><br class="">
c) assume this force also propagates at
light speed "c" and Why does rapid
rotation not change the interaction
energy curve?<br class="">
I always have trouble
understanding the stability of particles
rotating at or near the speed of light
when the force signals<br class="">
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 class="">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 class="">e) a force on one of the
particles from an outside agent that
does not effect the other particle<br class="">
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 class="">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 class=""><br class="">
My question is not that your
calculations are wrong but given the
above hidden assumptions<br class="">
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 class="">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 class="">3) It looks like you are
throwing out Mach's Principle since the
existence of distant masses<br class="">
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 class=""><br class="">
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 class=""><br class="">
Best,<br class="">
Wolf</blockquote>
<br class="">
If you have further question or concerns,
please ask again. I appreciate very much
that you have worked through my model<br class="">
<br class="">
Best<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote class="">
<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="x-msg://12/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 class="">Hi Wolf,<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
09.02.2016 um 20:35 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:</div>
<blockquote class="">I can feel your
frustration, Albrecht,<br class="">
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 class="">
"standing on the shoulders of
others", and right or wrong they
give us something tangible to argue
about<br class="">
and what quantum numbers have done
for us to organize chemistry is
amazing.<br class="">
<br class="">
wolf<br class="">
<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="x-msg://12/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 class="">Hi Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
Tschüss back<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<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"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</div>
<blockquote class="">
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class="">Tschuss, Al </div>
<div class="">
<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);" class="">
<div style="margin: 0 0
10.0px 0;" class=""><b class="">Gesendet:</b> Dienstag,
09. Februar 2016 um
13:41 Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><a 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><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De Broglie
Wave</div>
<div class="">
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">Hi
Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class=""> 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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
Best, Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<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><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</div>
<blockquote class="">
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class="">You have
got to get
your head
around the
idea that deB
waves are
independant of
particles
whatever their
frame.</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">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><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com/">www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com</a>,
are unique in
formulating
S's eq. in
terms of deB
concepts. Try
it, maybe
you'll like
it. </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class="">ciao, Al</div>
<div class="">
<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);" class="">
<div style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;" class=""><b class="">Gesendet:</b> Montag,
08. Februar
2016 um 141
Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><a 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><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div class="">
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">Hi Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
if you follow
de Broglie,
you should
have an
explanation
for the
following
experiment
(here again):<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
Ciao Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<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><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</div>
<blockquote class="">
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class="">Best, Al</div>
<div class="">
<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);" class="">
<div style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;" class=""><b class="">Gesendet:</b> Sonntag,
07. Februar
2016 um 22:10
Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><a 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><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div class="">
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">Hi Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
Grüße<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
PS: Your
article refers
to "Stochastic
Electrodynamics".
That is in my
knowledge not
standard
physics and so
a new
assumption.<br class="">
<br class="">
<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><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</div>
<blockquote class="">
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class="">M.f.G.
Al</div>
<div class="">
<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);" class="">
<div style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;" class=""><b class="">Gesendet:</b> Sonntag,
07. Februar
2016 um 14:39
Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><a 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><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div class="">
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">Hi Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
Best, Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<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><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</div>
<blockquote class="">
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">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><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com/">www.Nonloco-Physics.0catch.com</a>.</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class="">Best,
Al </div>
<div class="">
<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);" class="">
<div style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;" class=""><b class="">Gesendet:</b> Freitag,
05. Februar
2016 um 21:43
Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>,
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="x-msg://12/general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_parent"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> "Richard
Gauthier" <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div class="">
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">Hi Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
If I should
have
misunderstood
you, please
show the
mathematical
calculations
which you
mean.<br class="">
<br class="">
Ciao, Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<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><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</div>
<blockquote class="">
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi:
Albrecht:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class="">ciao, L</div>
<div class="">
<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);" class="">
<div style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;" class=""><b class="">Gesendet:</b> Freitag,
05. Februar
2016 um 12:28
Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> "Richard
Gauthier" <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a>,
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div class="">Hi
Richard and
Al, hi All,<br class="">
<br class="">
recently we
had a
discussion
here about two
topics:<br class="">
<br class="">
1. The
functionality
of the de
Broglie wave,
particularly
its wavelength<br class="">
if seen from a
different
inertial
system. Such
cases lead to
illogical<br class="">
situations.<br class="">
2. The problem
of the
apparent
asymmetry at
relativistic
dilation.<br class="">
<br class="">
I have
investigated
these cases
and found that
they are in
some way<br class="">
connected.
Relativistic
dilation is
not as simple
as it is
normally<br class="">
taken. It
looks
asymmetric if
it is
incorrectly
treated. An
asymmetry<br class="">
would falsify
Special
Relativity.
But it is in
fact
symmetrical if<br class="">
properly
handled and
understood.<br class="">
<br class="">
It is funny
that both
problems are
connected to
each other
through the<br class="">
fact that de
Broglie
himself has
misinterpreted
dilation. From
this<br class="">
incorrect
understanding
he did not
find another
way out than
to invent<br class="">
his "theorem
of phase
harmony"; with
all logical
conflicts
resulting<br class="">
from this
approach.<br class="">
<br class="">
If relativity
is properly
understood,
the problem
seen by de
Broglie<br class="">
does not
exist.
Equations
regarding
matter waves
can be derived
which<br class="">
work properly,
i.e. conform
to the
experiments
but avoid the
logical<br class="">
conflicts.<br class="">
<br class="">
As announced,
I have
composed a
paper about
this. It can
be found at:<br class="">
<br class="">
<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><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><br class="">
.<br class="">
<br class="">
I thank
Richard
Gauthier for
the discussion
which we had
about this<br class="">
topic. It
caused me to
investigate
the problem
and to find a
solution.<br class="">
<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
---<br class="">
Diese E-Mail
wurde von
Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft.<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br class="">
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
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><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br class="">
<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><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>><br class="">
Click here to
unsubscribe<br class="">
</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<table style="border-top:
1.0px solid
rgb(170,171,182);" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<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;" class="">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von einem
virenfreien
Computer
gesendet, der
von Avast
geschützt
wird.<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<table style="border-top:
1.0px solid
rgb(170,171,182);" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<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;" class="">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von einem
virenfreien
Computer
gesendet, der
von Avast
geschützt
wird.<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<table style="border-top:
1.0px solid
rgb(170,171,182);" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<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;" class="">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von einem
virenfreien
Computer
gesendet, der
von Avast
geschützt
wird.<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<table style="border-top:
1.0px solid
rgb(170,171,182);" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<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;" class="">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von einem
virenfreien
Computer
gesendet, der
von Avast
geschützt
wird.<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<table style="border-top:
1.0px solid
rgb(170,171,182);" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<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;" class="">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von einem
virenfreien
Computer
gesendet, der
von Avast
geschützt
wird.<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<table style="border-top: 1.0px
solid rgb(170,171,182);" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<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;" class="">Diese E-Mail
wurde von einem
virenfreien Computer
gesendet, der von Avast
geschützt wird.<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email" style="color: rgb(68,83,234);" target="_blank" class="">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"> </fieldset>
<pre class="">_______________________________________________
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="x-msg://12/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 class="">_______________________________________________
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="x-msg://12/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);" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<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;" class="">Diese E-Mail wurde
von einem virenfreien Computer
gesendet, der von Avast
geschützt wird.<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email" style="color:
rgb(68,83,234);" target="_blank" class="">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<table style="border-top: 1.0px solid
rgb(170,171,182);" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<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;" class="">Diese
E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien
Computer gesendet, der von Avast
geschützt wird.<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email" style="color: rgb(68,83,234);" target="_blank" class="">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<table style="border-top: 1.0px solid
rgb(170,171,182);" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<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;" class="">Diese
E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien
Computer gesendet, der von Avast
geschützt wird.<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email" style="color: rgb(68,83,234);" target="_blank" class="">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<table style="border-top: 1.0px solid
rgb(170,171,182);" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<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;" class="">Diese
E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien
Computer gesendet, der von Avast geschützt
wird.<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email" style="color: rgb(68,83,234);" target="_blank" class="">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
_______________________________________________ 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">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" class=""> Click here to unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br class="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br class="">
<pre wrap="" class="">_______________________________________________
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 class="">
<br class="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br class="">
<pre wrap="" class="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<br class="">
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #aaabb6;" class="">
<tbody class=""><tr class="">
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 20px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;" class="">Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird. <br class=""><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email" target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;" class="">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br class=""><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" class="">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br class="">Click here to unsubscribe<br class=""></a><br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>