<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Albrecht:<br>
Thank you for your direct reply.<br>
You Say<br>
"we have to assume a specific shape of that field. I have given the
shape which works in this way."<br>
So a new force is one of your postulates. good. That is what Al and
I wanted a listing of assumptions.<br>
<br>
You say <br>
"The electrical charges on the sub-particles have the same sign in
all cases, 2x 1/2 elementary charge in case of the electron"<br>
"the short range is caused by a combination of positive and negative
charges in a certain spacial constellation"<br>
which is it?<br>
<br>
Regarding sideways displacement?<br>
You say <br>
<b>"This is taken into account by my calculation of inertia.'</b><br>
I do not see this calculation in your derivation and it intuitively
seems that if an external force is averaged over a full cycle then
both charges would receive the same impulse in the same direction
and produce a sideways motion, but a calculation may contradict my
intuition.<br>
If you assume 4 instantaneous force pulses at 0,90,180, and 270
degrees , at 90 and 180 angles there would be equal forces on each
particle. At 0 your derivation shows a instantaneous retardation of
the closer particle in the field of the opposite one (1). however
both the impulse and the force between the particles would arrive at
the opposite charge after some time delay(2). The equilibrium is
moved and the second charge now moves past equilibrium due to the
impulse which in turn pushes the field equilibrium on the first
charge further along(3). This causes the first charge to be at
equilibrium. However since both charges offset by the rotation angle
during the transmission time, does this not produce a sideways
motion of the system? See dashed new orbit.<br>
<img src="cid:part1.09080800.03030305@nascentinc.com" alt=""
height="281" width="335"><br>
<br>
A second pulse arriving at 180 deg when blue is at position 1 would
repeat and again produce a sideways displacement<br>
<br>
In any case this is a very complex calculation that may show
internal oscillations around the equilibrium orbit.<br>
It would also depend upon the steepness around the equilibrium. Once
the impulse has passed how fast does the charge return to its
perceived equilibrium? The speed of the internal forces compared
with the external impulse is assumed?<br>
Is one of the assumptions that a charge moves infinitely fast and is
held only by your new strong force from the other charge?<br>
Another one does a charge not have a build up of magnetic field when
it moves from equilibrium? <br>
What is the shape of the pulse compared to the orbital period? <br>
<br>
There are a lot of assumptions that need to be listed to make your
scheme work. These may seem obvious to you but they still need to be
listed. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
best<br>
Wolf<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/26/2016 5:08 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56D04E50.8090104@a-giese.de" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
Wolf,<br>
<br>
sorry, I have obviously misunderstood the addressee of your mail.
<br>
<br>
The main point of my approach is that any extended object has
necessarily inertia. That is independent of the type of the
binding force of its constituents. However, this was questioned by
some of this discussion group. So I have started with a
presentation of a step by step derivation.<br>
<br>
But your question below goes more into details. So, I can in this
case abbreviate the discussion by answering your question
directly. I have explained a lot more than obviously reached the
community. That is in some way quite normal as all who contribute
here provide so much information in detail that - also for myself
- not any detail is kept in mind.<br>
<br>
So my answers below in the text.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 24.02.2016 um 00:06 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56CCE5F2.9040907@nascentinc.com" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container">Albrecht:<br>
<br>
I was responding to Kracklauer's posting below.<br>
<br>
From what I have read of your presentation it was clear what
you were doing in terms of the two particles rotating,
interacting at the finite speed of light, and being effected
by an impulse from an outside agent.<br>
<br>
However the further details see my past messages for questions
are not clear since there are assumptions that should be
listed because you are not proposing new physics but a more
compact theory replacing old theories. So ease, clarity, and
minimal assumtions are the only criteria.<br>
<br>
Example:<br>
<blockquote>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 <br>
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>
Your answer:<br>
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>
<br>
My reaction:<br>
If they are the same charge what holds them together, how is
the minimum established. It looks like you are postulating a
new force?<br>
Are you assuming a strong force or what? The nature of this
force is one of the assumptions that must be listed as Al
desires.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
It is an obviously general property of matter that elementary
objects are bound to each other so that a (comparatively great)
distance is kept. A distance is necessary as otherwise, if
elementary particles would be touching each other, our whole
universe would be extremely small. If we would put all quarks
close together, the matter of our earth would have a volume of
about 1 cm^3, so like a piece of lump sugar. There are fields
which keep elementary objects at a distance. For a molecule there
are two types of fields known (based on the electric field), for
the nucleons etc. QM refers to the Pauli principle which is in
fact not an explanation. I assume a field between the basic
particles, which build an elementary particle in my model, which
has a potential minimum at a distance. This assumption is
sufficient to explain the existence of inertia in the world. If we
demand that inertia follows the rules found by Newton, then we
have to assume a specific shape of that field. I have given the
shape which works in this way.<br>
<br>
The binding force cannot be the electric force because it would be
too weak by a factor of about 500. The only force we know with
this strength is the strong one, so I have assumed that it is the
strong one in this case. Main Stream physics now say that the
strong force has a very short range. The strong force which I
assume has a range law of 1/r^2 like the electrical one; the short
range is caused by a combination of positive and negative charges
in a certain spacial constellation. - (This assumption also
explains the Yukawa potential very well, but in a classical way in
contrast to QM.)<br>
<br>
I have explained this in my talk and also repeatedly in some
discussions in this forum. But most here have over-heard it as it
does not fit into their own models. That is a "human" problem.<br>
<br>
Another good think about my understanding of the strong force
(going fundamentally with 1/r^2) is that it explains
quantitatively all aspects of gravity, including General
Relativity. And it solves the quantum-gravity problem. <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56CCE5F2.9040907@nascentinc.com" type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
If the charges are averaged around the cycle would not both
particles be subject to the same external influence on the
average<br>
Your derivation is based upon a delay introduced by the speed
of light applied to a static instantaneous two particle
picture.<br>
If An extended force is constant over many revolutions both
particles are pulled in the same direction and at the same
speed<br>
and therefore stay in the minimum orbit. If both particles are
pulled equally there would be no pull out of the minimum
which you use to calculate the inertia.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
This is not correct. If both sub-particles are pulled equally by
the same external force, then they may start moving at the same
time. But the potential minimum of the force of the other
sub-particle is unchanged for a short time (limited by c), and
during this time a force is necessary to pull both sub-particles.
<b>This is taken into account by my calculation of inertia. </b><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56CCE5F2.9040907@nascentinc.com" type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> Imagine two people in a
rotating saucer floating down a river. they move at the speed
of the river. <br>
So it is not clear how these integrations would produce a
single inertial force vector opposing the incoming force.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
If both people are bound to each other by a force and the
propagation speed of this force is of a similar order of magnitude
as the speed of the river, they would experience inertia caused by
the binding force. <br>
<br>
Best <br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56CCE5F2.9040907@nascentinc.com" type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-------- Forwarded Message --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" border="0"
cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Subject:
</th>
<td>Re: [General] De Broglie Wave</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Date:
</th>
<td>Sat, 20 Feb 2016 02:15:03 +0100</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">From:
</th>
<td><a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Reply-To:
</th>
<td>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">To:
</th>
<td><a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">CC:
</th>
<td>'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></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<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
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"><wolf@nascentinc.com></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> "Albrecht Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"><phys@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>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>
<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>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 <br>
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="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>,
"Richard Gauthier" <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De Broglie
Wave</div>
<div>
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">Hi
Al,<br>
<br>
I have the
impression that
you have a
solution for
particle
scattering which
is in some way
related to the
idea of de
Broglie. (I also
have of course a
solution). But was
this the goal of
our discussion and
of my original
contribution? It
was not! My
objection was de
Broglie's original
idea as stated in
his thesis and as
taken over by
Schrödinger and
Dirac.<br>
<br>
You have a lot of
elements in your
argumentation
which I do not
find in the thesis
of de Broglie.
(There is e.g.
nothing at dB
about SED ore
background.)<br>
<br>
The essential
point of our
discussion is the
meaning of his
wave - and his
wavelength. I
think it is very
obvious from his
thesis (which you
clearly know) that
his "fictitious
wave" accompanies
a particle like
the electron<i>
all of the time</i>.
There is no
interaction
mentioned except
that there is an
observer at rest
who measures the
frequency of the
particle. But
without
influencing the
particle.<br>
<br>
Now it is normal
knowledge that a
frequency and as
well a wavelength
appears changed
for an observer
who is in motion.
This is caused by
the Doppler
effect. But the
Doppler effect
will never cause
that a finite
wavelength changes
to Infinite if an
observer moves at
some speed unequal
to c. But just
that happens to
the wave invented
by de Broglie. It
follows the
equation<br>
<br>
lambda =
h/(m*v) where v
is the speed
difference between
the particle and
the observer (to
say it this time
this way). And
this is in
conflict to any
physics we know.<br>
<br>
Best, Albrecht<br>
<br>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
08.02.2016 um
17:20 schrieb <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Your
challenge is
easy! In fact
my last
responce
covered it.
The RELEVANT
velocity is
the relative
velocity
between the
particle and
the slit; not
that between
the
observer-particle
or
observer-slit.
An observer
will see all
kinds of
distortions of
the events,
starting with
simple
persepctive
due to being
at some
distance from
the slit and
its
registration
screen. In
additon this
observer will
see those deB
waves
affecting the
particle (NOT
from the
particle, nor
from the slit,
but from the
universal
background
there before
either the
particle or
slit came into
being) as
perspectively-relativistically
distorted
(twin-clock
type
distortion).
BUT, the
observer will
still see the
same over-all
background
because the
totality of
background
signals (not
just those to
which this
particle is
tuned), i.e.,
its spectral
energy
density, is
itself Lorentz
invariant.
That is, the
observer's
motion does
not enable it
to empirically
distinguish
between the
background in
the various
frames, nor
does the
background
engender
friction
forces.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You have
got to get
your head
around the
idea that deB
waves are
independant of
particles
whatever their
frame.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Schrördinger
did toy with
some aspects
that deBroglie
used, but
never did
succeed in
rationalizing
his eq. in
those or any
other terms.
For him, when
died, wave
functions were
ontologically
completely
mysterious.
From SED
proponents,
I'm told, my
thoughts in #7
on <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com">www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com</a></a>,
are unique in
formulating
S's eq. in
terms of deB
concepts. Try
it, maybe
you'll like
it. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>There are
other SED-type
stories too,
but as they
are based on
diffusion
(parabolic,
not
hyperbolic)
precesses, I
find them self
contradictory.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>ciao, Al</div>
<div>
<div
style="margin:
10.0px 5.0px
5.0px
10.0px;padding:
10.0px 0
10.0px
10.0px;border-left:
2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div
style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Montag,
08. Februar
2016 um 141
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>,
"Richard
Gauthier" <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div>
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
if you follow
de Broglie,
you should
have an
explanation
for the
following
experiment
(here again):<br>
<br>
Electrons move
at 0.1 c
towards the
double slit.
Behind the
double slit
there is an
interference
pattern
generated,
which in the
frame of the
slit follows
the rule of de
Broglie. But
now there is
an observer
also moving at
0.1 c parallel
to the beam of
electrons. In
his frame the
electrons have
momentum=0 and
so
wavelength=infinite.
That means: No
interference
pattern. But
there is in
fact a pattern
which does not
disappear just
because there
is another
observer. And
the moving
observer will
see the
pattern. -
This is a
falsification
of de
Broglie's
rule. What
else?<br>
<br>
The
understanding
that the de
Broglie wave
is a property
of the
particle (even
though
depending on
their speed,
but not on an
interaction)
was not my
idea but the
one of
Schrödinger
and Dirac and
many others.
Also by de
Broglie
himself.<br>
<br>
Ciao Albrecht<br>
<br>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
08.02.2016 um
03:30 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>BUT, the
laws of
Physics for
"being" in a
frame are not
the laws for
interacting
between
frames! The
deB. wave is
not a feature
of a particle
in its own
frame, but a
feature of the
interaction of
such a
particle with
at least one
other particle
in another
frame. When
the two frames
are moving
with respect
to each other,
then the
features of
the
interaction
cannot be
Lorentz
invariants.
When one
particle is
interacting
with another
particle (or
ensemble---slit
say) the
relevant
physics is
determined by
the deB wave
in that
sitation,
whatever it
looks like to
an observer in
a third frame
with yet
different
relative
velocities.
It is a
perspective
effect: a tree
is the same
ontological
size in fact
no matter how
small it
appears to
distant
observers.
Observed
diminished
size(s) cannot
be "invriant."
Appearances
=/= ,,so
sein''.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You have
gotten your
head stuck on
the idea that
deB. waves are
characteristics
intrinsic to
particles in
an of
themselves.
Recalibrate!
DeB waves are
charactteristics
of the mutual
interaction of
particles.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best, Al</div>
<div>
<div
style="margin:
10.0px 5.0px
5.0px
10.0px;padding:
10.0px 0
10.0px
10.0px;border-left:
2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div
style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Sonntag,
07. Februar
2016 um 22:10
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>,
"Richard
Gauthier" <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div>
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
at one of your
points I
really
disagree. The
physical laws
have to be
fulfilled in
every frame.
That means
that all
physical
processes have
to obey the
same laws in
all frames. So
also the
process at the
double slit.
But the rule
given by de
Broglie looks
correct in
only one
frame, that is
the frame
where the
double slit is
at rest. For
an observer in
motion the
diffraction
pattern looks
very similar
as for the
observer at
rest, but for
the observer
in motion the
results
according to
de Broglie are
completely
different,
because the
momentum of
the particle
is different
in a wide
range in the
frame of a
moving
observer and
so is the
wavelength
assigned to
the particle.<br>
<br>
The specific
case: At
electron
scattering,
the observer
co-moving with
the electron
will see a
similar
pattern as the
observer at
rest, but de
Broglie says
that for this
observer there
does not exist
any pattern.
That is
strongly
incorrect.<br>
<br>
The
Schrödinger
equation and
also the Dirac
function
should have
correct
results in
different
frames, at
least at
non-relativistic
speeds. This
requirement is
clearly
violated
through their
use of de
Broglie's
rule.<br>
<br>
Grüße<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
PS: Your
article refers
to "Stochastic
Electrodynamics".
That is in my
knowledge not
standard
physics and so
a new
assumption.<br>
<br>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
07.02.2016 um
19:03 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In my
view the story
in my paper
has no new
assunptions,
rather new
words for old
assumptions.
As I, along
with most
others, see
it, there is
no conflict
with
experiment,
but a less
than fully
transparent
explantion for
experimental
observations
(particle beam
diffrction)
otherwise
unexplained.
At the time
of writing,
and nowadays
too (although
I'd to think
that my paper
rationalizes
DeB's story)
it was the
most widely
accepted story
for this
phenomna. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The only
entities that
logically need
to be Lorentz
invariant are
the particle.
I the deB
wave is not a
'Bestandteil'
of the
particle, but
of its
relations with
its
envionment,
then
invariance is
not defined
nor useful.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>M.f.G.
Al</div>
<div>
<div
style="margin:
10.0px 5.0px
5.0px
10.0px;padding:
10.0px 0
10.0px
10.0px;border-left:
2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div
style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Sonntag,
07. Februar
2016 um 14:39
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>,
"Richard
Gauthier" <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div>
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
thank you for
your
reference.
Your paper has
a lot of
intelligent
thoughts but
also a lot of
additional
assumptions.
With reference
to the de
Broglie wave,
I think, is
the situation
much simpler
on the level
of
conservative
knowledge. De
Broglie has
misunderstood
relativity
(particularly
dilation) and
so seen a
conflict which
does in fact
not exist. He
has solved the
conflict by
inventing an
additional
"fictitious"
wave which has
no other
foundation in
physics, and
also his
"theorem of
harmonic
phases" which
as well is an
invention
without need.
And his result
is in conflict
with the
experiment if
we ask for
Lorentz
invariance or
even for
Galilean
invariance. -
If we follow
the basic idea
of de Broglie
by, however,
avoiding his
logical error
about
relativity, we
come easily to
a description
of matter
waves without
logical
conflicts.
This does not
need new
philosophy or
other effort
at this level.<br>
<br>
Best, Albrecht<br>
<br>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
06.02.2016 um
03:15 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>DeBroglie's
verbage is
indeed quite
rococo!
Nonetheless,
his
machinations,
although
verbalized, in
the true
tradtion of
quantum
mechanics,
mysteriously,
can be
reinterpreted
(i.e.,
alternate
verbage found
without
changing any
of the math)
so as to tell
a fully, if
(somewhat)
hetrodoxical,
story. See
#11 on <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.Nonloco-Physics.0catch.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.Nonloco-Physics.0catch.com">www.Nonloco-Physics.0catch.com</a></a>.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>cc:
Waves are
never a
characteristic
of a single,
point-like
entity, but
colletive
motion of a
medium. IF
they exist at
all. My view
is that
E&M waves
are a fiction
wrought by
Fourier
analysis. The
only real
physical part
is an
"interaction",
which mnight
as well be
thought of an
absract string
between
charges.
Also,
neutrons have
electric
multipole
moments; i.e.,
they are
totally
neutral but
not
charge-free. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best,
Al </div>
<div>
<div
style="margin:
10.0px 5.0px
5.0px
10.0px;padding:
10.0px 0
10.0px
10.0px;border-left:
2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div
style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Freitag,
05. Februar
2016 um 21:43
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>,
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> "Richard
Gauthier" <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div>
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
true, in the
frame of the
particle the
dB wavelength
is infinite.
Because in its
own frame the
momentum of
the particle
is 0. The
particle
oscillates
with the
frequency of
the particle's
Zitterbewegung
(which
background
fields do you
have in mind?
De Brogie does
not mention
them). This
oscillation is
in no
contradiction
with this
wavelength as
the phase
speed is also
infinite. For
the
imagination,
the latter
means that all
points of that
wave oscillate
with the same
phase at any
point.<br>
<br>
Which
background
waves do you
have in mind?
What is the
CNONOICAL
momentum? And
what about
E&M
interactions?
De Broglie has
not related
his wave to a
specific
field. An
E&M field
would anyway
have no effect
in the case of
neutron
scattering for
which the same
de Broglie
formalism is
used. And into
which frame do
you see the
wave
Lorentz-transformed?<br>
<br>
So, an
electron in
his frame has
an infinite
wavelength and
in his frame
has the double
slit moving
towards the
particle. How
can an
interference
at the slits
occur? No
interference
can happen
under these
conditions.
But, as I have
explained in
the paper, the
normal wave
which
accompanies
the electron
by normal
rules (i.e.
phase speed =
c) will have
an
interference
with its own
reflection,
which has then
a wavelength
which fits to
the
expectation of
de Broglie.
But that is a
very local
event (in a
range of
approx. 10^-12
m for the
electron) and
it is not at
all a property
of the
electron as de
Broglie has
thought.<br>
<br>
To say it
again: The de
Broglie
wavelength
cannot be a
steady
property of
the particle.
But
Schrödinger
and Dirac have
incorporated
it into their
QM equations
with this
understanding.<br>
<br>
If I should
have
misunderstood
you, please
show the
mathematical
calculations
which you
mean.<br>
<br>
Ciao, Albrecht<br>
<br>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
05.02.2016 um
19:20 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi:
Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Your
arguments
don't resonate
with me. The
deB' wave
length is
infinite in
the particles
frame: it is
the standing
wave formed by
the inpinging
background
waves having a
freq. = the
particle's
Zitterbewegung.
If these TWO
waves are each
Lorentz
x-formed to
another frame
and added
there, they
exhibit
exactly the
DeB'
modulation
wavelength
proportional
to the
particle's
momentum. The
only
mysterious
feature then
is that the
proportionality
is to the
CNONICAL
momentum,
i.e.,
including the
vector
potential of
whatever
exterior
E&M
interactions
are in-coming.
Nevertheless,
everything
works our
without
contradiction.
A particle
oscillates in
place at its
Zitter freq.
while the
Zitter signals
are modulated
by the DeB'
wavelength as
they move
through slits,
say.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>ciao, L</div>
<div>
<div
style="margin:
10.0px 5.0px
5.0px
10.0px;padding:
10.0px 0
10.0px
10.0px;border-left:
2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div
style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Freitag,
05. Februar
2016 um 12:28
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> "Richard
Gauthier" <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></a>,
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div>Hi
Richard and
Al, hi All,<br>
<br>
recently we
had a
discussion
here about two
topics:<br>
<br>
1. The
functionality
of the de
Broglie wave,
particularly
its wavelength<br>
if seen from a
different
inertial
system. Such
cases lead to
illogical<br>
situations.<br>
2. The problem
of the
apparent
asymmetry at
relativistic
dilation.<br>
<br>
I have
investigated
these cases
and found that
they are in
some way<br>
connected.
Relativistic
dilation is
not as simple
as it is
normally<br>
taken. It
looks
asymmetric if
it is
incorrectly
treated. An
asymmetry<br>
would falsify
Special
Relativity.
But it is in
fact
symmetrical if<br>
properly
handled and
understood.<br>
<br>
It is funny
that both
problems are
connected to
each other
through the<br>
fact that de
Broglie
himself has
misinterpreted
dilation. From
this<br>
incorrect
understanding
he did not
find another
way out than
to invent<br>
his "theorem
of phase
harmony"; with
all logical
conflicts
resulting<br>
from this
approach.<br>
<br>
If relativity
is properly
understood,
the problem
seen by de
Broglie<br>
does not
exist.
Equations
regarding
matter waves
can be derived
which<br>
work properly,
i.e. conform
to the
experiments
but avoid the
logical<br>
conflicts.<br>
<br>
As announced,
I have
composed a
paper about
this. It can
be found at:<br>
<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.academia.edu/21564534/The_Conflict_with_the_De_Broglie_Wavelength"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.academia.edu/21564534/The_Conflict_with_the_De_Broglie_Wavelength">https://www.academia.edu/21564534/The_Conflict_with_the_De_Broglie_Wavelength</a></a><br>
.<br>
<br>
I thank
Richard
Gauthier for
the discussion
which we had
about this<br>
topic. It
caused me to
investigate
the problem
and to find a
solution.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
---<br>
Diese E-Mail
wurde von
Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft.<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a></a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
If you no
longer wish to
receive
communication
from the
Nature of
Light and
Particles
General
Discussion
List at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<a href=<a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a></a>><br>
Click here to
unsubscribe<br>
</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<table
style="border-top:
1.0px solid
rgb(170,171,182);">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="width:
470.0px;padding-top:
20.0px;color:
rgb(65,66,78);font-size:
13.0px;font-family:
Arial ,
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;line-height:
18.0px;">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von einem
virenfreien
Computer
gesendet, der
von Avast
geschützt
wird.<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<table
style="border-top:
1.0px solid
rgb(170,171,182);">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="width:
470.0px;padding-top:
20.0px;color:
rgb(65,66,78);font-size:
13.0px;font-family:
Arial ,
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;line-height:
18.0px;">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von einem
virenfreien
Computer
gesendet, der
von Avast
geschützt
wird.<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<table
style="border-top:
1.0px solid
rgb(170,171,182);">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="width:
470.0px;padding-top:
20.0px;color:
rgb(65,66,78);font-size:
13.0px;font-family:
Arial ,
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;line-height:
18.0px;">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von einem
virenfreien
Computer
gesendet, der
von Avast
geschützt
wird.<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<table
style="border-top:
1.0px solid
rgb(170,171,182);">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="width:
470.0px;padding-top:
20.0px;color:
rgb(65,66,78);font-size:
13.0px;font-family:
Arial ,
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;line-height:
18.0px;">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von einem
virenfreien
Computer
gesendet, der
von Avast
geschützt
wird.<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<table
style="border-top:
1.0px solid
rgb(170,171,182);">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="width:
470.0px;padding-top:
20.0px;color:
rgb(65,66,78);font-size:
13.0px;font-family:
Arial ,
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;line-height:
18.0px;">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von einem
virenfreien
Computer
gesendet, der
von Avast
geschützt
wird.<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<table style="border-top: 1.0px
solid rgb(170,171,182);">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:
470.0px;padding-top:
20.0px;color:
rgb(65,66,78);font-size:
13.0px;font-family:
Arial , Helvetica ,
sans-serif;line-height:
18.0px;">Diese E-Mail
wurde von einem
virenfreien Computer
gesendet, der von Avast
geschützt wird.<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email" style="color: rgb(68,83,234);"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></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 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"> Click here to unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #aaabb6;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 20px; color: #41424e;
font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Diese E-Mail wurde von
einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von Avast
geschützt wird. <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email" target="_blank"
style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>