<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Wolf,<br>
<br>
first I have to apologize that I did not respond earlier. Reason was
that I was off for a week to a conference and then ill. But now I am
back.<br>
<br>
The question (or problem) you address here is somewhat unexpected to
me and in some aspects difficult to understand. Of course it is my
intention to declare new assumptions which I have to use to develop
my model. But on the other hand there is a general understanding
about physics where I did not find it necessary to list them
explicitly. If I had the idea what could be not seen as common sense
in physics, I would not hesitate to list more and more of them even
if it looks funny to me. <br>
<br>
I shall give some examples: <br>
Common understanding in physics is that there are electrical
charges, two signs of it, and they attract or repel. The forces are
governed by the Coulomb law. An elementary charge has a small
geometric size, measurements tell that it is < 10^-18 m. We have
also charges which cause the strong force. The strong force causes a
strong bind. But the strong force also causes the fact that object
connected by the strong force keep a certain distance to each other.
Yukawa has once described quite roughly how such a bind has to look
like (regarding a distance law). He did not give a detailed
mechanism why it works in the way it works. He refers to the Pauli
principle and uses quantum numbers as is common practice in QM. No
further modelling of it. That is accepted by main stream physics. <br>
<br>
What I need for my model of inertia is just the fact that such force
exists. If this force has specific properties then this has
consequences for the behaviour of inertia. We can, if we want, use
reversed conclusions to describe this field in more detail from the
observed properties. That is an option then. <br>
<br>
Another common assumption in my understanding is the fact that a
mass-less object always moves at c, speed of light. Do you feel that
this is an extra-assumption to be named?<br>
<br>
The nature of my two sub-particles: They need this strong force with
them which is common understanding in physics, which keeps them at a
distance. (Maybe Yukawa potential or Pauli principle, those are all
names in present physics for this behaviour without explaining any
detail.) I have ideas for further details, but that would be in
addition, not necessary. Then they have an electrical charge,
otherwise they cannot build an electron (or tau or muon etc.). If
you have concerns regarding "assemblies of charges build
multi-pole field" then forget the whole stuff. It is nothing more
than my attempt to give an idea of an explanation. We do not need it
here as main stream physics uses it without any explanation, just as
a fact.<br>
<br>
The external force which can cause an acceleration of the whole
particle and in this way shows inertia, is normally an electric
field, but can also be the strong field or the gravitational one
(which may cause then some special restrictions). This force will of
course not act only on one of the sub-particles but on both. Why
only one?<br>
<br>
Is this a bit more of an explanation as you expect it? And do you
see further assumption which have to be named to complete the model?
I am curious.<br>
<br>
Best wishes<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 19.02.2016 um 21:14 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56C77796.9000606@nascentinc.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Albrecht:<br>
<br>
Thank you for , yes more of an explanation than I was expecting.<br>
And I certainly agree with your motives and your examples from
high energy physics.<br>
You are being motivated by all the applications to simplify
physics and see this reward immediately in front of you.<br>
<br>
I and it looks like Kracklauer are in a different position. We
first see a model we cannot understand that eliminates inertial
mass and the centrifugal force which is largely responsible for
holding things apart in he old concepts. We must understand your
model first before we can appreciate the benefits. <br>
<br>
From my point of view you have not described the nature of the two
particles or the nature of the force that holds them in their
orbits.<br>
<br>
If they are charges, how do charges perhaps "assemblies of
charges build multi-pole field" that maintains incredible
stability of a minimum energy at a specific distance when moving
in a circle at the speed of light?<br>
What is the nature of the external force that acts on one charge
and not the other to generate the internal resistance you identify
as inertia?<br>
<br>
You must answer these simple technical questions first even if the
answers are not simple.<br>
<br>
best wishes,<br>
wolf
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a 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 2/18/2016 7:35 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56C5E4BF.5010309@a-giese.de" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Wolf,<br>
<br>
do I explain one mystery by another one? I think that the
situation should be envisioned in a different way. <br>
<br>
Our physical understanding and our ongoing follows the
reductionism. That means that we explain physical phenomena on a
specific level by use of facts, which are taken as facts on a
more fundamental level. And later the more fundamental level has
to be explained. Example from astronomy: Kepler's law was at
first stated as a formula, then it could be explained by
Newton's laws of motion and of gravity. Next step now in
reductionism is to explain, how the law of gravity and the law
of motion is caused.<br>
<br>
I am using the fact that there are forces in physics which bind
objects to each other and at the same time cause a distance
between these objects. This fact is universal in physics. If
elementary particles or atoms or molecules would not keep
distances then our whole universe could be but into a ball of,
say, 10 meters diameter. - In few cases the distance can be
explained by a planetary model, in most cases (in particle
physics) this is not the solution. The bind of atoms in a
molecule is an example. And quarks are bound to build a proton
or neutron, and this is not caused by a planetary process. The
size of the nucleon is by a factor of >1000 greater than the
one of a quark. Who causes the distance? As it is not a
planetary system then there must be a force between the quarks
which just causes this distance even though it binds them. - I
do not think that the bind of atoms in a molecule are a mystery.
To my knowledge the (two) types of bind are well understood.<br>
<br>
I assume the same for the sub-particles in my model. And a fact
is that a distance causes inertia without the need of further
assumptions (except the finiteness of c). <br>
<br>
I have assumed a certain shape of that field which leads to
Newton's law of inertia. - Now one can ask how this field is
built. I have assumed that it is caused by a collection of
charges. This is my attempt to have an explanation on the next
more fundamental level. Perhaps I should not publish such
thoughts. Necessary is only the field as it is. And if I stick
at this level now, I am not weaker than Main Stream physics, as
they also assume distances without any explanation for it. (Yes,
they talk about "principles", but that does not mean
explanations.)<br>
<br>
I use this configuration it explain inertia. It is a fundamental
explanation that any extended object must have inertia. An
extended object cannot exist without having inertia. - Another
fundamental explanation of inertia is the Higgs model (if one
likes QM as explanation). But Higgs is lacking by the fact that
measurements deny the Higgs field. And the theory is very
incomplete as it does not give us a result for particles for
which everything is known except the mass. - The other models of
inertia discussed here are not fundamental in so far as they
refer to momentum, which is physically identical to inertia.<br>
<br>
Why does a charge not radiate when orbiting? In my view it is a
fundamental error in present physics that an accelerated
electrical charge radiates. This is concluded from the Maxwell
equations. But Maxwell has given us a formal mathematical system
which in the daily work of a technician works fine, but it does
not tell us the physics behind. So he has postulated a symmetry
between electricity and magnetism. Completely wrong as we
understand it meanwhile. Magnetism is a relativistic side effect
of the electrical field. Very well explained by a video clip of
veritasium:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0</a><br>
<br>
An electric charge does not "know" what acceleration is. It only
"knows" what an electrical field is. And if this field changes
then the charge will radiate. That is the reason that an
electron normally radiates at acceleration. Because during
acceleration the electron is relativistically distorted. This
causes that one sub-particle senses a changing field from the
other partner. <br>
<br>
What is strong force? What is electrical force? I have no
explanation for that (reductionistic) level where charges are
caused. Why do I say that the force in my model is the strong
force? The reconstruction of the force from a known mass shows
that this force is at least by a factor of 300 stronger than the
electrical one. And the only force with this strength which I
know is the strong one. - Perhaps I should keep this open.<br>
<br>
Is this more like an explanation which you are expecting?<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 18.02.2016 um 05:46 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56C54CA5.3030400@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Albrecht:<br>
I tend to be skeptical as well about the gravity wave
announcement.<br>
But then I generally discount a lot of high energy work since
without extremely detailed knowledge it is hard to trust
anything as complex and deeply imbedded in statistics. <br>
<br>
Regarding your model I basically have the same problem as
Kracklauer, is your particle model not simply a substitution
of one mystery with another? <br>
<br>
otherwise I'll just follow up on one question. You said <br>
"They( the two charges) have assemblies of charges to build a
multi-pole field which has a minimum of potential at some
distance."<br>
<br>
So does this mean that the two particle drawings you publish
are approximations to assemblies of charges?<br>
I and probably anyone would need a clear derivation of the
force curve <br>
<br>
Although molecular forces gives an analogy such an analogy
assumes all the things you are trying to explain<br>
(mass, inertia, etc.) and even that makes the whole question
of how atoms are held together a pandora's box of mystery.<br>
why no radiation from a bound accelerating electron, why the
exclusion principle in the first place. Principles principles
everywhere.<br>
<br>
Wolf<br>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/14/2016 12:43 PM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56C0E70F.6090401@a-giese.de" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Hi Wolf,<br>
<br>
my answers in the text.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 12.02.2016 um 21:28 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BE4050.3060001@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Albrecht <br>
<br>
What do you think of the gravity wave detection
announcement?<br>
</blockquote>
I would be happier with this discovery if some other lab
would have seen it as well. They say that the significance
is better than 5 sigma. That is in fact a lot. However we
still have to believe it. The chirp did have a length of 200
ms. Such "chirp" signals are in some way similar. During 100
days there are approx. 50 million windows of 200 ms. So, a
coincidence may happen. Of course one has to assume that
this was taken into account by the team. But I would feel
better to see details. <br>
<br>
Another uncomfortable feeling is that it has taken only 200
ms to merge two black holes with masses of approx. 50 suns.
Can this happen that quickly? We know from Einstein's theory
that any temporal process in the vicinity of the event
horizon slows down until no motion. I see this as a strong
argument against such short time. I have asked this question
in the forum of the German version of Nature. My question
was not published. - Very funny!<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BE4050.3060001@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"> <br>
thank you for your answers, and I appreciate your time
constraints, we are all busy so answer when you can. <br>
<br>
There are a few comments<br>
a) so your two particles are two oppositely charged
charges?</blockquote>
They have assemblies of charges to build a multi-pole field
which has a minimum of potential at some distance. That is
similar to the situation in a molecule where atoms are bound
to each other. But the force here is stronger.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BE4050.3060001@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"> b) Calibration is an after the fact fitting
that is not a bad technique but cannot be considered first
principle derivation.<br>
In addition the force you define has an attraction,
repulsion and a minimum that keeps the particles in a
fixed orbit when not disturbed.<br>
How is this minimum established out of rotating electric
charges? Are we talking a kind of strong force or
something new? What about magnetic forces between two
moving charges. <br>
</blockquote>
From my model it follows that the force between the
sub-particles is ca. 300 - 500 times the electrical force.
To have a better precision I have used the measurements to
determine Planck's constant or equivalently the measurements
to determine the magnetic moment. From comparison with
measurements it follows that my constant is S = h*c. In my
understanding this is the square of the field constant of
the strong force . - This is however not the position of
Main Stream. On the other hand, Chip Akins has just
yesterday presented ideas which conform to this result.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BE4050.3060001@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"> <br>
c) "Origin of Mass" in Figure 6.1 shows the drawing of a
retarded interaction which I think is used to explain the
1/2 factor in spin.<br>
However the effective radius is now smaller and thus if
your potential curve fig 2.1 is accurate the particles
would be repelled along the retarded potential line. Would
you not have to show a radial and tangential component?<br>
</blockquote>
It would be at the end better to show a radial and a
tangential component. But independent of this, the effective
distance between the charges is less than twice the radius.
But this is covered by a fixed correction factor which is
implicitly taken into account by the calibration. This
calibration would mean nothing if it would be used only for
the electron. But the result is then valid for all leptons
and for all quarks (in a limited way also for the photon.)<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BE4050.3060001@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"> <br>
e) should an outside force impulse when the particles are
aligned along the force vector effecting one particle
first and then the other producing your inertia result.
However when the particle separation is perpendicular both
particles would see the same force. If its an electric
impulse on plus and negative charge it would introduce a
rotation. This introduces an asymmetry. <br>
Is this eliminated by averaging ? If so your derivation is
an instantaneous approximation and if a smeared out
calculation is made would much of your result not cancel
or show oscillations?<br>
</blockquote>
The electrical charges on the sub-particles have the same
sign in all cases, 2x 1/2 elementary charge in case of the
electron. So, an external electrical force does not impose
an angular momentum or an asymmetry. The force needed for
acceleration depends on the direction. It has to be
integrated over all directions. This is normally however not
necessary as this is also covered by the calibration. Only
in the moment when I take into account the general influence
of the electric charges to calculate the Landé factor, the
directions have to be taken into account more individually.
I my according calculation I do it and the result is the
correct factor.<br>
<br>
Best, Albrecht<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BE4050.3060001@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"> <br>
best,<br>
Wolf<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/12/2016 6:28 AM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BDEC26.4030906@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Wolf,<br>
<br>
I apologize if I have not answered questions which you
have asked. I am preparing for a conference where I will
give 7 contributions and that keeps me quite busy.<br>
<br>
I think that I have already answered some of the
questions which you are asking in this mail. But no
problem, I shall do it again.<br>
<br>
You have looked at my web site "the Origin of Gravity".
My model of gravity uses (and needs) this particle
model, at least certain properties of it. But otherwise
the fact of inertia has nothing to do with gravity. <br>
<br>
To start with your questions regarding inertial mass:
The basic point is that any extended object necessarily
has inertia. Just for this fact - without details of
parameters - there are no preconditions needed except
the assumption that there are forces which cause the
object to exist and to have an extension, and that these
forces propagate at speed of light c. <br>
I have explained details earlier. It is also explained
as a step by step process on my web site "The Origin of
Mass". So I do not repeat the basic explanation again
here. But I can do so if you (ore someone else) will ask
for it. - But this is the fundamental and essential
fact.<br>
<br>
Next answers in the text below.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 10.02.2016 um 20:28
schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB8F4F.9080506@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Albrecht;<br>
Sorry to mistake your feelings it sounded like you
were getting frustrated at not being understood.<br>
<br>
However I'm getting frustrated since I've read much of
your work and have asked questions which have not been
answered. Perhaps they have not been clear or gotten
lost, so here they are again. <br>
Ref: Albrecht;<br>
Sorry to mistake your feelings it sounded like you
were getting frustrated at not being understood.<br>
<br>
However I'm getting frustrated since I've read much of
your work and have asked questions which perhaps have
not been clear or gotten lost, so here they are
again ref: The Origin of Gravity Figure 3.1: Basic
Particle Model<br>
It looks like you are presenting a new explanation of
inertial mass with a theory which has a large number
of assumptions:<br>
a) a new set of orbiting particles that are made of
What?<br>
</blockquote>
The minimum assumptions for my model is that an
elementary particle has an extension; as said above in
the beginning. To further detail it, I assume that the
sub-particles have charges which cause a binding field.
This field has also to achieve a distance between the
sub-particles. (Such a field structure is known in
physics in the binding of atoms to molecules; but there
it is caused by a different type of charge.) In the case
of electrically charged elementary particles there are
also electrical charges in the sub-particles. The
sub-particles may have further properties, but those are
not essential for this model.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB8F4F.9080506@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"> b) a force between those particles you
made up to fit your desired result, where does this
force come from?<br>
why is the minimum not a combination of
two forces like a coulomb attraction and centrifugal
repulsion</blockquote>
I have only assumed that there are charges in it,
positive and negative ones (to cause attraction and
repulsion). The strength of the force is determines
later by the calibration.<br>
Centrifugal repulsion is of course not possible as it
would need that the sub-particles have inertial mass
each. I do not assume an inertial mass as a precondition
as this would subvert my goal to explain mass
fundamentally. (This also conforms to the position of
present main stream physics.)<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB8F4F.9080506@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"> <br>
c) assume this force also propagates at light speed
"c" and Why does rapid rotation not change the
interaction energy curve?<br>
I always have trouble understanding the
stability of particles rotating at or near the speed
of light when the force signals<br>
are also moving at this speed. <br>
</blockquote>
With this respect my model is presented a bit simplified
in most of my drawings. If one assumes that the
sub-particles move at c and also the field (maybe
represented by exchange particles) moves at c, then the
force coming from one particle does not reach the other
sub-particle when it is opposite in the circuit but at a
different position. This changes the calculation by a
certain, fixed factor. But this effect is compensated by
the calibration. - You find a drawing showing this on my
site "Origin of Mass" in Figure 6.1 . <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB8F4F.9080506@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"> d) a media or space of propagation
between those particles that is flat<br>
</blockquote>
I find it practical to assume that the forces are
realized by exchange particles (also moving at c). In a
space without gravity they move undisturbed. If there is
gravity then the speed of light is reduced which changes
the forces a little, little bit.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB8F4F.9080506@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"> e) a force on one of the particles from
an outside agent that does not effect the other
particle<br>
so you can calculate the reaction force. Would the
outside force not introduce asymmetries depending on
the angle of incidence?<br>
</blockquote>
If there is a force from the outside (like an electrical
one) it will touch both sub-particles. There might be a
very small time delay reaching both. And it will be in
practice a very, very small influence in relation to the
forces within the particle. The fact that <i>both </i>sub-particles
are affected will not change the process of inertia as
these forces are always very weak in relation to the
forces inside.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB8F4F.9080506@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"> <br>
My question is not that your calculations are wrong
but given the above hidden assumptions<br>
1) why would I not simply say inertial mass is an
intrinsic property of matter?<br>
</blockquote>
This "intrinsic mass" was the old understanding in
physics. Since several decades also Main Stream has
changed its opinion to it (otherwise there would not
have been a search for the Higgs). And with this
assumption of an intrinsic a-priory-mass we would not
have an explanation for the further properties of a
particle (like spin and magnetic moment). Particularly
no explanation for the relativistic behaviour like
relativistic mass increase and the relation E = mc^2.
These relations are results of this model. (Einstein and
QM have given us these relations, but a physical cause
was never given by both).<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB8F4F.9080506@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"> 2) What advantage or new phenomena are
you predicting?<br>
</blockquote>
The advantage of my model is similar like with
Copernicus: We have physical explanations for facts
which we already knew, but up to now without an
explanation. So a better understanding of physics in
general. To be able to predict something is always the
greatest situation. Up to now I do not have any in mind.
(Also Copernicus did not have any, even though he has in
fact caused a great step forward.)<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB8F4F.9080506@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"> 3) It looks like you are throwing out
Mach's Principle since the existence of distant masses<br>
has no effect on your calculations since
inertia is now still intrinsic to your orbiting
particles rather than a point mass<br>
</blockquote>
A point mass does not exist in my understanding.
Regarding Mach's Principle: I assume like Mach that
there is a fundamental frame in this world. Maybe caused
by distant masses, I think it is better to relate it to
the Big Bang. That means for my model that the speed of
light effective in the particle is related to a specific
fixed frame. - This is in contrast to Einstein but in
accordance to the Lorentzian interpretation of
relativity.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB8F4F.9080506@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"> <br>
That said I agree with most of your criticism of
current interpretations, the most interesting for me
is the simplicity introduced by the use of a variable
speed of light and a refraction model to explain light
bending.</blockquote>
Thank you! (The latter point has to do with gravity, not
with inertia.)<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB8F4F.9080506@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"> <br>
Best,<br>
Wolf<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
If you have further question or concerns, please ask
again. I appreciate very much that you have worked
through my model<br>
<br>
Best<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB8F4F.9080506@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/10/2016 5:13 AM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB3790.2040700@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Hi Wolf,<br>
<br>
why do you think that I am frustrated? Why should I?
Since I found 17 years ago the mechanism of inertia,
which functions so straight and logical with precise
results, I am continuously happy. And the
appreciation by interested physicists is great.
Since 14 years my site about mass in internationally
#1 in the internet. Only sometimes the mass site of
Nobel Prize winner Frank Wilzcek is one step higher.
But that is good companionship.<br>
<br>
True that it is a problem with Main Stream. They do
not object but just do not care. They love the Higgs
model even though it is proven not to work. - It
just need patience. I still have it.<br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<big> </big>Yes, quantum numbers work fine, but
they are physically little or not founded. It is
similar to the known Pauli Principle. That also
works, but nobody knows why. And the bad thing is
that nobody from Main Stream concerned about this
non-understanding. That is the biggest weakness in
today's physics in my view.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 09.02.2016 um 20:35
schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:56BA3F8C.7000106@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
I can feel your frustration, Albrecht, <br>
The oldies are probably all wrong, but it's
important to remember that right or wrong they
give us the platform from which to see farther.<br>
"standing on the shoulders of others", and right
or wrong they give us something tangible to argue
about<br>
and what quantum numbers have done for us to
organize chemistry is amazing.<br>
<br>
wolf<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/9/2016 10:18 AM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BA2D87.5090908@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Hi Al,<br>
<br>
the choice of de Broglie is not suboptimal, it
is clearly wrong. Badly wrong. The wave he has
introduced does not exist, and if it would exist
its behaviour would cause a physical behaviour
which is in conflict with measurements (if those
are comprehensively done).<br>
<br>
I agree with you that the main object now is to
move forward. But we will not move successfully
forward if we carry millstones with us. De
Broglie's wave is a millstone. I just had a look
into a new textbook about QM, which was highly
recommended by our university. It makes full use
of de Broglie's relation between momentum and
wavelength, so this is unfortunately not just
history. <br>
<br>
But looking into the history: Bohr, Sommerfeld
and others have used the result of de Broglie to
explain quantum numbers. Particularly the
quantisation of the angular momentum on atomic
shells is explained by "standing waves" where
the wavelength is the one defined by dB. This
obviously hides the true reason of this
quantisation, but as anyone believes that the
Ansatz using de Broglie is right, nobody is
looking for the correct cause. - This is one of
the reasons for our sticking physics.<br>
<br>
Tschüss back<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 09.02.2016 um
14:57 schrieb <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-72537819-ce78-41a7-b82e-b4d7545f4651-1455026275771@3capp-webde-bs59"
type="cite">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As you fully know, the very same idea
can be expressed in various languages.
This is true of physics also. The very
same structure can be attached to
variuos words and images. I do not
defend deBroglie's choice of words and
images. I too find his choice suboptimal
and somewhat contrdictory. So what? He
was playing his hand at that time with
the hand he was delt at that time.
Since then, other ideas have been found
in the deck, as it were. I find that,
without changing any of his math, one
can tell a story that is vastly less
etherial and mysterious and, depending
on the reader's depth of analysis, less
self-contradictory. I think my story is
the one DeBrogle would have told if he
had been inspired by some facits of SED.
And, some people have a greater affinty
and interest in abstract structures, in
particular when their mathematical
redintion seems to work, that for the
stories told for their explication.
This is particularly true of all things
QM. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Anyway, the main object now (2016) is
to move forward, not critique historical
personalitites. So, I'm trying to
contribute to this discussion by adding
what I know now, and what I have found
to be useful. We are "doing" physics,
not history. Let's make new errors, not
just grind away on the old ones!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>BTW, to my info, both Dirac and
Schrödinger would agree that deBroglie
proposed some not too cogent arguments
regarding the nature of QM-wave
functions. Still, the best there at that
time. All the same, they too went to
their graves without having found a
satisfactory interpretation. SED throws
some new ingredients into the mix. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Tschuss, Al </div>
<div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px
5px 10px; padding: 10px 0 10px 10px;
border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Dienstag,
09. Februar 2016 um 13:41 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>,
"Richard Gauthier" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
I have the impression that you
have a solution for particle
scattering which is in some way
related to the idea of de Broglie.
(I also have of course a
solution). But was this the goal
of our discussion and of my
original contribution? It was not!
My objection was de Broglie's
original idea as stated in his
thesis and as taken over by
Schrödinger and Dirac.<br>
<br>
You have a lot of elements in your
argumentation which I do not find
in the thesis of de Broglie.
(There is e.g. nothing at dB about
SED ore background.)<br>
<br>
The essential point of our
discussion is the meaning of his
wave - and his wavelength. I think
it is very obvious from his thesis
(which you clearly know) that his
"fictitious wave" accompanies a
particle like the electron<i> all
of the time</i>. There is no
interaction mentioned except that
there is an observer at rest who
measures the frequency of the
particle. But without influencing
the particle.<br>
<br>
Now it is normal knowledge that a
frequency and as well a wavelength
appears changed for an observer
who is in motion. This is caused
by the Doppler effect. But the
Doppler effect will never cause
that a finite wavelength changes
to Infinite if an observer moves
at some speed unequal to c. But
just that happens to the wave
invented by de Broglie. It follows
the equation<br>
<br>
lambda = h/(m*v) where v is the
speed difference between the
particle and the observer (to say
it this time this way). And this
is in conflict to any physics we
know.<br>
<br>
Best, Albrecht<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
08.02.2016 um 17:20 schrieb <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Your challenge is easy!
In fact my last responce
covered it. The RELEVANT
velocity is the relative
velocity between the
particle and the slit; not
that between the
observer-particle or
observer-slit. An
observer will see all
kinds of distortions of
the events, starting with
simple persepctive due to
being at some distance
from the slit and its
registration screen. In
additon this observer will
see those deB waves
affecting the particle
(NOT from the particle,
nor from the slit, but
from the universal
background there before
either the particle or
slit came into being) as
perspectively-relativistically
distorted (twin-clock type
distortion). BUT, the
observer will still see
the same over-all
background because the
totality of background
signals (not just those to
which this particle is
tuned), i.e., its spectral
energy density, is itself
Lorentz invariant. That
is, the observer's motion
does not enable it to
empirically distinguish
between the background in
the various frames, nor
does the background
engender friction forces.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You have got to get
your head around the idea
that deB waves are
independant of particles
whatever their frame.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Schrördinger did toy
with some aspects that
deBroglie used, but never
did succeed in
rationalizing his eq. in
those or any other terms.
For him, when died, wave
functions were
ontologically completely
mysterious. From SED
proponents, I'm told, my
thoughts in #7 on <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com">www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com</a></a>,
are unique in formulating
S's eq. in terms of deB
concepts. Try it, maybe
you'll like it. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>There are other
SED-type stories too, but
as they are based on
diffusion (parabolic, not
hyperbolic) precesses, I
find them self
contradictory.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>ciao, Al</div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 10.0px
5.0px 5.0px
10.0px;padding: 10.0px 0
10.0px
10.0px;border-left:
2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div style="margin: 0 0
10.0px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Montag,
08. Februar 2016 um
141 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>,
"Richard Gauthier" <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De Broglie
Wave</div>
<div>
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">Hi
Al,<br>
<br>
if you follow de
Broglie, you should
have an explanation
for the following
experiment (here
again):<br>
<br>
Electrons move at
0.1 c towards the
double slit. Behind
the double slit
there is an
interference pattern
generated, which in
the frame of the
slit follows the
rule of de Broglie.
But now there is an
observer also moving
at 0.1 c parallel to
the beam of
electrons. In his
frame the electrons
have momentum=0 and
so
wavelength=infinite.
That means: No
interference
pattern. But there
is in fact a pattern
which does not
disappear just
because there is
another observer.
And the moving
observer will see
the pattern. - This
is a falsification
of de Broglie's
rule. What else?<br>
<br>
The understanding
that the de Broglie
wave is a property
of the particle
(even though
depending on their
speed, but not on an
interaction) was not
my idea but the one
of Schrödinger and
Dirac and many
others. Also by de
Broglie himself.<br>
<br>
Ciao Albrecht<br>
<br>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
08.02.2016 um
03:30 schrieb <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>BUT, the
laws of
Physics for
"being" in a
frame are not
the laws for
interacting
between
frames! The
deB. wave is
not a feature
of a particle
in its own
frame, but a
feature of the
interaction of
such a
particle with
at least one
other particle
in another
frame. When
the two frames
are moving
with respect
to each other,
then the
features of
the
interaction
cannot be
Lorentz
invariants.
When one
particle is
interacting
with another
particle (or
ensemble---slit
say) the
relevant
physics is
determined by
the deB wave
in that
sitation,
whatever it
looks like to
an observer in
a third frame
with yet
different
relative
velocities.
It is a
perspective
effect: a tree
is the same
ontological
size in fact
no matter how
small it
appears to
distant
observers.
Observed
diminished
size(s) cannot
be "invriant."
Appearances
=/= ,,so
sein''.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You have
gotten your
head stuck on
the idea that
deB. waves are
characteristics
intrinsic to
particles in
an of
themselves.
Recalibrate!
DeB waves are
charactteristics
of the mutual
interaction of
particles.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best, Al</div>
<div>
<div
style="margin:
10.0px 5.0px
5.0px
10.0px;padding:
10.0px 0
10.0px
10.0px;border-left:
2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div
style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Sonntag,
07. Februar
2016 um 22:10
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>,
"Richard
Gauthier" <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div>
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
at one of your
points I
really
disagree. The
physical laws
have to be
fulfilled in
every frame.
That means
that all
physical
processes have
to obey the
same laws in
all frames. So
also the
process at the
double slit.
But the rule
given by de
Broglie looks
correct in
only one
frame, that is
the frame
where the
double slit is
at rest. For
an observer in
motion the
diffraction
pattern looks
very similar
as for the
observer at
rest, but for
the observer
in motion the
results
according to
de Broglie are
completely
different,
because the
momentum of
the particle
is different
in a wide
range in the
frame of a
moving
observer and
so is the
wavelength
assigned to
the particle.<br>
<br>
The specific
case: At
electron
scattering,
the observer
co-moving with
the electron
will see a
similar
pattern as the
observer at
rest, but de
Broglie says
that for this
observer there
does not exist
any pattern.
That is
strongly
incorrect.<br>
<br>
The
Schrödinger
equation and
also the Dirac
function
should have
correct
results in
different
frames, at
least at
non-relativistic
speeds. This
requirement is
clearly
violated
through their
use of de
Broglie's
rule.<br>
<br>
Grüße<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
PS: Your
article refers
to "Stochastic
Electrodynamics".
That is in my
knowledge not
standard
physics and so
a new
assumption.<br>
<br>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
07.02.2016 um
19:03 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In my
view the story
in my paper
has no new
assunptions,
rather new
words for old
assumptions.
As I, along
with most
others, see
it, there is
no conflict
with
experiment,
but a less
than fully
transparent
explantion for
experimental
observations
(particle beam
diffrction)
otherwise
unexplained.
At the time
of writing,
and nowadays
too (although
I'd to think
that my paper
rationalizes
DeB's story)
it was the
most widely
accepted story
for this
phenomna. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The only
entities that
logically need
to be Lorentz
invariant are
the particle.
I the deB
wave is not a
'Bestandteil'
of the
particle, but
of its
relations with
its
envionment,
then
invariance is
not defined
nor useful.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>M.f.G.
Al</div>
<div>
<div
style="margin:
10.0px 5.0px
5.0px
10.0px;padding:
10.0px 0
10.0px
10.0px;border-left:
2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div
style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Sonntag,
07. Februar
2016 um 14:39
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>,
"Richard
Gauthier" <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div>
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
thank you for
your
reference.
Your paper has
a lot of
intelligent
thoughts but
also a lot of
additional
assumptions.
With reference
to the de
Broglie wave,
I think, is
the situation
much simpler
on the level
of
conservative
knowledge. De
Broglie has
misunderstood
relativity
(particularly
dilation) and
so seen a
conflict which
does in fact
not exist. He
has solved the
conflict by
inventing an
additional
"fictitious"
wave which has
no other
foundation in
physics, and
also his
"theorem of
harmonic
phases" which
as well is an
invention
without need.
And his result
is in conflict
with the
experiment if
we ask for
Lorentz
invariance or
even for
Galilean
invariance. -
If we follow
the basic idea
of de Broglie
by, however,
avoiding his
logical error
about
relativity, we
come easily to
a description
of matter
waves without
logical
conflicts.
This does not
need new
philosophy or
other effort
at this level.<br>
<br>
Best, Albrecht<br>
<br>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
06.02.2016 um
03:15 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>DeBroglie's
verbage is
indeed quite
rococo!
Nonetheless,
his
machinations,
although
verbalized, in
the true
tradtion of
quantum
mechanics,
mysteriously,
can be
reinterpreted
(i.e.,
alternate
verbage found
without
changing any
of the math)
so as to tell
a fully, if
(somewhat)
hetrodoxical,
story. See
#11 on <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.Nonloco-Physics.0catch.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.Nonloco-Physics.0catch.com">www.Nonloco-Physics.0catch.com</a></a>.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>cc:
Waves are
never a
characteristic
of a single,
point-like
entity, but
colletive
motion of a
medium. IF
they exist at
all. My view
is that
E&M waves
are a fiction
wrought by
Fourier
analysis. The
only real
physical part
is an
"interaction",
which mnight
as well be
thought of an
absract string
between
charges.
Also,
neutrons have
electric
multipole
moments; i.e.,
they are
totally
neutral but
not
charge-free. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best,
Al </div>
<div>
<div
style="margin:
10.0px 5.0px
5.0px
10.0px;padding:
10.0px 0
10.0px
10.0px;border-left:
2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div
style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Freitag,
05. Februar
2016 um 21:43
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>,
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> "Richard
Gauthier" <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div>
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
true, in the
frame of the
particle the
dB wavelength
is infinite.
Because in its
own frame the
momentum of
the particle
is 0. The
particle
oscillates
with the
frequency of
the particle's
Zitterbewegung
(which
background
fields do you
have in mind?
De Brogie does
not mention
them). This
oscillation is
in no
contradiction
with this
wavelength as
the phase
speed is also
infinite. For
the
imagination,
the latter
means that all
points of that
wave oscillate
with the same
phase at any
point.<br>
<br>
Which
background
waves do you
have in mind?
What is the
CNONOICAL
momentum? And
what about
E&M
interactions?
De Broglie has
not related
his wave to a
specific
field. An
E&M field
would anyway
have no effect
in the case of
neutron
scattering for
which the same
de Broglie
formalism is
used. And into
which frame do
you see the
wave
Lorentz-transformed?<br>
<br>
So, an
electron in
his frame has
an infinite
wavelength and
in his frame
has the double
slit moving
towards the
particle. How
can an
interference
at the slits
occur? No
interference
can happen
under these
conditions.
But, as I have
explained in
the paper, the
normal wave
which
accompanies
the electron
by normal
rules (i.e.
phase speed =
c) will have
an
interference
with its own
reflection,
which has then
a wavelength
which fits to
the
expectation of
de Broglie.
But that is a
very local
event (in a
range of
approx. 10^-12
m for the
electron) and
it is not at
all a property
of the
electron as de
Broglie has
thought.<br>
<br>
To say it
again: The de
Broglie
wavelength
cannot be a
steady
property of
the particle.
But
Schrödinger
and Dirac have
incorporated
it into their
QM equations
with this
understanding.<br>
<br>
If I should
have
misunderstood
you, please
show the
mathematical
calculations
which you
mean.<br>
<br>
Ciao, Albrecht<br>
<br>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
05.02.2016 um
19:20 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi:
Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Your
arguments
don't resonate
with me. The
deB' wave
length is
infinite in
the particles
frame: it is
the standing
wave formed by
the inpinging
background
waves having a
freq. = the
particle's
Zitterbewegung.
If these TWO
waves are each
Lorentz
x-formed to
another frame
and added
there, they
exhibit
exactly the
DeB'
modulation
wavelength
proportional
to the
particle's
momentum. The
only
mysterious
feature then
is that the
proportionality
is to the
CNONICAL
momentum,
i.e.,
including the
vector
potential of
whatever
exterior
E&M
interactions
are in-coming.
Nevertheless,
everything
works our
without
contradiction.
A particle
oscillates in
place at its
Zitter freq.
while the
Zitter signals
are modulated
by the DeB'
wavelength as
they move
through slits,
say.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>ciao, L</div>
<div>
<div
style="margin:
10.0px 5.0px
5.0px
10.0px;padding:
10.0px 0
10.0px
10.0px;border-left:
2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div
style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Freitag,
05. Februar
2016 um 12:28
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> "Richard
Gauthier" <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></a>,
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div>Hi
Richard and
Al, hi All,<br>
<br>
recently we
had a
discussion
here about two
topics:<br>
<br>
1. The
functionality
of the de
Broglie wave,
particularly
its wavelength<br>
if seen from a
different
inertial
system. Such
cases lead to
illogical<br>
situations.<br>
2. The problem
of the
apparent
asymmetry at
relativistic
dilation.<br>
<br>
I have
investigated
these cases
and found that
they are in
some way<br>
connected.
Relativistic
dilation is
not as simple
as it is
normally<br>
taken. It
looks
asymmetric if
it is
incorrectly
treated. An
asymmetry<br>
would falsify
Special
Relativity.
But it is in
fact
symmetrical if<br>
properly
handled and
understood.<br>
<br>
It is funny
that both
problems are
connected to
each other
through the<br>
fact that de
Broglie
himself has
misinterpreted
dilation. From
this<br>
incorrect
understanding
he did not
find another
way out than
to invent<br>
his "theorem
of phase
harmony"; with
all logical
conflicts
resulting<br>
from this
approach.<br>
<br>
If relativity
is properly
understood,
the problem
seen by de
Broglie<br>
does not
exist.
Equations
regarding
matter waves
can be derived
which<br>
work properly,
i.e. conform
to the
experiments
but avoid the
logical<br>
conflicts.<br>
<br>
As announced,
I have
composed a
paper about
this. It can
be found at:<br>
<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.academia.edu/21564534/The_Conflict_with_the_De_Broglie_Wavelength"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.academia.edu/21564534/The_Conflict_with_the_De_Broglie_Wavelength">https://www.academia.edu/21564534/The_Conflict_with_the_De_Broglie_Wavelength</a></a><br>
.<br>
<br>
I thank
Richard
Gauthier for
the discussion
which we had
about this<br>
topic. It
caused me to
investigate
the problem
and to find a
solution.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
---<br>
Diese E-Mail
wurde von
Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft.<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a></a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
If you no
longer wish to
receive
communication
from the
Nature of
Light and
Particles
General
Discussion
List at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<a href=<a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a></a>><br>
Click here to
unsubscribe<br>
</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<table
style="border-top:
1.0px solid
rgb(170,171,182);">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="width:
470.0px;padding-top:
20.0px;color:
rgb(65,66,78);font-size:
13.0px;font-family:
Arial ,
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;line-height:
18.0px;">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von einem
virenfreien
Computer
gesendet, der
von Avast
geschützt
wird.<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<table
style="border-top:
1.0px solid
rgb(170,171,182);">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="width:
470.0px;padding-top:
20.0px;color:
rgb(65,66,78);font-size:
13.0px;font-family:
Arial ,
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;line-height:
18.0px;">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von einem
virenfreien
Computer
gesendet, der
von Avast
geschützt
wird.<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<table
style="border-top:
1.0px solid
rgb(170,171,182);">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="width:
470.0px;padding-top:
20.0px;color:
rgb(65,66,78);font-size:
13.0px;font-family:
Arial ,
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;line-height:
18.0px;">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von einem
virenfreien
Computer
gesendet, der
von Avast
geschützt
wird.<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<table
style="border-top:
1.0px solid
rgb(170,171,182);">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="width:
470.0px;padding-top:
20.0px;color:
rgb(65,66,78);font-size:
13.0px;font-family:
Arial ,
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;line-height:
18.0px;">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von einem
virenfreien
Computer
gesendet, der
von Avast
geschützt
wird.<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<table style="border-top: 1.0px
solid rgb(170,171,182);">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:
470.0px;padding-top:
20.0px;color:
rgb(65,66,78);font-size:
13.0px;font-family: Arial
, Helvetica ,
sans-serif;line-height:
18.0px;">Diese E-Mail
wurde von einem
virenfreien Computer
gesendet, der von Avast
geschützt wird.<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email" style="color: rgb(68,83,234);"
target="_blank">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #aaabb6;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top:
20px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px;
font-family: Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Diese
E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien
Computer gesendet, der von Avast
geschützt wird. <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email"
target="_blank" style="color:
#4453ea;">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #aaabb6;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 20px;
color: #41424e; font-size: 13px;
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
line-height: 18px;">Diese E-Mail wurde von
einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von
Avast geschützt wird. <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email"
target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #aaabb6;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 20px; color:
#41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Diese
E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer
gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird. <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email"
target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #aaabb6;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 20px; color:
#41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Diese
E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer
gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird. <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email"
target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #aaabb6;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 20px; color:
#41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Diese E-Mail wurde von
einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von Avast
geschützt wird. <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email" target="_blank"
style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br />
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #aaabb6;">
<tr>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 20px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Gerät gesendet, geschützt von Avast. <br /><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</table>
</body>
</html>