<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Albrecht<br>
<br>
Albrecht:<br>
Thank this is good. The list of assumptions is necessary because you
do not postulate new physics but a better or more parsimonious
explanation than what we have, so a comparative list of assumptions
is helpful.<br>
<br>
So you assume <br>
* two strong force type charges of the same sign, size < 10^-18
m.<br>
* moving at the speed of light <br>
* that are bound together with a Yukawa type potential, but a bit
different<br>
then you assume<br>
* the Yukawa type forces also exists within a free electron<br>
* at long distances the Yukawa type force becomes a coulomb force<br>
<br>
Then when an external electric forces pulling on them<br>
you calculate the time difference causes a retarding delay which
acts like inertia, <br>
OK but here I've already wondered about the sideways force
introduced by delays when the sub-charges are rotating <br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">* you assume<big> the accelerating sub particles do not produce radiation much like a boound electon
only we are no talking about a free electron that does radiate
* you assume a perpendicular magnetic field does not act simultanepusly on both sub-particles
with a Lorentz force that is equal and opposite(due to their opposite velocities) but
perhaps gives an asymmetry so that there is a preferential deflection to one side
When you turn the rotating sub-particles over the deflection remains to the same side
* then there is the question of gravitational mass, Purely electromagnetic energy
must produce gravitational mass equivalent m=E/c^2 which you dispute when explaining
gravitational deflection of light with a refraction model
I understand you are trying to replace the assumption of mass exists as an intrinsic property
with an intrinsic mechanism that only invoves charge. This would leave us with three forces
and eliminate the gravity integration problem. It's worth trying but it is not yet simpler
as I see it.
Newton assumed F=m*a . I do not think its the whole story but its certainly simple.
best
wolf</big></pre>
<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 3/9/2016 12:21 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56E085E6.2060006@a-giese.de" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
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"><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 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"><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>
<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;">
<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 Gerät gesendet, geschützt von Avast. <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>