<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
h4
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 4 Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;
font-weight:bold;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.Heading4Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 4 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 4";
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
color:#2E74B5;
font-style:italic;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Albrecht and Andre<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>First, Albrecht, I agree that the de Broglie wave, as envisioned by de Broglie, leaves much unexplained, and may well be simply wrong, even though it sort of fits partial mathematical descriptions which seem to be shedding some light on the atomic orbitals in a narrow set of circumstances. This failure of the de Broglie hypothesis to work in all circumstances is a part of the reason I started looking into this subject more. The de Broglie wave also seems to fit double slit experiments, but does not really offer a foundation of physical cause. It just seems to work that way without really disclosing the physical reasons for the de Broglie wave itself. So I think we should look for a better foundation, a causal and concrete explanation, instead of building elaborate theoretical structure on speculation which still remains unexplained. So, yes, there are occasions where the speculation of de Broglie can be applied, and we get the right numbers, but that does not mean the theory is correct and we should stop looking for the actual answers.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Andre is onto something when he looks for a relationship between the fields of the proton and the fields of the electron to sort out these issues of the quantization of orbitals. However I will have to do some more math to see if the magnetic field relationships can actually be the answer. At this point, prior to doing the requisite math, I think there is also the possibility that certain dynamics of the electric fields created by the proton and electron will explain the quantization of orbitals. But this is premature speculation. And is sort of a moot point because the dynamics of electric fields are the cause of magnetic fields.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>There exists a beat frequency which is ¼ the de Broglie wavelength, and this beat frequency is a natural condition of the electron in the significantly sub-light speed orbital (example: a mean circular path at α*<i>c</i> velocity), so it requires no speculation about dilation or contraction (which are tiny at these velocities).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>So I think you are both quite correct to look into these issues. We have a lot to gain by reexamining our theoretical basis.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Chip<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'> General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, November 24, 2017 4:25 PM<br><b>To:</b> general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Compton and de Broglie wavelengththe "error"<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Hi André, Chip, and all,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>if we discuss de Broglie's concept of a particle wave, we should in my view refer to his original work and not to others who have used the results (well understood or misunderstood) in other applications.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>So, de Broglie in original:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-GB>It is of course correct that de Broglie did not just “assume” his wave but he has deduced it from considerations about relativity. But his deduction is based on a severe error as I have explained in detail earlier. So, let’s do it again. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-GB>De Broglie has seen a logical conflict between the Einstein- Planck relation (1) E=h*frequency and (2) relativistic dilation; because according to (1) the frequency has to increase at motion and according to (2) dilation will cause the frequency to decrease. But his concern is an error as this conflict does not exist. Because we have to look at an interaction of particles, which is the relevant situation. Any interaction sees frequencies which are increased by the Doppler effect. And the Doppler effect gives an over-compensation of the normal relativistic slow down so that both frequencies above will fit on their own. The same result is achieved if the temporal Lorentz transformation is properly applied. - For de Broglie's new wave no justification exists at all.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-GB>The comment of two of you that a single electron does not produce an interference pattern is of course correct. One electron only produces one dot on the screen. But if we assume that a bunch of electron flies to the multi-slit with same speed then the argument works. There will be an interference pattern behind the multi-slit. But if we transform the experiment into the frame of the electrons then the momentum of the electrons is zero, and so the wavelength is infinite, and seen from that frame no interference pattern can occur. But it does occur, also visible for a co-moving observer, and that shows that de Broglie's idea is erroneous. - I have shown in calculations (but not in this place) why under certain circumstances the impression occurs that de Broglie is correct. But in general it is wrong. De Broglie's approach violates Galileo's relativity as well as Lorentzian relativity. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-GB>You have mentioned the good results of the use of the de Broglie wave to determine the quantization of atomic orbits. It is true that it works, but it has a similar problem like for the scattering of electrons. Assume a hydrogen atom moving into axial direction with a similar speed as the speed of the electrons in the orbits. Then the resulting momentum of the orbiting electrons increases by about 40% seen from the frame at rest. So the de Broglie wavelength has to decrease by this factor and the energy of these states has to change accordingly. But in practice there will be a much smaller energy change. So also in this case de Broglie fails at a more thorough look.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-GB>In the mails there have been some considerations about what de Broglie did "have in mind". But what he had in mind he has written in his PhD thesis. Anything about the energy states of atoms came later and by others (like Schrödinger and Bohr).</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-GB>Now I will be wondering about objecting arguments.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-GB>Albrecht</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><br><span lang=EN-GB>I thank you for your answers and arguments. I will now answer to it, of course. Which means to repeat my arguments of the last three weeks here where I have given argument which seem to have been overlooked.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Am 24.11.2017 um 01:20 schrieb Richard Gauthier:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>Hi John, <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>André, Chip and all,</span> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal> Deriving the de Broglie wavelength of an electron model without superluminal motion is easy (in hindsight, since de Broglie did it using special relativity.) But try getting, without superluminal motion, the spin-1 of a non-pointlike photon model (for a photon-in-a-box or otherwise) AND the spin-1/2 of a highly relativistic non-pointlike electron model. In either case there will be some longitudinal momentum Plong, at light speed for a photon model and at very near light speed for a highly relativistic electron model, as well as some significant locally transverse linear momentum Ptrans (even if the net transverse linear momentum of the photon model is zero as in the double-helix photon model) that generates spin Sz = R x Ptrans = 1 hbar for a photon model or 1/2 hbar for a highly relativistic electron model . A longitudinal light-speed or near-light-speed linear momentum vector plus a significant local transverse linear momentum vector gives a diagonal local linear momentum vector with a corresponding diagonal velocity vector whose magnitude is greater than c. Putting a photon model’s or electron model's transverse oscillatory motion, that generates its spin, into two different transverse dimensional spaces is ingenious, but if the photon is to move along longitudinally as a whole and not leave the two transverse dimensional spaces behind, I think there will still be some diagonal superluminal motion. I would be happy to see a proved counterexample.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> Richard<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Nov 23, 2017, at 12:19 PM, John Williamson <<a href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>Hi Richard and everyone,<br><br>You do not need to add anything. "Superluminal" is not needed. If you consider light-in-a-box (including light in a box of its own making) the de Broglie wavelength follows from the beat frequencies of the proper relativistic transformations of the light going with the motion and that going against. Remeber, one needs to consider BOTH the Doppler shift AND the SR transformations. Then everything works. Martin is writing a definitive paper on this.<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>Regards, John.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></div><div id=divRpF210496><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] on behalf of Richard Gauthier [<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>]<br><b>Sent:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Thursday, November 23, 2017 6:36 PM<br><b>To:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org">srp2@srpinc.org</a>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Re: [General] Compton and de Broglie wavelengththe "error"</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hello André, Chip, John and all, <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><h4 style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.0pt;margin-left:0in'><span style='font-weight:normal'> I also think that there is “an additional factor” that settles an electron into an atomic resonant state. In my view the electron is composed of this additional factor, a charged superluminal energy quantum that circulates and generates quantum waves having the de Broglie wavelength. These quantum waves self-resonate in regions around an atomic nucleus. When an available resonant region around an atomic nucleus is found, the superluminal energy quantum settles into this region and continues to emit quantum waves that for some period of time maintain it in this resonance state in the atom. The electron is more likely to be detected wherever the amplitude of this resonant state (the electron’s eigenfunction for this state) is larger.<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><o:p></o:p></h4><h4 style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.0pt;margin-left:0in'><span style='font-weight:normal'> This idea is not fully developed but is hinted at in “</span><span style='color:#232323;font-weight:normal'>Transluminal Energy Quantum Model of a Spin-½ Charged Photon Composing an Electron”,</span><span style='font-weight:normal'> </span><span style='color:#232323;background:white;font-weight:normal'>“Electrons Are Spin</span><span style='color:#232323;font-weight:normal'>-½<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><span style='background:white'>Charged Photons Generating the de Broglie Wavelength”,</span></span><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-weight:normal'> </span></span><span style='font-weight:normal'>“</span><span style='color:#1A1A1A;font-weight:normal'>The Charged-Photon Model of the Electron Fits the Schrödinger Equation</span><span style='font-weight:normal'>” and “</span><span style='color:#1A1A1A;font-weight:normal'>The Charged-Photon Model of the Electron, the de Broglie Wavelength, and a New Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" at<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research%23papers" target="_blank">https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research#papers</a>. What I called a charged photon in theses articles I am now calling a charged half-photon.</span><o:p></o:p></h4><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1A1A1A'> Richard</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Nov 23, 2017, at 8:52 AM, André Michaud <<a href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org" target="_blank">srp2@srpinc.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt'>Hi Chip, and all<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt'>You write: "<i><span lang=EN-CA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>I prefer the second option, there is some additional factor interacting with the electron, to cause these quantized orbitals, and understand from Andre’s writings that he feels the same way.</span></i>"<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt'>You are exactly right about what I think. I came to the same conclusion as yourself (the second option) way back in fact when I finally lighted up to the fact that the wave function originally was related to electrons orbitals by Schrödinger because he was inspired in this direction by a conclusion of de Broglie that electrons had to be captive in some form of resonance state about nuclei.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt'>I think that this was sort of lost sight of in the community due to the acrimonious debate that raged on afterwards between the proponents of the Copenhagen school and the determinists, which indeed was fundamentally whether the first or second option applied in physical reality.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt'>After I came to the second option conclusion, I started to look around for descriptions of this resonance state that could be related to the wave function but found nothing, as if the only option that had been explored was the first one, with which the Heisenberg solution was in harmony and also later Feynman's path integral.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt'>To me, the idea of "resonance" always made me think of a vibrating guitar string, whose shape and extent of the volume visited by the transversally oscillating string can be described by the wave function. <span class=apple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt'>I suspected that this might have been what de Broglie had in mind also, and became convinced that the electron could remain localized while being captive within the theoretical volume defined by the wave function, on an axial resonance trajectory (sort of stochastic maybe to some extent) that may be describable mathematically and that could be due to electric versus magnetic interaction between the electron and the nuclei.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt'>I see that you lean in a similar direction Chip. I have explored the possible electric vs magnetic potential explanation to a large extent, but I am at a loss as to how to exactly mathematize the localized resonance trajectory proper within the volume definable by the wave function. You seem to be better equipped mathematically than me to address such an issue, with your<span class=apple-converted-space> </span>¼ de Broglie wavelengthexploration.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt'>For a general overview of how the trispatial geometry allows defining this type of electromagnetic electron equilibrium states involving both electric and magnetic aspects of energy, here is my final paper on the whole concept:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt'><a href="https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/gravitation-quantum-mechanics-and-the-least-action-electromagneticequilibrium-states-2329-6542-1000152.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/gravitation-quantum-mechanics-and-the-least-action-electromagneticequilibrium-states-2329-6542-1000152.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt'>Even though it involves an entirely new paradigm that may feel very unfamiliar at first, I hope it nevertheless makes some sense to you.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt'>Best Regards<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>---<br>André Michaud<br>GSJournal admin<br><a href="http://www.gsjournal.net/" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>http://www.gsjournal.net/</span></a><br><a href="http://www.srpinc.org/" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>http://www.srpinc.org/</span></a><br><br>On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 05:16:52 -0600, "Chip Akins"<span class=apple-converted-space> </span>wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hi All<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>But in all this, regarding de Broglie’s wavelength and the electron orbitals, there is still something missing.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Either we have to assume that the electron occupies the entire circumference of the orbital simultaneously by its wavefunction, or there is some additional factor interacting with the electron, to cause these quantized orbitals.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I prefer the second option, there is some additional factor interacting with the electron, to cause these quantized orbitals, and understand from Andre’s writings that he feels the same way.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>In the hydrogen atom there is a simple, naturally occurring cause, for a “matter wave” which is exactly ¼ the de Broglie wavelength. This “matter wave” is a beat frequency created by the perceived frequency difference with motion, of the outer radius and inner radius of the electron as it circulates about the proton. I found this to be interesting, and wanted to share this observation.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Chip<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;border-top-color:rgb(225, 225,
225)'><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>]<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></b>André Michaud<br><b>Sent:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Wednesday, November 22, 2017 10:52 PM<br><b>To:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><br><b>Subject:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Re: [General] Compton and de Broglie wavelengththe "error"</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Hello John,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>You are absolutely right.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br>In fact de Broglie derived this relation with respect to the values of the Bohr ground state orbit energy parameters.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br>Heisenberg did the same, except that he formulated the relation so that it could account for a precision drift of the chosen velocity on either side of the selected velocity value about the ground orbit of the Bohr atom.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br>In 1923, he himself expressed his uncertainty principle as delta_x delta_p equal-or-larger-than h, which is the same as delta_x approx_equal to h / (m delta_v_x), which is fundamentally de Broglie's single valued h/mv for the Bohr ground state orbit.<br><br><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>This is at the origin of Heisenberg's statistical solution.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Best Regards ---<br>André Michaud<br>GSJournal admin<br><a href="http://www.gsjournal.net/" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>http://www.gsjournal.net/</span></a><br><a href="http://www.srpinc.org/" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>http://www.srpinc.org/</span></a><br><br>On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 03:17:31 +0000, John Williamson wrote:</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>Dear Albrecht,<br><br>Your error is more fundamental than you know. See below in green.<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></div><div id=divRpF178154><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a>] on behalf of Viv Robinson [<a href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>viv@universephysics.com</span></a>]<br><b>Sent:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Wednesday, November 22, 2017 10:49 PM<br><b>To:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Albrecht Giese; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Re: [General] Compton and de Broglie wavelengththe "error"</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div id="bloop_customfont"><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>Dear Albrecht,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="bloop_customfont"><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>IMHO you have a fundamental flaw in your first paragraph below. A single electron cannot generate an interference pattern, any more than can a single photon. An observer moving with a single electron will, if the screen is angled towards him, see only a single spot where the electron impinged upon that screen. That is all. If he repeats that observation say 10,000 times he will still only see on spot each time the electron impinges upon the screen. If the spots are recorded, each time he travels with another electron he will see an interference image slowly appear because it is dependent upon the frame of reference of the slit and screen. The motion of the observer does not interfere with that pattern.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="bloop_customfont"><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>Sincerely</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div id="bloop_customfont"><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>Vivian Robinson</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 23 November 2017 at 8:24:21 AM, Albrecht Giese (<a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>phys@a-giese.de</span></a>) wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Dear André,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>the "error" which I see for de Broglie is his assumed relation lambda = h / momentum .<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:green'>Your error, and this is an error not an "error" is that you assume that de Broglie "assumed lambda = h / momentum. Louis de Broglie did not assume lambda = h / momentum - he derived it. From relativity. Please do not assume what you think other people assume. Remember, de Broglie was very smart, and this relation had to come from somewhere, no? It would be instructive for you to understand the how and why he did this before making uninformed comments on it.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>This relation fails at any linear transformation. Take as an example the scattering of electrons at a multi-slit. If you look at it from the rest frame of the multi-slit then de Broglie's wavelength describes correctly the generated interference pattern. However, if this situation is observed by someone moving at the side of the electron the result is completely wrong. Assume as an extreme situation that the observer moves together with the electron. Then in the frame of the observer the electron has the momentum = 0 and so the wavelength is infinite. This means: no interference! But the pattern does of course not disappear and will be visible to the observer. This shows that de Broglie does not even fulfil Galileo's physical rule of relativity believed and proven since 600 years.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Regarding the particle mass: My equation is simple: m = h(bar) / (c*R) , where R is the radius of the particle. And R can be easily determined by use of the known magnetic momentum of the particle.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>The mag. momentum of a circling elementary charge is classically: mm = (1/2)*c*e<sub>0</sub>*R<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>The mag. moment of particles is known. So, R can be determined. This R inserted into the equation above yields the particle mass with an accuracy of about 10<sup>-3</sup>. - This is now based only on the strong force. If the result is corrected by the influence of the electrical charge, this yields the Landé factor in case of the electron. This applied yields the mass with an accuracy of 2*10<sup>-6</sup>.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>References for this are:<a href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>www.ag-physics.org/rmass</span></a><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>and<a href="http://www.ag-physics.org/electron" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>www.ag-physics.org/electron</span></a>.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hope this explains it. Otherwise please ask.<br><br>Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><a href="http://airmail.calendar/2017-11-18%2022:54:00%20AEST" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>Am 18.11.2017 um 22:54</span></a>schrieb André Michaud:<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt'><span lang=EN-CA style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Dear Albrecht,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt'><span lang=EN-CA style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>I must say that I don't see as "errors" conclusions that were drawn before more precise knowledge was discovered. For example, I don't think that Newton made an "error" by not immediately concluding to the possibility the fixed velocity of light. He simply did not know about it because this had not yet been discovered.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt'><span lang=EN-CA style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>The same for de Broglie in my opinion, he worked with the knowledge available a the time.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt'><span lang=EN-CA style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>As i understand it, what we call the de Broglie wave is simply a representation of the sum of the energies of the rest mass of the electron plus the translational energy related to its momentum. How can this be wrong at the general level, unless I misunderstand the whole concept?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt'><span lang=EN-CA style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>As for Hönl and the mass of the electron, I was meaning this rhetorically. I simply mean that any solution that exactly provides the exact mass of the electron as experimentally measured by numerous means can only be a proper description, so your description has to be correct. The exact mass of the electron has been experimentally confirmed for over 1 century. I do not know where to look to examine your solution. Can you provide a link?</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>---<br>André Michaud<br>GSJournal admin<br><a href="http://www.gsjournal.net/" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>http://www.gsjournal.net/</span></a><br><a href="http://www.srpinc.org/" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>http://www.srpinc.org/</span></a><br><br><i><a href="http://airmail.calendar/2017-11-19%2006:56:34%20AEST" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 21:56:34 +0100</span></a>, Albrecht Giese wrote:</i></span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Dear André,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>there is no doubt that de Broglie has made great contributions to the development of physics. So, if there is an anniversary in honour of him and even the Nobel price, then as many as possible of his achievements are of course presented.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>My concern, however, refers to a specific result of his early activities. The assumed necessity to introduce the "harmony of waves" and to deduce the "de Broglie" wavelength are based on a logical error and on a misunderstanding of SR.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>It is a quite funny situation that in spite of this error his result seems usable to explain certain physical processes. It is one goal of my physical activities to understand this. In one fundamental case I have found an explanation. That is the scattering of electrons at a double / multiple slit. If such experiment is viewed from a specific inertial frame (the one normally used), de Brolgie's calculation conforms to the measurement. However in any other frame it fails. - I can explain why the de Broglie wave seems to work even though it is erroneous. (Not here but I can give you a reference if you want it.)</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Regarding Hönl I do not understand what you say. Hönl did NOT get a correct mass by assuming only the electrical force in the electron. He was wrong by a factor of about 300 as I wrote earlier. But the calculation which I did is correct with high precision and the formula does not have any free parameters, only the standard ones. I do not know any other model which has this. Do you? Then please give me a reference.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Best regards<br>Albrecht</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>srp2@srpinc.org</span></a><br><br><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/srp2%40srpinc.org?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>Click here to unsubscribe</span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:purple'>richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><br><a href="</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:purple'>http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><br><a href="</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href=<a 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>><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre><pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div id=DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><hr size=1 width="99%" noshade style='color:#909090' align=center></div><table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 style='border-collapse:collapse'><tr><td style='padding:0in 11.25pt 0in 6.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"><span style='text-decoration:none'><img border=0 id="_x0000_i1028" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p></td><td style='padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'><p><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#3D4D5A'>Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft. <br><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p></td></tr></table><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></body></html>