<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div class="userStyles" style=" font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000;">
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri", "sans-serif";"><span style="font-size: 12pt;" lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", "serif";">Hi Chip,</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align:justify; margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span style="color:#ff0000;">My comments in red.<br>
<br>
Best Regards</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<footer class="signatureDivContainer">
<footer class="signatureContainer" style="display:inline;">---<br>
André Michaud<br>
GSJournal admin<br>
http://www.gsjournal.net/<br>
http://www.srpinc.org/</footer>
</footer>
<footer class="replyforwardcontainer"><br>
<br>
<span>On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 16:52:37 -0600, "Chip Akins" <chipakins@gmail.com> wrote:</chipakins@gmail.com></span><br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"><meta name="Generator" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"><!--[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 type="text/css"><!--
/* 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 Light";
panose-1:2 15 3 2 2 2 4 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;}
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;
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;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
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;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
.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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Hi Andre<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">You have commented that you felt that the quarks of protons and neutrons are actually relativistically moving electrons and positrons which have been modified by the forces within the nucleon so that they have the properties of quarks.</span><br>
</p>
<p style="text-align:justify; margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri", "sans-serif";"><span style="font-size: 12pt;" lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", "serif";">Note that the electrons and positrons do not have to move transversally within the proton and neutron structures (on closed trajectories). In fact, whether their translational motion is inhibited or not, they remain adiabatically induced with the corresponding energy as a function of the inverse square of the distances separating them all the same. They may as well remain mainly localized, as Heisenberg assumed for electrons in orbitals, captive in states of stochastic axial resonance within volumes that could be defined with the wave function just like electrons are on their orbitals in the electronic escorts. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align:justify; margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri", "sans-serif";"><span style="font-size: 12pt;" lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", "serif";">It is not misleading however to visualize them as moving at the related relativistic velocities, because their carrying energy levels accommodates both situations.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">I have come to the same conclusion. This would also mean that all matter is made of electrons and positrons and that there is no matter/antimatter asymmetry. There would be principally equal numbers of electrons and positrons in the universe.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span><span style="color:#ff0000;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;" lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", "serif";">Total agreement. My very conclusion also.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Then the question would naturally arise as to why nucleons contain more positrons than electrons, and why are there more free electrons? But the answer to that is remarkably simple. Even if there is no difference in the properties of electrons and positrons except for their charge polarity, the universe had a 50/50 chance of having predominantly positive nucleons. But whichever became predominant in an isolated region of space would be the prevailing form of matter in that region. And if the big bang did in fact occur, then while the matter of the universe was in close proximity, one or the other form of matter would prevail as the universe “cooled”. But if I understand it correctly, when we look at distant galaxies, we have no way of telling if they are made of matter or of antimatter.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="text-align:justify; margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri", "sans-serif";"><span style="font-size: 12pt;" lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", "serif";">You write "<i>Then the question would naturally arise as to why nucleons contain more positrons than electrons, and why are there more free electrons?</i>" </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align:justify; margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri", "sans-serif";"><span style="font-size: 12pt;" lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", "serif";">Ha! but no! There are more positrons than electrons in protons, BUT there are more electrons than positrons in neutrons, so all considered, there is bound to be practical total equality of both in the universe, first and foremost because the only massive pairs that can be directly verified to be generated from photons of 1.022 MeV or more are electron-positron pairs to start with!</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align:justify; margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri", "sans-serif";"><span style="font-size: 12pt;" lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", "serif";">And we don't even need the Big Bang to explain the birth of the Universe. You can find a possible alternate solution in line with these considerations here, title "<i>On the Birth of the Universe and the Time Dimension in the 3-Spaces Model</i>":</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align:justify; margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><a href="http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajmp.s.2016050401.17.pdf" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline"><span style="color:#ff0000;">http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajmp.s.2016050401.17.pdf</span></a></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align:justify; margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri", "sans-serif";"><span style="font-size: 12pt;" lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", "serif";">I don't think we have to worry that far galaxies could be made of any other sorts of atoms than those that we can identify here and that all find their home in the periodic table.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align:justify; margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri", "sans-serif";"><span style="font-size: 12pt;" lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", "serif";">My Occam's razor hunch is that the fundamental laws of the universe are the same all over.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align:justify; margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri", "sans-serif";"><span style="font-size: 12pt;" lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", "serif";">Best Regards<br>
<br>
André</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></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">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> André Michaud [mailto:srp2@srpinc.org]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, November 24, 2017 7:06 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> chipakins@gmail.com; general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<br>
<b>Cc:</b> srp2@srpinc.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [General] Compton and de Broglie wavelength the "error"<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="color:black">Hi Chip and Albrecht,</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="color:black">Thank you so much Chip for the de Broglie paper. It had effectively escaped my attention.</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="color:black">I stand corrected regarding the use of SR by de Broglie in the establishment of his wave. I give credit to Albrecht in this regard, although I came across the derivation of h/mv strictly from Bohr orbit parameters, with no relation whatsoever with SR, which I mention as equation (5) in this paper:</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="color:black"><a href="https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-last-challenge-of-modern-physics-2090-0902-1000217.pdf">https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-last-challenge-of-modern-physics-2090-0902-1000217.pdf</a></span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="color:black">Indeed, I myself address the whole issue strictly from electromagnetic considerations, which also integrates the gamma factor, but in a manner derived from electromagnetism that has no relation with either time dilation nor length contraction.</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="color:black">Note that I came across other parts of this text in the various books of the Broglie that I laid hand on.</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="color:black">In particular this quote on page 7: "</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><i><span style="color:black">The wave, which, in my view, must be a physical wave of very small amplitude which can evidently not be arbitrarily normalized, has to be distinct from the wave ~b, normalized in accordance with its statistical significance, in the usual formalism of quantum mechanics.</span></i><span style="color:black">" .</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="color:black">This is what led me to see the physically existing photon and electron as remaining localized in permanence within the volume definable by the related wave function.</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="color:black">and this other quote on page 14: <i>"</i></span><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black">it is necessary that the particle jump continually from one guidance trajectory to another, as a result of the continual perturbation coming from the subquantal milieu. The guidance trajectories would really be followed only if the particle were not undergoing continual perturbations due to its random heat exchanges with the hidden thermostat.</span></i><span style="color:black">"</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="color:black">This is what gave me the hint that de Broglie was also thinking of axial resonance to explain the volume defined by the wave function applied to electronic orbitals.<br>
<br>
What I found missing in de Broglie's approach was all that concerns the magnetic field induced by the motion of charges, or rather their mutual reciprocating induction as describable in the trispatial geometry, which I undertook to incorporate.</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="color:black">Best Regards</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">---<br>
André Michaud<br>
GSJournal admin<br>
http://www.gsjournal.net/<br>
http://www.srpinc.org/<br>
<br>
On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 17:36:43 -0600, "Chip Akins" wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Hi Andre<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">I don’t know if you have read this, I suspect you have.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Attached is de Broglie’s “The Reinterpretation of Wave Mechanics”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Chip<o:p></o:p></span></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:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>André Michaud<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, November 24, 2017 4:54 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Compton and de Broglie wavelengththe "error"</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Hi Albrecht,<br>
<br>
It seems that you "assume" that de Broglie deduced his wave from considerations about relativity.<br>
<br>
To my knowledge, this is not the case.<br>
<br>
If you can substanciate your claim by referring us to a verifiable text from de Broglie that explains his deduction from SR, this would be greatly appreciated. I am still in learning mode.<br>
<br>
Best Regards ---<br>
André Michaud<br>
GSJournal admin</span><br>
<span style="color:black"><a href="http://www.gsjournal.net/"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">http://www.gsjournal.net/</span></a><br>
<a href="http://www.srpinc.org/"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">http://www.srpinc.org/</span></a></span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 23:25:09 +0100, Albrecht Giese wrote:</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black">Hi André, Chip, and all,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black">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></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black">So, de Broglie in original:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black" 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><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black" 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><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black" 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><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black" 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><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black" 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><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB">Now I will be wondering about objecting arguments.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB">Albrecht</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><br>
<span style="color:black" 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><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Am 24.11.2017 um 01:20 schrieb Richard Gauthier:</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Hi John,André, Chip and all, </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">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.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Richard</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">On Nov 23, 2017, at 12:19 PM, John Williamson <</span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</span></a></span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">> wrote:</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">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><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">Regards, John. </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%"></div>
<div id="divRpF210496">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">General [</span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">] on behalf of Richard Gauthier [</span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">]<br>
<b>Sent:</b>Thursday, November 23, 2017 6:36 PM<br>
<b>To:</b></span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">srp2@srpinc.org</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b>Re: [General] Compton and de Broglie wavelengththe "error"</span><br>
<br>
<span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Hello André, Chip, John and all, <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<h4 style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="color:black;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><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></h4>
<h4 style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="color:black;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 style="background:white">“Electrons Are Spin</span>-½<span style="background:white">Charged Photons Generating the de Broglie Wavelength”,</span></span><span style="color:black;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="color:black;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><span style="color:black"><a href="https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research%23papers" target="_blank"><span style="font-weight:normal">https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research#papers</span></a></span><span style="color:#1A1A1A;font-weight:normal">. What I called a charged photon in theses articles I am now calling a charged half-photon.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></h4>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1A1A1A">Richard</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="color:black">Hi Chip, and all<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="color:black">You write: "</span><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-CA">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><span style="color:black">"<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="color:black">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></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="color:black">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></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="color:black">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></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="color:black">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="color:black">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></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="color:black">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 your¼ de Broglie wavelengthexploration.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="color:black">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></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="color:black"><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></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="color:black">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></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="color:black">Best Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">---<br>
André Michaud<br>
GSJournal admin</span><br>
<span style="color:black"><a href="http://www.gsjournal.net/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:purple">http://www.gsjournal.net/</span></a><br>
<a href="http://www.srpinc.org/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:purple">http://www.srpinc.org/</span></a></span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 05:16:52 -0600, "Chip Akins"wrote:</span><br>
<br>
<span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Hi All<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">But in all this, regarding de Broglie’s wavelength and the electron orbitals, there is still something missing.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Chip<o:p></o:p></span></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;color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">General [</span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:purple">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">]<b>On Behalf Of</b>André Michaud<br>
<b>Sent:</b>Wednesday, November 22, 2017 10:52 PM<br>
<b>To:</b></span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:purple">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a></span><br>
<b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Subject:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Re: [General] Compton and de Broglie wavelengththe "error"</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Hello John,</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">You are absolutely right.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<span style="color:black">In fact de Broglie derived this relation with respect to the values of the Bohr ground state orbit energy parameters.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<span style="color:black">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></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<span style="color:black">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.</span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">This is at the origin of Heisenberg's statistical solution.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Best Regards ---<br>
André Michaud<br>
GSJournal admin</span><br>
<span style="color:black"><a href="http://www.gsjournal.net/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:purple">http://www.gsjournal.net/</span></a><br>
<a href="http://www.srpinc.org/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:purple">http://www.srpinc.org/</span></a></span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 03:17:31 +0000, John Williamson wrote:</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">Dear Albrecht,<br>
<br>
Your error is more fundamental than you know. See below in green.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%"></div>
<div id="divRpF178154">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">General [</span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:purple">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">] on behalf of Viv Robinson [</span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:purple">viv@universephysics.com</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">]<br>
<b>Sent:</b>Wednesday, November 22, 2017 10:49 PM<br>
<b>To:</b>Albrecht Giese; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b>Re: [General] Compton and de Broglie wavelengththe "error"</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">Dear Albrecht,</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">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><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">Sincerely</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">Vivian Robinson</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Dear André,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">the "error" which I see for de Broglie is his assumed relation lambda = h / momentum .<o:p></o:p></span></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><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">The mag. momentum of a circling elementary charge is classically: mm = (1/2)*c*e<sub>0</sub>*R<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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>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></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Hope this explains it. Otherwise please ask.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><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></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-CA">Dear Albrecht,</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-CA">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><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-CA">The same for de Broglie in my opinion, he worked with the knowledge available a the time.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-CA">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><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-CA">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><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">---<br>
André Michaud<br>
GSJournal admin</span><br>
<span style="color:black"><a href="http://www.gsjournal.net/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:purple">http://www.gsjournal.net/</span></a><br>
<a href="http://www.srpinc.org/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:purple">http://www.srpinc.org/</span></a><br>
<br>
<a href="http://airmail.calendar/2017-11-19%2006:56:34%20AEST" target="_blank"><i><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:purple">On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 21:56:34 +0100</span></i></a></span><i><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">, Albrecht Giese wrote:</span></i><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Dear André,</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">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><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">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><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">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><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">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><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Best regards<br>
Albrecht</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at</span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;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="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:purple">Click here to unsubscribe</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at</span><span style="color:black"><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><br>
<span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><a href="</span><span style="color:black"><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><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at</span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a></span><br>
<span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><a href="</span><span style="color:black"><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><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<pre><span style="color:black">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:black">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></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:black"><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></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:black">Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:black"></a><o:p></o:p></span></pre>
</blockquote>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center">
<hr style="color:#909090" align="center" size="1" width="99%" noshade="noshade"></div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 11.25pt 0in 6.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"><span style="border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in;text-decoration:none"><img alt="Image removed by sender. Avast logo" data-cid="cid:image001.jpg@01D366D4.DD97F660" id="_x0000_i1028" src="cid:image001.jpg@01D366D4.DD97F660" width="32" height="32" border="0"></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.</span><br>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">www.avast.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at </span><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">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"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Click here to unsubscribe</span></a><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</footer>
</div>
</body>