<div dir="ltr"><div><div>Dear Andre,<br><br></div>Thank you for the link to Hofmann's supplement on the Heitler/ London model. It is well done and good to review things in light of what I have been thinking about recently. However, it was not until I went back into his chapter 8 that it suddenly hit me what the magnetic quantum numbers are all about - and how they relate to the deBroglie wavelength (via the orbital Q#s). My lack of understanding previously may have been a result of poor teaching - or of the fact that, what I consider to be, the proper basis is not taught in any texts.<br><br></div>Some comments on your paper:<br><ol><li>I find it interesting that you propose (on pp 3&5) the <span class="gmail-fontstyle0">"... single magnetic component of the photon can be dipolar only along<br>the time dimension," and a </span>"<span class="gmail-fontstyle0">... space-wise electric dipole" and "... a time-wise magnetic dipole," whereas I consider nearly the opposite. However, I propose the electric charge to be a time-varying potential rather than a spatial dipole and fixed charges. We might want to explore these 2 options (and their bases) together at some point.</span> <br></li><li>I mentioned before your statement: <br></li><ul><li><span class="gmail-fontstyle0">"... protons and neutrons could be stable adiabatic equilibrium states involving <b>triads</b> of electrons and positrons that could have interacted in such a way that they could have locally adiabatically accelerated until they reach these two ultimate and irreversible equilibrium bound states [15]." </span></li><li><span class="gmail-fontstyle0">Did you consider the triad to be the 3 quarks or (as I do) each of the 3 quarks to be an electron/positron triad?<br></span></li></ul><li><span class="gmail-fontstyle0"></span> You comment on the primacy of longitudinal components for linear motion. Have you done any thinking on the longitudinal vs transverse amplitudes for angular motion (of photon or electron) near a strong charge?</li><li>Your fig 5, with its 90 deg phase shift between E- & M-field components used to be my model for the photon. But, I could not reconcile it with Maxwell's equations, which demand that they be in phase (or 180 deg out). After finally accepting the in-phase requirement, I found the 90 deg phase condition in the 180 deg phase shift during reflections (a period of standing waves as you mention). Studying the standing wave potentials led to my proposal that charge in a photon is only the time-varying E-fields from the potential oscillating along the time axis.</li><li>I have not had time to go thru your 2-photon model. It may be correct; however, is it simpler than a 4-D time-oscillating model?</li></ol><p>Best regards,</p><p>Andrew M.<br></p><div><div><div><div class="gmail_extra">________________________________<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 12:07 AM, André Michaud <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org" target="_blank">srp2@srpinc.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div class="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664userStyles" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<p style="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:12pt" lang="EN-CA"><span style="line-height:115%">Dear Andrew,<br>
<br>
Pending receiving your comments on my paper, here is a link to work done by Heitler and London in 1927 on the spin for covalent bounding of a hydrogen molecule:</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="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:12pt" lang="EN-CA"><span style="line-height:115%"><a href="http://www.philiphofmann.net/book_material/notes/heitlerlondon2.pdf" style="color:blue;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">http://www.philiphofmann.net/<wbr>book_material/notes/<wbr>heitlerlondon2.pdf</a></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="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:12pt" lang="EN-CA"><span style="line-height:115%">I learned about their work because because de Broglie refers to them in his books.</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="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:12pt" lang="EN-CA"><span style="line-height:115%">To my knowledge, they went very deep into the concept.</span></span></span></span></span></p><span class="gmail-">
<span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-CA"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Best Regards</span></span></span>
<footer class="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664signatureDivContainer">
<footer class="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664signatureContainer" style="display:inline">---<br>
André Michaud<br>
GSJournal admin<br>
<a href="http://www.gsjournal.net/" target="_blank">http://www.gsjournal.net/</a><br>
<a href="http://www.srpinc.org/" target="_blank">http://www.srpinc.org/</a></footer>
</footer>
</span><footer class="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664replyforwardcontainer"><br><span class="gmail-">
<br>
<span>On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 21:55:01 -0500, Andrew Meulenberg <u></u> wrote:<u></u></span><br>
</span><div dir="ltr"><span class="gmail-">
<div>Dear Andre,<br>
</div>
Having glanced thru your paper, I see that you may have answers to some questions that I have had. Some other questions may be important to you.
</span><div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><span class="gmail-">On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 3:49 PM, André Michaud <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org" target="_blank">srp2@srpinc.org</a>></span> wrote:
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div class="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-m_-492473334218133028userStyles" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<p style="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:12pt" lang="EN-CA"><span style="line-height:115%">Hi Andrew,</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="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:12pt" lang="EN-CA"><span style="line-height:115%">I have been thinking on your comment: "</span></span><i><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%">However, I have not seen anything written on a possible connection between intrinsic spin and the deBroglie wavelength (or frequency).</span></span></i><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-CA"><span style="line-height:115%">"</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="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:12pt" lang="EN-CA"><span style="line-height:115%">Thinking about it, frequency and wavelength describe the observed and measurable "oscillating behavior" of energy, frequency being the number of time a quantum will complete its EM cycle per second, while the wavelength is the distance the quantum can cover during one such cycle at its natural velocity.</span></span></span></span></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>You have here the answer to part of the problem of the deBroglie wavelength. The rest of the problem involves which cycle is important. I would contend that it is the precession of its spin vector. This requires the assumptions that 1) all particles have, or are composed of particles that have, spin and charge and that 2) relativistic contraction causes a torque, which will cause the precession with a frequency dependent on the velocity and inversely on the mass (I haven't yet determined if this model works for compound particles and mixed masses. However, since Compton frequencies work by summing mixed masses, it could be expected that summing spin angular momenta would work also.)</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div class="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-m_-492473334218133028userStyles" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<p style="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:12pt" lang="EN-CA"><span style="line-height:115%">Spin on its part has to do with how EM particles relate to each other, either parallel spin alignment or antiparallel spin alignment. Parallel spin alignment is related to repulsion between particles while antiparallel spin alignment, which is associated to covalent bounding and orbital pair filling, is related to attraction.</span></span></span></span></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span><div>This raises the point about how 2 randomly oriented particles always haveparallel spin alignment or antiparallel spin alignment. It can't happen in 3-space. However, if the intrinsic spin axis is primarily aligned along the time axis thenparallel or antiparallel spin alignment is natural. Since leptons are bound photons, any lepton velocity, v, will introduce relativistic effects that appear as a torque which will cause precession (with a velocity-dependent frequency) about the velocity vector. Thus, the deBroglie wavelength is the distance traveled during a single precession cycle of the spin axis.</div><div><div class="gmail-h5">
<div> </div>
<div>My model further assumes that all particles are, or are composed of, leptons. Thus, in agreement with your statement in the paper, all nucleons are composed of relativistic lepton triads (i.e., quarks). Since charge may be a consequence of spin direction, and attraction or repulsion is independent of spin up or down, there are consequences of this assumption that I have not fully explored.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div class="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-m_-492473334218133028userStyles" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<p style="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:12pt" lang="EN-CA"><span style="line-height:115%">We know that this is not due to electric charges, because 2 electrons (same sign of electric charges by definition, thus electrically repelling) can be joined in covalent pairs by antiparallel spin alignment, so this leaves only the magnetic aspect of the energy making up the substance of the electron mass to be related to spin.</span></span></span></span></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>This answers my question above about the consequences.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div class="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-m_-492473334218133028userStyles" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<p style="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:12pt" lang="EN-CA"><span style="line-height:115%">This is examplified by this experiment carried out by Kotler et al. in 2014 with two electrons from two different atoms forced to interact in parallel magnetic spin alignment, which reveals the inverse cube interaction involved, which is different from the inverse square electric interacton:</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="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:12pt" lang="EN-CA"><span style="line-height:115%"><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13403.epdf?referrer_access_token=yoC6RXrPyxwvQviChYrG0tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PdPJ4geER1fKVR1YXH8GThqECstdb6e48mZm0qQo2OMX_XYURkzBSUZCrxM8VipvnG8FofxB39P4lc-1UIKEO1" style="color:blue;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">https://www.nature.com/article<wbr>s/nature13403.epdf?referrer_<wbr>access_token=yoC6RXrPyxwvQviCh<wbr>YrG0tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PdPJ4<wbr>geER1fKVR1YXH8GThqECstdb6e48mZ<wbr>m0qQo2OMX_XYURkzBSUZCrxM8Vipvn<wbr>G8FofxB39P4lc-1UIKEO1</a></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="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:12pt" lang="EN-CA"><span style="line-height:115%">From my understanding, magnetic spin and charges have to do with the nature of the "substance" that electromagnetic energy is, while frequency and wavelength have to do with the nature of its "oscillating behavior".</span></span></span></span></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>I may agree here; however, I would suggest that the"oscillating behavior" is precession based and therefore rotational.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div class="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-m_-492473334218133028userStyles" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<p style="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:12pt" lang="EN-CA"><span style="line-height:115%">This would be my 2 cents contribution to your other comment: "</span></span><i><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%">I hope that some others in the group, who have more ease with mathematics than I, will be able to contribute to this development.</span></span></i><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-CA"><span style="line-height:115%">".</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="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:12pt" lang="EN-CA"><span style="line-height:115%">By the way, I don`t feel particulary mathematically apt either. I think we each become more familiar with what part of math we needed to clarify issues we were interested in in the past. </span></span></span></span></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>I agree. I have also come to the conclusion that physicists sometimes make assumptions to simplify the math and then try to fit the physics to the assumptions. This can lead to major problems.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>More comments on your paper later.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best regards,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Andrew M.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div class="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-m_-492473334218133028userStyles" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span class="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-CA"><span style="line-height:115%">Best Regards</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<br>
<span class="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-">---<br>
André Michaud<br>
GSJournal admin<br>
<a href="http://www.gsjournal.net/" target="_blank">http://www.gsjournal.net/</a><br>
<a href="http://www.srpinc.org/" target="_blank">http://www.srpinc.org/</a> </span><br>
<br>
<span class="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-"><span>On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 11:12:28 -0500, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:</span></span>
<div>
<div class="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-h5">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>Dear Chip and all,</div>
Thank you for the deBroglie paper. It surprised me in several ways.
<ol>
<li>The biggest surprise was that the word <u>wavelength</u> does not appear at all.
<ul>
<li>even tho lambda appears in eq 1, it is not defined. So,</li>
<li>while it may have been modesty or lost in translation, wavelength was not important for his story.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>deBroglie emphasized frequency and the, now near-universal, use of deBrogle wavelength rather than frequency was a convenience for experimentalists.</li>
<li>deBroglie talks of the wave as being 'physical' (unlike that of the wave function of QM), yet as far as I could tell, he does not mention what is 'waving'.</li>
<li>The word <u>spin</u> does not appear in the paper.
<ul>
<li>deBroglie's original work evolved at the same time at the concept of spin and therefore, as a thesis, would likely not include such esoterica.</li>
<li>the fact that this present (1970) paper does not include spin (as a potential source of the frequency) in a relativity and QM-driven paper appears inexcusable.</li>
<li>However, that apparent 'failure' is based on my concept that the physical 'wave' is a relativistic effect driving the precession of the physical spin vector.</li>
<li>The nearly 50 years since 1970 has produced many changes. However, I have not seen anything written on a possible connection between intrinsic spin and the deBroglie wavelength (or frequency).</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ol>
</div>
The concept of an electron being a bound photon feeds the information base on spin and its implications. I hope that some others in the group, who have more ease with mathematics than I, will be able to contribute to this development.</div>
Andrew M.
<div>
<div>
<div>._________________</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Chip Akins <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank">chipakins@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US">
<div class="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-m_-492473334218133028m_-7043474106834704785WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Hi Andre</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">I don’t know if you have read this, I suspect you have.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Attached is de Broglie’s “The Reinterpretation of Wave Mechanics”.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Chip</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div style="border-color:rgb(225,225,225) currentcolor currentcolor;border-style:solid none none;border-width:1pt medium medium;padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> General [mailto:<a href="mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins" target="_blank">general-bounces+chipak<wbr>ins</a>=<a href="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">gmail.com@lists.natureofli<wbr>ghtandparticles.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>André Michaud<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, November 24, 2017 4:54 PM<br>
<span><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightand<wbr>particles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Compton and de Broglie wavelengththe "error"</span></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Hi Albrecht,<br>
<br>
<span>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.</span><br>
<br>
<span>Best Regards ---<br>
André Michaud<br>
GSJournal admin</span></span><br>
<a href="http://www.gsjournal.net/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">http://www.gsjournal.net/</span></a><br>
<a href="http://www.srpinc.org/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">http://www.srpinc.org/</span></a><br>
<br>
<span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><span>On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 23:25:09 +0100, Albrecht Giese wrote:</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:black">Hi André, Chip, and all,</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><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.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:black">So, de Broglie in original:</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB">Now I will be wondering about objecting arguments.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-GB">Albrecht</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<span><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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Am 24.11.2017 um 01:20 schrieb Richard Gauthier:</span></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Hi John,André, Chip and all, </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Richard</span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">On Nov 23, 2017, at 12:19 PM, John Williamson <</span><a href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</span></a><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><wbr>> wrote:</span></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="font-size:10pt;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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">Regards, John. </span></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center">
<hr align="center" width="100%" size="2"></div>
<div id="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-m_-492473334218133028m_-7043474106834704785divRpF210496">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">general-bounces+john.williams<wbr>on=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureo<wbr>flightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">] on behalf of Richard Gauthier [</span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">]<br>
<b>Sent:</b>Thursday, November 23, 2017 6:36 PM<br>
<b>To:</b></span><a href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">srp2@srpinc.org</span></a><span style="font-size:10pt;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></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="color:black">Hello André, Chip, John and all, </span></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<h4 style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9pt;margin-left:0in"><span><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></h4>
<h4 style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9pt;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:rgb(35,35,35);font-weight:normal">Transluminal Energy Quantum Model of a Spin-½ Charged Photon Composing an Electron”,<span style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%">“Electrons Are Spin</span>-½<span style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%">Charged Photons Generating the de Broglie Wavelength”,</span></span><span style="color:black;font-weight:normal">“</span><span style="color:rgb(26,26,26);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:rgb(26,26,26);font-weight:normal">The Charged-Photon Model of the Electron, the de Broglie Wavelength, and a New Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" at</span><a href="https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research%23papers" target="_blank"><span style="font-weight:normal">https://richardgauthier.acad<wbr>emia.edu/research#papers</span></a><span style="color:rgb(26,26,26);font-weight:normal">. What I called a charged photon in theses articles I am now calling a charged half-photon.</span></h4>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(26,26,26)">Richard</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<div class="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-m_-492473334218133028h5">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">On Nov 23, 2017, at 8:52 AM, André Michaud <</span><a href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org" target="_blank">srp2@srpinc.org</a><span style="color:black">> wrote:</span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-m_-492473334218133028h5">
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="color:black">Hi Chip, and all</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="color:black">You write: "</span><i><span style="font-size:11pt;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">"</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10pt;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.</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10pt;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.</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10pt;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.</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10pt;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.</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10pt;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.</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10pt;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.</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10pt;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:</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10pt;margin-left:0in"><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/op<wbr>en-access/gravitation-quantum-<wbr>mechanics-and-the-least-action<wbr>-electromagneticequilibrium-<wbr>states-2329-6542-1000152.pdf</a></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10pt;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.</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="color:black">Best Regards</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">---<br>
André Michaud<br>
GSJournal admin</span><br>
<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>
<span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 05:16:52 -0600, "Chip Akins"wrote:</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-m_-492473334218133028h5">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Hi All</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Chip</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="border-color:rgb(225,225,225) currentcolor currentcolor;border-style:solid none none;border-width:1pt medium medium;padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:purple">mailto:general-bounces+chipak<wbr>ins=gmail.com@lists.natureofli<wbr>ghtandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">]<b>On Behalf Of</b>André Michaud</span></p>
<div>
<div class="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-m_-492473334218133028h5"><br>
<b>Sent:</b>Wednesday, November 22, 2017 10:52 PM<br>
<b>To:</b></div>
</div>
<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:purple">general@lists.natureoflightand<wbr>particles.org</span></a>
<div>
<div class="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-m_-492473334218133028h5"><br>
<span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><b>Subject:</b>Re: [General] Compton and de Broglie wavelengththe "error"</span></div>
</div>
<p> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-m_-492473334218133028h5">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Hello John,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">You are absolutely right.</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.</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.</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></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><br>
<span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Best Regards ---<br>
André Michaud<br>
GSJournal admin</span><br>
<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>
<span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 03:17:31 +0000, John Williamson wrote:</span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">Dear Albrecht,<br>
<br>
Your error is more fundamental than you know. See below in green.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center">
<hr align="center" width="100%" size="2"></div>
<div id="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-m_-492473334218133028m_-7043474106834704785divRpF178154">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:purple">general-bounces+john.williams<wbr>on=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureo<wbr>flightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">] on behalf of Viv Robinson [</span><a href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:purple">viv@universephysics.com</span></a><span style="font-size:10pt;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></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div id="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-m_-492473334218133028m_-7043474106834704785bloop_customfont">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">Dear Albrecht,</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-m_-492473334218133028m_-7043474106834704785bloop_customfont">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-m_-492473334218133028m_-7043474106834704785bloop_customfont">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;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></p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-m_-492473334218133028m_-7043474106834704785bloop_customfont">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-m_-492473334218133028m_-7043474106834704785bloop_customfont">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">Sincerely</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-m_-492473334218133028m_-7043474106834704785bloop_customfont">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-m_-492473334218133028m_-7043474106834704785bloop_customfont">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">Vivian Robinson</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div id="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-m_-492473334218133028m_-7043474106834704785bloop_sign_1511389963683457792">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">On 23 November 2017 at 8:24:21 AM, Albrecht Giese (</span><a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" target="_blank"><span style="color:purple">phys@a-giese.de</span></a><span style="color:black">) wrote:</span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Dear André,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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 .</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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.</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</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>.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">References for this are:</span><a href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass" target="_blank"><span style="color:purple">www.ag-physics.org/rmass</span></a><span style="color:black">an<wbr>d</span><a href="http://www.ag-physics.org/electron" target="_blank"><span style="color:purple">www.ag-physics.org/electron</span></a><span style="color:black">.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Hope this explains it. Otherwise please ask.<br>
<br>
Albrecht</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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><span style="color:black">schrieb André Michaud:</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black" lang="EN-CA">Dear Albrecht,</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10pt;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></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10pt;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></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10pt;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></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10pt;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></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">---<br>
André Michaud<br>
GSJournal admin</span><br>
<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><i><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">, Albrecht Giese wrote:</span></i></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Dear André,</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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Best regards<br>
Albrecht</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at</span><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></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-m_-492473334218133028h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at</span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:purple">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><br>
<span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><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:9pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:purple">http://lists.natureoflig<wbr>htandparticles.org/options.cgi<wbr>/general-natureoflightandparti<wbr>cles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.<wbr>com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-m_-492473334218133028h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at</span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><br>
<span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><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:9pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">http://lists.natureoflig<wbr>htandparticles.org/options.cgi<wbr>/general-natureoflightandparti<wbr>cles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.<wbr>com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-m_-492473334218133028h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<pre><span style="color:black">______________________________<wbr>_________________</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 </span><a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" target="_blank">phys@a-giese.de</a></pre>
<pre><span style="color:black"><a href=</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">"http://lists.natureoflig<wbr>htandparticles.org/options.cgi<wbr>/general-natureoflightandparti<wbr>cles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?uns<wbr>ub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a><span style="color:black">></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:black">Click here to unsubscribe</span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:black"></a></span></pre>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div class="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-m_-492473334218133028h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div id="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-m_-492473334218133028m_-7043474106834704785DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center">
<hr style="color:rgb(144,144,144)" align="center" width="99%" size="1" noshade></div>
<table class="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-m_-492473334218133028m_-7043474106834704785MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 11.25pt 0in 6pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration:none"><img alt="Avast logo" id="gmail-m_-7431958752862077664gmail-m_-492473334218133028m_-7043474106834704785_x0000_i1028" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" width="32" height="32" border="0"></span></a></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:0.75pt">
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(61,77,90)">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.</span><br>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">www.avast.com</span></a></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at </span><a href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org" target="_blank"><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" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Click here to unsubscribe</span></a></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank">mules333@gmail.com</a><br>
<a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflig<wbr>htandparticles.org/options.cgi<wbr>/general-natureoflightandparti<wbr>cles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?<wbr>unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div></div></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</footer>
</div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div>