altsci

The formula itself (f=mvc/h) interpreted by the usual QM that a particle having a mass m and velocity v can be considered as a wave of the frequency f. From here stems the whole concept of "particle-wave duality". But wait a second: the particle by itself can not have a velocity because the velocity is always relative. It has to be another solid physical object the velocity of which is zero (frame of particle accelerator , or target). That means that the formula can be applied to a photon that is produced when the particle hits the frame. Instead of duality we have a coexistence particles and waves

Quote: "Oh, so you're arguing for a particular interpretation of QM? This sounds a lot like the De Broglie-Bohm interpretation. Unfortunately that's probably not going to be very useful. There is no test you can do to distinguish which interpretation is 'correct.' They're called interpretations for a reason!" It is different from De Broglie-Bohm interpretation. De Broglie frequency (f=(mc/h)V is proportional to the velocity of an electron V. Since V is always relative there have to be 2 objects and a wave between them: an electron, nucleus, and a wave between them. Since an atom is stationary - the wave has to be standing wave. So, the new interpretation of QM is that psi-function is the amplitude of standing wave of some physical scalar field that satisfies to the wave equation. It is completely classical interpretation.

The issue here is that electron and wave are separate physical entities and as a result an electron has to be orbiting in the atom. The psi-function represent some physical field (standing wave) that interacts with the electron

The electron's mass is absolute invariant - it does not depend on frame (or velocity of the electron). The electron's charge is also absolute invariant - it does not depend on frame (or velocity of the electron). These two characterize a particle (the spin also). DeBroglie's frequency depends on velocity. So it is the property of not only electron. The relative velocity between the electron and the target (this one is frame independent) is the significant factor. There is no grounds to claim dualism (double nature of an electron). Electron remains the particle with its invariant mass, charge, and spin. Note: by changing frame I mean transformation of coordinates only - without any physical change.

I think that we can do without frames. My original statement "velocity is always relative" (always 2 objects are required) is pretty conclusive. One of these objects can not be a frame. Both objects have to be relevant to the experiment. I agree that energy is not a scalar (it is time component). But any experiment to measure energy will include other devices. We measure always a scalar because any measurement is unique. DeBroglie's frequency can be viewed as Doppler frequency. The Doppler frequency also requires 2 physical objects. The final result: DeBroglie;s frequency is not a property of the electron alone. The electron remains a particle...

The measurable physical property (frequency) has to be frame independent (invariant). I agree that "Velocity is a condition of the frame". That means that DeBroglie's formula is not correct. I propose to replace v in DeBroglies formula by some invariant difference between 4-d speed of an electron (q(0), q(1)) and 4-d speed of the target (p(0), p(1)). The difference s(0)=q(0)-p(0), s(1)=q(1)-p(1) . This vector s(k) has norm s and this s has to go instead of v in DeBroglies formula. In the frame where target is stationary we have p(0)=1, p(1)=0, q(0)=1/g , q(1)=v/g, where g=sqrt[1-(v/c)^2]. The calculation of s gives s=sqrt[2(1//g-1)] which is approximately v at small velocities. This calculation shows that DeBroglies frequency is the result of relative movement between the electron and the target independently of chosen frame.

If one has the one sours of electrons and 2 moving targets - one has 2 frames where the first target at rest and the second target at rest. The velocity of the electron that goes to DeBroglies formula will be different in those frames. So, the frequency will be target dependent.

Suppose in a chosen frame there are 2 targets and one and the same source of the electrons. Suppose the target #1 is stationary, but the target #2 receding from the source at grate speed. Will the diffraction pattern be the same? You will claim the same. Now change the frame to where the target #2 at rest...

For example diffraction pattern of electron beam on MgO poly-crystalline . DeBroglie wave is a property of both the electron and the target. On energy I agree that photon will need energy. It is not impossible to pick up this energy from the atom of the target. What is important is that: DeBroglie wave can not be the property of only electron (velocity is always relative).

DeBroglie's wave length/frequency: f=mcv/h (1) is usually attributed to an electron as its second nature (particle-wave dualism). But according to the formula (1) DeBroglie's frequency proportional to the velocity of electron which always relative. That means that electron beam's target (crystal) also involved. Suppose that electron having linear momentum p=mv hits a crystal and produces photon that takes the linear momentum of the electron. Then we have the formula (1). DeBroglie's frequency is not the property of electron alone! In atom the second to electron object is nucleus. An electron is orbiting in atom and psy-function represents yet another physical field object that relevant to nucleus and to electron

Double time component of Energy-Momentum Tensor indicates energy density in space. The integral of it over the space is called energy. It represents the time component of the Linear-Momentum 4-vector. The norm of this vector is mass (divided by c^2)

Thank you for good wishes, physica. A good physical theory is exact and built up upon not too many top basic principals. Like the conventional CED built upon Maxwell's Equations (ME) + Relativistic Dynamics (RD). Everything else is consequence of basic principals. Maxwell's PDE system contains 6 unknown functions for electromagnetic field, and 4 unknown functions for current density (also fields as E-M fields). The RD is in dissonance with ME. It contains 4 equations containing a trajectory of a charged particle. These are not equations for field functions. Something is missing here. I just replaced the 4 equations of RD with another 4 equations that contain all field functions. These are can be thought of as the dynamics inside an elementary particle. All elementary particles have a sharp boundary between inside region and vacuum. It is possible that this boundary can have a surface charge or current.

Self-taught Theoretical Physicist. I am 81, and here is my example. I had graduated the Leningrad State University (Russia) in 1966 and my diploma says: “…completed the full course of the aforementioned University under the specialty of Physics. By the decision of State Examination Commity from 21 December 1966 it was assigned to [my name here] the qualification of Physicist – Theorist.” The subdivision (in Russian called “cafedra”) was “Theory of Field”. My thesis was in general relativity. I got a highest grade, but on the public hearing some group of people (invited from the other institutions) stated clearly that “any research in General Relativity can not be conducted without our permission” (!). To me it sounded as utter absurd. My legal way into theoretical physics was closed. So, I began the self-teaching process and hard worked at home for 45 years being on welfare or low pay job. What did I achieved? After 16 years of home work (in 1982) I did a discovery of which only I know (it was not recognized). By my judgment the discovery is important and worth sacrifice. Let me explain. Logically and structurally (and by the scope of experimental confirmation) the finest physical theory, by my opinion, is Classical ElectroDynamics (CED). But it looks that conventional CED can explain only point particles. This is a failure from the very start because of infinity in the solution is not acceptable by math standards. Many attempts were made before me to correct the situation. All the known attempts failed and by the 1982 it was the firm opinion that CED is a dead end and the quantum theory has to replace it. I did a lot of work. I completely overhauled CED and made it possible to go inside the elementary particle. By 1982 and up to now nobody can judge if I succeeded or not (and nobody wants to due to the political reasons). So, I have now the classical theory of elementary particles. In principal, I can produce the structure of an electron after the huge amount of work that still has to be done in that direction. But the main thing is that CED now is greatly improved (only I know it – no recognition yet). And I still can distinguish between a bad physical theory and the good one. The SRT is the consequence of CED and represents mathematical advance which is the major advance in theoretical physics of 20th Century (now 4-d geometry is a must in theoretical physics - again my opinion). GRT is not a physical theory -- it is just mathematics. Gravitation can be derived from CED. Quantum Principals – is just a wrong philosophy. Schroedinger Equation can be derived from CED. It is just my point of view. If you allow the people who think that science is their property to teach you – yes, they will pay you good. But you will be bound to repeat all this nonsense that they created.

It is possible (you do not need to pay tuition and you are the boss of your own) but is not easy. People say that it leads you "nowhere" in social terms, which is correct. Everybody becomes your enemy. You have to find the like minded friends. Let us look for these friends! "SELF-TAUGHT THEORETICAL PHYSICISTS CLUB" is looking for its members. I will subscribe. You too. Who else?