Notices
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Compton effect: Schrödinger's treatment

  1. #1 Compton effect: Schrödinger's treatment 
    Forum Freshman regel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    8
    Compton effect – the change of frequency and wave vector of X-ray radiation in process of scattering on free electron is usually considered as convincing demonstration of corpuscular aspect of electromagnetic field.

    However Schrödinger has shown, that this effect can be completely explained by wave theory, without any necessity to enter the idea of corpuscular photon.

    This explanation is based on Schrödinger's conception of real electronic field which is described by equation of his name.

    Under the influence of X-ray radiation the resting electronic wave gradually comes to movement, and the motionless part of the electronic field together with moving part forms the standing wave. On this periodic structure X-ray radiation scatters just as light on the standing wave of ultrasound.

    At the beginning of his paper Schrödinger (1927) wrote: “According to the wave theory of light all changes in frequency and wave normal can he predicted, as is well known, on the basis of very simple and general considerations on the phase, without going into any detail of the phenomenon... If the as*sumption is correct that with the de Broglie waves we have at hand a tool, equivalent to wave optics, for the treatment of those phenomena that were formerly understood exclusively as motions of particles, we should expect and demand that on the basis of simple phase considerations of the stated kind one should understand the changes in direction and frequency of the aether wave in the Compton effect connected with the velocity change of the electron”.

    Detailed calculations on the basis of Schrödinger's was made by J. Strnad in 1986. The electronic field is described by quantum mechanics taking into account relativistic effects, and radiation – by classic electrodynamics.

    The account of Bragg conditions and Doppler's frequency shift leads to the equations which in accuracy describe the experimental results received by observation of Compton effect.


    Über den Comptoneffekt; von E. Schrödinger. Annale der Physik. 1927, 28, 257-64.
    http://www.apocalyptism.ru/Compton-Schrodinger.htm

    The Compton effect - Schrödinger's treatment. J. Strnad. Eur. J. Phys. 7 (1986), 217-221.
    http://www.apocalyptism.ru/Comptoneffect-treatment.htm


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Compton diffusion, Bragg relation, and Zitterbewegung. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    Thank you Lev Regelson for having re-published the papers from Schrödinger and Strnad. It has helped.

    However both have failed in applying the Bragg law to the Compton diffusion, as in Broglie's waves the equidistance is twice what is required for a Bragg reflexion.

    The right equidistance is only provided by the Zitterbewegung of the electron, whose spatial and temporal frequencies are double of the broglian ones.

    The Bragg condition, drawed with only the reticular planes, without atoms at the nodes :



    In the Compton diffusion, the only difference is that instead of cristalline planes, the interfering planes are the temporary standing electromagnetic waves, resulting of the sum of the ascending electronic Dirac-Schrödinger waves, and the descending ones.

    The calculations are at
    http://deonto-ethics.org/mediawiki/i...Zitterbewegung
    Sorry, the text is in french.

    So the right theoritical frame for the Compton diffusion, is relativistic, as for the Dirac equation in 1928, and for the initial Louis Victor de Broglie's hypothese in 1924 :
    Every thing that has a mass m, has also an intrinsic and perpetual frequency, mc²/h.

    So Broglie was led to the theorem of harmony of the phases, and to conclude that the phase velocity V is c²/v.

    In 1930, Schrödinger has shown that the Dirac relativistic equation implies that a free electron has an electromagnetic oscillation, whose frequency is double the broglian frequency. Its usual name is "Zitterbewegung".

    Here is an image of this Compton-Bragg-Schrödinger reflexion :


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 There is no "corpuscular aspects". Not any... 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    The above result, that the Compton diffusion is explained by the Bragg reflexion, is met by storms of insults, by conformists.

    Why ?

    It ruins the hegemonic corpuscularist propaganda, all the "wave-corpuscle duality, cruel uncertainty principle, punctual nature of the electron, corpuscular nature of the photon, so on..."

    The Bragg reflexion requires that the photon extends on several interatomic distances, even several tens of interatomic distances witdth and depth. It requires too that the reflecting crystallite has several tens of interatomic distances in width.

    With the same mineralogical composition, a mineralogist or a geologist can easily distinguish a clay from a silt, just by knowing their X-Ray diffractograms. The silt has grains big enough to produce fine and high diffraction peeks. The clay diffraction peaks are much broader, much more fuzzy : the crystallites are not big enough for a precise angular reflexion.

    In the Compton diffusion, the Dirac-Schrödinger standing waves of the reflected electron, are large enough for Arthur Compton establishing the law angle-frequency shift. Here "reflected" is meant in the center of inertia, though in the laboratory frame, the electron is seen as "ejected".

    So the ejected electron has never become "small", and the photon never, too. Both remained several tens of interatomic distances deep and wide.

    There is no corpuscles, only waves, with absorbers. But we have to consider an inferior horizon of validity of our familiar and macroscopic "space-time".

    With or without John G. Cramer, the TIQM is unavoidable. We were several people to re-find it, independantly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 If I was wrong on that matter, 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by J.C. Lavau
    A far more convenient method, to bend the History to your needs, is to use the Memory Hole, as used by B.L. Van der Waerden in its "Sources of Quantum Mechanics" (1967 North-Holland, 1968 Dover).
    The only one pushing distortions here is you. Crank
    If I was wrong on that matter - that the right equidistance for the Compton diffusion as an application of the Bragg law, is only provided by the Zitterbewegung of the electron -, no doubt that a so hating man would have found a way to disprove the point. But he did not.
    Can hatred efficiently replace competences in physics ?
    Can reasoning by insults replace scientific methods ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: If I was wrong on that matter, 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by J.C. Lavau
    Can hatred efficiently replace competences in physics ?
    Can reasoning by insults replace scientific methods ?
    Judging by your contributions the objective, analytical, scientific answer would be No.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: If I was wrong on that matter, 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by J.C. Lavau
    Can hatred efficiently replace competences in physics ?
    Can reasoning by insults replace scientific methods ?
    Judging by your contributions the objective, analytical, scientific answer would be No.
    Please do not hesitate to be clear, dear colleague.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: If I was wrong on that matter, 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by J.C. Lavau
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by J.C. Lavau
    A far more convenient method, to bend the History to your needs, is to use the Memory Hole, as used by B.L. Van der Waerden in its "Sources of Quantum Mechanics" (1967 North-Holland, 1968 Dover).
    The only one pushing distortions here is you. Crank
    If I was wrong on that matter - that the right equidistance for the Compton diffusion as an application of the Bragg law, is only provided by the Zitterbewegung of the electron -, no doubt that a so hating man would have found a way to disprove the point. But he did not.
    Can hatred efficiently replace competences in physics ?
    Can reasoning by insults replace scientific methods ?
    Quoting solely from a thread different from the one at hand, on a completely different question, is a certain sign of a troll.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: Compton effect: Schrödinger's treatment 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    Interesting, regel. But I didn't think that the Compton effect is "usually considered as convincing demonstration of corpuscular aspect of electromagnetic field". After all, we can diffract electrons, and papers like this go back to 1949. Yes, some people do make a meal out of wave/particle duality and bang on about point particles regardless of quantum field theory. But surely it isn't as bad as you're suggesting?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: Compton effect: Schrödinger's treatment 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    Interesting, regel. But I didn't think that the Compton effect is "usually considered as convincing demonstration of corpuscular aspect of electromagnetic field". After all, we can diffract electrons, and papers like this go back to 1949. Yes, some people do make a meal out of wave/particle duality and bang on about point particles regardless of quantum field theory. But surely it isn't as bad as you're suggesting?
    And one of those guys who " bang on about point particles regardless of quantum field theory. is Dick Feynman who received a Nobel Prize along with Schwinger and Tomagawa for inventing it. See, for instance the thread on QED for a link to the Robb lectures where he "bangs on".

    Crank
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Please be clear. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    Please be clear.
    What are the assumptions that you presume to be correct ?
    What are your reasons for presuming they are correct ?
    What are the assumptions that you presume to be wrong ?
    What are your reasons for presuming they are wrong ?

    Thank you for becoming clear, in the future.

    That is an elementary piece of respect for the readers and the contributers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •