How To Generate Matter Waves In Large Objects

L = h/P is the De Broglie hypothesis, where L is the wavelength of the matter wave, P is the momentum of the object, and h is Planck constant. 

The relationship was known in the case of the photon [1].

What I viewed as a mystery: the validity of the formula for any object. It seemed to me to make all particles, and all masses sort of fundamental. How could that be? Meanwhile, the mystery of mass got thicker. I heard of the Higgs, it’s mostly a gimmick to create mass out of friction from an assumed universal field, now supposedly observed… for particles which in the Standard Model which wouldn’t otherwise have any. How much of the mass of a nucleon is produced by simply harnessing E = mcc is unknown to me, but could be most of it.

De Broglie matter waves, simplest version. In general p, the momentum is relativistic, and “mv” is just the slow poke version of it… So all I am saying is that the zillions of linear parts of all these waves add up… OK, I should make my own drawing, severely more sophisticated: this one gives the impression that the linear tails (the outside, guiding parts) of the wave is nonlinear… In SQPR, the center is highly nonlinear, and the outer, guiding part ready to transform itself in Dark Matter, given the right geometry

Then SQPR appeared. In SQPR, waves are everything, but they are additive, nonlinear… And they are all what space is. 

So visualize an object O. It’s made of a zillion elementary particles, call that number Z, each actually an elementary wave, expanding, entangled, then nonlinearly collapsing, then expanding again after that interaction, entangled with all over, etc. In the average, though, the expanding quantum waves of all these objects will have momentum p/Z and mass, m/Z. This clarity of mind escapes Quantum Field Theorists (QFTists), because their version of space is haunted by so-called “vacuum energy”… for which there is only anti-evidence (namely the universe exists; if vacuum energy existed, the universe won’t, because it would be collapsed all the time! [2])

Now SQPR says those linear parts all add up, as an average p/Z and constitute then a mass of m, momentum p. It’s all very simple, but now it sounds intuitive… A return of intuition in physics, would be welcome, instead of complete insanity…

Patrice Ayme



[1]. Planck had discovered E = hF, where F is the frequency of light. Einstein proposed to generalize it to quanta of light (“Lichtquanten”) in flight, and explained immediately the photoelectric effect that way (he got the Nobel for that; by the way, SQPR immediately explains Dark Matter)


[2] One evidence for the vacuum energy is the “CASIMIR EFFECT”… which is thoroughly demonstrated in very practical nanophysics. I explained once how to make it produce much energy. Nobel S. Weinberg  in his book on Gravitation rolls out Casimir as a proof of vacuum energy (instead, I roll out the universe to disprove vac energy!) However, it turns out one doesn’t need the full vac energy to explain Casimir…


The Casimir Effect and the Quantum Vacuum
R. L. Jaffe
Center for Theoretical Physics,
Laboratory for Nuclear Science and Department of Physics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
In discussions of the cosmological constant, the Casimir effect is often invoked as decisive
evidence that the zero point energies of quantum fields are “real”. On the contrary, Casimir effects
can be formulated and Casimir forces can be computed without reference to zero point energies.
They are relativistic, quantum forces between charges and currents. The Casimir force (per unit
area) between parallel plates vanishes as α, the fine structure constant, goes to zero, and the standard
result, which appears to be independent of α, corresponds to the α → ∞ limit.

SQPR has its own version of the vacuum: it’s truly empty, devoid of mass-energy. All the space that is physical is made of matter waves… Matter waves and pieces thereof all have mass-energy, making them real.

Tags: ,

One Response to “How To Generate Matter Waves In Large Objects”

  1. Anonymous Says:

    I agree, rather amusing opinion


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: