[General] Reply of comments from what a model…
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Sun Dec 6 13:29:24 PST 2015
Hello John,
there seems indeed something not understood about the reaction between
nucleons (i.e. quarks) and leptons. I have heard about the differently
measured size of a proton depending on whether it is in contact with
electrons or muons. Thanks that you have reminded me of this.
The case of a muon in the atomic orbit, from which a smaller size of the
proton follows, can be at least qualitatively deduced from the
assumption of a strong force in leptons as given in my model. I should
calculate this quantitatively but need some extra time to do it. Have it
on schedule.
There is another influence of the assumption of strong force in
electrons in my model. I have shown in my talk in San Diego that the
simultaneous influence of the electrical force and the strong force
explains classically the Landé factor.
You write about a talk which you have given about the topic of the
proton's size at MEDEL2012 and about proceedings of it. Could you do me
the favor and give me a link or some other connection to your contribution?
Regards
Albrecht
Am 01.12.2015 um 01:35 schrieb John Williamson:
>
> Hello Albrecht,
>
> Good for you. I knew about this (peripherally) - but would have been
> worried if there had been a direct measurement of leptons feeling the
> "strong force" - which this is not.
>
> There are a set of these "anomalies". The most important (and oldest
> to my knowledge) is that measured in spin-spin scattering at the ZGS
> (O'Fallon et al 1977). There is another (the EMC effect) with my own
> name on the papers (I am not central to this work and am one of dozens
> of "authors" on the papers: my role was just to write some of the code
> for electromagnetic (QED) shower simulation and for parts of a "QCD"
> monte-carlo used in some of the analysis).
>
> There are more recent experiments where the proton "size" differs (its
> cross-section - that is the inter-action rate) depending on which
> lepton you observe it with.
>
> These are all, in my view, down to a lack of understanding as to what
> the "strong" force is. There are no actual calculations for this
> because the only theory we have (QCD) is non-perturbative. I will
> translate (for mothers) "non perturbative" is shorthand for - one
> cannot calculate anything with it using any known techniques. Yes -
> that bad.
>
> The underlying anomlies all come fron the proper nature of the strong
> force. THis was part of my invited (keynote) talk at MENDEL2012 and
> there is something on this in the proceedings.
>
> Regards, John.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Albrecht Giese [genmail at a-giese.de]
> *Sent:* Monday, November 30, 2015 8:19 PM
> *To:* John Williamson; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…
>
> Hello John,
>
> it took me some time to find references, sorry. And I could not find
> the original paper of DESY about it, but a magazine.
>
> The indication of the strong force to leptons is a more indirect
> conclusion. In 1997 two teams at the HERA storage ring at DESY found
> an unexpected excess of events in quark-positron interactions. These
> events were unexpected as the Standard Model excludes an interaction
> of quarks with leptons on the basis of the strong force. It was then
> made the ad hoc assumption that an unknown particle may exist with
> name leptoquark. Such particle is not excluded by the Standard Model,
> and it is assumed to react with leptons and with quarks. The following
> search for leptoquarks at DESY and at other labs was without success.
> So the direct interaction between quarks and leptons by the strong
> force will remain as a solution.
>
> I can give the following references for this:
> 1.) Scientific American, March 24, 1997 about the detection of
> additional events
> 2.) "Search for contact interactions, large extra dimensions and
> finite quark radius in /ep /collisions at HERA", ZEUS Collaboration,
> Physics Letters B 591 (2004) 23-41 as an example for the search for
> leptoquarks.
>
> But I would like to emphasize again that the assumption for the strong
> force in e.g. the electron makes it possible to deduce the inertial
> mass of this particle (as also of others). I do not know any other
> approach which provides an origin of inertia deduced from basics.
>
> Regards
> Albrecht
>
>
> Am 27.11.2015 um 03:46 schrieb John Williamson:
>> Hello Albrecht,
>>
>> So the strong force has been observed to act on electrons at DESY?
>> Very interesting. Do you have a reference for that?
>>
>> Regards, John.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* General
>> [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>> on behalf of Albrecht Giese [genmail at a-giese.de]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, November 26, 2015 4:53 PM
>> *To:* Richard Gauthier
>> *Cc:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…
>>
>> Hallo Richard,
>>
>> thank you for your alternative proposal. Unfortunately there are some
>> points of misunderstanding with respect to my model. And also some
>> other physical arguments I like to point to - in your text.
>>
>> Am 23.11.2015 um 19:43 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>> Hello Albrecht,
>>>
>>> I’m glad that you say that developing a 2-particle model of the
>>> electron was not your main interest. I think it will be useful to
>>> see what parts of your model may be saved, and what parts may have
>>> to go, to get a working model in progress for the electron which
>>> most of us here might agree on. First, since there is no generally
>>> accepted evidence of a nuclear strong force relation to electrons,
>>> let’s drop that proposal for holding your 2 circulating charged
>>> massless particles in orbit, at least for now.
>> Here I object. 1) The strong force in the electron was seen at DESY
>> experiments in the 1990s. 2) Without referring to the strong force,
>> the calculation of the mass of the electron has incorrect results by
>> a factor of several hundred. This was found out by physicists in the
>> 1940s, e.g. by Helmut Hönl. (I can send you his paper if you are
>> interested, however in German.)
>>> Second, since there’s no evidence for a two-particle structure of
>>> the electron from any scattering or other experiments, let’s also
>>> consider dropping that proposal for now. Your insistence that a
>>> 2-particle model is required for conservation of momentum at the
>>> sub-electron level does not seem sufficient to accept this part of
>>> your 2-particle model. We don’t even know experimentally that
>>> conservation of momentum exists at the sub-electron level, do we?
>>> Just an article of faith?
>> This may be a point of personal judgement, but in my view the
>> conservation if momentum is a fundamental law in physics, maybe the
>> most fundamental law. It follows logically from the symmetry of space
>> (refer to Emmy Noether, who has set some logical basics for QM).
>>>
>>> So what is left of your model? You claim that your two particles
>>> are massless and travel at light speed. But you don’t say that they
>>> are also without energy, do you? If there are two massless
>>> particles, they will still each have to have 0.511/2 MeV of energy
>>> if the electron’s total resting energy 0.511 MeV is divided equally
>>> between them.
>> I have explained this in a former comment. The two "basic" particles
>> do not have any energy by themselves. The energy is caused by the
>> motion of the basic particles in the situation of a bind. Mass is
>> anyway a dynamic property of matter as it is even seen by present
>> main stream physics.
>>> One kind of particle that has no rest mass but has energy and
>>> travels at light speed is a photon.
>> This assumption is not true as explained above.
>>> (Let’s forget about gluons here for now since there is no accepted
>>> evidence for a strong nuclear force on electrons). So each of your
>>> two particles (if there are still two for some other reason besides
>>> conservation of momentum, and a need for an attractive force between
>>> them to overcome their electric repulsion) could be a charged photon
>>> (circulating charge is necessary to get a magnetic moment for the
>>> model) with energy 0.511/2 MeV, which has energy but no rest mass. OK.
>> Not true!
>>> But each of these two charged photons, each of energy 0.511/2 MeV =
>>> mc^2/2 will have a wavelength of 2 Compton wavelengths = 2 h/mc . If
>>> 1 wavelength of each photon is turned into a single closed loop, the
>>> each loop would have a radius 2hbar/mc, which is twice the radius
>>> hbar/mc of your proposed electron model. To make each of these
>>> photons move circularly in a way that each of their wavelengths
>>> gives a radius of hbar/mc as in your model, each photon would have
>>> to move in a double loop. So there will be two photons each of
>>> energy 0.511/2 moving in a double loop in this model. This is
>>> getting complicated.
>> The Compton wavelength has a different origin. It comes from
>> scattering of photons at an electron (example). The Compton
>> wavelength is then the maximum change of the wavelength of the photon
>> in such process. - This wavelength is in this way not any geometrical
>> extension of the electron. Yes, we find this value in some
>> calculations, but we should be cautious to use it for the
>> determination of dimension.
>>>
>>> Let’s drop one of the two photons for simplicity (Occam’s razor
>>> put to good use) so that the other photon will have the full
>>> electron energy 0.511 MeV .
>> What is the origin of this energy in the photon? And which mechanism
>> causes actually the energy of this photon? A photon can in general
>> have any energy, doesn't it?
>>> This photon will now have a wavelength 1 Compton wavelength. If this
>>> 1 Compton wavelength charged photon moves in a single loop it will
>>> create an electron with magnetic moment 1 Bohr magneton and a spin
>>> of 1 hbar. That’s good for the experimental magnetic moment of the
>>> electron (slightly more than 1 Bohr magneton) but bad for its
>>> experimental spin (which you tried to reduce to 1/2 hbar in your
>>> model by a delayed force argument). If the photon moves in a double
>>> loop it will be good for the spin (which now is exactly 1/2 hbar)
>>> but bad for the magnetic moment (now 1/2 Bohr magneton).
>> Why does the double loop reduce the spin? Why the Bohr magneton? The
>> magnetic moment depends on the area in the loop. How large is this
>> area in this case?
>>
>> The magnetic moment is larger than the Bohr magneton. In my model
>> this is the contribution of the (small) electrical charges in view of
>> the (large) strong charges.
>>
>> And which mechanism causes the double loop? It cannot come from
>> itself. A circuit is a simple structure which does not need many
>> influences. A double loop is more and needs a cause.
>>> So there’s still a problem with the model’s magnetic moment. But
>>> this double-looping charged photon model now has gained the
>>> zitterbewegung frequency of the Dirac electron which is desirable
>>> for an electron model which hopes to model the Dirac electron. And
>>> it also has 720 degree symmetry which the Dirac electron has (while
>>> your original 2-particle model has a rotational symmetry of 180
>>> degrees, since each particle would take the place of the other after
>>> a half-circle rotation).
>> In my model the zitterbewegung frequency is the circulation frequency
>> of the basic particles. The rotational symmetry is not 180 but 360
>> degrees as the strong field of the basic particles is not equal, but
>> one basic particle changes the other one by electrical influence.
>> This works analogue to the case of the van der Waals force.
>>>
>>> What do you think of this new model so far?
>> Did I explain it sufficiently?
>>>
>>> Richard
>> Albrecht
>>>
>>>> On Nov 22, 2015, at 9:43 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello Richard,
>>>>
>>>> I never have persistently tried to develop a 2-particle model. What
>>>> I have persistently tried was to find a good explanation for
>>>> relativistic dilation. And there I found a solution which has
>>>> satisfied me. All the rest including the 2 particles in my model
>>>> where logical consequences where I did not see alternatives. If
>>>> there should be a model which is an alternative in one or the other
>>>> aspect, I will be happy to see it.
>>>>
>>>> Am 22.11.2015 um 00:13 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>>>> Hello Albrecht,
>>>>>
>>>>> I admire your persistence in trying to save your doomed (in my
>>>>> opinion) 2-particle electron model.
>>>> Why 2 particles in the model? I say it again:
>>>>
>>>> 1) to maintain the conservation of momentum in the view of oscillations
>>>> 2) to have a mechanism for inertia (which has very precise results,
>>>> otherwise non-existent in present physics)
>>>>
>>>> I will be happy to see alternatives for both points. Up to now I
>>>> have not seen any.
>>>>> Do you understand how unreasonable and irrational it appears for
>>>>> you to write: "Then I had to determine the field constant S
>>>>> which is normally provided by experiments. But quantum mechanics
>>>>> is so unprecise regarding the numeric value of the strong force
>>>>> that there is no number available in the data tables. Here I found
>>>>> that I could use the Bohr magneton to determine the constant.
>>>>> (Which turned out to be S = hbar*c, merely a constant).” ?
>>>> I have once asked one of the leading theorists at DESY for a better
>>>> quantitative explanation or determination of the strong force. His
>>>> answer: Sorry, the strong force is not good enough understood so
>>>> that I cannot give you better information.
>>>>> How could the number S that you could not find in “unprecise”
>>>>> tables about the strong force possibly be the same number that can
>>>>> be found precisely from the electron’s Bohr magneton ehbar/2m and
>>>>> which you claim is S = hbar*c ? This is an unbelievable, desperate
>>>>> stretch of imagination and "grasping at straws", in my opinion.
>>>> When I have realized that my model deduces the Bohr magneton, I
>>>> have used the measurements available in that context to determine
>>>> my field constant. (I could also go the other way: I can use the
>>>> Planck / Einstein relation E = h * f and the Einstein-relation E =
>>>> m*c^2 to determine the constant S from the internal frequency in my
>>>> model. Same result. But I like the other way better. BTW: Do you
>>>> know any other model which deduces these relations rather than
>>>> using them as given?)
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is the meaning of “grasping at straws” from
>>>>> http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasp+at+straws :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> grasp at straws
>>>>>
>>>>> Also,*clutch at
>>>>> straws*.Makeadesperateattemptatsavingoneself.Forexample,/He had
>>>>> lost the argument, but he kept grasping at straws, naming numerous
>>>>> previous cases that had little to do with this
>>>>> one/.Thismetaphoricexpressionalludestoadrowningperson
>>>>> tryingtosavehimselfbygrabbingatflimsyreeds.Firstrecordedin1534,thetermwas
>>>>> usedfigurativelybythelate1600s.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not at all opposed to using desperate measures to find or
>>>>> save a hypothesis that is very important to you. Max Planck
>>>>> described his efforts to fit the black body radiation equation
>>>>> using quantized energies of hypothetical oscillators as an "act of
>>>>> desperation”. So you are of course free to keep desperately
>>>>> trying to save your 2-particle electron hypothesis. I personally
>>>>> think that your many talents in physics could be better spent in
>>>>> other ways, for example in revising your electron model to make it
>>>>> more consistent with experimental facts.
>>>> Do you know any other electron model which is so much consistent
>>>> with experimental facts (e.g. size and mass) as this one (without
>>>> needing the usual mystifications of quantum mechanics)?
>>>>> By the way, van der Waals forces do not "bind atoms to form a
>>>>> molecule". They are attractive or repulsive forces between
>>>>> molecules or between parts of a molecule. According to Wikipedia:
>>>>>
>>>>> " the *van der Waals forces* (or *van der Waals' interaction*),
>>>>> named after Dutch
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands>scientist
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist>Johannes Diderik van der
>>>>> Waals
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Diderik_van_der_Waals>, is
>>>>> the sum of the attractive or repulsive forces between molecules
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecule> (or between parts of the
>>>>> same molecule) other than those due to covalent bonds
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond>, or the
>>>>> electrostatic interaction
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_interaction> of ions
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion> with one another, with neutral
>>>>> molecules, or with charged molecules.^[1]
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-1>
>>>>> The resulting van der Waals forces can be attractive or
>>>>> repulsive.^[2]
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-Van_OssAbsolom1980-2>
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, my arrangement of charges of the strong force causes as well a
>>>> combination of attractive and repulsive forces and is doing the
>>>> same like in the van der Waals case. That was my reason to refer to
>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>
>>>>> with best regards,
>>>>> Richard
>>>>>
>>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151206/4f2d0ca5/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list