[General] Reply of comments from what a model…
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Mon Dec 7 07:12:00 PST 2015
Hi Al,
thanks for the explanations on coupling constants.
Ciao, Albrecht
Am 07.12.2015 um 12:00 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
> Hi John:
> None of my god-damn business, but I just can't hlep but point out that
> a "coupling constant" characterizes an interaction, not the
> participants eacn separatly. The relative cc's for Strong are 1, e&m
> 1/137, weak 10⁻⁶, gravity 10⁻³⁹. Even Wikiopedia thinks so!
> If a seond particle is the virtual image of the total interaction with
> all noise (background) then, of course, it cannot be pealed off the
> 1st particle (e or whatever). Thus, logically, that nothing like a
> 2nd particle has benn seen, does not exclude this possiblity.
> Lesson: maybe there are virtual popes (infalible authoritites) in
> physics, but for sure there are nor that have been any "seen" in the lab.!
> ciao, Al
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 07. Dezember 2015 um 09:32 Uhr
> *Von:* "John Williamson" <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
> *An:* "Albrecht Giese" <phys at a-giese.de>, "Nature of Light and
> Particles - General Discussion"
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Cc:* "pete at leathergoth.com" <pete at leathergoth.com>, "Nick Bailey"
> <nick at bailey-family.org.uk>, "Mark, Martin van der"
> <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>, "David Williamson"
> <david.williamson at ed.ac.uk>
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…
> Dear Albrecht,
>
> Let me help a little: this is off the top of my head - but will give
> the right ballpark.
>
> The strong interaction (for nucleons) has a coupling constant about a
> hundred times bigger than EM. Interaction probabilities need 2
> particles so this is about ten thousand times (coupling constant
> squared) bigger than EM.
>
> This is not a "small effect". Believe me - if they were there for
> leptons DESY would have noticed. Even more so we at the EMC (European
> Muon Collaboration) would have noticed if they were there for muons.
> They are not.
>
> You can believe this if you like, but you are wrong.
>
> Once again - if there were two bits inside the electron, held together
> by whatever forces, we would have seen this. We did not, so there are
> not. End of story. The electron, whatever it is, acts as one thing -
> at least up to energies up to 400 000 times its mass-energy.
>
> There IS something holding the electron charge together though. These
> have been, for the last century, designated the "Poincare stresses".
> Feynmann talks about these in his lectures. As far as I know, except
> for the description in my new papers (the interaction between electric
> field and p-vot) and the forces Martin and I have been calculating
> with and talking about over the last two decades, these remain
> otherwise mysterious. A mystery that endured for most of a century. In
> my theory everything is smooth and the whole object is a single
> self-confining wave. Just one thing.
>
> Sorry if I gave the impression my talk at Mendel was on the proton
> size. It was not. I did talk about my model for quarks and the strong
> force though, though that is not in the proceedings paper (attached)
> which was on a possible reason for the exclusion principle for fermions.
>
> There is something on this on the internet in the talk I gave at
> CYBCOM, for which Nick Green provided a link earlier.
>
> Regards, John W.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Albrecht Giese [genmail at a-giese.de]
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 06, 2015 9:29 PM
> *To:* John Williamson; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Cc:* Mark, Martin van der; Nick Bailey; David Williamson;
> pete at leathergoth.com
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish
> to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles
> General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to
> unsubscribe
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151207/540f773a/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list