[General] Reply of comments from what a model…
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Wed Dec 9 13:28:59 PST 2015
Hi Al,
I come back to the mail from you below. You are making a very
interesting statement. You say (with reference to Wikipedia ??) that
"The relative cc's for Strong are 1, e&m 1/137, ..." . - This follows
from my particle model, but I have never seen it in a statement of main
stream physics.
It has a severe consequence: 1/137 is alpha, as we know. If we now
look to the definition of alpha and then to this relation in this
context, it means not only that alpha is the relation between the
electric force and the strong force, but in addition that (h*c) is the
field constant of the strong force (h = Planck's constant). That is in
full agreement with my model. But if you have followed our discussion
here, my understanding of the strong force resulting from this is
refused by almost anyone here.
Again: Where did you find it in Wikipedia? I did not find it there, only
in other sources, but without references.
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>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151209/5a7f1357/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list