[General] Reply of comments from what a model…
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Wed Dec 9 13:41:35 PST 2015
Dear John,
thank you, and some comments from my part below in the text.
Am 07.12.2015 um 09:32 schrieb John Williamson:
> 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.
The strong force binds the nuclei in the atom and binds the quarks in a
nucleus. They have to be bound in a way that they do not touch each
other. This is like the atoms in a molecule which are also bound to each
other in a way that they do not touch. This is, as we know, achieved by
a multipole field. In the molecule it is the van der Waals field based
on the electric force. In the nucleus it must be also a multipole field,
but based on the strong force. (In nuclear physics this is normally not
explained in such a detail but only the result given; this is the
typical way in QM).
Such multipole field has a minimum of the potential at a certain
distance. This distance defines the distance of the participants. But
outside this range the field is still existent; at distance it could
decrease by the 1/r^2 law. At least I assume this for my particle model
and I see it confirmed by the fact that the Landé factor of the electron
has the correct value if I make this assumption.
If now two objects are bound to each other in this way, then the
combined field seen from outside has a steeper decrease with r, in the
example of my model with 1/r^4 at greater distances. So, if there is an
electrical charge in addition, the fall-off at some distance will cause
that outside the strong force is in effect weaker than the electrical one.
>
> 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.
This is clearly not correct. I have discussed this case with a former
research director of DESY. He has spent his entire scientific life with
electron scattering experiments and was known for his excellent
knowledge of electron experiments all over the world. I could not
convince him of my model of a composed and extended electron. But he
admitted that there is no experimental evidence which is in conflict
with my model. I have explained the reasons in detail here before, so I
do not repeat it this time again.
>
> 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.
My impression regarding my electron model (which covers also all leptons
and all quarks) is a simple and stable model which covers everything
understood today and some facts in addition.
>
> 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.
Thanks!
>
> Regards, John W.
Regards
Albrecht
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
---
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/20151209/6b2040f2/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list