[General] Reply of comments from what a model…
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Thu Dec 10 10:21:44 PST 2015
Dear Chip,
thanks for your comment. But what is momentum, how defined? Definition
is p = m * v , with m = inertial mass. And if you meet an object which
has momentum, you have to apply a force to stop it. A force against
which other force? Which mechanism causes the other force? That is my
question. (And I do have an answer.)
The photon has momentum, true! But it also has mass. That is at least
the general understanding in today's physics. The photon does not have
any rest-mass. But it is never at rest. If it would be at rest once, it
would not have a mass and as well it would not have momentum.
My sub-particles do not have mass nor momentum on their own. But the
configuration of both has mass as well as momentum caused by the same
fundamental fact: The finiteness of the propagation speed of the binding
force. That is the natural cause of inertia and so as well of momentum.
Albrecht
Am 08.12.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> Hi Albrecht
>
> Below you wrote…“If you derive inertia from an occurrence of momentum,
> then this is circular reasoning. As momentum without inertial is not
> possible.”
>
> I am afraid that a many would disagree with you on this point. In
> fact there is significant evidence which indicates that momentum is
> the more fundamental of these two (momentum and inertia). Momentum
> exists in light, but to argue that light has inertia is pure speculation.
>
> So I think you have chosen to overlook some parts of physical evidence
> and chosen to use others which suit your motivations. A “massless”
> photon has momentum but not inertia. Don’t your two fictitious
> “massless” particles have momentum but not inertia?
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 08, 2015 2:26 PM
> *To:* Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>; Albrecht Giese
> <phys at a-giese.de>
> *Cc:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…
>
> Hello Richard,
>
> I fell a little bit like Sisyphos. No progress.
>
> Am 07.12.2015 um 06:20 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>
> Hello Albrecht,
>
> The nature of scientific exploration is that “anything goes” if
> it ethically produces new scientific discoveries. So your idea of
> an indirect strong force on electrons to explain your two-particle
> model of the electron COULD be correct despite the current lack of
> any accepted evidence for your model. The law of conservation of
> momentum is NOT evidence for your specific electron model.
>
> No, as I wrote earlier: The conservation of momentum follows from the
> symmetry of space. And that is very fundamental. Is used by my model
> and by the whole rest of the physical world. Formally introduced by
> the mathematician Emmy Noether in 1918.
>
> The unexplained results at DESY do not provide support for any
> hypothesis, including yours.
>
> They have to be explained. I have an explanation which you may not
> like. Your alternative??
>
> Your electron hypothesis could be wrong, and is very like to be
> wrong as I think you will admit. So far your hypothesis hasn’t
> produced any good scientific results that I know of. I for one am
> not convinced that your electron hypothesis explains inertia
> quantitatively (by deriving the electron’s mass from the Bohr
> magneton ehbar/2m , which already contains the electron’s mass).
>
> NO! NO! NO! I have explained it several times now. Inertia is caused
> by the fact that *any extended object has necessarily inertial
> behaviour*. It is the consequence of the finiteness of the speed by
> which the binding forces propagate. Very fundamental physics. So an
> extended electron has necessarily inertia. But not only as a
> qualitative result but quantitatively with high precision! And this is
> not only true for the electron but also for all fermions (leptons and
> quarks).
>
> Any theory or model needs at least on parameter which is measured.
> This is in case of my model Planck's constant. I use the Bohr magneton
> to connect Planck's constant to my model. I could as well have used
> the relation E = h * frequency. But I found the other way more elegant.
>
> I do not know any other working model for inertia. The Higgs theory
> does not work as we know. On the other hand my website about "origin
> of mass" is the number one in the internet since 13 years., And when I
> give talks about it on conferences in Germany, the lecture hall is
> normally overcrowded. An indication of weakness?
>
> I don’t accept that your electron hypothesis is the only
> hypothesis that can explain inertia, as you claim. Inertia could
> be explained by the “hidden momentum” component mc in my
> charged-photon electron model.
>
> If you derive inertia from an occurrence of momentum, then this is
> circular reasoning. As momentum without inertial is not possible.
>
> My charged-photon electron model, and John W’s and John M’s and
> Vivian’s and Chip’s electron models could also all be wrong. But I
> think that we are collectively making progress. Eliminating
> deadwood and dead-ends is also part of progress. I don’t see any
> progress in your model, despite all the energy you put into
> defending its many weaknesses. You still have not explained how
> your electron model can have a positive total energy based on its
> strong nuclear force's negative binding energy. Maybe this will
> not be possible without radically changing your electron model of
> two circulating particles that individually have no mass and no
> energy, but are bound together by the strong nuclear force.
>
> No reason for a change as anything works with very good precision. And
> from the scratch.
>
> I don’t know of any awards for electron models. De Broglie and
> Dirac both got Nobel prizes for their electron equations without
> having electron models. Heisenberg and Schrodinger also didn’t
> have electron models when they won their Nobel prizes for
> discovering quantum mechanics. Perhaps we could start a
> competition for the best electron model. That could possibly speed
> up the progress in getting a really good one. But the best
> electron model will be the one that has the best potential to lead
> to the best new scientific results.
>
> What de Broglie, Schrödinger, and Dirac did was more algebra than
> physics. That is their common weakness. And as we have found out in
> our discussion here is that de Broglie has a logical error in his
> derivation. And Schrödinger and Dirac based on his result. How proper
> can that be?
>
> I didn’t have any position on quarks when they were first
> introduced. My introductory physics professor in 1963 at MIT Henry
> Kendall was one of the high energy experimental physicists that
> later experimentally discovered the first quark. The other five
> quarks were also discovered by the methods of experimental high
> energy physics. I think the general positive trend of modern
> physics is to overturn traditional dogmatic materialism and to
> open up new ways of understanding the relationships among matter,
> energy and mind. Physicists should not replace old dogmas by new
> dogmas. Getting new ideas and concepts accepted in physics is not
> easy, nor should it be. There’s a lot of junk out there.
>
> Just to remind you: The Up-quark and the Down-quark have never been
> discovered. They have been assumed to exist as this has eased the
> formal treatment of nucleons. Nothing better.
>
> With best regards
> Albrecht
>
>
> With best regards,
>
> Richard
>
> On Dec 6, 2015, at 7:28 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de
> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>
> Richard,
>
> what do you expect from science? Do your claims describe the
> way as science works?
>
> If you look into the history of physics, discoveries have
> happened in a different way than following your demands here.
> I shall give two examples.
>
> What is about the quarks, the Up-quark and the Down-quark? No
> one has ever seen them, no lab was able to isolate them.
> Nevertheless no one in main stream physics questions that
> these two quarks exist. The advantage of this assumption is
> that interactions with nucleons can be mathematically handled
> in a better way. That is by common view sufficient since more
> than 40 years.
>
> I was a student when the quark was introduced. Many
> established physicists in research laughed about this idea.
> And the quark was not visible, is not visible until today. But
> those who introduced it received the Nobel price. - What was
> your position to quarks at that time? Or what is it now?
>
> And as I wrote in my last answer: The strong force was
> believed to exist for 40 years before detailed proofs could be
> given (by the existence of gluons). /If this is the only
> choice, then it is the answer (at least temporary). That is
> the rule in physics. /
>
> The same is true for the strong force in the electron. It is
> the only way (at present) to deduce inertia. And there is no
> counter-proof. The direct positive proof is difficult in so
> far as the coupling between quarks and electrons is very weak
> caused by the very different size of both particles.
>
> Regarding the excess of certain events in the DESY experiment:
> Do you have a solution? Or a better solution? Perhaps then
> /you /can win an award ...
>
> Albrecht
>
>
> Am 05.12.2015 um 19:10 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>
> Albrecht,
>
> You wrote
>
> The conclusion now of a direct interaction of the
> strong force between the quark and the electron is a
> more indirect proof, but the only one left at present
> - in my view.
>
> If you are the only one in the world to come to this
> conclusion, and DESY did not come to this conclusion
> (which would have probably won them a Nobel prize if
> correct), then I am not willing to accept it and I doubt
> that any logical and independent scientist will either.
>
> you then write
>
> further that a lot of other problems can be resolved
> with the assumption that the strong force is the
> universal force in the world, then this is in my view
> an even better argument than the one in the 1930s for
> the strong force.
>
> You say that a lot of problems could be solved if the
> strong force affects the electron. This is not a good or
> logical reason to accept that the strong force affects the
> electron. If rivers flowed with milk, a lot of world
> hunger problems would be solved, but this is not a reason
> to accept that rivers flow with milk.
>
> Richard
>
> On Dec 5, 2015, at 7:36 AM, Albrecht Giese
> <genmail at a-giese.de <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>
> Hello Richard,
>
> my answers in the text:
>
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:00:23 -0800 schrieb Richard
> Gauthier :
>
> Hello Albrecht,
>
> In physics no one can validly claim that the
> strong force nuclear acting on electrons was
> “seen” at DESY if such an important and unexpected
> result was never confirmed by any other qualified
> laboratory in all the years afterward. So please
> let go of your claim about the strong nuclear
> force acting on electrons at least until it is
> confirmed by another laboratory. I am not saying
> that conventional wisdom is always right
> (obviously it isn’t). But in experimental physics
> one needs to play by the statistical “rules”
> (which are in any case designed to guard against
> “false positives” like the DESY experiment might
> have been) if one wants to have credibility among
> other knowledgeable physicists. (We are not
> talking about credibility by the general public here.)
>
> There were two teams at DESY who have seen an excess
> of triggers in electron-quark interactions, which
> could not be explained by leptonic interactions based
> on the electrical force. The attempt to postulate a
> new "leptoquark", which could mediate between the
> electron and the strong force, failed. The conclusion
> now of a direct interaction of the strong force
> between the quark and the electron is a more indirect
> proof, but the only one left at present - in my view.
>
> But what was the evidence of the strong force when it
> came up? See below.
>
> And without confirmation of the DESY results
> (or their logical interpretation), your 2-particle
> electron model goes nowhere fast. As you wrote, “
> Without referring to the strong force, the
> calculation of the mass of the electron has
> incorrect results by a factor of several hundred.
> “ So everything else in your model hinges on an
> unconfirmed result from one physics laboratory. As
> theoretical physicists say (or should say) when
> their predictions are not confirmed by
> experiments: “Well, back to the drawing board.”
>
> The strong force was postulated in the 1930s when it
> became clear that there are >1 protons in the nucleus
> which are bound to each other despite of the repulsive
> force of the electric charges. The stable bind was the
> only reason at that time to assume a "strong force".
> It was not earlier than in the year 1978, so ca. 40
> years later, that gluons have been identified at DESY
> and so the strong force has become more than an
> assumption.
>
> If I say that the strong force in the electron is the
> only cause of inertia, which is presently available,
> further that a lot of other problems can be resolved
> with the assumption that the strong force is the
> universal force in the world, then this is in my view
> an even better argument than the one in the 1930s for
> the strong force.
>
> with best wishes,
>
> Richard
>
> Best wishes back
> Albrecht
>
> On Nov 26, 2015, at 8:53 AM, Albrecht Giese
> <genmail at a-giese.de
> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>
> 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
> <mailto: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*. Make a
> desperate attempt at saving
> oneself. For example, /He had lost
> the argument, but he kept
> grasping at straws, naming
> numerous previous cases that had
> little to do with this one/. This
> metaphoric expression alludes to a
> drowning person trying to save
> himself by grabbing at flimsy
> reeds. First recorded in 1534, the
> term was used figuratively by the
> late 1600s.
>
> 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
>
> On Nov 21, 2015, at 8:32 AM,
> Albrecht Giese
> <genmail at a-giese.de
> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>>
> wrote:
>
> Hello Richard,
>
> I am a bit confused how badly
> my attempted explanations have
> reached you.
>
> I have NOT used the Bohr
> magneton to determine the
> radius R of an electron. I
> deduced the radius directly
> from the measured magnetic
> moment using the classical
> equation for the magnetic moment.
>
> For the binding force of the
> sub-particles I needed a
> multipole field which has a
> potential minimum at a
> distance R_0 . The simplest
> shape of such a field which I
> could find was for the force F:
> F = S * (R_0 - R) /R^3 . Here
> R_0 is of course the
> equilibrium distance and S the
> field constant. I wanted to
> refer to an existing field of
> a proper strength, and that
> could only be the strong
> force. 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).
>
> From the equation for F given
> above the inertial mass of the
> particle follows from a
> deduction which is given on my
> website:
> www.ag-physics.org/rmass
> <http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass>
> . Too long to present it here,
> but straight and inevitable.
> Here the result again: m = S /
> (R * c^2 ) .
>
> If you are unsatisfied by my
> deduction of this field, what
> is about the van der Waals
> forces which bind atoms to
> build a molecule? Did van der
> Waals have had a better way of
> deduction in that case? I
> think that the fact that the
> von der Waals forces act so as
> observed, is enough for the
> physical community to accept
> them.
>
> And you ask for an independent
> calculation of S which I
> should present in your
> opinion. Now, Is there anyone
> in physics or in astronomy who
> can present an independent
> calculation of the
> gravitational constant G? No,
> nobody can calculate G from
> basic assumptions. Why asking
> for more in my case? I think
> that this demand is not
> realistic and not common
> understanding in physics.
>
> And again: where is circular
> reasoning?
>
> Best regards
> Albrecht
>
> Am 20.11.2015 um 23:02 schrieb
> Richard Gauthier:
>
> Hello Albrecht,
>
> Thanks for your detailed
> response. I think the key
> problem is in your
> determination of your
> “field constant” S which
> you say describes the
> "binding field" for your
> two particles. This
> definition of S is too
> general and empty of
> specific content as I
> understand that it applies
> to any "binding field” at
> any nuclear or atomic or
> molecular level. With
> your 2-particle electron
> model you then calculate
> the radius R=hbar/mc from
> the Bohr Magneton
> e*hbar/2m, assuming the
> values of m, e, h and c. .
> Then you calculate S from
> the Bohr magneton and find
> it to be S=c*hbar. You
> then calculate m from the
> equation m=S/(R*c^2). How
> can a binding field S be
> described by such a
> universal term hbar * c ?
> That’s why I think that
> your derivation is
> circular. You use the
> Bohr magneton e*hbar/2m to
> calculate R and S, (using
> the Bohr magneton) and
> then you use R and S to
> calculate m. You have no
> independent calculation of
> S except from the Bohr
> magneton. That’s the
> problem resulting in
> circularity.
>
> with best regards,
>
> Richard
>
> On Nov 20, 2015, at
> 1:09 PM, Albrecht
> Giese
> <genmail at a-giese.de
> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>>
> wrote:
>
> Hallo Richard,
>
> I find it great that
> we have made similar
> calculations and came
> at some points to
> similar conclusions.
> That is not a matter
> of course, as you find
> in all textbooks that
> it is impossible to
> get these results in a
> classical way, but
> that in the contrary
> it needs QM to come to
> these results.
>
> Here now again the
> logical way which I
> have gone: I assume
> the circular motion of
> the elementary
> electric charge (2*
> 1/2 * e_0 ) with speed
> c. Then with the
> formula (which you
> give here again) M =
> i*A one can conclude A
> from the measured
> magnetic moment. And
> so we know the radius
> to be R = 3.86 x
> 10^-13 m for the
> electron. No constants
> and no further theory
> are necessary for this
> result. I have then
> calculated the
> inertial mass of a
> particle which turns
> out to be m = S / (R *
> c^2 ) where the
> parameter S describes
> the binding field. I
> did initially have no
> knowledge about the
> quantity of this
> field. But from the
> mass formula there
> follows for the
> magnetic moment: M=
> (1/2)*(S/c)*(e /m). To
> this point I have not
> used any knowledge
> except the known
> relation for the
> magnetic moment. Now I
> look to the Bohr
> magneton in order to
> find the quantity of
> my field constant
> S: M= (1/2)*hbar*(e
> /m). Because the
> Planck constant has to
> be measured in some
> way. For doing it
> myself I would need a
> big machine. But why?
> Basic constants never
> follow from a theory
> but have to be
> measured. I can use
> such a measurement,
> and that tells me for
> my field constant S =
> c*hbar (from Bohr
> magneton). So, where
> do you see circular
> reasoning?
>
> Now I have no theory,
> why specific
> elementary particles
> exist. Maybe later I
> find a way, not now.
> But now I can use the
> (measurable) magnetic
> moment for any
> particle to determine
> the radius, and then I
> know the mass from my
> formula. This works
> for all charged
> leptons and for all
> quarks. Not good enough?
>
> And yes, the Landé
> factor. Not too
> difficult. In my
> deduction of the mass
> I have used only the
> (initially unknown)
> constant S for the
> field. Which I assume
> to be the strong field
> as with the electric
> field the result is
> too small (by a factor
> of several hundred).
> The only stronger
> alternative to the
> electrical force is
> the strong force,
> already known. Is this
> a far-fetched idea?
> But I have in this
> initial deduction
> ignored that the two
> basic particles have
> an electrical charge
> of e/2 each, which
> cause a repelling
> force which increases
> the radius R a bit.
> With this increase I
> correct the result for
> e.g. the magnetic
> moment, and the
> correction is quite
> precisely the Landé
> factor (with a
> deviation of ca. 10^-6 ).
>
> So, what did I invent
> specially for my
> model, and which
> parameters do I use
> from others? I have
> assumed the shape of
> the binding field as
> this field has to
> cause the bind at a
> distance. And I have
> used the measurement
> of the Planck constant
> h which other
> colleagues have
> performed. Nothing
> else. I do not have do
> derive the quantity e
> as this is not the
> task of a particle
> model. If e could be
> derived (what nobody
> today is able to do),
> then this would follow
> from a much deeper
> insight into our
> physical basics as
> anyone can have today.
>
> The fact of two
> constituents is a
> necessary precondition
> to obey the
> conservation of
> momentum and to
> support the mechanism
> of inertia. I do not
> know any other
> mechanism which works.
>
> Where do I practice
> circular reasoning?
>
> Best regards
> Albrecht
>
> Am 18.11.2015 um 15:42
> schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>
> Hello Albrecht,
>
> Let’s look at
> your listed
> assumptions of
> your electron
> model in relation
> to the electron’s
> magnetic moment.
> It is known that
> the magnitude of
> the electron’s
> experimental
> magnetic moment is
> slightly more than
> the Bohr magneton
> which is Mb =
> ehbar/2m = 9.274
> J/T in SI units.
> Your 2-particle
> model aims to
> generate a
> magnetic moment to
> match this Bohr
> magneton value
> (which was
> predicted for the
> electron by the
> Dirac equation)
> rather than the
> experimental value
> of the electron’s
> magnetic moment
> which is slightly
> larger. The
> standard equation
> for calculating
> the magnetic
> moment M of a
> plane current loop
> is M = IA for
> loop area A and
> current I. If the
> area A is a circle
> and the current is
> a circular current
> loop I around this
> area, whose value
> I is calculated
> from a total
> electric charge e
> moving circularly
> at light speed c
> (as in your
> 2-particle
> electron model)
> with a radius R, a
> short calculation
> will show that if
> the radius of this
> circle is R =
> hbar/mc = 3.86 x
> 10-13 m (the
> reduced Compton
> wavelength
> corresponding to a
> circle of
> circumference one
> Compton wavelength
> h/mc), then this
> radius R for the
> current loop gives
> a magnetic moment
> M = IA = Bohr
> magneton ehbar/2m
> . I have done this
> calculation many
> times in my
> electron modeling
> work and know that
> this is the case.
> The values of h
> and also e and m
> of the electron
> have to be known
> accurately to
> calculate the Bohr
> magneton ehbar/2m
> . When the radius
> of the circular
> loop is R=hbar/mc,
> the frequency f of
> the charge e
> circling the loop
> is easily found to
> be f=c/(2pi R)=
> mc^2/h , which is
> the frequency of
> light having the
> Compton wavelength
> h/mc.
>
> So the current
> loop radius
> R=hbar/mc that is
> required in your
> 2-particle model
> to derive the Bohr
> magneton ehbar/2m
> using M=IA
> obviously cannot
> also be used to
> derive either of
> the values h or m
> since these values
> were used to
> calculate the Bohr
> magneton ehbar/2m
> in the first
> place. So your
> model cannot be
> used to derive any
> of the values of
> e, h or m, and
> seems to be an
> exercise in
> circular
> reasoning. Please
> let me know how I
> may be mistaken in
> this conclusion.
>
> with best regards,
>
> Richard
>
> On Nov 18,
> 2015, at 2:03
> AM, Dr.
> Albrecht Giese
> <genmail at a-giese.de
> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Al,
>
> I completely
> disagree with
> your
> conclusions
> about the
> motivation
> towards my
> model because
> my intention
> was not to
> develop a
> particle
> model. My
> intention was
> to develop a
> better
> understanding
> of time in
> relativity. My
> present model
> was an
> unexpected
> consequence of
> this work. I
> show you my
> arguments
> again and ask
> you to
> indicate the
> point where
> you do not follow.
>
> Am 17.11.2015
> um 19:18
> schrieb
> af.kracklauer at web.de
> <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>:
>
> Hi Albrect:
>
> Comments²
> *IN BOLD*
>
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag,
> 17.
> November
> 2015 um
> 18:41 Uhr
> *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht
> Giese"
> <genmail at a-giese.de>
> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:*
> af.kracklauer at web.de
> <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
> *Cc:*
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Betreff:* Re:
> [General]
> Reply of
> comments
> from what
> a model…
>
> Hi Al,
>
> again some
> responses.
>
> Am
> 14.11.2015
> um 18:24
> schrieb
> af.kracklauer at web.de
> <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>:
>
> Hi
> Albrecht:
>
> Answers to
> your
> questions:
>
> 1) The
> SED
> background
> explains
> the
> Planck
> BB
> distribution
> without
> quantization.
> It
> explans why
> an
> atom
> doesn't collapse:
> in
> equilibrium
> with
> background,
> In
> fact,
> just
> about
> every
> effect
> described
> by 2nd
> quantization
> has an
> SED
> parallel
> explantion
> without additional
> considerations.
> With
> the
> additional
> input
> of the
> SED
> origin
> of
> deBroglie
> waves,
> it
> provides
> a
> direct
> derivation
> of the
> Schröedinger
> eq.
> thereby explainiong
> all of
> 1st
> Quantization.
>
> Maybe you
> achieve
> something
> when using
> SED
> background. I
> do not
> really
> understand
> this
> background, but
> I do not
> see a
> stringent
> necessity
> for it.
> But SED as
> an origin
> to the de
> Broglie
> waves is
> of
> interest
> for me. I
> am
> presently
> working on
> de Broglie
> waves to
> find a
> solution,
> which does
> not have
> the
> logical
> conflicts
> which we
> have
> discussed
> here.
>
> *See No.
> 11 (or 1)
> @
> www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com
> <http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com>
> for
> suggetions
> and some
> previous
> work along
> this line.*
>
> *Thank you,
> will have a
> look.*
>
> 2)
> Olber's logic
> is in
> conflict
> with
> Mach's
> Principle,
> so is
> obviously
> just
> valid
> for
> visible light.
> Given
> a
> little
> intergalacitc
> plasma
> (1
> H/m³),
> not to
> mention atmossphere
> and
> interplanatary
> plama,
> visible light
> disappears
> to
> Earthbound
> observers
> at
> visitble
> freqs
> to
> reappear
> at
> other,
> perhaps at
> 2.7°
> even,
> or at
> any
> other
> long
> or
> hyper
> short
> wave
> length. 'The
> universe
> matters'---which
> is
> even
> politically
> correct nowadays!
>
> Olber's
> logic is
> simple in
> so far, as
> it shows
> that the
> universe
> cannot be
> infinite.
> I have
> assumed
> the same
> for all
> background
> effects.
> Or are
> they infinite?
>
> *The fly
> in the
> ointment
> is
> absorbtion. An
> inf.
> universe
> with
> absorbtion
> in the
> visible
> part of
> the
> spectrum
> will still
> have a
> largely
> dark sky. *
>
> *And the other
> way around:
> Even if there
> is no
> absorption,
> the sky will
> be dark. And
> the general
> opinion is
> that, even if
> there is a lot
> of radiation
> absorbed, this
> absorbing
> material will
> heat up by the
> time and
> radiate as
> well. So an
> absorption
> should not
> change too much.*
>
>
> What is
> the
> conflict
> with
> Mach's
> principle?
>
> *Mach
> says: the
> gravitational
> "background radiation"
> is the
> cause of
> inertia.
> This
> effect is
> parallel
> to the SED
> bacground
> causing QM
> effects.
> Conflict:
> if Olber
> is right,
> then Mach
> is
> probably
> wrong (too
> weak).*
>
> *In my
> understanding,
> what Mach
> means is
> completely
> different.
> Mach's
> intention was
> to find a
> reference
> system which
> is absolute
> with respect
> to
> acceleration.
> He assumed
> that this is
> caused by the
> stars in our
> vicinity. He
> did not have a
> certain idea
> how this
> happens, he
> only needed
> the fact.
> (Einstein
> replaced this
> necessity by
> his
> equivalence of
> gravity and
> acceleration -
> which however
> is clearly
> falsified as
> mentioned
> several times.)*
>
> 3) The
> (wide
> spread) criticism
> of 2
> particles
> is
> that
> there
> is
> neither an
> /a-priori/
> intuative
> reason, nor
> empirical
> evidence
> that
> they
> exist.
> Maybe
> they
> do
> anyway. But
> then,
> maybe
> Zeus
> does
> too,
> and he
> is
> just
> arranging
> appearances
> so
> that
> we
> amuse
> ourselves.
> (Try
> to
> prove
> that
> wrong!)
>
> I have
> explained
> how I came
> to the
> conclusion
> of 2
> sub-particles.
> Again:
>
> 1) There
> is motion
> with c in
> an
> elementary
> particle
> to explain
> dilation
> 2) With
> only on
> particle
> such
> process is
> mechanically
> not
> possible,
> and it
> violates
> the
> conservation
> of momentum
> 3) In this
> way it is
> the only
> working
> model
> theses
> days to
> explain
> inertia.
> And this
> model
> explains
> inertia
> with high
> precision.
> What more
> is needed?
>
> *These
> assumtions
> are
> "teleological,"
> i.e.,
> tuned to
> give the
> desired
> results.
> As logic,
> although
> often
> done, this
> manuver is
> not legit
> in the
> formal
> presentation
> of a
> theory.
> For a
> physics
> theory,
> ideally,
> all the
> input
> assuptios
> have
> empirical
> justification
> or
> motivation. Your
> 2nd
> partical
> (modulo
> virtual
> images)
> has no
> such
> motivatin,
> in fact,
> just the
> opposite. *
>
> *My logical
> way is just
> the other way
> around. I had
> the plan to
> work on
> relativity
> (the aspects
> of time), not
> on particle
> physics. The
> particle model
> was an
> unplanned
> spin-off. I
> shall try to
> explain the
> logical path
> again: **
>
> *_1st step:_ I
> have
> calculated the
> 4-dimensional
> speed of an
> object using
> the temporal
> part of the
> Lorentz
> transformation. The
> surprising
> fact was that
> this 4-dim.
> speed is
> always the
> speed of
> light. I have
> then assumed
> that this
> constant shows
> a permanent
> motion with c
> in a particle.
> I have
> accepted this
> as a probable
> solution, but
> I have never
> assumed this,
> before I had
> this result.
> It was in no
> way a desired
> result. My
> idea was to
> describe time
> by a vector of
> 3 of 4
> dimensions. -
> I have then no
> further
> followed this
> idea.*
> *_2nd step:_
> If there is
> some motion in
> the particle,
> it cannot be
> caused by one
> constituent.
> This is
> logically not
> possible as it
> violates the
> conservation
> of momentum.
> Also this was
> not a desired
> result but
> logically
> inevitable. *
> *_3rd step:_
> If the
> constituents
> move with c,
> then they
> cannot have
> any mass. Also
> this was not a
> result which I
> wished to
> achieve, but
> here I
> followed my
> understanding
> of relativity.*
> *_4th step:_
> The size must
> be such that
> the resulting
> frequency in
> the view of c
> yields the
> magnetic
> moment which
> is known by
> measurements. *
> *_5th step:_ I
> had to find a
> reason for the
> mass of the
> electron in
> spite of the
> fact that the
> constituents
> do not have
> any mass.
> After some
> thinking I
> found out the
> fact that any
> extended
> object has
> necessarily
> inertia. I
> have applied
> this insight
> to this
> particle
> model, and the
> result was the
> actual mass of
> the electron,
> if I assumed
> that the force
> is the strong
> force. It
> could not be
> the electric
> force (as it
> was assumed by
> others at
> earlier times)
> because the
> result is too
> weak.*
>
> *None of the
> results from
> step 1 thru
> step 5 was
> desired. Every
> step was
> inevitable,
> because our
> standard
> physical
> understanding
> (which I did
> not change at
> any point)
> does not allow
> for any
> alternative. -
> _Or at which
> step could I
> have had an
> alternative in
> your opinion?_*_
>
> _*And btw:
> which is the
> stringent
> argument for
> only one
> constituent?
> As I mentioned
> before, the
> experiment is
> not an
> argument. I
> have discussed
> my model with
> the former
> research
> director of
> DESY who was
> responsible
> for this type
> of electron
> experiments,
> and he
> admitted that
> there is no
> conflict with
> the assumption
> of 2
> constituents.***_
>
> _*
>
>
> I know
> from
> several
> discussions with
> particle
> physicists
> that there
> is a lot
> of
> resistance
> against
> this
> assumption
> of 2
> constituents.
> The reason
> is that
> everyone
> learn at
> university
> like with
> mother's
> milk that
> the
> electron
> is
> point-like, extremely
> small and
> does not
> have any
> internal
> structure.
> This has
> the effect
> like a
> religion.
> (Same with
> the
> relativity
> of Hendrik
> Lorentz.
> Everyone
> learns
> with the
> same
> fundamental attitude
> that
> Lorentz
> was
> nothing
> better
> than a
> senile old
> man how
> was not
> able to
> understand
> modern
> physics.)
> - Not a
> really
> good way,
> all this.
>
> *Mystical
> thinking
> is indeed
> a major
> problem
> even in
> Physics!
> But,
> some of
> the
> objectiors
> to a 2nd
> particle
> are not
> basing
> their
> objection
> of devine
> revelation
> or
> political
> correctness. *
>
> 4) It
> is
> ascientific
> to
> consider
> that
> the
> desired result
> is
> justification
> for a
> hypothetical
> input.
> OK,
> one
> can
> say
> about
> such
> reasoning,
> it is
> validated
> /a
> posteriori/,
> that
> at
> least
> makes
> it
> sound
> substantial.
> So
> much
> has
> been
> granted to
> your
> "story" but
> has
> not
> granted your
> story
> status
> as a
> "physics
> theory."
> It
> has
> some
> appeal, which
> in my
> mind
> would
> be
> enhansed
> had a
> rationalization
> for
> the
> 2nd
> particle
> been
> provided.
> That's all
> I'm
> trying
> to do.
> When
> you or
> whoever comes
> up
> with a
> better
> one,
> I'll
> drop
> pushing the
> virtual particle
> engendered
> by the
> background.
> Maybe,
> it
> fixes
> too
> many
> other
> things.
>
> My history
> was
> following
> another
> way and
> another
> motivation. I
> intended
> to explain
> relativity
> on the
> basis of
> physical
> facts.
> This was
> my only
> intention
> for this
> model. All
> further
> properties
> of the
> model were
> logical
> consequences
> where I
> did not
> see
> alternatives.
> I did not
> want to
> explain
> inertia.
> It just
> was a
> result by
> itself.
> So, what
> is the
> problem? I
> have a
> model
> which
> explains
> several
> properties
> of
> elementary
> particles
> very
> precisely.
> It is in
> no
> conflict
> with any
> experimental
> experience. And
> as a new
> observation there
> is even
> some
> experimental
> evidence.
> - What
> else can
> physics
> expect
> from a
> theory? -
> The
> argument
> that the
> second
> particle
> is not
> visible is
> funny. Who
> has ever
> seen a
> quark? Who
> has ever
> seen the
> internal
> structure
> of the
> sun? I
> think you
> have a
> demand
> here which
> was never
> fulfilled
> in science.
>
> *The
> problem,
> obviously,
> is that
> the
> existence
> of the 2nd
> particle,
> as you
> have
> presented
> it, is not
> a fact,
> but a
> Wunschansatz.
> [BTW:
> "See" in
> this
> context is
> not meant
> occularly,
> but
> figuratively
> for
> experimental
> verification
> through
> any length
> of
> inferance
> chain.]
> So, my
> question
> is: what
> problem do
> you have
> with a
> virtual
> mate for
> the
> particle?
> In fact,
> it will be
> there
> whether
> you use it
> or not.*
>
> And see
> again
> Frank
> Wilczek.
> He writes:
> "By
> combining
> fragmentation
> with
> super-conductivity,
> we can get
> half-electrons
> that are
> their own
> antiparticles."
>
>
> *A "straw
> in the
> wind" but
> sure seems
> far
> fetched!
> Superconductivity
> is already
> a manybody
> phenomenon, It's
> theory
> probably
> involves
> some
> "virtual"
> notions to
> capture
> the
> essence of
> the
> average
> effect
> even if
> the
> virtual
> actors do
> not really
> exist. *
>
> *This was a
> nice
> confirmation
> in my
> understanding.
> So as the
> whole article
> of Wilczek.
> The electron
> is in fact
> enigmatic if
> one follows
> main stream.
> It looses a
> lot of this
> property if my
> model is used.
> - But even
> without this
> experimental
> hint I do not
> see any
> alternative to
> my model
> without
> severely
> violating
> known physics.**
>
> *Ciao*
> *Albrecht***
>
>
> *
>
> **
>
> Guten Abend
> Albrecht
>
> *Gleichfalls,
> Al*
>
> Have a
> good
> one! Al
>
> *Gesendet:* Samstag,
> 14.
> November
> 2015
> um
> 14:51 Uhr
> *Von:* "Dr.
> Albrecht
> Giese"
> <genmail at a-giese.de>
> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:*
> af.kracklauer at web.de
> <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
> *Cc:*
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Betreff:* Re:
> [General]
> Reply
> of
> comments
> from
> what a
> model…
>
> Hi Al,
>
> Why do
> we
> need a
> background?
> If I
> assume
> only
> local
> forces
> (strong and
> electric)
> for my
> model,
> the
> calculation
> conforms
> to the
> measurement
> (e.g.
> between mass
> and
> magnetic
> moment) with
> a
> precision
> of 2 :
> 1'000'000.
> This
> is no
> incident.
> Not
> possible,
> if a
> poorly
> defined and
> stable
> background
> has a
> measurable
> influence.
> - And
> if
> there
> should
> be
> such
> background
> and it
> has
> such
> little
> effect, which
> mistake do
> we
> make
> if we
> ignore
> that?
>
> For
> the
> competition
> of the
> 1/r^2
> law
> for
> range
> of
> charges and
> the
> r^2
> law
> for
> the
> quantity
> of
> charges we
> have a
> popular example
> when
> we
> look
> at the
> sky at
> night.
> The
> sky is
> dark
> and
> that
> shows
> that
> the
> r^2
> case
> (number of
> shining stars)
> does
> in no
> way
> compensates
> for
> the
> 1/r^2
> case
> (light
> flow
> density from
> the
> stars).
>
> Why is
> a 2
> particle
> model
> necessary?
>
> 1.)
> for
> the
> conservation
> of
> momentum
> 2.)
> for a
> cause
> of the
> inertial
> mass
> 3.)
> for
> the
> radiation
> at
> acceleration
> which
> occurs
> most
> time,
> but
> does
> not
> occur
> in
> specific
> situations.
> Not
> explained
> elsewhere.
>
> Ciao,
> Albrecht
>
> Am
> 13.11.2015
> um
> 20:31
> schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de
> <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>:
>
> Hi
> Albrecht:
>
> Your
> proposed
> experiment
> is
> hampered
> by
> reality!
> If you
> do
> the measurement
> with
> a
> gaget
> bought
> in
> a
> store
> that
> has knobes
> and a
> display,
> then
> the measurement
> is
> for certain
> for signals
> under
> a
> couple
> hundred
> GHz and
> based
> on
> some
> phenomena
> for which
> the sensitivity
> of
> man-made
> devices
> is
> limited.
> And,
> if
> limited
> to
> the electric
> field,
> then
> there
> is
> a
> good
> chance
> it
> is
> missing
> altogether
> oscillating
> signals
> by
> virtue
> of
> its limited
> reaction
> time
> of
> reset
> time,
> etc.
> etc.
> The
> vast
> majority
> of
> the background
> will
> be
> much
> higher,
> the phenomena
> most
> attuned
> to
> detecting
> might
> be
> in
> fact
> the quantum
> effects
> otherwise
> explained
> with
> mystical
> hokus-pokus!
> Also
> to
> be
> noted
> is
> that,
> the processes
> invovled
> in
> your
> model,
> if
> they
> pertain
> to
> elementray
> entities,
> will
> have
> to
> be
> at
> very
> small
> size
> and if
> at
> the velocity
> (c) will
> be
> very
> high
> energy,
> etc.
> so
> that
> once
> again,
> it
> is
> quite
> reasonable
> to
> suppose
> that
> the universe
> is
> anything
> but irrelavant!
>
>
> Of
> course,
> there
> is
> then
> the issue
> of
> the divergence
> of
> the this
> SED background.
> Ameliorated
> to
> some
> extent
> with
> the realization
> that
> there
> is
> no
> energy
> at
> a
> point
> in
> empty
> space
> until
> a
> charged
> entity
> is
> put there,
> whereupon
> the energy
> of
> interaction
> with
> the rest
> of
> the universe
> (not
> just
> by
> itself
> being
> there
> and ignoring
> the universe---as
> QM
> theorists,
> and yourself,
> are wont
> to
> do) is
> given
> by
> the sum
> of
> interactions
> over
> all particles
> not by
> the integral
> over
> all space,
> including
> empty
> space.
> Looks
> at
> first
> blush
> to
> be
> finite.
>
>
> Why fight
> it? Where
> the hell
> else
> will
> you find
> a
> credible
> 2nd particle?
>
>
> ciao,
> Al
>
> *Gesendet:* Freitag,
> 13. November
> 2015
> um
> 12:11
> Uhr
> *Von:* "Dr.
> Albrecht
> Giese"
> <genmail at a-giese.de>
> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:*
> af.kracklauer at web.de
> <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
> *Cc:*
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Betreff:* Re:
> [General]
> Reply
> of
> comments
> from
> what
> a
> model…
>
> Hi Al,
>
> if
> we
> look
> to
> charges
> you mention
> the law
> 1/r^2
> .
> Now we
> can perform
> a
> simple
> physical
> experiment
> having
> an
> electrically
> charged
> object
> and using
> it
> to
> measure
> the electric
> field
> around
> us. I
> say:
> it
> is
> very
> weak.
> Now look
> to
> the distance
> of
> the two
> half-charges
> within
> the particle
> having
> a
> distance
> of
> 4*10^-13
> m.
> This
> means
> an
> increase
> of
> force
> of
> about
> 25
> orders
> of
> magnitude
> compared
> to
> what
> we
> do
> in
> a
> lab.
> And the
> difference
> is
> much
> greater
> if
> we
> refer
> to
> charges
> acting
> from
> the universe.
> So
> I
> think
> we
> do
> not make
> a
> big mistake
> assuming
> that
> there
> is
> nothing
> outside
> the particle.
>
> Regarding
> my
> model,
> the logic
> of
> deduction
> was very
> simple
> for me:
>
> 1.) We
> have
> dilation,
> so
> there
> must
> be
> a
> permanent
> motion
> with c
> 2.) There
> must
> be
> 2
> sub-particles
> otherwise
> the momentum
> law is
> violated;
> 3
> are not
> possible
> as
> in
> conflict
> with
> experiments.
> 3.) The
> sub-particles
> must
> be
> mass-less,
> otherwise
> c
> is
> not possible
> 4.) The
> whole
> particle
> has mass
> even
> though
> the sub-particles
> are mass-less.
> So
> there
> must
> be
> a
> mechanism
> to
> cause
> inertia.
> It
> was immediately
> clear
> for me
> that
> inertia
> is
> a
> consequence
> of
> extension.
> Another
> reason
> to
> assume
> a
> particle
> which
> is
> composed
> of
> parts.
> (There
> is
> no
> other
> working
> mechanism
> of
> inertia
> known
> until
> today.)
> 5.) I
> had to
> find
> the binding
> field
> for the
> sub-particles.
> I
> have
> taken
> the simplest
> one which
> I
> could
> find
> which
> has a
> potential
> minimum
> at
> some
> distance.
> And my
> first
> attempt
> worked.
>
> That
> is
> all,
> and I
> do
> not see
> any possibility
> to
> change
> one of
> the points
> 1.) thru
> 5.) without
> getting
> in
> conflict
> with
> fundamental
> physical
> rules.
> And I
> do
> not invent
> new facts
> or
> rules
> beyond
> those
> already
> known
> in
> physics.
>
> So, where
> do
> you see
> any kind
> of
> arbitrariness
> or
> missing
> justification?
>
> Tschüß!
> Albrecht
>
> Am
> 12.11.2015
> um
> 17:51
> schrieb
> af.kracklauer at web.de
> <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>:
>
> Hi
> Albrect:
>
> We
> are
> making
> some
> progress.
>
>
> To
> your
> remark
> that
> Swinger
> & Feynman
> introduced
> virtual
> charges,
> I note
> that
> they
> used
> the
> same
> term:
> "virtual
> charge/particle,"
> in
> spite
> of
> the
> much
> older
> meaning
> in
> accord
> with
> the
> charge
> and
> mirror
> example.
> In
> the
> finest
> of
> quantum
> traditions,
> they
> too
> ignored
> the
> rest
> of
> the
> universe
> and
> instead
> tried
> to
> vest
> its
> effect
> in
> the
> "vacuum."
> This
> idea
> was
> suitably
> mystical
> to
> allow
> them
> to
> introduce
> the
> associated
> plaver
> into
> the
> folk
> lore
> of
> QM,
> given
> the
> sociology
> of
> the
> day.
> Even
> in
> spite
> of
> this
> BS,
> the
> idea
> still
> has
> merit.
> Your
> objection
> on
> the
> basis
> of
> the
> 1/r²
> fall-off
> is
> true
> but
> not
> conclusive.
> This
> fall-off
> is
> matched
> by
> a r²
> increase
> in
> muber
> of
> charges,
> so
> the
> integrated
> total
> interaction
> can
> be
> expected
> to
> have
> at
> least
> some
> effect,
> no
> matter
> what.
> Think
> of
> the
> universe
> to
> 1st
> order
> as
> a neutral,
> low-density
> plasma. I
> (and
> some
> others)
> hold
> that
> this
> interaction
> is
> responcible
> for
> all
> quantum
> effects.
> In
> any
> case,
> no
> particle
> is
> a universe
> unto
> itself,
> the
> rest
> have
> the
> poulation
> and
> time
> to
> take
> a toll!
>
>
> BTW,
> this
> is
> history
> repeating
> itself.
> Once
> upon
> a time
> there
> was
> theory
> of
> Brownian
> motion
> that
> posited
> an
> internal
> cause
> known
> as
> "elan
> vital"
> to
> dust
> specks
> observed
> hopping
> about
> like
> Mexican
> jumping
> beans.
> Ultimately
> this
> nonsense
> was
> displaced
> by
> the
> observation
> that
> the
> dust
> spots
> were
> not
> alone
> in
> their
> immediate
> universe
> but
> imbededded
> in
> a slurry
> of
> other
> particles,
> also
> in
> motion,
> to
> which
> they
> were
> reacting.
> Nowadays
> atoms
> are
> analysed
> in
> QM
> text
> books
> as
> if
> they
> were
> the
> only
> object
> in
> the
> universe---all
> others
> being
> too
> far
> away
> (so
> it
> is
> argued,
> anyway).
>
>
> Your
> model,
> as
> it
> stands,
> can
> be
> free
> of
> contradiction
> and
> still
> unstatisfying
> because
> the
> inputs
> seem
> to
> be
> just
> what
> is
> needed
> to
> make
> the
> conclusions
> you
> aim
> to
> make.
> Fine,
> but
> what
> most
> critics
> will
> expect
> is
> that
> these
> inputs
> have
> to
> have
> some
> kind
> of
> justification
> or
> motivation.
> This
> is
> what
> the
> second
> particle
> lacks.
> Where
> is
> it
> when
> one
> really
> looks
> for
> it?
> It
> has
> no
> empirical
> motivation.
> Thus,
> this
> theory
> then
> has
> about
> the
> same
> ultimate
> structure,
> and
> pursuasiveness,
> as
> saying:
> 'don't
> worry
> about
> it,
> God
> did
> it;
> go
> home,
> open
> a beer,
> pop
> your
> feet
> up,
> and
> forget
> about
> it---a
> theory
> which
> explains
> absolutely
> everything!
>
> Tschuß,
> Al
>
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag,
> 12.
> November
> 2015
> um
> 16:18
> Uhr
> *Von:* "Dr.
> Albrecht
> Giese"
> <genmail at a-giese.de>
> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:*
> af.kracklauer at web.de
> <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
> *Cc:*
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Betreff:* Re:
> [General]
> Reply
> of
> comments
> from
> what
> a model…
>
> Hi
> Al,
>
> I have
> gotten
> a different
> understanding
> of
> what
> a virtual
> particle
> or
> a virtual
> charge
> is.
> This
> phenomenon
> was
> invented
> by
> Julian
> Schwinger
> and
> Richard
> Feynman.
> They
> thought
> to
> need
> it
> in
> order
> to
> explain
> certain
> reactions
> in
> particle
> physics.
> In
> the
> case
> of
> Schwinger
> it
> was
> the
> Landé
> factor,
> where
> I have
> shown
> that
> this
> assumption
> is
> not
> necessary.
>
> If
> there
> is
> a charge
> then
> of
> course
> this
> charge
> is
> subject
> to
> interactions
> with
> all
> other
> charges
> in
> the
> universe.
> That
> is
> correct.
> But
> because
> of
> the
> normal
> distribution
> of
> these
> other
> charges
> in
> the
> universe,
> which
> cause
> a good
> compensation
> of
> the
> effects,
> and
> because
> of
> the
> distance
> law
> we
> can
> think
> about
> models
> without
> reference
> to
> those.
> And
> also
> there
> is
> the
> problem
> with
> virtual
> particles
> and
> vacuum
> polarization
> (which
> is
> equivalent),
> in
> that
> we
> have
> this
> huge
> problem
> that
> the
> integrated
> energy
> of
> it
> over
> the
> universe
> is
> by
> a factor
> of
> 10^120
> higher
> than
> the
> energy
> measured.
> I think
> this
> is
> a really
> big
> argument
> against
> virtual
> effects.
>
> Your
> example
> of
> the
> virtual
> image
> of
> a charge
> in
> a conducting
> surface
> is
> a different
> case.
> It
> is,
> as
> you
> write,
> the
> rearrangement
> of
> charges
> in
> the
> conducting
> surface.
> So
> the
> partner
> of
> the
> charge
> is
> physically
> the
> mirror,
> not
> the
> picture
> behind
> it.
> But
> which
> mirror
> can
> cause
> the
> second
> particle
> in
> a model
> if
> the
> second
> particle
> is
> not
> assumed
> to
> be
> real?
>
> And
> what
> in
> general
> is
> the
> problem
> with
> a two
> particle
> model?
> It
> fulfils
> the
> momentum
> law.
> And
> it
> does
> not
> cause
> further
> conflicts.
> It
> also
> explains
> why
> an
> accelerated
> electron
> sometimes
> radiates,
> sometimes
> not.
> For
> an
> experimental
> evidence
> I refer
> again
> to
> the
> article
> of
> Frank
> Wilczek
> in
> "Nature"
> which
> was
> mentioned
> here
> earlier:
>
> http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com:
>
>
> He
> writes:
> "By
> combining
> fragmentation
> with
> super-conductivity,
> we
> can
> get
> half-electrons
> that
> are
> their
> own
> antiparticles."
>
>
> For
> Wilczek
> this
> is
> a mysterious
> result,
> in
> view
> of
> my
> model
> it
> is
> not,
> on
> the
> contrary
> it
> is
> kind
> of
> a proof.
>
> Grüße
> Albrecht
>
> Am
> 12.11.2015
> um
> 03:06
> schrieb
> af.kracklauer at web.de
> <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>:
>
> Hi
> Albrecht:
>
> Virtual
> particles
> are
> proxys
> for
> an
> ensemble
> of
> real
> particles.
> There
> is
> nothing
> folly-lolly
> about
> them!
> They
> simply
> summarize
> the
> total
> effect
> of
> particles
> that
> cannot
> be
> ignored.
> To
> ignore
> the
> remainder
> of
> the
> universe
> becasue
> it
> is
> inconvenient
> for
> theory
> formulation
> is
> for
> certain
> leading
> to
> error.
> "No
> man
> is
> an
> island,"
> and
> no
> single
> particle
> is
> a universe!
> Thus,
> it
> can
> be
> argued
> that,
> to
> reject
> the
> concept
> of
> virtual
> particles
> is
> to
> reject
> a facit
> of
> reality
> that
> must
> be
> essential
> for
> an
> explantion
> of
> the
> material
> world.
>
> For
> example,
> if
> a positive
> charge
> is
> placed
> near
> a conducting
> surface,
> the
> charges
> in
> that
> surface
> will
> respond
> to
> the
> positive
> charge
> by
> rearranging
> themselves
> so
> as
> to
> give
> a total
> field
> on
> the
> surface
> of
> zero
> strength
> as
> if
> there
> were
> a negative
> charge
> (virtual)
> behind
> the
> mirror.
> Without
> the
> real
> charges
> on
> the
> mirror
> surface,
> the
> concept
> of
> "virtual"
> negative
> charge
> would
> not
> be
> necessary
> or
> even
> useful.
>
>
> The
> concept
> of
> virtual
> charge
> as
> the
> second
> particle
> in
> your
> model
> seems
> to
> me
> to
> be
> not
> just
> a wild
> supposition,
> but
> an
> absolute
> necessity.
> Every
> charge
> is,
> without
> choice,
> in
> constant
> interaction
> with
> every
> other
> charge
> in
> the
> universe,
> has
> been
> so
> since
> the
> big
> bang
> (if
> such
> were)
> and
> will
> remain
> so
> till
> the
> big
> crunch
> (if
> such
> is
> to
> be)!
> The
> universe
> cannot
> be
> ignored.
> If
> you
> reject
> including
> the
> universe
> by
> means
> of
> virtual
> charges,
> them
> you
> have
> a lot
> more
> work
> to
> do
> to
> make
> your
> theory
> reasonable
> some
> how
> else.
> In
> particular
> in
> view
> of
> the
> fact
> that
> the
> second
> particles
> in
> your
> model
> have
> never
> ever
> been
> seen
> or
> even
> suspected
> in
> the
> various
> experiments
> resulting
> in
> the
> disasssmbly
> of
> whatever
> targert
> was
> used.
>
>
> MfG,
> Al
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Avast logo
> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
> Diese
> E-Mail
> wurde von
> Avast
> Antivirus-Software
> auf Viren
> geprüft.
> www.avast.com
> <http://www.avast.com>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Avast logo
> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
> Diese E-Mail
> wurde von
> Avast
> Antivirus-Software
> auf Viren
> geprüft.
> www.avast.com
> <http://www.avast.com>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no
> longer wish to
> receive
> communication
> from the
> Nature of
> Light and
> Particles
> General
> Discussion
> List at
> richgauthier at gmail.com
> <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to
> unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Avast logo
> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von
> Avast
> Antivirus-Software auf
> Viren geprüft.
> www.avast.com
> <http://www.avast.com>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Avast logo
> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast
> Antivirus-Software auf Viren
> geprüft.
> www.avast.com
> <http://www.avast.com>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151210/12cc92b5/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list