[General] Reply of comments from what a model…
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Thu Dec 10 11:58:59 PST 2015
Hi John,
who should have a 4-momentum? Not clear to me.
Albrecht
Am 10.12.2015 um 08:40 schrieb John Williamson:
> Hi Albrecht,
>
> Yes, did he not say that it would only be in agreement if there was no
> 4-momentum in them? That they have zero energy-momentum is just the
> same as saying that they are, effectively, not there at all.
>
> Cheers, John.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Albrecht Giese [genmail at a-giese.de]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 09, 2015 9:41 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…
>
> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
---
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/20151210/c401aec3/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list