[General] Reply of comments from what a model.
John Duffield
johnduffield at btconnect.com
Tue Dec 15 00:12:19 PST 2015
Count me in.
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpar
ticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: 15 December 2015 07:03
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
Subject: Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model
Dear All,
Yes, of course WvdM have thought about it. It was one of the starting points
of my thinking well before I met Martin (and his before me). This has been
the argument from many folk, even before relativity. It has been part of the
calculation of the energy in many of the classical electron models of the
early twentieth century. My goodness – look at it. Apart from taking a
standpoint of a (somehow) localized photon, Richard’s argument is based
primarily based on Newton’s laws. He is completely right – but the only
person who needs convincing of this, as far as I can see, is Albrecht.
Albrecht, however, has a good point – one does need something to set against
to account for the local forces. He proposes two particles to account for
this. I think this is progress in the wrong direction. Before one had just
one particle to explain, now one has two. Negative progress. Twice as bad as
before. Further, the resulting picture is flat contradicted by loads of
experiment. Not good. His point, however, remains.
Al is also correct. The interaction with the “rest of the universe” must be
considered. Martin and I did some calculations about this – partly in
discussion with Casimir more than a couple of decades ago. Chip has
calculated the effective forces as well. They are huge! Order of a Newton
acting on the surface of the electron. Think about the pressure! So how can
it be that Richard, Albrecht and Al all have valid points and yet are all
arguing. Diferent parts of the elephant gentlemen. Each seeing problems in
the others standpoint, but not the whole picture. To get the whole picture
you need a theory which encompasses the fields, the co-ordinates, the masses
– the charge – the spins –the forces – the interactions- the whole lot. Now
you can try using Dirac. Many have. You can try using nineteenth century
Maxwell (this is already very very good – no spins or charge though). You
could head down the road to doing QED. Welcome! They are all good theories.
All are, as Al has put it, “well ploughed”. Good luck!
Alternatively you could pile on board with helping with a new theory which,
pretty much, encompasses the lot of them and yet opens up new ground. New
solutions, new experiments, new science. Your choice.
Regards, John.
_____
From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 7:06 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model
Hi Richard
Very well done. I have run the same scenario and come to the same
conclusion. And then extended the math to relativistic acceleration of the
electron, finding it becomes an exact solution. Did W/vdM do this also?
Nice. I think it would be a good paper.
Chip
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 11:26 AM
To: Albrecht Giese <phys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de> >
Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Subject: Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model
Hello Albrecht and others,
I’ve just found a short derivation for the inertia or rest mass m of a
resting electron from the momentum mc of a circulating charged photon
modeling the electron. I’ve written up a short note at
https://www.academia.edu/19652036/The_Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia .
Here’s the abstract:
"The inertia or rest mass m of an electron, modeled as a circulating
charged photon, is simply derived from Newton’s second law F=ma , the time
rate of change of the vector momentum mc of the circulating charged photon
having the energy mc^2 of the electron, and the centripetal acceleration of
the circulating charged photon.”
Basically the proof is
M= F/a = (dp/dt)/(c^2/r) = (wp)/(w^2 r) = p/wr = (mc)/c = m
Richard
On Dec 10, 2015, at 11:49 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de
<mailto:genmail at a-giese.de> > wrote:
Hello Richard,
my comments again in your text:
Am 09.12.2015 um 07:19 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
Hello Albrecht,
Let us for the sake of argument assume that your statement “ 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). “ is correct.
But since there is no experimental evidence for an extended electron, your
argument falls apart right from the start. This is the case no matter how
many people attend your talks.
Again the following arguments for an extended electron (as well for the
other leptons, for all quarks)
1.) The extension is a precondition of relativistic dilation
2.) The extension is the cause of inertial mass (I do not know any other
cause)
3.) The extension is a precondition of the magnetic moment at a charged
particle (is otherwise not possible)
4.) The extension is a precondition of the spin (is as well otherwise not
explained).
I know very few cases in the history of physics where the evidence was so
great!
Then you write:
If you derive inertia from an occurrence of momentum, then this is circular
reasoning. As momentum without inertial is not possible.
Inertia is the quantitative measure equal to the rest mass of an object and
nothing else. Otherwise "Inertia" is just a vague word.
Inertia is the resistance against a change of the state of motion. It is
very well defined (once by Newton).
An unconfined photon traveling linearly carries momentum but has no rest
mass and therefore has no inertia.
If you want to change the motion state of a photon, which means in the case
of the photon a change or its direction, you need a force. That means
inertia by definition.
Light must be confined or self-confined to have rest-mass/inertia A charged
photon traveling helically and modeling an electron DOES have rest mass (as
calculated from the electron's relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2 =
p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 ) and therefore by definition has inertia.
The famous relation E = m*c^2 (as part of your equation above) describes a
relation between mass and energy. Originally (as derived by Einstein) in the
differential form: dE = dm * c^2. That means that a change in energy causes
a change of mass. This has no explaining power for the mechanism itself
which causes inertia. If a photon has inertia then we have to explain this
mechanism within the photon which causes the photon to be inertial.
The helical trajectory of the charged photon model may be the origin of
inertia, not a two-ghost-particle electron model. One can claim that there
is no evidence for the charged photon. But first something has to be
conceived before evidence for its existence can be found. Objects exist
first mentally as a conception or hypothesis. Then support for the
conception is sought experimentally. This is how science works and
progresses.
Science means at least as a final result that we have to find the mechanism
of a phenomenon, here of inertia. I do not see a connection between a
possible charge in a photon and the fact that a photon has inertial
behaviour. You have written in the beginning: "Otherwise "Inertia" is just
a vague word." There are all words here vague words as long as not a
mechanism or process is given. And exactly that I find missing in most of
the discussion here about inertia.
Richard
Albrecht
On Dec 8, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de
<mailto:genmail at a-giese.de> > wrote:
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*c2 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
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands> Dutch
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist> scientist
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Diderik_van_der_Waals> Johannes
Diderik van der Waals, is the sum of the attractive or repulsive forces
between <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecule> molecules (or between
parts of the same molecule) other than those due to
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond> covalent bonds, or the
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_interaction> electrostatic
interaction of <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion> ions with one another,
with neutral molecules, or with charged molecules.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-1> [1] The
resulting van der Waals forces can be attractive or repulsive.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-Van_OssAbsolom1
980-2> [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 R0. The simplest shape of such a field
which I could find was for the force F:
F = S * (R0 - R) /R3. Here R0 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 * c2) .
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 * e0) 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 * c2) 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" <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de> <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" <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de> <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/r2 law for range of charges and the r2 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 r2 case (number of shining
stars) does in no way compensates for the 1/r2 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" <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de> <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/r2. 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" <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de> <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-3oo
1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194z
ghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA
-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03
<http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3o
o1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194
zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SB
A-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com>
&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
_____
<https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
_____
<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-natureo
flightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
_____
<https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
_____
<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/20151215/57eaf035/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list