[General] research papers
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Sat Nov 7 12:59:12 PST 2015
I agree with kracklauers comment about isolation
and would like to add, although coming in late, that i believe
Albrecht's model of rotating strong charges also generates mass which
would then be coupled to the rest of the universe if Machs Principle is
correct.
I would like to emphasize the importance of keeping the properties of
the observer always in mind. The visualization of two particles rotating
is always happening in a background space that must be identified as the
imagination or mind space supplied by you the reader of this sentence.
Confusing ones own visualization space required to experience any part
of a theory with reality produces errors. Like insisting there is a pole
and probably Santa Clause at the north pole just because such a pole is
required to support a globe model of the earth. Einstein made a similar
mistake when he developed the Special Relativity.
Real isolation is only possible if the background space, the page on
which the rotating charges are drawn, is NOT part of the theory.
space is generated by the material from which your coordinate frames are
built. There is no empty box out there in which things happen. That box
is your mind which is hosted in your material.
wolf
Please Note: I will be ot of the office from Nov. 14 to Dec. 10
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 11/7/2015 7:23 AM, af.kracklauer at web.de wrote:
> Hi Albrecht:
> The main objection, not just mine, would be that two particles
> orbiting each other are never really alone. The whole universe in the
> stage on which their dance takes place. It cannot be turned off!
> Much of the universe is very distant, but this compensated by the
> fact that the further away one considerers, the more
> matter/universe/charges there are, and it adds up. Thus if the the two
> are emitting "something," then to remain in equilibrium that likewise
> have to be absorbing something. In the end, what we have here then is
> two charges, that is, every pair of charges in which any one charge of
> interest is involved, will be mutually "interacting" just as Gauss
> (but with delay) found in the first place. This can be seen then, as
> the most basic statement that can be made about E&M interaction. In
> consequence, "photons" and "waves" are imaginary constructs to help
> describe this Gaussian interaction. Mystical, contradictory
> characteristics of these paradigms are irrelevant. What has to be
> selfconsistent is/are the mutual coupled equations of motion with
> delay. Problem is: differential-delay equations are relatively
> seldom, in comparison to ordiary coupled differential equaitons,
> studied. In addition, of course, this mutual intereaction in the
> theory has to be augmented with something to account for the rest of
> the uinverse---the something is surely the machinery of QM. So, what
> the Physics world needs, is a fully manifestly covariant set of
> mutually coupled WAVE equations. All currently discussed wave
> equations fail on one or another of the criteria. Mostly, they are
> not mutually interacting, one paticle is a small statillite orbiting a
> large entity but not affecting it.
> best, Al
> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 07. November 2015 um 14:58 Uhr
> *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de, "Albrecht Giese" <phys at a-giese.de>
> *Cc:* "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>, "Nature of Light
> and Particles - General Discussion"
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, "Joakim Pettersson"
> <joakimbits at gmail.com>, "Ariane Mandray" <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] research papers
> Hi Al,
>
> I share your concern about continuous emission. But I think that this
> concern does not apply to a simple model of charged particles not
> being photons. If e.g. two charges or two charged objects orbit each
> other in free space where there is no else interaction, this
> configuration does not consume any energy, so it should orbit forever.
> If these two charges would be at rest, there would be a static field
> around this configuration. If the charges circle around each other,
> then this field is a changing field. The field is generally able to
> interact with other charges (however it will not interact as long as
> this configuration is alone in space). As this field propagates into
> all directions (normally with c) it will cause an alternating field
> which looks like a wave. Of course this field can interact with other
> charges which react back to the particle configuration. In this way a
> guiding effect is possible. And when this happens, there can be of
> course an exchange of energy.
>
> Do you have any problems with this view?
>
> Regards, Albrecht
>
> Am 04.11.2015 um 17:35 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>
> Hi Albrecht:
> You are qutie correct, when focusing on the historically pure
> story. What deBroglie himself did was too "huristic" to make
> real good sense---I seem to recall reading somewhere that he
> himself said as much. The deBroglie wave I tend to ralk about is
> the version I used to rationalize QM. It's different from the
> origional deBroglie wave, but I can't get myself to call it the
> Kracklauer wave (although I am unaware of any competing priority
> claims). Further, the modifications actually pertain virtually
> exclusively to the palaver and not the math involved. In the mean
> time, others, including yourself, have come up with similar
> explantions (not really new models) for the original form.
> In any case, I find serious fault only with those models that
> require continious emission as they don't explain where the energy
> for such a process comes from. Upon reflection, it seems im fact
> that this objection pertains to all photon and wave models of
> light in general.
> regards, Al
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 04. November 2015 um 16:52 Uhr
> *Von:* "Albrecht Giese" <phys at a-giese.de>
> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
> *Cc:* "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>, "Nature of
> Light and Particles - General Discussion"
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, "Joakim Pettersson"
> <joakimbits at gmail.com>, "Ariane Mandray" <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>
> *Betreff:* Re: Aw: Re: [General] research papers
> Hi Al,
> I think that you meet the point quite well. However, the
> restriction which we both see on the de Broglie wave does not
> follow from the deduction done by de Broglie. For him this
> "ficticious wave" is not related to an interaction but accompanies
> the particle all the time. And otherwise it would not have been
> logical for Schrödinger to incorporate de Broglie's Ansatz into
> his wave function.
> Tschüß
> Albrecht
>
>
> Von meinem iPad gesendet
>
> Am 04.11.2015 um 07:33 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>
> Hi Albrecht & readers:
> Seems to me that your resolution (proposed) for the problem
> you have with deBroglie waves actually points at the reason
> there is no problem. The key: deBroglie waves are a
> characteristic of the interaction of the particle with other
> particles, not an intrinsic property of only the particle. In
> this sense it "worls" in (better put: with respct to) in all
> frames, as the "other" particles can be in any frame. There
> is no reason to demand that it be Lorentz invariant. Doing so
> is mechanically applying a notion without regard for its
> originor or function.
> The drawback (as I see it) to your "reflection-conception" is
> that it requires the primary particle to be continiously
> emmiting waves (to get reflected) without providing (so far at
> least) an energy source for this continious emission.
> Tuschss, Al
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 03. November 2015 um 17:58 Uhr
> *Von:* "Albrecht Giese" <phys at a-giese.de>
> *An:* "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* "(af.kracklauer at web.de)" <af.kracklauer at web.de>, "Nature
> of Light and Particles - General Discussion"
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, "Joakim
> Pettersson" <joakimbits at gmail.com>, "Ariane Mandray" &
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151107/d9144970/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list