[General] Reply of comments from what a model…
Dr. Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Thu Nov 12 05:51:05 PST 2015
Hi David,
thanks for your response. But, which kind of comments do you like?
Regarding magnetism: There are no magnetic particles. For magnetism
there is a nice video from veritasium. I recommend to anyone who is
interested in magnetism to view this video. It is very much entertaining
and even though physically correct.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0
As far as I know, the electron theory of Paul Dirac which magnetic
monopoles. (That is what I have read.) That confuses me a lot because
at the time of Dirac the origin of magnetism was already understood.
Where do you see a requirement for the generation of magnetic particles?
There are electric particles (like the electron) and when such particle
has an internal motion / oscillation, it has necessarily magnetism as a
consequence of special relativity.
I do not see any connection to dark matter or dark energy. According to
my model, dark matter are in fact photons. This can be quantitatively
confirmed if we assume that gravity is not caused by mass. (Look at
www.ag-physics.org/gravity ).
Dark energy is in my view a very simple phenomenon. If we accept that in
former times the speed of light c did have a slightly greater value,
then the result of Doppler evaluation is that the old supernovae did
have a higher speed, and there is no acceleration to be assumed.
Best
Albrecht
Am 11.11.2015 um 19:12 schrieb davidmathes8 at yahoo.com:
> Albrecht
>
> Having read your papers, I like the particle model comments!
>
> As to the second, I'm wondering in what context or universe magnetic
> particles might emerge. Perhaps these are not fundamental particles at
> present. Could they be part of dark matter or energy...not likely.
>
> So if there is no elementary monopole, Dirac's symmetric approach to
> charge falls apart. I'm wondering what Dirac would have thought of
> today's asymmetries, asymptotic freedom and CP violations.
>
> Best
>
> David
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Dr. Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de>
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 11, 2015 2:54 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…
>
> Hi,
>
> some few comments from my side.In green.
>
> Am 09.11.2015 um 19:36 schrieb davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
> <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>:
>> John H
>>
>>
>> Since some folks see red when I write, I'll use red for comments
>> below
>>
>> David
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Hodge John <jchodge at frontier.com>
>> <mailto:jchodge at frontier.com>
>> *To:* "davidmathes8 at yahoo.com"
>> <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
>> <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>;
>> "general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> *Sent:* Monday, November 9, 2015 9:28 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> I’ve been thinking of the next layer for a while now. I think
>> I’ve gone as far a my model will allow for the photon. Like
>> you, my current speculation is that there is a more
>> elementary particle (I call it a hod). Because photons have
>> different energy levels, photons are assemblies of hods. As I
>> mention before, elementary particles should be assemblies of
>> photons. I’m finding I have to do some (a lot) of research on
>> elementary particles. An electron may have the same number of
>> hods (energy) in a different structure.
>>
>> On a personal note, I worked a few summers to pay for college
>> as a hod carrier supporting brick layers and concrete
>> finishers in the dry desert climate of Arizona where during
>> August, the temperature cools off to 95F (35C) and peaks at
>> 115F (46.1 C).
>>
>> The analogy is the periodic table. Initially the periodic
>> table was derived from organizing chemical properties. Later
>> the reason for the organization was modeled aby the nuclear
>> structure and particle properties. Likewise, we can classify
>> the meson octet, the baryon octet and the triangular decuplet
>> and the substructure of the triancle relationships. What kind
>> of hod structure (better photon structure) can produce these
>> relations? That is I’m looking for “structure” as in building
>> blocks for the elementary particles.
>>
>> Any suggestions? As the periodic table suggests, we don’t
>> have to know all the essentials of elementary particles -
>> only enough to get started.
>>
>> I like the two particle electron model (Albrecht?) I have
>> wondered how to modify the one particle models (or wave
>> models) using two particles.
>>
>> Three particle structures are difficult to think about.. That
>> is only the beginning of issues though. The eightfold way or
>> sixtet structure of triangle like particles might find a home
>> in SUSY and E8 which at least provide some mathematical
>> basis. Dark matter/energy solutions need to be read...
>>
> A model with three particles is not possible. It was thoroughly
> attempted to decompose particles like the electron by bombardment.
> It was not possible. It would have been possible for a particle
> built by three constituents. It would also be possible for
> particles built by two constituents in the case that the
> constituents would have individual mass (in contrast to my model).
>
> A model with only one particle is in my view also not possible as
> it violates the conservation of momentum. A single object can
> never oscillate.
>>
>>
>> A theory of quantum gravitation is of no help. No evidence of
>> gravitational waves so far, so nature is more subtle than we
>> can measure.
>>
>> I’m unsure I’m taking your comment correctly. I think the
>> standard scientists approach is to try to “fit” the
>> observations to the theory rather than to find a model to
>> explain the observations. As I mentioned, this results in
>> some weird ad hoc thinking (dark matter, Huygens-Fresnel,
>> etc.). The good news for physicists, the need then is to
>> expand (cost) the equipment and the testing. So the
>> mainstream has a fear of anything with a speed > /c./
>> Whereas, thinking of new model involves thinking which
>> requires less funding. Indeed, we are doing that now. Maybe
>> that is why Einstein in 1905 was a patent clerk (outside the
>> mainstream).
>> I'm unsure of some of my comments as well.
>>
>> The scientist or research engineer does try to fit
>> observation to theory. However, there seems to be no shortage
>> of theories these days. Given numerous theories for the same
>> set of observations, one could do a bit of reverse science or
>> reverse engineering and see what theory - with attendant
>> modeling and simulation - fits observation. Even if a number
>> of models fit, like a suit, some models will feel comfortable
>> and other will need tailoring.
>>
>> I think the hod carries electric field. I don’t have a model
>> for magnetism except it must be some action by free hods
>> (bound hods are photons and particles). Indeed, why are there
>> only 2 charges (+ and -)? It may imply something about the
>> structure of hods.
>> Why only two charges...don't know. Push and pull on a
>> geodesic with any off-geodesic not within the light cone...?
>>
>> Magnetism is probably more interesting. It's everywhere and
>> yet ignored. We have the B-field in the photon, the electron
>> moves and induces a B-field, and then there are quarks...? An
>> electron, proton or neutron has a magnetic moment. One would
>> expect a quark to have one simply based on charge...does it?
>> Do sub-elementary particles have E or B charge?
>>
> We do not have to care about magnetism when we think about
> particle models. Nature has electric charges but no magnetic
> charges. I have explained it earlier that magnetism is a
> relativistic side effect of the electric field, so only a
> perspective of the electric field seen from a certain state of
> motion. It is a bit analogue to the Coriolis force.
>
> So, if there is magnetism possible, it appears by itself. We do
> not have to model it.
>
> Best
> Albrecht
>>
>>
>> In the case of the spherical cow, er, electron, a
>> sub-elementary particle may be traversing a spacetime volume
>> within a spacetime( various torus models also). So charge
>> might arise from the the change in pressure between two
>> spacetimes.
>>
>> Whatever the philosophy of science, the place science has in
>> our society must be useful to help humans survive. This
>> implies prediction of observations must take center stage.
>> This means humans must be able to model nature. Therefore,
>> the simpler and more inclusive model is better.
>> Whether one's philosophy of mankind is to survive or thrive,
>> simple often means approximating to the minimum point where
>> engineers can do something (corollary to Occam's razor)
>>
>> Hodge
>> Best
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, November 8, 2015 6:01 PM, "davidmathes8 at yahoo.com"
>> <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
>> <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> John H
>>
>> For the walking drops, I agree that if EM is not part of the
>> solution, there most likely will be major issues.
>>
>> Yes, there appears to be another level to the particle-wave
>> universe underneath the elementary particle layer. Can we
>> distinguish whether the electron is photonc or quanta, or did
>> the photon morph, transmute or transform into something other
>> than a photon. My gut says all of us should be hammering on
>> building another layer. At the same time, this won't happen
>> from the photonic electron but require an understanding of
>> quarks and perhaps neutrinos and gluons. And that conjecture
>> is based on the assumption that we know the essentials of
>> elementary particles to do so.
>>
>> As a useful tool for physicists, Popper falsification allows
>> some heavy filtering of ideas, conjectures and musings. My
>> view is that falsification by one experiment raises the bar
>> fairly high but does not permanently block that line of
>> reasoning no matter how ill conceived, conjectured or even
>> fantasized which is more of a mathematicians approach. A lot
>> more rigorous work will be required to refute falsification
>> of an experiment.
>>
>> Statistically, if the experiment has been done correctly and
>> not misinterpreted, the odds and therefore the risk of
>> repeating the experiment go up if only for research budget
>> purposes. In order to challenge a falsification, the history
>> and context of assumptions, and boundary conditions need to
>> be clearly understood for the experiment, the theory the
>> experiment is testing, and the equipment being used.
>>
>> Can we falsify whether it's EM or E&M? The physicists seem to
>> say EM while the engineer says E&M. The simple fact is that
>> under certain conditions E and M are closely coupled. There
>> are two views that are possible: EM and E&M. EM is one,
>> united and inseparable. The other is that E&M are to be
>> treated as separable and closely coupled under certain
>> conditions (photon) . Now, both views rely on the same
>> equations whether they be the Maxwell 20 (original), Maxwell
>> Heaviside (4), Dirac symmetric version- or Barrett extensions
>> - SU(N). Each can be expressed mathematically by in vector,
>> tensor, differential or quaternion forms.
>>
>> Given that a mainstream approach seriously limits inquiry by
>> a fear of exceeding the speed of light, the uncertainty of
>> measurement, and the strong doubt cast by the shadow of
>> Popper falsifiability, one is left to wonder if physicists
>> have painted themselves and the rest of science into a corner.
>>
>> What is puzzling to me is that Dirac equations predicted
>> successfully antimatter (positron) but to date, the monopole
>> has not emerged in experiments. Can the monopole be
>> falsified? Can the quark?
>>
>> Then again, despite various theories, for elementary
>> particles there remains one key question..."what is the
>> source of charge".
>>
>> Essentially, an experimenter "...has got to know their
>> limits." (Clint Eastwood, Dirty Harry).
>>
>> "Subtle is the Lrd." A Einstein
>>
>> YMMV
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Hodge John <jchodge at frontier.com>
>> <mailto:jchodge at frontier.com>
>> *To:* "general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, November 8, 2015 11:05 AM
>> *Subject:* [General] Reply of comments from what a model…
>>
>> David
>> Thanks for the thought.
>> You seem to be more familiar with Popper than I. I
>> thought Popper dealt with “refutation” in connection with
>> models and ability to be falsified as being a requirement
>> for a model to be a “scientific”. If evolution cannot be
>> falsified, then wouldn’t Popper consider it not a
>> science? But evolution did predict fossils of evolving
>> species would be found.
>> A single experiment is enough to reject a (hypothesis)
>> theory within some domain. Both quantum mechanics and
>> cosmology reject each other in the domain of a ToE. The
>> comment was trying to suggest that the inability of a
>> model to explain an experiment within the domain that the
>> model is supposed to apply is cause for rejection. A
>> “null” result is a “no test” done result. For example,
>> Galileo tried to find parallax in stars to support the
>> heliocentric model. He had a null result that resulted in
>> some trouble with the Church. More accurate equipment in
>> the 1830s finally saw parallax and heliocentricism was
>> accepted. The same is true in the case of the
>> Michelson–Morley**experiment.
>> (see also John W comment where he agrees with David) The
>> deviations from expectaion in experiments have lead to
>> finding several emergent properties of nature. Indeed,
>> deviation for expectation causes the postulate of hidden
>> variables rather than suggesting lack of a proper model.
>> Further, the finding of data that is poorly explained is
>> an indication of the need for a new model. Sometime the
>> new data is so radical, a complete rethink is needed.
>> Until that is done, ad hoc additions are made such as
>> Dark Energy, Dark Mass, inflation, etc and models become
>> very complex. So, I suggest, simplification is needed but
>> simplification usually requires redefinition of what is
>> basic.
>> I’m unsure of your interpretation of the Uncertainty
>> Principle as an experimental error. I had understood the
>> photoelectric effect measurement of energy vs frequency
>> (slope /h/) to have steps in the linear relationship. The
>> idea of steps suggests the quanta and the non-existence
>> of an inbetween state. The measurement was well within
>> the experimental error. That is it’s not so much a tool
>> limit as a fundamental existence limit.
>> Richard
>> Thanks
>> In my opinion, our instruments detect matter not the
>> waves. The waves in the fluid is the fluid of the
>> underlying tension of the molecules.
>> I think the matter photon is guided by the pilot wave. If
>> you are you using “wave function” to mean the probability
>> energy density, probability functions don’t “guide”.
>> However, I suggest (and I think Bohm does, too) the the
>> pilot wave is real and the \Psi ^* \Psi is a
>> characteristic of the pilot wave and not a probability
>> function. The nest step is to suggest what the \Psi^* is
>> in reality. Photons need a property of coherence for
>> diffraction to occur. The nature of coherence is unknown.
>> I suggest the Bohm interpretation is suggesting photons
>> do require guidance to the screen if an interference
>> pattern is noted. At least in my model pilot waves exist
>> (are real) for both electrons and photons.
>> John W
>> The Bohm Interpretaion was under discussion a bit ago.
>> The statement about source was directed to the Bohm
>> model. Certainly, other models have similar problem with
>> the source of their action and particularity where is the
>> energy for the interaction coming from or does the
>> interaction involve no net gain or loss.
>> I like the idea of a single entity in an experiment at a
>> time or, at least, one entity beyond the mask. However, I
>> allow the possibility that the determination of one
>> entity in the experiment at a time could be the result of
>> averaging of a pulse with fewer pulses.
>> I think you are using “dimension” to mean mathematical
>> parameters. I use “dimension” to mean real special
>> extents (limit 3). I’m unsure how to classify time. At
>> any special point there could be scalar or vector or
>> tensor values mathematically. However, I like the scalar
>> model because the forces can be vectors (tensor) through
>> divergence. The electromagnetic comments beg the question
>> “What are the basic constituents of the universe? Simpler
>> but yet complete is better. I suggest a continuous and
>> matter like Bohm. What are your basic? I’m left with
>> explaining electromagnetism with the interaction of the 2
>> components.
>> Although the walking drop analogy is limited, it does
>> produce the interference pattern. So the question becomes
>> what characteristics of the walking drop observations
>> produce diffraction - energy input need not be one of
>> them. If the walking drop doesn’t involve
>> electromagnetism, I think a model based on
>> electromagnetism has difficulty.
>> “Space” can have no mass - the boat and water were
>> analogies in the classical realm.
>> The y and y* were translated incorrectly. They were meant
>> to be \Psi and \Psi*. However, You hit on the same
>> realization I did - that the \Psi* is just the part of a
>> standing wave in the Transaction Interpretation of the
>> wave returning to the source (the particle) rather than
>> the future wave manifest in the present. This could
>> provide the Bohm requirement of “reality” to the \Psi.
>> Please provide a reference for your / Martin’s paper to
>> which you are referring.
>> Although I haven’t read you paper, perhaps my experiment
>> in my last paper is such an example. It is if it relies
>> upon Huygens-Fresnel.
>> Thanks for your comments.
>> Hodge
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
>> Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
>> davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
>> <a
>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
>> Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
>> davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
>> <a
>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
> Light and Particles General Discussion List at
> davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
---
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/20151112/ebe81ac4/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list