[General] Reply of comments from what a model…

Thu Nov 12 07:04:03 PST 2015

Hello Albrecht,

   There is a very well-known paper by Bohr, Kramers and Slater (the BKS paper) in 1924 that challenged conservation of energy and momentum in individual electron-photon reactions except on a statistical level. That hypothesis was disproved experimentally by more detailed Compton-type experiments. Bohr admitted that experiments had proved their hypothesis wrong. Obviously I am not proposing going against accepted experimental evidence. But no one has done such experiments at the sub-particle level for an electron that  am aware of, since electrons are not even supposed in standard model physics to have a sub-particle structure (except for a cloud of e-p pairs surround a bare charge). But high energy experiments DO show no evidence for a 2-particle structure of the electron as in your model.

In the double-loop photon model the value of delta x delta p (i.e. Xrms x Prms) for the circulating photon moving in a radius hbar/2mc with circulating momentum mc falls (as I recall) below the Heisenberg uncertainty principle cutoff value of hbar/2 . Perhaps this means that such a possible “violation” of conservation of momentum by a single quantum particle at this level is permitted since such a violation cannot (at least theoretically according to Heisenberg) be detected. And yes, perhaps this spatial symmetry rule doesn’t apply at this level. 

Richard

> On Nov 12, 2015, at 6:20 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:
> 
> Hello Richard,
> 
> of course you are right, physicists have to be prepared to question anything which is currently believed in physics. However:
> 
> Before we give up a physical law which is very fundamental, we should be aware of the price we have to pay. If we give up the conservation of momentum, then we give up the symmetry of space (and also Newton's 3rd law) which are the causes of this conservation. And if we give up those fundamentals, then more than 99% of what our present view of the physical world is, will be void. Is this a price you are willing to pay?
> 
> So again, you are clearly right from the fundamental view, but I think that the requirement for a single-particle model is not strong enough to give up something like spacial symmetry.  - Acceptable?
> 
> Albrecht
> 
> 
> 
> Am 11.11.2015 um 23:09 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>> Hello Albrecht,
>>     If conservation of momentum was "never ever" questioned in physics, then physicists haven’t been doing their job, which (among other things) is to continually question everything about physical laws. Physical laws (including quantum mechanics) are just a summary of what is physically believed to be the case in the physical world, based on current and past evidence. No physical law is a sacred cow and unquestionable, because it could be disproved or modified tomorrow, or later today, by new evidence to the contrary. 
>>        Richard
>> 
>>> On Nov 11, 2015, at 1:39 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello Richard,
>>> 
>>> I think that the conservation of momentum is one of the most fundamental laws in physics. It is even more fundamental than the conservation of energy. If now an object is made to move on a circuit there must be a force or something else which causes the acceleration. A second object solves this problem. - So there is in my understanding no need for an experiment as the conservation of momentum was never ever questioned in physics (to my knowledge).
>>> 
>>> You mention a double loop. Does this mean any difference?
>>> 
>>> Albrecht
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Am 11.11.2015 um 17:44 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>>> Hello Albrecht,
>>>>    Also, who has ever experimentally tested the conservation of momentum law for a single photon circulating in a double-loop at light speed in a circle of radius hbar/2mc? I think nobody.
>>>>        Richard
>>>> 
>>>>> On Nov 11, 2015, at 8:27 AM,  <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>>  
>>>>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. November 2015 um 11:54 Uhr
>>>>> Von: "Dr. Albrecht Giese" < <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>genmail at a-giese.de <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>>
>>>>> An:  <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>>> Betreff: Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…
>>>>> Hi  Albrecht:
>>>>>  
>>>>> You said:  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.
>>>>>  
>>>>> I ask:   Why can't a single particle oscillate against, or in consort with, its own virtual image. (Presuming there is charge complex around---mirror in 2d, negative sphere (I think) in 3d)? 
>>>>>  
>>>>> ciao,  Al
>>>>>  
>>>>>  <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>	
>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
>>>>>  <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>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  <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de> Click here to unsubscribe <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>_______________________________________________
>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at  <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=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 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>> 
> 
> 
> 
>   <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>	
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft. 
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151112/1719c86e/attachment.htm>