[General] Reply of comments from what a model…

Dr. Albrecht Giese genmail at a-giese.de
Thu Nov 12 07:18:01 PST 2015


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-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&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:
> 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
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 11. November 2015 um 22:37 Uhr
> *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de, general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…
> Hi Al,
>
> if we think in categories of a virtual image, then we are in my 
> understanding fully on the path of present main stream QM. I have 
> understood that we all want to do something better than that.
>
> Regarding virtual phenomena I would like to remind you again of the 
> history of such ideas. In the 1940ies Julian Schwinger has introduced 
> vacuum polarization (which is equivalent to virtual particles 
> according to Feynman) to determine the Landé factor for refining the 
> Bohr magneton. This was the birth of it.
>
> On the other hand I have shown that I can deduce the Bohr magneton as 
> well as the Landé factor in a classical way if I use my particle 
> model. And that is possible and was done on a pure classical way. For 
> me this is a good example that we can do things better than by QM. In 
> particular I try to have correct results without using any virtual 
> objects.
>
> Back to your question: If we build a particle model on a classical 
> basis then there is no place for a virtual image, and so I see the 
> need for two sub-particles.
>
> Ciao, Albrecht
>
>
> Am 11.11.2015 um 17:27 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>
>     *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 11. November 2015 um 11:54 Uhr
>     *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
>     *An:* 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
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     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 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>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>



---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151112/fe3526de/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list