[General] Reply of comments from what a model…
Dr. Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Fri Nov 13 03:11:28 PST 2015
Hi Al,
if we look to charges you mention the law 1/r^2 . 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:
> 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" <genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
> *Cc:* 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-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>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/20151113/1b9a847f/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list