[General] Reply of comments from what a model…

Fri Nov 13 03:35:46 PST 2015

Dear Albrecht,

You asked, so I will answer. I think you are managing to fool yourself. You have had to, to keep your initial postulate, invent several rules not found in other physics. Comments below.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Dr. Albrecht Giese [genmail at a-giese.de]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 11:11 AM
To: af.kracklauer at web.de
Cc: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Subject: Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…

Hi Al,

if we look to charges you mention the law 1/r2. 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

ok

2.) There must be 2 sub-particles otherwise the momentum law is violated; 3 are not possible as in conflict with experiments.

Not so .. there must be at least two elements for a wave, indeed, but it does not need to be two "particles". In ordinary textbook EM for example,there are six field components. Six is enough!

Also 2 particles are just as much in conflict with experiment as are 3! As I have said before.

3.) The sub-particles must be mass-less, otherwise c is not possible

Mass-less means they must be made of something other than "particles". No? What then?

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.)

This is absolutely right. So you can either invent a mechanism to give inertia (outside of physics) - or reject the initial hypothesis that there are two particles.

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.

You need a force, indeed, to confine your postulate of two particles. So you can either invent a new force (outside of physics) - or reject the initial hypothesis that there are two particles.

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?

The point you go into the mist is the initial step of demanding the only way to conserve momentum is to have two objects (true) and that the only kind of object allowed is a particle (not true in my view). I think even if it were true one is still just left with the problem of explaining just what the (now two) particles are.

Tschüß!
Albrecht

Regards, John.

Am 12.11.2015 um 17:51 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de<mailto: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><mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>
An: af.kracklauer at web.de<mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
Cc: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto: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 <UrlBlockedError.aspx> af.kracklauer at web.de<mailto: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" <UrlBlockedError.aspx> <genmail at a-giese.de><mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>
An: af.kracklauer at web.de<UrlBlockedError.aspx>, general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<UrlBlockedError.aspx>
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<mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>:

Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. November 2015 um 11:54 Uhr
Von: "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <UrlBlockedError.aspx> <genmail at a-giese.de><mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>
An: 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

________________________________
[Avast                                                           logo] <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 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>

________________________________
[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>

________________________________
[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>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151113/54f37eed/attachment.htm>