[General] Reply of comments from what a model.

Chip Akins chipakins at gmail.com
Sat Nov 14 03:27:29 PST 2015


Hi Richard

 

I have toyed with a two photon model for the electron.

If we assume that each photon has half the energy then the wavelength would
be twice as long, and to display a spin angular momentum of hbar the radius
would have to be the same as a one photon model.  Each photon would have to
wrap around the transport radius 4 times. The amplitude of each photon would
be half and they would have to rotate in the same direction to keep the
energy and forces balanced, and they would be 180 degrees out of phase about
the electron radius, “co-orbiting” each other .  This configuration would
have the tendency to naturally create a more “spherical” field to maintain
its lowest energy state.

 

Something like this set of illustrations, but spinning


 

With field lines




 

 

Photon trajectory


 



 

Chip

 

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 7:54 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: Nick Bailey <nick at bailey-family.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model


 

Hello Albrecht,

   Of your 5 listed points that you said form the basis of your
2-circling-massless-particles electron model, 4 can be covered by a model (I
am not proposing this as a viable model but there are a few doubts about
your model also) of two circling charged photons, each with energy E = 1/2
mc^2  where m is the electron’s rest mass, and each has electric charge -1/2
e . They could get their charge by circling each other.

1) There is permanent motion with c since both photons move at c.

2) There are 2 sub-particles (though experiment so far rules this out as
with your model) since the sub-particles are two circling photons.

3) Each photon is massless since a single photon having energy E = 1/2 mc^2
= hf  normally has no rest mass (as commonly understood).

4) The 2-photon system has rest mass m even though the sub particles are
massless. This is because the two photons together, each of energy E = 1/2
mc^2 and moving in opposite directions, have zero total momentum, (i.e. p
total = 0) so by the relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2  c^2 +
m^2 c^4  this means m = Etotal/c^2  so the system of 2 photons has a total
rest mass and inertia m .

 

5) There is no clear binding force for the two circling charged photons. You
invoke the strong nuclear force for binding your two particles into an
electron, but there is no experimental evidence that the strong force acts
on electrons. But you could also invoke the strong nuclear force to hold
these two circling charged photons together. Perhaps they are not circling
charged photons but circling charged gluons (which are also light-speed
particles) and so your point 5 will also be covered in this model!. So I
think that this two-looping-charged-photons-or-charged-gluons model of the
electron is just as good a model as your electron model, or even better
since photons and gluons are known particles while your two circling
particles are purely hypothetical. You’re welcome.

      Richard

 

 

 

 

On Nov 13, 2015, at 3:35 AM, John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk
<mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> > wrote:

 

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.natureoflightandparticl
es.org
<mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightand
particles.org> ] on behalf of Dr. Albrecht Giese [genmail at a-giese.de
<mailto:genmail at a-giese.de> ]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 11:11 AM
To: af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de> 
Cc: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto: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"  <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de> <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-3oo
1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194z
ghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA
-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03
<http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3o
o1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194
zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SB
A-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com>
&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
<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"  <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de> <genmail at a-giese.de>
An: af.kracklauer at web.de <x-msg://116/UrlBlockedError.aspx> ,
general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<x-msg://116/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"  <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de> <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

 


  _____  


 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 

Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
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 ataf.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>  Click
here to unsubscribe
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>  



 


  _____  


 <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> 





  _____  


 <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  <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151114/b2ce0982/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 14097 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151114/b2ce0982/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 14191 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151114/b2ce0982/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 14314 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151114/b2ce0982/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 9473 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151114/b2ce0982/attachment-0003.png>


More information about the General mailing list