[General] Reply of comments from what a model…
Dr. Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Sun Nov 15 14:05:04 PST 2015
Hi Chip,
thank you for your interesting question.
I do not have a detailed model for the process of decay. At least there
is no direct consequence coming out of the 2 particle model.
The decay is a specific aspect of the conservation laws in particle
physics. These laws follow some ad hoc assumptions of quantum theorists
about specific conservation of something which could be kind of charges.
Such conservation law in this case is the conservation of the lepton
number. In more detail the conservation of the electron number, the muon
number, and the tauon number, which includes the corresponding
neutrinos. This is formalized in the way that a muon decay is assumed
to look like this:
muon -> electron + muon-neutrino + electron-antineutrino. In the scope
of my model these conservation processes apply to the 2 basic particles
which carry these properties.
Now one can assume that the process above can also go on in this way:
muon + electron-neutrino -> electron + muon-neutrino . It conserved
both types of leptons. This reaction can in practise not be
distinguished from the one above as the neutrinos are not visible in a
normal experiment. Their existence occurs only in the momentum / energy
calculation.
Now the process of decay can be described in the following way: A muon
(as an example) exists until an electron-neutrino hits the muon. Then
the basic particles of the muon are converted into basic particles of an
electron. The probability of this decay is given by the probability that
a free moving electron-neutrino meets the muon.
This is of course a bit speculative. But it could work. It could be
tested if a muon could be submitted to environments with a different
density of electron-neutrinos. I am not sure that this will be possible.
An electron cannot decay because of energy reasons. No lighter lepton
than an electron exists.
Do you find these considerations reasonable?
Albrecht
Am 13.11.2015 um 22:17 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> Hi Albrecht
>
> I have a question for you, because I might learn something from your
> explanation.
>
> Is there a specific cause which makes the electron so stable and the
> Muon and Tau unstable which is illustrated by your model?
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *af.kracklauer at web.de
> *Sent:* Friday, November 13, 2015 1:32 PM
> *To:* phys at a-giese.de
> *Cc:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…
>
> Hi Albrecht:
>
> Your proposed experiment is hampered by reality! If you do the
> measurement with a gaget bought in a store that has knobes and a
> display, then the measurement is for certain for signals under a
> couple hundred GHz and based on some phenomena for which the
> sensitivity of man-made devices is limited. And, if limited to the
> electric field, then there is a good chance it is missing altogether
> oscillating signals by virtue of its limited reaction time of reset
> time, etc. etc. The vast majority of the background will be much
> higher, the phenomena most attuned to detecting might be in fact the
> quantum effects otherwise explained with mystical hokus-pokus! Also
> to be noted is that, the processes invovled in your model, if they
> pertain to elementray entities, will have to be at very small size and
> if at the velocity (c) will be very high energy, etc. so that once
> again, it is quite reasonable to suppose that the universe is anything
> but irrelavant!
>
> Of course, there is then the issue of the divergence of the this SED
> background. Ameliorated to some extent with the realization that
> there is no energy at a point in empty space until a charged entity is
> put there, whereupon the energy of interaction with the rest of the
> universe (not just by itself being there and ignoring the
> universe---as QM theorists, and yourself, are wont to do) is given by
> the sum of interactions over all particles not by the integral over
> all space, including empty space. Looks at first blush to be finite.
>
> Why fight it? Where the hell else will you find a credible 2nd particle?
>
> ciao, Al
>
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 13. November 2015 um 12:11 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,
>
> 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> <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>
> <genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>,
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto: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>
> <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 <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 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>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
---
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/20151115/38a8b48a/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list