[General] Reply of comments from what a model…
Dr. Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Mon Nov 16 13:16:10 PST 2015
Hi Chip,
thanks for your proposals. I have inserted some comments into the text.
Am 14.11.2015 um 17:13 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> Hi Albrecht
>
> What if, for purposes of conjecture, we replace your two “particles”
> in the electron, with an EM wave which has a wavelength of twice the
> circumference?
>
How can you bind a wave to something? That sounds very strange to me. In
the vicinity of a charge we can feel a force. It is an abstraction to
call this situation a field. And if this field changes with time and
propagates into the space, we call it a wave. You cannot bind a wave to
something, so as you cannot bind the wind to a tree.
What we can bind is the charge which is the cause of the field and of a
wave. And a wave cannot build a spin. As a comparison, a squirl in the
air or in the water can build an angular momentum. But that has to do
with the air or the water. The squirl without air or water, which is a
pure abstraction, cannot cause any binding forces. Similar to an
electric wave apart from a charge.
An EM wave is an electric field which is modulated and which propagates.
The magnetic part of it is, as discussed here before, nothing than an
impression which we have of the electric field. A relativistic side
effect. Similar to the Coriolis force which is as well an impression
(i.e. also a seeming side effect, but in this case not relativistic).
So we should talk about real things and that are charges in my
understanding.
>
> And now let us consider that the “binding force” which holds this wave
> in a circular confinement is the same “force” which causes spin
> angular momentum in light. The EM “wave” would have the negative
> portion always away from the center for the electron, and the
> confinement of the wave causes a curvature in (divergence of) the E
> field which in turn would be the cause for the appearance of the
> elementary charge.
>
> It seems that such a model would 1) conserve momentum, 2) cause
> inertial mass /(because of confined momentum and the speed of light
> velocity limit)/, and 3) radiate when accelerated under most
> circumstances /(except gravitational acceleration, if gravity is
> simply the diffraction of waves.)/
>
How do you think to accelerate an abstract wave?
If you understand this wave as a cause of inertial mass, can you present
a quantitative calculation of the mass which is the result of this
effect? - I can do it for my model with high precision (see below).
If gravity is a case of diffraction, or better of refraction, then there
is an object refracted or a moving charge, but not a wave.
>
> //
>
> If we do this, we have an electron model which consists of /just one
> item/ and explains (it seems) the same things that your model
> explains, but without the need for two entities within this elementary
> particle.
>
As a wave cannot have a momentum it will not violate the conservation of
momentum, true, but it cannot build anything than mathematical equations.
>
> The reason for posing this question is that there is no experimental
> evidence that the electron is comprised of two particles. However
> there is much evidence that it is a single thing comprised of energy.
>
I say it again: There is evidence for two sub-particles. And I refer
again to the experiment described by Frank Wilczek where two halves of
an electron have been observed:
http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com
And there is NO evidence of a "single thing" if investigated in relation
to my model (having mass-less constituents).
And another evidence (an indirect one): Only an object built by two
constituents (as a minimum) can have inertia. We all know that the Higgs
model does not work for inertia. And my model using 2 sub-particles
yields the mass of e.g. the electron with an accuracy of 1 : 500'000. Do
you know any model which yields results of this accuracy? -
I do not know any else model for this, and am presenting this model
since 15 years on conferences all over the world, and there have been no
objections.
Best
Albrecht
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Dr. Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 14, 2015 7:52 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,
>
> Why do we need a background? If I assume only local forces (strong and
> electric) for my model, the calculation conforms to the measurement
> (e.g. between mass and magnetic moment) with a precision of 2 :
> 1'000'000. This is no incident. Not possible, if a poorly defined and
> stable background has a measurable influence. - And if there should be
> such background and it has such little effect, which mistake do we
> make if we ignore that?
>
> For the competition of the 1/r^2 law for range of charges and the r^2
> law for the quantity of charges we have a popular example when we look
> at the sky at night. The sky is dark and that shows that the r^2 case
> (number of shining stars) does in no way compensates for the 1/r^2
> case (light flow density from the stars).
>
> Why is a 2 particle model necessary?
>
> 1.) for the conservation of momentum
> 2.) for a cause of the inertial mass
> 3.) for the radiation at acceleration which occurs most time, but does
> not occur in specific situations. Not explained elsewhere.
>
> Ciao, Albrecht
>
> Am 13.11.2015 um 20:31 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de
> <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>:
>
> 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>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>:
>
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 11. November 2015 um 11:54 Uhr
> *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <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.
> 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 <http://www.avast.com>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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>
>
---
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/20151116/9c6ee24e/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list