[General] Reply of comments from what a model…
Dr. Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Tue Nov 17 09:41:34 PST 2015
Hi Al,
again some responses.
Am 14.11.2015 um 18:24 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
> Hi Albrecht:
> Answers to your questions:
> 1) The SED background explains the Planck BB distribution without
> quantization. It explans why an atom doesn't collapse: in equilibrium
> with background, In fact, just about every effect described by 2nd
> quantization has an SED parallel explantion without additional
> considerations. With the additional input of the SED origin of
> deBroglie waves, it provides a direct derivation of the Schröedinger
> eq. thereby explainiong all of 1st Quantization.
Maybe you achieve something when using SED background. I do not really
understand this background, but I do not see a stringent necessity for
it. But SED as an origin to the de Broglie waves is of interest for me.
I am presently working on de Broglie waves to find a solution, which
does not have the logical conflicts which we have discussed here.
> 2) Olber's logic is in conflict with Mach's Principle, so is obviously
> just valid for visible light. Given a little intergalacitc plasma (1
> H/m³), not to mention atmossphere and interplanatary plama, visible
> light disappears to Earthbound observers at visitble freqs to reappear
> at other, perhaps at 2.7° even, or at any other long or hyper short
> wave length. 'The universe matters'---which is even politically
> correct nowadays!
Olber's logic is simple in so far, as it shows that the universe cannot
be infinite. I have assumed the same for all background effects. Or are
they infinite?
What is the conflict with Mach's principle?
> 3) The (wide spread) criticism of 2 particles is that there is neither
> an /a-priori/ intuative reason, nor empirical evidence that they
> exist. Maybe they do anyway. But then, maybe Zeus does too, and he
> is just arranging appearances so that we amuse ourselves. (Try to
> prove that wrong!)
I have explained how I came to the conclusion of 2 sub-particles. Again:
1) There is motion with c in an elementary particle to explain dilation
2) With only on particle such process is mechanically not possible, and
it violates the conservation of momentum
3) In this way it is the only working model theses days to explain
inertia. And this model explains inertia with high precision. What more
is needed?
I know from several discussions with particle physicists that there is a
lot of resistance against this assumption of 2 constituents. The reason
is that everyone learn at university like with mother's milk that the
electron is point-like, extremely small and does not have any internal
structure. This has the effect like a religion. (Same with the
relativity of Hendrik Lorentz. Everyone learns with the same fundamental
attitude that Lorentz was nothing better than a senile old man how was
not able to understand modern physics.) - Not a really good way, all
this.
> 4) It is ascientific to consider that the desired result is
> justification for a hypothetical input. OK, one can say about such
> reasoning, it is validated /a posteriori/, that at least makes it
> sound substantial. So much has been granted to your "story" but has
> not granted your story status as a "physics theory." It has some
> appeal, which in my mind would be enhansed had a rationalization for
> the 2nd particle been provided. That's all I'm trying to do. When
> you or whoever comes up with a better one, I'll drop pushing the
> virtual particle engendered by the background. Maybe, it fixes too
> many other things.
My history was following another way and another motivation. I intended
to explain relativity on the basis of physical facts. This was my only
intention for this model. All further properties of the model were
logical consequences where I did not see alternatives. I did not want to
explain inertia. It just was a result by itself.
So, what is the problem? I have a model which explains several
properties of elementary particles very precisely. It is in no conflict
with any experimental experience. And as a new observation there is even
some experimental evidence. - What else can physics expect from a
theory? - The argument that the second particle is not visible is funny.
Who has ever seen a quark? Who has ever seen the internal structure of
the sun? I think you have a demand here which was never fulfilled in
science.
And see again Frank Wilczek. He writes: "By combining fragmentation with
super-conductivity, we can get half-electrons that are their own
antiparticles."
Guten Abend
Albrecht
> Have a good one! Al
> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 14. November 2015 um 14:51 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,
>
> 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:
>
> 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>
> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
> *Cc:* 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>
> *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
>
---
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/20151117/5de4ddb5/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list