[General] Reply of comments from what a model…

Albrecht Giese genmail at a-giese.de
Sat Nov 21 08:32:54 PST 2015


Hello Richard,

I am a bit confused how badly my attempted explanations have reached you.

I have NOT used the Bohr magneton to determine the radius R of an 
electron. I deduced the radius directly from the measured magnetic 
moment using the classical equation for the magnetic moment.

For the binding force of the sub-particles I needed a multipole field 
which has a potential minimum at a distance R_0 . The simplest shape of 
such a field which I could find was for the force F:
F = S * (R_0 - R) /R^3 . Here R_0 is of course the equilibrium distance 
and S the field constant. I wanted to refer to an existing field of a 
proper strength, and that could only be the strong force. Then I had to 
determine the field constant S which is normally provided by 
experiments. But quantum mechanics is so unprecise regarding the numeric 
value of the strong force that there is no number available in the data 
tables. Here I found that I could use the Bohr magneton to determine the 
constant. (Which turned out to be S = hbar*c, merely a constant).

 From the equation for F given above the inertial mass of the particle 
follows from a deduction which is given on my website: 
www.ag-physics.org/rmass   . Too long to present it here, but straight 
and inevitable. Here the result again: m = S / (R * c^2 ) .

If you are unsatisfied by my deduction of this field, what is about the 
van der Waals forces which bind atoms to build a molecule? Did van der 
Waals have had a better way of deduction in that case? I think that the 
fact that the von der Waals forces act so as observed, is enough for the 
physical community to accept them.

And you ask for an independent calculation of S which I should present 
in your opinion. Now, Is there anyone in physics or in astronomy who can 
present an independent calculation of the gravitational constant G?  No, 
nobody can calculate G from basic assumptions. Why asking for more in my 
case? I think that this demand is not realistic and not common 
understanding in physics.

And again: where is circular reasoning?

Best regards
Albrecht


Am 20.11.2015 um 23:02 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
> Hello Albrecht,
>
>     Thanks for your detailed response.  I think the key problem is in 
> your determination of your “field constant” S which you say describes 
> the "binding field" for your two particles. This definition of S is 
> too general and empty of specific content as I understand that it 
> applies to any "binding field” at any nuclear or atomic or molecular 
> level.   With your 2-particle electron model you then calculate the 
> radius R=hbar/mc from the Bohr Magneton e*hbar/2m,  assuming the 
> values of m, e, h and c. . Then you calculate S from the Bohr magneton 
> and find it to be S=c*hbar. You then calculate m from the equation 
> m=S/(R*c^2).  How can a binding field S be described by such a 
> universal term hbar * c ?  That’s why I think that your derivation is 
> circular.  You use the Bohr magneton e*hbar/2m to calculate R and S, 
> (using the Bohr magneton) and then you use R and S to calculate m. 
>  You have no independent calculation of S except from the Bohr 
> magneton. That’s the problem resulting in circularity.
>
>     with best regards,
>         Richard
>
>> On Nov 20, 2015, at 1:09 PM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de 
>> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>>
>> Hallo Richard,
>>
>> I find it great that we have made similar calculations and came at 
>> some points to similar conclusions. That is not a matter of course, 
>> as you find in all textbooks that it is impossible to get these 
>> results in a classical way, but that in the contrary it needs QM to 
>> come to these results.
>>
>> Here now again the logical way which I have gone: I assume the 
>> circular motion of the elementary electric charge (2* 1/2 * e_0 ) 
>> with speed c. Then with the formula  (which you give here again) M = 
>> i*A one can conclude A from the measured magnetic moment. And so we 
>> know the radius to be R = 3.86 x 10^-13 m for the electron. No 
>> constants and no further theory are necessary for this result. I have 
>> then calculated the inertial mass of a particle which turns out to be 
>> m = S / (R * c^2 ) where the parameter S describes the binding field. 
>> I did initially have no knowledge about the quantity of this field. 
>> But from the mass formula there follows for the magnetic moment: M= 
>> (1/2)*(S/c)*(e /m). To this point I have not used any knowledge 
>> except the known relation for the magnetic moment. Now I look to the 
>> Bohr magneton in order to find the quantity of my field constant 
>> S:    M= (1/2)*hbar*(e /m). Because the Planck constant has to be 
>> measured in some way. For doing it myself I would need a big machine. 
>> But why? Basic constants never follow from a theory but have to be 
>> measured. I can use such a measurement, and that tells me for my 
>> field constant S = c*hbar (from Bohr magneton). So, where do you see 
>> circular reasoning?
>>
>> Now I have no theory, why specific elementary particles exist. Maybe 
>> later I find a way, not now. But now I can use the (measurable) 
>> magnetic moment for any particle to determine the radius, and then I 
>> know the mass from my formula. This works for all charged leptons and 
>> for all quarks. Not good enough?
>>
>> And yes, the Landé factor. Not too difficult. In my deduction of the 
>> mass I have used only the (initially unknown) constant S for the 
>> field. Which I assume to be the strong field as with the electric 
>> field the result is too small (by a factor of several hundred). The 
>> only stronger alternative to the electrical force is the strong 
>> force, already known. Is this a far-fetched idea? But I have in this 
>> initial deduction ignored that the two basic particles have an 
>> electrical charge of e/2 each, which cause a repelling force which 
>> increases the radius R a bit. With this increase I correct the result 
>> for e.g. the magnetic moment, and the correction is quite precisely 
>> the Landé factor (with a deviation of ca. 10^-6 ).
>>
>> So, what did I invent specially for my model, and which parameters do 
>> I use from others? I have assumed the shape of the binding field as 
>> this field has to cause the bind at a distance. And I have used the 
>> measurement of the Planck constant h which other colleagues have 
>> performed. Nothing else. I do not have do derive the quantity e as 
>> this is not the task of a particle model. If e could be derived (what 
>> nobody today is able to do), then this would follow from a much 
>> deeper insight into our physical basics as anyone can have today.
>>
>> The fact of two constituents is a necessary precondition to obey the 
>> conservation of momentum and to support the mechanism of inertia. I 
>> do not know any other mechanism which works.
>>
>> Where do I practice circular reasoning?
>>
>> Best regards
>> Albrecht
>>
>>
>> Am 18.11.2015 um 15:42 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>> Hello Albrecht,
>>>
>>>    Let’s look at your listed assumptions of your electron model in 
>>> relation to the electron’s magnetic moment. It is known that the 
>>> magnitude of the electron’s experimental magnetic moment is slightly 
>>> more than the Bohr magneton which is Mb = ehbar/2m = 9.274 J/T in SI 
>>> units. Your 2-particle model aims to generate a magnetic moment to 
>>> match this Bohr magneton value (which was predicted for the electron 
>>> by the Dirac equation) rather than the experimental value of the 
>>> electron’s magnetic moment which is slightly larger. The standard 
>>> equation for calculating the magnetic moment M of a plane current 
>>> loop is  M = IA for loop area A and current I. If the area A is a 
>>> circle and the current is a circular current loop I around this 
>>> area, whose value I is calculated from a total electric charge e 
>>> moving circularly at light speed c (as in your 2-particle electron 
>>> model) with a radius R, a short calculation will show that if the 
>>> radius of this circle is R = hbar/mc = 3.86 x 10-13 m (the reduced 
>>> Compton wavelength corresponding to a circle of circumference one 
>>> Compton wavelength h/mc), then this radius R for the current loop 
>>> gives a magnetic moment M = IA = Bohr magneton ehbar/2m . I have 
>>> done this calculation many times in my electron modeling work and 
>>> know that this is the case. The values of h and also e and m of the 
>>> electron have to be known accurately to calculate the Bohr magneton 
>>> ehbar/2m .  When the radius of the circular loop is R=hbar/mc, the 
>>> frequency f of the charge e circling the loop is easily found to be 
>>> f=c/(2pi R)= mc^2/h , which is the frequency of light having the 
>>> Compton wavelength h/mc.
>>>
>>> So the current loop radius R=hbar/mc that is required in your 
>>> 2-particle model to derive the Bohr magneton ehbar/2m using M=IA 
>>> obviously cannot also be used to derive either of the values h or m 
>>> since these values were used to calculate the Bohr magneton ehbar/2m 
>>> in the first place. So your model cannot be used to derive any of 
>>> the values of e, h or m, and seems to be an exercise in circular 
>>> reasoning. Please let me know how I may be mistaken in this conclusion.
>>>
>>> with best regards,
>>>      Richard
>>>
>>>> On Nov 18, 2015, at 2:03 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de 
>>>> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Al,
>>>>
>>>> I completely disagree with your conclusions about the motivation 
>>>> towards my model because my intention was not to develop a particle 
>>>> model. My intention was to develop a better understanding of time 
>>>> in relativity. My present model was an unexpected consequence of 
>>>> this work.  I show you my arguments again and ask you to indicate 
>>>> the point where you do not follow.
>>>>
>>>> Am 17.11.2015 um 19:18 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>>>>> Hi Albrect:
>>>>> Comments² *IN BOLD*
>>>>> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 17. November 2015 um 18:41 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,
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> *See No. 11 (or 1) @ www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com   for 
>>>>> suggetions and some previous work along this line.*
>>>> *Thank you, will have a look.*
>>>>>
>>>>>     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?
>>>>> *The fly in the ointment is absorbtion.  An inf. universe with 
>>>>> absorbtion in the visible part of the spectrum will still have a 
>>>>> largely dark sky. *
>>>> *And the other way around: Even if there is no absorption, the sky 
>>>> will be dark. And the general opinion is that, even if there is a 
>>>> lot of radiation absorbed, this absorbing material will heat up by 
>>>> the time and radiate as well. So an absorption should not change 
>>>> too much.*
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the conflict with Mach's principle?
>>>>> *Mach says: the gravitational "background radiation" is the cause 
>>>>> of inertia. This effect is parallel to the SED bacground causing 
>>>>> QM effects. Conflict: if Olber is right, then Mach is probably 
>>>>> wrong (too weak).*
>>>> *In my understanding, what Mach means is completely different. 
>>>> Mach's intention was to find a reference system which is absolute 
>>>> with respect to acceleration. He assumed that this is caused by the 
>>>> stars in our vicinity. He did not have a certain idea how this 
>>>> happens, he only needed the fact. (Einstein replaced this necessity 
>>>> by his equivalence of gravity and acceleration - which however is 
>>>> clearly falsified as mentioned several times.)*
>>>>>
>>>>>     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?
>>>>> *These assumtions are "teleological,"  i.e., tuned to give the 
>>>>> desired results.  As logic, although often done, this manuver is 
>>>>> not legit in the formal presentation of a theory.  For a physics 
>>>>> theory, ideally, all the input assuptios have empirical 
>>>>> justification or motivation.  Your 2nd partical (modulo virtual 
>>>>> images) has no such motivatin, in fact, just the opposite. *
>>>> *My logical way is just the other way around. I had the plan to 
>>>> work on relativity (the aspects of time), not on particle physics. 
>>>> The particle model was an unplanned spin-off.   I shall try to 
>>>> explain the logical path again:
>>>>
>>>> _1st step:_ I have calculated the 4-dimensional speed of an object 
>>>> using the temporal part of the Lorentz transformation. The 
>>>> surprising fact was that this 4-dim. speed is always the speed of 
>>>> light. I have then assumed that this constant shows a permanent 
>>>> motion with c in a particle. I have accepted this as a probable 
>>>> solution, but I have never assumed this, before I had this result. 
>>>> It was in no way a desired result. My idea was to describe time by 
>>>> a vector of 3 of 4 dimensions. - I have then **no further 
>>>> **followed this idea.
>>>> _2nd step:_ If there is some motion in the particle, it cannot be 
>>>> caused by one constituent. This is logically not possible as it 
>>>> violates the conservation of momentum. Also this was not a desired 
>>>> result but logically inevitable.
>>>> _3rd step:_ If the constituents move with c, then they cannot have 
>>>> any mass. Also this was not a result which I wished to achieve, but 
>>>> here I followed my understanding of relativity.
>>>> **_*4th *__step:_ The size must be such that the resulting 
>>>> frequency in the view of c yields the magnetic moment which is 
>>>> known by measurements.
>>>> _5th step:_ I had to find a reason for the mass of the electron in 
>>>> spite of the fact that the constituents do not have any mass. After 
>>>> some thinking I found out the fact that any extended object has 
>>>> necessarily inertia. I have applied this insight to this particle 
>>>> model, and the result was the actual mass of the electron, if I 
>>>> assumed that the force is the strong force. It could not be the 
>>>> electric force (as it was assumed by others at earlier times) 
>>>> because the result is too weak.
>>>>
>>>> None of the results from step 1 thru step 5 was desired. Every step 
>>>> was inevitable, because our standard physical understanding (which 
>>>> I did not change at any point) does not allow for any alternative. 
>>>> - _Or at which step could I hav__e had an alternative in your opinion?
>>>>
>>>> _And btw: which is the stringent argument for only one constituent? 
>>>> As I mentioned before, the experiment is not an argument. I have 
>>>> discussed my model with the former research director of DESY who 
>>>> was responsible for this type of electron experiments, and he 
>>>> admitted that there is no conflict with the assumption of 2 
>>>> constituents._
>>>> _*
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> *Mystical thinking is indeed a major problem even in Physics! 
>>>>>  But,  some of the objectiors to a 2nd particle are not basing 
>>>>> their objection of devine revelation or political correctness. *
>>>>>
>>>>>     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.
>>>>> *The problem, obviously, is that the existence of the 2nd 
>>>>> particle, as you have presented it, is not a fact, but a 
>>>>> Wunschansatz.  [BTW:  "See" in this context is not meant 
>>>>> occularly, but figuratively for experimental verification through 
>>>>> any length of inferance chain.]  So, my question is: what problem 
>>>>> do you have with a virtual mate for the particle?  In fact, it 
>>>>> will be there whether you use it or not.*
>>>>>
>>>>> And see again Frank Wilczek. He writes: "By combining 
>>>>> fragmentation with super-conductivity, we can get half-electrons 
>>>>> that are their own antiparticles."
>>>>> *A "straw in the wind" but sure seems far fetched! 
>>>>>  Superconductivity is already a manybody phenomenon,  It's theory 
>>>>> probably involves some "virtual" notions to capture the essence of 
>>>>> the average effect even if the virtual actors do not really exist. *
>>>> *This was a nice confirmation in my understanding. So as the whole 
>>>> article of Wilczek. The electron is in fact enigmatic if one 
>>>> follows main stream. It looses a lot of this property if my model 
>>>> is used. - But even without this experimental hint I do not see any 
>>>> alternative to my model without severely violating known physics.
>>>>
>>>> Ciao
>>>> Albrecht
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>> **
>>>>>
>>>>> Guten Abend
>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>> *Gleichfalls,  Al*
>>>>>
>>>>>     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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 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 richgauthier at gmail.com
>>>> <a 
>>>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>> </a>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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/20151121/74715950/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list