[General] Reply of comments from what a model…
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Sun Nov 22 09:43:24 PST 2015
Hello Richard,
I never have persistently tried to develop a 2-particle model. What I
have persistently tried was to find a good explanation for relativistic
dilation. And there I found a solution which has satisfied me. All the
rest including the 2 particles in my model where logical consequences
where I did not see alternatives. If there should be a model which is an
alternative in one or the other aspect, I will be happy to see it.
Am 22.11.2015 um 00:13 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
> Hello Albrecht,
>
> I admire your persistence in trying to save your doomed (in my
> opinion) 2-particle electron model.
Why 2 particles in the model? I say it again:
1) to maintain the conservation of momentum in the view of oscillations
2) to have a mechanism for inertia (which has very precise results,
otherwise non-existent in present physics)
I will be happy to see alternatives for both points. Up to now I have
not seen any.
> Do you understand how unreasonable and irrational it appears for you
> to write: "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).” ?
I have once asked one of the leading theorists at DESY for a better
quantitative explanation or determination of the strong force. His
answer: Sorry, the strong force is not good enough understood so that I
cannot give you better information.
> How could the number S that you could not find in “unprecise” tables
> about the strong force possibly be the same number that can be found
> precisely from the electron’s Bohr magneton ehbar/2m and which you
> claim is S = hbar*c ? This is an unbelievable, desperate stretch of
> imagination and "grasping at straws", in my opinion.
When I have realized that my model deduces the Bohr magneton, I have
used the measurements available in that context to determine my field
constant. (I could also go the other way: I can use the Planck /
Einstein relation E = h * f and the Einstein-relation E = m*c^2 to
determine the constant S from the internal frequency in my model. Same
result. But I like the other way better. BTW: Do you know any other
model which deduces these relations rather than using them as given?)
>
> Here is the meaning of “grasping at straws” from
> http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasp+at+straws :
>
>
> grasp at straws
>
> Also,*clutch at
> straws*.Makeadesperateattemptatsavingoneself.Forexample,/He had lost
> the argument, but he kept grasping at straws, naming numerous previous
> cases that had little to do with this
> one/.Thismetaphoricexpressionalludestoadrowningperson
> tryingtosavehimselfbygrabbingatflimsyreeds.Firstrecordedin1534,thetermwas
> usedfigurativelybythelate1600s.
>
> I am not at all opposed to using desperate measures to find or save a
> hypothesis that is very important to you. Max Planck described his
> efforts to fit the black body radiation equation using quantized
> energies of hypothetical oscillators as an "act of desperation”. So
> you are of course free to keep desperately trying to save your
> 2-particle electron hypothesis. I personally think that your many
> talents in physics could be better spent in other ways, for example in
> revising your electron model to make it more consistent with
> experimental facts.
Do you know any other electron model which is so much consistent with
experimental facts (e.g. size and mass) as this one (without needing the
usual mystifications of quantum mechanics)?
> By the way, van der Waals forces do not "bind atoms to form a
> molecule". They are attractive or repulsive forces between molecules
> or between parts of a molecule. According to Wikipedia:
>
> " the *van der Waals forces* (or *van der Waals' interaction*), named
> after Dutch <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands>scientist
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist>Johannes Diderik van der
> Waals <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Diderik_van_der_Waals>,
> is the sum of the attractive or repulsive forces between molecules
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecule> (or between parts of the same
> molecule) other than those due to covalent bonds
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond>, or the electrostatic
> interaction
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_interaction> of ions
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion> with one another, with neutral
> molecules, or with charged molecules.^[1]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-1> The
> resulting van der Waals forces can be attractive or repulsive.^[2]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-Van_OssAbsolom1980-2>
>
Yes, my arrangement of charges of the strong force causes as well a
combination of attractive and repulsive forces and is doing the same
like in the van der Waals case. That was my reason to refer to them.
Best regards
Albrecht
>
> with best regards,
> Richard
>
>
>> On Nov 21, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de
>> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>>
>> 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> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> 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>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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/20151122/4a199ee8/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list