[General] Reply of comments from what a model…
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Sun Nov 22 13:17:57 PST 2015
Dear John,
now in green:
Am 20.11.2015 um 08:24 schrieb John Williamson:
> Dear Albrecht,
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* General
> [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> on behalf of Albrecht Giese [genmail at a-giese.de]
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 19, 2015 9:36 PM
> *To:* Chip Akins
> *Cc:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…
>
> Hi Chip,
>
> abstractions are indeed an interesting matter.However I see some
> criteria to judge about the degree of abstraction of something we talk
> about. I shall try to explain my view in your text.
>
> Am 17.11.2015 um 15:10 schrieb Chip Akins:
>>
>> Hi Albrecht
>>
>> Thank you for your comments.
>>
>> In all our work there are many things which could be called
>> abstractions. I think it is a matter of our individual perceptions
>> which causes us to believe certain things are abstract while other
>> similar things are not abstract to us.
>>
>> The concept of energy for example. For me this is a very abstract
>> thing. Energy seems to me to be the motion (propagation) of a
>> disturbance of a specific magnitude through the medium of space. The
>> properties (tension, moduli) of space cause such a disturbance to be
>> pushed away (rejected), from one position in space as that position
>> renormalizes and the disturbance is passed on… etc. This action is
>> what we have seen in other media to be wave action.
>>
> May I start with a simple example, of how I see the different degrees
> of abstraction?
>
> Assume a stone. That is more an object, not an abstraction in my
> understanding. I can touch the stone, I can put it into a box, or take
> it out and put it into another box. Or I can use an adhesive to glue
> it to the ground. The stone has properties like a colour, a weight, a
> temperature. Those are real abstractions in my view. We cannot glue
> the temperature to the ground or glue the colour onto the ground, or
> the weight.
>
> And it can have energy. That is also an abstraction which cannot be
> taken in the hand or thrown off.
>
> Ok
>>
>> Because matter is made of energy, E=mc^2 , and we can see that energy
>> propagates linearly through space at the speed of light, many
>> physicists have imagined, in various ways, that matter also is made
>> of energy propagating at the speed of light.
>>
> Here I would like to object. You cannot transport energy in my
> understanding.
>
> Sorry - I just do not think this is true. If you heat one bit of your
> stone, the energy will transport itself around the stone - without
> actual stone particles moving. Are you serious about your
> understanding of energy?
*No, the energy does not move even in this case. In the hot part the
molecules of the stone are oscillating.**By the contact between the
molecules this motion, which is identical to the energy, is transferred
to the other molecules. This way the energy is transported. The energy
itself is no object.
*
> **
> You can transport an object which has energy.
>
> This is a very very simple and restricted view of the available
> possibilities - in my view.
>>
>> If that is actually what matter is physically, then it is not an
>> abstract but a physical process we are discussing. The binding
>> force(s) which would hold matter together, in such a physical (not
>> abstract) system, would be a bit difficult to isolate and verify,
>> because we can see from nature that there are only two stable
>> configurations for that(those) force(s), the electron and the
>> proton. And those particles are so small that this force would be a
>> bit difficult to study.
>>
> For matter I do presently not have an idea whether it is abstract.
>
> For me, it is not enough to profess simple blindness here. If you wish
> to be blind that is ok. I would like to try to see.
*I did not want to fix physical facts by linguistic arguments. In my
view, matter is a collection of objects.*
>
> I think that his word has so many meanings that it is difficult to
> assign it. Forces are abstract, we cannot put a force into a box.
>
> Dear Albrecht, everything human is abstract, words are abstract. So
> what? Force is what you feel. Reality is maybe not real - maybe we are
> just atavars in some computer program- trying to understand that
> program from within. So what? we need anyway to base our understanding
> on the properties we perceive - and that IS such things as force- the
> base, elementary rules of the allowed processes available to us. One
> does not further understanding by making stuff up not perceived and
> not measured, such as un-observed paired "particles", and presumed
> (but un-observed) extra forces. This IS mystification!
*Of course one can relativise everything. But does this help us? A stone
is more an object than a force. We cannot see a force, we see or measure
certain effects and we assign them to a force. That can be very
reasonable. But it does not change th**e fact that a force is abstract
(not an object).*
*What do we observe directly? No one has ever seen a Up-quark. But
nobody these days questions their existence as the calculatio**ns using
these quarks have good results. Similar with the second particle. *
>
> Which type of thing is an electron or a proton? Here I would also say
> that it is an object as again: I can put an electron into a box, a
> proton as well (which may in practise be difficult as those objects
> are very small). But this view may change if we have a better
> understanding of what it is.
>
> I have made single electron "boxes". Experimented on the single
> electrons in those boxes. Believe me, they do not look a bit like
> small stones! They do not look like small, point charges either.
> Sorry! You can think this if you like - but it is simply not so.
*You can transport an electrical charge from one object to the other
one. And then the charge resides there. You cannot do this with a force
or a field.*
>
> Look - if you want to have a theory of stones made from smaller stones
> - ad infinitum - that is fine and seems a popular method in many
> theories. At the end of the day, however - one is always left with
> having to explain just what the small stones are made of. The answer
> "smaller stones" just does not really solve the problem. Ever. If you
> want to do that it is fine by me - but please count me out because I
> think it is a bit futile and a complete waste of time and energy.
*What you describe (and refuse) is exactly the so called reductionist's
view of the world. And in my understanding this way of going on is the
common sense of present science. The alternative (i.e. holism) is
generally not understood to be science.
*
> **
>> **
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> I think that is where we are. And if that is the case then yes you
>> can bind that energy (which manifests itself to us as a wave) to
>> something. Waves are not abstract. Waves are real. /Waves have
>> momentum/. The relationship is often stated as L = E/c for light.
>> And we can see that waves traveling through space cause the “abstract
>> thing” we call fields. But the actions of fields are real, the
>> physical consequences are real.
>>
> For energy I have already said that in my view this is abstract. I can
> transport an object having energy, but not the energy itself.
>
> Albrecht you can keep saying this again and again, but saying it does
> not make it true!
*See the example of the stone. Was a good one to explain it.*
>
> And a wave? In my view also an abstract. A wave is a property of
> something different. A property of a field if the field changes. But
> even the field is more an abstraction than an object.
>>
>> Space is a medium through which energy can travel. It is likely that
>> energy propagates through space in a manner which causes stresses in
>> space so that the energy can be propagated as a wave. It is also
>> possible (and I feel it is likely) that those stresses and flows of
>> space as energy passes are the cause of the fields we sense. It is
>> not difficult to imagine then that energy may move through space
>> linearly as light, or in a “vortex” or soliton wave which is
>> circular. We can see physical analogies for such motion in wind and
>> water. So I would say that it is not unreasonable to consider that
>> energy in space could, under the right circumstances, move in a
>> circle with the “forces” perfectly balanced. This would involve
>> momentum of the energy against a “twist” force.
>>
> What is space? I think that space is a very complicated thing.
>
> Obviously.
>
> The original understanding (in history) was that space is nothing
> than the emptiness which gives objects the possibility to move.
> Nothing to touch. Space does not move. It was Einstein's "merit" to
> give space properties like contraction or curvature. But if we look
> what Einstein did in detail, then we see that Einstein has used space
> properties as a mathematical tool to solve the equation c + v = c,
> which is not solvable by normal mathematics.
>
> Albrecht, Einstein did not use "abnormal" mathematics. It is only
> quadratic for heavens sake. How far back do you want to go?
*I should have said "geometry". With Euclidean geometry the equation
above cannot be solved. So Einstein invented a different one, which is
more complicated. But in no way necessary. *
>
> If the physicists would have followed the relativity of Hendrik
> Lorentz (which I find much better by a lot of reasons), then no
> physicist these days would assume specific properties of "space".
>
> On the contrary, Lorentz proposed precisely that the contraction was
> with respect to absolute space - or am I wrong?
*No, not wrong at this point. Lorentz always assumed an absolute space.
And the advantage of it is that we can maintain with Euclid. Contraction
in his view was the contraction of fields. Oliver Heaviside found in
1888 that (electrical) fields contract at motion against the absolute
space. FizGerald and Lorentz concluded that objects contract at motion.
That was contraction for them, and Special Relativity based on this (and
on the internal motion with c) results in an SRT which is much simpler
to understand and much more physical than the one of Einstein. - And
this is dramatically more the case for GRT.*
>>
>> If we use this approach it seems we can understand what a particle
>> is. My quest is to understand what “particles” are and why they
>> behave exactly as they do.
>>
>> Therefore your two envisioned particle model just does not get me any
>> closer to my goal. That is not to say your model is without merit.
>> I have learned quite a bit studying your model. I have understood
>> while studying your model how to calculate the inertial mass a
>> particle using my model would exhibit. And then by applying that to
>> the electron and integrating, it is precisely the value required to
>> accelerate the electron. Exactly the inertial mass of the electron.
>>
> Why not assume that a particle, an electron, is a configuration of
> charges? That of course emphasizes that a charge is not an
> abstraction. The latter is not really for sure. We could follow two
> approaches: 1.) we can assume that charge is the property of
> something; then charge is an abstraction; or 2.) we can assume that if
> an object does not have any other properties than charge, we
> understand charge as an object.
>
> If you start with charge - you will never understand it. Your approach
> means you are accepting that you will understand neither charges, nor
> the "particles" you put in a-priori - nor the forces you need to stick
> them together. This is fine, of course, if that is what you want - but
> it is not for me.
S*o, what is more fundamental than a charge? ... Sounds to me like the
world of Ptolemy: The complic**ated facts are the basic ones**.*
>
> I find both reasonable approaches. And the one or the other is the
> basis of my model. And to come back to my statement at the start: I
> can take a charge - or a charged object - and put in into one box or
> move it from one box into the other one. Many years ago I have given
> lessons to young boys and girls who wanted to learn electronics. I
> have shown them a little experiment where I have demonstrated how a
> charge can be moved. From this view, it is not an abstract.
>
> If you want to move charges - just rub a balloon on a cat!
*As I wrote, I hav**e demonst**rated this in a lesson for fundamentals
of electronics. **And you move a field f**rom one box to the other
one**? Without moving a charge? Right? **Plea**se de**monstrate!**
**
**Albrecht
*
>>
>> Thank you for communicating your vision. It has been inspiring.
>>
>> Chip
>>
> Thank you for your interest and your initiative for this little
> discussion.
>
> Albrecht
>>
>> *From:*Dr. Albrecht Giese [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de]
>> *Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2015 3:16 PM
>> *To:* Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com>; 'Nature of Light and
>> Particles - General Discussion'
>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…
>>
>> Hi Chip,
>>
>> thanks for your proposals. I have inserted some comments into the text.
>>
>> Am 14.11.2015 um 17:13 schrieb Chip Akins:
>>
>> Hi Albrecht
>>
>> What if, for purposes of conjecture, we replace your two
>> “particles” in the electron, with an EM wave which has a
>> wavelength of twice the circumference?
>>
>> How can you bind a wave to something? That sounds very strange to me.
>> In the vicinity of a charge we can feel a force. It is an abstraction
>> to call this situation a field. And if this field changes with time
>> and propagates into the space, we call it a wave. You cannot bind a
>> wave to something, so as you cannot bind the wind to a tree.
>>
>> What we can bind is the charge which is the cause of the field and of
>> a wave. And a wave cannot build a spin. As a comparison, a squirl in
>> the air or in the water can build an angular momentum. But that has
>> to do with the air or the water. The squirl without air or water,
>> which is a pure abstraction, cannot cause any binding forces. Similar
>> to an electric wave apart from a charge.
>>
>> An EM wave is an electric field which is modulated and which
>> propagates. The magnetic part of it is, as discussed here before,
>> nothing than an impression which we have of the electric field. A
>> relativistic side effect. Similar to the Coriolis force which is as
>> well an impression (i.e. also a seeming side effect, but in this case
>> not relativistic).
>>
>> So we should talk about real things and that are charges in my
>> understanding.
>>
>> And now let us consider that the “binding force” which holds this
>> wave in a circular confinement is the same “force” which causes
>> spin angular momentum in light. The EM “wave” would have the
>> negative portion always away from the center for the electron,
>> and the confinement of the wave causes a curvature in (divergence
>> of) the E field which in turn would be the cause for the
>> appearance of the elementary charge.
>>
>> It seems that such a model would 1) conserve momentum, 2) cause
>> inertial mass /(because of confined momentum and the speed of
>> light velocity limit)/, and 3) radiate when accelerated under
>> most circumstances /(except gravitational acceleration, if
>> gravity is simply the diffraction of waves.)/
>>
>> How do you think to accelerate an abstract wave?
>>
>> If you understand this wave as a cause of inertial mass, can you
>> present a quantitative calculation of the mass which is the result of
>> this effect? - I can do it for my model with high precision (see below).
>>
>> If gravity is a case of diffraction, or better of refraction, then
>> there is an object refracted or a moving charge, but not a wave.
>>
>> If we do this, we have an electron model which consists of /just
>> one item/ and explains (it seems) the same things that your model
>> explains, but without the need for two entities within this
>> elementary particle.
>>
>> As a wave cannot have a momentum it will not violate the conservation
>> of momentum, true, but it cannot build anything than mathematical
>> equations.
>>
>> The reason for posing this question is that there is no
>> experimental evidence that the electron is comprised of two
>> particles. However there is much evidence that it is a single
>> thing comprised of energy.
>>
>> I say it again: There is evidence for two sub-particles. And I refer
>> again to the experiment described by Frank Wilczek where two halves
>> of an electron have been observed:
>>
>> http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com
>>
>> And there is NO evidence of a "single thing" if investigated in
>> relation to my model (having mass-less constituents).
>>
>> And another evidence (an indirect one): Only an object built by two
>> constituents (as a minimum) can have inertia. We all know that the
>> Higgs model does not work for inertia. And my model using 2
>> sub-particles yields the mass of e.g. the electron with an accuracy
>> of 1 : 500'000. Do you know any model which yields results of this
>> accuracy? -
>> I do not know any else model for this, and am presenting this model
>> since 15 years on conferences all over the world, and there have been
>> no objections.
>>
>> Best
>> Albrecht
>>
>>
>> Chip
>>
>> *From:*General
>> [<mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>> *On Behalf Of *Dr. Albrecht Giese
>> *Sent:* Saturday, November 14, 2015 7:52 AM
>> *To:* af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
>> *Cc:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…
>>
>> Hi Al,
>>
>> Why do we need a background? If I assume only local forces
>> (strong and electric) for my model, the calculation conforms to
>> the measurement (e.g. between mass and magnetic moment) with a
>> precision of 2 : 1'000'000. This is no incident. Not possible, if
>> a poorly defined and stable background has a measurable
>> influence. - And if there should be such background and it has
>> such little effect, which mistake do we make if we ignore that?
>>
>> For the competition of the 1/r^2 law for range of charges and the
>> r^2 law for the quantity of charges we have a popular example
>> when we look at the sky at night. The sky is dark and that shows
>> that the r^2 case (number of shining stars) does in no way
>> compensates for the 1/r^2 case (light flow density from the stars).
>>
>> Why is a 2 particle model necessary?
>>
>> 1.) for the conservation of momentum
>> 2.) for a cause of the inertial mass
>> 3.) for the radiation at acceleration which occurs most time, but
>> does not occur in specific situations. Not explained elsewhere.
>>
>> Ciao, Albrecht
>>
>>
>> Am 13.11.2015 um 20:31 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>>
>> 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"
>> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de><genmail at a-giese.de>
>> *An:* <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>af.kracklauer at web.de
>> *Cc:*
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>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
>> <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>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"
>> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de><genmail at a-giese.de>
>> *An:* <UrlBlockedError.aspx>af.kracklauer at web.de
>> *Cc:*
>> <UrlBlockedError.aspx>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>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
>> <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>af.kracklauer at web.de:
>>
>> Hi Albrecht:
>>
>> Virtual particles are proxys for an ensemble of real
>> particles. There is nothing folly-lolly about them!
>> They simply summarize the total effect of particles
>> that cannot be ignored. To ignore the remainder of
>> the universe becasue it is inconvenient for theory
>> formulation is for certain leading to error. "No man
>> is an island," and no single particle is a universe!
>> Thus, it can be argued that, to reject the concept
>> of virtual particles is to reject a facit of reality
>> that must be essential for an explantion of the
>> material world.
>>
>> For example, if a positive charge is placed near a
>> conducting surface, the charges in that surface will
>> respond to the positive charge by rearranging
>> themselves so as to give a total field on the surface
>> of zero strength as if there were a negative charge
>> (virtual) behind the mirror. Without the real
>> charges on the mirror surface, the concept of
>> "virtual" negative charge would not be necessary or
>> even useful.
>>
>> The concept of virtual charge as the second particle
>> in your model seems to me to be not just a wild
>> supposition, but an absolute necessity. Every charge
>> is, without choice, in constant interaction with
>> every other charge in the universe, has been so since
>> the big bang (if such were) and will remain so till
>> the big crunch (if such is to be)! The universe
>> cannot be ignored. If you reject including the
>> universe by means of virtual charges, them you have a
>> lot more work to do to make your theory reasonable
>> some how else. In particular in view of the fact
>> that the second particles in your model have never
>> ever been seen or even suspected in the various
>> experiments resulting in the disasssmbly of whatever
>> targert was used.
>>
>> MfG, Al
>>
>> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 11. November 2015 um 22:37 Uhr
>> *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese"
>> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de><genmail at a-giese.de>
>> *An:*
>> <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>af.kracklauer at web.de,
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from what
>> a model…
>>
>> Hi Al,
>>
>> if we think in categories of a virtual image, then we
>> are in my understanding fully on the path of present
>> main stream QM. I have understood that we all want to
>> do something better than that.
>>
>> Regarding virtual phenomena I would like to remind
>> you again of the history of such ideas. In the
>> 1940ies Julian Schwinger has introduced vacuum
>> polarization (which is equivalent to virtual
>> particles according to Feynman) to determine the
>> Landé factor for refining the Bohr magneton. This was
>> the birth of it.
>>
>> On the other hand I have shown that I can deduce the
>> Bohr magneton as well as the Landé factor in a
>> classical way if I use my particle model. And that is
>> possible and was done on a pure classical way. For me
>> this is a good example that we can do things better
>> than by QM. In particular I try to have correct
>> results without using any virtual objects.
>>
>> Back to your question: If we build a particle model
>> on a classical basis then there is no place for a
>> virtual image, and so I see the need for two
>> sub-particles.
>>
>> Ciao, Albrecht
>>
>>
>> Am 11.11.2015 um 17:27 schrieb
>> <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>af.kracklauer at web.de:
>>
>> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 11. November 2015 um 11:54 Uhr
>> *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese"
>> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de><genmail at a-giese.de>
>> *An:*
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from
>> what a model…
>>
>> Hi Albrecht:
>>
>> You said: A model with only one particle is in
>> my view also not possible as it violates the
>> conservation of momentum. A single object can
>> never oscillate.
>>
>> I ask: Why can't a single particle oscillate
>> against, or in consort with, its own virtual
>> image. (Presuming there is charge complex
>> around---mirror in 2d, negative sphere (I think)
>> in 3d)?
>>
>> ciao, Al
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Image removed by sender. Avast logo
>> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>>
>>
>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software
>> auf Viren geprüft.
>> <http://www.avast.com>www.avast.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication
>> from the Nature of Light and Particles General
>> Discussion List at
>> <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>af.kracklauer at web.deClick
>> here to unsubscribe
>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Image removed by sender. Avast logo
>> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>>
>>
>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf
>> Viren geprüft.
>> <http://www.avast.com>www.avast.com
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Image removed by sender. Avast logo
>> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>>
>>
>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren
>> geprüft.
>> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>www.avast.com
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Image removed by sender. 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>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Image removed by sender. 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>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Image removed by sender. 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/20151122/6fb820d4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151122/6fb820d4/attachment.jpeg>
More information about the General
mailing list