[General] Reply of comments from what a model…

[Hodge John]

RichardThanksYou seem to be describing the model of a structure of photons to form an electron. I had envisioned the electron as a closed loop or 2 entwined closed loops. The problem is what determines charge?
Hodge
 


    On Monday, November 23, 2015 1:43 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com> wrote:
 

 Hello Albrecht,
    I’m glad that you say that developing a 2-particle model of the electron was not your main interest. I think it will be useful to see what parts of your model may be saved, and what parts may have to go, to get a working model in progress for the electron which most of us here might agree on. First, since there is no generally accepted evidence of a nuclear strong force relation to electrons, let’s drop that proposal for holding your 2 circulating charged massless particles in orbit, at least for now. Second, since there’s no evidence for a two-particle structure of the electron from any scattering or other experiments, let’s also consider dropping that proposal for now. Your insistence that a 2-particle model is required for conservation of momentum at the sub-electron level does not seem sufficient to accept this part of your 2-particle model. We don’t even know experimentally that conservation of momentum exists at the sub-electron level, do we? Just an article of faith?
    So what is left of your model? You claim that your two particles are massless and travel at light speed.  But you don’t say that they are also without energy, do you? If there are two massless particles, they will still each have to have 0.511/2  MeV of energy if the electron’s total resting energy 0.511 MeV is divided equally between them. One kind of particle that has no rest mass but has energy and travels at light speed is a photon. (Let’s forget about gluons here for now since there is no accepted evidence for a strong nuclear force on electrons). So each of your two particles (if there are still two for some other reason besides conservation of momentum, and a need for an attractive force between them to overcome their electric repulsion) could be a charged photon (circulating charge is necessary to get a magnetic moment for the model) with energy 0.511/2 MeV, which has energy but no rest mass. OK. But each of these two charged photons, each of energy 0.511/2 MeV = mc^2/2 will have a wavelength of 2 Compton wavelengths = 2 h/mc . If 1 wavelength of each photon is turned into a single closed loop, the each loop would have a radius 2hbar/mc, which is twice the radius hbar/mc of your proposed electron model. To make each of these photons move circularly in a way that each of their wavelengths gives a radius of hbar/mc as in your model, each photon would have to move in a double loop. So there will be two photons each of energy 0.511/2  moving in a double loop in this model. This is getting complicated. 
   Let’s drop one of the two photons for simplicity (Occam’s razor put to good use) so that the other photon will have the full electron energy 0.511 MeV . This photon will now have a wavelength 1 Compton wavelength. If this 1 Compton wavelength charged photon moves in a single loop it will create an electron with magnetic moment 1 Bohr magneton and a spin of 1 hbar. That’s good for the experimental magnetic moment of the electron (slightly more than 1 Bohr magneton)  but bad for its experimental spin (which you tried to reduce to 1/2 hbar in your model by a delayed force argument). If the photon moves in a double loop it will be good for the spin (which now is exactly 1/2 hbar) but bad for the magnetic moment (now 1/2 Bohr magneton). So there’s still a problem with the model’s magnetic moment. But this double-looping charged photon model now has gained the zitterbewegung frequency of the Dirac electron which is desirable for an electron model which hopes to model the Dirac electron. And it also has 720 degree symmetry which the Dirac electron has (while your original 2-particle model has a rotational symmetry of 180 degrees, since each particle would take the place of the other after a half-circle rotation).
    What do you think of this new model so far?
        Richard

On Nov 22, 2015, at 9:43 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:
 
 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*c2 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. Make a desperate attempt at saving oneself. For example, He had lost the argument, but he kept grasping at straws, naming numerous previous cases that had little to do with this one. This metaphoric expression alludes to a drowning person trying to save himself by grabbing at flimsy reeds. First recorded in 1534, the term was used figuratively by the late 1600s.  
  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 scientist Johannes Diderik van der Waals, is the sum of the attractive or repulsive forces between molecules (or between parts of the same molecule) other than those due to covalent bonds, or the electrostatic interaction of ions with one another, with neutral molecules, or with charged molecules.[1] The resulting van der Waals forces can be attractive or repulsive.[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> 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 R0. The simplest shape of such a field which I could find was for the force F:
 F = S * (R0 - R) /R3. Here R0 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 * c2) .
 
 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 * e0) 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 * c2) 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> 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 have 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/r2 law for range of charges and  the r2 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  r2 case (number of shining  stars) does in no way compensates  for the 1/r2 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/r2. Now we can perform a  simple physical experiment  having an electrically charged object and using it to measure the  electric field around us. I say: it is very weak. Now look to the  distance of the two half-charges  within the particle  having a distance of 4*10-13 m. This means an increase of  force of about 25 orders of magnitude  compared to what we do in  a lab. And the difference is much greater  if we refer to charges acting  from the universe. So I think we do  not make a big mistake  assuming that there is nothing  outside the particle.
 
 Regarding my model, the  logic of deduction was very simple  for me:
 
 1.) We have dilation, so  there must be a permanent motion with c
 2.) There must be 2  sub-particles otherwise the momentum law  is violated; 3 are not  possible as in conflict with experiments.
 3.) The sub-particles  must be mass-less, otherwise c is  not possible
 4.) The whole particle has  mass even though the sub-particles  are mass-less. So there must  be a mechanism to cause inertia. It  was immediately clear for me that inertia is a  consequence of extension. Another reason to assume a particle which  is composed of parts. (There is no other  working mechanism of  inertia known until today.)
 5.) I had to find the  binding field for the sub-particles.  I have taken the simplest  one which I could find which has a  potential minimum at some distance. And my first attempt  worked.
 
 That is all, and I do not  see any possibility to change one of  the points 1.) thru 5.)  without getting in conflict with  fundamental physical rules. And I do not invent new facts or  rules beyond those already known in physics.
 
 So, where do you see any  kind of arbitrariness or missing  justification?
 
 Tschüß!
 Albrecht
 
   Am 12.11.2015 um 17:51 schrieb  af.kracklauer at web.de: 
   Hi Albrect:   We are making some progress.      To your remark that Swinger  & Feynman introduced virtual  charges, I note that they used the same  term: "virtual charge/particle,"  in spite of the much older meaning in accord with the charge and  mirror example.  In the finest of quantum  traditions, they too ignored the  rest of the universe and  instead tried to vest its effect in the  "vacuum."  This idea was suitably mystical to  allow them to introduce the associated plaver into the folk lore  of QM, given the sociology of the day.  Even in spite of this BS, the idea still  has merit. Your objection on the basis of the 1/r² fall-off is  true but not conclusive.  This fall-off is matched by a r² increase  in muber of charges, so the integrated total interaction  can be expected to have at least  some effect, no matter  what.  Think of the universe to  1st order as a neutral, low-density  plasma. I (and some others) hold  that this interaction is responcible  for all quantum  effects.  In any case, no particle is a  universe unto itself, the rest have the poulation and time to take a  toll!     BTW, this is history  repeating itself.  Once upon a time there was  theory of Brownian motion that  posited an internal cause  known as "elan vital" to dust specks  observed hopping about like Mexican jumping beans.  Ultimately this nonsense was displaced  by the observation that the dust spots were not alone in their  immediate universe but imbededded in a slurry of other  particles, also in motion, to  which they were reacting.  Nowadays atoms are analysed in QM  text books as if they were the only object in the universe---all  others being too far away (so it is  argued, anyway).     Your model, as it stands, can be  free of contradiction and still  unstatisfying because the  inputs seem to be just what is needed to  make the conclusions  you aim to make.  Fine, but what most critics will  expect is that these inputs have to have some kind of justification  or motivation.  This is what the second particle  lacks.  Where is it when one really looks  for it?  It has no empirical  motivation.   Thus, this theory then  has about the same ultimate structure, and  pursuasiveness, as saying:  'don't worry about it, God did it; go  home, open a beer, pop your  feet up, and forget about it---a theory  which explains absolutely  everything!   Tschuß,  Al   Gesendet: Donnerstag, 12. November 2015 um 16:18  Uhr
 Von: "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
 An: af.kracklauer at web.de
 Cc: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
 Betreff: Re: [General] Reply of  comments from what a model…  Hi Al,
 
 I have gotten a different  understanding of what a virtual  particle or a virtual charge  is. This phenomenon was invented by  Julian Schwinger and Richard Feynman. They thought to  need it in order to explain  certain reactions in  particle physics. In the case of  Schwinger it was the Landé factor, where I have shown that this  assumption is not necessary.
 
 If there is a charge then of  course this charge is subject to  interactions with all other  charges in the universe. That is correct.  But because of the normal  distribution of these other charges in the  universe, which cause a  good compensation of the  effects, and because of the distance law we can think about models  without reference to those. And  also there is the problem  with virtual particles and vacuum  polarization (which is  equivalent), in that we have this huge  problem that the integrated energy of it over the universe is by  a factor of 10^120 higher than the energy measured. I  think this is a really big argument  against virtual effects.
 
 Your example of the virtual  image of a charge in a conducting  surface is a different  case. It is, as you write, the  rearrangement of charges in the conducting surface. So the partner of  the charge is physically the mirror, not the picture behind it. But  which mirror can cause the second particle in a model if the  second particle is not assumed to  be real?
 
 And what in general is the  problem with a two particle model? It  fulfils the momentum law.  And it does not cause further  conflicts. It also explains  why an accelerated electron  sometimes radiates, sometimes not.  For an experimental  evidence I refer again to the article of  Frank Wilczek in "Nature"  which was mentioned here earlier:
 
 http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com: 
   He writes: "By combining fragmentation with super-conductivity, we can get half-electrons that are their own antiparticles." 
   For Wilczek this is a mysterious result, in view of my  model it is not, on the contrary it is kind of a proof.
 
 Grüße
 Albrecht
 
   Am 12.11.2015 um 03:06 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de: 
   Hi Albrecht:   Virtual particles are proxys for an ensemble of real particles.   There is nothing folly-lolly about them!  They simply summarize the total effect of particles that cannot be ignored.  To ignore the remainder of the universe becasue it is inconvenient  for theory formulation is for certain leading to error.  "No man is an island,"  and no single particle is a universe!  Thus, it can be argued that, to reject the concept of virtual  particles is to reject a facit of reality that must be essential for an explantion of the material world.   For example, if a positive charge is placed near a conducting  surface, the charges in that surface will respond to the  positive charge by rearranging themselves so as to give a total field on  the surface of zero strength as if there were a negative  charge (virtual) behind the mirror.  Without the real charges on the mirror surface, the concept of "virtual"  negative charge would not be necessary or even useful.     The concept of virtual charge as the second particle in your model  seems to me to be not just a wild supposition, but an  absolute necessity.  Every charge is, without choice, in constant interaction with every  other charge in the universe, has been so since the big bang  (if such were) and will remain so till the big crunch (if such is to be)!  The universe cannot be ignored. If you reject including the  universe by means of virtual charges, them you have a lot more work to do to make your theory reasonable some how else.  In particular in view of the fact that the second particles in your model  have never ever been seen or even suspected in the various  experiments resulting in the disasssmbly of whatever targert was  used.     MfG,  Al     
       
      
       
 
 
    
|   | Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
 www.avast.com  |

       
 
 
 
  
|      |  Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft. 
 www.avast.com   |

 
 _______________________________________________
 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>
 
 
 
 
  
|      |  Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft. 
 www.avast.com   |

 
 
 
 
 
  
|      |  Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft. 
 www.avast.com   |

 
 
 
 

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at jchodge at frontier.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/jchodge%40frontier.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>


  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151124/92604a43/attachment.htm>