[General] Reply of comments from what a model…
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Tue Nov 24 09:18:50 PST 2015
Hi Al,
I have nothing better to answer than to point again to the fact that
this set up of two particles not only explains the fact of inertia, but
also yields very precise results. I have not heard yet about another
theory which is even able to provide the first point.
And there is no experiment (no one has given an argument into that
direction) which is in conflict with this assumption.
What else can one expect from a theory? Right, if another theory, which
is simpler by being based on a smaller number of assumptions, yields the
same result. So, which one??
Best regards
Albrecht
Am 18.11.2015 um 20:04 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
> Hi Albrecht:
> I have and had nothing to say about your motivation /per se/. I tried
> to say that, I see no physical-empirical justification for the 2nd
> particle. The issue is not that I do not, or can not, follow your
> arguments, but that I find them incomplete (as just mentioned). I
> note that others have made the same objection. Obendarauf, I have
> made my own suggestion for a motivation for the 2nd particle, namely a
> virtual image. If you don't like this idea, fine! It would be easier
> to swallow, however, if you gave a sensible reason, but that is secondary.
> BTW, /a postiriori /success could justify a search for empirical
> support for the 2nd particle, but not a complete theory---until
> empirical evidence is found. There are literally hundreds of candiate
> theories for everything, Few are taken at all seriously because they
> are jumbeled up in their fundamentals: primative element selction,
> and whatnot. That fact that, histrical celeberties got away with it,
> is part luck and a lot of sociological guerilla warfare---techniques
> not availble to us in the trenches.
> Another result of formal logic is that, within an inconsistent logical
> sturture (theory) all theorems, right or wrong, can be proven. Thus,
> too much success is suspicious!
> Best regards, Al
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 18. November 2015 um 11:03 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 completely disagree with your conclusions about the motivation
> towards my model because my intention was not to develop a particle
> model. My intention was to develop a better understanding of time in
> relativity. My present model was an unexpected consequence of this
> work. I show you my arguments again and ask you to indicate the point
> where you do not follow.
> Am 17.11.2015 um 19:18 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>
> Hi Albrect:
> Comments² *IN BOLD*
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 17. November 2015 um 18:41 Uhr
> *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
> *Cc:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…
> Hi Al,
>
> again some responses.
> Am 14.11.2015 um 18:24 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>
> Hi Albrecht:
> Answers to your questions:
> 1) The SED background explains the Planck BB distribution
> without quantization. It explans why an atom doesn't
> collapse: in equilibrium with background, In fact, just about
> every effect described by 2nd quantization has an SED parallel
> explantion without additional considerations. With the
> additional input of the SED origin of deBroglie waves, it
> provides a direct derivation of the Schröedinger eq. thereby
> explainiong all of 1st Quantization.
>
> Maybe you achieve something when using SED background. I do not
> really understand this background, but I do not see a stringent
> necessity for it. But SED as an origin to the de Broglie waves is
> of interest for me. I am presently working on de Broglie waves to
> find a solution, which does not have the logical conflicts which
> we have discussed here.
> *See No. 11 (or 1) @ www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com for
> suggetions and some previous work along this line.*
>
> *Thank you, will have a look.*
>
> 2) Olber's logic is in conflict with Mach's Principle, so is
> obviously just valid for visible light. Given a little
> intergalacitc plasma (1 H/m³), not to mention atmossphere and
> interplanatary plama, visible light disappears to Earthbound
> observers at visitble freqs to reappear at other, perhaps at
> 2.7° even, or at any other long or hyper short wave length.
> 'The universe matters'---which is even politically correct
> nowadays!
>
> Olber's logic is simple in so far, as it shows that the universe
> cannot be infinite. I have assumed the same for all background
> effects. Or are they infinite?
> *The fly in the ointment is absorbtion. An inf. universe with
> absorbtion in the visible part of the spectrum will still have a
> largely dark sky. *
>
> *And the other way around: Even if there is no absorption, the sky
> will be dark. And the general opinion is that, even if there is a lot
> of radiation absorbed, this absorbing material will heat up by the
> time and radiate as well. So an absorption should not change too much.*
>
>
> What is the conflict with Mach's principle?
> *Mach says: the gravitational "background radiation" is the cause
> of inertia. This effect is parallel to the SED bacground causing
> QM effects. Conflict: if Olber is right, then Mach is probably
> wrong (too weak).*
>
> *In my understanding, what Mach means is completely different. Mach's
> intention was to find a reference system which is absolute with
> respect to acceleration. He assumed that this is caused by the stars
> in our vicinity. He did not have a certain idea how this happens, he
> only needed the fact. (Einstein replaced this necessity by his
> equivalence of gravity and acceleration - which however is clearly
> falsified as mentioned several times.)*
>
> 3) The (wide spread) criticism of 2 particles is that there is
> neither an /a-priori/ intuative reason, nor empirical evidence
> that they exist. Maybe they do anyway. But then, maybe Zeus
> does too, and he is just arranging appearances so that we
> amuse ourselves. (Try to prove that wrong!)
>
> I have explained how I came to the conclusion of 2 sub-particles.
> Again:
>
> 1) There is motion with c in an elementary particle to explain
> dilation
> 2) With only on particle such process is mechanically not
> possible, and it violates the conservation of momentum
> 3) In this way it is the only working model theses days to explain
> inertia. And this model explains inertia with high precision. What
> more is needed?
> *These assumtions are "teleological," i.e., tuned to give the
> desired results. As logic, although often done, this manuver is
> not legit in the formal presentation of a theory. For a physics
> theory, ideally, all the input assuptios have empirical
> justification or motivation. Your 2nd partical (modulo virtual
> images) has no such motivatin, in fact, just the opposite. *
>
> *My logical way is just the other way around. I had the plan to work
> on relativity (the aspects of time), not on particle physics. The
> particle model was an unplanned spin-off. I shall try to explain the
> logical path again:
>
> _1st step:_ I have calculated the 4-dimensional speed of an object
> using the temporal part of the Lorentz transformation. The surprising
> fact was that this 4-dim. speed is always the speed of light. I have
> then assumed that this constant shows a permanent motion with c in a
> particle. I have accepted this as a probable solution, but I have
> never assumed this, before I had this result. It was in no way a
> desired result. My idea was to describe time by a vector of 3 of 4
> dimensions. - I have then **no further **followed this idea.
> _2nd step:_ If there is some motion in the particle, it cannot be
> caused by one constituent. This is logically not possible as it
> violates the conservation of momentum. Also this was not a desired
> result but logically inevitable.
> _3rd step:_ If the constituents move with c, then they cannot have any
> mass. Also this was not a result which I wished to achieve, but here I
> followed my understanding of relativity.*
> *_*4th *__step:_ The size must be such that the resulting frequency in
> the view of c yields the magnetic moment which is known by measurements.
> _5th step:_ I had to find a reason for the mass of the electron in
> spite of the fact that the constituents do not have any mass. After
> some thinking I found out the fact that any extended object has
> necessarily inertia. I have applied this insight to this particle
> model, and the result was the actual mass of the electron, if I
> assumed that the force is the strong force. It could not be the
> electric force (as it was assumed by others at earlier times) because
> the result is too weak.
>
> None of the results from step 1 thru step 5 was desired. Every step
> was inevitable, because our standard physical understanding (which I
> did not change at any point) does not allow for any alternative. - _Or
> at which step could I hav__e had an alternative in your opinion?_
>
> And btw: which is the stringent argument for only one constituent? As
> I mentioned before, the experiment is not an argument. I have
> discussed my model with the former research director of DESY who was
> responsible for this type of electron experiments, and he admitted
> that there is no conflict with the assumption of 2 constituents.*
>
>
> I know from several discussions with particle physicists that
> there is a lot of resistance against this assumption of 2
> constituents. The reason is that everyone learn at university like
> with mother's milk that the electron is point-like, extremely
> small and does not have any internal structure. This has the
> effect like a religion. (Same with the relativity of Hendrik
> Lorentz. Everyone learns with the same fundamental attitude that
> Lorentz was nothing better than a senile old man how was not able
> to understand modern physics.) - Not a really good way, all this.
> *Mystical thinking is indeed a major problem even in Physics!
> But, some of the objectiors to a 2nd particle are not basing
> their objection of devine revelation or political correctness. *
>
> 4) It is ascientific to consider that the desired result is
> justification for a hypothetical input. OK, one can say about
> such reasoning, it is validated /a posteriori/, that at least
> makes it sound substantial. So much has been granted to your
> "story" but has not granted your story status as a "physics
> theory." It has some appeal, which in my mind would be
> enhansed had a rationalization for the 2nd particle been
> provided. That's all I'm trying to do. When you or whoever
> comes up with a better one, I'll drop pushing the virtual
> particle engendered by the background. Maybe, it fixes too
> many other things.
>
> My history was following another way and another motivation. I
> intended to explain relativity on the basis of physical facts.
> This was my only intention for this model. All further properties
> of the model were logical consequences where I did not see
> alternatives. I did not want to explain inertia. It just was a
> result by itself.
> So, what is the problem? I have a model which explains several
> properties of elementary particles very precisely. It is in no
> conflict with any experimental experience. And as a new
> observation there is even some experimental evidence. - What else
> can physics expect from a theory? - The argument that the second
> particle is not visible is funny. Who has ever seen a quark? Who
> has ever seen the internal structure of the sun? I think you have
> a demand here which was never fulfilled in science.
> *The problem, obviously, is that the existence of the 2nd
> particle, as you have presented it, is not a fact, but a
> Wunschansatz. [BTW: "See" in this context is not meant
> occularly, but figuratively for experimental verification through
> any length of inferance chain.] So, my question is: what problem
> do you have with a virtual mate for the particle? In fact, it
> will be there whether you use it or not.*
>
> And see again Frank Wilczek. He writes: "By combining
> fragmentation with super-conductivity, we can get half-electrons
> that are their own antiparticles."
> *A "straw in the wind" but sure seems far fetched!
> Superconductivity is already a manybody phenomenon, It's theory
> probably involves some "virtual" notions to capture the essence of
> the average effect even if the virtual actors do not really exist. *
>
> *This was a nice confirmation in my understanding. So as the whole
> article of Wilczek. The electron is in fact enigmatic if one follows
> main stream. It looses a lot of this property if my model is used. -
> But even without this experimental hint I do not see any alternative
> to my model without severely violating known physics.
>
> Ciao
> Albrecht*
>
> **
>
> Guten Abend
> Albrecht
> *Gleichfalls, Al*
>
> Have a good one! Al
> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 14. November 2015 um 14:51 Uhr
> *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
> *Cc:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…
> Hi Al,
>
> Why do we need a background? If I assume only local forces
> (strong and electric) for my model, the calculation conforms
> to the measurement (e.g. between mass and magnetic moment)
> with a precision of 2 : 1'000'000. This is no incident. Not
> possible, if a poorly defined and stable background has a
> measurable influence. - And if there should be such background
> and it has such little effect, which mistake do we make if we
> ignore that?
>
> For the competition of the 1/r^2 law for range of charges and
> the r^2 law for the quantity of charges we have a popular
> example when we look at the sky at night. The sky is dark and
> that shows that the r^2 case (number of shining stars) does in
> no way compensates for the 1/r^2 case (light flow density from
> the stars).
>
> Why is a 2 particle model necessary?
>
> 1.) for the conservation of momentum
> 2.) for a cause of the inertial mass
> 3.) for the radiation at acceleration which occurs most time,
> but does not occur in specific situations. Not explained
> elsewhere.
>
> Ciao, Albrecht
>
> Am 13.11.2015 um 20:31 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>
> Hi Albrecht:
> Your proposed experiment is hampered by reality! If you
> do the measurement with a gaget bought in a store that has
> knobes and a display, then the measurement is for certain
> for signals under a couple hundred GHz and based on some
> phenomena for which the sensitivity of man-made devices is
> limited. And, if limited to the electric field, then
> there is a good chance it is missing altogether
> oscillating signals by virtue of its limited reaction time
> of reset time, etc. etc. The vast majority of the
> background will be much higher, the phenomena most attuned
> to detecting might be in fact the quantum effects
> otherwise explained with mystical hokus-pokus! Also to be
> noted is that, the processes invovled in your model, if
> they pertain to elementray entities, will have to be at
> very small size and if at the velocity (c) will be very
> high energy, etc. so that once again, it is quite
> reasonable to suppose that the universe is anything but
> irrelavant!
> Of course, there is then the issue of the divergence of
> the this SED background. Ameliorated to some extent with
> the realization that there is no energy at a point in
> empty space until a charged entity is put there, whereupon
> the energy of interaction with the rest of the universe
> (not just by itself being there and ignoring the
> universe---as QM theorists, and yourself, are wont to do)
> is given by the sum of interactions over all particles not
> by the integral over all space, including empty space.
> Looks at first blush to be finite.
> Why fight it? Where the hell else will you find a
> credible 2nd particle?
> ciao, Al
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 13. November 2015 um 12:11 Uhr
> *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
> *Cc:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…
> Hi Al,
>
> if we look to charges you mention the law 1/r^2 . Now we
> can perform a simple physical experiment having an
> electrically charged object and using it to measure the
> electric field around us. I say: it is very weak. Now look
> to the distance of the two half-charges within the
> particle having a distance of 4*10^-13 m. This means an
> increase of force of about 25 orders of magnitude compared
> to what we do in a lab. And the difference is much greater
> if we refer to charges acting from the universe. So I
> think we do not make a big mistake assuming that there is
> nothing outside the particle.
>
> Regarding my model, the logic of deduction was very simple
> for me:
>
> 1.) We have dilation, so there must be a permanent motion
> with c
> 2.) There must be 2 sub-particles otherwise the momentum
> law is violated; 3 are not possible as in conflict with
> experiments.
> 3.) The sub-particles must be mass-less, otherwise c is
> not possible
> 4.) The whole particle has mass even though the
> sub-particles are mass-less. So there must be a mechanism
> to cause inertia. It was immediately clear for me that
> inertia is a consequence of extension. Another reason to
> assume a particle which is composed of parts. (There is no
> other working mechanism of inertia known until today.)
> 5.) I had to find the binding field for the sub-particles.
> I have taken the simplest one which I could find which has
> a potential minimum at some distance. And my first attempt
> worked.
>
> That is all, and I do not see any possibility to change
> one of the points 1.) thru 5.) without getting in conflict
> with fundamental physical rules. And I do not invent new
> facts or rules beyond those already known in physics.
>
> So, where do you see any kind of arbitrariness or missing
> justification?
>
> Tschüß!
> Albrecht
>
> Am 12.11.2015 um 17:51 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>
> Hi Albrect:
> We are making some progress.
> To your remark that Swinger & Feynman introduced
> virtual charges, I note that they used the same term:
> "virtual charge/particle," in spite of the much older
> meaning in accord with the charge and mirror example.
> In the finest of quantum traditions, they too ignored
> the rest of the universe and instead tried to vest its
> effect in the "vacuum." This idea was suitably
> mystical to allow them to introduce the associated
> plaver into the folk lore of QM, given the sociology
> of the day. Even in spite of this BS, the idea still
> has merit. Your objection on the basis of the 1/r²
> fall-off is true but not conclusive. This fall-off is
> matched by a r² increase in muber of charges, so the
> integrated total interaction can be expected to have
> at least some effect, no matter what. Think of the
> universe to 1st order as a neutral, low-density
> plasma. I (and some others) hold that this interaction
> is responcible for all quantum effects. In any case,
> no particle is a universe unto itself, the rest have
> the poulation and time to take a toll!
> BTW, this is history repeating itself. Once upon a
> time there was theory of Brownian motion that posited
> an internal cause known as "elan vital" to dust specks
> observed hopping about like Mexican jumping beans.
> Ultimately this nonsense was displaced by the
> observation that the dust spots were not alone in
> their immediate universe but imbededded in a slurry of
> other particles, also in motion, to which they were
> reacting. Nowadays atoms are analysed in QM text
> books as if they were the only object in the
> universe---all others being too far away (so it is
> argued, anyway).
> Your model, as it stands, can be free of contradiction
> and still unstatisfying because the inputs seem to be
> just what is needed to make the conclusions you aim to
> make. Fine, but what most critics will expect is that
> these inputs have to have some kind of justification
> or motivation. This is what the second particle
> lacks. Where is it when one really looks for it? It
> has no empirical motivation. Thus, this theory then
> has about the same ultimate structure, and
> pursuasiveness, as saying: 'don't worry about it, God
> did it; go home, open a beer, pop your feet up, and
> forget about it---a theory which explains absolutely
> everything!
> Tschuß, Al
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 12. November 2015 um 16:18 Uhr
> *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
> *Cc:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a
> model…
> Hi Al,
>
> I have gotten a different understanding of what a
> virtual particle or a virtual charge is. This
> phenomenon was invented by Julian Schwinger and
> Richard Feynman. They thought to need it in order to
> explain certain reactions in particle physics. In the
> case of Schwinger it was the Landé factor, where I
> have shown that this assumption is not necessary.
>
> If there is a charge then of course this charge is
> subject to interactions with all other charges in the
> universe. That is correct. But because of the normal
> distribution of these other charges in the universe,
> which cause a good compensation of the effects, and
> because of the distance law we can think about models
> without reference to those. And also there is the
> problem with virtual particles and vacuum polarization
> (which is equivalent), in that we have this huge
> problem that the integrated energy of it over the
> universe is by a factor of 10^120 higher than the
> energy measured. I think this is a really big argument
> against virtual effects.
>
> Your example of the virtual image of a charge in a
> conducting surface is a different case. It is, as you
> write, the rearrangement of charges in the conducting
> surface. So the partner of the charge is physically
> the mirror, not the picture behind it. But which
> mirror can cause the second particle in a model if the
> second particle is not assumed to be real?
>
> And what in general is the problem with a two particle
> model? It fulfils the momentum law. And it does not
> cause further conflicts. It also explains why an
> accelerated electron sometimes radiates, sometimes
> not. For an experimental evidence I refer again to the
> article of Frank Wilczek in "Nature" which was
> mentioned here earlier:
>
> http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com:
>
> He writes: "By combining fragmentation with
> super-conductivity, we can get half-electrons that are
> their own antiparticles."
> For Wilczek this is a mysterious result, in view of my
> model it is not, on the contrary it is kind of a proof.
>
> Grüße
> Albrecht
>
> Am 12.11.2015 um 03:06 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>
> Hi Albrecht:
> Virtual particles are proxys for an ensemble of
> real particles. There is nothing folly-lolly
> about them! They simply summarize the total
> effect of particles that cannot be ignored. To
> ignore the remainder of the universe becasue it is
> inconvenient for theory formulation is for certain
> leading to error. "No man is an island," and no
> single particle is a universe! Thus, it can be
> argued that, to reject the concept of virtual
> particles is to reject a facit of reality that
> must be essential for an explantion of the
> material world.
> For example, if a positive charge is placed near a
> conducting surface, the charges in that surface
> will respond to the positive charge by rearranging
> themselves so as to give a total field on the
> surface of zero strength as if there were a
> negative charge (virtual) behind the mirror.
> Without the real charges on the mirror surface,
> the concept of "virtual" negative charge would not
> be necessary or even useful.
> The concept of virtual charge as the second
> particle in your model seems to me to be not just
> a wild supposition, but an absolute necessity.
> Every charge is, without choice, in constant
> interaction with every other charge in the
> universe, has been so since the big bang (if such
> were) and will remain so till the big crunch (if
> such is to be)! The universe cannot be ignored.
> If you reject including the universe by means of
> virtual charges, them you have a lot more work to
> do to make your theory reasonable some how else.
> In particular in view of the fact that the second
> particles in your model have never ever been seen
> or even suspected in the various experiments
> resulting in the disasssmbly of whatever targert
> was used.
> MfG, Al
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
---
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/20151124/e77b7cf8/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list