[General] Reply of comments from what a model…
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Wed Nov 25 12:45:55 PST 2015
Hello Richard,
here only a little response to your last paragraph as you refer to my
particle model. The electron has an energy of 0.511 MeV. This, however,
does not mean that each of the sub-particles have half of this energy.
The sub-particles would exhibit zero energy if they would move single
and freely in space. The energy and the mass of the whole particle is
caused by the bind and the process of motion which goes on in the electron.
Further on the spin is not 1 hbar. There would be this spin if we would
have 2 objects circling at the given radius with speed c and having the
mass of 1/2 electron-mass each. But the constituents of the electron do
not have any mass. In the case here, however, the spin is also given by
the force effective at distance between both particles. This causes a
tangential inertial force on both constituents. That is the spin.
Best regards
Albrecht
Am 19.11.2015 um 14:45 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
> Hello John D and Albrecht,
>
> We’re not quite there by merely replacing Albrecht’s two
> circulating massless particles by a double-looping photon. By doing
> this the radius of the circle drops from hbar/mc to hbar/2mc because
> the total loop length is still one Compton wavelength. A double loop
> of length 1 Compton wavelength h/mc has half the radius of a single
> loop and therefore (if the circulating photon carries charge -e moving
> at light speed) half the calculated magnetic moment of Albrecht’s
> model, i.e. 1/2 Bohr magneton. The loss in magnetic moment from
> Albrecht’s 2-particle model has to be made up in some other way. But
> this double-looping photon model of the electron has spin 1/2 hbar
> while Albrecht's two-particle model has spin 1 hbar. No argument about
> retarded light-speed forces between his 2 light-speed circling
> massless particles will bring the total spin of the two-particle
> system down to exactly 1/2 hbar while keeping its magnetic moment at 1
> Bohr magneton. That would be like pulling a magical rabbit out of a
> hat which so far only Dirac with his equation has been able to do
> successfully (he wasn’t called a magician for nothing.) The Williamson
> - van der Mark 1997 electron model comes close with its proposed
> centrally located static electric charge -e inferred from their
> twisting double-looping uncharged photon’s inward pointing electric
> fields at the model’s equator. (But what happened to their
> double-looping photon's electric field at and near the model’s two
> poles?) . This model can’t convincingly explain how a sphere enclosing
> a double-looping uncharged photon can have a non-zero divergence of
> its electric field (indicating a non-zero enclosed electric charge)
> without violating Gauss’ law (the first Maxwell equation). I think
> that in order to retain a viable double-looping photon model of the
> electron, one may have to bite the bullet and accept that the
> circulating double-looping photon is itself electrically charged and
> also has a rest mass of 0.511 MeV/c^2 and a spin of 1/2 hbar.
>
> By the way, Albrecht’s two circulating particles may each have no
> rest mass as he describes, but they certainly each carry 1/2 of 0.511
> MeV of a resting electron's total energy. This strongly implies that
> they are two circulating photons (or gluons?) each having energy 1/2 x
> 0.511 MeV. This also gives his electron model a spin of 1 hbar.
>
> with best regards,
> Richard
>
>> On Nov 19, 2015, at 12:13 AM, John Duffield
>> <johnduffield at btconnect.com> wrote:
>>
>> Albrecht:
>> It’s easy to understand the electron if you look at the evidence of
>> things like gamma-gamma pair production, electron magnetic moment,
>> the Einstein-de Haas effect, electron diffraction, spherical
>> harmonics, and electron-positron annihilation back to gamma photons.
>> An electron is a wave going round and round in a standing-wave
>> configuration, such that a field-variation looks like a standing
>> field. It isn’t complicated or mysterious. Nor is inertia. The mass
>> of a body is a measure of its energy-content. It’s like the photon in
>> the box, seehttp://arxiv.org/abs/1508.06478. Photon energy-momentum
>> is resistance to change-in-motion for a wave propagating linearly at
>> c. Electron mass is resistance to change-in-motion for a wave going
>> round and round at c. Forget Wilczek, the guy is a peddler ofpompous
>> woo <http://frankwilczek.com/2013/multiverseEnergy01.pdf>, and there
>> re is no mystery. But don’t forget the wave nature of matter. Replace
>> your two particles by two loops of a 511keV E=hf photon wave, and
>> then your model matches observation. Win win!
>> <image001.jpg>
>> Regards
>> John D
>> *From:*General
>> [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
>> Behalf Of*Dr. Albrecht Giese
>> *Sent:*18 November 2015 20:19
>> *To:*John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk
>> <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>>; Nature of Light and
>> Particles - General Discussion
>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>> *Cc:*pete at leathergoth.com; Nick Bailey <nick at bailey-family.org.uk
>> <mailto:nick at bailey-family.org.uk>>; Mark, Martin van der
>> <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
>> <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>>; David Williamson
>> <david.williamson at ed.ac.uk <mailto:david.williamson at ed.ac.uk>>
>> *Subject:*Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…
>>
>> John,
>>
>> Wilczek has written about several aspects of the electron. Some of
>> them sound to my like the usual QM mystifications. Among them also
>> aspects of collective states. But at the end his remark
>> about/half-electrons/is another view:"By combining fragmentation with
>> super-conductivity, we can get half-electrons that are their own
>> antiparticles."
>> This is a clear statement in my understanding.
>>
>> And else, his whole article is a fight with the usual logical
>> paradoxes, if one tries to understand the electron on the basis of
>> present main stream physics. This is also obvious in his last
>> paragraph: "So, what is an electron? An electron is a particle and a
>> wave; it is ideally simple and unimaginably complex .." Do we not
>> have a better understanding today? At least I have it, if I look to
>> my model. There may be open questions left but no mystery.
>>
>> But apart of this: I found it a funny incident to see this article in
>> view of our discussion about my 2-particle-model. But this reference
>> is of course not my serious argument. The most powerful argument is
>> that this assumption of a 2-particle extended model explains inertia.
>> And it yields not just an idea what inertia could be, but precise
>> mathematical results. In contrast to all what is available these days
>> about this topic in particle physics.
>>
>> Regards
>> Albrecht
>>
>> Am 17.11.2015 um 07:13 schrieb John Williamson:
>>> Sorry Albrecht, but you are not really getting what Frank is talking
>>> about in his article at all.
>>>
>>>
>>> He is, as Al is alluding to, discussing collective systems – the
>>> Fractional quantum Hall effect and superconductors – and
>>> (theoretical) attempts that are being made to understand them. In
>>> those attempts people are coming up with models like yours – with
>>> multiple components – three for the fractional quantum Hall effect –
>>> two for superconductors. These are COMPOSITE systems of light and
>>> matter. Simple-minded attempts to understand them without getting
>>> what the electron is or what the photon is (the current situation)
>>> is bound to prove challenging. In superconductors you have,
>>> practically, a di-electron system – but it is also extended to
>>> include an overlap over a whole crystal – extra protons in the
>>> system then. One is looking a whole, collective, state of matter –
>>> with pairs of spin-opposite, electrons extended for many
>>> centimetres (whatever the size of the superconductor is). Ok there
>>> are TWO paired, opposite spin electrons in any “Cooper pair” and ,
>>> at some level, one is going to observe this and the symmetries
>>> inherent in this. Antiparticles they are only the sense you know
>>> they have opposite spin. Everything else, in the experiments, is
>>> spin – if you will pardon the pun. One is blindly thrashing about in
>>> the mist further.
>>>
>>> Regards, John
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> *From:*General
>>> [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>> <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
>>> on behalf of Dr. Albrecht Giese [genmail at a-giese.de]
>>> *Sent:*Monday, November 16, 2015 9:16 PM
>>> *To:*Chip Akins; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
>>> *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]*On
>>>> Behalf Of*Dr. Albrecht Giese
>>>> *Sent:*Saturday, November 14, 2015 7:52 AM
>>>> *To:*af.kracklauer at web.de
>>>> *Cc:*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 schriebaf.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 schriebaf.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>
>>>>>> <mailto: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 schriebaf.kracklauer at web.de
>>>>>> <mailto: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"<genmail at a-giese.de>
>>>>>>> *An:*
>>>>>>> af.kracklauer at web.de,general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>>>>> <mailto: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 schriebaf.kracklauer at web.de
>>>>>>> <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>:
>>>>>>>> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 11. November 2015 um 11:54 Uhr
>>>>>>>> *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese"<genmail at a-giese.de>
>>>>>>>> *An:* 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
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> ataf.kracklauer at web.deClick here to
>>>>>>>> unsubscribe<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
>>>>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
>>>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>>
>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
>>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>
>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
>>>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>
>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
>>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
>> Light and Particles General Discussion List atrichgauthier 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.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151125/7bad7eb8/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list