[General] Reply of comments from what a model…
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Fri Nov 27 12:05:01 PST 2015
Chandra,
thank you for your explanations.
However what's about your statement: "So, there are no INERTIAL Frame of
Reference anywhere in this universe"? On the other hand you assume a
Stationary Complex Tension Field (CTF). In my understanding, the CTF is
just an example of an absolute frame of reference. How not?
By the way, I do not see SR (or GR) as the foundation of physics. But we
have relativistic phenomena, which are not fundamental for our physical
world, but certain facts which happen. I attribute the relativistic
phenomena to certain processes of particles and field, as you may have
noticed.
Let's take an example which is quite simple. If we move a clock, then
the clock runs slower. This can easily be verified if we move an atomic
clock. The same is true for all temporal processes and events in
physics. Now, if one star moves with respect to another one, all
temporal processes run more slowly. This is a fact which we cannot deny.
If we are now on a moving star and observe that the physical processes
are similar to those on a star at rest, then they cannot be the same,
but the effects of motion just compensate each other.
An example: Most physicists these days say that the speed of light is
the same on all moving systems. Can this be true? No, it cannot, because
if we measure the speed of light with a clock running differently from
another clock and we get the same result, it can logically not be the
same speed. We only measure the same speed which is an illusion. This is
true for all physical processes. So the statement: "The LAWS OF PHYSICS
ARE SAME IN ALL STARS"are only true as an illusion.
Regarding the CTF I must confess that I have not read and not understood
the details. You say that it has dielectric and magnetic tensions which
determine the velocity of EM waves. This is an old problem as magnetism
is not an original force but a relativistic side effect of the
electrical force. So this way of thinking - like about EM waves - may
work in a practical sense, but it does not refer to fundamental physical
reactions. (That is not a specific problem of CTF but as well of
electromagnetism.)
What about the doughnut-like wavicles? It looks like a complicated
shape, at which wavicles are realized. I would like to better understand
what makes them stable with respect to their shape and to their motion.
Do you have a model for the stability?
At the end, the goal in physics was always to have a simple solution
which starts from some as well simple assumptions and is able to explain
all observations. Do you see this too as a goal?
Sincerely
Albrecht
Am 22.11.2015 um 21:36 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>
> Albrecht: May be you are finally finding the limitation behind using
> SR as the foundation of Physics.
>
> No stars or galaxies are stationary. All are moving with respect to
> each other. So, there are no INERTIAL Frame of Reference anywhere in
> this universe. Yet, line-centers of the emitted spectral lines are
> identical whether the light is collected from a distant star; or from
> a discharge tube on earth. And even the Doppler line broadening are
> precisely given by the local ambient temperatures.
>
> The LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE SAME IN ALL STARS (not in all inertial frames;
> which does not exist). So, we need the postulate of the stationary CTF.
>
> The universe is manifest as various kinds of excitations of the
> STATIOINARY Complex Tension Field (CTF). EM waves are linear
> excitations and hence move perpetually with the same velocity
> determined the dielectric and magnetic tensions of CTF. Particles are
> “wavicles”, localized in-phase self-looped propagation of waves of the
> CTF - doughnut-like (hence resonant and the origin of quantum-ness).
> These self-looped waves are like EM waves; but they are not quantized
> photons; they are quantized “wavicles”. Because finite EM wave packets
> (no Fourier modes exist) and particles (“wavicles”) are some-what
> similar propagating excitations (un-looped and self-looped) of the
> same CTF; they are eminently inter-convertible when the energy
> contents allow this through conservation of energy. The root cause
> behind the observable universal energy conservation is due to the fact
> that CTF, by itself, cannot dissipate the excitation energy in its own
> body; one excitation must be converted into another set of
> excitations. Forces in this CTF model are due to the various secondary
> potential gradients generated around the “wavicles” in the body of CTF.
>
> I understand that my CTF model for particles and waves; and the
> current model of particle theory with the forces as quantized exchange
> particles, are incompatible!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Chandra.
>
> ==================================================
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
> Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 22, 2015 9:43 AM
> *To:* Richard Gauthier
> *Cc:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…
>
> Hello Richard,
>
> I never have persistently tried to develop a 2-particle model. What I
> have persistently tried was to find a good explanation for
> relativistic dilation. And there I found a solution which has
> satisfied me. All the rest including the 2 particles in my model where
> logical consequences where I did not see alternatives. If there should
> be a model which is an alternative in one or the other aspect, I will
> be happy to see it.
>
> Am 22.11.2015 um 00:13 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>
> Hello Albrecht,
>
> I admire your persistence in trying to save your doomed (in my
> opinion) 2-particle electron model.
>
> Why 2 particles in the model? I say it again:
>
> 1) to maintain the conservation of momentum in the view of oscillations
> 2) to have a mechanism for inertia (which has very precise results,
> otherwise non-existent in present physics)
>
> I will be happy to see alternatives for both points. Up to now I have
> not seen any.
>
> Do you understand how unreasonable and irrational it appears for
> you to write: "Then I had to determine the field constant S
> which is normally provided by experiments. But quantum mechanics
> is so unprecise regarding the numeric value of the strong force
> that there is no number available in the data tables. Here I found
> that I could use the Bohr magneton to determine the constant.
> (Which turned out to be S = hbar*c, merely a constant).” ?
>
> I have once asked one of the leading theorists at DESY for a better
> quantitative explanation or determination of the strong force. His
> answer: Sorry, the strong force is not good enough understood so that
> I cannot give you better information.
>
> How could the number S that you could not find in “unprecise”
> tables about the strong force possibly be the same number that can
> be found precisely from the electron’s Bohr magneton ehbar/2m and
> which you claim is S = hbar*c ? This is an unbelievable, desperate
> stretch of imagination and "grasping at straws", in my opinion.
>
> When I have realized that my model deduces the Bohr magneton, I have
> used the measurements available in that context to determine my field
> constant. (I could also go the other way: I can use the Planck /
> Einstein relation E = h * f and the Einstein-relation E = m*c^2 to
> determine the constant S from the internal frequency in my model. Same
> result. But I like the other way better. BTW: Do you know any other
> model which deduces these relations rather than using them as given?)
>
> Here is the meaning of “grasping at straws” from
> http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasp+at+straws :
>
>
> grasp at straws
>
> Also,*clutch** at straws*.Make adesperateattempt atsaving 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/.Thismetaphoric expression alludes toadrowning
> person trying tosave himself bygrabbing atflimsy reeds. First
> recorded in1534, the term was used figuratively bythe 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
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands>scientist
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist>Johannes Diderik van der
> Waals
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Diderik_van_der_Waals>, is
> the sum of the attractive or repulsive forces between molecules
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecule> (or between parts of the
> same molecule) other than those due to covalent bonds
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond>, or the
> electrostatic interaction
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_interaction> of ions
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion> with one another, with neutral
> molecules, or with charged molecules.^[1]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-1>
> The resulting van der Waals forces can be attractive or
> repulsive.^[2]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-Van_OssAbsolom1980-2>
>
>
> Yes, my arrangement of charges of the strong force causes as well a
> combination of attractive and repulsive forces and is doing the same
> like in the van der Waals case. That was my reason to refer to them.
>
> Best regards
> Albrecht
>
> with best regards,
>
> Richard
>
> On Nov 21, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Albrecht Giese
> <genmail at a-giese.de <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>
> Hello Richard,
>
> I am a bit confused how badly my attempted explanations have
> reached you.
>
> I have NOT used the Bohr magneton to determine the radius R of
> an electron. I deduced the radius directly from the measured
> magnetic moment using the classical equation for the magnetic
> moment.
>
> For the binding force of the sub-particles I needed a
> multipole field which has a potential minimum at a distance
> R_0 . The simplest shape of such a field which I could find
> was for the force F:
> F = S * (R_0 - R) /R^3 . Here R_0 is of course the equilibrium
> distance and S the field constant. I wanted to refer to an
> existing field of a proper strength, and that could only be
> the strong force. Then I had to determine the field constant S
> which is normally provided by experiments. But quantum
> mechanics is so unprecise regarding the numeric value of the
> strong force that there is no number available in the data
> tables. Here I found that I could use the Bohr magneton to
> determine the constant. (Which turned out to be S = hbar*c,
> merely a constant).
>
> From the equation for F given above the inertial mass of the
> particle follows from a deduction which is given on my
> website: www.ag-physics.org/rmass
> <http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass> . Too long to present it
> here, but straight and inevitable. Here the result again: m =
> S / (R * c^2 ) .
>
> If you are unsatisfied by my deduction of this field, what is
> about the van der Waals forces which bind atoms to build a
> molecule? Did van der Waals have had a better way of deduction
> in that case? I think that the fact that the von der Waals
> forces act so as observed, is enough for the physical
> community to accept them.
>
> And you ask for an independent calculation of S which I should
> present in your opinion. Now, Is there anyone in physics or in
> astronomy who can present an independent calculation of the
> gravitational constant G? No, nobody can calculate G from
> basic assumptions. Why asking for more in my case? I think
> that this demand is not realistic and not common understanding
> in physics.
>
> And again: where is circular reasoning?
>
> Best regards
> Albrecht
>
> Am 20.11.2015 um 23:02 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>
> Hello Albrecht,
>
> Thanks for your detailed response. I think the key
> problem is in your determination of your “field constant”
> S which you say describes the "binding field" for your two
> particles. This definition of S is too general and empty
> of specific content as I understand that it applies to any
> "binding field” at any nuclear or atomic or molecular
> level. With your 2-particle electron model you then
> calculate the radius R=hbar/mc from the Bohr Magneton
> e*hbar/2m, assuming the values of m, e, h and c. . Then
> you calculate S from the Bohr magneton and find it to be
> S=c*hbar. You then calculate m from the equation
> m=S/(R*c^2). How can a binding field S be described by
> such a universal term hbar * c ? That’s why I think that
> your derivation is circular. You use the Bohr magneton
> e*hbar/2m to calculate R and S, (using the Bohr magneton)
> and then you use R and S to calculate m. You have no
> independent calculation of S except from the Bohr
> magneton. That’s the problem resulting in circularity.
>
> with best regards,
>
> Richard
>
> On Nov 20, 2015, at 1:09 PM, Albrecht Giese
> <genmail at a-giese.de <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>
> Hallo Richard,
>
> I find it great that we have made similar calculations
> and came at some points to similar conclusions. That
> is not a matter of course, as you find in all
> textbooks that it is impossible to get these results
> in a classical way, but that in the contrary it needs
> QM to come to these results.
>
> Here now again the logical way which I have gone: I
> assume the circular motion of the elementary electric
> charge (2* 1/2 * e_0 ) with speed c. Then with the
> formula (which you give here again) M = i*A one can
> conclude A from the measured magnetic moment. And so
> we know the radius to be R = 3.86 x 10^-13 m for the
> electron. No constants and no further theory are
> necessary for this result. I have then calculated the
> inertial mass of a particle which turns out to be m =
> S / (R * c^2 ) where the parameter S describes the
> binding field. I did initially have no knowledge about
> the quantity of this field. But from the mass formula
> there follows for the magnetic moment: M=
> (1/2)*(S/c)*(e /m). To this point I have not used any
> knowledge except the known relation for the magnetic
> moment. Now I look to the Bohr magneton in order to
> find the quantity of my field constant S: M=
> (1/2)*hbar*(e /m). Because the Planck constant has to
> be measured in some way. For doing it myself I would
> need a big machine. But why? Basic constants never
> follow from a theory but have to be measured. I can
> use such a measurement, and that tells me for my field
> constant S = c*hbar (from Bohr magneton). So, where do
> you see circular reasoning?
>
> Now I have no theory, why specific elementary
> particles exist. Maybe later I find a way, not now.
> But now I can use the (measurable) magnetic moment for
> any particle to determine the radius, and then I know
> the mass from my formula. This works for all charged
> leptons and for all quarks. Not good enough?
>
> And yes, the Landé factor. Not too difficult. In my
> deduction of the mass I have used only the (initially
> unknown) constant S for the field. Which I assume to
> be the strong field as with the electric field the
> result is too small (by a factor of several hundred).
> The only stronger alternative to the electrical force
> is the strong force, already known. Is this a
> far-fetched idea? But I have in this initial deduction
> ignored that the two basic particles have an
> electrical charge of e/2 each, which cause a repelling
> force which increases the radius R a bit. With this
> increase I correct the result for e.g. the magnetic
> moment, and the correction is quite precisely the
> Landé factor (with a deviation of ca. 10^-6 ).
>
> So, what did I invent specially for my model, and
> which parameters do I use from others? I have assumed
> the shape of the binding field as this field has to
> cause the bind at a distance. And I have used the
> measurement of the Planck constant h which other
> colleagues have performed. Nothing else. I do not have
> do derive the quantity e as this is not the task of a
> particle model. If e could be derived (what nobody
> today is able to do), then this would follow from a
> much deeper insight into our physical basics as anyone
> can have today.
>
> The fact of two constituents is a necessary
> precondition to obey the conservation of momentum and
> to support the mechanism of inertia. I do not know any
> other mechanism which works.
>
> Where do I practice circular reasoning?
>
> Best regards
> Albrecht
>
> Am 18.11.2015 um 15:42 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>
> Hello Albrecht,
>
> Let’s look at your listed assumptions of your
> electron model in relation to the electron’s
> magnetic moment. It is known that the magnitude of
> the electron’s experimental magnetic moment is
> slightly more than the Bohr magneton which is Mb =
> ehbar/2m = 9.274 J/T in SI units. Your 2-particle
> model aims to generate a magnetic moment to match
> this Bohr magneton value (which was predicted for
> the electron by the Dirac equation) rather than
> the experimental value of the electron’s magnetic
> moment which is slightly larger. The standard
> equation for calculating the magnetic moment M of
> a plane current loop is M = IA for loop area A
> and current I. If the area A is a circle and the
> current is a circular current loop I around this
> area, whose value I is calculated from a total
> electric charge e moving circularly at light speed
> c (as in your 2-particle electron model) with a
> radius R, a short calculation will show that if
> the radius of this circle is R = hbar/mc = 3.86 x
> 10-13 m (the reduced Compton wavelength
> corresponding to a circle of circumference one
> Compton wavelength h/mc), then this radius R for
> the current loop gives a magnetic moment M = IA =
> Bohr magneton ehbar/2m . I have done this
> calculation many times in my electron modeling
> work and know that this is the case. The values of
> h and also e and m of the electron have to be
> known accurately to calculate the Bohr magneton
> ehbar/2m . When the radius of the circular loop
> is R=hbar/mc, the frequency f of the charge e
> circling the loop is easily found to be f=c/(2pi
> R)= mc^2/h , which is the frequency of light
> having the Compton wavelength h/mc.
>
> So the current loop radius R=hbar/mc that is
> required in your 2-particle model to derive the
> Bohr magneton ehbar/2m using M=IA obviously cannot
> also be used to derive either of the values h or m
> since these values were used to calculate the Bohr
> magneton ehbar/2m in the first place. So your
> model cannot be used to derive any of the values
> of e, h or m, and seems to be an exercise in
> circular reasoning. Please let me know how I may
> be mistaken in this conclusion.
>
> with best regards,
>
> Richard
>
> On Nov 18, 2015, at 2:03 AM, Dr. Albrecht
> Giese <genmail at a-giese.de
> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>
> Hi Al,
>
> I completely disagree with your conclusions
> about the motivation towards my model because
> my intention was not to develop a particle
> model. My intention was to develop a better
> understanding of time in relativity. My
> present model was an unexpected consequence of
> this work. I show you my arguments again and
> ask you to indicate the point where you do not
> follow.
>
> Am 17.11.2015 um 19:18 schrieb
> af.kracklauer at web.de
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
> <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
> *Cc:*
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <http://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>
> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
> <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
> *Cc:*
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
> <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
> *Cc:*
> 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 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
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
> <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
> *Cc:*
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto: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
> <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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast
> Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
> www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast
> Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
> www.avast.com <http://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
> <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf
> Viren geprüft.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren
> geprüft.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151127/bacc186c/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list