[General] Reply of comments from what a model…
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Sun Nov 29 09:29:32 PST 2015
Hi Al,
there is in fact a difference between my second sub-particle and a
virtual particle. As you write, a virtual particle can never be seen as
it does not exist as such. My particle does exist as such in a better
way than a quark, as I have explained earlier. And it could be
experimentally presented if we find an appropriate experiment. I did not
find it yet. But as mentioned here several times, Frank Wilczek has
roughly described an electron experiment where it was seen (as
half-electron). Now there was the argument stated here that Frank
Wilczek is a bit peculiar. This might be a good physical argument, but
in my understanding there are better arguments.
You have mentioned this interesting case of dipoles caused by electrical
influence. This is also the case, as I have mentioned here ealier, for
the van der Waals force. Similarly in my model the attraction of both
sub-particles is done in the same way as in the case of the van der
Waals forces. So, there is nothing fundamentally new in this model.
The same process as a reaction in a plasma is much more complicated. Do
not forget that we have something like 10^86 elementary particles in the
universe. Every of these has at least one charge. How can we handle a
system built by the superposition or by the mirroring of 10^86 charges?
Maybe it is easier and more practical to think about the reaction of
just 1 or 2 particles.
Chiao, Albrecht
Am 27.11.2015 um 03:34 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
> Hi Albrect:
> The basic problem your model addresses is based on the fact that the
> current party-line models are defective. Thus, you cannot argue that
> insofar as the 'party' gets away with defiective arguments, that you
> too are entitled to do so. Of course, there is no moral or other
> reason behind this, just "best practice" type ideas.
> The virtue of a virtual particle idea is that virtual particles are,
> like your 2nd particle, never "seen" (in any meaning of the word)
> becasue they as such do not exist. They are hypothetical proxies for
> all the other particles surrounding the one of interest, i.e., the
> universe. Virtual particle storys start with the hypothetical
> premise: consider the universe to be a neutral plasma. Now in your
> mind's eye place a charge of interest inside it, then consider how all
> the other charges react. What they do is rearange themselves so as to
> nutralize to the newcomer. To first order this total effect is the
> same as if a particle of oppsite gender were placed on top of the
> newcomer. The story gets interesting when delay is taken into
> account. If the origianl particle moves, the other particles in the
> universe get the message that it has done so only after a delay, thus
> the virtual effect of reafrranging no longer sits on top of the
> particle engendering it, but tails it. The two form a virtual dipole
> chasing each other, as it were. Since the vitual particle is a
> nutralizer, its properties are the compliments of the original particle.
> This is just a "story" of course. As are all theories in the end.
> It's virtue is consistency with what (little) is empirically known,
> not preternatural certainty.
> ciao, Al
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 26. November 2015 um 16:59 Uhr
> *Von:* "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,
>
> what empirical evidence you are looking for?
>
> We never see elementary particles by our eyes. But even worse: Both
> stable quarks, the Up- and the Down-quark, have not only failed to be
> seen, it was never possible to isolate them. The only argument in
> favour of them is the fact that some mathematical evaluations of
> particle reactions are easier with the assumption of these quarks. And
> the quarks are given properties like a mass and an electrical charge
> (i.e. 1/3 electron charge) which was never based on measurements. The
> only argument also in this case is the easier mathematics if this
> model is used. But they are these days the central particles for the
> understanding of hadrons. Nobody questions this. - In comparison to
> this situation my second sub-particle in the electron has in my view
> much more evidence beyond mathematical advantages.
>
> And another example, from astronomy: Planets outside our solar system
> are not visible in the normal cases. But astronomers observe that some
> stars, which are assumed to be central stars, show small periodical
> motions. From these it is concluded that there are planets, and also
> properties of these planets are derived from this visible motion.
>
> Why not assume that the second particle in the electron is a virtual
> one? Ok, but then one has to explain how this virtual particle is
> caused. Something like a mirror in the electron? Or a different
> mechanism? And what is about the electrical charge? Does the real
> particle carry the full charge or is the charge distributed between
> the real and the virtual constituent? In the former case there would
> be a problem to deduce the Landé factor in a classical way which is
> possible by my model.
>
> Anyway, if you have such a model with a virtual one in mind and you
> can tell all necessary arguments for its existence, and the
> quantitative evaluation has correct results, AND this model is simpler
> that the model with 2 sub-particles, that would be a great outcome.
> So, please give details ....
>
> Chiao
> Albrecht
>
> Am 24.11.2015 um 18:40 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>
> Hi Albrecht:
> Your responce has little relaiton to my previous comments.
> I qubble not with your results, nor even the inputs: except to
> point out that one of them is unjustified or unmotivated by any
> emperical evidence---AS YOU TELL THE STORY!
> What I'm failing to get you to consider, is that the 2nd particle
> is a virtual image of the 1st in a delayed position. WHY NOT?
> [Don't tell me there's no empirical evidence!]
> ciao, Al
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 24. November 2015 um 18:18 Uhr
> *Von:* "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 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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>
>
---
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/20151129/fb05ecab/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list