[General] Reply of comments from what a model…
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Mon Nov 30 12:19:57 PST 2015
Hello John,
it took me some time to find references, sorry. And I could not find the
original paper of DESY about it, but a magazine.
The indication of the strong force to leptons is a more indirect
conclusion. In 1997 two teams at the HERA storage ring at DESY found an
unexpected excess of events in quark-positron interactions. These events
were unexpected as the Standard Model excludes an interaction of quarks
with leptons on the basis of the strong force. It was then made the ad
hoc assumption that an unknown particle may exist with name leptoquark.
Such particle is not excluded by the Standard Model, and it is assumed
to react with leptons and with quarks. The following search for
leptoquarks at DESY and at other labs was without success. So the direct
interaction between quarks and leptons by the strong force will remain
as a solution.
I can give the following references for this:
1.) Scientific American, March 24, 1997 about the detection of
additional events
2.) "Search for contact interactions, large extra dimensions and finite
quark radius in /ep /collisions at HERA", ZEUS Collaboration, Physics
Letters B 591 (2004) 23-41 as an example for the search for leptoquarks.
But I would like to emphasize again that the assumption for the strong
force in e.g. the electron makes it possible to deduce the inertial mass
of this particle (as also of others). I do not know any other approach
which provides an origin of inertia deduced from basics.
Regards
Albrecht
Am 27.11.2015 um 03:46 schrieb John Williamson:
> Hello Albrecht,
>
> So the strong force has been observed to act on electrons at DESY?
> Very interesting. Do you have a reference for that?
>
> Regards, John.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* General
> [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> on behalf of Albrecht Giese [genmail at a-giese.de]
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 26, 2015 4:53 PM
> *To:* Richard Gauthier
> *Cc:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…
>
> Hallo Richard,
>
> thank you for your alternative proposal. Unfortunately there are some
> points of misunderstanding with respect to my model. And also some
> other physical arguments I like to point to - in your text.
>
> Am 23.11.2015 um 19:43 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>> Hello Albrecht,
>>
>> I’m glad that you say that developing a 2-particle model of the
>> electron was not your main interest. I think it will be useful to see
>> what parts of your model may be saved, and what parts may have to go,
>> to get a working model in progress for the electron which most of us
>> here might agree on. First, since there is no generally accepted
>> evidence of a nuclear strong force relation to electrons, let’s drop
>> that proposal for holding your 2 circulating charged massless
>> particles in orbit, at least for now.
> Here I object. 1) The strong force in the electron was seen at DESY
> experiments in the 1990s. 2) Without referring to the strong force,
> the calculation of the mass of the electron has incorrect results by a
> factor of several hundred. This was found out by physicists in the
> 1940s, e.g. by Helmut Hönl. (I can send you his paper if you are
> interested, however in German.)
>> Second, since there’s no evidence for a two-particle structure of the
>> electron from any scattering or other experiments, let’s also
>> consider dropping that proposal for now. Your insistence that a
>> 2-particle model is required for conservation of momentum at the
>> sub-electron level does not seem sufficient to accept this part of
>> your 2-particle model. We don’t even know experimentally that
>> conservation of momentum exists at the sub-electron level, do we?
>> Just an article of faith?
> This may be a point of personal judgement, but in my view the
> conservation if momentum is a fundamental law in physics, maybe the
> most fundamental law. It follows logically from the symmetry of space
> (refer to Emmy Noether, who has set some logical basics for QM).
>>
>> So what is left of your model? You claim that your two particles
>> are massless and travel at light speed. But you don’t say that they
>> are also without energy, do you? If there are two massless particles,
>> they will still each have to have 0.511/2 MeV of energy if the
>> electron’s total resting energy 0.511 MeV is divided equally between
>> them.
> I have explained this in a former comment. The two "basic" particles
> do not have any energy by themselves. The energy is caused by the
> motion of the basic particles in the situation of a bind. Mass is
> anyway a dynamic property of matter as it is even seen by present main
> stream physics.
>> One kind of particle that has no rest mass but has energy and travels
>> at light speed is a photon.
> This assumption is not true as explained above.
>> (Let’s forget about gluons here for now since there is no accepted
>> evidence for a strong nuclear force on electrons). So each of your
>> two particles (if there are still two for some other reason besides
>> conservation of momentum, and a need for an attractive force between
>> them to overcome their electric repulsion) could be a charged photon
>> (circulating charge is necessary to get a magnetic moment for the
>> model) with energy 0.511/2 MeV, which has energy but no rest mass. OK.
> Not true!
>> But each of these two charged photons, each of energy 0.511/2 MeV =
>> mc^2/2 will have a wavelength of 2 Compton wavelengths = 2 h/mc . If
>> 1 wavelength of each photon is turned into a single closed loop, the
>> each loop would have a radius 2hbar/mc, which is twice the radius
>> hbar/mc of your proposed electron model. To make each of these
>> photons move circularly in a way that each of their wavelengths gives
>> a radius of hbar/mc as in your model, each photon would have to move
>> in a double loop. So there will be two photons each of energy 0.511/2
>> moving in a double loop in this model. This is getting complicated.
> The Compton wavelength has a different origin. It comes from
> scattering of photons at an electron (example). The Compton wavelength
> is then the maximum change of the wavelength of the photon in such
> process. - This wavelength is in this way not any geometrical
> extension of the electron. Yes, we find this value in some
> calculations, but we should be cautious to use it for the
> determination of dimension.
>>
>> Let’s drop one of the two photons for simplicity (Occam’s razor
>> put to good use) so that the other photon will have the full electron
>> energy 0.511 MeV .
> What is the origin of this energy in the photon? And which mechanism
> causes actually the energy of this photon? A photon can in general
> have any energy, doesn't it?
>> This photon will now have a wavelength 1 Compton wavelength. If this
>> 1 Compton wavelength charged photon moves in a single loop it will
>> create an electron with magnetic moment 1 Bohr magneton and a spin of
>> 1 hbar. That’s good for the experimental magnetic moment of the
>> electron (slightly more than 1 Bohr magneton) but bad for its
>> experimental spin (which you tried to reduce to 1/2 hbar in your
>> model by a delayed force argument). If the photon moves in a double
>> loop it will be good for the spin (which now is exactly 1/2 hbar) but
>> bad for the magnetic moment (now 1/2 Bohr magneton).
> Why does the double loop reduce the spin? Why the Bohr magneton? The
> magnetic moment depends on the area in the loop. How large is this
> area in this case?
>
> The magnetic moment is larger than the Bohr magneton. In my model this
> is the contribution of the (small) electrical charges in view of the
> (large) strong charges.
>
> And which mechanism causes the double loop? It cannot come from
> itself. A circuit is a simple structure which does not need many
> influences. A double loop is more and needs a cause.
>> So there’s still a problem with the model’s magnetic moment. But this
>> double-looping charged photon model now has gained the zitterbewegung
>> frequency of the Dirac electron which is desirable for an electron
>> model which hopes to model the Dirac electron. And it also has 720
>> degree symmetry which the Dirac electron has (while your original
>> 2-particle model has a rotational symmetry of 180 degrees, since each
>> particle would take the place of the other after a half-circle rotation).
> In my model the zitterbewegung frequency is the circulation frequency
> of the basic particles. The rotational symmetry is not 180 but 360
> degrees as the strong field of the basic particles is not equal, but
> one basic particle changes the other one by electrical influence. This
> works analogue to the case of the van der Waals force.
>>
>> What do you think of this new model so far?
> Did I explain it sufficiently?
>>
>> Richard
> Albrecht
>>
>>> On Nov 22, 2015, at 9:43 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de
>>> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Richard,
>>>
>>> I never have persistently tried to develop a 2-particle model. What
>>> I have persistently tried was to find a good explanation for
>>> relativistic dilation. And there I found a solution which has
>>> satisfied me. All the rest including the 2 particles in my model
>>> where logical consequences where I did not see alternatives. If
>>> there should be a model which is an alternative in one or the other
>>> aspect, I will be happy to see it.
>>>
>>> Am 22.11.2015 um 00:13 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>>> Hello Albrecht,
>>>>
>>>> I admire your persistence in trying to save your doomed (in my
>>>> opinion) 2-particle electron model.
>>> Why 2 particles in the model? I say it again:
>>>
>>> 1) to maintain the conservation of momentum in the view of oscillations
>>> 2) to have a mechanism for inertia (which has very precise results,
>>> otherwise non-existent in present physics)
>>>
>>> I will be happy to see alternatives for both points. Up to now I
>>> have not seen any.
>>>> Do you understand how unreasonable and irrational it appears for
>>>> you to write: "Then I had to determine the field constant S which
>>>> is normally provided by experiments. But quantum mechanics is so
>>>> unprecise regarding the numeric value of the strong force that
>>>> there is no number available in the data tables. Here I found that
>>>> I could use the Bohr magneton to determine the constant. (Which
>>>> turned out to be S = hbar*c, merely a constant).” ?
>>> I have once asked one of the leading theorists at DESY for a better
>>> quantitative explanation or determination of the strong force. His
>>> answer: Sorry, the strong force is not good enough understood so
>>> that I cannot give you better information.
>>>> How could the number S that you could not find in “unprecise”
>>>> tables about the strong force possibly be the same number that can
>>>> be found precisely from the electron’s Bohr magneton ehbar/2m and
>>>> which you claim is S = hbar*c ? This is an unbelievable, desperate
>>>> stretch of imagination and "grasping at straws", in my opinion.
>>> When I have realized that my model deduces the Bohr magneton, I have
>>> used the measurements available in that context to determine my
>>> field constant. (I could also go the other way: I can use the Planck
>>> / Einstein relation E = h * f and the Einstein-relation E = m*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*.Makeadesperateattemptatsavingoneself.Forexample,/He had
>>>> lost the argument, but he kept grasping at straws, naming numerous
>>>> previous cases that had little to do with this
>>>> one/.Thismetaphoricexpressionalludestoadrowningperson
>>>> tryingtosavehimselfbygrabbingatflimsyreeds.Firstrecordedin1534,thetermwas
>>>> usedfigurativelybythelate1600s.
>>>>
>>>> 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>
>>>>> 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 . 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>
>>>>>>> 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> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Al,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I completely disagree with your conclusions about the
>>>>>>>>> motivation towards my model because my intention was not to
>>>>>>>>> develop a particle model. My intention was to develop a better
>>>>>>>>> understanding of time in relativity. My present model was an
>>>>>>>>> unexpected consequence of this work. I show you my arguments
>>>>>>>>> again and ask you to indicate the point where you do not follow.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am 17.11.2015 um 19:18 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Albrect:
>>>>>>>>>> Comments² *IN BOLD*
>>>>>>>>>> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 17. November 2015 um 18:41 Uhr
>>>>>>>>>> *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
>>>>>>>>>> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
>>>>>>>>>> *Cc:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>>>>>>>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Al,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> again some responses.
>>>>>>>>>> Am 14.11.2015 um 18:24 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Albrecht:
>>>>>>>>>> Answers to your questions:
>>>>>>>>>> 1) The SED background explains the Planck BB distribution
>>>>>>>>>> without quantization. It explans why an atom doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> collapse: in equilibrium with background, In fact, just
>>>>>>>>>> about every effect described by 2nd quantization has an
>>>>>>>>>> SED parallel explantion without additional
>>>>>>>>>> considerations. With the additional input of the SED
>>>>>>>>>> origin of deBroglie waves, it provides a direct
>>>>>>>>>> derivation of the Schröedinger eq. thereby explainiong
>>>>>>>>>> all of 1st Quantization.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you achieve something when using SED background. I do
>>>>>>>>>> not really understand this background, but I do not see a
>>>>>>>>>> stringent necessity for it. But SED as an origin to the de
>>>>>>>>>> Broglie waves is of interest for me. I am presently working
>>>>>>>>>> on de Broglie waves to find a solution, which does not have
>>>>>>>>>> the logical conflicts which we have discussed here.
>>>>>>>>>> *See No. 11 (or 1) @ www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com for
>>>>>>>>>> suggetions and some previous work along this line.*
>>>>>>>>> *Thank you, will have a look.*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2) Olber's logic is in conflict with Mach's Principle, so
>>>>>>>>>> is obviously just valid for visible light. Given a
>>>>>>>>>> little intergalacitc plasma (1 H/m³), not to mention
>>>>>>>>>> atmossphere and interplanatary plama, visible light
>>>>>>>>>> disappears to Earthbound observers at visitble freqs to
>>>>>>>>>> reappear at other, perhaps at 2.7° even, or at any other
>>>>>>>>>> long or hyper short wave length. 'The universe
>>>>>>>>>> matters'---which is even politically correct nowadays!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Olber's logic is simple in so far, as it shows that the
>>>>>>>>>> universe cannot be infinite. I have assumed the same for all
>>>>>>>>>> background effects. Or are they infinite?
>>>>>>>>>> *The fly in the ointment is absorbtion. An inf. universe
>>>>>>>>>> with absorbtion in the visible part of the spectrum will
>>>>>>>>>> still have a largely dark sky. *
>>>>>>>>> *And the other way around: Even if there is no absorption, the
>>>>>>>>> sky will be dark. And the general opinion is that, even if
>>>>>>>>> there is a lot of radiation absorbed, this absorbing material
>>>>>>>>> will heat up by the time and radiate as well. So an absorption
>>>>>>>>> should not change too much.*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What is the conflict with Mach's principle?
>>>>>>>>>> *Mach says: the gravitational "background radiation" is the
>>>>>>>>>> cause of inertia. This effect is parallel to the SED
>>>>>>>>>> bacground causing QM effects. Conflict: if Olber is right,
>>>>>>>>>> then Mach is probably wrong (too weak).*
>>>>>>>>> *In my understanding, what Mach means is completely different.
>>>>>>>>> Mach's intention was to find a reference system which is
>>>>>>>>> absolute with respect to acceleration. He assumed that this is
>>>>>>>>> caused by the stars in our vicinity. He did not have a certain
>>>>>>>>> idea how this happens, he only needed the fact. (Einstein
>>>>>>>>> replaced this necessity by his equivalence of gravity and
>>>>>>>>> acceleration - which however is clearly falsified as mentioned
>>>>>>>>> several times.)*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3) The (wide spread) criticism of 2 particles is that
>>>>>>>>>> there is neither an /a-priori/ intuative reason, nor
>>>>>>>>>> empirical evidence that they exist. Maybe they do
>>>>>>>>>> anyway. But then, maybe Zeus does too, and he is just
>>>>>>>>>> arranging appearances so that we amuse ourselves. (Try
>>>>>>>>>> to prove that wrong!)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have explained how I came to the conclusion of 2
>>>>>>>>>> sub-particles. Again:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1) There is motion with c in an elementary particle to
>>>>>>>>>> explain dilation
>>>>>>>>>> 2) With only on particle such process is mechanically not
>>>>>>>>>> possible, and it violates the conservation of momentum
>>>>>>>>>> 3) In this way it is the only working model theses days to
>>>>>>>>>> explain inertia. And this model explains inertia with high
>>>>>>>>>> precision. What more is needed?
>>>>>>>>>> *These assumtions are "teleological," i.e., tuned to give
>>>>>>>>>> the desired results. As logic, although often done, this
>>>>>>>>>> manuver is not legit in the formal presentation of a theory.
>>>>>>>>>> For a physics theory, ideally, all the input assuptios have
>>>>>>>>>> empirical justification or motivation. Your 2nd partical
>>>>>>>>>> (modulo virtual images) has no such motivatin, in fact, just
>>>>>>>>>> the opposite. *
>>>>>>>>> *My logical way is just the other way around. I had the plan
>>>>>>>>> to work on relativity (the aspects of time), not on particle
>>>>>>>>> physics. The particle model was an unplanned spin-off. I
>>>>>>>>> shall try to explain the logical path again:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _1st step:_ I have calculated the 4-dimensional speed of an
>>>>>>>>> object using the temporal part of the Lorentz transformation.
>>>>>>>>> The surprising fact was that this 4-dim. speed is always the
>>>>>>>>> speed of light. I have then assumed that this constant shows a
>>>>>>>>> permanent motion with c in a particle. I have accepted this as
>>>>>>>>> a probable solution, but I have never assumed this, before I
>>>>>>>>> had this result. It was in no way a desired result. My idea
>>>>>>>>> was to describe time by a vector of 3 of 4 dimensions. - I
>>>>>>>>> have then **no further **followed this idea.
>>>>>>>>> _2nd step:_ If there is some motion in the particle, it cannot
>>>>>>>>> be caused by one constituent. This is logically not possible
>>>>>>>>> as it violates the conservation of momentum. Also this was not
>>>>>>>>> a desired result but logically inevitable.
>>>>>>>>> _3rd step:_ If the constituents move with c, then they cannot
>>>>>>>>> have any mass. Also this was not a result which I wished to
>>>>>>>>> achieve, but here I followed my understanding of relativity.
>>>>>>>>> **_*4th *__step:_ The size must be such that the resulting
>>>>>>>>> frequency in the view of c yields the magnetic moment which is
>>>>>>>>> known by measurements.
>>>>>>>>> _5th step:_ I had to find a reason for the mass of the
>>>>>>>>> electron in spite of the fact that the constituents do not
>>>>>>>>> have any mass. After some thinking I found out the fact that
>>>>>>>>> any extended object has necessarily inertia. I have applied
>>>>>>>>> this insight to this particle model, and the result was the
>>>>>>>>> actual mass of the electron, if I assumed that the force is
>>>>>>>>> the strong force. It could not be the electric force (as it
>>>>>>>>> was assumed by others at earlier times) because the result is
>>>>>>>>> too weak.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> None of the results from step 1 thru step 5 was desired. Every
>>>>>>>>> step was inevitable, because our standard physical
>>>>>>>>> understanding (which I did not change at any point) does not
>>>>>>>>> allow for any alternative. - _Or at which step could I 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature
>>>>>>>>> of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
>>>>>>>>> richgauthier at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> <a
>>>>>>>>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
---
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/20151130/d9a92c67/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list