[General] research papers

Dr. Albrecht Giese genmail at a-giese.de
Sun Sep 13 13:42:58 PDT 2015


Hello John,

great that you have looked so deeply into the model which I have 
presented. Thank you.

There are some questions which I can answer quite easily. I think that 
this model in fact explains several points just in contrast to main 
stream physics. In standard physics the electron (just as an example) is 
a point-like object without any internal structure. So, how can a 
magnetic moment be explained? How can the spin be explained? How can the 
mass be explained? The position of main stream physics is: That cannot 
be explained but is subject to quantum mechanics. And the fact that it 
cannot be explained shows how necessary QM is.

In contrast, if the electron is assumed to have a structure like in the 
model presented, these parameters can be explained in a classical way, 
and this explanation is not merely a qualitative one but has precise 
quantitative results.

To  your questions in detail:
The fact of two basic particles is necessary to explain the fact of an 
oscillation and to fulfil the conservation of momentum. A single object 
(as point-like) cannot oscillate. The basic particles are composed of 
charges of the strong force. In this model the strong force is assumed 
to be the universal force in our world effective on all particles. A 
charge is a fundamental object in the scope of this model. There are two 
kinds of charges according to the two kinds of forces in our world, the 
strong one and the electric one. The weak force is in fact the strong 
force but has a smaller coupling constant caused by geometric 
circumstances. And gravity is not a force at all but a refraction 
process, which is so a side effect of the other forces. And, by the way, 
gravity is not curved spacetime. This is not necessary, and besides of 
this, Einstein's spacetime leads to logical conflicts.

The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an elementary particle are 
configured in a way that at a certain distance there is a potential 
minimum and in this way the distance between the basic particles is 
enforced. So, this field has attracting and repulsive components. 
Outside the elementary particle the attracting forces dominate to make 
the particle a stable one. And those field parts outside have an 
opposite sign. Now, as the basic particles are orbiting each other, the 
outside field is an alternating field (of the strong forth). If this 
field propagates, it is builds a wave. This wave is described by the 
Schrödinger equation and fulfils the assumptions of de Broglie.

With the assumption of two basic particles orbiting at c and subject to 
strong force, the parameters mass, magnetic moment, spin result from it 
numerically correctly without further assumptions.

This model does not need any vacuum energy or virtual particles. Those 
are simply not necessary and they are anyway very speculative because 
not directly observable. And in the case of the vacuum energy of the 
universe we are confronted with the discrepancy of 10^120 which you also 
mention in your paper attached to your mail.

The Coulomb law can be easily explained by the assumption (standard at 
quantum mechanics) that a force is realized by exchange particles. The 
density of exchange particles and so the strength of the field 
diminishes by 1/r^2, which is simple geometry.

So John, this is my position. Now I am curious about your objections of 
further questions.

Best regards
Albrecht


Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken:
>
> Hello Albrecht and All,
>
> I have attached a one page addition that I will make to my book. It is 
> a preliminary explanation of my model of the spacetime field.  It has 
> been very helpful to me to interact with this group because I now 
> understand better the key stumbling block for some scientists to 
> accept my thesis.  Therefore I have written the attached introduction 
> to ease the reader of my book into my model.
>
> *Albrecht:*  I appreciate your email. We agree on several points which 
> include the size of the electron and there is a similarity in the 
> explanation of gravity.  The key points of disagreement are the same 
> as I have with the rest of the group.  Your explanation of a 
> fundamental particle is not really an explanation.  You substitute a 
> fundamental particle such as an electron with two “basic particles”.  
> Have we made any progress or did we just double the problem?  What is 
> your basic particles made of?  What is the physics behind the force of 
> attraction between the particles? What is the physics behind an 
> electric field? How does your model create de Broglie waves? How does 
> your model create a gravitational field (curved spacetime)?  Can you 
> derive the Coulomb law and Newtonian gravitational equation from your 
> model?
>
> These might seem like unfair questions, but my model does all of these 
> things. All it requires is the reader accept the fact that the vacuum 
> possesses activity which can be characterized as a type of energy 
> density that is not observable (no rest mass or momentum).  This is no 
> different that accepting that QED calculations should be believed when 
> they assume vacuum energy or that zero point energy really exists.
>
> *Albrecht*, perhaps I have come on too strong, but I have decided to 
> take a firmer stand.  You just happen to be the first person that I 
> contrast to my model.  I am actually happy to discuss the scientific 
> details in a less confrontational way.  I just wanted to make an 
> initial point.
>
> John M.
>
> *From:*General 
> [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] 
> *On Behalf Of *Dr. Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Subject:* Re: [General] research papers
>
> Dear John Macken,
>
> I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. You write 
> "... would have particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs 
> field is needed to give inertia to fermions".
>
> We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists working on 
> elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory is not able to 
> explain inertia.  I give you as a reference:
>
> >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of Physics G, Nuclear and Particle Physics 38, 
> 4(2011) 43201< ,
>
> which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes inertia 
> according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of magnitude too 
> small to explain the mass of the elementary particles. (Another 
> weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does not tell us the mass 
> of any elementary particle even if all other parameters are known.)
>
> As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model 
> explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea but 
> provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. The mass is 
> classically deduced from the size of a particle.  It also explains the 
> mass of quarks, but here the verification is more difficult, due to 
> the lack of measurements. In addition I have shown that the model also 
> explains the (dynamic) mass of photons, if the size of a photon is 
> related to its wavelength.
>
> You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego meeting, but 
> also on the following web sites:
>
> www.ag-physics.org/rmass <http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass>
> www.ag-physics.org/electron <http://www.ag-physics.org/electron> .
>
> You may also find the sites by Google search entering the string 
> "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 of the list, 
> where it has constantly been during the past 12 years.
>
> If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be happy 
> about any discussion.
>
> With best regards
> Albrecht Giese
>
> Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken:
>
>     Martin,
>
>     I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update your
>     article “Light Is Heavy” to include the mathematical proof that
>     confined light has exactly the same inertia as particles with
>     equal energy.  Accelerating a reflecting box causes different
>     photon pressure which results in a net inertial force.  I already
>     reference your Light Is Heavy article in my book, but expanding
>     the article would be even better.  An expanded article would have
>     particular relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed
>     to give inertia to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give
>     inertia to confined light.  Furthermore, confined light exerts
>     exactly the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at
>     relativistic conditions.  I have not seen a proof that the Higgs
>     field gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic
>     energy to fermions.  Any particle model that includes either a
>     confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at the
>     speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the same
>     principles as confined light in a reflecting box.
>
>     John M.
>
>     *From:* General
>     [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>     *On Behalf Of *Mark, Martin van der
>     *Sent:* Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM
>     *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>     <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>     <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>     *Subject:* [General] research papers
>
>     Dear all,
>
>     My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate:
>
>     https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications
>
>     In particular you will find the most recent work:
>
>       * On the nature of “stuff” and the hierarchy of forces
>       * Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic
>         4-current from topological EM fields
>
>     Very best regards,
>
>     Martin
>
>     Dr. Martin B. van der Mark
>
>     Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare
>
>     Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven
>
>     High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)
>
>     Prof. Holstlaan 4
>
>     5656 AE  Eindhoven, The Netherlands
>
>     Tel: +31 40 2747548
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     The information contained in this message may be confidential and
>     legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended
>     solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended
>     recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding,
>     dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly
>     prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended
>     recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy
>     all copies of the original message.
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>
>     <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>     <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>
>     Click here to unsubscribe
>
>     </a>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Image removed by sender. 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/20150913/c49c8ab0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150913/c49c8ab0/attachment.jpeg>


More information about the General mailing list