[General] research papers
Dr. Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Sat Sep 26 07:45:47 PDT 2015
Hi Martin, Al, and all,
thank you all for your contributions.
_Regarding the size of the electron:_
As Al argued in his example of the sun: If the scattered object is
passing by without touching, the angular distribution is independent of
the size of the object (for the 1/r^2 case). But that changes if the
scattered particle hits the body of the "ball". In a last experiment in
2004 at DESY there was an experiment performed in which electrons were
scattered against quarks (of a proton). The "common" size of both
particles resulted in a bit less than 10^-18 m. This limit is given by
the ratio of scattered events which react different from the 1/r^2 rule.
- In this experiment it was also found that the electron is not only
subject to the electric interaction but also to the strong interaction.
I think that this is also important for assessing electron models.
This result of the size seems in clear conflict with the evaluation of
Schrödinger and Wilczek using the uncertainty relation. Schroedinger
made the following statement to it: "Here I have got the following
result for the size of the electron (i.e. the Compton radius). But we
know that the electron is point-like. So, I must have an error in my
evaluation. However, I do not find this error." So also for Schrödinger
this was an unsolvable conflict.
I think that if the electron would be point like on the one hand but
oscillate far enough so as to fill the size of the Compton wavelength,
this would be a violation of the conservation of momentum. Very clearly,
a single object cannot oscillate. That was also obvious for Schrödinger
and clearly his reason to call the internal motion "Zitterbewegung".
This is a word which does not exist in the German vocabulary of physical
terms. But Schrödinger hesitated (by good reason) to use the German word
for "oscillation".
On the other hand, if the electron is built by two sub-particles, this
solves the problem. The sub-particle is point-like (at least with
respect to its charge), but both sub-particles orbit each other, which
reserves the momentum law, and the orbital radius is the reduced Compton
wavelength. - The argument of Martin that a model of two sub-particles
is "refuted by the experiment" is often heart but not applicable to my
model. The usual argument is that a sufficient effort has been done to
decompose an electron by a strong bombardment. This was also done here
at DESY. But in my model the sub-particles have no mass on their own
(the mass of the electron is caused by the dynamics of the binding
field). And in such a case one of the sub-particles may be accelerated
by an arbitrary amount, the other one can always follow without any
force coming up. A decomposition by bombardment is therefore never
possible. - I have discussed this point with the research director of
DESY who was responsible for such experiments, and after at first
objecting it, he admitted, that my model is not in conflict with these
experiments.
Martin: Where do I find your paper of 1997?
_Regarding dilation:_
There is a lot of clear indications for dilation. Two examples:
- The atomic clocks in the GPS satellites are slowed down which has to
be compensated for
- In the Muon storage ring at CERN the lifetime of these Muons was
extended by the great amount ca. 250, which was in precise agreement
with special relativity.
Contraction, on the other hand, is in so far more a point of
interpretation as it cannot be directly measured - in contrast to dilation.
Best wishes
Albrecht
Am 26.09.2015 um 01:48 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
> Well! The water I was trying to offer was: might it not be a good
> idea to distinguish clearly and specifically between the size of a
> point and the size of the volumn in which this point is insessently
> moving about. If your 97 paper does that, my appologies. Does it?
> Forgive me, I have over a couple hundred papers I'd like to have read
> and digested laying about, I do my best but still can't get to them
> all. The chances are better, however, if a paper attracts lots of
> attention because it predicted something new to be observed
> empirically. Did it?
> BTW, I did not imply that the work I refered to is better. But, it
> (in Rowland's avantar) is certainly as extensive as yours. In any
> case, it potentially undermines your "shot-from-the-hip" criticism of
> Albrecht's program by introducing a feature to which neither you nor
> John refered to, in my best memory, at San Diego. My comment was not
> intended ad hominum, but made on the presumtion that you too have
> hundreds of unread papers available.
> Best, Al
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 19:56 Uhr
> *Von:* "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
> *An:* "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion"
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] research papers
> Al, just read what i wrote. It is not shooting from the hip. I am
> refering to actual experiments, all cited in the paper i refered to.
> Further, you are just repeating what i said already. I can only bring
> you to the water, i cannot make you drink. And then you refer to other
> doubtfull work, as id it were better. Good luck.
> Regards, Martin
>
> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
>
> Op 25 sep. 2015 om 19:16 heeft "af.kracklauer at web.de"
> <af.kracklauer at web.de> het volgende geschreven:
>
> Dear Martin,
> Perhaps it's my Texas background, but I think I sense some
> "shoot'n from the hip."
> You have not done an experiment, but (at best) a calculation based
> on some hypothtical input of your choise. Maybe it's good, maybe
> not.
> The Sun scatters as a point only those projectiles that don't get
> close. So far, no scattering off electons has gotten close
> enough to engage any internal structure, "they" say (I#ll defer to
> experts up-to-date). Nevertheless, electrons are in constant
> motion at or near the speed of light (Zitterbewegung) and
> therefore at the time scales of the projectiles buzz around
> (zittern) in a certain amout of space, which seems to me must
> manifest itself as if there were spacially exteneded structure
> within the scattering cross-section. Why not?
> Not to defend Albrecht's model as he describes it, but many folks
> (say Peter Rowlands at Liverpool, for example) model elemtary
> particles in terms of the partiicle itself interacting with its
> induced virtual image (denoted by Peter as the "rest of the
> universe"). This "inducement" is a kind of polarization effect.
> Every charge repells all other like charges and attracts all
> other unlike charges resulting in what can be modeled as a virtual
> charge of the opposite gender superimposed on itself in the static
> approximation. But, because the real situation is fluid, the
> virtual charge's motion is delayed as caused by finite light
> speed, so that the two chase each other. Etc. Looks something like
> Albrecht's pairs.
> I too havn't read your 97 paper yet, but I bet it's unlikely that
> you all took such consideration into account.
> Best, Al
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 18:44 Uhr
> *Von:* "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
> *An:* "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion"
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, "phys at a-giese.de"
> <phys at a-giese.de>
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] research papers
>
> Dear Al, dear Albrecht, dear all,
>
> In the paper John W and I published in 1997, the situation is
> explained briefly but adequately.
>
> Clearly Albrecht has not read it or, perhaps he did but does not
> want to understand it because it really destroys his work. This is
> a double pity, of course, but we are talking science, not
> sentiment, and I do not want to take away anything from the person
> you are Albrecht.
>
> The electron has a finite size, of the oder of the Compton
> wavelength, but the Coulomb interaction is perfectly matched in
> ANY experiment, which means there are no internal bits to the
> electron and that it behaves as a point-LIKE scatterer, not a to
> be mistaken by a POINT as is done most of the time. Note that even
> the sun has point-like scattering for all comets that go round it,
> its gravitational field seems to come from the centre of the sun.
> Until you hit other bits. There are no other bits for the
> electron, but at very high energy the 4-momentum exchange combined
> with the resolving power at that high energy make that a
> Compton-size object CANNOT be resolved in principle, if and only
> if it is of electromagnetic origin.
>
> The electron is a single thing, of electromagnetic origin only,
> there is NO OTHER WAY to fit the experimental results.
>
> Well, maybe there is another way, but I cannot see it. Certainly
> it is not two parts rotating about each other, because that is
> refuted by experiment, all those models can go in the bin and are
> a waste of time and energy.
>
> 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
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *af.kracklauer at web.de
> *Sent:* vrijdag 25 september 2015 18:05
> *To:* phys at a-giese.de; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Cc:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] research papers
>
> Gentelmen:
>
> Shouldn't a clear and explicit distinction between the "size" of
> the electron and the "extent" of its Zitterbewegung be made. My
> best info, perhaps not up-to-date, is that although scattering
> experiments put an upper limit on the size (10^-19m), there exists
> in fact no evidence that the electron has any finite size
> whatsoever. This is in contrast to the space it consumes with its
> Zitter-motion, which is what would be calculated using QM
> (Heisenberg uncertanty mostly). Seems to me that most of what
> folks theorize about is the latter, without saying so, and perhaps
> often without even recognizing it. However, since the Zitter
> volumn will cause electrons to be moving targets, it must also
> have some effect on its scatering cross-section too. I don't know
> how this is sorted out in scattering calculations---if at all.
> (Albrectht?)
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong. Best, Al
>
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 15:06 Uhr
> *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:* "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>, phys at a-giese.de
> *Cc:* "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion"
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] research papers
>
> Hello Richard,
>
> according to present mainstream physics the size of the electron
> is not more than 10^-19 m. This is concluded from scattering
> experiments where the size of the electric charge is the quantity
> of influence.
>
> As present mainstream physics (including the QED of Feynman)
> assume that the electron has no internal structure and that the
> electric force is the only one effective, this size is identified
> with the size of the whole electron. This is in severe conflict
> with the calculations of Schrödinger and of Wilczek based on QM.
>
> I have the impression that several of us (including me) have
> models of the electron which assume some extension roughly
> compatible with the QM calculations.
>
> Some details of my model related to this question: Here the
> electron is built by 2 sub-particles ("basic particles") which
> orbit each other at c. The electric force is not the only force
> inside. The radius following from the magnetic moment is the
> reduced Compton wavelength, and the mass of the electron follows
> with high precision from this radius. At motion the size decreases
> by the relativistic factor gamma, and so the mass increases by
> this factor. - However there was always a point of a certain
> weakness in my model: I could not prove that the electron is built
> by just 2 sub-particles carrying 1/2 elementary charge each. Now
> Wilczek writes in his article that in certain circumstances -
> superconductivity in the presence of a magnetic field - the
> electron is decomposed into two halves. This is the result of
> measurements. How can this happen with a point-like particle? This
> is a mystery for Wilczek. But in the view of my model it is no
> mystery but quite plausible. It only needs now a quantitative
> calculation of this process which I presently do not have.
>
> All the best to you
> Albrecht
>
> Am 23.09.2015 um 19:02 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>
> Hello Albrecht,
>
> Yes, all of our electron models here have a radius related to
> the Compton wavelength. Dirac’s zitterbewegung amplitude is
> 1/2 of the reduced Compton wavelength, or hbar/2mc , which is
> the radius of the generic circulating charged photon’s
> trajectory in my circulating spin 1/2 charged photon model for
> a resting electron. That radius decreases by a factor of
> gamma^2 in a moving electron. Does yours? Incorporating a more
> detailed spin 1/2 charged photon model with the generic model
> could bring the model's radius up to the reduced Compton
> wavelength hbar/mc.
>
> all the best,
>
> Richard
>
> On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:13 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese
> <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:
>
> Dear Richard,
>
> thank you for this reference to the article of Frank Wilczek.
>
> He has a quantum mechanical argument to determine a size
> for the electron. It is the application of the uncertainty
> relation to the magnetic moment of the electron. The
> result is as you write: 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is the
> Compton wavelength of the electron.
> This is a bit similar to the way as Erwin Schrödinger has
> determined the size of the electron using the Dirac
> function in 1930. There Schrödinger determined the
> "amplitude of the zitterbewegung" also applying the
> uncertainty relation to the rest energy of the electron.
> It was "roughly" 10^-13 m, which also meant in his words
> the Compton wavelength of the electron.
>
> In my electron model its radius is 3.86 x 10^-13 m, which
> is exactly the "reduced" Compton wavelength. But here it
> is not an expectation value as in the cases of Wilczek and
> Schrödinger but the exact radius of the orbits of the
> basic particles.
>
> Thank you again and best wishes
> Albrecht
>
> Am 21.09.2015 um 05:01 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>
> This 2013 Nature comment “The enigmatic electron” by
> Frank Wilczek at
> http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com is
> worth a look. He states that due to QM effects, the
> size of the electron is about 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is
> roughly in the range of some of our electron models.
>
> Richard
>
> On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Wolfgang Baer
> <wolf at nascentinc.com> wrote:
>
> I should add you sent me Main-2014.pdf and that
> may be the one not available on the web sight.
> I was looking for a similar one that included the
> other topics as well.
> If you do not have it, its OK, I just like reading
> from paper.
>
> best wishes,
>
> Wolf
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>
> Research Director
>
> Nascent Systems Inc.
>
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>
> On 9/14/2015 12:45 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> John,
>
> You wrote a long text, so I will enter my
> answers within your text.
>
> Am 14.09.2015 um 02:54 schrieb John Macken:
>
> Hello David and Albrecht,
>
> It was through the contact with this group
> that I was finally able to understand the
> disconnect that existed between my idea of
> vacuum energy and the picture that others
> were obtaining from my use of the term
> “energy”. Many of the mysteries of quantum
> mechanics and general relativity can be
> traced to the fact that fields exist and
> yet we do not have a clear idea of what
> they are. My answer is that we live
> within a sea of vacuum activity which is
> the physical basis of the mysterious
> fields. I combine all fields into a single
> “spacetime field” which is the basis of
> all particles, fields and forces.
>
> *David*, you asked about the wordsquantum,
> quantifying and quantizing. I did a word
> search and I did not use the word
> “quantizing” in either the email or the
> attachment to my last post. However, the
> paper/Energetic Spacetime: The New
> Aether/submitted to SPIE as part of the
> conference presentation, used and defines
> the word “quantization”. This paper was
> attached to previous posts, and is
> available at my website:
> http://onlyspacetime.com/
>
> *Albrecht*: I can combine my answer to you
> with the clarification for David of the
> word “quantify” and its derivatives. I
> claim that my model of the universe
> “quantifies” particles and fields. I will
> start my explanation of this concept by
> giving examples of models which do not
> “quantify” particles and fields. There
> have been numerous particle models from
> this group and others which show an
> electron model as two balls orbiting
> around a center of mass. Most of the
> group identifies these balls as photons
> but Albrecht names the two balls “charges
> of the strong force”. Both photons and
> charges of strong force are just words. To
> be quantifiable, it is necessary to
> describe the model of the universe which
> gives the strong force or the
> electromagnetic force. What exactly are
> these? How much energy and energy density
> does one charge of strong force have? Can
> a photon occupy a volume smaller than a
> reduced Compton wavelength in radius? Does
> a muon have the same basic strong force
> charge but just rotate faster? Are the
> charges of strong force or photons made of
> any other more basic component?
>
>
> Regarding charge: This is a basic entity in my
> model. At some point a physical theory has to
> start. My model starts with the assumption
> that a charge is an "atomic" entity, so
> possibly point-like, which emits exchange
> particles (in this point I follow the general
> understanding of QM). There are two types of
> charges: the electric ones which we are very
> familiar with, having two signs, and the
> strong ones, which are not so obvious in
> everyday physics; they also have two signs. In
> the physical nature we find the charges of the
> strong force only in configurations made of
> those different signs, never isolated. This is
> in contrast to the electric charges.
>
> The basic particles are composed of a
> collection of charges of the strong force so
> that both basic particles are bound to each
> other in a way that they keep a certain
> distance. This distance characterizes an
> elementary particle. In several (or most)
> cases there is additionally an electric charge
> in the basic particle.
>
> The two parameters I have to set - or to find
> - are the shape of the strong field in the
> elementary particle. Here I have defined an
> equation describing a minimum multi-pole field
> to make the elementary particle stable. The
> other setting is the strength of this field.
> This strength can be found e.g. using the
> electron because the electron is well known
> and precisely measured. This field is then
> applicable for all leptons as well as for all
> quarks. It is also applicable for the photon
> with the restriction that there may be a
> correction factor caused by the fact that the
> photon is not fundamental in the sense of this
> model but composed of (maybe) two other particles.
>
> The size of the photon is (at least roughly)
> described by its wavelength. This follows from
> the mass formula resulting from my model, as
> with this assumption the (dynamic) mass of the
> photon is the correct result.
>
> As I wrote, the results of this model are very
> precise, the prove is in practice only limited
> by limitations of the measurement processes.
>
> I could go on with more questions until it is
> possible to calculate the properties of an
> electron from the answers. So far both models
> lack any quantifiable details except perhaps a
> connection to the particle’s Compton
> frequency. I am not demanding anything more
> than I have already done. For example, I
> cannot calculate the electron’s Compton
> frequency or the fine structure constant.
> However, once I install these into the model
> that I create, and combine this with the
> properties of the spacetime field, then I get
> an electron. Installing a muon’s Compton
> frequency generates a muon with the correct
> electric field, electrostatic force, curvature
> of spacetime, gravitational force and de
> Broglie waves. I am able to quantify the
> distortion of spacetime produced by a charged
> particle, an electric field and a photon. I am
> able to test these models and show that they
> generate both the correct energy density and
> generate a black hole when we reach the
> distortion limits of the spacetime field.
>
> In my model the Compton frequency of the
> electron (and of the other leptons) follows
> directly from the size of the particle and the
> fact that the basic particle move with c. The
> fine structure constant tells us the relation
> of the electric force to the strong force.
> This explanation follows very directly from
> this model, however was also found by other
> theorists using algebra of particle physics.
>
> Another result of the model is that Planck's
> constant - multiplied by c - is the field
> constant of the strong force. Also this is the
> result of other models (however not of
> mainstream physics).
>
> My model starts with a quantifiable
> description of the properties of spacetime.
> The spacetime model has a specific impedance
> which describes the properties of waves that
> can exist in spacetime. Then the amplitude and
> frequency of the waves in spacetime is
> quantified. This combination allows the energy
> density of spacetime to be calculated and this
> agrees with the energy density of zero point
> energy. The particle models are then defined
> as ½ħunits of quantized angular momentum
> existing in the spacetime field. This model
> is quantifiable as to size, structure, energy,
> etc. Also the fact that the rate of time and
> proper volume is being modulated, it is
> possible to calculate the effect that such a
> structure would have on the surrounding volume
> of spacetime. It is possible to calculate the
> effect if the spacetime-based particle model
> would have if the coupling constant was equal
> to 1 (Planck charge), To get charge/e/, it is
> necessary to manually install the fine
> structure constant.
>
> How do you get the value½ħfor the angular
> momentum? What is the calculation behind it? -
> I understand that in your model the electric
> charge is a parameter deduced from other
> facts. Which ones? From alpha? How do you then
> get alpha?
>
> I personally have in so far a problem with all
> considerations using spacetime as I have quite
> thoroughly investigated how Einstein came to
> the idea of this 4-dimentional construct. His
> main motivation was that he wanted in any case
> to avoid an ether. And in his discussions with
> Ernst Mach he had to realize that he was
> running into a lot of problems with this
> assumption. He could solve these problems in
> general by his "curved spacetime". But this
> concept still causes logical conflicts which
> are eagerly neglected by the followers of
> Einstein's relativity (and which do not exist
> in the Lorentzian way of relativity).
>
> The quantifiable properties of spacetime imply
> that there should be boundary conditions which
> imply that the waves in spacetime should be
> nonlinear. When the nonlinear component is
> calculated and treated as separate waves, the
> characteristics of the particle’s
> gravitational field are obtained (correct:
> curvature, effect on the rate of time, force
> and energy density).
>
> In my last post I have given an answer about
> the factor of 10^120 difference between the
> observable energy density of the universe and
> the non-observable energy of the universe.
> This non-observable energy density is
> absolutely necessary for QED calculations,
> zero point energy, the uncertainty principle,
> Lamb shift, spontaneous emission and quantum
> mechanics in general. This non-observable
> energy density is responsible for the
> tremendously large impedance of spacetime c^3
> /G. Since I can also show how this
> non-observable energy density is obtainable
> from gravitational wave equations, it is
> necessary for*you*to show how all these
> effects can be achieved without spacetime
> being a single field with this non-observable
> energy density. In fact, the name
> non-observable only applied to direct
> observation. The indirect evidence is
> everywhere. It forms the basis of the universe
> and therefore is the “background noise” of the
> universe. For this reason it is not directly
> observable because we can only detect
> differences in energy. The
> constants/c,//G/,/ħ/and/ε_o /testify that
> spacetime is not an empty void.
>
> Up to now I did not find any necessity for
> zero-point energy. And I find it a dangerous
> way to assume physical facts which cannot be
> observed. The greatest argument in favour of
> this energy is its use in Feynman diagrams.
> But is there really no other way? I have a
> lecture of Feynman here where he states that
> his formalism has good results. But that he
> has no physical understanding why it is
> successful. In my understanding of the
> development of physics this is a weak point.
>
> The discrepancy of 10^120 between assumed and
> observed energy is taken as a great and
> unresolved problem by present main stream
> physics. Those representatives would have all
> reason to find a solution to keep present QM
> clean. But they are not able to. This causes
> me some concern.
>
> The constants you have listed: c is the speed
> of light what ever the reason for it is. (I
> have a model, but it is a bit speculative.)
> But it has nothing to do with energy. G is the
> gravitational constant which is as little
> understood as gravity itself. Planck's
> constant I have explained, it is (with c) the
> field constant of the strong force (any force
> has to be described by a field constant);
> and/ε_o /is the field constant of the electric
> force with a similar background.
>
> If spacetime was an empty void, why should
> particles have a speed limit of/c/? For a
> thought experiment, suppose that two
> spaceships leave earth going opposite
> directions and accelerate until they reach a
> speed of 0.75/c/relative to the earth. The
> earth bound observer sees them separating at
> 1.5/c/but the rules of relativistic addition
> of velocity has a spaceship observer seeing
> the other spaceship moving away at only
> 0.96/c/. How is this possible if spacetime is
> an empty void. My model of the universe
> answers this because all particles, fields and
> forces are also made of the spacetime field
> and they combine to achieve Lorentz
> transformations which affects ruler length and
> clocks. None of this can happen unless
> spacetime is filled with dipole waves in
> spacetime and everything is made of the single
> component. The universe is only spacetime.
>
> If two spaceships move at 0.75 c in opposite
> direction, the observer at rest may add these
> speeds and may get 1.5 c as a result. Why not?
> If an observer in one of the spaceships
> measures the relative speed of the other
> spaceship, the result will be less then c (as
> you write it). The reason is the well known
> fact that the measurement tools accessible for
> the observer in the ship are changed and run
> differently at this high speed. The reason for
> these changes is for time dilation the
> internal speed c in elementary particles. For
> contraction it is the contraction of fields at
> motion which is a fact independent of
> relativity (and which was already known before
> Einstein). In addition when the speed of
> another object is to be measured several
> clocks are to be used positioned along the
> measurement section. These clocks are
> de-synchronized in relation to the clocks of
> the observer at rest. These phenomena together
> cause the measurement result < c. You find
> these considerations in papers and books about
> the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity.
> So, following Lorentz, there is no reason to
> assume Einstein's spacetime.
>
> John M.
>
> Perhaps I should read your book. But that
> chould take a lot of time, I am afraid.
>
> Albrecht
>
> *From:*Dr. Albrecht Giese
> [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de]
> *Sent:*Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM
> *To:*John Macken<john at macken.com>; 'Nature of
> Light and Particles - General
> Discussion'<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:*Re: [General] research papers
>
> 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>
> *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
>
> <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>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> <Mail Attachment.jpeg>
> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast
> Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> <Mail Attachment.jpeg>
> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast
> Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast
> Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>
> Click here to unsubscribe
>
> </a>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication
> from the Nature of Light and Particles General
> Discussion List atrichgauthier at gmail.com
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren
> geprüft.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ If you no longer
> wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
> Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click
> here to unsubscribe
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>
> _______________________________________________ If you no longer
> wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
> Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click
> here to unsubscribe
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
> Light and Particles General Discussion List at
> martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
> _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish
> to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles
> General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to
> unsubscribe
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150926/aa991b75/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list