<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hi Al,<br>
<br>
if we look to charges you mention the law 1/r<sup>2</sup>. 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<sup>-13</sup>
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.<br>
<br>
Regarding my model, the logic of deduction was very simple for me:<br>
<br>
1.) We have dilation, so there must be a permanent motion with c<br>
2.) There must be 2 sub-particles otherwise the momentum law is
violated; 3 are not possible as in conflict with experiments. <br>
3.) The sub-particles must be mass-less, otherwise c is not possible<br>
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.)<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
So, where do you see any kind of arbitrariness or missing
justification?<br>
<br>
Tschüß!<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 12.11.2015 um 17:51 schrieb
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-b2e4c4f4-7143-4556-b58f-0a1f5f12b70b-1447347112711@3capp-webde-bs22"
type="cite">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi Albrect:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>We are making some progress. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>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. <span
style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif, Arial, 'Trebuchet
MS'; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.6em;">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! </span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif, Arial,
'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.6em;">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). </span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif, Arial,
'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.6em;">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!</span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif, Arial,
'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.6em;">Tschuß,
Al</span></div>
<div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px; padding:
10px 0 10px 10px; border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Donnerstag,
12. November 2015 um 16:18 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from
what a model…</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div style="background-color: rgb(255,255,255);"><font
size="-1">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com"
target="_blank">http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com</a>:
</font><br>
<div class="t m88 x28 h2 y37 ff1 fs1 fc0 sc0 ls3 ws2"><small><span><span
class="current-selection">He writes: "By co</span></span><span
class="current-selection">mb</span><span
class="current-selection">ining fragmen</span><span
class="current-selection">tatio</span><span
class="current-selection">n with su</span><span
class="current-selection">per</span><span
class="ls0 ws0 current-selection">-</span><span
class="current-selection">con</span><span
class="current-selection">ductivity</span><span
class="current-selection">, w</span><span
class="current-selection">e can get half-electro</span><span
class="current-selection">ns tha</span><span
class="current-selection">t </span></small><small><span
class="current-selection">ar</span><span
class="current-selection">e their o</span><span
class="current-selection">wn an</span><span><span
class="current-selection">tiparticles." </span><br>
</span></small></div>
<font size="-1">For Wilczek this is a mysterious
result, in view of my model it is not, on the
contrary it is kind of a proof.<br>
<br>
Grüße<br>
Albrecht</font><br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="-1">Am
12.11.2015 um 03:06 schrieb <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</font></div>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>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. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>MfG, Al</div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 10.0px 5.0px 5.0px
10.0px;padding: 10.0px 0 10.0px
10.0px;border-left: 2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div style="margin: 0 0 10.0px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Mittwoch,
11. November 2015 um 22:37 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="genmail@a-giese.de"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>,
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_parent">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Reply of
comments from what a model…</div>
<div>
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
if we think in categories of a virtual
image, then we are in my understanding
fully on the path of present main stream
QM. I have understood that we all want
to do something better than that.<br>
<br>
Regarding virtual phenomena I would like
to remind you again of the history of
such ideas. In the 1940ies Julian
Schwinger has introduced vacuum
polarization (which is equivalent to
virtual particles according to Feynman)
to determine the Landé factor for
refining the Bohr magneton. This was the
birth of it.<br>
<br>
On the other hand I have shown that I
can deduce the Bohr magneton as well as
the Landé factor in a classical way if I
use my particle model. And that is
possible and was done on a pure
classical way. For me this is a good
example that we can do things better
than by QM. In particular I try to have
correct results without using any
virtual objects.<br>
<br>
Back to your question: If we build a
particle model on a classical basis then
there is no place for a virtual image,
and so I see the need for two
sub-particles.<br>
<br>
Ciao, Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
11.11.2015 um 17:27 schrieb <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 10.0px 5.0px
5.0px 10.0px;padding: 10.0px 0
10.0px 10.0px;border-left:
2.0px solid rgb(195,217,229);">
<div style="margin: 0 0 10.0px
0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Mittwoch,
11. November 2015 um 11:54
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="genmail@a-giese.de"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] Reply of comments
from what a model…</div>
<div>
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">
<div>Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#006600">You
said: A model with
only one particle is
in my view also not
possible as it
violates the
conservation of
momentum. A single
object can never
oscillate.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#006600">I
ask: </font><span
style="color:
rgb(0,102,0);font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;line-height:
19.2px;"> Why can't a
single particle
oscillate against, or
in consort with, its
own virtual image.
(Presuming there is
charge complex
around---mirror in 2d,
negative sphere (I
think) in 3d)? </span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="color:
rgb(0,102,0);font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;line-height:
19.2px;">ciao, Al</span></div>
<hr style="border:
none;color:
rgb(144,144,144);background-color:
rgb(176,176,176);height:
1.0px;width: 99.0%;">
<table
style="border-collapse:
collapse;border: none;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border:
none;padding:
0.0px 15.0px 0.0px
8.0px;"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank"><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
alt="Avast
logo"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
border="0"> </a></td>
<td>
<p style="color:
rgb(61,77,90);font-family:
Calibri ,
Verdana , Arial
,
Helvetica;font-size:
12.0pt;">Diese
E-Mail wurde von
Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft.<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to
receive communication from
the Nature of Light and
Particles General
Discussion List at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank"> Click
here to unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<hr style="border: none;color:
rgb(144,144,144);background-color:
rgb(176,176,176);height: 1.0px;width:
99.0%;">
<table style="border-collapse:
collapse;border: none;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border: none;padding:
0.0px 15.0px 0.0px 8.0px;"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
alt="Avast logo"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
border="0"> </a></td>
<td>
<p style="color:
rgb(61,77,90);font-family:
Calibri , Verdana , Arial ,
Helvetica;font-size: 12.0pt;">Diese
E-Mail wurde von Avast
Antivirus-Software auf Viren
geprüft.<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank">www.avast.com</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<hr style="border: none;color:
rgb(144,144,144);background-color:
rgb(176,176,176);height: 1.0px;width: 99.0%;">
<table style="border-collapse: collapse;border: none;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border: none;padding: 0.0px 15.0px
0.0px 8.0px;"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
alt="Avast logo"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
border="0"> </a></td>
<td>
<p style="color: rgb(61,77,90);font-family:
Calibri , Verdana , Arial ,
Helvetica;font-size: 12.0pt;">Diese E-Mail
wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren
geprüft.<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank">www.avast.com</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
<tr>
<td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">
<img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" />
</a>
</td>
<td>
<p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
<br><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>