<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.current-selection
{mso-style-name:current-selection;}
span.ls0
{mso-style-name:ls0;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Hi Richard<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>I have toyed with a two photon model for the electron.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>If we assume that each photon has half the energy then the wavelength would be twice as long, and to display a spin angular momentum of hbar the radius would have to be the same as a one photon model. Each photon would have to wrap around the transport radius 4 times. The amplitude of each photon would be half and they would have to rotate in the same direction to keep the energy and forces balanced, and they would be 180 degrees out of phase about the electron radius, “co-orbiting” each other . This configuration would have the tendency to naturally create a more “spherical” field to maintain its lowest energy state.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Something like this set of illustrations, but spinning…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>With field lines…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><img width=368 height=352 id="Picture_x0020_3" src="cid:image002.png@01D11E9C.A769B830"><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><img width=380 height=364 id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.png@01D11E9C.47284D10"> <img width=336 height=351 id="Picture_x0020_2" src="cid:image003.png@01D11E9C.A769B830"><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Photon trajectory…<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><img width=411 height=351 id="Picture_x0020_4" src="cid:image004.png@01D11E9D.278DACB0"><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Chip<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Richard Gauthier<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, November 13, 2015 7:54 AM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br><b>Cc:</b> Nick Bailey <nick@bailey-family.org.uk><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hello Albrecht,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> Of your 5 listed points that you said form the basis of your 2-circling-massless-particles electron model, 4 can be covered by a model (I am not proposing this as a viable model but there are a few doubts about your model also) of two circling charged photons, each with energy E = 1/2 mc^2 where m is the electron’s rest mass, and each has electric charge -1/2 e . They could get their charge by circling each other.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>1) There is permanent motion with c since both photons move at c.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>2) There are 2 sub-particles (though experiment so far rules this out as with your model) since the sub-particles are two circling photons.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>3) Each photon is massless since a single photon having energy E = 1/2 mc^2 = hf normally has no rest mass (as commonly understood).<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>4) The 2-photon system has rest mass m even though the sub particles are massless. This is because the two photons together, each of energy E = 1/2 mc^2 and moving in opposite directions, have zero total momentum, (i.e. p total = 0) so by the relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 this means m = Etotal/c^2 so the system of 2 photons has a total rest mass and inertia m .<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>5) There is no clear binding force for the two circling charged photons. You invoke the strong nuclear force for binding your two particles into an electron, but there is no experimental evidence that the strong force acts on electrons. But you could also invoke the strong nuclear force to hold these two circling charged photons together. Perhaps they are not circling charged photons but circling charged gluons (which are also light-speed particles) and so your point 5 will also be covered in this model!. So I think that this two-looping-charged-photons-or-charged-gluons model of the electron is just as good a model as your electron model, or even better since photons and gluons are known particles while your two circling particles are purely hypothetical. You’re welcome.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> Richard<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Nov 13, 2015, at 3:35 AM, John Williamson <<a href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>Dear Albrecht,<br><br>You asked, so I will answer. I think you are managing to fool yourself. You have had to, to keep your initial postulate, invent several rules not found in other physics. Comments below.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;background:white'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></div><div id=divRpF73710><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] on behalf of Dr. Albrecht Giese [<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a>]<br><b>Sent:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Friday, November 13, 2015 11:11 AM<br><b>To:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br><b>Cc:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'>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><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>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><br><span style='color:blue'>ok</span><br><br>2.) There must be 2 sub-particles otherwise the momentum law is violated; 3 are not possible as in conflict with experiments.<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><br><br><span style='color:blue'>Not so .. there must be at least two elements for a wave, indeed, but it does not need to be two "particles". In ordinary textbook EM for example,there are six field components. Six is enough!<br><br>Also 2 particles are just as much in conflict with experiment as are 3! As I have said before.</span><br><br>3.) The sub-particles must be mass-less, otherwise c is not possible<br><br><span style='color:blue'>Mass-less means they must be made of something other than "particles". No? What then?<br></span><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><br><span style='color:blue'>This is absolutely right. So you can either invent a mechanism to give inertia (outside of physics) - or reject the initial hypothesis that there are two particles.</span><br><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><span style='color:blue'>You need a force, indeed, to confine your postulate of two particles. So you can either invent a<span class=apple-converted-space> </span>new<span class=apple-converted-space> </span>force<span class=apple-converted-space> </span>(outside of physics) - or reject the initial hypothesis that there are two particles.</span><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.<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><br><br>So, where do you see any kind of arbitrariness or missing justification?<br><br><span style='color:blue'>The point you go into the mist is the initial step of demanding the only way to conserve momentum is to have two objects (true) and that the only kind of object allowed is a particle (not true in my view). I think even if it were true one is still just left with the problem of explaining just what the (now two) particles are.<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><br></span><br><br><br>Tschüß!<br>Albrecht<br><br><span style='color:blue'>Regards, John.</span><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'>Am 12.11.2015 um 17:51 schrieb<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Hi Albrect:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>We are making some progress. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>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! <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>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><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>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><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Tschuß, Al</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div style='border:none;border-left:solid #C3D9E5 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt;word-wrap: break-word' name=quote><div style='margin-bottom:7.5pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Gesendet:</span></b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> Donnerstag, 12. November 2015 um 16:18 Uhr<br><b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese"<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br><b>An:</b> <a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br><b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div name=quoted-content><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>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 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>:<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><br> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span class=current-selection><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>He writes: "By combining fragmentation with super</span></span><span class=ls0><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>-</span></span><span class=current-selection><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>conductivity, we can get half-electrons that</span></span><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> </span></span><span class=current-selection><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>are their own antiparticles."</span></span><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><br> </span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>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</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><br><br> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Am 12.11.2015 um 03:06 schrieb<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Hi Albrecht:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>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. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>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. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>MfG, Al<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid #C3D9E5 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt'><div style='margin-bottom:7.5pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Gesendet:</span></b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> Mittwoch, 11. November 2015 um 22:37 Uhr<br><b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese"<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br><b>An:</b> <a href="x-msg://116/UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>,<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="x-msg://116/UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br><b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>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> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Am 11.11.2015 um 17:27 schrieb<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid #C3D9E5 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt'><div style='margin-bottom:7.5pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Gesendet:</span></b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> Mittwoch, 11. November 2015 um 11:54 Uhr<br><b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese"<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br><b>An:</b> <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br><b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Hi Albrecht:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;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.</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#006600'>I ask:<span class=apple-converted-space> </span> 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><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#006600'>ciao, Al</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><hr size=1 width=596 style='width:447.0pt' noshade style='color:#909090' align=center></span></div><table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 style='border-collapse:collapse'><tr><td style='padding:0in 11.25pt 0in 6.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank"><span style='text-decoration:none'><img border=0 id="_x0000_i1027" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast
logo"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p></td><td style='padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#3D4D5A'>Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.<br><a href="http://www.avast.com/" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></td></tr></table><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><br>_______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">Click here to unsubscribe<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><br><br> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><hr size=1 width=702 style='width:526.45pt' noshade style='color:#909090' align=center></span></div><table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 style='border-collapse:collapse'><tr><td style='padding:0in 11.25pt 0in 6.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank"><span style='text-decoration:none'><img border=0 id="_x0000_i1029" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p></td><td style='padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#3D4D5A'>Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.<br><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></td></tr></table></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><br><br> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><hr size=1 width=808 style='width:605.85pt' noshade style='color:#909090' align=center></span></div><table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 style='border-collapse:collapse'><tr><td style='padding:0in 11.25pt 0in 6.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank"><span style='text-decoration:none'><img border=0 id="_x0000_i1031" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p></td><td style='padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#3D4D5A'>Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.<br><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></td></tr></table></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white'><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;background:white'><hr size=1 width=844 style='width:633.35pt' noshade style='color:#909090' align=center></div><table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 style='border-collapse:collapse'><tr><td style='padding:0in 11.25pt 0in 6.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank"><span style='text-decoration:none'><img border=0 id="_x0000_i1033" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p></td><td style='padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#3D4D5A'>Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><br><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></td></tr></table><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;background:white'>_______________________________________________</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><br><span style='background:white'>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span></span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;background:white'>richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><br><span style='background:white'><a href="</span></span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;background:white'>http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;background:white'>"></span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><br><span style='background:white'>Click here to unsubscribe</span><br><span style='background:white'></a></span></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>