<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Hi Chip,<br>
<br>
thanks for your proposals. I have inserted some comments into the
text.<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">Am 14.11.2015 um 17:13 schrieb Chip Akins:</font><br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:00f701d11ef7$616bb8a0$244329e0$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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:"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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
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;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What if, for purposes of conjecture, we
replace your two “particles” in the electron, with an EM wave
which has a wavelength of twice the circumference? </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">How can you bind a wave
to something? That sounds very strange to me. In the vicinity of a
charge we can feel a force. It is an abstraction to call this
situation a field. And if this field changes with time and
propagates into the space, we call it a wave. You cannot bind a
wave to something, so as you cannot bind the wind to a tree.<br>
<br>
What we can bind is the charge which is the cause of the field and
of a wave. And a wave cannot build a spin. As a comparison, a
squirl in the air or in the water can build an angular momentum.
But that has to do with the air or the water. The squirl without
air or water, which is a pure abstraction, cannot cause any
binding forces. Similar to an electric wave apart from a charge.<br>
<br>
An EM wave is an electric field which is modulated and which
propagates. The magnetic part of it is, as discussed here before,
nothing than an impression which we have of the electric field. A
relativistic side effect. Similar to the Coriolis force which is
as well an impression (i.e. also a seeming side effect, but in
this case not relativistic).<br>
<br>
So we should talk about real things and that are charges in my
understanding.<br>
</font>
<blockquote cite="mid:00f701d11ef7$616bb8a0$244329e0$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">And now let us consider that the “binding
force” which holds this wave in a circular confinement is the
same “force” which causes spin angular momentum in light. The
EM “wave” would have the negative portion always away from the
center for the electron, and the confinement of the wave
causes a curvature in (divergence of) the E field which in
turn would be the cause for the appearance of the elementary
charge.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It seems that such a model would 1)
conserve momentum, 2) cause inertial mass <i>(because of
confined momentum and the speed of light velocity limit)</i>,
and 3) radiate when accelerated under most circumstances <i>(except
gravitational acceleration, if gravity is simply the
diffraction of waves.)</i></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">How do you think to
accelerate an abstract wave? <br>
<br>
If you understand this wave as a cause of inertial mass, can you
present a quantitative calculation of the mass which is the result
of this effect? - I can do it for my model with high precision
(see below).<br>
<br>
If gravity is a case of diffraction, or better of refraction, then
there is an object refracted or a moving charge, but not a wave.<br>
</font>
<blockquote cite="mid:00f701d11ef7$616bb8a0$244329e0$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If we do this, we have an electron model
which consists of <i>just one item</i> and explains (it
seems) the same things that your model explains, but without
the need for two entities within this elementary particle.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">As a wave cannot have a
momentum it will not violate the conservation of momentum, true,
but it cannot build anything than mathematical equations.</font><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:00f701d11ef7$616bb8a0$244329e0$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The reason for posing this question is that
there is no experimental evidence that the electron is
comprised of two particles. However there is much evidence
that it is a single thing comprised of energy.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">I say it again: There is
evidence for two sub-particles. And I refer again to the
experiment described by Frank Wilczek where two halves of an
electron have been observed:<br>
<br>
<a 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">http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com</a><br>
<br>
And there is NO evidence of a "single thing" if investigated in
relation to my model (having mass-less constituents).<br>
<br>
And another evidence (an indirect one): Only an object built by
two constituents (as a minimum) can have inertia. We all know that
the Higgs model does not work for inertia. And my model using 2
sub-particles yields the mass of e.g. the electron with an
accuracy of 1 : 500'000. Do you know any model which yields
results of this accuracy? - <br>
I do not know any else model for this, and am presenting this
model since 15 years on conferences all over the world, and there
have been no objections. <br>
<br>
Best<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote cite="mid:00f701d11ef7$616bb8a0$244329e0$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></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;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Dr. Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, November 14, 2015 7:52 AM<br>
<b>To:</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>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>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
Why do we need a background? If I assume only local forces
(strong and electric) for my model, the calculation conforms
to the measurement (e.g. between mass and magnetic moment)
with a precision of 2 : 1'000'000. This is no incident. Not
possible, if a poorly defined and stable background has a
measurable influence. - And if there should be such background
and it has such little effect, which mistake do we make if we
ignore that?<br>
<br>
For the competition of the 1/r<sup>2</sup> law for range of
charges and the r<sup>2</sup> law for the quantity of charges
we have a popular example when we look at the sky at night.
The sky is dark and that shows that the r<sup>2</sup> case
(number of shining stars) does in no way compensates for the
1/r<sup>2</sup> case (light flow density from the stars).<br>
<br>
Why is a 2 particle model necessary?<br>
<br>
1.) for the conservation of momentum<br>
2.) for a cause of the inertial mass<br>
3.) for the radiation at acceleration which occurs most time,
but does not occur in specific situations. Not explained
elsewhere.<br>
<br>
Ciao, Albrecht<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 13.11.2015 um 20:31 schrieb <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Hi
Albrecht:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Your
proposed experiment is hampered by reality! If you do
the measurement with a gaget bought in a store that
has knobes and a display, then the measurement is for
certain for signals under a couple hundred GHz and
based on some phenomena for which the sensitivity of
man-made devices is limited. And, if limited to the
electric field, then there is a good chance it is
missing altogether oscillating signals by virtue of
its limited reaction time of reset time, etc. etc.
The vast majority of the background will be much
higher, the phenomena most attuned to detecting might
be in fact the quantum effects otherwise explained
with mystical hokus-pokus! Also to be noted is that,
the processes invovled in your model, if they pertain
to elementray entities, will have to be at very small
size and if at the velocity (c) will be very high
energy, etc. so that once again, it is quite
reasonable to suppose that the universe is anything
but irrelavant! <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Of
course, there is then the issue of the divergence of
the this SED background. Ameliorated to some extent
with the realization that there is no energy at a
point in empty space until a charged entity is put
there, whereupon the energy of interaction with the
rest of the universe (not just by itself being there
and ignoring the universe---as QM theorists, and
yourself, are wont to do) is given by the sum of
interactions over all particles not by the integral
over all space, including empty space. Looks at first
blush to be finite. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Why
fight it? Where the hell else will you find a
credible 2nd particle? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">ciao,
Al<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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;word-wrap:
break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space" name="quote">
<div style="margin-bottom:7.5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><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"> Freitag,
13. November 2015 um 12:11 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><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"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">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:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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>
<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
12.11.2015 um 17:51 schrieb <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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>:<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
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:9.0pt;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). <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">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!<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">Tschuß,
Al<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">
<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" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><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"
href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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><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
are their own antiparticles."
</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 <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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>:</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" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><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"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><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="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><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…<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 <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></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" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><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"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><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…<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: 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"
style="text-align:center;background:white" align="center"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
<hr
style="color:#909090"
noshade="noshade" size="1" width="99%" align="center"></span></div>
<table
class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:collapse" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="padding:0in
11.25pt 0in
6.0pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
id="_x0000_i1026"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast
logo"
border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td
style="padding:.75pt
.75pt .75pt
.75pt">
<p><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#3D4D5A">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft.<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</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
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><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><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"
style="text-align:center;background:white"
align="center"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
<hr
style="color:#909090"
noshade="noshade"
size="1"
width="99%"
align="center"></span></div>
<table
class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:collapse" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="padding:0in
11.25pt 0in
6.0pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
id="_x0000_i1028"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast
logo"
border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td
style="padding:.75pt
.75pt .75pt
.75pt">
<p><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#3D4D5A">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft.<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</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"
style="text-align:center;background:white"
align="center"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
<hr style="color:#909090"
noshade="noshade" size="1"
width="99%" align="center"></span></div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:collapse"
border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 11.25pt
0in 6.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
id="_x0000_i1030"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
alt="Avast logo"
border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt
.75pt .75pt">
<p><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#3D4D5A">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><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</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"
style="text-align:center;background:white"
align="center"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
<hr style="color:#909090" noshade="noshade"
size="1" width="99%" align="center"></span></div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:collapse" border="0"
cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 11.25pt 0in 6.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
id="_x0000_i1032"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
alt="Avast logo" border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#3D4D5A">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><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center">
<hr style="color:#909090" noshade="noshade" size="1"
width="99%" align="center"></div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse"
border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 11.25pt 0in 6.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img
moz-do-not-send="true" id="_x0000_i1034"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
alt="Avast logo" border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#3D4D5A">Diese
E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren
geprüft. <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</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>