<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<small>Hi Al,<br>
<br>
again some responses.</small><br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><small>Am 14.11.2015 um 18:24 schrieb
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</small><br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-237bc730-cf2e-4d20-a52f-2dc9e3295353-1447521852026@3capp-webde-bap13"
type="cite">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Answers to your questions:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>1) The SED background explains the Planck BB distribution
without quantization. It explans why an atom doesn't
collapse: in equilibrium with background, In fact, just
about every effect described by 2nd quantization has an SED
parallel explantion without additional considerations.
With the additional input of the SED origin of deBroglie
waves, it provides a direct derivation of the Schröedinger
eq. thereby explainiong all of 1st Quantization.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<small>Maybe you achieve something when using SED background. I do
not really understand this background, but I do not see a
stringent necessity for it. But SED as an origin to the de Broglie
waves is of interest for me. I am presently working on de Broglie
waves to find a solution, which does not have the logical
conflicts which we have discussed here.</small> <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-237bc730-cf2e-4d20-a52f-2dc9e3295353-1447521852026@3capp-webde-bap13"
type="cite">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div> </div>
<div>2) Olber's logic is in conflict with Mach's Principle, so
is obviously just valid for visible light. Given a little
intergalacitc plasma (1 H/m³), not to mention atmossphere
and interplanatary plama, visible light disappears to
Earthbound observers at visitble freqs to reappear at other,
perhaps at 2.7° even, or at any other long or hyper short
wave length. 'The universe matters'---which is even
politically correct nowadays!</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<small>Olber's logic is simple in so far, as it shows that the
universe cannot be infinite. I have assumed the same for all
background effects. Or are they infinite?<br>
<br>
What is the conflict with Mach's principle?<br>
</small>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-237bc730-cf2e-4d20-a52f-2dc9e3295353-1447521852026@3capp-webde-bap13"
type="cite">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div> </div>
<div>3) The (wide spread) criticism of 2 particles is that
there is neither an <em>a-priori</em> intuative reason, nor
empirical evidence that they exist. Maybe they do anyway.
But then, maybe Zeus does too, and he is just arranging
appearances so that we amuse ourselves. (Try to prove that
wrong!) <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<small>I have explained how I came to the conclusion of 2
sub-particles. Again:<br>
<br>
1) There is motion with c in an elementary particle to explain
dilation<br>
2) With only on particle such process is mechanically not
possible, and it violates the conservation of momentum<br>
3) In this way it is the only working model theses days to explain
inertia. And this model explains inertia with high precision. What
more is needed?<br>
<br>
I know from several discussions with particle physicists that
there is a lot of resistance against this assumption of 2
constituents. The reason is that everyone learn at university like
with mother's milk that the electron is point-like, extremely
small and does not have any internal structure. This has the
effect like a religion. (Same with the relativity of Hendrik
Lorentz. Everyone learns with the same fundamental attitude that
Lorentz was nothing better than a senile old man how was not able
to understand modern physics.) - Not a really good way, all
this.</small> <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-237bc730-cf2e-4d20-a52f-2dc9e3295353-1447521852026@3capp-webde-bap13"
type="cite">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>4) It is ascientific to consider that the desired result
is justification for a hypothetical input. OK, one can say
about such reasoning, it is validated <em>a posteriori</em>,
that at least makes it sound substantial. So much has been
granted to your "story" but has not granted your story
status as a "physics theory." It has some appeal, which in
my mind would be enhansed had a rationalization for the 2nd
particle been provided. That's all I'm trying to do. When
you or whoever comes up with a better one, I'll drop pushing
the virtual particle engendered by the background. Maybe, it
fixes too many other things.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<small>My history was following another way and another motivation.
I intended to explain relativity on the basis of physical facts.
This was my only intention for this model. All further properties
of the model were logical consequences where I did not see
alternatives. I did not want to explain inertia. It just was a
result by itself. <br>
So, what is the problem? I have a model which explains several
properties of elementary particles very precisely. It is in no
conflict with any experimental experience. And as a new
observation there is even some experimental evidence. - What else
can physics expect from a theory? - The argument that the second
particle is not visible is funny. Who has ever seen a quark? Who
has ever seen the internal structure of the sun? I think you have
a demand here which was never fulfilled in science.<br>
<br>
And see again Frank Wilczek. </small><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></span></small><br>
<br>
<small>Guten Abend<br>
Albrecht</small><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-237bc730-cf2e-4d20-a52f-2dc9e3295353-1447521852026@3capp-webde-bap13"
type="cite">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Have a good one! Al</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> Samstag,
14. November 2015 um 14:51 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);">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>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 13.11.2015 um 20:31
schrieb <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_parent">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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! </div>
<div> </div>
<div>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. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Why fight it? Where the hell else will you
find a credible 2nd particle? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>ciao, 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> Freitag,
13. November 2015 um 12:11 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><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <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 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>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 12.11.2015
um 17:51 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>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>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>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>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>Tschuß, Al</span></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> Donnerstag,
12. November 2015 um 16:18 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:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</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);"><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"><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>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</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>