<html><head></head><body><div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;"><div>
<div>Hi Albrect:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Comments² <strong>IN BOLD</strong></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> Dienstag, 17. November 2015 um 18:41 Uhr<br/>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail@a-giese.de><br/>
<b>An:</b> af.kracklauer@web.de<br/>
<b>Cc:</b> general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<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);"><small>Hi Al,<br/>
<br/>
again some responses.</small><br/>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><small>Am 14.11.2015 um 18:24 schrieb <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_parent">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</small></div>
<blockquote>
<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>
<div><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></div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong>See No. 11 (or 1) @ www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com for suggetions and some previous work along this line.</strong></div>
<blockquote>
<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>
<div><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?</small></div>
<div> </div>
<div><small><strong>The fly in the ointment is absorbtion. An inf. universe with absorbtion in the visible part of the spectrum will still have a largely dark sky. </strong><br/>
<br/>
What is the conflict with Mach's principle?</small></div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong>Mach says: the gravitational "background radiation" is the cause of inertia. This effect is parallel to the SED bacground causing QM effects. Conflict: if Olber is right, then Mach is probably wrong (too weak).</strong></div>
<blockquote>
<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!) </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><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?</small></div>
<div> </div>
<div><small><strong>These assumtions are "teleological," i.e., tuned to give the desired results. As logic, although often done, this manuver is not legit in the formal presentation of a theory. For a physics theory, ideally, all the input assuptios have empirical justification or motivation. Your 2nd partical (modulo virtual images) has no such motivatin, in fact, just the opposite. </strong><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></div>
<div> </div>
<div><small><strong>Mystical thinking is indeed a major problem even in Physics! But, some of the objectiors to a 2nd particle are not basing their objection of devine revelation or political correctness. </strong></small></div>
<blockquote>
<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>
<div><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.</small></div>
<div> </div>
<div><small><strong>The problem, obviously, is that the existence of the 2nd particle, as you have presented it, is not a fact, but a Wunschansatz. [BTW: "See" in this context is not meant occularly, but figuratively for experimental verification through any length of inferance chain.] So, my question is: what problem do you have with a virtual mate for the particle? In fact, it will be there whether you use it or not.</strong><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></div>
<div> </div>
<div><small><span><span class="current-selection"><strong>A "straw in the wind" but sure seems far fetched! Superconductivity is already a manybody phenomenon, It's theory probably involves some "virtual" notions to capture the essence of the average effect even if the virtual actors do not really exist. </strong></span></span></small><br/>
<br/>
<small>Guten Abend<br/>
Albrecht</small></div>
<div> </div>
<div><small><strong>Gleichfalls, Al</strong></small></div>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Have a good one! 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> Samstag, 14. November 2015 um 14:51 Uhr<br/>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="genmail@a-giese.de" target="_parent"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br/>
<b>An:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_parent">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br/>
<b>Cc:</b> <a 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/>
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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated">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 class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="genmail@a-giese.de" target="_parent"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br/>
<b>An:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br/>
<b>Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated">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 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>
<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 class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="genmail@a-giese.de" target="_parent"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br/>
<b>An:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_parent">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br/>
<b>Cc:</b> <a 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);"><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 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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_parent">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</font></div>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Virtual particles are proxys for an ensemble of real particles. There is nothing folly-lolly about them! They simply summarize the total effect of particles that cannot be ignored. To ignore the remainder of the universe becasue it is inconvenient for theory formulation is for certain leading to error. "No man is an island," and no single particle is a universe! Thus, it can be argued that, to reject the concept of virtual particles is to reject a facit of reality that must be essential for an explantion of the material world.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>For example, if a positive charge is placed near a conducting surface, the charges in that surface will respond to the positive charge by rearranging themselves so as to give a total field on the surface of zero strength as if there were a negative charge (virtual) behind the mirror. Without the real charges on the mirror surface, the concept of "virtual" negative charge would not be necessary or even useful. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The concept of virtual charge as the second particle in your model seems to me to be not just a wild supposition, but an absolute necessity. Every charge is, without choice, in constant interaction with every other charge in the universe, has been so since the big bang (if such were) and will remain so till the big crunch (if such is to be)! The universe cannot be ignored. If you reject including the universe by means of virtual charges, them you have a lot more work to do to make your theory reasonable some how else. In particular in view of the fact that the second particles in your model have never ever been seen or even suspected in the various experiments resulting in the disasssmbly of whatever targert was used. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>MfG, Al</div>
<div> </div>
</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/>
<hr style="border: none;color: rgb(144,144,144);background-color: rgb(176,176,176);height: 1.0px;width: 99.0%;"/>
<table style="border-collapse: collapse;border: none;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border: none;padding: 0.0px 15.0px 0.0px 8.0px;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank"><img alt="Avast logo" border="0" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"/> </a></td>
<td>
<p style="color: rgb(61,77,90);font-family: Calibri , Verdana , Arial , Helvetica;font-size: 12.0pt;">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.<br/>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></body></html>