<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Hello Albrecht,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> Let’s look at your listed assumptions of your electron model in relation to the electron’s magnetic moment. It is known that the magnitude of the electron’s experimental magnetic moment is slightly more than the Bohr magneton which is Mb = ehbar/2m = 9.274 J/T in SI units. Your 2-particle model aims to generate a magnetic moment to match this Bohr magneton value (which was predicted for the electron by the Dirac equation) rather than the experimental value of the electron’s magnetic moment which is slightly larger. The standard equation for calculating the magnetic moment M of a plane current loop is M = IA for loop area A and current I. If the area A is a circle and the current is a circular current loop I around this area, whose value I is calculated from a total electric charge e moving circularly at light speed c (as in your 2-particle electron model) with a radius R, a short calculation will show that if the radius of this circle is R = hbar/mc = 3.86 x 10-13 m (the reduced Compton wavelength corresponding to a circle of circumference one Compton wavelength h/mc), then this radius R for the current loop gives a magnetic moment M = IA = Bohr magneton ehbar/2m . I have done this calculation many times in my electron modeling work and know that this is the case. The values of h and also e and m of the electron have to be known accurately to calculate the Bohr magneton ehbar/2m . When the radius of the circular loop is R=hbar/mc, the frequency f of the charge e circling the loop is easily found to be f=c/(2pi R)= mc^2/h , which is the frequency of light having the Compton wavelength h/mc. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">So the current loop radius R=hbar/mc that is required in your 2-particle model to derive the Bohr magneton ehbar/2m using M=IA obviously cannot also be used to derive either of the values h or m since these values were used to calculate the Bohr magneton ehbar/2m in the first place. So your model cannot be used to derive any of the values of e, h or m, and seems to be an exercise in circular reasoning. Please let me know how I may be mistaken in this conclusion.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">with best regards,</div><div class=""> Richard</div><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 18, 2015, at 2:03 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese <<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" class="">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
<small class="">Hi Al,<br class="">
<font color="#006600" class=""><br class="">
I completely disagree with your conclusions about the motivation
towards my model because my intention was not to develop a
particle model. My intention was to develop a better
understanding of time in relativity. My present model was an
unexpected consequence of this work. I show you my arguments
again and ask you to indicate the point where you do not follow.</font><br class="">
<br class="">
</small>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><small class="">Am 17.11.2015 um 19:18 schrieb <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</small><br class="">
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:trinity-16c90c3b-1bd5-4b73-a99e-8573ed871e42-1447784310841@3capp-webde-bap52" type="cite" class="">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi Albrect:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Comments² <strong class="">IN BOLD</strong></div>
<div class="">
<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;" class="">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;" class=""><b class="">Gesendet:</b> Dienstag,
17. November 2015 um 18:41 Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from
what a model…</div>
<div name="quoted-content" class="">
<div style="background-color: rgb(255,255,255);" class=""><small class="">Hi
Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
again some responses.</small><br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><small class="">Am 14.11.2015 um
18:24 schrieb <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="x-msg://168/af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_parent">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</small></div>
<blockquote class="">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Answers to your questions:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class=""><small class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class=""><strong class="">See No. 11 (or 1) @ <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com/"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com/">www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com</a>
for suggetions and some previous work along this
line.</strong></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#006600" class=""><small class=""><strong class="">Thank you, will have a look.</strong></small></font>
<br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:trinity-16c90c3b-1bd5-4b73-a99e-8573ed871e42-1447784310841@3capp-webde-bap52" type="cite" class="">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<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;" class="">
<div name="quoted-content" class="">
<div style="background-color: rgb(255,255,255);" class="">
<blockquote class="">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">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 class=""><small class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class=""><small class=""><strong class="">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 class="">
</small></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#006600" class=""><small class=""><strong class="">And the other way around: Even
if there is no absorption, the sky will be dark. And the
general opinion is that, even if there is a lot of radiation
absorbed, this absorbing material will heat up by the time and
radiate as well. So an absorption should not change too much.</strong></small></font><br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:trinity-16c90c3b-1bd5-4b73-a99e-8573ed871e42-1447784310841@3capp-webde-bap52" type="cite" class="">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<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;" class="">
<div name="quoted-content" class="">
<div style="background-color: rgb(255,255,255);" class="">
<div class=""><small class=""> <br class="">
What is the conflict with Mach's principle?</small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><strong class="">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>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#006600" class=""><small class=""><strong class="">In my understanding, what Mach
means is completely different. Mach's intention was to find a
reference system which is absolute with respect to
acceleration. He assumed that this is caused by the stars in
our vicinity. He did not have a certain idea how this happens,
he only needed the fact. (Einstein replaced this necessity by
his equivalence of gravity and acceleration - which however is
clearly falsified as mentioned several times.)</strong></small></font>
<br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:trinity-16c90c3b-1bd5-4b73-a99e-8573ed871e42-1447784310841@3capp-webde-bap52" type="cite" class="">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<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;" class="">
<div name="quoted-content" class="">
<div style="background-color: rgb(255,255,255);" class="">
<blockquote class="">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">3) The (wide spread) criticism of 2
particles is that there is neither an <em class="">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 class=""> </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><small class="">I have explained how I came to the
conclusion of 2 sub-particles. Again:<br class="">
<br class="">
1) There is motion with c in an elementary
particle to explain dilation<br class="">
2) With only on particle such process is
mechanically not possible, and it violates the
conservation of momentum<br class="">
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 class=""> </div>
<div class=""><small class=""><strong class="">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 class="">
</small></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#006600" class=""><small class=""><strong class="">My logical way is just the
other way around. I had the plan to work on relativity (the
aspects of time), not on particle physics. The particle model
was an unplanned spin-off. I shall try to explain the
logical path again: <br class="">
<br class="">
<u class="">1st step:</u> I have calculated the 4-dimensional speed of
an object using the temporal part of the Lorentz
transformation. The surprising fact was that this 4-dim. speed
is always the speed of light. I have then assumed that this
constant shows a permanent motion with c in a particle. I have
accepted this as a probable solution, but I have never assumed
this, before I had this result. It was in no way a desired
result. My idea was to describe time by a vector of 3 of 4
dimensions. - I have then </strong></small></font><font color="#006600" class=""><small class=""><strong class="">no further </strong></small></font><font color="#006600" class=""><small class=""><strong class="">followed this idea.<br class="">
<u class="">2nd step:</u> If there is some motion in the particle, it
cannot be caused by one constituent. This is logically not
possible as it violates the conservation of momentum. Also
this was not a desired result but logically inevitable. <br class="">
<u class="">3rd step:</u> If the constituents move with c, then they
cannot have any mass. Also this was not a result which I
wished to achieve, but here I followed my understanding of
relativity.<br class="">
</strong></small></font><strong class=""><small class=""><font color="#006600" class=""><u class=""><strong class="">4th
</strong></u><u class="">step:</u> The size must be such that the
resulting frequency in the view of c yields the magnetic
moment which is known by measurements. <br class="">
<u class="">5th step:</u> I had to find a reason for the mass of the
electron in spite of the fact that the constituents do not
have any mass. After some thinking I found out the fact that
any extended object has necessarily inertia. I have applied
this insight to this particle model, and the result was the
actual mass of the electron, if I assumed that the force is
the strong force. It could not be the electric force (as it
was assumed by others at earlier times) because the result is
too weak.<br class="">
<br class="">
None of the results from step 1 thru step 5 was desired. Every
step was inevitable, because our standard physical
understanding (which I did not change at any point) does not
allow for any alternative. - <u class="">Or at which step could I hav</u><u class="">e
had an alternative in your opinion?<br class="">
<br class="">
</u>And btw: which is the stringent argument for only one
constituent? As I mentioned before, the experiment is not an
argument. I have discussed my model with the former research
director of DESY who was responsible for this type of electron
experiments, and he admitted that there is no conflict with
the assumption of 2 constituents.</font><u class=""><br class="">
</u></small></strong>
<blockquote cite="mid:trinity-16c90c3b-1bd5-4b73-a99e-8573ed871e42-1447784310841@3capp-webde-bap52" type="cite" class="">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<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;" class="">
<div name="quoted-content" class="">
<div style="background-color: rgb(255,255,255);" class="">
<div class=""><small class=""> <br class="">
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 class=""> </div>
<div class=""><small class=""><strong class="">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 class="">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">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 class="">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 class=""><small class="">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 class="">
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 class=""> </div>
<div class=""><small class=""><strong class="">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 class="">
<br class="">
And see again Frank Wilczek. </small><small class=""><span class=""><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 class=""><span class="current-selection">ar</span><span class="current-selection">e their o</span><span class="current-selection">wn an</span><span class=""><span class="current-selection">tiparticles." </span></span></small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><small class=""><span class=""><span class="current-selection"><strong class="">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></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<small class=""><strong class=""><font color="#006600" class="">This was a nice confirmation in
my understanding. So as the whole article of Wilczek. The
electron is in fact enigmatic if one follows main stream. It
looses a lot of this property if my model is used. - But even
without this experimental hint I do not see any alternative to
my model without severely violating known physics.<br class="">
<br class="">
Ciao<br class="">
Albrecht</font><br class="">
<br class="">
</strong></small>
<blockquote cite="mid:trinity-16c90c3b-1bd5-4b73-a99e-8573ed871e42-1447784310841@3capp-webde-bap52" type="cite" class="">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<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;" class="">
<div name="quoted-content" class="">
<div style="background-color: rgb(255,255,255);" class="">
<div class=""><small class=""><span class=""><span class="current-selection"><strong class=""> </strong></span></span></small><br class="">
<br class="">
<small class="">Guten Abend<br class="">
Albrecht</small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><small class=""><strong class="">Gleichfalls, Al</strong></small></div>
<blockquote class="">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Have a good one! Al</div>
<div class="">
<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);" class="">
<div style="margin: 0 0 10.0px 0;" class=""><b class="">Gesendet:</b> Samstag,
14. November 2015 um 14:51 Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="x-msg://168/af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_parent">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="x-msg://168/general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_parent">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Reply of
comments from what a model…</div>
<div class="">
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">Hi Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
For the competition of the 1/r<sup class="">2</sup>
law for range of charges and the r<sup class="">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 class="">2</sup> case
(number of shining stars) does in no way
compensates for the 1/r<sup class="">2</sup> case
(light flow density from the stars).<br class="">
<br class="">
Why is a 2 particle model necessary?<br class="">
<br class="">
1.) for the conservation of momentum<br class="">
2.) for a cause of the inertial mass<br class="">
3.) for the radiation at acceleration
which occurs most time, but does not
occur in specific situations. Not
explained elsewhere.<br class="">
<br class="">
Ciao, Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
13.11.2015 um 20:31 schrieb <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</div>
<blockquote class="">
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class="">Why fight it? Where the hell
else will you find a credible 2nd
particle? </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">ciao, Al</div>
<div class="">
<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);" class="">
<div style="margin: 0 0 10.0px
0;" class=""><b class="">Gesendet:</b> Freitag,
13. November 2015 um 12:11 Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht
Giese" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re: [General]
Reply of comments from what a
model…</div>
<div class="">
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">Hi Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
if we look to charges you
mention the law 1/r<sup class="">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 class="">-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 class="">
<br class="">
Regarding my model, the
logic of deduction was very
simple for me:<br class="">
<br class="">
1.) We have dilation, so
there must be a permanent
motion with c<br class="">
2.) There must be 2
sub-particles otherwise the
momentum law is violated; 3
are not possible as in
conflict with experiments.<br class="">
3.) The sub-particles must
be mass-less, otherwise c is
not possible<br class="">
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 class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
So, where do you see any
kind of arbitrariness or
missing justification?<br class="">
<br class="">
Tschüß!<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
12.11.2015 um 17:51
schrieb <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</div>
<blockquote class="">
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi Albrect:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">We are making
some progress. </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class=""><span class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class=""><span class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class=""><span class="">Tschuß, Al</span></div>
<div class="">
<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);" class="">
<div style="margin: 0
0 10.0px 0;" class=""><b class="">Gesendet:</b> Donnerstag,
12. November
2015 um 16:18
Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Dr.
Albrecht Giese"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] Reply
of comments from
what a model…</div>
<div class="">
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class=""><font size="-1" class="">Hi Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
<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"></a><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>:
</font><br class="">
<div class=" t
m88 ls3 h2 y37
fc0
ff1 x28 ws2 sc0 fs1"><small class=""><span class=""><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 class=""><span class="current-selection">ar</span><span class="current-selection">e their o</span><span class="current-selection">wn
an</span><span class=""><span class="current-selection">tiparticles." </span><br class="">
</span></small></div>
<font size="-1" class="">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 class="">
<br class="">
Grüße<br class="">
Albrecht</font><br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="-1" class="">Am
12.11.2015 um
03:06 schrieb
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</font></div>
<blockquote class="">
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class="">MfG, Al</div>
<div class=""> </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 class="">
<br class="">
<hr style="border: none;color:
rgb(144,144,144);background-color:
rgb(176,176,176);height: 1.0px;width: 99.0%;" class="">
<table style="border-collapse: collapse;border: none;" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td style="border: none;padding: 0.0px 15.0px
0.0px 8.0px;" class=""><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank" class=""><img moz-do-not-send="true" alt="Avast logo" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" border="0" class=""> </a></td>
<td class=""><p style="color: rgb(61,77,90);font-family:
Calibri , Verdana , Arial ,
Helvetica;font-size: 12.0pt;" class="">Diese E-Mail
wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren
geprüft.<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank" class="">www.avast.com</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<br class=""><br class="">
<hr style="border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;" class="">
<table style="border-collapse:collapse;border:none;" class="">
<tbody class=""><tr class="">
<td style="border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px" class="">
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="">
<img border="0" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" class="">
</a>
</td>
<td class=""><p style="color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;" class="">
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
<br class=""><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br class="">
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br class=""><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" class="">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br class="">Click here to unsubscribe<br class=""></a><br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>