<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hallo Richard,<br>
<br>
I find it great that we have made similar calculations and came at
some points to similar conclusions. That is not a matter of course,
as you find in all textbooks that it is impossible to get these
results in a classical way, but that in the contrary it needs QM to
come to these results. <br>
<br>
Here now again the logical way which I have gone: I assume the
circular motion of the elementary electric charge (2* 1/2 * e<sub>0</sub>)
with speed c. Then with the formula (which you give here again) M =
i*A one can conclude A from the measured magnetic moment. And so we
know the radius to be R = 3.86 x 10<sup>-13</sup> m for the
electron. No constants and no further theory are necessary for this
result. I have then calculated the inertial mass of a particle which
turns out to be m = S / (R * c<sup>2</sup>) where the parameter S
describes the binding field. I did initially have no knowledge about
the quantity of this field. But from the mass formula there follows
for the magnetic moment: M= (1/2)*(S/c)*(e /m). To this point I have
not used any knowledge except the known relation for the magnetic
moment. Now I look to the Bohr magneton in order to find the
quantity of my field constant S: M= (1/2)*hbar*(e /m). Because
the Planck constant has to be measured in some way. For doing it
myself I would need a big machine. But why? Basic constants never
follow from a theory but have to be measured. I can use such a
measurement, and that tells me for my field constant S = c*hbar
(from Bohr magneton). So, where do you see circular reasoning? <br>
<br>
Now I have no theory, why specific elementary particles exist. Maybe
later I find a way, not now. But now I can use the (measurable)
magnetic moment for any particle to determine the radius, and then I
know the mass from my formula. This works for all charged leptons
and for all quarks. Not good enough?<br>
<br>
And yes, the Landé factor. Not too difficult. In my deduction of the
mass I have used only the (initially unknown) constant S for the
field. Which I assume to be the strong field as with the electric
field the result is too small (by a factor of several hundred). The
only stronger alternative to the electrical force is the strong
force, already known. Is this a far-fetched idea? But I have in this
initial deduction ignored that the two basic particles have an
electrical charge of e/2 each, which cause a repelling force which
increases the radius R a bit. With this increase I correct the
result for e.g. the magnetic moment, and the correction is quite
precisely the Landé factor (with a deviation of ca. 10<sup>-6</sup>).<br>
<br>
So, what did I invent specially for my model, and which parameters
do I use from others? I have assumed the shape of the binding field
as this field has to cause the bind at a distance. And I have used
the measurement of the Planck constant h which other colleagues have
performed. Nothing else. I do not have do derive the quantity e as
this is not the task of a particle model. If e could be derived
(what nobody today is able to do), then this would follow from a
much deeper insight into our physical basics as anyone can have
today. <br>
<br>
The fact of two constituents is a necessary precondition to obey the
conservation of momentum and to support the mechanism of inertia. I
do not know any other mechanism which works.<br>
<br>
Where do I practice circular reasoning?<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 18.11.2015 um 15:42 schrieb Richard
Gauthier:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:B7ECF22D-1D1C-4DA3-90AC-A65A2CD57FF6@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 class="" color="#006600"><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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br
class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br
class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 class="" color="#006600"><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 class="" color="#006600"><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 class="" color="#006600"><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 class="" color="#006600"><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 class=""
color="#006600"><small class=""><strong class="">no
further </strong></small></font><font class=""
color="#006600"><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 class="" color="#006600"><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 class=""
color="#006600">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 class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br
class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
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
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br
class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br
class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
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
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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></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 class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br
class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br
class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
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
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 class="" size="-1">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 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></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 class=""
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
class="">
<br class="">
Grüße<br
class="">
Albrecht</font><br
class="">
<br class="">
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix"><font
class=""
size="-1">Am
12.11.2015 um
03:06 schrieb
<a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></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"
class="" border="0"> </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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="">
<img moz-do-not-send="true"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
alt="Avast logo" class="" border="0"> </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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a></a><br
class="">
<a href="<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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="">
</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>