<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<small>Dear John Duffield,<br>
<br>
<font color="#003300">following my comments in green.</font><br>
<br>
</small>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><small>Am 19.11.2015 um 09:13 schrieb
John Duffield:</small><br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:001301d122a2$21033640$6309a2c0$@btconnect.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
span.current-selection
{mso-style-name:current-selection;}
span.a
{mso-style-name:_;}
span.ls0
{mso-style-name:ls0;}
span.emailstyle20
{mso-style-name:emailstyle20;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Albrecht:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">It’s
easy to understand the electron if you look at the evidence
of things like gamma-gamma pair production, electron
magnetic moment, the Einstein-de Haas effect, electron
diffraction, spherical harmonics, and electron-positron
annihilation back to gamma photons. </span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#336666"><small>A<font color="#003300">ccording to my
model the photon is made up by the same basic elements like an
electron, but may have more than two. On the other hand,
particle physics have shown us that additional particles can
be generated in an unlimited number as long as certain laws of
conservation are fulfilled. - I think that the facts you
mention are again good arguments in favour of my model.</font></small></font><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:001301d122a2$21033640$6309a2c0$@btconnect.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">An
electron is a wave going round and round in a standing-wave
configuration, such that a field-variation looks like a
standing field. It isn’t complicated or mysterious. </span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#003300"><small>By which fact, force, or whatever can a
wave be made to move on a circuit? From normal physics (in
contrast to micro-physics we are talking here about) such a
process is not known. And this process, if it exists, must be
quantitatively explained in the way that another path than this
circular one is excluded. And the parameters have to be deduced.
That is particularly true for the double period in the picture
you have attached here. </small></font><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:001301d122a2$21033640$6309a2c0$@btconnect.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Nor
is inertia. The mass of a body is a measure of its
energy-content.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<small>This sounds to me a bit upside down. We know that an object
which has inertial mass also has energy. I deduce this from the
set up of a particle. Not difficult. But why should energy cause
inertia? If you think this to be possible - or even plausible -
please give us a mechanism which causes this.<br>
<br>
<font color="#003300">I know that Einstein has once said that mass
and energy are two word for the same physical fact. Similarly
Einstein has said that gravity and acceleration are two words
for the same fact (the latter being falsified meanwhile). The
first one is also not acceptable if we assume that forces are
mediated by exchange particles (which is main stream standard
these days). Exchange particles like gluons do not have any mass
but transport energy.</font><br>
<br>
<font color="#003300">I cannot imagine that it helps our
understanding of physics if phenomena, which have a clearly
different meaning, are mashed up. We should go into the opposite
direction to gain better understanding, i.e. have a better
differentiation of entities. </font></small><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:001301d122a2$21033640$6309a2c0$@btconnect.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">
It’s like the photon in the box, see <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.06478"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.06478">http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.06478</a></a>.
Photon energy-momentum is resistance to change-in-motion for
a wave propagating linearly at c. Electron mass is
resistance to change-in-motion for a wave going round and
round at c. </span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#003300"><small>True: </small></font><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><font
color="#003300">"Photon energy-momentum is resistance to
change-in-motion". However, saying this is not an explanation
why it is this way. I have an explanation in contrast to these
sayings. And: A photon does have mass. Nobody has ever seen a
mass-less photon. The interesting question is why a photon moves
with c. If this is answered then the rest will be easy. </font><br>
</span>
<blockquote cite="mid:001301d122a2$21033640$6309a2c0$@btconnect.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Forget
Wilczek, the guy is a peddler of <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://frankwilczek.com/2013/multiverseEnergy01.pdf">pompous
woo</a>, and there re is no mystery. But don’t forget the
wave nature of matter. Replace your two particles by two
loops of a 511keV E=hf photon wave, and then your model
matches observation. Win win!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">
</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><img
id="Picture_x0020_1"
src="cid:part3.01070202.09010907@a-giese.de" height="174"
width="177" border="0"></span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">John
D</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<small><font color="#003300">Regards<br>
Albrecht<br>
</font></small><br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:001301d122a2$21033640$6309a2c0$@btconnect.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"
lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"
lang="EN-US"> General [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Dr. Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 18 November 2015 20:19<br>
<b>To:</b> John Williamson <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk"><John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk></a></a>;
Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com">pete@leathergoth.com</a>;
Nick Bailey <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:nick@bailey-family.org.uk"><nick@bailey-family.org.uk></a>;
Mark, Martin van der <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"><martin.van.der.mark@philips.com></a>;
David Williamson <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:david.williamson@ed.ac.uk"><david.williamson@ed.ac.uk></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from
what a model…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt" lang="EN-US">John,<br>
<br>
Wilczek has written about several aspects of the electron.
Some of them sound to my like the usual QM mystifications.
Among them also aspects of collective states. But at the end
his remark about <i>half-electrons </i>is another view</span><span
style="font-size:7.5pt" lang="EN-US">:<span
class="current-selection"> "</span></span><span
class="current-selection"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"
lang="EN-US">By combining fragmentation with super</span></span><span
class="ls0"><span style="font-size:10.0pt" lang="EN-US">-</span></span><span
class="current-selection"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"
lang="EN-US">conductivity, we can get half-electrons that
are their own antiparticles."</span></span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt" lang="EN-US"><br>
This is a clear statement in my understanding. </span><span
lang="EN-US"><br>
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt" lang="EN-US"><br>
And else, his whole article is a fight with the usual
logical paradoxes, if one tries to understand the electron
on the basis of present main stream physics. This is also
obvious in his last paragraph: "<span
class="current-selection">So, what is an electron? An
electron is a particle and a wave; it is ideally simple
and unimaginably complex .." Do we not have a better
understanding today? At least I have it, if I look to my
model. There may be open questions left but no mystery.</span><br>
<br>
<span class="current-selection">But apart of this: I found
it a funny incident to see this article in view of our
discussion about my 2-particle-model. But this reference
is of course not my serious argument. The most powerful
argument is that this assumption of a 2-particle extended
model explains inertia. And it yields not just an idea
what inertia could be, but precise mathematical results.
In contrast to all what is available these days about this
topic in particle physics.</span><br>
<br>
Regards<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Am 17.11.2015 um 07:13
schrieb John Williamson:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif"> </span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif">Sorry
Albrecht, but you are not really getting what Frank is
talking about in his article at all.</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif"><br>
<br>
</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif">He is, as
Al is alluding to, discussing collective systems – the
Fractional quantum Hall effect and superconductors – and
(theoretical) attempts that are being made to understand
them. In those attempts people are coming up with models
like yours – with multiple components – three for the
fractional quantum Hall effect – two for
superconductors. These are COMPOSITE systems of light
and matter. Simple-minded attempts to understand them
without getting what the electron is or what the photon
is (the current situation) is bound to prove
challenging. In superconductors you have, practically, a
di-electron system – but it is also extended to include
an overlap over a whole crystal – extra protons in the
system then. One is looking a whole, collective, state
of matter – with pairs of spin-opposite, electrons
extended for many centimetres (whatever the size of the
superconductor is). Ok there are TWO paired, opposite
spin electrons in any “Cooper pair” and , at some level,
one is going to observe this and the symmetries inherent
in this. Antiparticles they are only the sense you know
they have opposite spin. Everything else, in the
experiments, is spin – if you will pardon the pun. One
is blindly thrashing about in the mist further.</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><br>
Regards, John</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center"></div>
<div id="divRpF530990">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">
General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
on behalf of Dr. Albrecht Giese [<a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a></a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 16, 2015 9:16 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Chip Akins; 'Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from
what a model…</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Hi
Chip,<br>
<br>
thanks for your proposals. I have inserted some
comments into the text.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 14.11.2015 um 17:13 schrieb
Chip Akins:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Hi Albrecht<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">What if, for
purposes of conjecture, we replace your two
“particles” in the electron, with an EM wave which
has a wavelength of twice the circumference? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">How can you bind a wave to
something? That sounds very strange to me. In the
vicinity of a charge we can feel a force. It is an
abstraction to call this situation a field. And if
this field changes with time and propagates into the
space, we call it a wave. You cannot bind a wave to
something, so as you cannot bind the wind to a tree.<br>
<br>
What we can bind is the charge which is the cause of
the field and of a wave. And a wave cannot build a
spin. As a comparison, a squirl in the air or in the
water can build an angular momentum. But that has to
do with the air or the water. The squirl without air
or water, which is a pure abstraction, cannot cause
any binding forces. Similar to an electric wave apart
from a charge.<br>
<br>
An EM wave is an electric field which is modulated and
which propagates. The magnetic part of it is, as
discussed here before, nothing than an impression
which we have of the electric field. A relativistic
side effect. Similar to the Coriolis force which is as
well an impression (i.e. also a seeming side effect,
but in this case not relativistic).<br>
<br>
So we should talk about real things and that are
charges in my understanding.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">And now let us
consider that the “binding force” which holds this
wave in a circular confinement is the same “force”
which causes spin angular momentum in light. The
EM “wave” would have the negative portion always
away from the center for the electron, and the
confinement of the wave causes a curvature in
(divergence of) the E field which in turn would be
the cause for the appearance of the elementary
charge.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">It seems that
such a model would 1) conserve momentum, 2) cause
inertial mass <i>(because of confined momentum
and the speed of light velocity limit)</i>, and
3) radiate when accelerated under most
circumstances <i>(except gravitational
acceleration, if gravity is simply the
diffraction of waves.)</i><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">How do you think to accelerate an
abstract wave? <br>
<br>
If you understand this wave as a cause of inertial
mass, can you present a quantitative calculation of
the mass which is the result of this effect? - I can
do it for my model with high precision (see below).<br>
<br>
If gravity is a case of diffraction, or better of
refraction, then there is an object refracted or a
moving charge, but not a wave.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">If we do this,
we have an electron model which consists of <i>just
one item</i> and explains (it seems) the same
things that your model explains, but without the
need for two entities within this elementary
particle.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">As a wave cannot have a momentum it
will not violate the conservation of momentum, true,
but it cannot build anything than mathematical
equations.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The reason for
posing this question is that there is no
experimental evidence that the electron is
comprised of two particles. However there is much
evidence that it is a single thing comprised of
energy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">I say it again: There is evidence
for two sub-particles. And I refer again to the
experiment described by Frank Wilczek where two halves
of an electron have been observed:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com"
target="_blank">http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com</a><br>
<br>
And there is NO evidence of a "single thing" if
investigated in relation to my model (having mass-less
constituents).<br>
<br>
And another evidence (an indirect one): Only an object
built by two constituents (as a minimum) can have
inertia. We all know that the Higgs model does not
work for inertia. And my model using 2 sub-particles
yields the mass of e.g. the electron with an accuracy
of 1 : 500'000. Do you know any model which yields
results of this accuracy? - <br>
I do not know any else model for this, and am
presenting this model since 15 years on conferences
all over the world, and there have been no objections.
<br>
<br>
Best<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Chip<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"
lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"
lang="EN-US"> General [<a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Dr. Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, November 14, 2015 7:52
AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Reply of
comments from what a model…</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
lang="EN-US">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<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Am
13.11.2015 um 20:31 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>:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">Hi Albrecht:</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">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! </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">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. </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">Why fight it? Where the hell
else will you find a credible 2nd particle?
</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">ciao, Al</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid
#C3D9E5 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm
8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt;word-wrap:break-word"
name="quote">
<div style="margin-bottom:7.5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">Gesendet:</span></b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> Freitag, 13. November 2015
um 12:11 Uhr<br>
<b>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>
<b>An:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Reply of
comments from what a model…</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">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>
</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">Am 12.11.2015 um 17:51
schrieb <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">Hi Albrect:</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">We are making
some progress. </span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">To your remark
that Swinger & Feynman
introduced virtual charges, I
note that they used the same
term: "virtual
charge/particle," in spite of
the much older meaning in
accord with the charge and
mirror example. In the finest
of quantum traditions, they
too ignored the rest of the
universe and instead tried to
vest its effect in the
"vacuum." This idea was
suitably mystical to allow
them to introduce the
associated plaver into the
folk lore of QM, given the
sociology of the day. Even in
spite of this BS, the idea
still has merit. Your
objection on the basis of the
1/r² fall-off is true but not
conclusive. This fall-off is
matched by a r² increase in
muber of charges, so the
integrated total interaction
can be expected to have at
least some effect, no matter
what. Think of the universe
to 1st order as a neutral,
low-density plasma. I (and
some others) hold that this
interaction is responcible for
all quantum effects. In any
case, no particle is a
universe unto itself, the rest
have the poulation and time to
take a toll! </span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">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><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">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><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">Tschuß, Al</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-left:solid
#C3D9E5 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm
0cm
8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt">
<div style="margin-bottom:7.5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">Gesendet:</span></b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> Donnerstag,
12. November 2015 um 16:18
Uhr<br>
<b>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>
<b>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>
<b>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>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] Reply of
comments from what a
model…</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">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"><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>:
</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"><br>
</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
class="current-selection"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">He
writes: "By
combining
fragmentation with
super</span></span><span
class="ls0"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">-</span></span><span
class="current-selection"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">conductivity,
we can get
half-electrons that
are their own
antiparticles." </span></span><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"><br>
</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">For Wilczek
this is a mysterious
result, in view of my
model it is not, on the
contrary it is kind of a
proof.<br>
<br>
Grüße<br>
Albrecht</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"><br>
<br>
</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">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>:</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">Hi
Albrecht:</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">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.</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">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. </span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">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. </span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">MfG,
Al</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div
style="border:none;border-left:solid
#C3D9E5
1.5pt;padding:0cm
0cm 0cm
8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt">
<div
style="margin-bottom:7.5pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">Gesendet:</span></b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> Mittwoch,
11. November
2015 um 22:37
Uhr<br>
<b>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>
<b>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>,
<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>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
Reply of
comments from
what a model…</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">Hi
Al,<br>
<br>
if we think in
categories of
a virtual
image, then we
are in my
understanding
fully on the
path of
present main
stream QM. I
have
understood
that we all
want to do
something
better than
that.<br>
<br>
Regarding
virtual
phenomena I
would like to
remind you
again of the
history of
such ideas. In
the 1940ies
Julian
Schwinger has
introduced
vacuum
polarization
(which is
equivalent to
virtual
particles
according to
Feynman) to
determine the
Landé factor
for refining
the Bohr
magneton. This
was the birth
of it.<br>
<br>
On the other
hand I have
shown that I
can deduce the
Bohr magneton
as well as the
Landé factor
in a classical
way if I use
my particle
model. And
that is
possible and
was done on a
pure classical
way. For me
this is a good
example that
we can do
things better
than by QM. In
particular I
try to have
correct
results
without using
any virtual
objects.<br>
<br>
Back to your
question: If
we build a
particle model
on a classical
basis then
there is no
place for a
virtual image,
and so I see
the need for
two
sub-particles.<br>
<br>
Ciao, Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">Am
11.11.2015 um
17:27 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>:</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">
</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">
</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div
style="border:none;border-left:solid
#C3D9E5
1.5pt;padding:0cm
0cm 0cm
8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt">
<div
style="margin-bottom:7.5pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">Gesendet:</span></b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> Mittwoch,
11. November
2015 um 11:54
Uhr<br>
<b>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>
<b>An:</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>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
Reply of
comments from
what a model…</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">Hi
Albrecht:</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#006600"
lang="EN-US">You
said: A model
with only one
particle is in
my view also
not possible
as it violates
the
conservation
of momentum. A
single object
can never
oscillate.</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#006600"
lang="EN-US">I
ask: Why
can't a single
particle
oscillate
against, or in
consort with,
its own
virtual image.
(Presuming
there is
charge complex
around---mirror
in 2d,
negative
sphere (I
think) in
3d)? </span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#006600"
lang="EN-US">ciao,
Al</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">
</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div
class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center;background:white" align="center"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">
<hr
style="color:#909090"
noshade="noshade" size="1" width="99%" align="center"></span></div>
<table
class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:collapse" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="padding:0cm
11.25pt 0cm
6.0pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-US"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
id="_x0000_i1027"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast
logo"
border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td
style="padding:.75pt
.75pt .75pt
.75pt">
<p><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#3D4D5A">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft.<br>
<a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"><br>
_______________________________________________
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:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank">Click here to unsubscribe </a></span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"><br>
<br>
</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div
class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center;background:white" align="center"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">
<hr
style="color:#909090"
noshade="noshade" size="1" width="99%" align="center"></span></div>
<table
class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:collapse" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="padding:0cm
11.25pt 0cm
6.0pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-US"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
id="_x0000_i1029"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast
logo"
border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td
style="padding:.75pt
.75pt .75pt
.75pt">
<p><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#3D4D5A">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft.<br>
<a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"><br>
<br>
</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center;background:white"
align="center"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">
<hr
style="color:#909090"
noshade="noshade"
size="1" width="99%"
align="center"></span></div>
<table
class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:collapse"
border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0cm
11.25pt 0cm 6.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-US"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
id="_x0000_i1031"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast
logo"
border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td
style="padding:.75pt
.75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#3D4D5A">Diese
E-Mail wurde von
Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft.<br>
<a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"><br>
<br>
</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center;background:white"
align="center"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">
<hr style="color:#909090"
noshade="noshade" size="1"
width="99%" align="center"></span></div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:collapse"
border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0cm 11.25pt 0cm
6.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-US"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
id="_x0000_i1033"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
alt="Avast logo"
border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt
.75pt">
<p><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#3D4D5A">Diese
E-Mail wurde von Avast
Antivirus-Software auf Viren
geprüft.<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank">www.avast.com</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center"><span lang="EN-US">
<hr style="color:#909090" noshade="noshade"
size="1" width="99%" align="center"></span></div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:collapse" border="0"
cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0cm 11.25pt 0cm 6.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
id="_x0000_i1035"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
alt="Avast logo" border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#3D4D5A">Diese
E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software
auf Viren geprüft. <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank">www.avast.com</a> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center">
<hr style="color:#909090" noshade="noshade" size="1"
width="99%" align="center"></div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:collapse" border="0"
cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0cm 11.25pt 0cm 6.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
id="_x0000_i1037"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
alt="Avast logo" border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#3D4D5A">Diese
E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software
auf Viren geprüft. <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank">www.avast.com</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center">
<hr style="color:#909090" noshade="noshade" size="1"
width="99%" align="center"></div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse"
border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0cm 11.25pt 0cm 6.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img
moz-do-not-send="true" id="_x0000_i1039"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
alt="Avast logo" border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#3D4D5A">Diese
E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren
geprüft. <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
<tr>
<td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">
<img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" />
</a>
</td>
<td>
<p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
<br><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>