<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hi Al,<br>
<br>
I have nothing better to answer than to point again to the fact that
this set up of two particles not only explains the fact of inertia,
but also yields very precise results. I have not heard yet about
another theory which is even able to provide the first point.<br>
<br>
And there is no experiment (no one has given an argument into that
direction) which is in conflict with this assumption. <br>
<br>
What else can one expect from a theory? Right, if another theory,
which is simpler by being based on a smaller number of assumptions,
yields the same result. So, which one??<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 18.11.2015 um 20:04 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>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-1ba28839-2464-494b-ae8c-8d8967f42594-1447873497723@3capp-webde-bs03"
type="cite">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I have and had nothing to say about your motivation <em>per
se</em>. I tried to say that, I see no physical-empirical
justification for the 2nd particle. The issue is not that I
do not, or can not, follow your arguments, but that I find
them incomplete (as just mentioned). I note that others
have made the same objection. Obendarauf, I have made my
own suggestion for a motivation for the 2nd particle, namely
a virtual image. If you don't like this idea, fine! It
would be easier to swallow, however, if you gave a sensible
reason, but that is secondary.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>BTW, <em>a postiriori </em>success could justify a
search for empirical support for the 2nd particle, but not a
complete theory---until empirical evidence is found. There
are literally hundreds of candiate theories for everything,
Few are taken at all seriously because they are jumbeled up
in their fundamentals: primative element selction, and
whatnot. That fact that, histrical celeberties got away
with it, is part luck and a lot of sociological guerilla
warfare---techniques not availble to us in the trenches.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Another result of formal logic is that, within an
inconsistent logical sturture (theory) all theorems, right
or wrong, can be proven. Thus, too much success is
suspicious!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best regards, Al</div>
<div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px; padding:
10px 0 10px 10px; border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Mittwoch,
18. November 2015 um 11:03 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">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from
what a model…</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div style="background-color: rgb(255,255,255);"><small>Hi
Al,<br>
<br>
<font color="#006600">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></small><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><small>Am 17.11.2015 um
19:18 schrieb <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_parent">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</small></div>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi Albrect:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Comments² <strong>IN BOLD</strong></div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 10.0px 5.0px 5.0px
10.0px;padding: 10.0px 0 10.0px
10.0px;border-left: 2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div style="margin: 0 0 10.0px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Dienstag,
17. November 2015 um 18:41 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"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_parent">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Reply of
comments from what a model…</div>
<div>
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);"><small>Hi Al,<br>
<br>
again some responses.</small><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><small>Am
14.11.2015 um 18:24 schrieb <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="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>
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Answers to your questions:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>1) The SED background
explains the Planck BB
distribution without
quantization. It explans why an
atom doesn't collapse: in
equilibrium with background, In
fact, just about every effect
described by 2nd quantization
has an SED parallel explantion
without additional
considerations. With the
additional input of the SED
origin of deBroglie waves, it
provides a direct derivation of
the Schröedinger eq. thereby
explainiong all of 1st
Quantization.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><small>Maybe you achieve something
when using SED background. I do not
really understand this background,
but I do not see a stringent
necessity for it. But SED as an
origin to the de Broglie waves is of
interest for me. I am presently
working on de Broglie waves to find
a solution, which does not have the
logical conflicts which we have
discussed here.</small></div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong>See No. 11 (or 1) @ <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com">www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com</a></a>
for suggetions and some previous
work along this line.</strong></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#006600"><small><strong>Thank you, will
have a look.</strong></small></font>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 10.0px 5.0px 5.0px
10.0px;padding: 10.0px 0 10.0px
10.0px;border-left: 2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div>
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>2) Olber's logic is in
conflict with Mach's Principle,
so is obviously just valid for
visible light. Given a little
intergalacitc plasma (1 H/m³),
not to mention atmossphere and
interplanatary plama, visible
light disappears to Earthbound
observers at visitble freqs to
reappear at other, perhaps at
2.7° even, or at any other long
or hyper short wave length.
'The universe matters'---which
is even politically correct
nowadays!</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><small>Olber's logic is simple in
so far, as it shows that the
universe cannot be infinite. I have
assumed the same for all background
effects. Or are they infinite?</small></div>
<div> </div>
<div><small><strong>The fly in the
ointment is absorbtion. An inf.
universe with absorbtion in the
visible part of the spectrum will
still have a largely dark sky. </strong></small></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#006600"><small><strong>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>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 10.0px 5.0px 5.0px
10.0px;padding: 10.0px 0 10.0px
10.0px;border-left: 2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div>
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">
<div><br>
<small>What is the conflict with
Mach's principle?</small></div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong>Mach says: the
gravitational "background radiation"
is the cause of inertia. This effect
is parallel to the SED bacground
causing QM effects. Conflict: if
Olber is right, then Mach is
probably wrong (too weak).</strong></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#006600"><small><strong>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>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 10.0px 5.0px 5.0px
10.0px;padding: 10.0px 0 10.0px
10.0px;border-left: 2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div>
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>3) The (wide spread)
criticism of 2 particles is that
there is neither an <em>a-priori</em>
intuative reason, nor empirical
evidence that they exist. Maybe
they do anyway. But then, maybe
Zeus does too, and he is just
arranging appearances so that we
amuse ourselves. (Try to prove
that wrong!) </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><small>I have explained how I came
to the conclusion of 2
sub-particles. Again:<br>
<br>
1) There is motion with c in an
elementary particle to explain
dilation<br>
2) With only on particle such
process is mechanically not
possible, and it violates the
conservation of momentum<br>
3) In this way it is the only
working model theses days to explain
inertia. And this model explains
inertia with high precision. What
more is needed?</small></div>
<div> </div>
<div><small><strong>These assumtions are
"teleological," i.e., tuned to
give the desired results. As
logic, although often done, this
manuver is not legit in the formal
presentation of a theory. For a
physics theory, ideally, all the
input assuptios have empirical
justification or motivation. Your
2nd partical (modulo virtual
images) has no such motivatin, in
fact, just the opposite. </strong></small></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#006600"><small><strong>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>
<br>
<u>1st step:</u> I have calculated the
4-dimensional speed of an object using the
temporal part of the Lorentz transformation. The
surprising fact was that this 4-dim. speed is
always the speed of light. I have then assumed
that this constant shows a permanent motion with
c in a particle. I have accepted this as a
probable solution, but I have never assumed
this, before I had this result. It was in no way
a desired result. My idea was to describe time
by a vector of 3 of 4 dimensions. - I have then
</strong></small></font><font color="#006600"><small><strong>no
further </strong></small></font><font
color="#006600"><small><strong>followed this idea.<br>
<u>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>
<u>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.</strong></small></font><br>
<strong><small><font color="#006600"><u><strong>4th </strong></u><u>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>
<u>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>
<br>
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>Or at which step could I hav</u><u>e
had an alternative in your opinion?</u><br>
<br>
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></small></strong>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 10.0px 5.0px 5.0px
10.0px;padding: 10.0px 0 10.0px
10.0px;border-left: 2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div>
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">
<div><br>
<small>I know from several discussions
with particle physicists that there
is a lot of resistance against this
assumption of 2 constituents. The
reason is that everyone learn at
university like with mother's milk
that the electron is point-like,
extremely small and does not have
any internal structure. This has the
effect like a religion. (Same with
the relativity of Hendrik Lorentz.
Everyone learns with the same
fundamental attitude that Lorentz
was nothing better than a senile old
man how was not able to understand
modern physics.) - Not a really
good way, all this.</small></div>
<div> </div>
<div><small><strong>Mystical thinking is
indeed a major problem even in
Physics! But, some of the
objectiors to a 2nd particle are
not basing their objection of
devine revelation or political
correctness. </strong></small></div>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>4) It is ascientific to
consider that the desired result
is justification for a
hypothetical input. OK, one can
say about such reasoning, it is
validated <em>a posteriori</em>,
that at least makes it sound
substantial. So much has been
granted to your "story" but has
not granted your story status as
a "physics theory." It has some
appeal, which in my mind would
be enhansed had a
rationalization for the 2nd
particle been provided. That's
all I'm trying to do. When you
or whoever comes up with a
better one, I'll drop pushing
the virtual particle engendered
by the background. Maybe, it
fixes too many other things.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><small>My history was following
another way and another motivation.
I intended to explain relativity on
the basis of physical facts. This
was my only intention for this
model. All further properties of the
model were logical consequences
where I did not see alternatives. I
did not want to explain inertia. It
just was a result by itself.<br>
So, what is the problem? I have a
model which explains several
properties of elementary particles
very precisely. It is in no conflict
with any experimental experience.
And as a new observation there is
even some experimental evidence. -
What else can physics expect from a
theory? - The argument that the
second particle is not visible is
funny. Who has ever seen a quark?
Who has ever seen the internal
structure of the sun? I think you
have a demand here which was never
fulfilled in science.</small></div>
<div> </div>
<div><small><strong>The problem,
obviously, is that the existence
of the 2nd particle, as you have
presented it, is not a fact, but a
Wunschansatz. [BTW: "See" in
this context is not meant
occularly, but figuratively for
experimental verification through
any length of inferance chain.]
So, my question is: what problem
do you have with a virtual mate
for the particle? In fact, it
will be there whether you use it
or not.</strong><br>
<br>
And see again Frank Wilczek. </small><small><span><span
class="current-selection">He
writes: "By co</span></span><span
class="current-selection">mb</span><span
class="current-selection">ining
fragmen</span><span
class="current-selection">tatio</span><span
class="current-selection">n with
su</span><span
class="current-selection">per</span><span
class="ls0 ws0 current-selection">-</span><span
class="current-selection">con</span><span
class="current-selection">ductivity</span><span
class="current-selection">, w</span><span
class="current-selection">e can
get half-electro</span><span
class="current-selection">ns tha</span><span
class="current-selection">t </span></small><small><span
class="current-selection">ar</span><span
class="current-selection">e their
o</span><span
class="current-selection">wn an</span><span><span
class="current-selection">tiparticles."
</span></span></small></div>
<div> </div>
<div><small><span><span
class="current-selection"><strong>A
"straw in the wind" but sure
seems far fetched!
Superconductivity is already
a manybody phenomenon, It's
theory probably involves some
"virtual" notions to capture
the essence of the average
effect even if the virtual
actors do not really exist. </strong></span></span></small></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<small><strong><font 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>
<br>
Ciao<br>
Albrecht</font></strong></small><br>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 10.0px 5.0px 5.0px
10.0px;padding: 10.0px 0 10.0px
10.0px;border-left: 2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div>
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">
<div><small><span><span
class="current-selection"><strong> </strong></span></span></small><br>
<br>
<small>Guten Abend<br>
Albrecht</small></div>
<div> </div>
<div><small><strong>Gleichfalls, Al</strong></small></div>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Have a good one! Al</div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 10.0px 5.0px
5.0px 10.0px;padding: 10.0px 0
10.0px 10.0px;border-left:
2.0px solid rgb(195,217,229);">
<div style="margin: 0 0 10.0px
0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Samstag,
14. November 2015 um 14:51
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht
Giese" <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="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…</div>
<div>
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
Why do we need a
background? If I assume
only local forces (strong
and electric) for my
model, the calculation
conforms to the
measurement (e.g. between
mass and magnetic moment)
with a precision of 2 :
1'000'000. This is no
incident. Not possible, if
a poorly defined and
stable background has a
measurable influence. -
And if there should be
such background and it has
such little effect, which
mistake do we make if we
ignore that?<br>
<br>
For the competition of the
1/r<sup>2</sup> law for
range of charges and the r<sup>2</sup>
law for the quantity of
charges we have a popular
example when we look at
the sky at night. The sky
is dark and that shows
that the r<sup>2</sup>
case (number of shining
stars) does in no way
compensates for the 1/r<sup>2</sup>
case (light flow density
from the stars).<br>
<br>
Why is a 2 particle model
necessary?<br>
<br>
1.) for the conservation
of momentum<br>
2.) for a cause of the
inertial mass<br>
3.) for the radiation at
acceleration which occurs
most time, but does not
occur in specific
situations. Not explained
elsewhere.<br>
<br>
Ciao, Albrecht<br>
<br>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
13.11.2015 um 20:31
schrieb <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
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>
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Your proposed
experiment is
hampered by reality!
If you do the
measurement with a
gaget bought in a
store that has
knobes and a
display, then the
measurement is for
certain for signals
under a couple
hundred GHz and
based on some
phenomena for which
the sensitivity of
man-made devices is
limited. And, if
limited to the
electric field, then
there is a good
chance it is missing
altogether
oscillating signals
by virtue of its
limited reaction
time of reset time,
etc. etc. The vast
majority of the
background will be
much higher, the
phenomena most
attuned to detecting
might be in fact the
quantum effects
otherwise explained
with mystical
hokus-pokus! Also
to be noted is that,
the processes
invovled in your
model, if they
pertain to
elementray entities,
will have to be at
very small size and
if at the velocity
(c) will be very
high energy, etc. so
that once again, it
is quite reasonable
to suppose that the
universe is anything
but irrelavant! </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Of course, there
is then the issue of
the divergence of
the this SED
background.
Ameliorated to some
extent with the
realization that
there is no energy
at a point in empty
space until a
charged entity is
put there, whereupon
the energy of
interaction with the
rest of the universe
(not just by itself
being there and
ignoring the
universe---as QM
theorists, and
yourself, are wont
to do) is given by
the sum of
interactions over
all particles not by
the integral over
all space, including
empty space. Looks
at first blush to be
finite. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Why fight it?
Where the hell else
will you find a
credible 2nd
particle? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>ciao, Al</div>
<div>
<div style="margin:
10.0px 5.0px 5.0px
10.0px;padding:
10.0px 0 10.0px
10.0px;border-left:
2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div
style="margin: 0
0 10.0px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Freitag,
13. November
2015 um 12:11
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr.
Albrecht Giese"
<a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="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…</div>
<div>
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
if we look to
charges you
mention the
law 1/r<sup>2</sup>.
Now we can
perform a
simple
physical
experiment
having an
electrically
charged object
and using it
to measure the
electric field
around us. I
say: it is
very weak. Now
look to the
distance of
the two
half-charges
within the
particle
having a
distance of
4*10<sup>-13</sup>
m. This means
an increase of
force of about
25 orders of
magnitude
compared to
what we do in
a lab. And the
difference is
much greater
if we refer to
charges acting
from the
universe. So I
think we do
not make a big
mistake
assuming that
there is
nothing
outside the
particle.<br>
<br>
Regarding my
model, the
logic of
deduction was
very simple
for me:<br>
<br>
1.) We have
dilation, so
there must be
a permanent
motion with c<br>
2.) There must
be 2
sub-particles
otherwise the
momentum law
is violated; 3
are not
possible as in
conflict with
experiments.<br>
3.) The
sub-particles
must be
mass-less,
otherwise c is
not possible<br>
4.) The whole
particle has
mass even
though the
sub-particles
are mass-less.
So there must
be a mechanism
to cause
inertia. It
was
immediately
clear for me
that inertia
is a
consequence of
extension.
Another reason
to assume a
particle which
is composed of
parts. (There
is no other
working
mechanism of
inertia known
until today.)<br>
5.) I had to
find the
binding field
for the
sub-particles.
I have taken
the simplest
one which I
could find
which has a
potential
minimum at
some distance.
And my first
attempt
worked.<br>
<br>
That is all,
and I do not
see any
possibility to
change one of
the points 1.)
thru 5.)
without
getting in
conflict with
fundamental
physical
rules. And I
do not invent
new facts or
rules beyond
those already
known in
physics.<br>
<br>
So, where do
you see any
kind of
arbitrariness
or missing
justification?<br>
<br>
Tschüß!<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
12.11.2015 um
17:51 schrieb
<a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="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>
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi
Albrect:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>We are
making some
progress. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>To your
remark that
Swinger &
Feynman
introduced
virtual
charges, I
note that they
used the same
term: "virtual
charge/particle,"
in spite of
the much older
meaning in
accord with
the charge and
mirror
example. In
the finest of
quantum
traditions,
they too
ignored the
rest of the
universe and
instead tried
to vest its
effect in the
"vacuum."
This idea was
suitably
mystical to
allow them to
introduce the
associated
plaver into
the folk lore
of QM, given
the sociology
of the day.
Even in spite
of this BS,
the idea still
has merit.
Your objection
on the basis
of the 1/r²
fall-off is
true but not
conclusive.
This fall-off
is matched by
a r² increase
in muber of
charges, so
the integrated
total
interaction
can be
expected to
have at least
some effect,
no matter
what. Think
of the
universe to
1st order as a
neutral,
low-density
plasma. <span>I
(and some
others) hold
that this
interaction is
responcible
for all
quantum
effects. In
any case, no
particle is a
universe unto
itself, the
rest have the
poulation and
time to take a
toll! </span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span>BTW,
this is
history
repeating
itself. Once
upon a time
there was
theory of
Brownian
motion that
posited an
internal cause
known as "elan
vital" to dust
specks
observed
hopping about
like Mexican
jumping beans.
Ultimately
this nonsense
was displaced
by the
observation
that the dust
spots were not
alone in their
immediate
universe but
imbededded in
a slurry of
other
particles,
also in
motion, to
which they
were reacting.
Nowadays
atoms are
analysed in QM
text books as
if they were
the only
object in the
universe---all
others being
too far away
(so it is
argued,
anyway). </span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span>Your
model, as it
stands, can be
free of
contradiction
and still
unstatisfying
because the
inputs seem to
be just what
is needed to
make the
conclusions
you aim to
make. Fine,
but what most
critics will
expect is that
these inputs
have to have
some kind of
justification
or motivation.
This is what
the second
particle
lacks. Where
is it when one
really looks
for it? It
has no
empirical
motivation.
Thus, this
theory then
has about the
same ultimate
structure, and
pursuasiveness,
as saying:
'don't worry
about it, God
did it; go
home, open a
beer, pop your
feet up, and
forget about
it---a theory
which explains
absolutely
everything!</span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span>Tschuß,
Al</span></div>
<div>
<div
style="margin:
10.0px 5.0px
5.0px
10.0px;padding:
10.0px 0
10.0px
10.0px;border-left:
2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div
style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Donnerstag,
12. November
2015 um 16:18
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr.
Albrecht
Giese" <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="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…</div>
<div>
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);"><font size="-1">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
I have gotten
a different
understanding
of what a
virtual
particle or a
virtual charge
is. This
phenomenon was
invented by
Julian
Schwinger and
Richard
Feynman. They
thought to
need it in
order to
explain
certain
reactions in
particle
physics. In
the case of
Schwinger it
was the Landé
factor, where
I have shown
that this
assumption is
not necessary.<br>
<br>
If there is a
charge then of
course this
charge is
subject to
interactions
with all other
charges in the
universe. That
is correct.
But because of
the normal
distribution
of these other
charges in the
universe,
which cause a
good
compensation
of the
effects, and
because of the
distance law
we can think
about models
without
reference to
those. And
also there is
the problem
with virtual
particles and
vacuum
polarization
(which is
equivalent),
in that we
have this huge
problem that
the integrated
energy of it
over the
universe is by
a factor of
10^120 higher
than the
energy
measured. I
think this is
a really big
argument
against
virtual
effects.<br>
<br>
Your example
of the virtual
image of a
charge in a
conducting
surface is a
different
case. It is,
as you write,
the
rearrangement
of charges in
the conducting
surface. So
the partner of
the charge is
physically the
mirror, not
the picture
behind it. But
which mirror
can cause the
second
particle in a
model if the
second
particle is
not assumed to
be real?<br>
<br>
And what in
general is the
problem with a
two particle
model? It
fulfils the
momentum law.
And it does
not cause
further
conflicts. It
also explains
why an
accelerated
electron
sometimes
radiates,
sometimes not.
For an
experimental
evidence I
refer again to
the article of
Frank Wilczek
in "Nature"
which was
mentioned here
earlier:<br>
<br>
<a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com"><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>
<div class="t
m88 x28 h2 y37
ff1 fs1 fc0
sc0 ls3 ws2"><small><span><span
class="current-selection">He writes: "By co</span></span><span
class="current-selection">mb</span><span
class="current-selection">ining fragmen</span><span
class="current-selection">tatio</span><span
class="current-selection">n with su</span><span
class="current-selection">per</span><span
class="ls0 ws0
current-selection">-</span><span class="current-selection">con</span><span
class="current-selection">ductivity</span><span
class="current-selection">,
w</span><span
class="current-selection">e can get half-electro</span><span
class="current-selection">ns
tha</span><span
class="current-selection">t </span></small><small><span
class="current-selection">ar</span><span
class="current-selection">e their o</span><span
class="current-selection">wn
an</span><span><span
class="current-selection">tiparticles." </span><br>
</span></small></div>
<font
size="-1">For
Wilczek this
is a
mysterious
result, in
view of my
model it is
not, on the
contrary it is
kind of a
proof.<br>
<br>
Grüße<br>
Albrecht</font><br>
<br>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix"><font
size="-1">Am
12.11.2015 um
03:06 schrieb
<a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="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>
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Virtual
particles are
proxys for an
ensemble of
real
particles.
There is
nothing
folly-lolly
about them!
They simply
summarize the
total effect
of particles
that cannot be
ignored. To
ignore the
remainder of
the universe
becasue it is
inconvenient
for theory
formulation is
for certain
leading to
error. "No
man is an
island," and
no single
particle is a
universe!
Thus, it can
be argued
that, to
reject the
concept of
virtual
particles is
to reject a
facit of
reality that
must be
essential for
an explantion
of the
material
world.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>For
example, if a
positive
charge is
placed near a
conducting
surface, the
charges in
that surface
will respond
to the
positive
charge by
rearranging
themselves so
as to give a
total field on
the surface of
zero strength
as if there
were a
negative
charge
(virtual)
behind the
mirror.
Without the
real charges
on the mirror
surface, the
concept of
"virtual"
negative
charge would
not be
necessary or
even useful. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The
concept of
virtual charge
as the second
particle in
your model
seems to me to
be not just a
wild
supposition,
but an
absolute
necessity.
Every charge
is, without
choice, in
constant
interaction
with every
other charge
in the
universe, has
been so since
the big bang
(if such were)
and will
remain so till
the big crunch
(if such is to
be)! The
universe
cannot be
ignored. If
you reject
including the
universe by
means of
virtual
charges, them
you have a lot
more work to
do to make
your theory
reasonable
some how else.
In particular
in view of the
fact that the
second
particles in
your model
have never
ever been seen
or even
suspected in
the various
experiments
resulting in
the
disasssmbly of
whatever
targert was
used. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>MfG, Al</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<hr style="border: none;color:
rgb(144,144,144);background-color:
rgb(176,176,176);height: 1.0px;width:
99.0%;">
<table style="border-collapse:
collapse;border: none;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border: none;padding:
0.0px 15.0px 0.0px 8.0px;"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
alt="Avast logo"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
border="0"> </a></td>
<td>
<p style="color:
rgb(61,77,90);font-family:
Calibri , Verdana , Arial ,
Helvetica;font-size: 12.0pt;">Diese
E-Mail wurde von Avast
Antivirus-Software auf Viren
geprüft.<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank">www.avast.com</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<hr style="border: none;color:
rgb(144,144,144);background-color:
rgb(176,176,176);height: 1.0px;width: 99.0%;">
<table style="border-collapse: collapse;border: none;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border: none;padding: 0.0px 15.0px
0.0px 8.0px;"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
alt="Avast logo"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
border="0"> </a></td>
<td>
<p style="color: rgb(61,77,90);font-family:
Calibri , Verdana , Arial ,
Helvetica;font-size: 12.0pt;">Diese E-Mail
wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren
geprüft.<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank">www.avast.com</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
<tr>
<td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">
<img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" />
</a>
</td>
<td>
<p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
<br><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>