<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hi Al,<br>
<br>
what empirical evidence you are looking for? <br>
<br>
We never see elementary particles by our eyes. But even worse: Both
stable quarks, the Up- and the Down-quark, have not only failed to
be seen, it was never possible to isolate them. The only argument in
favour of them is the fact that some mathematical evaluations of
particle reactions are easier with the assumption of these quarks.
And the quarks are given properties like a mass and an electrical
charge (i.e. 1/3 electron charge) which was never based on
measurements. The only argument also in this case is the easier
mathematics if this model is used. But they are these days the
central particles for the understanding of hadrons. Nobody questions
this. - In comparison to this situation my second sub-particle in
the electron has in my view much more evidence beyond mathematical
advantages.<br>
<br>
And another example, from astronomy: Planets outside our solar
system are not visible in the normal cases. But astronomers observe
that some stars, which are assumed to be central stars, show small
periodical motions. From these it is concluded that there are
planets, and also properties of these planets are derived from this
visible motion.<br>
<br>
Why not assume that the second particle in the electron is a virtual
one? Ok, but then one has to explain how this virtual particle is
caused. Something like a mirror in the electron? Or a different
mechanism? And what is about the electrical charge? Does the real
particle carry the full charge or is the charge distributed between
the real and the virtual constituent? In the former case there would
be a problem to deduce the Landé factor in a classical way which is
possible by my model.<br>
<br>
Anyway, if you have such a model with a virtual one in mind and you
can tell all necessary arguments for its existence, and the
quantitative evaluation has correct results, AND this model is
simpler that the model with 2 sub-particles, that would be a great
outcome. So, please give details ....<br>
<br>
Chiao<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 24.11.2015 um 18:40 schrieb
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-30a3c740-3252-4fc3-9192-3a9b2f708fde-1448386828876@3capp-webde-bap38"
type="cite">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Your responce has little relaiton to my previous
comments. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I qubble not with your results, nor even the inputs:
except to point out that one of them is unjustified or
unmotivated by any emperical evidence---AS YOU TELL THE
STORY! </div>
<div> </div>
<div>What I'm failing to get you to consider, is that the 2nd
particle is a virtual image of the 1st in a delayed
position. WHY NOT? [Don't tell me there's no empirical
evidence!]</div>
<div> </div>
<div>ciao, Al</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px; padding:
10px 0 10px 10px; border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Dienstag,
24. November 2015 um 18:18 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht Giese" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></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);">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>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 18.11.2015 um 20:04
schrieb <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_parent">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi 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 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> Mittwoch,
18. November 2015 um 11:03 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="genmail@a-giese.de"
target="_parent"><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>
<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"><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 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
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="genmail@a-giese.de"
target="_parent"><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"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"><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);"><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
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent"><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
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com"
target="_blank"><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
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="genmail@a-giese.de" target="_parent"><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"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_parent"><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
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent"><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
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="genmail@a-giese.de" target="_parent"><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"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_parent"><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
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent"><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
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="genmail@a-giese.de" target="_parent"><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"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_parent"><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
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com"
target="_blank"><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
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent"><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"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></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>
<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>