<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hallo Richard,<br>
<br>
thank you for your alternative proposal. Unfortunately there are
some points of misunderstanding with respect to my model. And also
some other physical arguments I like to point to - in your text.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 23.11.2015 um 19:43 schrieb Richard
Gauthier:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:84F6A2F6-ED8A-4915-8E1E-E1DB4E99E1B3@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
Hello Albrecht,
<div class=""><br class="">
<div class=""> I’m glad that you say that developing a
2-particle model of the electron was not your main interest. I
think it will be useful to see what parts of your model may be
saved, and what parts may have to go, to get a working model
in progress for the electron which most of us here might agree
on. First, since there is no generally accepted evidence of a
nuclear strong force relation to electrons, let’s drop that
proposal for holding your 2 circulating charged massless
particles in orbit, at least for now. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Here I object. 1) The strong force in the electron was seen at DESY
experiments in the 1990s. 2) Without referring to the strong force,
the calculation of the mass of the electron has incorrect results by
a factor of several hundred. This was found out by physicists in the
1940s, e.g. by Helmut Hönl. (I can send you his paper if you are
interested, however in German.)<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:84F6A2F6-ED8A-4915-8E1E-E1DB4E99E1B3@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="">
<div class="">Second, since there’s no evidence for a
two-particle structure of the electron from any scattering or
other experiments, let’s also consider dropping that proposal
for now. Your insistence that a 2-particle model is required
for conservation of momentum at the sub-electron level does
not seem sufficient to accept this part of your 2-particle
model. We don’t even know experimentally that conservation of
momentum exists at the sub-electron level, do we? Just an
article of faith?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
This may be a point of personal judgement, but in my view the
conservation if momentum is a fundamental law in physics, maybe the
most fundamental law. It follows logically from the symmetry of
space (refer to Emmy Noether, who has set some logical basics for
QM).<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:84F6A2F6-ED8A-4915-8E1E-E1DB4E99E1B3@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> So what is left of your model? You claim that
your two particles are massless and travel at light speed.
But you don’t say that they are also without energy, do you?
If there are two massless particles, they will still each have
to have 0.511/2 MeV of energy if the electron’s total resting
energy 0.511 MeV is divided equally between them. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I have explained this in a former comment. The two "basic" particles
do not have any energy by themselves. The energy is caused by the
motion of the basic particles in the situation of a bind. Mass is
anyway a dynamic property of matter as it is even seen by present
main stream physics.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:84F6A2F6-ED8A-4915-8E1E-E1DB4E99E1B3@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="">
<div class="">One kind of particle that has no rest mass but has
energy and travels at light speed is a photon. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
This assumption is not true as explained above. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:84F6A2F6-ED8A-4915-8E1E-E1DB4E99E1B3@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="">
<div class="">(Let’s forget about gluons here for now since
there is no accepted evidence for a strong nuclear force on
electrons). So each of your two particles (if there are still
two for some other reason besides conservation of momentum,
and a need for an attractive force between them to overcome
their electric repulsion) could be a charged photon
(circulating charge is necessary to get a magnetic moment for
the model) with energy 0.511/2 MeV, which has energy but no
rest mass. OK. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Not true!<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:84F6A2F6-ED8A-4915-8E1E-E1DB4E99E1B3@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="">
<div class="">But each of these two charged photons, each of
energy 0.511/2 MeV = mc^2/2 will have a wavelength of 2
Compton wavelengths = 2 h/mc . If 1 wavelength of each photon
is turned into a single closed loop, the each loop would have
a radius 2hbar/mc, which is twice the radius hbar/mc of your
proposed electron model. To make each of these photons move
circularly in a way that each of their wavelengths gives a
radius of hbar/mc as in your model, each photon would have to
move in a double loop. So there will be two photons each of
energy 0.511/2 moving in a double loop in this model. This is
getting complicated.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
The Compton wavelength has a different origin. It comes from
scattering of photons at an electron (example). The Compton
wavelength is then the maximum change of the wavelength of the
photon in such process. - This wavelength is in this way not any
geometrical extension of the electron. Yes, we find this value in
some calculations, but we should be cautious to use it for the
determination of dimension. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:84F6A2F6-ED8A-4915-8E1E-E1DB4E99E1B3@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Let’s drop one of the two photons for
simplicity (Occam’s razor put to good use) so that the other
photon will have the full electron energy 0.511 MeV . </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
What is the origin of this energy in the photon? And which mechanism
causes actually the energy of this photon? A photon can in general
have any energy, doesn't it?<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:84F6A2F6-ED8A-4915-8E1E-E1DB4E99E1B3@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="">
<div class="">This photon will now have a wavelength 1 Compton
wavelength. If this 1 Compton wavelength charged photon moves
in a single loop it will create an electron with magnetic
moment 1 Bohr magneton and a spin of 1 hbar. That’s good for
the experimental magnetic moment of the electron (slightly
more than 1 Bohr magneton) but bad for its experimental spin
(which you tried to reduce to 1/2 hbar in your model by a
delayed force argument). If the photon moves in a double loop
it will be good for the spin (which now is exactly 1/2 hbar)
but bad for the magnetic moment (now 1/2 Bohr magneton). </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Why does the double loop reduce the spin? Why the Bohr magneton? The
magnetic moment depends on the area in the loop. How large is this
area in this case?<br>
<br>
The magnetic moment is larger than the Bohr magneton. In my model
this is the contribution of the (small) electrical charges in view
of the (large) strong charges.<br>
<br>
And which mechanism causes the double loop? It cannot come from
itself. A circuit is a simple structure which does not need many
influences. A double loop is more and needs a cause.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:84F6A2F6-ED8A-4915-8E1E-E1DB4E99E1B3@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="">
<div class="">So there’s still a problem with the model’s
magnetic moment. But this double-looping charged photon model
now has gained the zitterbewegung frequency of the Dirac
electron which is desirable for an electron model which hopes
to model the Dirac electron. And it also has 720 degree
symmetry which the Dirac electron has (while your original
2-particle model has a rotational symmetry of 180 degrees,
since each particle would take the place of the other after a
half-circle rotation).</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
In my model the zitterbewegung frequency is the circulation
frequency of the basic particles. The rotational symmetry is not 180
but 360 degrees as the strong field of the basic particles is not
equal, but one basic particle changes the other one by electrical
influence. This works analogue to the case of the van der Waals
force. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:84F6A2F6-ED8A-4915-8E1E-E1DB4E99E1B3@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> What do you think of this new model so far?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Did I explain it sufficiently?<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:84F6A2F6-ED8A-4915-8E1E-E1DB4E99E1B3@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Richard</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:84F6A2F6-ED8A-4915-8E1E-E1DB4E99E1B3@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Nov 22, 2015, at 9:43 AM, Albrecht Giese
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" class="">genmail@a-giese.de</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class=""> Hello
Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
I never have persistently tried to develop a
2-particle model. What I have persistently tried was
to find a good explanation for relativistic dilation.
And there I found a solution which has satisfied me.
All the rest including the 2 particles in my model
where logical consequences where I did not see
alternatives. If there should be a model which is an
alternative in one or the other aspect, I will be
happy to see it.<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 22.11.2015 um 00:13
schrieb Richard Gauthier:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:E9E2553A-C03E-49E4-BFE7-335F4E41512A@gmail.com"
type="cite" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8" class="">
Hello Albrecht,
<div class=""><br class="">
<div class=""> I admire your persistence in
trying to save your doomed (in my opinion)
2-particle electron model. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Why 2 particles in the model? I say it again:<br
class="">
<br class="">
1) to maintain the conservation of momentum in the
view of oscillations<br class="">
2) to have a mechanism for inertia (which has very
precise results, otherwise non-existent in present
physics)<br class="">
<br class="">
I will be happy to see alternatives for both points.
Up to now I have not seen any.<br class="">
<blockquote
cite="mid:E9E2553A-C03E-49E4-BFE7-335F4E41512A@gmail.com"
type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Do you understand how unreasonable
and irrational it appears for you to write:
"Then I had to determine the field constant S
which is normally provided by experiments. But
quantum mechanics is so unprecise regarding the
numeric value of the strong force that there is
no number available in the data tables. Here I
found that I could use the Bohr magneton to
determine the constant. (Which turned out to be
S = hbar*c, merely a constant).” ? <br
class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I have once asked one of the leading theorists at DESY
for a better quantitative explanation or determination
of the strong force. His answer: Sorry, the strong
force is not good enough understood so that I cannot
give you better information. <br class="">
<blockquote
cite="mid:E9E2553A-C03E-49E4-BFE7-335F4E41512A@gmail.com"
type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">How could the number S that you
could not find in “unprecise” tables about the
strong force possibly be the same number that
can be found precisely from the electron’s Bohr
magneton ehbar/2m and which you claim is S =
hbar*c ? This is an unbelievable, desperate
stretch of imagination and "grasping at straws",
in my opinion. <br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
When I have realized that my model deduces the Bohr
magneton, I have used the measurements available in
that context to determine my field constant. (I could
also go the other way: I can use the Planck / Einstein
relation E = h * f and the Einstein-relation E = m*c<sup
class="">2</sup> to determine the constant S from
the internal frequency in my model. Same result. But I
like the other way better. BTW: Do you know any other
model which deduces these relations rather than using
them as given?)<br class="">
<blockquote
cite="mid:E9E2553A-C03E-49E4-BFE7-335F4E41512A@gmail.com"
type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Here is the meaning of “grasping at
straws” from <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasp+at+straws">http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasp+at+straws</a> :</div>
<h2 style="box-sizing: inherit; font-size: 1.8rem;
line-height: 1.8rem; display: inline-block;
margin: 0px 0.2rem 6px 0px; color: rgb(64, 64,
64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"
class="">grasp at straws</h2>
<div class=""><span class="hvr" style="color:
rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;">Also,</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><b
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;"
class=""><span class="hvr" style="box-sizing:
inherit;">clutch</span> at <span class="hvr"
style="box-sizing: inherit;">straws</span></b><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class="">.</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64);
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;
box-sizing: inherit;">Make</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class="">a</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64);
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;
box-sizing: inherit;">desperate</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64);
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;
box-sizing: inherit;">attempt</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class="">at</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64);
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;
box-sizing: inherit;">saving</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64);
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;
box-sizing: inherit;">oneself.</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64);
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;
box-sizing: inherit;">For</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64);
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;
box-sizing: inherit;">example,</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><i
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;"
class="">He <span class="hvr"
style="box-sizing: inherit;">had </span><span
class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">lost</span> <span
class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">the</span> <span
class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">argument,</span> <span
class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">but</span> he <span
class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">kept</span> <span
class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">grasping</span> at <span
class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">straws,</span> <span
class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">naming</span> <span
class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">numerous</span> <span
class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">previous</span> <span
class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">cases</span> <span
class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">that </span><span
class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">had</span> <span
class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">little</span> to do <span
class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">with</span> <span
class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">this</span> <span
class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">one</span></i><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class="">.</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64);
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;
box-sizing: inherit;">This</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64);
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;
box-sizing: inherit;">metaphoric</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64);
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;
box-sizing: inherit;">expression</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64);
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;
box-sizing: inherit;">alludes</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class="">to</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class="">a</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64);
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;
box-sizing: inherit;">drowning</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64);
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;
box-sizing: inherit;">person </span><span
class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64);
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;
box-sizing: inherit;">trying</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class="">to</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64);
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;
box-sizing: inherit;">save</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64);
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;
box-sizing: inherit;">himself</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class="">by</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64);
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;
box-sizing: inherit;">grabbing</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class="">at</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64);
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;
box-sizing: inherit;">flimsy</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64);
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;
box-sizing: inherit;">reeds.</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64);
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;
box-sizing: inherit;">First</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64);
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;
box-sizing: inherit;">recorded</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class="">in</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64);
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;
box-sizing: inherit;">1534,</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64);
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;
box-sizing: inherit;">the</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64);
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;
box-sizing: inherit;">term</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64);
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;
box-sizing: inherit;">was </span><span
class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64);
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;
box-sizing: inherit;">used</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64);
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;
box-sizing: inherit;">figuratively</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class="">by</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64);
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;
box-sizing: inherit;">the</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64);
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;
box-sizing: inherit;">late</span><span
style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span
class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64);
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;
box-sizing: inherit;">1600s.</span> </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I am not at all opposed to using
desperate measures to find or save a hypothesis
that is very important to you. Max Planck
described his efforts to fit the black body
radiation equation using quantized energies of
hypothetical oscillators as an "act of
desperation”. So you are of course free to keep
desperately trying to save your 2-particle
electron hypothesis. I personally think that
your many talents in physics could be better
spent in other ways, for example in revising
your electron model to make it more consistent
with experimental facts.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Do you know any other electron model which is so much
consistent with experimental facts (e.g. size and
mass) as this one (without needing the usual
mystifications of quantum mechanics)?<br class="">
<blockquote
cite="mid:E9E2553A-C03E-49E4-BFE7-335F4E41512A@gmail.com"
type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""> By the way, van der Waals forces
do not "bind atoms to form a molecule". They are
attractive or repulsive forces between molecules
or between parts of a molecule. According to
Wikipedia:</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">" <span style="color: rgb(37, 37,
37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;
line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);" class="">the </span><b
style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family:
sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height:
22px;" class="">van der Waals forces</b><span
style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family:
sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height:
22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"
class=""> (or </span><b style="color: rgb(37,
37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size:
14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">van der
Waals' interaction</b><span style="color:
rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif;
font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"
class="">), named after </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands"
title="Netherlands" style="text-decoration:
none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128);
background-image: none; font-family:
sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height:
22px;" class="">Dutch</a><span style="color:
rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif;
font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"
class=""> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist"
title="Scientist" style="text-decoration:
none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128);
background-image: none; font-family:
sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height:
22px;" class="">scientist</a><span
style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family:
sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height:
22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"
class=""> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Diderik_van_der_Waals"
title="Johannes Diderik van der Waals"
style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11,
0, 128); background-image: none; font-family:
sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height:
22px;" class="">Johannes Diderik van der Waals</a><span
style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family:
sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height:
22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"
class="">, is the sum of the attractive or
repulsive forces between </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecule"
title="Molecule" style="text-decoration: none;
color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image:
none; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:
14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">molecules</a><span
style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family:
sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height:
22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"
class=""> (or between parts of the same
molecule) other than those due to </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond"
title="Covalent bond" style="text-decoration:
none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128);
background-image: none; font-family:
sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height:
22px;" class="">covalent bonds</a><span
style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family:
sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height:
22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"
class="">, or the </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_interaction"
title="Electrostatic interaction"
class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration:
none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128);
background-image: none; font-family:
sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height:
22px;">electrostatic interaction</a><span
style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family:
sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height:
22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"
class=""> of </span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion"
title="Ion" style="text-decoration: none;
color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image:
none; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:
14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">ions</a><span
style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family:
sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height:
22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"
class=""> with one another, with neutral
molecules, or with charged molecules.</span><sup
id="cite_ref-1" class="reference"
style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi:
-webkit-isolate; font-size: 11px; color:
rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif;"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-1"
style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11,
0, 128); background-image: none;
white-space: nowrap; background-position:
initial initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">[1]</a></sup><span
style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family:
sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height:
22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"
class=""> The resulting van der Waals forces
can be attractive or repulsive.</span><sup
id="cite_ref-Van_OssAbsolom1980_2-0"
class="reference" style="line-height: 1;
unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate; font-size:
11px; color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family:
sans-serif;"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-Van_OssAbsolom1980-2"
style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11,
0, 128); background-image: none;
white-space: nowrap; background-position:
initial initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">[2]</a></sup></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, my arrangement of charges of the strong force
causes as well a combination of attractive and
repulsive forces and is doing the same like in the van
der Waals case. That was my reason to refer to them.<br
class="">
<br class="">
Best regards<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<blockquote
cite="mid:E9E2553A-C03E-49E4-BFE7-335F4E41512A@gmail.com"
type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">with best regards,</div>
<div class=""> Richard</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Nov 21, 2015, at 8:32 AM,
Albrecht Giese <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"
class=""><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a></a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
class=""> Hello Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
I am a bit confused how badly my
attempted explanations have reached
you.<br class="">
<br class="">
I have NOT used the Bohr magneton to
determine the radius R of an electron.
I deduced the radius directly from the
measured magnetic moment using the
classical equation for the magnetic
moment.<br class="">
<br class="">
For the binding force of the
sub-particles I needed a multipole
field which has a potential minimum at
a distance R<sub class="">0</sub>. The
simplest shape of such a field which I
could find was for the force F:<br
class="">
F = S * (R<sub class="">0</sub> - R)
/R<sup class="">3</sup>. Here R<sub
class="">0</sub> is of course the
equilibrium distance and S the field
constant. I wanted to refer to an
existing field of a proper strength,
and that could only be the strong
force. Then I had to determine the
field constant S which is normally
provided by experiments. But quantum
mechanics is so unprecise regarding
the numeric value of the strong force
that there is no number available in
the data tables. Here I found that I
could use the Bohr magneton to
determine the constant. (Which turned
out to be S = hbar*c, merely a
constant).<br class="">
<br class="">
From the equation for F given above
the inertial mass of the particle
follows from a deduction which is
given on my website: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass">www.ag-physics.org/rmass</a></a>
. Too long to present it here, but
straight and inevitable. Here the
result again: m = S / (R * c<sup
class="">2</sup>) .<br class="">
<br class="">
If you are unsatisfied by my deduction
of this field, what is about the van
der Waals forces which bind atoms to
build a molecule? Did van der Waals
have had a better way of deduction in
that case? I think that the fact that
the von der Waals forces act so as
observed, is enough for the physical
community to accept them. <br
class="">
<br class="">
And you ask for an independent
calculation of S which I should
present in your opinion. Now, Is there
anyone in physics or in astronomy who
can present an independent calculation
of the gravitational constant G? No,
nobody can calculate G from basic
assumptions. Why asking for more in my
case? I think that this demand is not
realistic and not common understanding
in physics.<br class="">
<br class="">
And again: where is circular
reasoning?<br class="">
<br class="">
Best regards<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
20.11.2015 um 23:02 schrieb Richard
Gauthier:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7154B3DD-B1D7-48CA-AA3C-8BAEE7085526@gmail.com"
type="cite" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8"
class="">
<div class="">Hello Albrecht,</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Thanks for your
detailed response. I think the
key problem is in your
determination of your “field
constant” S which you say
describes the "binding field" for
your two particles. This
definition of S is too general and
empty of specific content as I
understand that it applies to any
"binding field” at any nuclear or
atomic or molecular level. With
your 2-particle electron model you
then calculate the radius
R=hbar/mc from the Bohr Magneton
e*hbar/2m, assuming the values of
m, e, h and c. . Then you
calculate S from the Bohr magneton
and find it to be S=c*hbar. You
then calculate m from the equation
m=S/(R*c^2). How can a binding
field S be described by such a
universal term hbar * c ? That’s
why I think that your derivation
is circular. You use the Bohr
magneton e*hbar/2m to calculate R
and S, (using the Bohr magneton)
and then you use R and S to
calculate m. You have no
independent calculation of S
except from the Bohr magneton.
That’s the problem resulting in
circularity. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> with best regards,</div>
<div class=""> Richard</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Nov 20, 2015,
at 1:09 PM, Albrecht Giese
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br
class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta content="text/html;
charset=utf-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type"
class="">
<div text="#000000"
bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
Hallo Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
I find it great that we have
made similar calculations
and came at some points to
similar conclusions. That is
not a matter of course, as
you find in all textbooks
that it is impossible to get
these results in a classical
way, but that in the
contrary it needs QM to come
to these results. <br
class="">
<br class="">
Here now again the logical
way which I have gone: I
assume the circular motion
of the elementary electric
charge (2* 1/2 * e<sub
class="">0</sub>) with
speed c. Then with the
formula (which you give
here again) M = i*A one can
conclude A from the measured
magnetic moment. And so we
know the radius to be R =
3.86 x 10<sup class="">-13</sup>
m for the electron. No
constants and no further
theory are necessary for
this result. I have then
calculated the inertial mass
of a particle which turns
out to be m = S / (R * c<sup
class="">2</sup>) where
the parameter S describes
the binding field. I did
initially have no knowledge
about the quantity of this
field. But from the mass
formula there follows for
the magnetic moment: M=
(1/2)*(S/c)*(e /m). To this
point I have not used any
knowledge except the known
relation for the magnetic
moment. Now I look to the
Bohr magneton in order to
find the quantity of my
field constant S: M=
(1/2)*hbar*(e /m). Because
the Planck constant has to
be measured in some way. For
doing it myself I would need
a big machine. But why?
Basic constants never follow
from a theory but have to be
measured. I can use such a
measurement, and that tells
me for my field constant S =
c*hbar (from Bohr magneton).
So, where do you see
circular reasoning? <br
class="">
<br class="">
Now I have no theory, why
specific elementary
particles exist. Maybe later
I find a way, not now. But
now I can use the
(measurable) magnetic moment
for any particle to
determine the radius, and
then I know the mass from my
formula. This works for all
charged leptons and for all
quarks. Not good enough?<br
class="">
<br class="">
And yes, the Landé factor.
Not too difficult. In my
deduction of the mass I have
used only the (initially
unknown) constant S for the
field. Which I assume to be
the strong field as with the
electric field the result is
too small (by a factor of
several hundred). The only
stronger alternative to the
electrical force is the
strong force, already known.
Is this a far-fetched idea?
But I have in this initial
deduction ignored that the
two basic particles have an
electrical charge of e/2
each, which cause a
repelling force which
increases the radius R a
bit. With this increase I
correct the result for e.g.
the magnetic moment, and the
correction is quite
precisely the Landé factor
(with a deviation of ca. 10<sup
class="">-6</sup>).<br
class="">
<br class="">
So, what did I invent
specially for my model, and
which parameters do I use
from others? I have assumed
the shape of the binding
field as this field has to
cause the bind at a
distance. And I have used
the measurement of the
Planck constant h which
other colleagues have
performed. Nothing else. I
do not have do derive the
quantity e as this is not
the task of a particle
model. If e could be derived
(what nobody today is able
to do), then this would
follow from a much deeper
insight into our physical
basics as anyone can have
today. <br class="">
<br class="">
The fact of two constituents
is a necessary precondition
to obey the conservation of
momentum and to support the
mechanism of inertia. I do
not know any other mechanism
which works.<br class="">
<br class="">
Where do I practice circular
reasoning?<br class="">
<br class="">
Best regards<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
18.11.2015 um 15:42
schrieb Richard Gauthier:<br
class="">
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:B7ECF22D-1D1C-4DA3-90AC-A65A2CD57FF6@gmail.com"
type="cite" class="">
<meta
http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8" class="">
<div class="">Hello
Albrecht,</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Let’s
look at your listed
assumptions of your
electron model in
relation to the
electron’s magnetic
moment. It is known that
the magnitude of the
electron’s experimental
magnetic moment is
slightly more than the
Bohr magneton which is
Mb = ehbar/2m = 9.274
J/T in SI units. Your
2-particle model aims to
generate a magnetic
moment to match this
Bohr magneton value
(which was predicted for
the electron by the
Dirac equation) rather
than the experimental
value of the electron’s
magnetic moment which is
slightly larger. The
standard equation for
calculating the magnetic
moment M of a plane
current loop is M = IA
for loop area A and
current I. If the area A
is a circle and the
current is a circular
current loop I around
this area, whose value I
is calculated from a
total electric charge e
moving circularly at
light speed c (as in
your 2-particle electron
model) with a radius R,
a short calculation will
show that if the radius
of this circle is R =
hbar/mc = 3.86 x 10-13 m
(the reduced Compton
wavelength corresponding
to a circle of
circumference one
Compton wavelength
h/mc), then this radius
R for the current loop
gives a magnetic moment
M = IA = Bohr magneton
ehbar/2m . I have done
this calculation many
times in my electron
modeling work and know
that this is the case.
The values of h and also
e and m of the electron
have to be known
accurately to calculate
the Bohr magneton
ehbar/2m . When the
radius of the circular
loop is R=hbar/mc, the
frequency f of the
charge e circling the
loop is easily found to
be f=c/(2pi R)= mc^2/h ,
which is the frequency
of light having the
Compton wavelength
h/mc. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">So the
current loop radius
R=hbar/mc that is
required in your
2-particle model to
derive the Bohr magneton
ehbar/2m using M=IA
obviously cannot also be
used to derive either of
the values h or m since
these values were used
to calculate the Bohr
magneton ehbar/2m in the
first place. So your
model cannot be used to
derive any of the values
of e, h or m, and seems
to be an exercise in
circular reasoning.
Please let me know how I
may be mistaken in this
conclusion.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">with best
regards,</div>
<div class=""> Richard</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite"
class="">
<div class="">On Nov
18, 2015, at 2:03
AM, Dr. Albrecht
Giese <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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>>
wrote:</div>
<br
class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type"
class="">
<div text="#000000"
bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
class=""> <small
class="">Hi Al,<br
class="">
<font class=""
color="#006600"><br
class="">
I completely
disagree with
your
conclusions
about the
motivation
towards my
model because
my intention
was not to
develop a
particle
model. My
intention was
to develop a
better
understanding
of time in
relativity. My
present model
was an
unexpected
consequence of
this work. I
show you my
arguments
again and ask
you to
indicate the
point where
you do not
follow.</font><br
class="">
<br class="">
</small>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix"><small
class="">Am
17.11.2015 um
19:18 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</small><br
class="">
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-16c90c3b-1bd5-4b73-a99e-8573ed871e42-1447784310841@3capp-webde-bap52"
type="cite"
class="">
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;"
class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi
Albrect:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Comments²
<strong
class="">IN
BOLD</strong></div>
<div class="">
<div
name="quote"
style="margin:10px
5px 5px 10px;
padding: 10px
0 10px 10px;
border-left:2px
solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap:
break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode:
space;
-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space;" class="">
<div
style="margin:0
0 10px 0;"
class=""><b
class="">Gesendet:</b> Dienstag,
17. November
2015 um 18:41
Uhr<br
class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Dr.
Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br
class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br
class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><br
class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
Reply of
comments from
what a model…</div>
<div
name="quoted-content"
class="">
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class=""><small class="">Hi Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
again some
responses.</small><br
class="">
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix"><small
class="">Am
14.11.2015 um
18:24 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</small></div>
<blockquote
class="">
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;"
class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Answers
to your
questions:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">1)
The SED
background
explains the
Planck BB
distribution
without
quantization.
It explans why
an atom
doesn't
collapse: in
equilibrium
with
background, In
fact, just
about every
effect
described by
2nd
quantization
has an SED
parallel
explantion
without
additional
considerations.
With the
additional
input of the
SED origin of
deBroglie
waves, it
provides a
direct
derivation of
the
Schröedinger
eq. thereby
explainiong
all of 1st
Quantization.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><small
class="">Maybe
you achieve
something when
using SED
background. I
do not really
understand
this
background,
but I do not
see a
stringent
necessity for
it. But SED as
an origin to
the de Broglie
waves is of
interest for
me. I am
presently
working on de
Broglie waves
to find a
solution,
which does not
have the
logical
conflicts
which we have
discussed
here.</small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><strong
class="">See
No. 11 (or 1)
@ <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com/"><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 class=""
color="#006600"><small
class=""><strong
class="">Thank
you, will have
a look.</strong></small></font>
<br class="">
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-16c90c3b-1bd5-4b73-a99e-8573ed871e42-1447784310841@3capp-webde-bap52"
type="cite"
class="">
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;"
class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div
name="quote"
style="margin:10px
5px 5px 10px;
padding: 10px
0 10px 10px;
border-left:2px
solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap:
break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode:
space;
-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space;" class="">
<div
name="quoted-content"
class="">
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">
<blockquote
class="">
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;"
class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">2)
Olber's logic
is in conflict
with Mach's
Principle, so
is obviously
just valid for
visible light.
Given a
little
intergalacitc
plasma (1
H/m³), not to
mention
atmossphere
and
interplanatary
plama, visible
light
disappears to
Earthbound
observers at
visitble freqs
to reappear at
other, perhaps
at 2.7° even,
or at any
other long or
hyper short
wave length.
'The universe
matters'---which
is even
politically
correct
nowadays!</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><small
class="">Olber's
logic is
simple in so
far, as it
shows that the
universe
cannot be
infinite. I
have assumed
the same for
all background
effects. Or
are they
infinite?</small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><small
class=""><strong
class="">The
fly in the
ointment is
absorbtion.
An inf.
universe with
absorbtion in
the visible
part of the
spectrum will
still have a
largely dark
sky. </strong><br
class="">
</small></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font class=""
color="#006600"><small
class=""><strong
class="">And
the other way
around: Even
if there is no
absorption,
the sky will
be dark. And
the general
opinion is
that, even if
there is a lot
of radiation
absorbed, this
absorbing
material will
heat up by the
time and
radiate as
well. So an
absorption
should not
change too
much.</strong></small></font><br
class="">
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-16c90c3b-1bd5-4b73-a99e-8573ed871e42-1447784310841@3capp-webde-bap52"
type="cite"
class="">
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;"
class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div
name="quote"
style="margin:10px
5px 5px 10px;
padding: 10px
0 10px 10px;
border-left:2px
solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap:
break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode:
space;
-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space;" class="">
<div
name="quoted-content"
class="">
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">
<div class=""><small
class=""> <br
class="">
What is the
conflict with
Mach's
principle?</small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><strong
class="">Mach
says: the
gravitational
"background
radiation" is
the cause of
inertia. This
effect is
parallel to
the SED
bacground
causing QM
effects.
Conflict: if
Olber is
right, then
Mach is
probably wrong
(too weak).</strong></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font class=""
color="#006600"><small
class=""><strong
class="">In my
understanding,
what Mach
means is
completely
different.
Mach's
intention was
to find a
reference
system which
is absolute
with respect
to
acceleration.
He assumed
that this is
caused by the
stars in our
vicinity. He
did not have a
certain idea
how this
happens, he
only needed
the fact.
(Einstein
replaced this
necessity by
his
equivalence of
gravity and
acceleration -
which however
is clearly
falsified as
mentioned
several
times.)</strong></small></font>
<br class="">
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-16c90c3b-1bd5-4b73-a99e-8573ed871e42-1447784310841@3capp-webde-bap52"
type="cite"
class="">
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;"
class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div
name="quote"
style="margin:10px
5px 5px 10px;
padding: 10px
0 10px 10px;
border-left:2px
solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap:
break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode:
space;
-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space;" class="">
<div
name="quoted-content"
class="">
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">
<blockquote
class="">
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;"
class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">3)
The (wide
spread)
criticism of 2
particles is
that there is
neither an <em
class="">a-priori</em>
intuative
reason, nor
empirical
evidence that
they exist.
Maybe they do
anyway. But
then, maybe
Zeus does too,
and he is just
arranging
appearances so
that we amuse
ourselves.
(Try to prove
that wrong!) </div>
<div class=""> </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><small
class="">I
have explained
how I came to
the conclusion
of 2
sub-particles.
Again:<br
class="">
<br class="">
1) There is
motion with c
in an
elementary
particle to
explain
dilation<br
class="">
2) With only
on particle
such process
is
mechanically
not possible,
and it
violates the
conservation
of momentum<br
class="">
3) In this way
it is the only
working model
theses days to
explain
inertia. And
this model
explains
inertia with
high
precision.
What more is
needed?</small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><small
class=""><strong
class="">These
assumtions are
"teleological,"
i.e., tuned
to give the
desired
results. As
logic,
although often
done, this
manuver is not
legit in the
formal
presentation
of a theory.
For a physics
theory,
ideally, all
the input
assuptios have
empirical
justification
or motivation.
Your 2nd
partical
(modulo
virtual
images) has no
such
motivatin, in
fact, just the
opposite. </strong><br
class="">
</small></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font class=""
color="#006600"><small
class=""><strong
class="">My
logical way is
just the other
way around. I
had the plan
to work on
relativity
(the aspects
of time), not
on particle
physics. The
particle model
was an
unplanned
spin-off. I
shall try to
explain the
logical path
again: <br
class="">
<br class="">
<u class="">1st
step:</u> I
have
calculated the
4-dimensional
speed of an
object using
the temporal
part of the
Lorentz
transformation.
The surprising
fact was that
this 4-dim.
speed is
always the
speed of
light. I have
then assumed
that this
constant shows
a permanent
motion with c
in a particle.
I have
accepted this
as a probable
solution, but
I have never
assumed this,
before I had
this result.
It was in no
way a desired
result. My
idea was to
describe time
by a vector of
3 of 4
dimensions. -
I have then </strong></small></font><font
class=""
color="#006600"><small
class=""><strong
class="">no
further </strong></small></font><font
class=""
color="#006600"><small
class=""><strong
class="">followed
this idea.<br
class="">
<u class="">2nd
step:</u> If
there is some
motion in the
particle, it
cannot be
caused by one
constituent.
This is
logically not
possible as it
violates the
conservation
of momentum.
Also this was
not a desired
result but
logically
inevitable. <br
class="">
<u class="">3rd
step:</u> If
the
constituents
move with c,
then they
cannot have
any mass. Also
this was not a
result which I
wished to
achieve, but
here I
followed my
understanding
of relativity.<br
class="">
</strong></small></font><strong
class=""><small
class=""><font
class=""
color="#006600"><u
class=""><strong
class="">4th </strong></u><u
class="">step:</u>
The size must
be such that
the resulting
frequency in
the view of c
yields the
magnetic
moment which
is known by
measurements.
<br class="">
<u class="">5th
step:</u> I
had to find a
reason for the
mass of the
electron in
spite of the
fact that the
constituents
do not have
any mass.
After some
thinking I
found out the
fact that any
extended
object has
necessarily
inertia. I
have applied
this insight
to this
particle
model, and the
result was the
actual mass of
the electron,
if I assumed
that the force
is the strong
force. It
could not be
the electric
force (as it
was assumed by
others at
earlier times)
because the
result is too
weak.<br
class="">
<br class="">
None of the
results from
step 1 thru
step 5 was
desired. Every
step was
inevitable,
because our
standard
physical
understanding
(which I did
not change at
any point)
does not allow
for any
alternative. -
<u class="">Or
at which step
could I hav</u><u
class="">e had
an alternative
in your
opinion?<br
class="">
<br class="">
</u>And btw:
which is the
stringent
argument for
only one
constituent?
As I mentioned
before, the
experiment is
not an
argument. I
have discussed
my model with
the former
research
director of
DESY who was
responsible
for this type
of electron
experiments,
and he
admitted that
there is no
conflict with
the assumption
of 2
constituents.</font><u
class=""><br
class="">
</u></small></strong>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-16c90c3b-1bd5-4b73-a99e-8573ed871e42-1447784310841@3capp-webde-bap52"
type="cite"
class="">
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;"
class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div
name="quote"
style="margin:10px
5px 5px 10px;
padding: 10px
0 10px 10px;
border-left:2px
solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap:
break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode:
space;
-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space;" class="">
<div
name="quoted-content"
class="">
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">
<div class=""><small
class=""> <br
class="">
I know from
several
discussions
with particle
physicists
that there is
a lot of
resistance
against this
assumption of
2
constituents.
The reason is
that everyone
learn at
university
like with
mother's milk
that the
electron is
point-like,
extremely
small and does
not have any
internal
structure.
This has the
effect like a
religion.
(Same with the
relativity of
Hendrik
Lorentz.
Everyone
learns with
the same
fundamental
attitude that
Lorentz was
nothing better
than a senile
old man how
was not able
to understand
modern
physics.) -
Not a really
good way, all
this.</small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><small
class=""><strong
class="">Mystical
thinking is
indeed a major
problem even
in Physics!
But, some of
the objectiors
to a 2nd
particle are
not basing
their
objection of
devine
revelation or
political
correctness. </strong></small></div>
<blockquote
class="">
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;"
class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">4)
It is
ascientific to
consider that
the desired
result is
justification
for a
hypothetical
input. OK,
one can say
about such
reasoning, it
is validated <em
class="">a
posteriori</em>,
that at least
makes it sound
substantial.
So much has
been granted
to your
"story" but
has not
granted your
story status
as a "physics
theory." It
has some
appeal, which
in my mind
would be
enhansed had a
rationalization
for the 2nd
particle been
provided.
That's all
I'm trying to
do. When you
or whoever
comes up with
a better one,
I'll drop
pushing the
virtual
particle
engendered by
the
background.
Maybe, it
fixes too many
other things.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><small
class="">My
history was
following
another way
and another
motivation. I
intended to
explain
relativity on
the basis of
physical
facts. This
was my only
intention for
this model.
All further
properties of
the model were
logical
consequences
where I did
not see
alternatives.
I did not want
to explain
inertia. It
just was a
result by
itself.<br
class="">
So, what is
the problem? I
have a model
which explains
several
properties of
elementary
particles very
precisely. It
is in no
conflict with
any
experimental
experience.
And as a new
observation
there is even
some
experimental
evidence. -
What else can
physics expect
from a theory?
- The argument
that the
second
particle is
not visible is
funny. Who has
ever seen a
quark? Who has
ever seen the
internal
structure of
the sun? I
think you have
a demand here
which was
never
fulfilled in
science.</small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><small
class=""><strong
class="">The
problem,
obviously, is
that the
existence of
the 2nd
particle, as
you have
presented it,
is not a fact,
but a
Wunschansatz.
[BTW: "See"
in this
context is not
meant
occularly, but
figuratively
for
experimental
verification
through any
length of
inferance
chain.] So,
my question
is: what
problem do you
have with a
virtual mate
for the
particle? In
fact, it will
be there
whether you
use it or not.</strong><br
class="">
<br class="">
And see again
Frank Wilczek.
</small><small
class=""><span
class=""><span
class="current-selection">He writes: "By co</span></span><span
class="current-selection">mb</span><span
class="current-selection">ining fragmen</span><span
class="current-selection">tatio</span><span
class="current-selection">n with su</span><span
class="current-selection">per</span><span
class=" ws0
ls0
current-selection
">-</span><span
class="current-selection">con</span><span class="current-selection">ductivity</span><span
class="current-selection">, w</span><span class="current-selection">e
can get
half-electro</span><span
class="current-selection">ns tha</span><span class="current-selection">t
</span></small><small
class=""><span
class="current-selection">ar</span><span class="current-selection">e
their o</span><span
class="current-selection">wn an</span><span class=""><span
class="current-selection">tiparticles."
</span></span></small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><small
class=""><span
class=""><span
class="current-selection"><strong class="">A "straw in the wind" but
sure seems far
fetched!
Superconductivity
is already a
manybody
phenomenon,
It's theory
probably
involves some
"virtual"
notions to
capture the
essence of the
average effect
even if the
virtual actors
do not really
exist. </strong></span></span></small></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<small class=""><strong
class=""><font
class=""
color="#006600">This
was a nice
confirmation
in my
understanding.
So as the
whole article
of Wilczek.
The electron
is in fact
enigmatic if
one follows
main stream.
It looses a
lot of this
property if my
model is used.
- But even
without this
experimental
hint I do not
see any
alternative to
my model
without
severely
violating
known physics.<br
class="">
<br class="">
Ciao<br
class="">
Albrecht</font><br
class="">
<br class="">
</strong></small>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-16c90c3b-1bd5-4b73-a99e-8573ed871e42-1447784310841@3capp-webde-bap52"
type="cite"
class="">
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;"
class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div
name="quote"
style="margin:10px
5px 5px 10px;
padding: 10px
0 10px 10px;
border-left:2px
solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap:
break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode:
space;
-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space;" class="">
<div
name="quoted-content"
class="">
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">
<div class=""><small
class=""><span
class=""><span
class="current-selection"><strong class=""> </strong></span></span></small><br
class="">
<br class="">
<small
class="">Guten
Abend<br
class="">
Albrecht</small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><small
class=""><strong
class="">Gleichfalls,
Al</strong></small></div>
<blockquote
class="">
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;"
class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Have
a good one!
Al</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
10.0px 5.0px
5.0px
10.0px;padding:
10.0px 0
10.0px
10.0px;border-left:
2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);"
class="">
<div
style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;"
class=""><b
class="">Gesendet:</b> Samstag,
14. November
2015 um 14:51
Uhr<br
class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Dr.
Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br
class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br
class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><br
class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
Reply of
comments from
what a model…</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">Hi Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
Why do we need
a background?
If I assume
only local
forces (strong
and electric)
for my model,
the
calculation
conforms to
the
measurement
(e.g. between
mass and
magnetic
moment) with a
precision of 2
: 1'000'000.
This is no
incident. Not
possible, if a
poorly defined
and stable
background has
a measurable
influence. -
And if there
should be such
background and
it has such
little effect,
which mistake
do we make if
we ignore
that?<br
class="">
<br class="">
For the
competition of
the 1/r<sup
class="">2</sup>
law for range
of charges and
the r<sup
class="">2</sup>
law for the
quantity of
charges we
have a popular
example when
we look at the
sky at night.
The sky is
dark and that
shows that the
r<sup class="">2</sup>
case (number
of shining
stars) does in
no way
compensates
for the 1/r<sup
class="">2</sup>
case (light
flow density
from the
stars).<br
class="">
<br class="">
Why is a 2
particle model
necessary?<br
class="">
<br class="">
1.) for the
conservation
of momentum<br
class="">
2.) for a
cause of the
inertial mass<br
class="">
3.) for the
radiation at
acceleration
which occurs
most time, but
does not occur
in specific
situations.
Not explained
elsewhere.<br
class="">
<br class="">
Ciao, Albrecht<br
class="">
<br class="">
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
13.11.2015 um
20:31 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</div>
<blockquote
class="">
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;"
class="">
<div class="">Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Your
proposed
experiment is
hampered by
reality! If
you do the
measurement
with a gaget
bought in a
store that has
knobes and a
display, then
the
measurement is
for certain
for signals
under a couple
hundred GHz
and based on
some phenomena
for which the
sensitivity of
man-made
devices is
limited. And,
if limited to
the electric
field, then
there is a
good chance it
is missing
altogether
oscillating
signals by
virtue of its
limited
reaction time
of reset time,
etc. etc. The
vast majority
of the
background
will be much
higher, the
phenomena most
attuned to
detecting
might be in
fact the
quantum
effects
otherwise
explained with
mystical
hokus-pokus!
Also to be
noted is that,
the processes
invovled in
your model, if
they pertain
to elementray
entities, will
have to be at
very small
size and if at
the velocity
(c) will be
very high
energy, etc.
so that once
again, it is
quite
reasonable to
suppose that
the universe
is anything
but
irrelavant! </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Of
course, there
is then the
issue of the
divergence of
the this SED
background.
Ameliorated
to some extent
with the
realization
that there is
no energy at a
point in empty
space until a
charged entity
is put there,
whereupon the
energy of
interaction
with the rest
of the
universe (not
just by itself
being there
and ignoring
the
universe---as
QM theorists,
and yourself,
are wont to
do) is given
by the sum of
interactions
over all
particles not
by the
integral over
all space,
including
empty space.
Looks at
first blush to
be finite. </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Why
fight it?
Where the
hell else will
you find a
credible 2nd
particle? </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">ciao,
Al</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
10.0px 5.0px
5.0px
10.0px;padding:
10.0px 0
10.0px
10.0px;border-left:
2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);"
class="">
<div
style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;"
class=""><b
class="">Gesendet:</b> Freitag,
13. November
2015 um 12:11
Uhr<br
class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Dr.
Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br
class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br
class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><br
class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
Reply of
comments from
what a model…</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">Hi Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
if we look to
charges you
mention the
law 1/r<sup
class="">2</sup>.
Now we can
perform a
simple
physical
experiment
having an
electrically
charged object
and using it
to measure the
electric field
around us. I
say: it is
very weak. Now
look to the
distance of
the two
half-charges
within the
particle
having a
distance of
4*10<sup
class="">-13</sup>
m. This means
an increase of
force of about
25 orders of
magnitude
compared to
what we do in
a lab. And the
difference is
much greater
if we refer to
charges acting
from the
universe. So I
think we do
not make a big
mistake
assuming that
there is
nothing
outside the
particle.<br
class="">
<br class="">
Regarding my
model, the
logic of
deduction was
very simple
for me:<br
class="">
<br class="">
1.) We have
dilation, so
there must be
a permanent
motion with c<br
class="">
2.) There must
be 2
sub-particles
otherwise the
momentum law
is violated; 3
are not
possible as in
conflict with
experiments.<br
class="">
3.) The
sub-particles
must be
mass-less,
otherwise c is
not possible<br
class="">
4.) The whole
particle has
mass even
though the
sub-particles
are mass-less.
So there must
be a mechanism
to cause
inertia. It
was
immediately
clear for me
that inertia
is a
consequence of
extension.
Another reason
to assume a
particle which
is composed of
parts. (There
is no other
working
mechanism of
inertia known
until today.)<br
class="">
5.) I had to
find the
binding field
for the
sub-particles.
I have taken
the simplest
one which I
could find
which has a
potential
minimum at
some distance.
And my first
attempt
worked.<br
class="">
<br class="">
That is all,
and I do not
see any
possibility to
change one of
the points 1.)
thru 5.)
without
getting in
conflict with
fundamental
physical
rules. And I
do not invent
new facts or
rules beyond
those already
known in
physics.<br
class="">
<br class="">
So, where do
you see any
kind of
arbitrariness
or missing
justification?<br
class="">
<br class="">
Tschüß!<br
class="">
Albrecht<br
class="">
<br class="">
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
12.11.2015 um
17:51 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</div>
<blockquote
class="">
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;"
class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi
Albrect:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">We
are making
some progress.
</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">To
your remark
that Swinger
& Feynman
introduced
virtual
charges, I
note that they
used the same
term: "virtual
charge/particle,"
in spite of
the much older
meaning in
accord with
the charge and
mirror
example. In
the finest of
quantum
traditions,
they too
ignored the
rest of the
universe and
instead tried
to vest its
effect in the
"vacuum."
This idea was
suitably
mystical to
allow them to
introduce the
associated
plaver into
the folk lore
of QM, given
the sociology
of the day.
Even in spite
of this BS,
the idea still
has merit.
Your objection
on the basis
of the 1/r²
fall-off is
true but not
conclusive.
This fall-off
is matched by
a r² increase
in muber of
charges, so
the integrated
total
interaction
can be
expected to
have at least
some effect,
no matter
what. Think
of the
universe to
1st order as a
neutral,
low-density
plasma. <span
class="">I
(and some
others) hold
that this
interaction is
responcible
for all
quantum
effects. In
any case, no
particle is a
universe unto
itself, the
rest have the
poulation and
time to take a
toll! </span></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><span
class="">BTW,
this is
history
repeating
itself. Once
upon a time
there was
theory of
Brownian
motion that
posited an
internal cause
known as "elan
vital" to dust
specks
observed
hopping about
like Mexican
jumping beans.
Ultimately
this nonsense
was displaced
by the
observation
that the dust
spots were not
alone in their
immediate
universe but
imbededded in
a slurry of
other
particles,
also in
motion, to
which they
were reacting.
Nowadays
atoms are
analysed in QM
text books as
if they were
the only
object in the
universe---all
others being
too far away
(so it is
argued,
anyway). </span></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><span
class="">Your
model, as it
stands, can be
free of
contradiction
and still
unstatisfying
because the
inputs seem to
be just what
is needed to
make the
conclusions
you aim to
make. Fine,
but what most
critics will
expect is that
these inputs
have to have
some kind of
justification
or motivation.
This is what
the second
particle
lacks. Where
is it when one
really looks
for it? It
has no
empirical
motivation.
Thus, this
theory then
has about the
same ultimate
structure, and
pursuasiveness,
as saying:
'don't worry
about it, God
did it; go
home, open a
beer, pop your
feet up, and
forget about
it---a theory
which explains
absolutely
everything!</span></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><span
class="">Tschuß,
Al</span></div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
10.0px 5.0px
5.0px
10.0px;padding:
10.0px 0
10.0px
10.0px;border-left:
2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);"
class="">
<div
style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;"
class=""><b
class="">Gesendet:</b> Donnerstag,
12. November
2015 um 16:18
Uhr<br
class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Dr.
Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br
class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br
class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><br
class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
Reply of
comments from
what a model…</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class=""><font class="" size="-1">Hi Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
I have gotten
a different
understanding
of what a
virtual
particle or a
virtual charge
is. This
phenomenon was
invented by
Julian
Schwinger and
Richard
Feynman. They
thought to
need it in
order to
explain
certain
reactions in
particle
physics. In
the case of
Schwinger it
was the Landé
factor, where
I have shown
that this
assumption is
not necessary.<br
class="">
<br class="">
If there is a
charge then of
course this
charge is
subject to
interactions
with all other
charges in the
universe. That
is correct.
But because of
the normal
distribution
of these other
charges in the
universe,
which cause a
good
compensation
of the
effects, and
because of the
distance law
we can think
about models
without
reference to
those. And
also there is
the problem
with virtual
particles and
vacuum
polarization
(which is
equivalent),
in that we
have this huge
problem that
the integrated
energy of it
over the
universe is by
a factor of
10^120 higher
than the
energy
measured. I
think this is
a really big
argument
against
virtual
effects.<br
class="">
<br class="">
Your example
of the virtual
image of a
charge in a
conducting
surface is a
different
case. It is,
as you write,
the
rearrangement
of charges in
the conducting
surface. So
the partner of
the charge is
physically the
mirror, not
the picture
behind it. But
which mirror
can cause the
second
particle in a
model if the
second
particle is
not assumed to
be real?<br
class="">
<br class="">
And what in
general is the
problem with a
two particle
model? It
fulfils the
momentum law.
And it does
not cause
further
conflicts. It
also explains
why an
accelerated
electron
sometimes
radiates,
sometimes not.
For an
experimental
evidence I
refer again to
the article of
Frank Wilczek
in "Nature"
which was
mentioned here
earlier:<br
class="">
<br class="">
<a
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"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com">http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com</a></a>:
</font><br
class="">
<div class="
ws2 y37 m88 h2
ls3 fc0 x28 t
sc0 fs1 ff1
"><small
class=""><span
class=""><span
class="current-selection">He writes: "By co</span></span><span
class="current-selection">mb</span><span
class="current-selection">ining fragmen</span><span
class="current-selection">tatio</span><span
class="current-selection">n with su</span><span
class="current-selection">per</span><span
class="ls0 ws0
current-selection">-</span><span class="current-selection">con</span><span
class="current-selection">ductivity</span><span
class="current-selection">,
w</span><span
class="current-selection">e can get half-electro</span><span
class="current-selection">ns
tha</span><span
class="current-selection">t </span></small><small class=""><span
class="current-selection">ar</span><span
class="current-selection">e their o</span><span
class="current-selection">wn
an</span><span
class=""><span
class="current-selection">tiparticles." </span><br class="">
</span></small></div>
<font class=""
size="-1">For
Wilczek this
is a
mysterious
result, in
view of my
model it is
not, on the
contrary it is
kind of a
proof.<br
class="">
<br class="">
Grüße<br
class="">
Albrecht</font><br
class="">
<br class="">
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix"><font
class=""
size="-1">Am
12.11.2015 um
03:06 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</font></div>
<blockquote
class="">
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;"
class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Virtual
particles are
proxys for an
ensemble of
real
particles.
There is
nothing
folly-lolly
about them!
They simply
summarize the
total effect
of particles
that cannot be
ignored. To
ignore the
remainder of
the universe
becasue it is
inconvenient
for theory
formulation is
for certain
leading to
error. "No
man is an
island," and
no single
particle is a
universe!
Thus, it can
be argued
that, to
reject the
concept of
virtual
particles is
to reject a
facit of
reality that
must be
essential for
an explantion
of the
material
world.</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">For
example, if a
positive
charge is
placed near a
conducting
surface, the
charges in
that surface
will respond
to the
positive
charge by
rearranging
themselves so
as to give a
total field on
the surface of
zero strength
as if there
were a
negative
charge
(virtual)
behind the
mirror.
Without the
real charges
on the mirror
surface, the
concept of
"virtual"
negative
charge would
not be
necessary or
even useful. </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">The
concept of
virtual charge
as the second
particle in
your model
seems to me to
be not just a
wild
supposition,
but an
absolute
necessity.
Every charge
is, without
choice, in
constant
interaction
with every
other charge
in the
universe, has
been so since
the big bang
(if such were)
and will
remain so till
the big crunch
(if such is to
be)! The
universe
cannot be
ignored. If
you reject
including the
universe by
means of
virtual
charges, them
you have a lot
more work to
do to make
your theory
reasonable
some how else.
In particular
in view of the
fact that the
second
particles in
your model
have never
ever been seen
or even
suspected in
the various
experiments
resulting in
the
disasssmbly of
whatever
targert was
used. </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">MfG,
Al</div>
<div class=""> </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<br class="">
<hr
style="border:
none;color:
rgb(144,144,144);background-color:
rgb(176,176,176);height:
1.0px;width:
99.0%;"
class="">
<table
style="border-collapse:
collapse;border:
none;"
class="">
<tbody
class="">
<tr class="">
<td
style="border:
none;padding:
0.0px 15.0px
0.0px 8.0px;"
class=""><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank" class=""><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
alt="Avast
logo"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
class=""
border="0"> </a></td>
<td class="">
<p
style="color:
rgb(61,77,90);font-family:
Calibri ,
Verdana ,
Arial ,
Helvetica;font-size:
12.0pt;"
class="">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft.<br
class="">
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<hr
style="border:none;
color:#909090;
background-color:#B0B0B0;
height: 1px;
width: 99%;"
class="">
<table
style="border-collapse:collapse;border:none;"
class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td
style="border:none;padding:0px
15px 0px 8px"
class=""> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="">
<img
moz-do-not-send="true"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast
logo" class=""
border="0"> </a>
</td>
<td class="">
<p
style="color:#3d4d5a;
font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica";
font-size:12pt;" class=""> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft. <br
class="">
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br class="">
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">
If you no longer
wish to receive
communication from
the Nature of Light
and Particles
General Discussion
List at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a></a><br
class="">
<a href="<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a></a>"><br
class="">
Click here to
unsubscribe<br
class="">
</a><br
class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<hr style="border:none;
color:#909090;
background-color:#B0B0B0;
height: 1px; width: 99%;"
class="">
<table
style="border-collapse:collapse;border:none;"
class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td
style="border:none;padding:0px
15px 0px 8px"
class=""> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class=""> <img
moz-do-not-send="true"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast
logo" class=""
border="0"> </a>
</td>
<td class="">
<p
style="color:#3d4d5a;
font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica";
font-size:12pt;"
class=""> Diese
E-Mail wurde von
Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren geprüft.
<br class="">
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class=""><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a> </p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<hr style="border:none; color:#909090;
background-color:#B0B0B0; height:
1px; width: 99%;" class="">
<table
style="border-collapse:collapse;border:none;"
class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td
style="border:none;padding:0px
15px 0px 8px" class=""> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
class=""> <img
moz-do-not-send="true"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
alt="Avast logo" class=""
border="0"> </a> </td>
<td class="">
<p style="color:#3d4d5a;
font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica";
font-size:12pt;" class="">
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast
Antivirus-Software auf Viren
geprüft. <br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
class="">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>