<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<small>Chandra,<br>
<br>
thank you for your explanations. </small><br>
<br>
<small>However what's about your statement: </small><big><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">"So, there are no
INERTIAL Frame of Reference anywhere in this universe"? On the
other hand you assume a Stationary Complex Tension Field (CTF).
In my understanding, the CTF is just an example of an absolute
frame of reference. How not?<br>
<br>
By the way, I do not see SR (or GR) as the foundation of
physics. But we have relativistic phenomena, which are not
fundamental for our physical world, but certain facts which
happen. I attribute the relativistic phenomena to certain
processes of particles and field, as you may have noticed.<br>
<br>
Let's take an example which is quite simple. If we move a clock,
then the clock runs slower. This can easily be verified if we
move an atomic clock. The same is true for all temporal
processes and events in physics. Now, if one star moves with
respect to another one, all temporal processes run more slowly.
This is a fact which we cannot deny. If we are now on a moving
star and observe that the physical processes are similar to
those on a star at rest, then they cannot be the same, but the
effects of motion just compensate each other. <br>
<br>
An example: Most physicists these days say that the speed of
light is the same on all moving systems. Can this be true? No,
it cannot, because if we measure the speed of light with a clock
running differently from another clock and we get the same
result, it can logically not be the same speed. We only measure
the same speed which is an illusion. This is true for all
physical processes. So the statement: </span></big><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">"The LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE
SAME IN ALL STARS"</span><big><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"> are only true as an
illusion. <br>
<br>
Regarding the CTF I must confess that I have not read and not
understood the details. You say that it has dielectric and
magnetic tensions which determine the velocity of EM waves. This
is an old problem as magnetism is not an original force but a
relativistic side effect of the electrical force. So this way of
thinking - like about EM waves - may work in a practical sense,
but it does not refer to fundamental physical reactions. (That
is not a specific problem of CTF but as well of
electromagnetism.)<br>
<br>
What about the doughnut-like wavicles? It looks like a
complicated shape, at which wavicles are realized. I would like
to better understand what </span></big><big><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">makes </span></big><big><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">them stable with
respect to their shape and to their motion. Do you have a model
for the stability?<br>
<br>
At the end, the goal in physics was always to have a simple
solution which starts from some as well simple assumptions and
is able to explain all observations. Do you see this too as a
goal?<br>
<br>
Sincerely<br>
Albrecht</span></big><br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 22.11.2015 um 21:36 schrieb
Roychoudhuri, Chandra:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BY2PR05MB189647C73025240037E8B68793180@BY2PR05MB1896.namprd05.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
h2
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 2 Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:18.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.Heading2Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 2 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 2";
font-family:"Calibri Light","sans-serif";
color:#2E74B5;}
span.hvr
{mso-style-name:hvr;}
span.current-selection
{mso-style-name:current-selection;}
span.ls0
{mso-style-name:ls0;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">Albrecht: May be
you are finally finding the limitation behind using SR as
the foundation of Physics.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">No stars or
galaxies are stationary. All are moving with respect to each
other. So, there are no INERTIAL Frame of Reference anywhere
in this universe. Yet, line-centers of the emitted spectral
lines are identical whether the light is collected from a
distant star; or from a discharge tube on earth. And even
the Doppler line broadening are precisely given by the local
ambient temperatures.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">The LAWS OF
PHYSICS ARE SAME IN ALL STARS (not in all inertial frames;
which does not exist). So, we need the postulate of the
stationary CTF.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">The universe is
manifest as various kinds of excitations of the STATIOINARY
Complex Tension Field (CTF). EM waves are linear excitations
and hence move perpetually with the same velocity determined
the dielectric and magnetic tensions of CTF. Particles are
“wavicles”, localized in-phase self-looped propagation of
waves of the CTF - doughnut-like (hence resonant and the
origin of quantum-ness). These self-looped waves are like EM
waves; but they are not quantized photons; they are
quantized “wavicles”. Because finite EM wave packets (no
Fourier modes exist) and particles (“wavicles”) are
some-what similar propagating excitations (un-looped and
self-looped) of the same CTF; they are eminently
inter-convertible when the energy contents allow this
through conservation of energy. The root cause behind the
observable universal energy conservation is due to the fact
that CTF, by itself, cannot dissipate the excitation energy
in its own body; one excitation must be converted into
another set of excitations. Forces in this CTF model are due
to the various secondary potential gradients generated
around the “wavicles” in the body of CTF.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">I understand that
my CTF model for particles and waves; and the current model
of particle theory with the forces as quantized exchange
particles, are incompatible!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">Chandra. <o:p>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">==================================================<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b>On
Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, November 22, 2015 9:43 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Richard Gauthier<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from
what a model…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Hello Richard,<br>
<br>
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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 22.11.2015 um 00:13 schrieb Richard
Gauthier:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello Albrecht, <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> I admire your persistence in trying
to save your doomed (in my opinion) 2-particle electron
model.
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Why 2 particles in the model? I say it
again:<br>
<br>
1) to maintain the conservation of momentum in the view of
oscillations<br>
2) to have a mechanism for inertia (which has very precise
results, otherwise non-existent in present physics)<br>
<br>
I will be happy to see alternatives for both points. Up to now
I have not seen any.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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).” ?
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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>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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Here is the meaning of “grasping at
straws” from <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasp+at+straws">http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasp+at+straws</a> :<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<h2 style="box-sizing:
inherit;font-size:1.8rem;line-height:1.8rem;display:inline-block;margin:0.2rem
6px 0px">
<span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040">grasp
at straws<o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="hvr"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040">Also,</span></span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span
class="hvr"><b>clutch</b></span><b> at <span
class="hvr">straws</span></b>.</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </span><span
class="hvr"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040">Make</span></span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> a</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </span><span
class="hvr"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040">desperate</span></span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span
class="hvr">attempt</span> </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">at</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span
class="hvr">saving</span> <span class="hvr">oneself.</span> <span
class="hvr">For</span> <span class="hvr">example,</span> <i>He <span
class="hvr">had lost</span> <span class="hvr">the</span> <span
class="hvr">argument,</span> <span class="hvr">but</span> he <span
class="hvr">kept</span> <span class="hvr">grasping</span> at <span
class="hvr">straws,</span> <span class="hvr">naming</span> <span
class="hvr">numerous</span> <span class="hvr">previous</span> <span
class="hvr">cases</span> <span class="hvr">that had</span> <span
class="hvr">little</span> to do <span class="hvr">with</span> <span
class="hvr">this</span> <span class="hvr">one</span></i>.</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </span><span
class="hvr"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040">This</span></span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span
class="hvr">metaphoric</span> <span class="hvr">expression</span> <span
class="hvr">alludes</span> </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">to</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">a</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span
class="hvr">drowning</span> <span class="hvr">person trying</span> </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">to</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span
class="hvr">save</span> <span class="hvr">himself</span> </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">by</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span
class="hvr">grabbing</span> </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">at</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span
class="hvr">flimsy</span> <span class="hvr">reeds.</span> <span
class="hvr">First</span> <span class="hvr">recorded</span> </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">in</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span
class="hvr">1534,</span> <span class="hvr">the</span> <span
class="hvr">term</span> <span class="hvr">was used</span> <span
class="hvr">figuratively</span> </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">by</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span
class="hvr">the</span> <span class="hvr">late</span> <span
class="hvr">1600s.</span></span> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> 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:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">" <span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white">the </span><b><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525">van
der Waals forces</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> (or </span><b><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525">van
der Waals' interaction</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white">),
named after </span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands"
title="Netherlands"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">Dutch</span></a><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist"
title="Scientist"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">scientist</span></a><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Diderik_van_der_Waals"
title="Johannes Diderik van der Waals"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">Johannes
Diderik van der Waals</span></a><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white">,
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"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">molecules</span></a><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> (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"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">covalent
bonds</span></a><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white">,
or the </span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_interaction"
title="Electrostatic interaction"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">electrostatic
interaction</span></a><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> of </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion" title="Ion"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">ions</span></a><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> with
one another, with neutral molecules, or with charged
molecules.</span><sup id="cite_ref-1"><span
style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-1"><span
style="color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">[1]</span></a></span></sup><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> The
resulting van der Waals forces can be attractive or
repulsive.</span><sup
id="cite_ref-Van_OssAbsolom1980_2-0"><span
style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-Van_OssAbsolom1980-2"><span
style="color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">[2]</span></a></span></sup><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<br>
Best regards<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">with best regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Richard<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Nov 21, 2015, at 8:32 AM,
Albrecht Giese <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Hello Richard,<br>
<br>
I am a bit confused how badly my attempted
explanations have reached you.<br>
<br>
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>
<br>
For the binding force of the sub-particles I
needed a multipole field which has a potential
minimum at a distance R<sub>0</sub>. The
simplest shape of such a field which I could
find was for the force F:<br>
F = S * (R<sub>0</sub> - R) /R<sup>3</sup>.
Here R<sub>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>
<br>
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"
href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass">www.ag-physics.org/rmass</a>
. Too long to present it here, but straight
and inevitable. Here the result again: m = S /
(R * c<sup>2</sup>) .<br>
<br>
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>
<br>
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>
<br>
And again: where is circular reasoning?<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 20.11.2015 um 23:02
schrieb Richard Gauthier:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello Albrecht,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> 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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> with best regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Richard<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Nov 20, 2015, at
1:09 PM, Albrecht Giese <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Hallo
Richard,<br>
<br>
I find it great that we have made
similar calculations and came at
some points to similar conclusions.
That is not a matter of course, as
you find in all textbooks that it is
impossible to get these results in a
classical way, but that in the
contrary it needs QM to come to
these results. <br>
<br>
Here now again the logical way which
I have gone: I assume the circular
motion of the elementary electric
charge (2* 1/2 * e<sub>0</sub>) with
speed c. Then with the formula
(which you give here again) M = i*A
one can conclude A from the measured
magnetic moment. And so we know the
radius to be R = 3.86 x 10<sup>-13</sup>
m for the electron. No constants and
no further theory are necessary for
this result. I have then calculated
the inertial mass of a particle
which turns out to be m = S / (R * c<sup>2</sup>)
where the parameter S describes the
binding field. I did initially have
no knowledge about the quantity of
this field. But from the mass
formula there follows for the
magnetic moment: M= (1/2)*(S/c)*(e
/m). To this point I have not used
any knowledge except the known
relation for the magnetic moment.
Now I look to the Bohr magneton in
order to find the quantity of my
field constant S: M=
(1/2)*hbar*(e /m). Because the
Planck constant has to be measured
in some way. For doing it myself I
would need a big machine. But why?
Basic constants never follow from a
theory but have to be measured. I
can use such a measurement, and that
tells me for my field constant S =
c*hbar (from Bohr magneton). So,
where do you see circular reasoning?
<br>
<br>
Now I have no theory, why specific
elementary particles exist. Maybe
later I find a way, not now. But now
I can use the (measurable) magnetic
moment for any particle to determine
the radius, and then I know the mass
from my formula. This works for all
charged leptons and for all quarks.
Not good enough?<br>
<br>
And yes, the Landé factor. Not too
difficult. In my deduction of the
mass I have used only the (initially
unknown) constant S for the field.
Which I assume to be the strong
field as with the electric field the
result is too small (by a factor of
several hundred). The only stronger
alternative to the electrical force
is the strong force, already known.
Is this a far-fetched idea? But I
have in this initial deduction
ignored that the two basic particles
have an electrical charge of e/2
each, which cause a repelling force
which increases the radius R a bit.
With this increase I correct the
result for e.g. the magnetic moment,
and the correction is quite
precisely the Landé factor (with a
deviation of ca. 10<sup>-6</sup>).<br>
<br>
So, what did I invent specially for
my model, and which parameters do I
use from others? I have assumed the
shape of the binding field as this
field has to cause the bind at a
distance. And I have used the
measurement of the Planck constant h
which other colleagues have
performed. Nothing else. I do not
have do derive the quantity e as
this is not the task of a particle
model. If e could be derived (what
nobody today is able to do), then
this would follow from a much deeper
insight into our physical basics as
anyone can have today. <br>
<br>
The fact of two constituents is a
necessary precondition to obey the
conservation of momentum and to
support the mechanism of inertia. I
do not know any other mechanism
which works.<br>
<br>
Where do I practice circular
reasoning?<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 18.11.2015
um 15:42 schrieb Richard Gauthier:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello
Albrecht,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> 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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">with best
regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Richard<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Nov
18, 2015, at 2:03 AM, Dr.
Albrecht Giese <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt">Hi
Al,<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#006600"><br>
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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt">Am 17.11.2015 um 19:18 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Hi
Albrect:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Comments²
<strong><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">IN BOLD</span></strong><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div
style="border:none;border-left:solid
#C3D9E5
1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in
8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt;word-wrap:
break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode:
space;-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space"
name="quote">
<div
style="margin-bottom:7.5pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Gesendet:</span></b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> Dienstag,
17. November
2015 um 18:41
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr.
Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><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"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
Reply of
comments from
what a model…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div
name="quoted-content">
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Hi
Al,<br>
<br>
again some
responses.</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Am
14.11.2015 um
18:24 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Hi
Albrecht:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Answers
to your
questions:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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.</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><strong><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">See
No. 11 (or 1)
@
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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.</span></strong><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#006600">Thank you, will have a look.</span></strong>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-left:solid
#C3D9E5
1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in
8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt;word-wrap:
break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode:
space;-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space"
name="quote">
<div
name="quoted-content">
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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?</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><strong><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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. </span></strong><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#006600">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.</span></strong><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-left:solid
#C3D9E5
1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in
8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt;word-wrap:
break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode:
space;-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space"
name="quote">
<div
name="quoted-content">
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><br>
What is the
conflict with
Mach's
principle?</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><strong><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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).</span></strong><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#006600">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.)</span></strong>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-left:solid
#C3D9E5
1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in
8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt;word-wrap:
break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode:
space;-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space"
name="quote">
<div
name="quoted-content">
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">3)
The (wide
spread)
criticism of 2
particles is
that there is
neither an
<em><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">a-priori</span></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!) <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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?</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><strong><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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.
</span></strong><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#006600">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: </span></strong><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#006600"><br>
<br>
<strong><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 no
further followed
this idea.</strong><br>
<strong><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.
</strong><br>
<strong><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><br>
<strong><u>4th 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.
</strong><br>
<strong><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.</strong><br>
<br>
<strong>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 have had
an alternative in
your opinion?</u></strong><u><br>
<br>
</u><strong>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.</strong></span></b><b><u><span
style="font-size:10.0pt"><br>
<br>
</span></u></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-left:solid
#C3D9E5
1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in
8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt;word-wrap:
break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode:
space;-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space"
name="quote">
<div
name="quoted-content">
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><br>
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.</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><strong><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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. </span></strong><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">a
posteriori</span></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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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.</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><strong><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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.</span></strong><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><br>
<br>
And see again
Frank Wilczek.
<span
class="current-selection">He
writes: "By
combining
fragmentation
with super</span>-<span
class="current-selection">conductivity, we can get half-electrons that
are their own
antiparticles."
</span></span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><strong><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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.
</span></strong><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;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.</span></strong><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#006600"><br>
<br>
<strong>Ciao</strong><br>
<strong>Albrecht</strong></span></b><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt"><br>
<br>
<br>
</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-left:solid
#C3D9E5
1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in
8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt;word-wrap:
break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode:
space;-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space"
name="quote">
<div
name="quoted-content">
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><strong><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> </span></strong><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Guten
Abend<br>
Albrecht</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><strong><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Gleichfalls,
Al</span></strong><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Have
a good one!
Al<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div
style="border:none;border-left:solid
#C3D9E5
1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in
8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt">
<div
style="margin-bottom:7.5pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Gesendet:</span></b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> Samstag,
14. November
2015 um 14:51
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr.
Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><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"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
Reply of
comments from
what a model…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Am
13.11.2015 um
20:31 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Hi
Albrecht:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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! <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Why
fight it?
Where the
hell else will
you find a
credible 2nd
particle? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">ciao,
Al<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div
style="border:none;border-left:solid
#C3D9E5
1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in
8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt">
<div
style="margin-bottom:7.5pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Gesendet:</span></b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> Freitag,
13. November
2015 um 12:11
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr.
Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><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"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
Reply of
comments from
what a model…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Am
12.11.2015 um
17:51 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Hi
Albrect:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">We
are making
some progress.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">To
your remark
that Swinger
& Feynman
introduced
virtual
charges, I
note that they
used the same
term: "virtual
charge/particle,"
in spite of
the much older
meaning in
accord with
the charge and
mirror
example. In
the finest of
quantum
traditions,
they too
ignored the
rest of the
universe and
instead tried
to vest its
effect in the
"vacuum."
This idea was
suitably
mystical to
allow them to
introduce the
associated
plaver into
the folk lore
of QM, given
the sociology
of the day.
Even in spite
of this BS,
the idea still
has merit.
Your objection
on the basis
of the 1/r²
fall-off is
true but not
conclusive.
This fall-off
is matched by
a r² increase
in muber of
charges, so
the integrated
total
interaction
can be
expected to
have at least
some effect,
no matter
what. Think
of the
universe to
1st order as a
neutral,
low-density
plasma. I (and
some others)
hold that this
interaction is
responcible
for all
quantum
effects. In
any case, no
particle is a
universe unto
itself, the
rest have the
poulation and
time to take a
toll! <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Tschuß,
Al<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-left:solid
#C3D9E5
1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in
8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt">
<div
style="margin-bottom:7.5pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Gesendet:</span></b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> Donnerstag,
12. November
2015 um 16:18
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr.
Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><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"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
Reply of
comments from
what a model…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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"
href="http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com">http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com</a></a>:
</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span class="current-selection"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">He
writes: "By
combining
fragmentation
with super</span></span><span
class="ls0"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">-</span></span><span
class="current-selection"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">conductivity,
we can get
half-electrons
that are their
own
antiparticles."
</span></span><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><br>
</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">For
Wilczek this
is a
mysterious
result, in
view of my
model it is
not, on the
contrary it is
kind of a
proof.<br>
<br>
Grüße<br>
Albrecht</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Am
12.11.2015 um
03:06 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Hi
Albrecht:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">MfG,
Al<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div
class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center;background:white" align="center">
<span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">
<hr
style="color:#909090"
noshade="noshade" size="2" width="99%" align="center">
</span></div>
<table
class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:collapse" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="padding:0in
11.25pt 0in
6.0pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
id="_x0000_i1026"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast
logo"
border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td
style="padding:.75pt
.75pt .75pt
.75pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#3D4D5A">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft.<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center"
align="center">
<hr style="color:#909090"
noshade="noshade"
size="2" width="99%"
align="center">
</div>
<table
class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:collapse"
border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in
11.25pt 0in 6.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img
moz-do-not-send="true" id="_x0000_i1028"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
alt="Avast
logo"
border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td
style="padding:.75pt
.75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#3D4D5A">Diese
E-Mail wurde von
Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft.
<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
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"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br>
<a href="<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><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>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center"
align="center">
<hr style="color:#909090"
noshade="noshade" size="2"
width="99%" align="center">
</div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:collapse"
border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 11.25pt
0in 6.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
id="_x0000_i1030"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
alt="Avast logo"
border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt
.75pt .75pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#3D4D5A">Diese
E-Mail wurde von Avast
Antivirus-Software auf
Viren geprüft.
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center">
<hr style="color:#909090" noshade="noshade"
size="2" width="99%" align="center">
</div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:collapse" border="0"
cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 11.25pt 0in 6.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
id="_x0000_i1032"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
alt="Avast logo" border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt
.75pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#3D4D5A">Diese
E-Mail wurde von Avast
Antivirus-Software auf Viren
geprüft.
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>