<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Albrecht,</div><div class=""> You wrote</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">The conclusion now of a direct interaction of the strong force between the quark and the electron is a more indirect proof, but the only one left at present - in my view.</div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div class=""> If you are the only one in the world to come to this conclusion, and DESY did not come to this conclusion (which would have probably won them a Nobel prize if correct), then I am not willing to accept it and I doubt that any logical and independent scientist will either.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">you then write </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">further that a lot of other problems can be resolved with the assumption that the strong force is the universal force in the world, then this is in my view an even better argument than the one in the 1930s for the strong force.</div></blockquote></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> You say that a lot of problems could be solved if the strong force affects the electron. This is not a good or logical reason to accept that the strong force affects the electron. If rivers flowed with milk, a lot of world hunger problems would be solved, but this is not a reason to accept that rivers flow with milk.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> Richard</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Dec 5, 2015, at 7:36 AM, Albrecht Giese <<a 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 bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hello Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
my answers in the text:<br class="">
<br class="">
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:00:23 -0800 schrieb Richard Gauthier :<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56601572.1090200@a-giese.de" type="cite" class="">
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br class="">
<div class="">Hello Albrecht,</div>
<div class=""> In physics no one can validly claim that the
strong force nuclear acting on electrons was “seen” at DESY if
such an important and unexpected result was never confirmed by
any other qualified laboratory in all the years afterward. So
please let go of your claim about the strong nuclear force
acting on electrons at least until it is confirmed by another
laboratory. I am not saying that conventional wisdom is always
right (obviously it isn’t). But in experimental physics one
needs to play by the statistical “rules” (which are in any
case designed to guard against “false positives” like the DESY
experiment might have been) if one wants to have credibility
among other knowledgeable physicists. (We are not talking
about credibility by the general public here.)</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
There were two teams at DESY who have seen an excess of triggers in
electron-quark interactions, which could not be explained by
leptonic interactions based on the electrical force. The attempt to
postulate a new "leptoquark", which could mediate between the
electron and the strong force, failed. The conclusion now of a
direct interaction of the strong force between the quark and the
electron is a more indirect proof, but the only one left at present
- in my view.<br class="">
<br class="">
But what was the evidence of the strong force when it came up? See
below.<br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:56601572.1090200@a-giese.de" type="cite" class="">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<div class=""> And without confirmation of the DESY results
(or their logical interpretation), your 2-particle electron
model goes nowhere fast. As you wrote, “ Without referring to
the strong force, the calculation of the mass of the electron
has incorrect results by a factor of several hundred. “ So
everything else in your model hinges on an unconfirmed result
from one physics laboratory. As theoretical physicists say (or
should say) when their predictions are not confirmed by
experiments: “Well, back to the drawing board.” <br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
The strong force was postulated in the 1930s when it became clear
that there are >1 protons in the nucleus which are bound to each
other despite of the repulsive force of the electric charges. The
stable bind was the only reason at that time to assume a "strong
force". It was not earlier than in the year 1978, so ca. 40 years
later, that gluons have been identified at DESY and so the strong
force has become more than an assumption.<br class="">
<br class="">
If I say that the strong force in the electron is the only cause of
inertia, which is presently available, further that a lot of other
problems can be resolved with the assumption that the strong force
is the universal force in the world, then this is in my view an even
better argument than the one in the 1930s for the strong force.<br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:56601572.1090200@a-giese.de" type="cite" class="">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<div class=""> with best wishes,</div>
<div class=""> Richard</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Best wishes back<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:56601572.1090200@a-giese.de" type="cite" class="">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Nov 26, 2015, at 8:53 AM, 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="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 23.11.2015 um 19:43
schrieb Richard Gauthier:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:84F6A2F6-ED8A-4915-8E1E-E1DB4E99E1B3@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’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 class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:84F6A2F6-ED8A-4915-8E1E-E1DB4E99E1B3@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<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 class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:84F6A2F6-ED8A-4915-8E1E-E1DB4E99E1B3@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<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 class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:84F6A2F6-ED8A-4915-8E1E-E1DB4E99E1B3@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<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 class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:84F6A2F6-ED8A-4915-8E1E-E1DB4E99E1B3@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<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 class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:84F6A2F6-ED8A-4915-8E1E-E1DB4E99E1B3@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<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 class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:84F6A2F6-ED8A-4915-8E1E-E1DB4E99E1B3@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<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 class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:84F6A2F6-ED8A-4915-8E1E-E1DB4E99E1B3@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:84F6A2F6-ED8A-4915-8E1E-E1DB4E99E1B3@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<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 class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:84F6A2F6-ED8A-4915-8E1E-E1DB4E99E1B3@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<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 class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:84F6A2F6-ED8A-4915-8E1E-E1DB4E99E1B3@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Richard</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Albrecht<br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:84F6A2F6-ED8A-4915-8E1E-E1DB4E99E1B3@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
<div class="">
<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 class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasp+at+straws"></a><a 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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a 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="">
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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" 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 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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a 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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a 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=""> <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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</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 class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com/"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com/">www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com</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 class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</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 class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</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 class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</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 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><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>:
</font><br class="">
<div class=" y37 t
m88 ls3 h2
fc0 ff1 x28 ws2
sc0 fs1"><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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br class="">
<a href="<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"></a><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>"><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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/">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 class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
<br class="">
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<br class="">
</div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>