<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 28 Nov 2015 17:15 schrieb
Roychoudhuri, Chandra </div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56601619.8050700@a-giese.de" type="cite"><br>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#0B0FC5">Albrecht: My responses
are within your text below in blue ink.<o:p></o:p></span>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#0B0FC5">Attached documents
will give further details.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#0B0FC5">Chandra</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
name="_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
Albrecht Giese [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">mailto:genmail@a-giese.de</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, November 27, 2015 3:05 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Roychoudhuri, Chandra; Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion; Richard Gauthier<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from
what a model…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt">Chandra,<br>
<br>
thank you for your explanations. </span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt">However what's about your
statement: </span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">"So, there are
no INERTIAL Frame of Reference anywhere in this universe"?
On the other hand you assume a </span><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">Stationary
Complex Tension Field (CTF)</span></i></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">. In my
understanding, the CTF is just an example of an absolute
frame of reference. How not?</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">CTF is the ONLY
universally stationary field in which everything, stars
and us, are manifest as diverse assemblies of localized
oscillations. We do not have multiple separate Inertial
Frames for different observers. We all are in moving
frames. EM waves are excitations of this stationary CTF
and hence has the same velocity, c, everywhere in the
universe. When the space volume of the CTF is regionally
filled with different kinds of local oscillator-assemblies
(atoms and molecules); the CTF tension values are reduced
and the velocities of the EM waves are also reduced.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<big><font color="#003300" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><small>Maybe
a problem of wording, but what you describe here is in my
understanding just an absolute frame of reference of the kind
by which e.g. Hendrik Lorentz has based his interpretation of
relativity. <br>
<br>
The other question is whether your assumption of the CTF
provides easier solutions to our questions in physics than an
"empty" space. <br>
</small></font></big>
<blockquote cite="mid:56601619.8050700@a-giese.de" type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">==============</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><br>
By the way, I do not see SR (or GR) as the foundation of
physics. But we have relativistic phenomena, which are not
fundamental for our physical world, but certain facts
which happen. I attribute the relativistic phenomena to
certain processes of particles and field, as you may have
noticed.<br>
<br>
Let's take an example which is quite simple. If we move a
clock, then the </span> <b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">clock runs
slower</span></i></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">. This can
easily be verified if we move an atomic clock. The same is
true for all temporal processes and events in physics.
Now, if one star moves with respect to another one, all
temporal processes run more slowly. This is a fact which
we cannot deny. If we are now on a moving star and observe
that the physical processes are similar to those on a star
at rest, then they cannot be the same, but the effects of
motion just compensate each other. <br>
</span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3"><br>
</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">There
is nothing in this universe that keeps track of RUNNING
TIME. This concept is a pure figment of imagination by
Humans; albeit being very pragmatic and we have also
invented reproducible machines to display the conceptual
“RUNNING TIME”. But, in reality, we use precision
oscillators and count the number of complete oscillations
the oscillator has executed. For a pendulum-clock, the
return of the pendulum at the same physical location gives
us the frequency. Human math inverts this frequency into a
PERIOD, and thinks of it as a TIME INTERVAL. For atomic
clocks, it is the frequency of the EM wave packet; which
is precisely determined by the allowed atomic transition
levels, (Delta-E)= (h-“</span><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#C00000">nu</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">”). [To my
knowledge, the “</span><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#C00000">nu</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">” of a moving atom
translates into Doppler frequency shift after the quantum
transition has taken place, (h-“</span><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#C00000">nu</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">”).This is why
atomic clocks are operated at extreme low temperature.] A
larger number of complete oscillations gives the humans
the sense of a longer time interval. Different objects of
nature, being built out of oscillators, all have their own
oscillation periods. There is no running time in the
inorganic universe. Only living biological organisms have
developed the perception of running time and long
intervals of times by virtue of their biological memory
bank. This is why, I believe that SR is a mis-adventure,
away from proper understanding of physical processes going
in nature. <b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">=================================================</span></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<big><font color="#003300" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><small>I
fully agree that "time" is a human concept. When we talk about
time we refer to oscillations. The most basic oscillations
which control all temporal processes in our physical nature
are the oscillations with c - speed of light - in all
elementary particles. And if we assume that this motion with c
is related to a fixed reference system, then all relativistic
relations regarding "time" are completely determined. This is
(for this part) the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity.
There is nothing mystical about it. SR is a formal treatment
of just this situation. <br>
<br>
We humans have a special relation to time as we know that our
lifetime is limited. So, I think, we can explains why "time"
in our mind plays a bigger role than it plays in physics. <br>
</small></font></big>
<blockquote cite="mid:56601619.8050700@a-giese.de" type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">An example: Most
physicists these days say that the speed of light is the
same on all moving systems. Can this be true? No, it
cannot, because if we measure the speed of light with a
clock running differently from another clock and we get
the same result, it can logically not be the same speed.
We only measure the same speed which is an illusion. This
is true for all physical processes. So the statement: </span><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">"The LAWS OF
PHYSICS ARE SAME IN ALL STARS"</span></i></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3"> </span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">are only true as
an illusion. </span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">If the assumption
of the discrete emission line frequencies of atoms and
molecules are not the same in the coronas of all stars
(besides Doppler broadenings due to local temperatures),
the entire experimental Astrophysics will need complete
re-evaluation! I do not think so.</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"> </span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">"The LAWS OF
PHYSICS ARE SAME IN ALL STARS" is the most logical
assumption as of now. We may need to refine it further as
we evolve in our scientific thinking.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">==============================</span></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<big><font color="#003300" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><small>What
does it mean: In all stars? Isn't it our general understanding
that the physical laws are the same? Normally the saying is
that we have the same physical laws in all inertial systems.
That is the Galilean relativity. Was maintained by SR, but
in this context it is in my view just an illusion. And another
step of Einstein: we have the same physical laws in all
accelerated systems. That is Einstein's relativity in GR. And
this is falsified as far as I understand. <br>
<br>
But what about stars? They will normally be in motion with
respect to each other. And so I did understand you statement
as "same laws in all inertial systems". Maybe I misunderstood
it? <br>
</small></font></big>
<blockquote cite="mid:56601619.8050700@a-giese.de" type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">Regarding the
CTF I must confess that I have not read and not understood
the details. You say that it has dielectric and magnetic
tensions which determine the velocity of EM waves. This is
an old problem as magnetism is not an original force but a
relativistic side effect of the electrical force. So this
way of thinking - like about EM waves - may work in a
practical sense, but it does not refer to fundamental
physical reactions. (That is not a specific problem of CTF
but as well of electromagnetism.)<br>
What about the </span><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">doughnut-like
wavicles</span></i></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">? It looks like
a complicated shape, at which wavicles are realized. I
would like to better understand what makes them stable
with respect to their shape and to their motion. Do you
have a model for the stability?</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">I have not carried
out the mathematical details of CTF to generate wevicles.
Most of you are much batter mathematical physicists than
me. So, I leave it to all of you to explore CTF further.
CTF does provide the foundation for a one possible UFT
(Unified Field Theory), Einstein’s dream.<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">Doughnut-like
wavicles are my imagination to achieve the emergence of
quantum-ness and stability of elementary particles.
In-phase self-looped propagation of EM waves allows for
both stability (quantization) and localization.
Superconductivity of electrons, within only the layered
structures of a variety of superconducting crystals, gives
me the idea that electrons are more likely flexible
planar, doughnut-like wavicles. Protons most likely have
different wavicle structure; but must still possess
extreme high frequency self-looped in-phase EM waves like
oscillation. Remember, I am just trying to give imaginary
structures that would conform to E=m(c-squared); where
(c-squared)=1/ [(epsilon)(mu)]. <b><i>The mass-like
inertial properties are quantitatively completely
determined by the electromagnetic tension properties
held by the CTF.</i></b></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<big><font color="#003300" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><small>Do
you have any quantitative model or better mathematics to
deduce the inertial properties?<br>
<br>
Protons are insofar different from electrons as they are no
real elementary particles but composed of quarks. And I have a
further objection, stated several times: c^2=1/(epsilon*mu)
does not reflect the physical situation very well; better is
the other order: mu=1/(c^2*epsilon), as magnetism, described
by mu, is a side effect of the electric field caused by the
finiteness of c. <br>
</small></font></big>
<blockquote cite="mid:56601619.8050700@a-giese.de" type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3"><b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">Human invented
mathematical logic-driven theories, constructed out of
smart set of postulates (logical imaginations) and then
validated by experimental data; are not sufficient to
guide us along the definitive correct path to extract the
cosmic logics. We need to iteratively modify, re-structure
and revalidate the theories and modes of experiments by
anchoring ourselves to repeatedly imagining the invisible
physical interaction processes going on in nature. We have
been successfully doing the (i) mathematical theorizations
and (ii) experimental validations; and yet Physics has
been stagnant for almost a century (a bit less!). Let us
recognize Einstein’s advice, “It is the theory that names
the parameter we measure”. Imagining the invisible
interaction processes in nature provides us with another
deeper level of access to cosmic logics (ontological
reality). </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<big><font color="#003300" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><small>I
fully agree that the process of understanding the nature is a
cyclic one. But I see another problem: sometimes some errors
are fed into the logical process of development of theories
which are not noticed for a long time. To avoid those does not
need much philosophical considerations but just a critical
mind and the willingness not to believe forever opinions,
which we have been given by those "giants". One historical
example was the proof of John von Neumann that QM is not
compatible with a deterministic world. Von Neumann's proof was
very exiting for the founders of QM (like Heisenberg) and it
must have been carefully read by all theorists. But it took
ca. 30 years until John Bell noticed that there was a big
logical error in this proof. I knew a strict follower of
Heisenberg (Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker) who refused to read
the paper of Bell as he liked the result of von Neumann. - In
the discussion with this group here it turned out that the
initial equations of de Broglie regarding matter waves are
logically wrong. Another example of permanent believe. If we
succeed to avoid such situations we will have some progress
independent from other means.<br>
</small></font></big>
<blockquote cite="mid:56601619.8050700@a-giese.de" type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">So, we must learn
to systematically imagine and keep on refining that
“picture of interaction processes” that are going on in
nature. Theories, validated by data are no longer
sufficient for human intellectual evolution to understand
nature!</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<big><font color="#003300" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><small>Also
history has shown than in many cases a good model was simply
not seen for a some time. Take the planetary system of
Copernicus. Or the periodic system of elements found by
Mendelejew. We must be open to find new models which may
possible provide solutions and are on the other hand based on
honest physics.</small></font></big><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56601619.8050700@a-giese.de" type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">===========================</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><br>
At the end, the goal in physics was always to have a
simple solution which starts from some as well simple
assumptions and is able to explain all observations. Do
you see this too as a goal?<br>
</span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3"><br>
</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">I
do enjoy simplicity, elegance, symmetry, etc., but I do
not put too much “stock” in them, as far as trying to make
theories about nature. The entire set of physical
processes, from the very beginning to the finishing behind
the birth of a baby, overall quite complex, although
separate segments possess different qualifiers. Perfect
symmetry would stop interaction processes and freeze the
interactions in the evolving universe. The universe is
majestically beautiful because of its perpetual evolution;
and the beauties are full of complexities and asymmetries!<b>
Chandra.</b></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<big><font color="#003300" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><small>I
agree</small></font></big><big><font color="#003300"
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><small> that symmetries are
not the general solution even though main stream believes this
these days. But I doubt that evolution is applicable here
because that is a trial and error process. It works in a way
that for a problem a huge number of solutions is offered</small></font></big><big><font
color="#003300" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><small> in
nature </small></font></big><big><font color="#003300"
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><small> and one or few are
selected. I cannot imagine that this happens in the field of
elementary particles or of the universe.<br>
<br>
Sincerely<br>
Albrecht<br>
</small></font></big> <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56601619.8050700@a-giese.de" type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 22.11.2015 um 21:36 schrieb
Roychoudhuri, Chandra:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">Albrecht: May
be you are finally finding the limitation behind using
SR as the foundation of Physics. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">No stars or
galaxies are stationary. All are moving with respect to
each other. So, there are no INERTIAL Frame of Reference
anywhere in this universe. Yet, line-centers of the
emitted spectral lines are identical whether the light
is collected from a distant star; or from a discharge
tube on earth. And even the Doppler line broadening are
precisely given by the local ambient temperatures. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">The LAWS OF
PHYSICS ARE SAME IN ALL STARS (not in all inertial
frames; which does not exist). So, we need the postulate
of the stationary CTF.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">The universe
is manifest as various kinds of excitations of the
STATIOINARY Complex Tension Field (CTF). EM waves are
linear excitations and hence move perpetually with the
same velocity determined the dielectric and magnetic
tensions of CTF. Particles are “wavicles”, localized
in-phase self-looped propagation of waves of the CTF -
doughnut-like (hence resonant and the origin of
quantum-ness). These self-looped waves are like EM
waves; but they are not quantized photons; they are
quantized “wavicles”. Because finite EM wave packets (no
Fourier modes exist) and particles (“wavicles”) are
some-what similar propagating excitations (un-looped and
self-looped) of the same CTF; they are eminently
inter-convertible when the energy contents allow this
through conservation of energy. The root cause behind
the observable universal energy conservation is due to
the fact that CTF, by itself, cannot dissipate the
excitation energy in its own body; one excitation must
be converted into another set of excitations. Forces in
this CTF model are due to the various secondary
potential gradients generated around the “wavicles” in
the body of CTF.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">I understand
that my CTF model for particles and waves; and the
current model of particle theory with the forces as
quantized exchange particles, are incompatible!</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">Sincerely,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">Chandra. </span>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">==================================================</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b>On
Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, November 22, 2015 9:43 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Richard Gauthier<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from
what a model…</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Hello
Richard,<br>
<br>
I never have persistently tried to develop a 2-particle
model. What I have persistently tried was to find a good
explanation for relativistic dilation. And there I found a
solution which has satisfied me. All the rest including
the 2 particles in my model where logical consequences
where I did not see alternatives. If there should be a
model which is an alternative in one or the other aspect,
I will be happy to see it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 22.11.2015 um 00:13 schrieb
Richard Gauthier:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello Albrecht, <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> I admire your persistence in
trying to save your doomed (in my opinion)
2-particle electron model. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Why 2 particles in the model? I say it
again:<br>
<br>
1) to maintain the conservation of momentum in the view of
oscillations<br>
2) to have a mechanism for inertia (which has very precise
results, otherwise non-existent in present physics)<br>
<br>
I will be happy to see alternatives for both points. Up to
now I have not seen any.<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Do you understand how
unreasonable and irrational it appears for you to
write: "Then I had to determine the field constant
S which is normally provided by experiments. But
quantum mechanics is so unprecise regarding the
numeric value of the strong force that there is no
number available in the data tables. Here I found
that I could use the Bohr magneton to determine the
constant. (Which turned out to be S = hbar*c, merely
a constant).” ? <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have once asked one of the leading
theorists at DESY for a better quantitative explanation or
determination of the strong force. His answer: Sorry, the
strong force is not good enough understood so that I
cannot give you better information. <br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">How could the number S that you
could not find in “unprecise” tables about the
strong force possibly be the same number that can be
found precisely from the electron’s Bohr magneton
ehbar/2m and which you claim is S = hbar*c ? This is
an unbelievable, desperate stretch of imagination
and "grasping at straws", in my opinion. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">When I have realized that my model
deduces the Bohr magneton, I have used the measurements
available in that context to determine my field constant.
(I could also go the other way: I can use the Planck /
Einstein relation E = h * f and the Einstein-relation E =
m*c<sup>2</sup> to determine the constant S from the
internal frequency in my model. Same result. But I like
the other way better. BTW: Do you know any other model
which deduces these relations rather than using them as
given?)<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Here is the meaning of “grasping
at straws” from <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasp+at+straws">http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasp+at+straws</a> :<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<h2 style="box-sizing:
inherit;font-size:1.8rem;line-height:1.8rem;display:inline-block;margin:0.2rem
6px 0px"> <span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040">grasp
at straws</span><o:p></o:p></h2>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="hvr"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040">Also,</span></span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span
class="hvr"><b>clutch</b></span><b> at <span
class="hvr">straws</span></b>.</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </span><span
class="hvr"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040">Make</span></span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> a</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </span><span
class="hvr"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040">desperate</span></span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span
class="hvr">attempt</span> </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">at</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span
class="hvr">saving</span> <span class="hvr">oneself.</span> <span
class="hvr">For</span> <span class="hvr">example,</span> <i>He <span
class="hvr">had lost</span> <span class="hvr">the</span> <span
class="hvr">argument,</span> <span class="hvr">but</span> he <span
class="hvr">kept</span> <span class="hvr">grasping</span> at <span
class="hvr">straws,</span> <span class="hvr">naming</span> <span
class="hvr">numerous</span> <span class="hvr">previous</span> <span
class="hvr">cases</span> <span class="hvr">that had</span> <span
class="hvr">little</span> to do <span
class="hvr">with</span> <span class="hvr">this</span> <span
class="hvr">one</span></i>.</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </span><span
class="hvr"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040">This</span></span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span
class="hvr">metaphoric</span> <span class="hvr">expression</span> <span
class="hvr">alludes</span> </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">to</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">a</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span
class="hvr">drowning</span> <span class="hvr">person trying</span> </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">to</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span
class="hvr">save</span> <span class="hvr">himself</span> </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">by</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span
class="hvr">grabbing</span> </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">at</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span
class="hvr">flimsy</span> <span class="hvr">reeds.</span> <span
class="hvr">First</span> <span class="hvr">recorded</span> </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">in</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span
class="hvr">1534,</span> <span class="hvr">the</span> <span
class="hvr">term</span> <span class="hvr">was used</span> <span
class="hvr">figuratively</span> </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">by</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span
class="hvr">the</span> <span class="hvr">late</span> <span
class="hvr">1600s.</span></span> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am not at all opposed to using
desperate measures to find or save a hypothesis that
is very important to you. Max Planck described his
efforts to fit the black body radiation equation
using quantized energies of hypothetical oscillators
as an "act of desperation”. So you are of course
free to keep desperately trying to save your
2-particle electron hypothesis. I personally think
that your many talents in physics could be better
spent in other ways, for example in revising your
electron model to make it more consistent with
experimental facts.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Do you know any other electron model
which is so much consistent with experimental facts (e.g.
size and mass) as this one (without needing the usual
mystifications of quantum mechanics)?<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> By the way, van der Waals
forces do not "bind atoms to form a molecule". They
are attractive or repulsive forces between molecules
or between parts of a molecule. According to
Wikipedia:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">" <span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white">the </span><b><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525">van
der Waals forces</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> (or </span><b><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525">van
der Waals' interaction</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white">),
named after </span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands"
title="Netherlands"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">Dutch</span></a><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist"
title="Scientist"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">scientist</span></a><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Diderik_van_der_Waals"
title="Johannes Diderik van der Waals"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">Johannes
Diderik van der Waals</span></a><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white">,
is the sum of the attractive or repulsive forces
between </span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecule"
title="Molecule"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">molecules</span></a><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> (or
between parts of the same molecule) other than
those due to </span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond"
title="Covalent bond"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">covalent
bonds</span></a><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white">,
or the </span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_interaction"
title="Electrostatic interaction"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">electrostatic
interaction</span></a><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> of </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion"
title="Ion"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">ions</span></a><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> with
one another, with neutral molecules, or with
charged molecules.</span><sup id="cite_ref-1"><span
style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-1"><span
style="color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">[1]</span></a></span></sup><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> The
resulting van der Waals forces can be attractive
or repulsive.</span><sup
id="cite_ref-Van_OssAbsolom1980_2-0"><span
style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-Van_OssAbsolom1980-2"><span
style="color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">[2]</span></a></span></sup><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes, my arrangement of charges of the
strong force causes as well a combination of attractive
and repulsive forces and is doing the same like in the van
der Waals case. That was my reason to refer to them.<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">with best regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Richard<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>