<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hello Richard,<br>
<br>
<font color="#003300">I fell a little bit like Sisyphos. No
progress. </font><br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 07.12.2015 um 06:20 schrieb Richard
Gauthier:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:B173A7A9-0128-4C59-8291-46D159624273@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div class="">Hello Albrecht,</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> The nature of scientific exploration is that
“anything goes” if it ethically produces new scientific
discoveries. So your idea of an indirect strong force on
electrons to explain your two-particle model of the electron
COULD be correct despite the current lack of any accepted
evidence for your model. The law of conservation of momentum is
NOT evidence for your specific electron model. </div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#003300">No, as I wrote earlier: The conservation of
momentum follows from the symmetry of space. And that is very
fundamental. Is used by my model and by the whole rest of the
physical world. Formally introduced by the mathematician Emmy
Noether in 1918.</font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:B173A7A9-0128-4C59-8291-46D159624273@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="">The unexplained results at DESY do not provide
support for any hypothesis, including yours.</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#003300">They have to be explained. I have an
explanation which you may not like. Your alternative??</font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:B173A7A9-0128-4C59-8291-46D159624273@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class=""> Your electron hypothesis could be wrong, and is
very like to be wrong as I think you will admit. So far your
hypothesis hasn’t produced any good scientific results that I
know of. I for one am not convinced that your electron
hypothesis explains inertia quantitatively (by deriving the
electron’s mass from the Bohr magneton ehbar/2m , which already
contains the electron’s mass).</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#003300">NO! NO! NO! I have explained it several times
now. Inertia is caused by the fact that <b>any extended object </b><b>has
</b><b>necessarily inertial behaviour</b>. It is the consequence
of the finiteness of the speed by which the binding forces propagate.
Very fundamental physics. So an extended electron has necessarily
inertia. But not only as a qualitative result but quantitatively
with high precision! And this is not only true for the electron
but also for all fermions (leptons and quarks). <br>
</font><br>
<font color="#003300">Any theory or model needs at least on
parameter which is measured. This is in case of my model Planck's
constant. I use the Bohr magneton to connect Planck's constant to
my model. I could as well have used the relation E = h *
frequency. But I found the other way more elegant. <br>
</font><br>
<font color="#003300">I do not know any other working model for
inertia. The Higgs theory does not work as we know. On the other
hand my website about "origin of mass" is the number one in the
internet since 13 years., And when I give talks about it on
conferences in Germany, the lecture hall is normally overcrowded.
An indication of weakness?</font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:B173A7A9-0128-4C59-8291-46D159624273@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class=""> I don’t accept that your electron hypothesis is the
only hypothesis that can explain inertia, as you claim. Inertia
could be explained by the “hidden momentum” component mc in my
charged-photon electron model. </div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#003300">If you derive inertia from an occurrence of
momentum, then this is circular reasoning. As momentum without
inertial is not possible.</font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:B173A7A9-0128-4C59-8291-46D159624273@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="">My charged-photon electron model, and John W’s and
John M’s and Vivian’s and Chip’s electron models could also all
be wrong. But I think that we are collectively making progress.
Eliminating deadwood and dead-ends is also part of progress. I
don’t see any progress in your model, despite all the energy you
put into defending its many weaknesses. You still have not
explained how your electron model can have a positive total
energy based on its strong nuclear force's negative binding
energy. Maybe this will not be possible without radically
changing your electron model of two circulating particles that
individually have no mass and no energy, but are bound together
by the strong nuclear force. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#003300">No reason for a change as anything works with
very good precision. And from the scratch. <br>
</font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:B173A7A9-0128-4C59-8291-46D159624273@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> I don’t know of any awards for electron models.
De Broglie and Dirac both got Nobel prizes for their electron
equations without having electron models. Heisenberg and
Schrodinger also didn’t have electron models when they won their
Nobel prizes for discovering quantum mechanics. Perhaps we could
start a competition for the best electron model. That could
possibly speed up the progress in getting a really good one. But
the best electron model will be the one that has the best
potential to lead to the best new scientific results.</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#003300">What de Broglie, Schrödinger, and Dirac did
was more algebra than physics. That is their common weakness. And
as we have found out in our discussion here is that de Broglie has
a logical error in his derivation. And Schrödinger and Dirac based
on his result. How proper can that be?<br>
</font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:B173A7A9-0128-4C59-8291-46D159624273@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> I didn’t have any position on quarks when they
were first introduced. My introductory physics professor in 1963
at MIT Henry Kendall was one of the high energy experimental
physicists that later experimentally discovered the first quark.
The other five quarks were also discovered by the methods of
experimental high energy physics. I think the general positive
trend of modern physics is to overturn traditional dogmatic
materialism and to open up new ways of understanding the
relationships among matter, energy and mind. Physicists should
not replace old dogmas by new dogmas. Getting new ideas and
concepts accepted in physics is not easy, nor should it be.
There’s a lot of junk out there. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#003300">Just to remind you: The Up-quark and the
Down-quark have never been discovered. They have been assumed to
exist as this has eased the formal treatment of nucleons. Nothing
better.<br>
<br>
With best regards</font><br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:B173A7A9-0128-4C59-8291-46D159624273@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> With best regards,</div>
<div class=""> Richard</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Dec 6, 2015, at 7:28 AM, Albrecht Giese <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"
class=""><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a></a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
what do you expect from science? Do your claims
describe the way as science works?<br class="">
<br class="">
If you look into the history of physics, discoveries
have happened in a different way than following your
demands here. I shall give two examples.<br class="">
<br class="">
What is about the quarks, the Up-quark and the
Down-quark? No one has ever seen them, no lab was able
to isolate them. Nevertheless no one in main stream
physics questions that these two quarks exist. The
advantage of this assumption is that interactions with
nucleons can be mathematically handled in a better way.
That is by common view sufficient since more than 40
years.<br class="">
<br class="">
I was a student when the quark was introduced. Many
established physicists in research laughed about this
idea. And the quark was not visible, is not visible
until today. But those who introduced it received the
Nobel price. - What was your position to quarks at that
time? Or what is it now?<br class="">
<br class="">
And as I wrote in my last answer: The strong force was
believed to exist for 40 years before detailed proofs
could be given (by the existence of gluons). <i
class="">If this is the only choice, then it is the
answer</i><i class=""> (at least temporary)</i><i
class="">. That is the rule in physics. </i><br
class="">
<br class="">
The same is true for the strong force in the electron.
It is the only way (at present) to deduce inertia. And
there is no counter-proof. The direct positive proof is
difficult in so far as the coupling between quarks and
electrons is very weak caused by the very different size
of both particles. <br class="">
<br class="">
Regarding the excess of certain events in the DESY
experiment: Do you have a solution? Or a better
solution? Perhaps then <i class="">you </i>can win an
award ...<br class="">
<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
Am 05.12.2015 um 19:10 schrieb Richard Gauthier:<br
class="">
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:18799BA9-0347-48B7-BFCC-97C7DCDA09EC@gmail.com"
type="cite" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8" 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 class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Dec 5, 2015, at 7:36 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 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"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a></a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta content="text/html;
charset=utf-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
class=""> 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"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a></a>>
wrote:</div>
<br
class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type"
class="">
<div text="#000000"
bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
class=""> Hello
Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
I never have
persistently tried to
develop a 2-particle
model. What I have
persistently tried was
to find a good
explanation for
relativistic dilation.
And there I found a
solution which has
satisfied me. All the
rest including the 2
particles in my model
where logical
consequences where I
did not see
alternatives. If there
should be a model
which is an
alternative in one or
the other aspect, I
will be happy to see
it.<br class="">
<br class="">
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
22.11.2015 um 00:13
schrieb Richard
Gauthier:<br
class="">
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:E9E2553A-C03E-49E4-BFE7-335F4E41512A@gmail.com"
type="cite" class="">
<meta
http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8"
class="">
Hello Albrecht,
<div class=""><br
class="">
<div class=""> I
admire your
persistence in
trying to save
your doomed (in
my opinion)
2-particle
electron model.
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Why 2 particles in the
model? I say it again:<br
class="">
<br class="">
1) to maintain the
conservation of
momentum in the view
of oscillations<br
class="">
2) to have a mechanism
for inertia (which has
very precise results,
otherwise non-existent
in present physics)<br
class="">
<br class="">
I will be happy to see
alternatives for both
points. Up to now I
have not seen any.<br
class="">
<blockquote
cite="mid:E9E2553A-C03E-49E4-BFE7-335F4E41512A@gmail.com"
type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Do
you understand
how unreasonable
and irrational
it appears for
you to write:
"Then I had to
determine the
field constant S
which is
normally
provided by
experiments. But
quantum
mechanics is so
unprecise
regarding the
numeric value of
the strong force
that there is no
number available
in the data
tables. Here I
found that I
could use the
Bohr magneton to
determine the
constant. (Which
turned out to be
S = hbar*c,
merely a
constant).” ? <br
class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I have once asked one
of the leading
theorists at DESY for
a better quantitative
explanation or
determination of the
strong force. His
answer: Sorry, the
strong force is not
good enough understood
so that I cannot give
you better
information. <br
class="">
<blockquote
cite="mid:E9E2553A-C03E-49E4-BFE7-335F4E41512A@gmail.com"
type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">How
could the number
S that you
could not find
in “unprecise”
tables about the
strong force
possibly be the
same number that
can be found
precisely from
the electron’s
Bohr magneton
ehbar/2m and
which you claim
is S = hbar*c ?
This is an
unbelievable,
desperate
stretch of
imagination and
"grasping at
straws", in my
opinion. <br
class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
When I have realized
that my model deduces
the Bohr magneton, I
have used the
measurements available
in that context to
determine my field
constant. (I could
also go the other way:
I can use the Planck /
Einstein relation E =
h * f and the
Einstein-relation E =
m*c<sup class="">2</sup>
to determine the
constant S from the
internal frequency in
my model. Same result.
But I like the other
way better. BTW: Do
you know any other
model which deduces
these relations rather
than using them as
given?)<br class="">
<blockquote
cite="mid:E9E2553A-C03E-49E4-BFE7-335F4E41512A@gmail.com"
type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><br
class="">
</div>
<div class="">Here
is the meaning
of “grasping at
straws” from <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasp+at+straws"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasp+at+straws">http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasp+at+straws</a></a> :</div>
<h2
style="box-sizing:
inherit;
font-size:
1.8rem;
line-height:
1.8rem; display:
inline-block;
margin: 0px
0.2rem 6px 0px;
color: rgb(64,
64, 64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;"
class="">grasp
at straws</h2>
<div class=""><span
class="hvr"
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;
box-sizing:
inherit;">Also,</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><b
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;
box-sizing:
inherit;"
class=""><span
class="hvr"
style="box-sizing:
inherit;">clutch</span> at <span
class="hvr"
style="box-sizing:
inherit;">straws</span></b><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class="">.</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
class="hvr"
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;
box-sizing:
inherit;">Make</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class="">a</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
class="hvr"
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;
box-sizing:
inherit;">desperate</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
class="hvr"
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;
box-sizing:
inherit;">attempt</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class="">at</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
class="hvr"
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;
box-sizing:
inherit;">saving</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
class="hvr"
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;
box-sizing:
inherit;">oneself.</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
class="hvr"
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;
box-sizing:
inherit;">For</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
class="hvr"
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;
box-sizing:
inherit;">example,</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><i
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;
box-sizing:
inherit;"
class="">He <span
class="hvr"
style="box-sizing:
inherit;">had </span><span
class="hvr"
style="box-sizing:
inherit;">lost</span> <span
class="hvr"
style="box-sizing:
inherit;">the</span> <span
class="hvr"
style="box-sizing:
inherit;">argument,</span> <span
class="hvr"
style="box-sizing:
inherit;">but</span> he <span
class="hvr"
style="box-sizing:
inherit;">kept</span> <span
class="hvr"
style="box-sizing:
inherit;">grasping</span> at <span
class="hvr"
style="box-sizing:
inherit;">straws,</span> <span
class="hvr"
style="box-sizing:
inherit;">naming</span> <span
class="hvr"
style="box-sizing:
inherit;">numerous</span> <span
class="hvr"
style="box-sizing:
inherit;">previous</span> <span
class="hvr"
style="box-sizing:
inherit;">cases</span> <span
class="hvr"
style="box-sizing:
inherit;">that </span><span
class="hvr"
style="box-sizing:
inherit;">had</span> <span
class="hvr"
style="box-sizing:
inherit;">little</span> to do <span
class="hvr"
style="box-sizing:
inherit;">with</span> <span
class="hvr"
style="box-sizing:
inherit;">this</span> <span
class="hvr"
style="box-sizing:
inherit;">one</span></i><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class="">.</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
class="hvr"
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;
box-sizing:
inherit;">This</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
class="hvr"
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;
box-sizing:
inherit;">metaphoric</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
class="hvr"
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;
box-sizing:
inherit;">expression</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
class="hvr"
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;
box-sizing:
inherit;">alludes</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class="">to</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class="">a</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
class="hvr"
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;
box-sizing:
inherit;">drowning</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
class="hvr"
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;
box-sizing:
inherit;">person </span><span
class="hvr"
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;
box-sizing:
inherit;">trying</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class="">to</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
class="hvr"
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;
box-sizing:
inherit;">save</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
class="hvr"
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;
box-sizing:
inherit;">himself</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class="">by</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
class="hvr"
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;
box-sizing:
inherit;">grabbing</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class="">at</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
class="hvr"
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;
box-sizing:
inherit;">flimsy</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
class="hvr"
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;
box-sizing:
inherit;">reeds.</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
class="hvr"
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;
box-sizing:
inherit;">First</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
class="hvr"
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;
box-sizing:
inherit;">recorded</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class="">in</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
class="hvr"
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;
box-sizing:
inherit;">1534,</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
class="hvr"
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;
box-sizing:
inherit;">the</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
class="hvr"
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;
box-sizing:
inherit;">term</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
class="hvr"
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;
box-sizing:
inherit;">was </span><span
class="hvr"
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;
box-sizing:
inherit;">used</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
class="hvr"
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;
box-sizing:
inherit;">figuratively</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class="">by</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
class="hvr"
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;
box-sizing:
inherit;">the</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
class="hvr"
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;
box-sizing:
inherit;">late</span><span
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;"
class=""> </span><span
class="hvr"
style="color:
rgb(64, 64,
64);
font-family:
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
font-size:
13px;
line-height:
19.5px;
box-sizing:
inherit;">1600s.</span> </div>
<div class=""><br
class="">
</div>
<div class="">I am
not at all
opposed to using
desperate
measures to find
or save a
hypothesis that
is very
important to
you. Max Planck
described his
efforts to fit
the black body
radiation
equation using
quantized
energies of
hypothetical
oscillators as
an "act of
desperation”.
So you are of
course free to
keep desperately
trying to save
your 2-particle
electron
hypothesis. I
personally think
that your many
talents in
physics could be
better spent in
other ways, for
example in
revising your
electron model
to make it more
consistent with
experimental
facts.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Do you know any other
electron model which
is so much consistent
with experimental
facts (e.g. size and
mass) as this one
(without needing the
usual mystifications
of quantum mechanics)?<br
class="">
<blockquote
cite="mid:E9E2553A-C03E-49E4-BFE7-335F4E41512A@gmail.com"
type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">
By the way, van
der Waals forces
do not "bind
atoms to form a
molecule". They
are attractive
or repulsive
forces between
molecules or
between parts of
a molecule.
According to
Wikipedia:</div>
<div class=""><br
class="">
</div>
<div class="">" <span
style="color:
rgb(37, 37,
37);
font-family:
sans-serif;
font-size:
14px;
line-height:
22px;
background-color:
rgb(255, 255,
255);"
class="">the </span><b
style="color:
rgb(37, 37,
37);
font-family:
sans-serif;
font-size:
14px;
line-height:
22px;"
class="">van
der Waals
forces</b><span
style="color:
rgb(37, 37,
37);
font-family:
sans-serif;
font-size:
14px;
line-height:
22px;
background-color:
rgb(255, 255,
255);"
class=""> (or </span><b
style="color:
rgb(37, 37,
37);
font-family:
sans-serif;
font-size:
14px;
line-height:
22px;"
class="">van
der Waals'
interaction</b><span
style="color:
rgb(37, 37,
37);
font-family:
sans-serif;
font-size:
14px;
line-height:
22px;
background-color:
rgb(255, 255,
255);"
class="">),
named after </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands"
title="Netherlands" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0,
128);
background-image:
none;
font-family:
sans-serif;
font-size:
14px;
line-height:
22px;"
class="">Dutch</a><span
style="color:
rgb(37, 37,
37);
font-family:
sans-serif;
font-size:
14px;
line-height:
22px;
background-color:
rgb(255, 255,
255);"
class=""> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist"
title="Scientist"
style="text-decoration:
none; color:
rgb(11, 0,
128);
background-image:
none;
font-family:
sans-serif;
font-size:
14px;
line-height:
22px;"
class="">scientist</a><span
style="color:
rgb(37, 37,
37);
font-family:
sans-serif;
font-size:
14px;
line-height:
22px;
background-color:
rgb(255, 255,
255);"
class=""> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Diderik_van_der_Waals"
title="Johannes
Diderik van
der Waals"
style="text-decoration:
none; color:
rgb(11, 0,
128);
background-image:
none;
font-family:
sans-serif;
font-size:
14px;
line-height:
22px;"
class="">Johannes
Diderik van
der Waals</a><span
style="color:
rgb(37, 37,
37);
font-family:
sans-serif;
font-size:
14px;
line-height:
22px;
background-color:
rgb(255, 255,
255);"
class="">, is
the sum of the
attractive or
repulsive
forces
between </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecule"
title="Molecule"
style="text-decoration:
none; color:
rgb(11, 0,
128);
background-image:
none;
font-family:
sans-serif;
font-size:
14px;
line-height:
22px;"
class="">molecules</a><span
style="color:
rgb(37, 37,
37);
font-family:
sans-serif;
font-size:
14px;
line-height:
22px;
background-color:
rgb(255, 255,
255);"
class=""> (or
between parts
of the same
molecule)
other than
those due to </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond"
title="Covalent
bond"
style="text-decoration:
none; color:
rgb(11, 0,
128);
background-image:
none;
font-family:
sans-serif;
font-size:
14px;
line-height:
22px;"
class="">covalent
bonds</a><span
style="color:
rgb(37, 37,
37);
font-family:
sans-serif;
font-size:
14px;
line-height:
22px;
background-color:
rgb(255, 255,
255);"
class="">, or
the </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_interaction"
title="Electrostatic
interaction"
class="mw-redirect"
style="text-decoration:
none; color:
rgb(11, 0,
128);
background-image:
none;
font-family:
sans-serif;
font-size:
14px;
line-height:
22px;">electrostatic
interaction</a><span
style="color:
rgb(37, 37,
37);
font-family:
sans-serif;
font-size:
14px;
line-height:
22px;
background-color:
rgb(255, 255,
255);"
class=""> of </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion"
title="Ion"
style="text-decoration:
none; color:
rgb(11, 0,
128);
background-image:
none;
font-family:
sans-serif;
font-size:
14px;
line-height:
22px;"
class="">ions</a><span
style="color:
rgb(37, 37,
37);
font-family:
sans-serif;
font-size:
14px;
line-height:
22px;
background-color:
rgb(255, 255,
255);"
class=""> with
one another,
with neutral
molecules, or
with charged
molecules.</span><sup
id="cite_ref-1" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi:
-webkit-isolate;
font-size:
11px; color:
rgb(37, 37,
37);
font-family:
sans-serif;"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-1"
style="text-decoration:
none; color:
rgb(11, 0,
128);
background-image:
none;
white-space:
nowrap;
background-position:
initial
initial;
background-repeat:
initial
initial;"
class="">[1]</a></sup><span
style="color:
rgb(37, 37,
37);
font-family:
sans-serif;
font-size:
14px;
line-height:
22px;
background-color:
rgb(255, 255,
255);"
class=""> The
resulting van
der Waals
forces can be
attractive or
repulsive.</span><sup
id="cite_ref-Van_OssAbsolom1980_2-0" class="reference"
style="line-height:
1;
unicode-bidi:
-webkit-isolate;
font-size:
11px; color:
rgb(37, 37,
37);
font-family:
sans-serif;"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-Van_OssAbsolom1980-2"
style="text-decoration:
none; color:
rgb(11, 0,
128);
background-image:
none;
white-space:
nowrap;
background-position:
initial
initial;
background-repeat:
initial
initial;"
class="">[2]</a></sup></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, my arrangement of
charges of the strong
force causes as well a
combination of
attractive and
repulsive forces and
is doing the same like
in the van der Waals
case. That was my
reason to refer to
them.<br class="">
<br class="">
Best regards<br
class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<blockquote
cite="mid:E9E2553A-C03E-49E4-BFE7-335F4E41512A@gmail.com"
type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><br
class="">
</div>
<div class="">with
best regards,</div>
<div class="">
Richard</div>
<div class=""><br
class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br
class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote
type="cite"
class="">
<div class="">On
Nov 21, 2015,
at 8:32 AM,
Albrecht Giese
<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a></a>>
wrote:</div>
<br
class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div
text="#000000"
bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class=""> Hello Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
I am a bit
confused how
badly my
attempted
explanations
have reached
you.<br
class="">
<br class="">
I have NOT
used the Bohr
magneton to
determine the
radius R of an
electron. I
deduced the
radius
directly from
the measured
magnetic
moment using
the classical
equation for
the magnetic
moment.<br
class="">
<br class="">
For the
binding force
of the
sub-particles
I needed a
multipole
field which
has a
potential
minimum at a
distance R<sub
class="">0</sub>.
The simplest
shape of such
a field which
I could find
was for the
force F:<br
class="">
F = S * (R<sub
class="">0</sub>
- R) /R<sup
class="">3</sup>.
Here R<sub
class="">0</sub>
is of course
the
equilibrium
distance and S
the field
constant. I
wanted to
refer to an
existing field
of a proper
strength, and
that could
only be the
strong force.
Then I had to
determine the
field constant
S which is
normally
provided by
experiments.
But quantum
mechanics is
so unprecise
regarding the
numeric value
of the strong
force that
there is no
number
available in
the data
tables. Here I
found that I
could use the
Bohr magneton
to determine
the constant.
(Which turned
out to be S =
hbar*c, merely
a constant).<br
class="">
<br class="">
From the
equation for F
given above
the inertial
mass of the
particle
follows from a
deduction
which is given
on my website:
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass">www.ag-physics.org/rmass</a></a>
. Too long to
present it
here, but
straight and
inevitable.
Here the
result again:
m = S / (R * c<sup
class="">2</sup>)
.<br class="">
<br class="">
If you are
unsatisfied by
my deduction
of this field,
what is about
the van der
Waals forces
which bind
atoms to build
a molecule?
Did van der
Waals have had
a better way
of deduction
in that case?
I think that
the fact that
the von der
Waals forces
act so as
observed, is
enough for the
physical
community to
accept them. <br
class="">
<br class="">
And you ask
for an
independent
calculation of
S which I
should present
in your
opinion. Now,
Is there
anyone in
physics or in
astronomy who
can present an
independent
calculation of
the
gravitational
constant G?
No, nobody can
calculate G
from basic
assumptions.
Why asking for
more in my
case? I think
that this
demand is not
realistic and
not common
understanding
in physics.<br
class="">
<br class="">
And again:
where is
circular
reasoning?<br
class="">
<br class="">
Best regards<br
class="">
Albrecht<br
class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
20.11.2015 um
23:02 schrieb
Richard
Gauthier:<br
class="">
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7154B3DD-B1D7-48CA-AA3C-8BAEE7085526@gmail.com"
type="cite"
class="">
<meta
http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8"
class="">
<div class="">Hello
Albrecht,</div>
<div class=""><br
class="">
</div>
<div class="">
Thanks for
your detailed
response. I
think the key
problem is in
your
determination
of your “field
constant” S
which you say
describes the
"binding
field" for
your two
particles.
This
definition of
S is too
general and
empty of
specific
content as I
understand
that it
applies to any
"binding
field” at any
nuclear or
atomic or
molecular
level. With
your
2-particle
electron model
you then
calculate the
radius
R=hbar/mc from
the Bohr
Magneton
e*hbar/2m,
assuming the
values of m,
e, h and c. .
Then you
calculate S
from the Bohr
magneton and
find it to be
S=c*hbar. You
then calculate
m from the
equation
m=S/(R*c^2).
How can a
binding field
S be described
by such a
universal term
hbar * c ?
That’s why I
think that
your
derivation is
circular. You
use the Bohr
magneton
e*hbar/2m to
calculate R
and S, (using
the Bohr
magneton) and
then you use R
and S to
calculate m.
You have no
independent
calculation of
S except from
the Bohr
magneton.
That’s the
problem
resulting in
circularity. </div>
<div class=""><br
class="">
</div>
<div class="">
with best
regards,</div>
<div class="">
Richard</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote
type="cite"
class="">
<div class="">On
Nov 20, 2015,
at 1:09 PM,
Albrecht Giese
<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a></a>>
wrote:</div>
<br
class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div
text="#000000"
bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class=""> Hallo Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
I find it
great that we
have made
similar
calculations
and came at
some points to
similar
conclusions.
That is not a
matter of
course, as you
find in all
textbooks that
it is
impossible to
get these
results in a
classical way,
but that in
the contrary
it needs QM to
come to these
results. <br
class="">
<br class="">
Here now again
the logical
way which I
have gone: I
assume the
circular
motion of the
elementary
electric
charge (2* 1/2
* e<sub
class="">0</sub>)
with speed c.
Then with the
formula
(which you
give here
again) M = i*A
one can
conclude A
from the
measured
magnetic
moment. And so
we know the
radius to be R
= 3.86 x 10<sup
class="">-13</sup>
m for the
electron. No
constants and
no further
theory are
necessary for
this result. I
have then
calculated the
inertial mass
of a particle
which turns
out to be m =
S / (R * c<sup
class="">2</sup>)
where the
parameter S
describes the
binding field.
I did
initially have
no knowledge
about the
quantity of
this field.
But from the
mass formula
there follows
for the
magnetic
moment: M=
(1/2)*(S/c)*(e
/m). To this
point I have
not used any
knowledge
except the
known relation
for the
magnetic
moment. Now I
look to the
Bohr magneton
in order to
find the
quantity of my
field constant
S: M=
(1/2)*hbar*(e
/m). Because
the Planck
constant has
to be measured
in some way.
For doing it
myself I would
need a big
machine. But
why? Basic
constants
never follow
from a theory
but have to be
measured. I
can use such a
measurement,
and that tells
me for my
field constant
S = c*hbar
(from Bohr
magneton). So,
where do you
see circular
reasoning? <br
class="">
<br class="">
Now I have no
theory, why
specific
elementary
particles
exist. Maybe
later I find a
way, not now.
But now I can
use the
(measurable)
magnetic
moment for any
particle to
determine the
radius, and
then I know
the mass from
my formula.
This works for
all charged
leptons and
for all
quarks. Not
good enough?<br
class="">
<br class="">
And yes, the
Landé factor.
Not too
difficult. In
my deduction
of the mass I
have used only
the (initially
unknown)
constant S for
the field.
Which I assume
to be the
strong field
as with the
electric field
the result is
too small (by
a factor of
several
hundred). The
only stronger
alternative to
the electrical
force is the
strong force,
already known.
Is this a
far-fetched
idea? But I
have in this
initial
deduction
ignored that
the two basic
particles have
an electrical
charge of e/2
each, which
cause a
repelling
force which
increases the
radius R a
bit. With this
increase I
correct the
result for
e.g. the
magnetic
moment, and
the correction
is quite
precisely the
Landé factor
(with a
deviation of
ca. 10<sup
class="">-6</sup>).<br
class="">
<br class="">
So, what did I
invent
specially for
my model, and
which
parameters do
I use from
others? I have
assumed the
shape of the
binding field
as this field
has to cause
the bind at a
distance. And
I have used
the
measurement of
the Planck
constant h
which other
colleagues
have
performed.
Nothing else.
I do not have
do derive the
quantity e as
this is not
the task of a
particle
model. If e
could be
derived (what
nobody today
is able to
do), then this
would follow
from a much
deeper insight
into our
physical
basics as
anyone can
have today. <br
class="">
<br class="">
The fact of
two
constituents
is a necessary
precondition
to obey the
conservation
of momentum
and to support
the mechanism
of inertia. I
do not know
any other
mechanism
which works.<br
class="">
<br class="">
Where do I
practice
circular
reasoning?<br
class="">
<br class="">
Best regards<br
class="">
Albrecht<br
class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
18.11.2015 um
15:42 schrieb
Richard
Gauthier:<br
class="">
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:B7ECF22D-1D1C-4DA3-90AC-A65A2CD57FF6@gmail.com"
type="cite"
class="">
<meta
http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8"
class="">
<div class="">Hello
Albrecht,</div>
<div class=""><br
class="">
</div>
<div class="">
Let’s look at
your listed
assumptions of
your electron
model in
relation to
the electron’s
magnetic
moment. It is
known that the
magnitude of
the electron’s
experimental
magnetic
moment is
slightly more
than the Bohr
magneton which
is Mb =
ehbar/2m =
9.274 J/T in
SI units. Your
2-particle
model aims to
generate a
magnetic
moment to
match this
Bohr magneton
value (which
was predicted
for the
electron by
the Dirac
equation)
rather than
the
experimental
value of the
electron’s
magnetic
moment which
is slightly
larger. The
standard
equation for
calculating
the magnetic
moment M of a
plane current
loop is M =
IA for loop
area A and
current I. If
the area A is
a circle and
the current is
a circular
current loop I
around this
area, whose
value I is
calculated
from a total
electric
charge e
moving
circularly at
light speed c
(as in your
2-particle
electron
model) with a
radius R, a
short
calculation
will show that
if the radius
of this circle
is R = hbar/mc
= 3.86 x 10-13
m (the reduced
Compton
wavelength
corresponding
to a circle of
circumference
one Compton
wavelength
h/mc), then
this radius R
for the
current loop
gives a
magnetic
moment M = IA
= Bohr
magneton
ehbar/2m . I
have done this
calculation
many times in
my electron
modeling work
and know that
this is the
case. The
values of h
and also e and
m of the
electron have
to be known
accurately to
calculate the
Bohr magneton
ehbar/2m .
When the
radius of the
circular loop
is R=hbar/mc,
the frequency
f of the
charge e
circling the
loop is easily
found to be
f=c/(2pi R)=
mc^2/h , which
is the
frequency of
light having
the Compton
wavelength
h/mc. </div>
<div class=""><br
class="">
</div>
<div class="">So
the current
loop radius
R=hbar/mc that
is required in
your
2-particle
model to
derive the
Bohr magneton
ehbar/2m using
M=IA obviously
cannot also be
used to derive
either of the
values h or m
since these
values were
used to
calculate the
Bohr magneton
ehbar/2m in
the first
place. So your
model cannot
be used to
derive any of
the values of
e, h or m, and
seems to be an
exercise in
circular
reasoning.
Please let me
know how I may
be mistaken in
this
conclusion.</div>
<div class=""><br
class="">
</div>
<div class="">with
best regards,</div>
<div class="">
Richard</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote
type="cite"
class="">
<div class="">On
Nov 18, 2015,
at 2:03 AM,
Dr. Albrecht
Giese <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a></a>>
wrote:</div>
<br
class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta
content="text/html;
charset=utf-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div
text="#000000"
bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class=""> <small class="">Hi Al,<br class="">
<font class=""
color="#006600"><br class="">
I completely
disagree with
your
conclusions
about the
motivation
towards my
model because
my intention
was not to
develop a
particle
model. My
intention was
to develop a
better
understanding
of time in
relativity. My
present model
was an
unexpected
consequence of
this work. I
show you my
arguments
again and ask
you to
indicate the
point where
you do not
follow.</font><br
class="">
<br class="">
</small>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix"><small
class="">Am
17.11.2015 um
19:18 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</small><br
class="">
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-16c90c3b-1bd5-4b73-a99e-8573ed871e42-1447784310841@3capp-webde-bap52"
type="cite"
class="">
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;"
class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi
Albrect:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Comments²
<strong
class="">IN
BOLD</strong></div>
<div class="">
<div
name="quote"
style="margin:10px
5px 5px 10px;
padding: 10px
0 10px 10px;
border-left:2px
solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap:
break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode:
space;
-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space;" class="">
<div
style="margin:0
0 10px 0;"
class=""><b
class="">Gesendet:</b> Dienstag,
17. November
2015 um 18:41
Uhr<br
class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Dr.
Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br
class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br
class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><br
class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
Reply of
comments from
what a model…</div>
<div
name="quoted-content"
class="">
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class=""><small class="">Hi Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
again some
responses.</small><br
class="">
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix"><small
class="">Am
14.11.2015 um
18:24 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</small></div>
<blockquote
class="">
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;"
class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Answers
to your
questions:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">1)
The SED
background
explains the
Planck BB
distribution
without
quantization.
It explans why
an atom
doesn't
collapse: in
equilibrium
with
background, In
fact, just
about every
effect
described by
2nd
quantization
has an SED
parallel
explantion
without
additional
considerations.
With the
additional
input of the
SED origin of
deBroglie
waves, it
provides a
direct
derivation of
the
Schröedinger
eq. thereby
explainiong
all of 1st
Quantization.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><small
class="">Maybe
you achieve
something when
using SED
background. I
do not really
understand
this
background,
but I do not
see a
stringent
necessity for
it. But SED as
an origin to
the de Broglie
waves is of
interest for
me. I am
presently
working on de
Broglie waves
to find a
solution,
which does not
have the
logical
conflicts
which we have
discussed
here.</small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><strong
class="">See
No. 11 (or 1)
@ <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com/"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com">www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com</a></a>
for
suggetions and
some previous
work along
this line.</strong></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font class=""
color="#006600"><small class=""><strong class="">Thank you, will have a
look.</strong></small></font>
<br class="">
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-16c90c3b-1bd5-4b73-a99e-8573ed871e42-1447784310841@3capp-webde-bap52"
type="cite"
class="">
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;"
class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div
name="quote"
style="margin:10px
5px 5px 10px;
padding: 10px
0 10px 10px;
border-left:2px
solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap:
break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode:
space;
-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space;" class="">
<div
name="quoted-content"
class="">
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">
<blockquote
class="">
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;"
class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">2)
Olber's logic
is in conflict
with Mach's
Principle, so
is obviously
just valid for
visible light.
Given a
little
intergalacitc
plasma (1
H/m³), not to
mention
atmossphere
and
interplanatary
plama, visible
light
disappears to
Earthbound
observers at
visitble freqs
to reappear at
other, perhaps
at 2.7° even,
or at any
other long or
hyper short
wave length.
'The universe
matters'---which
is even
politically
correct
nowadays!</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><small
class="">Olber's
logic is
simple in so
far, as it
shows that the
universe
cannot be
infinite. I
have assumed
the same for
all background
effects. Or
are they
infinite?</small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><small
class=""><strong
class="">The
fly in the
ointment is
absorbtion.
An inf.
universe with
absorbtion in
the visible
part of the
spectrum will
still have a
largely dark
sky. </strong><br
class="">
</small></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font class=""
color="#006600"><small class=""><strong class="">And the other way
around: Even
if there is no
absorption,
the sky will
be dark. And
the general
opinion is
that, even if
there is a lot
of radiation
absorbed, this
absorbing
material will
heat up by the
time and
radiate as
well. So an
absorption
should not
change too
much.</strong></small></font><br
class="">
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-16c90c3b-1bd5-4b73-a99e-8573ed871e42-1447784310841@3capp-webde-bap52"
type="cite"
class="">
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;"
class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div
name="quote"
style="margin:10px
5px 5px 10px;
padding: 10px
0 10px 10px;
border-left:2px
solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap:
break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode:
space;
-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space;" class="">
<div
name="quoted-content"
class="">
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">
<div class=""><small
class=""> <br
class="">
What is the
conflict with
Mach's
principle?</small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><strong
class="">Mach
says: the
gravitational
"background
radiation" is
the cause of
inertia. This
effect is
parallel to
the SED
bacground
causing QM
effects.
Conflict: if
Olber is
right, then
Mach is
probably wrong
(too weak).</strong></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font class=""
color="#006600"><small class=""><strong class="">In my understanding,
what Mach
means is
completely
different.
Mach's
intention was
to find a
reference
system which
is absolute
with respect
to
acceleration.
He assumed
that this is
caused by the
stars in our
vicinity. He
did not have a
certain idea
how this
happens, he
only needed
the fact.
(Einstein
replaced this
necessity by
his
equivalence of
gravity and
acceleration -
which however
is clearly
falsified as
mentioned
several
times.)</strong></small></font>
<br class="">
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-16c90c3b-1bd5-4b73-a99e-8573ed871e42-1447784310841@3capp-webde-bap52"
type="cite"
class="">
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;"
class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div
name="quote"
style="margin:10px
5px 5px 10px;
padding: 10px
0 10px 10px;
border-left:2px
solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap:
break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode:
space;
-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space;" class="">
<div
name="quoted-content"
class="">
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">
<blockquote
class="">
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;"
class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">3)
The (wide
spread)
criticism of 2
particles is
that there is
neither an <em
class="">a-priori</em>
intuative
reason, nor
empirical
evidence that
they exist.
Maybe they do
anyway. But
then, maybe
Zeus does too,
and he is just
arranging
appearances so
that we amuse
ourselves.
(Try to prove
that wrong!) </div>
<div class=""> </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><small
class="">I
have explained
how I came to
the conclusion
of 2
sub-particles.
Again:<br
class="">
<br class="">
1) There is
motion with c
in an
elementary
particle to
explain
dilation<br
class="">
2) With only
on particle
such process
is
mechanically
not possible,
and it
violates the
conservation
of momentum<br
class="">
3) In this way
it is the only
working model
theses days to
explain
inertia. And
this model
explains
inertia with
high
precision.
What more is
needed?</small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><small
class=""><strong
class="">These
assumtions are
"teleological,"
i.e., tuned
to give the
desired
results. As
logic,
although often
done, this
manuver is not
legit in the
formal
presentation
of a theory.
For a physics
theory,
ideally, all
the input
assuptios have
empirical
justification
or motivation.
Your 2nd
partical
(modulo
virtual
images) has no
such
motivatin, in
fact, just the
opposite. </strong><br
class="">
</small></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font class=""
color="#006600"><small class=""><strong class="">My logical way is just
the other way
around. I had
the plan to
work on
relativity
(the aspects
of time), not
on particle
physics. The
particle model
was an
unplanned
spin-off. I
shall try to
explain the
logical path
again: <br
class="">
<br class="">
<u class="">1st
step:</u> I
have
calculated the
4-dimensional
speed of an
object using
the temporal
part of the
Lorentz
transformation.
The surprising
fact was that
this 4-dim.
speed is
always the
speed of
light. I have
then assumed
that this
constant shows
a permanent
motion with c
in a particle.
I have
accepted this
as a probable
solution, but
I have never
assumed this,
before I had
this result.
It was in no
way a desired
result. My
idea was to
describe time
by a vector of
3 of 4
dimensions. -
I have then </strong></small></font><font
class=""
color="#006600"><small
class=""><strong
class="">no
further </strong></small></font><font
class=""
color="#006600"><small
class=""><strong
class="">followed
this idea.<br
class="">
<u class="">2nd
step:</u> If
there is some
motion in the
particle, it
cannot be
caused by one
constituent.
This is
logically not
possible as it
violates the
conservation
of momentum.
Also this was
not a desired
result but
logically
inevitable. <br
class="">
<u class="">3rd
step:</u> If
the
constituents
move with c,
then they
cannot have
any mass. Also
this was not a
result which I
wished to
achieve, but
here I
followed my
understanding
of relativity.<br
class="">
</strong></small></font><strong
class=""><small
class=""><font
class=""
color="#006600"><u
class=""><strong
class="">4th </strong></u><u
class="">step:</u>
The size must
be such that
the resulting
frequency in
the view of c
yields the
magnetic
moment which
is known by
measurements.
<br class="">
<u class="">5th
step:</u> I
had to find a
reason for the
mass of the
electron in
spite of the
fact that the
constituents
do not have
any mass.
After some
thinking I
found out the
fact that any
extended
object has
necessarily
inertia. I
have applied
this insight
to this
particle
model, and the
result was the
actual mass of
the electron,
if I assumed
that the force
is the strong
force. It
could not be
the electric
force (as it
was assumed by
others at
earlier times)
because the
result is too
weak.<br
class="">
<br class="">
None of the
results from
step 1 thru
step 5 was
desired. Every
step was
inevitable,
because our
standard
physical
understanding
(which I did
not change at
any point)
does not allow
for any
alternative. -
<u class="">Or
at which step
could I hav</u><u
class="">e had
an alternative
in your
opinion?<br
class="">
<br class="">
</u>And btw:
which is the
stringent
argument for
only one
constituent?
As I mentioned
before, the
experiment is
not an
argument. I
have discussed
my model with
the former
research
director of
DESY who was
responsible
for this type
of electron
experiments,
and he
admitted that
there is no
conflict with
the assumption
of 2
constituents.</font><u
class=""><br
class="">
</u></small></strong>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-16c90c3b-1bd5-4b73-a99e-8573ed871e42-1447784310841@3capp-webde-bap52"
type="cite"
class="">
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;"
class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div
name="quote"
style="margin:10px
5px 5px 10px;
padding: 10px
0 10px 10px;
border-left:2px
solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap:
break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode:
space;
-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space;" class="">
<div
name="quoted-content"
class="">
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">
<div class=""><small
class=""> <br
class="">
I know from
several
discussions
with particle
physicists
that there is
a lot of
resistance
against this
assumption of
2
constituents.
The reason is
that everyone
learn at
university
like with
mother's milk
that the
electron is
point-like,
extremely
small and does
not have any
internal
structure.
This has the
effect like a
religion.
(Same with the
relativity of
Hendrik
Lorentz.
Everyone
learns with
the same
fundamental
attitude that
Lorentz was
nothing better
than a senile
old man how
was not able
to understand
modern
physics.) -
Not a really
good way, all
this.</small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><small
class=""><strong
class="">Mystical
thinking is
indeed a major
problem even
in Physics!
But, some of
the objectiors
to a 2nd
particle are
not basing
their
objection of
devine
revelation or
political
correctness. </strong></small></div>
<blockquote
class="">
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;"
class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">4)
It is
ascientific to
consider that
the desired
result is
justification
for a
hypothetical
input. OK,
one can say
about such
reasoning, it
is validated <em
class="">a
posteriori</em>,
that at least
makes it sound
substantial.
So much has
been granted
to your
"story" but
has not
granted your
story status
as a "physics
theory." It
has some
appeal, which
in my mind
would be
enhansed had a
rationalization
for the 2nd
particle been
provided.
That's all
I'm trying to
do. When you
or whoever
comes up with
a better one,
I'll drop
pushing the
virtual
particle
engendered by
the
background.
Maybe, it
fixes too many
other things.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><small
class="">My
history was
following
another way
and another
motivation. I
intended to
explain
relativity on
the basis of
physical
facts. This
was my only
intention for
this model.
All further
properties of
the model were
logical
consequences
where I did
not see
alternatives.
I did not want
to explain
inertia. It
just was a
result by
itself.<br
class="">
So, what is
the problem? I
have a model
which explains
several
properties of
elementary
particles very
precisely. It
is in no
conflict with
any
experimental
experience.
And as a new
observation
there is even
some
experimental
evidence. -
What else can
physics expect
from a theory?
- The argument
that the
second
particle is
not visible is
funny. Who has
ever seen a
quark? Who has
ever seen the
internal
structure of
the sun? I
think you have
a demand here
which was
never
fulfilled in
science.</small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><small
class=""><strong
class="">The
problem,
obviously, is
that the
existence of
the 2nd
particle, as
you have
presented it,
is not a fact,
but a
Wunschansatz.
[BTW: "See"
in this
context is not
meant
occularly, but
figuratively
for
experimental
verification
through any
length of
inferance
chain.] So,
my question
is: what
problem do you
have with a
virtual mate
for the
particle? In
fact, it will
be there
whether you
use it or not.</strong><br
class="">
<br class="">
And see again
Frank Wilczek.
</small><small
class=""><span
class=""><span
class="current-selection">He writes: "By co</span></span><span
class="current-selection">mb</span><span
class="current-selection">ining fragmen</span><span
class="current-selection">tatio</span><span
class="current-selection">n with su</span><span
class="current-selection">per</span><span
class=" ws0
ls0
current-selection
">-</span><span
class="current-selection">con</span><span class="current-selection">ductivity</span><span
class="current-selection">, w</span><span class="current-selection">e
can get
half-electro</span><span
class="current-selection">ns tha</span><span class="current-selection">t
</span></small><small
class=""><span
class="current-selection">ar</span><span class="current-selection">e
their o</span><span
class="current-selection">wn an</span><span class=""><span
class="current-selection">tiparticles."
</span></span></small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><small
class=""><span
class=""><span
class="current-selection"><strong class="">A "straw in the wind" but
sure seems far
fetched!
Superconductivity
is already a
manybody
phenomenon,
It's theory
probably
involves some
"virtual"
notions to
capture the
essence of the
average effect
even if the
virtual actors
do not really
exist. </strong></span></span></small></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<small
class=""><strong
class=""><font
class=""
color="#006600">This
was a nice
confirmation
in my
understanding.
So as the
whole article
of Wilczek.
The electron
is in fact
enigmatic if
one follows
main stream.
It looses a
lot of this
property if my
model is used.
- But even
without this
experimental
hint I do not
see any
alternative to
my model
without
severely
violating
known physics.<br
class="">
<br class="">
Ciao<br
class="">
Albrecht</font><br
class="">
<br class="">
</strong></small>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-16c90c3b-1bd5-4b73-a99e-8573ed871e42-1447784310841@3capp-webde-bap52"
type="cite"
class="">
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;"
class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div
name="quote"
style="margin:10px
5px 5px 10px;
padding: 10px
0 10px 10px;
border-left:2px
solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap:
break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode:
space;
-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space;" class="">
<div
name="quoted-content"
class="">
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">
<div class=""><small
class=""><span
class=""><span
class="current-selection"><strong class=""> </strong></span></span></small><br
class="">
<br class="">
<small
class="">Guten
Abend<br
class="">
Albrecht</small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><small
class=""><strong
class="">Gleichfalls,
Al</strong></small></div>
<blockquote
class="">
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;"
class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Have
a good one!
Al</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
10.0px 5.0px
5.0px
10.0px;padding:
10.0px 0
10.0px
10.0px;border-left:
2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);"
class="">
<div
style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;"
class=""><b
class="">Gesendet:</b> Samstag,
14. November
2015 um 14:51
Uhr<br
class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Dr.
Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br
class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br
class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><br
class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
Reply of
comments from
what a model…</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">Hi Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
Why do we need
a background?
If I assume
only local
forces (strong
and electric)
for my model,
the
calculation
conforms to
the
measurement
(e.g. between
mass and
magnetic
moment) with a
precision of 2
: 1'000'000.
This is no
incident. Not
possible, if a
poorly defined
and stable
background has
a measurable
influence. -
And if there
should be such
background and
it has such
little effect,
which mistake
do we make if
we ignore
that?<br
class="">
<br class="">
For the
competition of
the 1/r<sup
class="">2</sup>
law for range
of charges and
the r<sup
class="">2</sup>
law for the
quantity of
charges we
have a popular
example when
we look at the
sky at night.
The sky is
dark and that
shows that the
r<sup class="">2</sup>
case (number
of shining
stars) does in
no way
compensates
for the 1/r<sup
class="">2</sup>
case (light
flow density
from the
stars).<br
class="">
<br class="">
Why is a 2
particle model
necessary?<br
class="">
<br class="">
1.) for the
conservation
of momentum<br
class="">
2.) for a
cause of the
inertial mass<br
class="">
3.) for the
radiation at
acceleration
which occurs
most time, but
does not occur
in specific
situations.
Not explained
elsewhere.<br
class="">
<br class="">
Ciao, Albrecht<br
class="">
<br class="">
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
13.11.2015 um
20:31 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</div>
<blockquote
class="">
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;"
class="">
<div class="">Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Your
proposed
experiment is
hampered by
reality! If
you do the
measurement
with a gaget
bought in a
store that has
knobes and a
display, then
the
measurement is
for certain
for signals
under a couple
hundred GHz
and based on
some phenomena
for which the
sensitivity of
man-made
devices is
limited. And,
if limited to
the electric
field, then
there is a
good chance it
is missing
altogether
oscillating
signals by
virtue of its
limited
reaction time
of reset time,
etc. etc. The
vast majority
of the
background
will be much
higher, the
phenomena most
attuned to
detecting
might be in
fact the
quantum
effects
otherwise
explained with
mystical
hokus-pokus!
Also to be
noted is that,
the processes
invovled in
your model, if
they pertain
to elementray
entities, will
have to be at
very small
size and if at
the velocity
(c) will be
very high
energy, etc.
so that once
again, it is
quite
reasonable to
suppose that
the universe
is anything
but
irrelavant! </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Of
course, there
is then the
issue of the
divergence of
the this SED
background.
Ameliorated
to some extent
with the
realization
that there is
no energy at a
point in empty
space until a
charged entity
is put there,
whereupon the
energy of
interaction
with the rest
of the
universe (not
just by itself
being there
and ignoring
the
universe---as
QM theorists,
and yourself,
are wont to
do) is given
by the sum of
interactions
over all
particles not
by the
integral over
all space,
including
empty space.
Looks at
first blush to
be finite. </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Why
fight it?
Where the
hell else will
you find a
credible 2nd
particle? </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">ciao,
Al</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
10.0px 5.0px
5.0px
10.0px;padding:
10.0px 0
10.0px
10.0px;border-left:
2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);"
class="">
<div
style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;"
class=""><b
class="">Gesendet:</b> Freitag,
13. November
2015 um 12:11
Uhr<br
class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Dr.
Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br
class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br
class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><br
class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
Reply of
comments from
what a model…</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">Hi Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
if we look to
charges you
mention the
law 1/r<sup
class="">2</sup>.
Now we can
perform a
simple
physical
experiment
having an
electrically
charged object
and using it
to measure the
electric field
around us. I
say: it is
very weak. Now
look to the
distance of
the two
half-charges
within the
particle
having a
distance of
4*10<sup
class="">-13</sup>
m. This means
an increase of
force of about
25 orders of
magnitude
compared to
what we do in
a lab. And the
difference is
much greater
if we refer to
charges acting
from the
universe. So I
think we do
not make a big
mistake
assuming that
there is
nothing
outside the
particle.<br
class="">
<br class="">
Regarding my
model, the
logic of
deduction was
very simple
for me:<br
class="">
<br class="">
1.) We have
dilation, so
there must be
a permanent
motion with c<br
class="">
2.) There must
be 2
sub-particles
otherwise the
momentum law
is violated; 3
are not
possible as in
conflict with
experiments.<br
class="">
3.) The
sub-particles
must be
mass-less,
otherwise c is
not possible<br
class="">
4.) The whole
particle has
mass even
though the
sub-particles
are mass-less.
So there must
be a mechanism
to cause
inertia. It
was
immediately
clear for me
that inertia
is a
consequence of
extension.
Another reason
to assume a
particle which
is composed of
parts. (There
is no other
working
mechanism of
inertia known
until today.)<br
class="">
5.) I had to
find the
binding field
for the
sub-particles.
I have taken
the simplest
one which I
could find
which has a
potential
minimum at
some distance.
And my first
attempt
worked.<br
class="">
<br class="">
That is all,
and I do not
see any
possibility to
change one of
the points 1.)
thru 5.)
without
getting in
conflict with
fundamental
physical
rules. And I
do not invent
new facts or
rules beyond
those already
known in
physics.<br
class="">
<br class="">
So, where do
you see any
kind of
arbitrariness
or missing
justification?<br
class="">
<br class="">
Tschüß!<br
class="">
Albrecht<br
class="">
<br class="">
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
12.11.2015 um
17:51 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</div>
<blockquote
class="">
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;"
class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi
Albrect:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">We
are making
some progress.
</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">To
your remark
that Swinger
& Feynman
introduced
virtual
charges, I
note that they
used the same
term: "virtual
charge/particle,"
in spite of
the much older
meaning in
accord with
the charge and
mirror
example. In
the finest of
quantum
traditions,
they too
ignored the
rest of the
universe and
instead tried
to vest its
effect in the
"vacuum."
This idea was
suitably
mystical to
allow them to
introduce the
associated
plaver into
the folk lore
of QM, given
the sociology
of the day.
Even in spite
of this BS,
the idea still
has merit.
Your objection
on the basis
of the 1/r²
fall-off is
true but not
conclusive.
This fall-off
is matched by
a r² increase
in muber of
charges, so
the integrated
total
interaction
can be
expected to
have at least
some effect,
no matter
what. Think
of the
universe to
1st order as a
neutral,
low-density
plasma. <span
class="">I
(and some
others) hold
that this
interaction is
responcible
for all
quantum
effects. In
any case, no
particle is a
universe unto
itself, the
rest have the
poulation and
time to take a
toll! </span></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><span
class="">BTW,
this is
history
repeating
itself. Once
upon a time
there was
theory of
Brownian
motion that
posited an
internal cause
known as "elan
vital" to dust
specks
observed
hopping about
like Mexican
jumping beans.
Ultimately
this nonsense
was displaced
by the
observation
that the dust
spots were not
alone in their
immediate
universe but
imbededded in
a slurry of
other
particles,
also in
motion, to
which they
were reacting.
Nowadays
atoms are
analysed in QM
text books as
if they were
the only
object in the
universe---all
others being
too far away
(so it is
argued,
anyway). </span></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><span
class="">Your
model, as it
stands, can be
free of
contradiction
and still
unstatisfying
because the
inputs seem to
be just what
is needed to
make the
conclusions
you aim to
make. Fine,
but what most
critics will
expect is that
these inputs
have to have
some kind of
justification
or motivation.
This is what
the second
particle
lacks. Where
is it when one
really looks
for it? It
has no
empirical
motivation.
Thus, this
theory then
has about the
same ultimate
structure, and
pursuasiveness,
as saying:
'don't worry
about it, God
did it; go
home, open a
beer, pop your
feet up, and
forget about
it---a theory
which explains
absolutely
everything!</span></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><span
class="">Tschuß,
Al</span></div>
<div class="">
<div
style="margin:
10.0px 5.0px
5.0px
10.0px;padding:
10.0px 0
10.0px
10.0px;border-left:
2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);"
class="">
<div
style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;"
class=""><b
class="">Gesendet:</b> Donnerstag,
12. November
2015 um 16:18
Uhr<br
class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Dr.
Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br
class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br
class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><br
class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
Reply of
comments from
what a model…</div>
<div class="">
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class=""><font class="" size="-1">Hi Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
I have gotten
a different
understanding
of what a
virtual
particle or a
virtual charge
is. This
phenomenon was
invented by
Julian
Schwinger and
Richard
Feynman. They
thought to
need it in
order to
explain
certain
reactions in
particle
physics. In
the case of
Schwinger it
was the Landé
factor, where
I have shown
that this
assumption is
not necessary.<br
class="">
<br class="">
If there is a
charge then of
course this
charge is
subject to
interactions
with all other
charges in the
universe. That
is correct.
But because of
the normal
distribution
of these other
charges in the
universe,
which cause a
good
compensation
of the
effects, and
because of the
distance law
we can think
about models
without
reference to
those. And
also there is
the problem
with virtual
particles and
vacuum
polarization
(which is
equivalent),
in that we
have this huge
problem that
the integrated
energy of it
over the
universe is by
a factor of
10^120 higher
than the
energy
measured. I
think this is
a really big
argument
against
virtual
effects.<br
class="">
<br class="">
Your example
of the virtual
image of a
charge in a
conducting
surface is a
different
case. It is,
as you write,
the
rearrangement
of charges in
the conducting
surface. So
the partner of
the charge is
physically the
mirror, not
the picture
behind it. But
which mirror
can cause the
second
particle in a
model if the
second
particle is
not assumed to
be real?<br
class="">
<br class="">
And what in
general is the
problem with a
two particle
model? It
fulfils the
momentum law.
And it does
not cause
further
conflicts. It
also explains
why an
accelerated
electron
sometimes
radiates,
sometimes not.
For an
experimental
evidence I
refer again to
the article of
Frank Wilczek
in "Nature"
which was
mentioned here
earlier:<br
class="">
<br class="">
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com">http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com</a></a>:
</font><br
class="">
<div class="
y37 m88 x28 h2
ls3 fc0 ff1 t
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</font></div>
<blockquote
class="">
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;"
class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Virtual
particles are
proxys for an
ensemble of
real
particles.
There is
nothing
folly-lolly
about them!
They simply
summarize the
total effect
of particles
that cannot be
ignored. To
ignore the
remainder of
the universe
becasue it is
inconvenient
for theory
formulation is
for certain
leading to
error. "No
man is an
island," and
no single
particle is a
universe!
Thus, it can
be argued
that, to
reject the
concept of
virtual
particles is
to reject a
facit of
reality that
must be
essential for
an explantion
of the
material
world.</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">For
example, if a
positive
charge is
placed near a
conducting
surface, the
charges in
that surface
will respond
to the
positive
charge by
rearranging
themselves so
as to give a
total field on
the surface of
zero strength
as if there
were a
negative
charge
(virtual)
behind the
mirror.
Without the
real charges
on the mirror
surface, the
concept of
"virtual"
negative
charge would
not be
necessary or
even useful. </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">The
concept of
virtual charge
as the second
particle in
your model
seems to me to
be not just a
wild
supposition,
but an
absolute
necessity.
Every charge
is, without
choice, in
constant
interaction
with every
other charge
in the
universe, has
been so since
the big bang
(if such were)
and will
remain so till
the big crunch
(if such is to
be)! The
universe
cannot be
ignored. If
you reject
including the
universe by
means of
virtual
charges, them
you have a lot
more work to
do to make
your theory
reasonable
some how else.
In particular
in view of the
fact that the
second
particles in
your model
have never
ever been seen
or even
suspected in
the various
experiments
resulting in
the
disasssmbly of
whatever
targert was
used. </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">MfG,
Al</div>
<div class=""> </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<br class="">
<hr
style="border:
none;color:
rgb(144,144,144);background-color:
rgb(176,176,176);height:
1.0px;width:
99.0%;"
class="">
<table
style="border-collapse:
collapse;border:
none;"
class="">
<tbody
class="">
<tr class="">
<td
style="border:
none;padding:
0.0px 15.0px
0.0px 8.0px;"
class=""><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank" class=""><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
alt="Avast
logo"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
class=""
border="0"> </a></td>
<td class="">
<p
style="color:
rgb(61,77,90);font-family:
Calibri ,
Verdana ,
Arial ,
Helvetica;font-size:
12.0pt;"
class="">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft.<br
class="">
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<hr
style="border:none;
color:#909090;
background-color:#B0B0B0;
height: 1px;
width: 99%;"
class="">
<table
style="border-collapse:collapse;border:none;"
class="">
<tbody
class="">
<tr class="">
<td
style="border:none;padding:0px
15px 0px 8px"
class=""> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="">
<img
moz-do-not-send="true"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast
logo" class=""
border="0"> </a>
</td>
<td class="">
<p
style="color:#3d4d5a;
font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica";
font-size:12pt;" class=""> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft. <br
class="">
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br class="">
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">
If you no
longer wish to
receive
communication
from the
Nature of
Light and
Particles
General
Discussion
List at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a></a><br
class="">
<a href="<a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a></a>"><br
class="">
Click here to
unsubscribe<br
class="">
</a><br
class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<hr
style="border:none;
color:#909090;
background-color:#B0B0B0;
height: 1px;
width: 99%;"
class="">
<table
style="border-collapse:collapse;border:none;"
class="">
<tbody
class="">
<tr class="">
<td
style="border:none;padding:0px
15px 0px 8px"
class=""> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="">
<img
moz-do-not-send="true"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast
logo" class=""
border="0"> </a>
</td>
<td class="">
<p
style="color:#3d4d5a;
font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica";
font-size:12pt;" class=""> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft. <br
class="">
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<hr
style="border:none;
color:#909090;
background-color:#B0B0B0;
height: 1px;
width: 99%;"
class="">
<table
style="border-collapse:collapse;border:none;"
class="">
<tbody
class="">
<tr class="">
<td
style="border:none;padding:0px
15px 0px 8px"
class=""> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="">
<img
moz-do-not-send="true"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast
logo" class=""
border="0"> </a>
</td>
<td class="">
<p
style="color:#3d4d5a;
font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica";
font-size:12pt;" class=""> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft. <br
class="">
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br class="">
</div>
</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="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>