<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Dear Chip,<br>
<br>
thanks for your comment. But what is momentum, how defined?
Definition is p = m * v , with m = inertial mass. And if you meet an
object which has momentum, you have to apply a force to stop it. A
force against which other force? Which mechanism causes the other
force? That is my question. (And I do have an answer.)<br>
<br>
The photon has momentum, true! But it also has mass. That is at
least the general understanding in today's physics. The photon does
not have any rest-mass. But it is never at rest. If it would be at
rest once, it would not have a mass and as well it would not have
momentum.<br>
<br>
My sub-particles do not have mass nor momentum on their own. But the
configuration of both has mass as well as momentum caused by the
same fundamental fact: The finiteness of the propagation speed of
the binding force. That is the natural cause of inertia and so as
well of momentum. <br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 08.12.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Chip
Akins:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:064f01d13205$9c0518a0$d40f49e0$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
h2
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 2 Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:18.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.Heading2Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 2 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 2";
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
color:#2E74B5;}
span.hvr
{mso-style-name:hvr;}
span.current-selection
{mso-style-name:current-selection;}
span.ls0
{mso-style-name:ls0;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Below you wrote…<span style="color:#003300">
“If you derive inertia from an occurrence of momentum, then
this is circular reasoning. As momentum without inertial is
not possible.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#003300"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">I am afraid
that a many would disagree with you on this point. In fact
there is significant evidence which indicates that momentum
is the more fundamental of these two (momentum and
inertia). Momentum exists in light, but to argue that light
has inertia is pure speculation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">So I think
you have chosen to overlook some parts of physical evidence
and chosen to use others which suit your motivations. A
“massless” photon has momentum but not inertia. Don’t your
two fictitious “massless” particles have momentum but not
inertia?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Chip</span><span
style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, December 08, 2015 2:26 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Richard Gauthier
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a>; Albrecht Giese
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"><phys@a-giese.de></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from
what a model…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Hello Richard,<br>
<br>
<span style="color:#003300">I fell a little bit like
Sisyphos. No progress. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 07.12.2015 um 06:20 schrieb Richard
Gauthier:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello Albrecht,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> 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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="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.</span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The unexplained results at DESY do not
provide support for any hypothesis, including yours.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#003300">They have to be
explained. I have an explanation which you may not like.
Your alternative??</span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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).<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#003300">NO! NO! NO! I
have explained it several times now. Inertia is caused by
the fact that <b>any extended object has 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>
</span><br>
<span style="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>
</span><br>
<span style="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?</span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#003300">If you derive
inertia from an occurrence of momentum, then this is
circular reasoning. As momentum without inertial is not
possible.</span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#003300">No reason for a
change as anything works with very good precision. And from
the scratch. <br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> 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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="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>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> 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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="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</span><br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> With best regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Richard<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Dec 6, 2015, at 7:28 AM,
Albrecht Giese <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div name="quote">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Richard,<br>
<br>
what do you expect from science? Do your claims
describe the way as science works?<br>
<br>
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>
<br>
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>
<br>
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>
<br>
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>If this is the only choice, then it
is the answer (at least temporary). That is the
rule in physics. </i><br>
<br>
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>
<br>
Regarding the excess of certain events in the DESY
experiment: Do you have a solution? Or a better
solution? Perhaps then <i>you </i>can win an
award ...<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
Am 05.12.2015 um 19:10 schrieb Richard Gauthier:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Albrecht,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> You wrote<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> 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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">you then write <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> 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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Richard<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Dec 5, 2015, at 7:36
AM, Albrecht Giese <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a></a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello Richard,<br>
<br>
my answers in the text:<br>
<br>
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:00:23 -0800
schrieb Richard Gauthier :<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello Albrecht,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> 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.)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<br>
But what was the evidence of the strong
force when it came up? See below.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> 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.” <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<br>
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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> with best
wishes,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Richard<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best wishes back<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Nov 26,
2015, at 8:53 AM, Albrecht Giese
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Hallo
Richard,<br>
<br>
thank you for your alternative
proposal. Unfortunately there
are some points of
misunderstanding with respect
to my model. And also some
other physical arguments I
like to point to - in your
text.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am
23.11.2015 um 19:43 schrieb
Richard Gauthier:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello
Albrecht, <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">
I’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.
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">
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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">One
kind of particle that
has no rest mass but has
energy and travels at
light speed is a photon.
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">This
assumption is not true as
explained above. <br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">(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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Not true!<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">
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 . <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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). <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Why does
the double loop reduce the
spin? Why the Bohr magneton?
The magnetic moment depends on
the area in the loop. How
large is this area in this
case?<br>
<br>
The magnetic moment is larger
than the Bohr magneton. In my
model this is the contribution
of the (small) electrical
charges in view of the (large)
strong charges.<br>
<br>
And which mechanism causes the
double loop? It cannot come
from itself. A circuit is a
simple structure which does
not need many influences. A
double loop is more and needs
a cause.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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).<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">
What do you think of
this new model so far?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Did I
explain it sufficiently?<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">
Richard<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Albrecht<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On
Nov 22, 2015, at
9:43 AM, Albrecht
Giese <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Hello Richard,<br>
<br>
I never have
persistently
tried to develop
a 2-particle
model. What I
have
persistently
tried was to
find a good
explanation for
relativistic
dilation. And
there I found a
solution which
has satisfied
me. All the rest
including the 2
particles in my
model where
logical
consequences
where I did not
see
alternatives. If
there should be
a model which is
an alternative
in one or the
other aspect, I
will be happy to
see it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Am
22.11.2015 um
00:13 schrieb
Richard
Gauthier:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal">Hello
Albrecht, <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">
I admire your
persistence in
trying to save
your doomed
(in my
opinion)
2-particle
electron
model. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Why
2 particles in
the model? I say
it again:<br>
<br>
1) to maintain
the conservation
of momentum in
the view of
oscillations<br>
2) to have a
mechanism for
inertia (which
has very precise
results,
otherwise
non-existent in
present physics)<br>
<br>
I will be happy
to see
alternatives for
both points. Up
to now I have
not seen any.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Do
you understand
how
unreasonable
and irrational
it appears for
you to write:
"Then I had
to determine
the field
constant S
which is
normally
provided by
experiments.
But quantum
mechanics is
so unprecise
regarding the
numeric value
of the strong
force that
there is no
number
available in
the data
tables. Here I
found that I
could use the
Bohr magneton
to determine
the constant.
(Which turned
out to be S =
hbar*c, merely
a constant).”
? <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p
class="MsoNormal">I
have once asked
one of the
leading
theorists at
DESY for a
better
quantitative
explanation or
determination of
the strong
force. His
answer: Sorry,
the strong force
is not good
enough
understood so
that I cannot
give you better
information. <br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">How
could the
number S that
you could not
find in
“unprecise”
tables about
the strong
force possibly
be the same
number that
can be found
precisely from
the electron’s
Bohr magneton
ehbar/2m and
which you
claim is S =
hbar*c ? This
is an
unbelievable,
desperate
stretch of
imagination
and "grasping
at straws", in
my opinion. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p
class="MsoNormal">When
I have realized
that my model
deduces the Bohr
magneton, I have
used the
measurements
available in
that context to
determine my
field constant.
(I could also go
the other way: I
can use the
Planck /
Einstein
relation E = h *
f and the
Einstein-relation
E = m*c<sup>2</sup>
to determine the
constant S from
the internal
frequency in my
model. Same
result. But I
like the other
way better. BTW:
Do you know any
other model
which deduces
these relations
rather than
using them as
given?)<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Here
is the meaning
of “grasping
at straws”
from <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasp+at+straws"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasp+at+straws">http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasp+at+straws</a></a> :<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<h2
style="box-sizing:
inherit;font-size:1.8rem;line-height:1.8rem;display:inline-block;margin:0.2rem
6px
0px;color:rgb(64,
64, 64)"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">grasp at straws<o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
class="hvr"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Also,</span></span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> <span
class="hvr"><b>clutch</b></span><b> at <span
class="hvr">straws</span></b>. <span
class="hvr">Make</span> a <span
class="hvr">desperate</span> <span
class="hvr">attempt</span> at <span
class="hvr">saving</span> <span
class="hvr">oneself.</span> <span
class="hvr">For</span> <span
class="hvr">example,</span> <i>He <span
class="hvr">had lost</span> <span
class="hvr">the</span> <span
class="hvr">argument,</span> <span
class="hvr">but</span> he <span
class="hvr">kept</span> <span
class="hvr">grasping</span> at <span
class="hvr">straws,</span> <span
class="hvr">naming</span> <span
class="hvr">numerous</span> <span
class="hvr">previous</span> <span
class="hvr">cases</span> <span
class="hvr">that had</span> <span
class="hvr">little</span> to do <span
class="hvr">with</span> <span
class="hvr">this</span> <span
class="hvr">one</span></i>. <span
class="hvr">This</span> <span
class="hvr">metaphoric</span> <span
class="hvr">expression</span> <span
class="hvr">alludes</span> to a <span
class="hvr">drowning</span> <span
class="hvr">person trying</span> to <span
class="hvr">save</span> <span
class="hvr">himself</span> by <span
class="hvr">grabbing</span> at <span
class="hvr">flimsy</span> <span
class="hvr">reeds.</span> <span
class="hvr">First</span> <span
class="hvr">recorded</span> in <span
class="hvr">1534,</span> <span
class="hvr">the</span> <span
class="hvr">term</span> <span
class="hvr">was used</span> <span
class="hvr">figuratively</span> by <span
class="hvr">the</span> <span
class="hvr">late</span> <span
class="hvr">1600s.</span></span> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">I
am not at all
opposed to
using
desperate
measures to
find or save a
hypothesis
that is very
important to
you. Max
Planck
described his
efforts to fit
the black body
radiation
equation using
quantized
energies of
hypothetical
oscillators as
an "act of
desperation”.
So you are of
course free to
keep
desperately
trying to save
your
2-particle
electron
hypothesis. I
personally
think that
your many
talents in
physics could
be better
spent in other
ways, for
example in
revising your
electron model
to make it
more
consistent
with
experimental
facts.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Do
you know any
other electron
model which is
so much
consistent with
experimental
facts (e.g. size
and mass) as
this one
(without needing
the usual
mystifications
of quantum
mechanics)?<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">
By the way,
van der Waals
forces do not
"bind atoms to
form a
molecule".
They are
attractive or
repulsive
forces between
molecules or
between parts
of a molecule.
According to
Wikipedia:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">" <span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">the <b>van
der Waals
forces</b> (or <b>van
der Waals'
interaction</b>),
named after </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands"
title="Netherlands"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;text-decoration:none">Dutch</span></a><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist"
title="Scientist"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;text-decoration:none">scientist</span></a><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Diderik_van_der_Waals"
title="Johannes
Diderik van
der Waals"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;text-decoration:none">Johannes
Diderik van
der Waals</span></a><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">, is
the sum of the
attractive or
repulsive
forces
between </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecule"
title="Molecule"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;text-decoration:none">molecules</span></a><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> (or
between parts
of the same
molecule)
other than
those due to </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond"
title="Covalent
bond"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;text-decoration:none">covalent
bonds</span></a><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">, or
the </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_interaction"
title="Electrostatic
interaction"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;text-decoration:none">electrostatic
interaction</span></a><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> of </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion"
title="Ion"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;text-decoration:none">ions</span></a><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> with
one another,
with neutral
molecules, or
with charged
molecules.</span><sup
id="cite_ref-1"><span
style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-1"><span
style="text-decoration:none">[1]</span></a></span></sup><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> The
resulting van
der Waals
forces can be
attractive or
repulsive.</span><sup
id="cite_ref-Van_OssAbsolom1980_2-0"><span
style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-Van_OssAbsolom1980-2"><span
style="text-decoration:none">[2]</span></a></span></sup><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Yes,
my arrangement
of charges of
the strong force
causes as well a
combination of
attractive and
repulsive forces
and is doing the
same like in the
van der Waals
case. That was
my reason to
refer to them.<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">with
best regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">
Richard<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">On
Nov 21, 2015,
at 8:32 AM,
Albrecht Giese
<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Hello Richard,<br>
<br>
I am a bit
confused how
badly my
attempted
explanations
have reached
you.<br>
<br>
I have NOT
used the Bohr
magneton to
determine the
radius R of an
electron. I
deduced the
radius
directly from
the measured
magnetic
moment using
the classical
equation for
the magnetic
moment.<br>
<br>
For the
binding force
of the
sub-particles
I needed a
multipole
field which
has a
potential
minimum at a
distance R<sub>0</sub>.
The simplest
shape of such
a field which
I could find
was for the
force F:<br>
F = S * (R<sub>0</sub>
- R) /R<sup>3</sup>.
Here R<sub>0</sub>
is of course
the
equilibrium
distance and S
the field
constant. I
wanted to
refer to an
existing field
of a proper
strength, and
that could
only be the
strong force.
Then I had to
determine the
field constant
S which is
normally
provided by
experiments.
But quantum
mechanics is
so unprecise
regarding the
numeric value
of the strong
force that
there is no
number
available in
the data
tables. Here I
found that I
could use the
Bohr magneton
to determine
the constant.
(Which turned
out to be S =
hbar*c, merely
a constant).<br>
<br>
From the
equation for F
given above
the inertial
mass of the
particle
follows from a
deduction
which is given
on my website:
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass"><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>2</sup>)
.<br>
<br>
If you are
unsatisfied by
my deduction
of this field,
what is about
the van der
Waals forces
which bind
atoms to build
a molecule?
Did van der
Waals have had
a better way
of deduction
in that case?
I think that
the fact that
the von der
Waals forces
act so as
observed, is
enough for the
physical
community to
accept them. <br>
<br>
And you ask
for an
independent
calculation of
S which I
should present
in your
opinion. Now,
Is there
anyone in
physics or in
astronomy who
can present an
independent
calculation of
the
gravitational
constant G?
No, nobody can
calculate G
from basic
assumptions.
Why asking for
more in my
case? I think
that this
demand is not
realistic and
not common
understanding
in physics.<br>
<br>
And again:
where is
circular
reasoning?<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Am
20.11.2015 um
23:02 schrieb
Richard
Gauthier:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Hello
Albrecht,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">
Thanks for
your detailed
response. I
think the key
problem is in
your
determination
of your “field
constant” S
which you say
describes the
"binding
field" for
your two
particles.
This
definition of
S is too
general and
empty of
specific
content as I
understand
that it
applies to any
"binding
field” at any
nuclear or
atomic or
molecular
level. With
your
2-particle
electron model
you then
calculate the
radius
R=hbar/mc from
the Bohr
Magneton
e*hbar/2m,
assuming the
values of m,
e, h and c. .
Then you
calculate S
from the Bohr
magneton and
find it to be
S=c*hbar. You
then calculate
m from the
equation
m=S/(R*c^2).
How can a
binding field
S be described
by such a
universal term
hbar * c ?
That’s why I
think that
your
derivation is
circular. You
use the Bohr
magneton
e*hbar/2m to
calculate R
and S, (using
the Bohr
magneton) and
then you use R
and S to
calculate m.
You have no
independent
calculation of
S except from
the Bohr
magneton.
That’s the
problem
resulting in
circularity. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">
with best
regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">
Richard<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">On
Nov 20, 2015,
at 1:09 PM,
Albrecht Giese
<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Hallo Richard,<br>
<br>
I find it
great that we
have made
similar
calculations
and came at
some points to
similar
conclusions.
That is not a
matter of
course, as you
find in all
textbooks that
it is
impossible to
get these
results in a
classical way,
but that in
the contrary
it needs QM to
come to these
results. <br>
<br>
Here now again
the logical
way which I
have gone: I
assume the
circular
motion of the
elementary
electric
charge (2* 1/2
* e<sub>0</sub>)
with speed c.
Then with the
formula
(which you
give here
again) M = i*A
one can
conclude A
from the
measured
magnetic
moment. And so
we know the
radius to be R
= 3.86 x 10<sup>-13</sup>
m for the
electron. No
constants and
no further
theory are
necessary for
this result. I
have then
calculated the
inertial mass
of a particle
which turns
out to be m =
S / (R * c<sup>2</sup>)
where the
parameter S
describes the
binding field.
I did
initially have
no knowledge
about the
quantity of
this field.
But from the
mass formula
there follows
for the
magnetic
moment: M=
(1/2)*(S/c)*(e
/m). To this
point I have
not used any
knowledge
except the
known relation
for the
magnetic
moment. Now I
look to the
Bohr magneton
in order to
find the
quantity of my
field constant
S: M=
(1/2)*hbar*(e
/m). Because
the Planck
constant has
to be measured
in some way.
For doing it
myself I would
need a big
machine. But
why? Basic
constants
never follow
from a theory
but have to be
measured. I
can use such a
measurement,
and that tells
me for my
field constant
S = c*hbar
(from Bohr
magneton). So,
where do you
see circular
reasoning? <br>
<br>
Now I have no
theory, why
specific
elementary
particles
exist. Maybe
later I find a
way, not now.
But now I can
use the
(measurable)
magnetic
moment for any
particle to
determine the
radius, and
then I know
the mass from
my formula.
This works for
all charged
leptons and
for all
quarks. Not
good enough?<br>
<br>
And yes, the
Landé factor.
Not too
difficult. In
my deduction
of the mass I
have used only
the (initially
unknown)
constant S for
the field.
Which I assume
to be the
strong field
as with the
electric field
the result is
too small (by
a factor of
several
hundred). The
only stronger
alternative to
the electrical
force is the
strong force,
already known.
Is this a
far-fetched
idea? But I
have in this
initial
deduction
ignored that
the two basic
particles have
an electrical
charge of e/2
each, which
cause a
repelling
force which
increases the
radius R a
bit. With this
increase I
correct the
result for
e.g. the
magnetic
moment, and
the correction
is quite
precisely the
Landé factor
(with a
deviation of
ca. 10<sup>-6</sup>).<br>
<br>
So, what did I
invent
specially for
my model, and
which
parameters do
I use from
others? I have
assumed the
shape of the
binding field
as this field
has to cause
the bind at a
distance. And
I have used
the
measurement of
the Planck
constant h
which other
colleagues
have
performed.
Nothing else.
I do not have
do derive the
quantity e as
this is not
the task of a
particle
model. If e
could be
derived (what
nobody today
is able to
do), then this
would follow
from a much
deeper insight
into our
physical
basics as
anyone can
have today. <br>
<br>
The fact of
two
constituents
is a necessary
precondition
to obey the
conservation
of momentum
and to support
the mechanism
of inertia. I
do not know
any other
mechanism
which works.<br>
<br>
Where do I
practice
circular
reasoning?<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Am
18.11.2015 um
15:42 schrieb
Richard
Gauthier:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Hello
Albrecht,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">
Let’s look at
your listed
assumptions of
your electron
model in
relation to
the electron’s
magnetic
moment. It is
known that the
magnitude of
the electron’s
experimental
magnetic
moment is
slightly more
than the Bohr
magneton which
is Mb =
ehbar/2m =
9.274 J/T in
SI units. Your
2-particle
model aims to
generate a
magnetic
moment to
match this
Bohr magneton
value (which
was predicted
for the
electron by
the Dirac
equation)
rather than
the
experimental
value of the
electron’s
magnetic
moment which
is slightly
larger. The
standard
equation for
calculating
the magnetic
moment M of a
plane current
loop is M =
IA for loop
area A and
current I. If
the area A is
a circle and
the current is
a circular
current loop I
around this
area, whose
value I is
calculated
from a total
electric
charge e
moving
circularly at
light speed c
(as in your
2-particle
electron
model) with a
radius R, a
short
calculation
will show that
if the radius
of this circle
is R = hbar/mc
= 3.86 x 10-13
m (the reduced
Compton
wavelength
corresponding
to a circle of
circumference
one Compton
wavelength
h/mc), then
this radius R
for the
current loop
gives a
magnetic
moment M = IA
= Bohr
magneton
ehbar/2m . I
have done this
calculation
many times in
my electron
modeling work
and know that
this is the
case. The
values of h
and also e and
m of the
electron have
to be known
accurately to
calculate the
Bohr magneton
ehbar/2m .
When the
radius of the
circular loop
is R=hbar/mc,
the frequency
f of the
charge e
circling the
loop is easily
found to be
f=c/(2pi R)=
mc^2/h , which
is the
frequency of
light having
the Compton
wavelength
h/mc. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">So
the current
loop radius
R=hbar/mc that
is required in
your
2-particle
model to
derive the
Bohr magneton
ehbar/2m using
M=IA obviously
cannot also be
used to derive
either of the
values h or m
since these
values were
used to
calculate the
Bohr magneton
ehbar/2m in
the first
place. So your
model cannot
be used to
derive any of
the values of
e, h or m, and
seems to be an
exercise in
circular
reasoning.
Please let me
know how I may
be mistaken in
this
conclusion.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">with
best regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">
Richard<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">On
Nov 18, 2015,
at 2:03 AM,
Dr. Albrecht
Giese <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Hi Al,<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#006600"><br>
I completely
disagree with
your
conclusions
about the
motivation
towards my
model because
my intention
was not to
develop a
particle
model. My
intention was
to develop a
better
understanding
of time in
relativity. My
present model
was an
unexpected
consequence of
this work. I
show you my
arguments
again and ask
you to
indicate the
point where
you do not
follow.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt">Am 17.11.2015 um 19:18 schrieb <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Hi
Albrect:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Comments²
<strong><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">IN BOLD</span></strong><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div
style="border:none;border-left:solid
#C3D9E5
1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in
8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt;word-wrap:
break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode:
space;-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space" name="quote">
<div
style="margin-bottom:7.5pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Gesendet:</span></b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> Dienstag,
17. November
2015 um 18:41
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr.
Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
Reply of
comments from
what a model…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div
name="quoted-content">
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Hi
Al,<br>
<br>
again some
responses.</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Am
14.11.2015 um
18:24 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Hi
Albrecht:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Answers
to your
questions:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">1)
The SED
background
explains the
Planck BB
distribution
without
quantization.
It explans why
an atom
doesn't
collapse: in
equilibrium
with
background, In
fact, just
about every
effect
described by
2nd
quantization
has an SED
parallel
explantion
without
additional
considerations.
With the
additional
input of the
SED origin of
deBroglie
waves, it
provides a
direct
derivation of
the
Schröedinger
eq. thereby
explainiong
all of 1st
Quantization.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Maybe
you achieve
something when
using SED
background. I
do not really
understand
this
background,
but I do not
see a
stringent
necessity for
it. But SED as
an origin to
the de Broglie
waves is of
interest for
me. I am
presently
working on de
Broglie waves
to find a
solution,
which does not
have the
logical
conflicts
which we have
discussed
here.</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><strong><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">See
No. 11 (or 1)
@ <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com">www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com</a></a>
for
suggetions and
some previous
work along
this line.</span></strong><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><strong><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#006600">Thank you, will have a look.</span></strong>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-left:solid
#C3D9E5
1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in
8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt;word-wrap:
break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode:
space;-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space" name="quote">
<div
name="quoted-content">
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">2)
Olber's logic
is in conflict
with Mach's
Principle, so
is obviously
just valid for
visible light.
Given a
little
intergalacitc
plasma (1
H/m³), not to
mention
atmossphere
and
interplanatary
plama, visible
light
disappears to
Earthbound
observers at
visitble freqs
to reappear at
other, perhaps
at 2.7° even,
or at any
other long or
hyper short
wave length.
'The universe
matters'---which
is even
politically
correct
nowadays!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Olber's
logic is
simple in so
far, as it
shows that the
universe
cannot be
infinite. I
have assumed
the same for
all background
effects. Or
are they
infinite?</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><strong><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">The
fly in the
ointment is
absorbtion.
An inf.
universe with
absorbtion in
the visible
part of the
spectrum will
still have a
largely dark
sky. </span></strong><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><strong><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#006600">And the other way around: Even if
there is no
absorption,
the sky will
be dark. And
the general
opinion is
that, even if
there is a lot
of radiation
absorbed, this
absorbing
material will
heat up by the
time and
radiate as
well. So an
absorption
should not
change too
much.</span></strong><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-left:solid
#C3D9E5
1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in
8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
What is the
conflict with
Mach's
principle?</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><strong><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Mach
says: the
gravitational
"background
radiation" is
the cause of
inertia. This
effect is
parallel to
the SED
bacground
causing QM
effects.
Conflict: if
Olber is
right, then
Mach is
probably wrong
(too weak).</span></strong><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><strong><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#006600">In my understanding, what Mach
means is
completely
different.
Mach's
intention was
to find a
reference
system which
is absolute
with respect
to
acceleration.
He assumed
that this is
caused by the
stars in our
vicinity. He
did not have a
certain idea
how this
happens, he
only needed
the fact.
(Einstein
replaced this
necessity by
his
equivalence of
gravity and
acceleration -
which however
is clearly
falsified as
mentioned
several
times.)</span></strong>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-left:solid
#C3D9E5
1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in
8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt;word-wrap:
break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode:
space;-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space" name="quote">
<div
name="quoted-content">
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">3)
The (wide
spread)
criticism of 2
particles is
that there is
neither an <em><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">a-priori</span></em>
intuative
reason, nor
empirical
evidence that
they exist.
Maybe they do
anyway. But
then, maybe
Zeus does too,
and he is just
arranging
appearances so
that we amuse
ourselves.
(Try to prove
that wrong!) <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">I
have explained
how I came to
the conclusion
of 2
sub-particles.
Again:<br>
<br>
1) There is
motion with c
in an
elementary
particle to
explain
dilation<br>
2) With only
on particle
such process
is
mechanically
not possible,
and it
violates the
conservation
of momentum<br>
3) In this way
it is the only
working model
theses days to
explain
inertia. And
this model
explains
inertia with
high
precision.
What more is
needed?</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><strong><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">These
assumtions are
"teleological,"
i.e., tuned
to give the
desired
results. As
logic,
although often
done, this
manuver is not
legit in the
formal
presentation
of a theory.
For a physics
theory,
ideally, all
the input
assuptios have
empirical
justification
or motivation.
Your 2nd
partical
(modulo
virtual
images) has no
such
motivatin, in
fact, just the
opposite. </span></strong><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><strong><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#006600">My logical way is just the other
way around. I
had the plan
to work on
relativity
(the aspects
of time), not
on particle
physics. The
particle model
was an
unplanned
spin-off. I
shall try to
explain the
logical path
again: </span></strong><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#006600"><br>
<br>
<strong><u>1st
step:</u> I
have
calculated the
4-dimensional
speed of an
object using
the temporal
part of the
Lorentz
transformation.
The surprising
fact was that
this 4-dim.
speed is
always the
speed of
light. I have
then assumed
that this
constant shows
a permanent
motion with c
in a particle.
I have
accepted this
as a probable
solution, but
I have never
assumed this,
before I had
this result.
It was in no
way a desired
result. My
idea was to
describe time
by a vector of
3 of 4
dimensions. -
I have then no
further
followed this
idea.</strong><br>
<strong><u>2nd
step:</u> If
there is some
motion in the
particle, it
cannot be
caused by one
constituent.
This is
logically not
possible as it
violates the
conservation
of momentum.
Also this was
not a desired
result but
logically
inevitable. </strong><br>
<strong><u>3rd
step:</u> If
the
constituents
move with c,
then they
cannot have
any mass. Also
this was not a
result which I
wished to
achieve, but
here I
followed my
understanding
of relativity.</strong><br>
<strong><u>4th
step:</u> The
size must be
such that the
resulting
frequency in
the view of c
yields the
magnetic
moment which
is known by
measurements.
</strong><br>
<strong><u>5th
step:</u> I
had to find a
reason for the
mass of the
electron in
spite of the
fact that the
constituents
do not have
any mass.
After some
thinking I
found out the
fact that any
extended
object has
necessarily
inertia. I
have applied
this insight
to this
particle
model, and the
result was the
actual mass of
the electron,
if I assumed
that the force
is the strong
force. It
could not be
the electric
force (as it
was assumed by
others at
earlier times)
because the
result is too
weak.</strong><br>
<br>
<strong>None
of the results
from step 1
thru step 5
was desired.
Every step was
inevitable,
because our
standard
physical
understanding
(which I did
not change at
any point)
does not allow
for any
alternative. -
<u>Or at which
step could I
have had an
alternative in
your opinion?</u></strong><u><br>
<br>
</u><strong>And
btw: which is
the stringent
argument for
only one
constituent?
As I mentioned
before, the
experiment is
not an
argument. I
have discussed
my model with
the former
research
director of
DESY who was
responsible
for this type
of electron
experiments,
and he
admitted that
there is no
conflict with
the assumption
of 2
constituents.</strong></span></b><b><u><span
style="font-size:10.0pt"><br>
<br>
</span></u></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-left:solid
#C3D9E5
1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in
8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt;word-wrap:
break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode:
space;-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space" name="quote">
<div
name="quoted-content">
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
I know from
several
discussions
with particle
physicists
that there is
a lot of
resistance
against this
assumption of
2
constituents.
The reason is
that everyone
learn at
university
like with
mother's milk
that the
electron is
point-like,
extremely
small and does
not have any
internal
structure.
This has the
effect like a
religion.
(Same with the
relativity of
Hendrik
Lorentz.
Everyone
learns with
the same
fundamental
attitude that
Lorentz was
nothing better
than a senile
old man how
was not able
to understand
modern
physics.) -
Not a really
good way, all
this.</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><strong><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Mystical
thinking is
indeed a major
problem even
in Physics!
But, some of
the objectiors
to a 2nd
particle are
not basing
their
objection of
devine
revelation or
political
correctness. </span></strong><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">4)
It is
ascientific to
consider that
the desired
result is
justification
for a
hypothetical
input. OK,
one can say
about such
reasoning, it
is validated <em><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">a posteriori</span></em>,
that at least
makes it sound
substantial.
So much has
been granted
to your
"story" but
has not
granted your
story status
as a "physics
theory." It
has some
appeal, which
in my mind
would be
enhansed had a
rationalization
for the 2nd
particle been
provided.
That's all
I'm trying to
do. When you
or whoever
comes up with
a better one,
I'll drop
pushing the
virtual
particle
engendered by
the
background.
Maybe, it
fixes too many
other things.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">My
history was
following
another way
and another
motivation. I
intended to
explain
relativity on
the basis of
physical
facts. This
was my only
intention for
this model.
All further
properties of
the model were
logical
consequences
where I did
not see
alternatives.
I did not want
to explain
inertia. It
just was a
result by
itself.<br>
So, what is
the problem? I
have a model
which explains
several
properties of
elementary
particles very
precisely. It
is in no
conflict with
any
experimental
experience.
And as a new
observation
there is even
some
experimental
evidence. -
What else can
physics expect
from a theory?
- The argument
that the
second
particle is
not visible is
funny. Who has
ever seen a
quark? Who has
ever seen the
internal
structure of
the sun? I
think you have
a demand here
which was
never
fulfilled in
science.</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><strong><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">The
problem,
obviously, is
that the
existence of
the 2nd
particle, as
you have
presented it,
is not a fact,
but a
Wunschansatz.
[BTW: "See"
in this
context is not
meant
occularly, but
figuratively
for
experimental
verification
through any
length of
inferance
chain.] So,
my question
is: what
problem do you
have with a
virtual mate
for the
particle? In
fact, it will
be there
whether you
use it or not.</span></strong><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
And see again
Frank Wilczek.
<span
class="current-selection">He
writes: "By
combining
fragmentation
with super</span>-<span
class="current-selection">conductivity, we can get half-electrons that
are their own
antiparticles."
</span></span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><strong><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">A
"straw in the
wind" but sure
seems far
fetched!
Superconductivity
is already a
manybody
phenomenon,
It's theory
probably
involves some
"virtual"
notions to
capture the
essence of the
average effect
even if the
virtual actors
do not really
exist. </span></strong><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><strong><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#006600">This was a nice confirmation in
my
understanding.
So as the
whole article
of Wilczek.
The electron
is in fact
enigmatic if
one follows
main stream.
It looses a
lot of this
property if my
model is used.
- But even
without this
experimental
hint I do not
see any
alternative to
my model
without
severely
violating
known physics.</span></strong><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#006600"><br>
<br>
<strong>Ciao</strong><br>
<strong>Albrecht</strong></span></b><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt"><br>
<br>
<br>
</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-left:solid
#C3D9E5
1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in
8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt;word-wrap:
break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode:
space;-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space" name="quote">
<div
name="quoted-content">
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><strong><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></strong><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Guten
Abend<br>
Albrecht</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><strong><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Gleichfalls,
Al</span></strong><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Have
a good one!
Al<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div
style="border:none;border-left:solid
#C3D9E5
1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in
8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt">
<div
style="margin-bottom:7.5pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Gesendet:</span></b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> Samstag,
14. November
2015 um 14:51
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr.
Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
Reply of
comments from
what a model…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Hi
Al,<br>
<br>
Why do we need
a background?
If I assume
only local
forces (strong
and electric)
for my model,
the
calculation
conforms to
the
measurement
(e.g. between
mass and
magnetic
moment) with a
precision of 2
: 1'000'000.
This is no
incident. Not
possible, if a
poorly defined
and stable
background has
a measurable
influence. -
And if there
should be such
background and
it has such
little effect,
which mistake
do we make if
we ignore
that?<br>
<br>
For the
competition of
the 1/r<sup>2</sup>
law for range
of charges and
the r<sup>2</sup>
law for the
quantity of
charges we
have a popular
example when
we look at the
sky at night.
The sky is
dark and that
shows that the
r<sup>2</sup>
case (number
of shining
stars) does in
no way
compensates
for the 1/r<sup>2</sup>
case (light
flow density
from the
stars).<br>
<br>
Why is a 2
particle model
necessary?<br>
<br>
1.) for the
conservation
of momentum<br>
2.) for a
cause of the
inertial mass<br>
3.) for the
radiation at
acceleration
which occurs
most time, but
does not occur
in specific
situations.
Not explained
elsewhere.<br>
<br>
Ciao, Albrecht<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Am
13.11.2015 um
20:31 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Hi
Albrecht:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Your
proposed
experiment is
hampered by
reality! If
you do the
measurement
with a gaget
bought in a
store that has
knobes and a
display, then
the
measurement is
for certain
for signals
under a couple
hundred GHz
and based on
some phenomena
for which the
sensitivity of
man-made
devices is
limited. And,
if limited to
the electric
field, then
there is a
good chance it
is missing
altogether
oscillating
signals by
virtue of its
limited
reaction time
of reset time,
etc. etc. The
vast majority
of the
background
will be much
higher, the
phenomena most
attuned to
detecting
might be in
fact the
quantum
effects
otherwise
explained with
mystical
hokus-pokus!
Also to be
noted is that,
the processes
invovled in
your model, if
they pertain
to elementray
entities, will
have to be at
very small
size and if at
the velocity
(c) will be
very high
energy, etc.
so that once
again, it is
quite
reasonable to
suppose that
the universe
is anything
but
irrelavant! <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Of
course, there
is then the
issue of the
divergence of
the this SED
background.
Ameliorated
to some extent
with the
realization
that there is
no energy at a
point in empty
space until a
charged entity
is put there,
whereupon the
energy of
interaction
with the rest
of the
universe (not
just by itself
being there
and ignoring
the
universe---as
QM theorists,
and yourself,
are wont to
do) is given
by the sum of
interactions
over all
particles not
by the
integral over
all space,
including
empty space.
Looks at
first blush to
be finite. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Why
fight it?
Where the
hell else will
you find a
credible 2nd
particle? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">ciao,
Al<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div
style="border:none;border-left:solid
#C3D9E5
1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in
8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt">
<div
style="margin-bottom:7.5pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Gesendet:</span></b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> Freitag,
13. November
2015 um 12:11
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr.
Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
Reply of
comments from
what a model…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Hi
Al,<br>
<br>
if we look to
charges you
mention the
law 1/r<sup>2</sup>.
Now we can
perform a
simple
physical
experiment
having an
electrically
charged object
and using it
to measure the
electric field
around us. I
say: it is
very weak. Now
look to the
distance of
the two
half-charges
within the
particle
having a
distance of
4*10<sup>-13</sup>
m. This means
an increase of
force of about
25 orders of
magnitude
compared to
what we do in
a lab. And the
difference is
much greater
if we refer to
charges acting
from the
universe. So I
think we do
not make a big
mistake
assuming that
there is
nothing
outside the
particle.<br>
<br>
Regarding my
model, the
logic of
deduction was
very simple
for me:<br>
<br>
1.) We have
dilation, so
there must be
a permanent
motion with c<br>
2.) There must
be 2
sub-particles
otherwise the
momentum law
is violated; 3
are not
possible as in
conflict with
experiments.<br>
3.) The
sub-particles
must be
mass-less,
otherwise c is
not possible<br>
4.) The whole
particle has
mass even
though the
sub-particles
are mass-less.
So there must
be a mechanism
to cause
inertia. It
was
immediately
clear for me
that inertia
is a
consequence of
extension.
Another reason
to assume a
particle which
is composed of
parts. (There
is no other
working
mechanism of
inertia known
until today.)<br>
5.) I had to
find the
binding field
for the
sub-particles.
I have taken
the simplest
one which I
could find
which has a
potential
minimum at
some distance.
And my first
attempt
worked.<br>
<br>
That is all,
and I do not
see any
possibility to
change one of
the points 1.)
thru 5.)
without
getting in
conflict with
fundamental
physical
rules. And I
do not invent
new facts or
rules beyond
those already
known in
physics.<br>
<br>
So, where do
you see any
kind of
arbitrariness
or missing
justification?<br>
<br>
Tschüß!<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Am
12.11.2015 um
17:51 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Hi
Albrect:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">We
are making
some progress.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">To
your remark
that Swinger
& Feynman
introduced
virtual
charges, I
note that they
used the same
term: "virtual
charge/particle,"
in spite of
the much older
meaning in
accord with
the charge and
mirror
example. In
the finest of
quantum
traditions,
they too
ignored the
rest of the
universe and
instead tried
to vest its
effect in the
"vacuum."
This idea was
suitably
mystical to
allow them to
introduce the
associated
plaver into
the folk lore
of QM, given
the sociology
of the day.
Even in spite
of this BS,
the idea still
has merit.
Your objection
on the basis
of the 1/r²
fall-off is
true but not
conclusive.
This fall-off
is matched by
a r² increase
in muber of
charges, so
the integrated
total
interaction
can be
expected to
have at least
some effect,
no matter
what. Think
of the
universe to
1st order as a
neutral,
low-density
plasma. I (and
some others)
hold that this
interaction is
responcible
for all
quantum
effects. In
any case, no
particle is a
universe unto
itself, the
rest have the
poulation and
time to take a
toll! <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">BTW,
this is
history
repeating
itself. Once
upon a time
there was
theory of
Brownian
motion that
posited an
internal cause
known as "elan
vital" to dust
specks
observed
hopping about
like Mexican
jumping beans.
Ultimately
this nonsense
was displaced
by the
observation
that the dust
spots were not
alone in their
immediate
universe but
imbededded in
a slurry of
other
particles,
also in
motion, to
which they
were reacting.
Nowadays
atoms are
analysed in QM
text books as
if they were
the only
object in the
universe---all
others being
too far away
(so it is
argued,
anyway). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Your
model, as it
stands, can be
free of
contradiction
and still
unstatisfying
because the
inputs seem to
be just what
is needed to
make the
conclusions
you aim to
make. Fine,
but what most
critics will
expect is that
these inputs
have to have
some kind of
justification
or motivation.
This is what
the second
particle
lacks. Where
is it when one
really looks
for it? It
has no
empirical
motivation.
Thus, this
theory then
has about the
same ultimate
structure, and
pursuasiveness,
as saying:
'don't worry
about it, God
did it; go
home, open a
beer, pop your
feet up, and
forget about
it---a theory
which explains
absolutely
everything!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Tschuß,
Al<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-left:solid
#C3D9E5
1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in
8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt">
<div
style="margin-bottom:7.5pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Gesendet:</span></b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> Donnerstag,
12. November
2015 um 16:18
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr.
Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
Reply of
comments from
what a model…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Hi
Al,<br>
<br>
I have gotten
a different
understanding
of what a
virtual
particle or a
virtual charge
is. This
phenomenon was
invented by
Julian
Schwinger and
Richard
Feynman. They
thought to
need it in
order to
explain
certain
reactions in
particle
physics. In
the case of
Schwinger it
was the Landé
factor, where
I have shown
that this
assumption is
not necessary.<br>
<br>
If there is a
charge then of
course this
charge is
subject to
interactions
with all other
charges in the
universe. That
is correct.
But because of
the normal
distribution
of these other
charges in the
universe,
which cause a
good
compensation
of the
effects, and
because of the
distance law
we can think
about models
without
reference to
those. And
also there is
the problem
with virtual
particles and
vacuum
polarization
(which is
equivalent),
in that we
have this huge
problem that
the integrated
energy of it
over the
universe is by
a factor of
10^120 higher
than the
energy
measured. I
think this is
a really big
argument
against
virtual
effects.<br>
<br>
Your example
of the virtual
image of a
charge in a
conducting
surface is a
different
case. It is,
as you write,
the
rearrangement
of charges in
the conducting
surface. So
the partner of
the charge is
physically the
mirror, not
the picture
behind it. But
which mirror
can cause the
second
particle in a
model if the
second
particle is
not assumed to
be real?<br>
<br>
And what in
general is the
problem with a
two particle
model? It
fulfils the
momentum law.
And it does
not cause
further
conflicts. It
also explains
why an
accelerated
electron
sometimes
radiates,
sometimes not.
For an
experimental
evidence I
refer again to
the article of
Frank Wilczek
in "Nature"
which was
mentioned here
earlier:<br>
<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com">http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com</a></a>:
</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span class="current-selection"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">He
writes: "By
combining
fragmentation
with super</span></span><span
class="ls0"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">-</span></span><span
class="current-selection"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">conductivity,
we can get
half-electrons
that are their
own
antiparticles."
</span></span><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">For
Wilczek this
is a
mysterious
result, in
view of my
model it is
not, on the
contrary it is
kind of a
proof.<br>
<br>
Grüße<br>
Albrecht</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Am
12.11.2015 um
03:06 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Hi
Albrecht:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Virtual
particles are
proxys for an
ensemble of
real
particles.
There is
nothing
folly-lolly
about them!
They simply
summarize the
total effect
of particles
that cannot be
ignored. To
ignore the
remainder of
the universe
becasue it is
inconvenient
for theory
formulation is
for certain
leading to
error. "No
man is an
island," and
no single
particle is a
universe!
Thus, it can
be argued
that, to
reject the
concept of
virtual
particles is
to reject a
facit of
reality that
must be
essential for
an explantion
of the
material
world.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">For
example, if a
positive
charge is
placed near a
conducting
surface, the
charges in
that surface
will respond
to the
positive
charge by
rearranging
themselves so
as to give a
total field on
the surface of
zero strength
as if there
were a
negative
charge
(virtual)
behind the
mirror.
Without the
real charges
on the mirror
surface, the
concept of
"virtual"
negative
charge would
not be
necessary or
even useful. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">The
concept of
virtual charge
as the second
particle in
your model
seems to me to
be not just a
wild
supposition,
but an
absolute
necessity.
Every charge
is, without
choice, in
constant
interaction
with every
other charge
in the
universe, has
been so since
the big bang
(if such were)
and will
remain so till
the big crunch
(if such is to
be)! The
universe
cannot be
ignored. If
you reject
including the
universe by
means of
virtual
charges, them
you have a lot
more work to
do to make
your theory
reasonable
some how else.
In particular
in view of the
fact that the
second
particles in
your model
have never
ever been seen
or even
suspected in
the various
experiments
resulting in
the
disasssmbly of
whatever
targert was
used. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">MfG,
Al<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div
class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center;background:white" align="center"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
<hr
style="color:#909090"
noshade="noshade" size="1" width="99%" align="center"></span></div>
<table
class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:collapse" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="padding:0in
11.25pt 0in
6.0pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
id="_x0000_i1026"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast
logo"
border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td
style="padding:.75pt
.75pt .75pt
.75pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#3D4D5A">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft.<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div
class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center" align="center">
<hr
style="color:#909090"
noshade="noshade" size="1" width="99%" align="center"></div>
<table
class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:collapse" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="padding:0in
11.25pt 0in
6.0pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img
moz-do-not-send="true" id="_x0000_i1028"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
alt="Avast
logo"
border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td
style="padding:.75pt
.75pt .75pt
.75pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#3D4D5A">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft. <br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
If you no
longer wish to
receive
communication
from the
Nature of
Light and
Particles
General
Discussion
List at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a></a><br>
<a href="<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a></a>"><br>
Click here to
unsubscribe<br>
</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div
class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center" align="center">
<hr
style="color:#909090"
noshade="noshade" size="1" width="99%" align="center"></div>
<table
class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:collapse" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="padding:0in
11.25pt 0in
6.0pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img
moz-do-not-send="true" id="_x0000_i1030"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
alt="Avast
logo"
border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td
style="padding:.75pt
.75pt .75pt
.75pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#3D4D5A">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft. <br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div
class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center" align="center">
<hr
style="color:#909090"
noshade="noshade" size="1" width="99%" align="center"></div>
<table
class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:collapse" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="padding:0in
11.25pt 0in
6.0pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img
moz-do-not-send="true" id="_x0000_i1032"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
alt="Avast
logo"
border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td
style="padding:.75pt
.75pt .75pt
.75pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#3D4D5A">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft. <br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>