<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>Thanks Richard - I have recently started putting my papers on researchgate and academia.<div>Vladimir<br><br><div><hr id="stopSpelling">From: richgauthier@gmail.com<br>Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 20:39:47 -0800<br>To: general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<br>CC: martin.van.der.mark@philips.com<br>Subject: Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…<br><br>Hi Vladimir,<div> I recommend also putting your articles on <a href="http://www.researchgate.net" target="_blank">www.researchgate.net</a> and <a href="http://www.academia.edu" target="_blank">www.academia.edu</a> . Both are respected free sites containing mainstream as well as alternative research and can increase exposure of your work to interested persons.</div><div> Richard</div><div> <br><div><blockquote><div>On Jan 29, 2016, at 5:45 PM, Vladimir Tamari <<a href="mailto:vladimirtamari@hotmail.com">vladimirtamari@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="ecxApple-interchange-newline"><div><div dir="auto"><div>Thanks Richard for your kind words. Indeed for a non-academic researcher ArXiv is daunting. A friend helped recommend the two papers, but when I tried to send in my Beautiful Universe paper It was rejected outright and in person by professor Goodman, who had encouraged me in earlier less controversial work. Now there is a sort of "<span style="background-color:rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Salon des refusés" (akin to impressionist painters' rebellion against the establishment) </span>for physics at viXra:</div><div><a href="http://vixra.org/author/vladimir_f_tamari" target="_blank">http://vixra.org/author/vladimir_f_tamari</a></div><div>warm regards and appreciation for everyone's efforts to find new ways to understand physics.</div><div>Vladimir<br><div>_____________________<div><a href="http://vladimirtamari.com/" target="_blank">vladimirtamari.com</a></div></div></div><div><br>On Jan 29, 2016, at 7:48 PM, Richard Gauthier <<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote><div><div>Hello Vladimir,</div><div> Congratulations on developing your BU theory, as well as on your two arXiv articles “Diffraction to de-Diffraction” at <a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0303073v1.pdf" target="_blank">http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0303073v1.pdf</a> and “United Dipole Field” at <a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0303082v1.pdf" target="_blank">http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0303082v1.pdf</a> . It is not so easy to get articles on arXiv as you know. </div><div> Richard</div><br><div><blockquote><div>On Jan 28, 2016, at 10:25 PM, Vladimir Tamari <<a href="mailto:vladimirtamari@hotmail.com">vladimirtamari@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="ecxApple-interchange-newline"><div><div dir="auto"><div>Hi in my rudimentary and qualitative Beautiful University (BU) theory of 2005 <a href="http://vladimirtamari.com/beautiful_univ_rev_oct_2011.pdf" target="_blank">http://vladimirtamari.com/beautiful_univ_rev_oct_2011.pdf</a> everything in the universe is due to angular momentum in units of (h) of cellular automata nodes. Matter ( hence mass) is a polygonal knot of nodes of given angular momentum locked in a particular configuration and energizing the gravity field around it in corckscrew tension. However I do not claim to have influenced others one way or another as I only circulated this paper on my obscure website, mentioning it in various discussions. My own views are partly due to the earlier rotating magnetic concepts of the electron of Kenneth Snelson as discussed in the above paper.</div><div><br></div><div>BTW in an earlier message I phrased my idea of inertia badly. Apologies. Inertia is related to acceleration or deceleration on forward momentum due to the potential energy field which could be gravitational, electrostatic etc. In (BU) this potential is related to the index of refraction i.e. density of space, N (a concept going back to Eddington!)</div><div>Best wishes to all from Tokyo</div><div>Vladimir<br><div>_____________________<div><a href="http://vladimirtamari.com/" target="_blank">vladimirtamari.com</a></div></div></div><div><br>On 29 Jan 2016, at 2:11 am, Richard Gauthier <<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote><div><div>Hello John, Martin and others,</div><div> If the proposal that the electron’s inertial mass is due to the momentum of a circulating photon composing the electron has been around since the early twentieth century, I’d like to know more about this. And in what sense was this idea one of the starting points of both of your thinking, Martin’s before John's? I know both of you are very busy, but a few words about this would be very helpful. Of course I would like to know to what extent this proposal is original, and who first originated it.</div><div> with best regards,</div><div> Richard</div><br><div><blockquote><div>On Dec 14, 2015, at 11:03 PM, John Williamson <<a href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>> wrote:</div><br class="ecxApple-interchange-newline"><div><div style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;direction:ltr;font-family:Tahoma;font-size:10pt;"><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-weight:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span lang="EN-US">Dear All,<br><br><b>Yes, of course WvdM have thought about it. It was one of the starting points of my thinking well before I met Martin (and his before me). This has been the argument from many folk, even before relativity. It has been part of the calculation of the energy in many of the classical electron models of the early twentieth century.</b> My goodness – look at it. Apart from taking a standpoint of a (somehow) localized photon, Richard’s argument is based primarily based on Newton’s laws. He is completely right – but the only person who needs convincing of this, as far as I can see, is Albrecht.<span class="ecxApple-converted-space" style="font-weight:normal;"> </span></span></div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-weight:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p><div style="font-weight:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span lang="EN-US">Albrecht, however, has a good point – one does need something to set against to account for the local forces. He proposes two particles to account for this. I think this is progress in the wrong direction. Before one had just one particle to explain, now one has two. Negative progress. Twice as bad as before.<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><span> </span>Further, the resulting picture is flat contradicted by loads of experiment. Not good. His point, however, remains.</span></div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-weight:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p><div style="font-weight:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span lang="EN-US">Al is also correct. The interaction with the “rest of the universe” must be considered. Martin and I did some calculations about this – partly in discussion with Casimir more than a couple of decades ago. Chip has calculated the effective forces as well. They are huge! Order of a Newton acting on the surface of the electron. Think about the pressure! So how can it be that Richard, Albrecht and Al all have valid points and yet are all arguing. Diferent parts of the elephant gentlemen. Each seeing problems in the others standpoint, but not the whole picture. To get the whole picture you need a theory which encompasses the fields, the co-ordinates, the masses – the charge – the spins –the forces – the interactions- the whole lot. Now you can try using Dirac. Many have. You can try using nineteenth century Maxwell (this is already very very good – no spins or charge though). You could head down the road to doing QED. Welcome! They are all good theories. All are, as Al has put it, “well ploughed”. Good luck!</span></div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-weight:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p><div style="font-weight:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span lang="EN-US">Alternatively you could pile on board with helping with a new theory which, pretty much, encompasses the lot of them and yet opens up new ground. New solutions, new experiments, new science. Your choice.</span></div><div style="font-weight:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span lang="EN-US"><a name="_GoBack" target="_blank"></a></span></div><br>Regards, John.<br><div style="font-weight:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:16px;"><hr tabindex="-1"><div id="ecxdivRpF968199" style="direction:ltr;"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span>General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] on behalf of Chip Akins [<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">chipakins@gmail.com</a>]<br><b>Sent:</b><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span>Monday, December 14, 2015 7:06 PM<br><b>To:</b><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span>'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br><b>Subject:</b><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…<br></font><br></div><div></div><div><div class="ecxWordSection1" style=""><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span style="">Hi Richard</span></div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span style=""> </span></p><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span style="">Very well done. I have run the same scenario and come to the same conclusion. And then extended the math to relativistic acceleration of the electron, finding it becomes an exact solution. Did W/vdM do this also?</span></div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span style=""> </span></p><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span style="">Nice. I think it would be a good paper.</span></div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span style=""> </span></p><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span style="">Chip</span></div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span style=""> </span></p><div><div style="border-style:solid none none;border-top-color:rgb(225, 225, 225);border-top-width:1pt;padding:3pt 0in 0in;"><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri, sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri, sans-serif;"><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span>General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span></b>Richard Gauthier<br><b>Sent:</b><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span>Monday, December 14, 2015 11:26 AM<br><b>To:</b><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span>Albrecht Giese <<a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">phys@a-giese.de</a>><br><b>Cc:</b><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br><b>Subject:</b><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…</span></div></div></div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">Hello Albrecht and others,</div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> I’ve just found a short derivation for the inertia or rest mass m of a resting electron from the momentum mc of a circulating charged photon modeling the electron. I’ve written up a short note at <a href="https://www.academia.edu/19652036/The_Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">https://www.academia.edu/19652036/The_Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia</a> .</div></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">Here’s the abstract:</div></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> "The inertia or rest mass m of an electron, modeled as a circulating charged photon, is simply derived from Newton’s second law F=ma , the time rate of change of the vector momentum mc of the circulating charged photon having the energy mc^2 of the electron, and the centripetal acceleration of the circulating charged photon.”</div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">Basically the proof is</div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">M= F/a = (dp/dt)/(c^2/r) = (wp)/(w^2 r) = p/wr = (mc)/c = m</div></div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">Richard</div></div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p><div><blockquote style=""><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">On Dec 10, 2015, at 11:49 AM, Albrecht Giese <<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</div></div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p><div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">Hello Richard,<br><span style="color:rgb(0, 51, 0);">my comments again in your text:</span></p><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">Am 09.12.2015 um 07:19 schrieb Richard Gauthier:</div></div><blockquote style=""><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">Hello Albrecht,</div></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> Let us for the sake of argument assume that your statement “ <span style="color:rgb(0, 51, 0);background-color:white;background-position:initial initial;"> 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). </span> “ is correct. But since there is no experimental evidence for an extended electron, your argument falls apart right from the start. This is the case no matter how many people attend your talks.</div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span style="color:rgb(0, 51, 0);">Again the following arguments for an extended electron (as well for the other leptons, for all quarks)<br><br>1.) The extension is a precondition of relativistic dilation<br>2.) The extension is the cause of inertial mass (I do not know any other cause)<br>3.) The extension is a precondition of the magnetic moment at a charged particle (is otherwise not possible)<br>4.) The extension is a precondition of the spin (is as well otherwise not explained).<br><br>I know very few cases in the history of physics where the evidence was so great!</span><br><br></div><blockquote style=""><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">Then you write:</div></div><div><blockquote style=""><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span style="color:rgb(0, 51, 0);">If you derive inertia from an occurrence of momentum, then this is circular reasoning. As momentum without inertial is not possible.</span></div></div></blockquote><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">Inertia is the quantitative measure equal to the rest mass of an object and nothing else. Otherwise "Inertia" is just a vague word.</div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span style="color:rgb(0, 51, 0);">Inertia is the resistance against a change of the state of motion. It is very well defined (once by Newton).</span><br><br></div><blockquote style=""><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">An unconfined photon traveling linearly carries momentum but has no rest mass and therefore has no inertia.</div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span style="color:rgb(0, 51, 0);">If you want to change the motion state of a photon, which means in the case of the photon a change or its direction, you need a force. That means inertia by definition.</span><br><br></div><blockquote style=""><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">Light must be confined or self-confined to have rest-mass/inertia A charged photon traveling helically and modeling an electron DOES have rest mass (as calculated from the electron's relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 ) and therefore by definition has inertia.</div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span style="color:rgb(0, 51, 0);">The famous relation E = m*c^2 (as part of your equation above) describes a relation between mass and energy. Originally (as derived by Einstein) in the differential form: dE = dm * c^2. That means that a change in energy causes a change of mass. This has no explaining power for the mechanism itself which causes inertia. If a photon has inertia then we have to explain this mechanism within the photon which causes the photon to be inertial.<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span></span><br><br></div><blockquote style=""><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">The helical trajectory of the charged photon model may be the origin of inertia, not a two-ghost-particle electron model. One can claim that there is no evidence for the charged photon. But first something has to be conceived before evidence for its existence can be found. Objects exist first mentally as a conception or hypothesis. Then support for the conception is sought experimentally. This is how science works and progresses.</div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span style="color:rgb(0, 51, 0);">Science means at least as a final result that we have to find the mechanism of a phenomenon, here of inertia. I do not see a connection between a possible charge in a photon and the fact that a photon has inertial behaviour. You have written in the beginning: "Otherwise "Inertia" is just a vague word." There are all words here vague words as long as not a mechanism or process is given. And exactly that I find missing in most of the discussion here about inertia.</span><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><br><br></div><blockquote style=""><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> Richard</div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span style="color:rgb(0, 51, 0);">Albrecht</span><br><br></div><blockquote style=""><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p><div><blockquote style=""><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">On Dec 8, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Albrecht Giese <<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</div></div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p><div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">Hello Richard,<br><br><span style="color:rgb(0, 51, 0);">I fell a little bit like Sisyphos. No progress.<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span></span></p><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">Am 07.12.2015 um 06:20 schrieb Richard Gauthier:</div></div><blockquote style=""><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">Hello Albrecht,</div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> The nature of scientific exploration is that “anything goes” if it ethically produces new scientific discoveries. So your idea of an indirect strong force on electrons to explain your two-particle model of the electron COULD be correct despite the current lack of any accepted evidence for your model. The law of conservation of momentum is NOT evidence for your specific electron model.</div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span style="color:rgb(0, 51, 0);">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></div><blockquote style=""><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">The unexplained results at DESY do not provide support for any hypothesis, including yours.</div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span style="color:rgb(0, 51, 0);">They have to be explained. I have an explanation which you may not like. Your alternative??</span><br><br></div><blockquote style=""><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">Your electron hypothesis could be wrong, and is very like to be wrong as I think you will admit. So far your hypothesis hasn’t produced any good scientific results that I know of. I for one am not convinced that your electron hypothesis explains inertia quantitatively (by deriving the electron’s mass from the Bohr magneton ehbar/2m , which already contains the electron’s mass).</div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span style="color:rgb(0, 51, 0);">NO! NO! NO! I have explained it several times now. Inertia is caused by the fact that<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><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).<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><br></span><br><span style="color:rgb(0, 51, 0);">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.<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><br></span><br><span style="color:rgb(0, 51, 0);">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></div><blockquote style=""><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">I don’t accept that your electron hypothesis is the only hypothesis that can explain inertia, as you claim. Inertia could be explained by the “hidden momentum” component mc in my charged-photon electron model.</div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span style="color:rgb(0, 51, 0);">If you derive inertia from an occurrence of momentum, then this is circular reasoning. As momentum without inertial is not possible.</span><br><br></div><blockquote style=""><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">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.</div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span style="color:rgb(0, 51, 0);">No reason for a change as anything works with very good precision. And from the scratch.<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><br><br></span></div><blockquote style=""><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> I don’t know of any awards for electron models. De Broglie and Dirac both got Nobel prizes for their electron equations without having electron models. Heisenberg and Schrodinger also didn’t have electron models when they won their Nobel prizes for discovering quantum mechanics. Perhaps we could start a competition for the best electron model. That could possibly speed up the progress in getting a really good one. But the best electron model will be the one that has the best potential to lead to the best new scientific results.</div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span style="color:rgb(0, 51, 0);">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></div><blockquote style=""><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> 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.</div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span style="color:rgb(0, 51, 0);">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></div><blockquote style=""><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> With best regards,</div></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> Richard</div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p><div><blockquote style=""><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">On Dec 6, 2015, at 7:28 AM, Albrecht Giese <<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</div></div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p><div><div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">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).<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><i>If this is the only choice, then it is the answer (at least temporary). That is the rule in physics. <span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span></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.<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><br><br>Regarding the excess of certain events in the DESY experiment: Do you have a solution? Or a better solution? Perhaps then<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><i>you<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span></i>can win an award ...<br><br>Albrecht<br><br><br>Am 05.12.2015 um 19:10 schrieb Richard Gauthier:</div></div><blockquote style=""><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">Albrecht,</div></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> You wrote</div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div><div><blockquote style=""><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">The conclusion now of a direct interaction of the strong force between the quark and the electron is a more indirect proof, but the only one left at present - in my view.</div></div></blockquote><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> If you are the only one in the world to come to this conclusion, and DESY did not come to this conclusion (which would have probably won them a Nobel prize if correct), then I am not willing to accept it and I doubt that any logical and independent scientist will either.</div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">you then write </div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div><div><blockquote style=""><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">further that a lot of other problems can be resolved with the assumption that the strong force is the universal force in the world, then this is in my view an even better argument than the one in the 1930s for the strong force.</div></div></blockquote></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> You say that a lot of problems could be solved if the strong force affects the electron. This is not a good or logical reason to accept that the strong force affects the electron. If rivers flowed with milk, a lot of world hunger problems would be solved, but this is not a reason to accept that rivers flow with milk.</div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> Richard</div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p><div><blockquote style=""><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">On Dec 5, 2015, at 7:36 AM, Albrecht Giese <<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</div></div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p><div><div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">Hello Richard,<br><br>my answers in the text:<br><br>On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:00:23 -0800 schrieb Richard Gauthier :</div></div><blockquote style=""><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">Hello Albrecht,</div></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> In physics no one can validly claim that the strong force nuclear acting on electrons was “seen” at DESY if such an important and unexpected result was never confirmed by any other qualified laboratory in all the years afterward. So please let go of your claim about the strong nuclear force acting on electrons at least until it is confirmed by another laboratory. I am not saying that conventional wisdom is always right (obviously it isn’t). But in experimental physics one needs to play by the statistical “rules” (which are in any case designed to guard against “false positives” like the DESY experiment might have been) if one wants to have credibility among other knowledgeable physicists. (We are not talking about credibility by the general public here.)</div></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">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></div><blockquote style=""><div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> 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.”<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span></div></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">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></div><blockquote style=""><div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> with best wishes,</div></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> Richard</div></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">Best wishes back<br>Albrecht<br><br></div><blockquote style=""><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p><div><blockquote style=""><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">On Nov 26, 2015, at 8:53 AM, Albrecht Giese <<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</div></div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p><div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">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.</p><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">Am 23.11.2015 um 19:43 schrieb Richard Gauthier:</div></div><blockquote style=""><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">Hello Albrecht,<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> 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.<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span></div></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">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></div><blockquote style=""><div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">Second, since there’s no evidence for a two-particle structure of the electron from any scattering or other experiments, let’s also consider dropping that proposal for now. Your insistence that a 2-particle model is required for conservation of momentum at the sub-electron level does not seem sufficient to accept this part of your 2-particle model. We don’t even know experimentally that conservation of momentum exists at the sub-electron level, do we? Just an article of faith?</div></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">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></div><blockquote style=""><div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> So what is left of your model? You claim that your two particles are massless and travel at light speed. But you don’t say that they are also without energy, do you? If there are two massless particles, they will still each have to have 0.511/2 MeV of energy if the electron’s total resting energy 0.511 MeV is divided equally between them.</div></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">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></div><blockquote style=""><div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">One kind of particle that has no rest mass but has energy and travels at light speed is a photon.</div></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">This assumption is not true as explained above.<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><br><br></div><blockquote style=""><div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">(Let’s forget about gluons here for now since there is no accepted evidence for a strong nuclear force on electrons). So each of your two particles (if there are still two for some other reason besides conservation of momentum, and a need for an attractive force between them to overcome their electric repulsion) could be a charged photon (circulating charge is necessary to get a magnetic moment for the model) with energy 0.511/2 MeV, which has energy but no rest mass. OK.</div></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">Not true!<br><br></div><blockquote style=""><div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">But each of these two charged photons, each of energy 0.511/2 MeV = mc^2/2 will have a wavelength of 2 Compton wavelengths = 2 h/mc . If 1 wavelength of each photon is turned into a single closed loop, the each loop would have a radius 2hbar/mc, which is twice the radius hbar/mc of your proposed electron model. To make each of these photons move circularly in a way that each of their wavelengths gives a radius of hbar/mc as in your model, each photon would have to move in a double loop. So there will be two photons each of energy 0.511/2 moving in a double loop in this model. This is getting complicated.</div></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">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.<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><br><br></div><blockquote style=""><div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> Let’s drop one of the two photons for simplicity (Occam’s razor put to good use) so that the other photon will have the full electron energy 0.511 MeV .</div></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">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></div><blockquote style=""><div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">This photon will now have a wavelength 1 Compton wavelength. If this 1 Compton wavelength charged photon moves in a single loop it will create an electron with magnetic moment 1 Bohr magneton and a spin of 1 hbar. That’s good for the experimental magnetic moment of the electron (slightly more than 1 Bohr magneton) but bad for its experimental spin (which you tried to reduce to 1/2 hbar in your model by a delayed force argument). If the photon moves in a double loop it will be good for the spin (which now is exactly 1/2 hbar) but bad for the magnetic moment (now 1/2 Bohr magneton).</div></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">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></div><blockquote style=""><div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">So there’s still a problem with the model’s magnetic moment. But this double-looping charged photon model now has gained the zitterbewegung frequency of the Dirac electron which is desirable for an electron model which hopes to model the Dirac electron. And it also has 720 degree symmetry which the Dirac electron has (while your original 2-particle model has a rotational symmetry of 180 degrees, since each particle would take the place of the other after a half-circle rotation).</div></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">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.<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><br><br></div><blockquote style=""><div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> What do you think of this new model so far?</div></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">Did I explain it sufficiently?<br><br></div><blockquote style=""><div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> Richard</div></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">Albrecht<br><br></div><blockquote style=""><div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p><div><blockquote style=""><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">On Nov 22, 2015, at 9:43 AM, Albrecht Giese <<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</div></div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p><div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">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.</p><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">Am 22.11.2015 um 00:13 schrieb Richard Gauthier:</div></div><blockquote style=""><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">Hello Albrecht,<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> I admire your persistence in trying to save your doomed (in my opinion) 2-particle electron model.</div></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">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></div><blockquote style=""><div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">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).” ? </div></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">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.<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><br><br></div><blockquote style=""><div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">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.</div></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">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><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span>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></div><blockquote style=""><div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">Here is the meaning of “grasping at straws” from <a href="http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasp+at+straws" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasp+at+straws</a> :</div></div><h2 style="font-size:1.8rem;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;line-height:1.8rem;display:inline-block;color:rgb(64, 64, 64);"><span style="font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">grasp at straws</span></h2><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span class="ecxhvr"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">Also,</span></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> <span class="ecxhvr"><b>clutch</b></span><b> at <span class="ecxhvr">straws</span></b>. <span class="ecxhvr">Make</span> a <span class="ecxhvr">desperate</span> <span class="ecxhvr">attempt</span> at <span class="ecxhvr">saving</span> <span class="ecxhvr">oneself.</span> <span class="ecxhvr">For</span> <span class="ecxhvr">example,</span> <i>He <span class="ecxhvr">had lost</span> <span class="ecxhvr">the</span> <span class="ecxhvr">argument,</span> <span class="ecxhvr">but</span> he <span class="ecxhvr">kept</span> <span class="ecxhvr">grasping</span> at <span class="ecxhvr">straws,</span> <span class="ecxhvr">naming</span> <span class="ecxhvr">numerous</span> <span class="ecxhvr">previous</span> <span class="ecxhvr">cases</span> <span class="ecxhvr">that had</span> <span class="ecxhvr">little</span> to do <span class="ecxhvr">with</span> <span class="ecxhvr">this</span> <span class="ecxhvr">one</span></i>. <span class="ecxhvr">This</span> <span class="ecxhvr">metaphoric</span> <span class="ecxhvr">expression</span> <span class="ecxhvr">alludes</span> to a <span class="ecxhvr">drowning</span> <span class="ecxhvr">person trying</span> to <span class="ecxhvr">save</span> <span class="ecxhvr">himself</span> by <span class="ecxhvr">grabbing</span> at <span class="ecxhvr">flimsy</span> <span class="ecxhvr">reeds.</span> <span class="ecxhvr">First</span> <span class="ecxhvr">recorded</span> in <span class="ecxhvr">1534,</span> <span class="ecxhvr">the</span> <span class="ecxhvr">term</span> <span class="ecxhvr">was used</span> <span class="ecxhvr">figuratively</span> by <span class="ecxhvr">the</span> <span class="ecxhvr">late</span> <span class="ecxhvr">1600s.</span></span> </div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">I am not at all opposed to using desperate measures to find or save a hypothesis that is very important to you. Max Planck described his efforts to fit the black body radiation equation using quantized energies of hypothetical oscillators as an "act of desperation”. So you are of course free to keep desperately trying to save your 2-particle electron hypothesis. I personally think that your many talents in physics could be better spent in other ways, for example in revising your electron model to make it more consistent with experimental facts.</div></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">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></div><blockquote style=""><div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> By the way, van der Waals forces do not "bind atoms to form a molecule". They are attractive or repulsive forces between molecules or between parts of a molecule. According to Wikipedia:</div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">" <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 href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands" title="Netherlands" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;"><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 href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist" title="Scientist" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;"><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 href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Diderik_van_der_Waals" title="Johannes Diderik van der Waals" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;"><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 href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecule" title="Molecule" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;"><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 href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond" title="Covalent bond" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;"><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 href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_interaction" title="Electrostatic interaction" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;"><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 href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion" title="Ion" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;"><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="ecxcite_ref-1"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-1" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;"><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="ecxcite_ref-Van_OssAbsolom1980_2-0"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-Van_OssAbsolom1980-2" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;"><span style="text-decoration:none;">[2]</span></a></span></sup></div></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">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></div><blockquote style=""><div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">with best regards,</div></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> Richard</div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div><div><div><div><blockquote style=""><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">On Nov 21, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Albrecht Giese <<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</div></div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p><div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">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><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span>- R) /R<sup>3</sup>. Here R<sub>0</sub><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span>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 href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">www.ag-physics.org/rmass</a> . Too long to present it here, but straight and inevitable. Here the result again: m = S / (R * c<sup>2</sup>) .<br><br>If you are unsatisfied by my deduction of this field, what is about the van der Waals forces which bind atoms to build a molecule? Did van der Waals have had a better way of deduction in that case? I think that the fact that the von der Waals forces act so as observed, is enough for the physical community to accept them.<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><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></p><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">Am 20.11.2015 um 23:02 schrieb Richard Gauthier:</div></div><blockquote style=""><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">Hello Albrecht,</div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> Thanks for your detailed response. I think the key problem is in your determination of your “field constant” S which you say describes the "binding field" for your two particles. This definition of S is too general and empty of specific content as I understand that it applies to any "binding field” at any nuclear or atomic or molecular level. With your 2-particle electron model you then calculate the radius R=hbar/mc from the Bohr Magneton e*hbar/2m, assuming the values of m, e, h and c. . Then you calculate S from the Bohr magneton and find it to be S=c*hbar. You then calculate m from the equation m=S/(R*c^2). How can a binding field S be described by such a universal term hbar * c ? That’s why I think that your derivation is circular. You use the Bohr magneton e*hbar/2m to calculate R and S, (using the Bohr magneton) and then you use R and S to calculate m. You have no independent calculation of S except from the Bohr magneton. That’s the problem resulting in circularity. </div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> with best regards,</div></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> Richard</div></div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p><div><blockquote style=""><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">On Nov 20, 2015, at 1:09 PM, Albrecht Giese <<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</div></div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p><div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">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.<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><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><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span>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?<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><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.<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><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></p><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">Am 18.11.2015 um 15:42 schrieb Richard Gauthier:</div></div><blockquote style=""><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">Hello Albrecht,</div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> Let’s look at your listed assumptions of your electron model in relation to the electron’s magnetic moment. It is known that the magnitude of the electron’s experimental magnetic moment is slightly more than the Bohr magneton which is Mb = ehbar/2m = 9.274 J/T in SI units. Your 2-particle model aims to generate a magnetic moment to match this Bohr magneton value (which was predicted for the electron by the Dirac equation) rather than the experimental value of the electron’s magnetic moment which is slightly larger. The standard equation for calculating the magnetic moment M of a plane current loop is M = IA for loop area A and current I. If the area A is a circle and the current is a circular current loop I around this area, whose value I is calculated from a total electric charge e moving circularly at light speed c (as in your 2-particle electron model) with a radius R, a short calculation will show that if the radius of this circle is R = hbar/mc = 3.86 x 10-13 m (the reduced Compton wavelength corresponding to a circle of circumference one Compton wavelength h/mc), then this radius R for the current loop gives a magnetic moment M = IA = Bohr magneton ehbar/2m . I have done this calculation many times in my electron modeling work and know that this is the case. The values of h and also e and m of the electron have to be known accurately to calculate the Bohr magneton ehbar/2m . When the radius of the circular loop is R=hbar/mc, the frequency f of the charge e circling the loop is easily found to be f=c/(2pi R)= mc^2/h , which is the frequency of light having the Compton wavelength h/mc. </div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">So the current loop radius R=hbar/mc that is required in your 2-particle model to derive the Bohr magneton ehbar/2m using M=IA obviously cannot also be used to derive either of the values h or m since these values were used to calculate the Bohr magneton ehbar/2m in the first place. So your model cannot be used to derive any of the values of e, h or m, and seems to be an exercise in circular reasoning. Please let me know how I may be mistaken in this conclusion.</div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">with best regards,</div></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> Richard</div></div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p><div><blockquote style=""><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">On Nov 18, 2015, at 2:03 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese <<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</div></div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p><div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span style="font-size:10pt;">Hi Al,<br><span style="color:rgb(0, 102, 0);"><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></span></p><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span style="font-size:10pt;">Am 17.11.2015 um 19:18 schrieb<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</span></div></div><blockquote style=""><div><div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">Hi Albrect:</span></div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">Comments² <strong><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">IN BOLD</span></strong></span></div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></p><div style="border-style:none none none solid;border-left-color:rgb(195, 217, 229);border-left-width:1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 8pt;word-wrap:break-word;"><div style=""><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><b><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">Gesendet:</span></b><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> Dienstag, 17. November 2015 um 18:41 Uhr<br><b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese"<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br><b>An:</b> <a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br><b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…</span></div></div><div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">Hi Al,<br><br>again some responses.</span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><br> <span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span></span></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">Am 14.11.2015 um 18:24 schrieb<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"></span></div></div><blockquote style=""><div><div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">Hi Albrecht:</span></div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;background-position:initial initial;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">Answers to your questions:</span></div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;background-position:initial initial;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:9pt;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.</span></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color: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:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"></span></div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;background-position:initial initial;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><strong><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">See No. 11 (or 1) @<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com/" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com</a><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span> for suggetions and some previous work along this line.</span></strong><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><strong><span style="font-size:10pt;color:rgb(0, 102, 0);">Thank you, will have a look.</span></strong><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><br><br></div><blockquote style=""><div><div><div><div style="border-style:none none none solid;border-left-color:rgb(195, 217, 229);border-left-width:1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 8pt;word-wrap:break-word;"><div><div><blockquote style=""><div><div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:9pt;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!</span></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color: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:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"></span></div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;background-position:initial initial;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color: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 class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span></span></strong><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><strong><span style="font-size:10pt;color:rgb(0, 102, 0);">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></div><blockquote style=""><div><div><div><div style="border-style:none none none solid;border-left-color:rgb(195, 217, 229);border-left-width:1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 8pt;word-wrap:break-word;"><div><div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color: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:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"></span></div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;background-position:initial initial;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><strong><span style="font-size:9pt;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:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><strong><span style="font-size:10pt;color:rgb(0, 102, 0);">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><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><br><br></div><blockquote style=""><div><div><div><div style="border-style:none none none solid;border-left-color:rgb(195, 217, 229);border-left-width:1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 8pt;word-wrap:break-word;"><div><div><blockquote style=""><div><div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">3) The (wide spread) criticism of 2 particles is that there is neither an<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><em><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">a-priori</span></em><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span>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!) </span></div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;background-position:initial initial;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color: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:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"></span></div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;background-position:initial initial;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color: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:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><strong><span style="font-size:10pt;color:rgb(0, 102, 0);">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 class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span></span></strong><b><span style="font-size:10pt;color:rgb(0, 102, 0);"><br><br><strong><u>1st step:</u><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span>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><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span>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.<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span></strong><br><strong><u>3rd step:</u><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span>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><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span>The size must be such that the resulting frequency in the view of c yields the magnetic moment which is known by measurements.<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span></strong><br><strong><u>5th step:</u><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span>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. -<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><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:10pt;"><br><br></span></u></b></div><blockquote style=""><div><div><div><div style="border-style:none none none solid;border-left-color:rgb(195, 217, 229);border-left-width:1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 8pt;word-wrap:break-word;"><div><div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color: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:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"></span></div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;background-position:initial initial;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color: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:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"></span></div></div><blockquote style=""><div><div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:9pt;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<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><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.</span></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color: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:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"></span></div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;background-position:initial initial;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color: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="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><span class="ecxcurrent-selection">He writes: "By combining fragmentation with super</span>-<span class="ecxcurrent-selection">conductivity, we can get half-electrons that are their own antiparticles."</span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"></span></div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;background-position:initial initial;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color: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:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><strong><span style="font-size:10pt;color:rgb(0, 102, 0);">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:10pt;color:rgb(0, 102, 0);"><br><br><strong>Ciao</strong><br><strong>Albrecht</strong></span></b><b><span style="font-size:10pt;"><br><br><br></span></b></div><blockquote style=""><div><div><div><div style="border-style:none none none solid;border-left-color:rgb(195, 217, 229);border-left-width:1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 8pt;word-wrap:break-word;"><div><div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><strong><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></strong><span style="font-size:9pt;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:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"></span></div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;background-position:initial initial;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><strong><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">Gleichfalls, Al</span></strong><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"></span></div></div><blockquote style=""><div><div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;background-position:initial initial;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></p></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;background-position:initial initial;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">Have a good one! Al</span></div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;background-position:initial initial;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></p><div style="border-style:none none none solid;border-left-color:rgb(195, 217, 229);border-left-width:1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 8pt;"><div style=""><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><b><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">Gesendet:</span></b><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> Samstag, 14. November 2015 um 14:51 Uhr<br><b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese"<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br><b>An:</b> <a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br><b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…</span></div></div><div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:9pt;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><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span>law for range of charges and the r<sup>2</sup><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span>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><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span>case (number of shining stars) does in no way compensates for the 1/r<sup>2</sup><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span>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> <span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span></span></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">Am 13.11.2015 um 20:31 schrieb<a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</span></div></div><blockquote style=""><div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">Hi Albrecht:</span></div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;background-position:initial initial;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:9pt;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! </span></div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;background-position:initial initial;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:9pt;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. </span></div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;background-position:initial initial;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">Why fight it? Where the hell else will you find a credible 2nd particle? </span></div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;background-position:initial initial;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">ciao, Al</span></div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;background-position:initial initial;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></p><div style="border-style:none none none solid;border-left-color:rgb(195, 217, 229);border-left-width:1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 8pt;"><div style=""><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><b><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">Gesendet:</span></b><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> Freitag, 13. November 2015 um 12:11 Uhr<br><b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese"<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br><b>An:</b> <a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br><b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…</span></div></div><div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:9pt;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><span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span>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> <span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span></span></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">Am 12.11.2015 um 17:51 schrieb<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</span></div></div><blockquote style=""><div><div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">Hi Albrect:</span></div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;background-position:initial initial;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">We are making some progress. </span></div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;background-position:initial initial;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:9pt;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! </span></div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;background-position:initial initial;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:9pt;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). </span></div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;background-position:initial initial;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:9pt;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!</span></div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;background-position:initial initial;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">Tschuß, Al</span></div></div><div><div style="border-style:none none none solid;border-left-color:rgb(195, 217, 229);border-left-width:1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 8pt;"><div style=""><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><b><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">Gesendet:</span></b><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> Donnerstag, 12. November 2015 um 16:18 Uhr<br><b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese"<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br><b>An:</b> <a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br><b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…</span></div></div><div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:10pt;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 href="http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com</a>:<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><br> <span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span></span></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span class="ecxcurrent-selection"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">He writes: "By combining fragmentation with super</span></span><span class="ecxls0"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">-</span></span><span class="ecxcurrent-selection"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">conductivity, we can get half-electrons that are their own antiparticles."<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><br> </span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"></span></div></div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:10pt;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:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><br><br> <span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span></span></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">Am 12.11.2015 um 03:06 schrieb<a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"></span></div></div><blockquote style=""><div><div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">Hi Albrecht:</span></div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;background-position:initial initial;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:9pt;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.</span></div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;background-position:initial initial;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:9pt;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. </span></div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;background-position:initial initial;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:9pt;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. </span></div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;background-position:initial initial;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></p></div><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;">MfG, Al</span></div></div><div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;background-position:initial initial;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"> </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><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><br><br> <span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span></span></div><div class="ecxMsoNormal" align="center" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;text-align:center;background-color:white;background-position:initial initial;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;"><hr align="center" noshade="" size="1" width="99%" style="color:rgb(144, 144, 144);"></span></div><table class="ecxMsoNormalTable" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;"><tbody><tr><td style="padding:0in 11.25pt 0in 6pt;"><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;"><span style="text-decoration:none;"><img id="ecx_x0000_i1026" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" border="0"></span></a></div></td><td style="padding:0.75pt;"><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span style="font-family:Calibri, sans-serif;color:rgb(61, 77, 90);">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.<br><a href="http://www.avast.com/" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">www.avast.com</a></span></div></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><br><br></p><div class="ecxMsoNormal" align="center" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;text-align:center;"><hr align="center" noshade="" size="1" width="99%" style="color:rgb(144, 144, 144);"></div><table class="ecxMsoNormalTable" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;"><tbody><tr><td style="padding:0in 11.25pt 0in 6pt;"><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;"><span style="text-decoration:none;"><img id="ecx_x0000_i1028" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" border="0"></span></a></div></td><td style="padding:0.75pt;"><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span style="font-family:Calibri, sans-serif;color:rgb(61, 77, 90);">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><br><a href="http://www.avast.com/" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">www.avast.com</a></span></div></td></tr></tbody></table><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;">_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a></div></div></blockquote></div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></blockquote><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><br><br></p><div class="ecxMsoNormal" align="center" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;text-align:center;"><hr align="center" noshade="" size="1" width="99%" style="color:rgb(144, 144, 144);"></div><table class="ecxMsoNormalTable" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;"><tbody><tr><td style="padding:0in 11.25pt 0in 6pt;"><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;"><span style="text-decoration:none;"><img id="ecx_x0000_i1030" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" border="0"></span></a></div></td><td style="padding:0.75pt;"><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span style="font-family:Calibri, sans-serif;color:rgb(61, 77, 90);">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><br><a href="http://www.avast.com/" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">www.avast.com</a></span></div></td></tr></tbody></table><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div></div></blockquote></div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></blockquote><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><br><br></p><div class="ecxMsoNormal" align="center" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;text-align:center;"><hr align="center" noshade="" size="1" width="99%" style="color:rgb(144, 144, 144);"></div><table class="ecxMsoNormalTable" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;"><tbody><tr><td style="padding:0in 11.25pt 0in 6pt;"><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;"><span style="text-decoration:none;"><img id="ecx_x0000_i1032" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" border="0"></span></a></div></td><td style="padding:0.75pt;"><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"><span style="font-family:Calibri, sans-serif;color:rgb(61, 77, 90);">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span><br><a href="http://www.avast.com/" target="_blank" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;">www.avast.com</a></span></div></td></tr></tbody></table><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div></div></blockquote></div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div></div></div></blockquote><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div></div></blockquote></div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div></div></blockquote><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div></div></blockquote></div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> <br class="ecxwebkit-block-placeholder"></div></div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></blockquote><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> <br class="ecxwebkit-block-placeholder"></div></div></div></blockquote></div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></blockquote><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div></div></blockquote></div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></blockquote><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div></div></blockquote></div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></blockquote><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div></div></blockquote></div><p class="ecxMsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria;"> </p></div></div></div></div><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;display:inline !important;">_______________________________________________</span><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;"><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;display:inline !important;">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class="ecxApple-converted-space"> </span></span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;"><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;display:inline !important;"><a href="</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;display:inline !important;">"></span><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;"><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;display:inline !important;">Click here to unsubscribe</span><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;"><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;display:inline !important;"></a></span></div></blockquote></div><br></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:vladimirtamari@hotmail.com">vladimirtamari@hotmail.com</a></span><br><span><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"></span><br><span>Click here to unsubscribe</span><br><span></a></span><br></div></blockquote></div><span id="ecxcid:533AB311-7692-4C62-88A7-0BC827F159F2@hsd1.ca.comcast.net."><Mail Attachment.txt></span>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:vladimirtamari@hotmail.com">vladimirtamari@hotmail.com</a></span><br><span><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"></span><br><span>Click here to unsubscribe</span><br><span></a></span><br></div></blockquote></div><span id="ecxcid:1A54034B-76C9-4402-B89D-2E313E16965E@hsd1.ca.comcast.net."><Mail Attachment.txt></span>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div><br>_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at vladimirtamari@hotmail.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a></div></div> </div></body>
</html>