[General] research papers
Dr. Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Thu Oct 1 11:51:49 PDT 2015
Dear Richard,
thank you for your list of explicit questions. That makes it easy to
answer in a structured way. And I hope that my answers can also answer
some of the other questions and doubts which came up during the last
days and mails.
> Hello John and Albrecht and all,
>
> Thanks John, I stand corrected on the issue of your electron model
> not falling off in lateral size as 1/gamma.
>
> Albrecht, I am still not satisfied with your electron model for a
> number of reasons:
>
> 1) no experimental evidence for multi-particle structure of the
> electron even at high energies.
Yes, this model makes it difficult to show experimentally this structure
of the electron. It is difficult by the reason that both sub-particles
do not have any mass. So the particle cannot be decomposed by
bombardment, which is the normal way of investigating a particle
structure in high energy physics (like a proton). On the other hand it
should not be a problem to accept that a particle is big as a whole, but
by a scattering experiment only a sub-particle is detected. That has a
historical analogy in the Rutherford experiment, where Rutherford wished
to measure the size of an atom but found the size of the nucleus. In
case of the electron the experimenters look for the size of the electron
but find the size of the basic particle.
However there is now indeed an experimental evidence. As Frank Wilczek
wrote in his article in Nature, in a specific situation
(superconductivity in a magnetic field), half-electrons were detected.
In his understanding it is a complete mystery. In the view of this
particle model not so much a mystery.
An important theoretical argument for a pair of sub-particles is the
fact the there is an internal motion (mag. moment, spin), but the
conservation of momentum must not be violated. This needs at least 2
sub-particles.
>
> 2) your light-speed charged, massless circulating particles carry no
> resting inertia — why not just call them circulating charged photons,
> and just have one of them rather than two, based on the lack of
> experimental evidence for multi-particle structure of the electron?
Arguments against a photon: A photon at c has inertia. With this
assumption the model cannot work (look for the mechanism of inertia).
And a photon does not have a single (or half) electric charge. And
scattering of other charged particles (like quarks) at a photon would
not display a size < 10^-18. A photon cannot be that small.
Further the photon has spin of 1 h(bar), the electron has 1/2 of it. If
the electron would be built by 2 photons, the combined spin should be 0
or 2. Or there must be an additional orbital momentum which is otherwise
not known in particle physics.
>
> 3) there is no clear model of a photon in your system (maybe I missed
> it) and how electron-positron pair production of your electron model
> and positron model would emerge from a single photon in the vicinity
> of a nucleus (a common method of pair production).
I must admit that I do not have a consistent model for a photon. I tend
to the idea of de Broglie that a photon is composed by 2 elementary
particles. But I do not assume 2 neutrinos as de Broglie did but maybe
of 4 basic particles in a very special configuration. At least a photon
has to have positive and negative electric charges inside, otherwise it
would not react with electric charges as it does.
If we assume that the photon is e.g. built by 2 other particles which
are similar to electrons, pair production is quite plausible. On the
other hand, the generation of elementary particles by interaction
processes, which should mean in this context the generation of basic
particles, needs some additional understanding. My model just uses
generations like those but has no explanation yet for them.
>
> 4) the two-dimensionality of your electron model. Delta x in the
> third dimension appears to be zero and delta Px in the third dimension
> is also zero. So delta x delta Px is also zero , a strong violation of
> the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Is that a problem for your model?
The orbital motion of the 2 sub-particles goes on in a 2-dimensional
area, that is true. Problem with Heisenberg's principle? (I prefer to
say: the uncertainty relation, because nature is not determined by
principles, as elementary particles etc. do not have a mind so that they
can understand and follow principles.) The uncertainty is a "technical"
consequence of the de Broglie wave which surrounds and guides a
particle. Such wave can only be determined with uncertainty, that is the
uncertainty found in measurements. I do not see any uncertainty in
particles themselves as everywhere when we can measure parameters in an
interaction, the conservation laws are fulfilled without an uncertainty.
>
> 5) the fact that your model’s lateral size doesn’t decrease as
> electron speed increases. Since the 2 particles still move at light
> speed, this would require that the frequency of their circulation will
> reduce, rather than increase as would be expected with the electron's
> increasing energy as its speed increases. That also leaves your high
> energy relativistic electron model about 100,000 times too big,
> compared with high energy electron scattering experiments.
Irrespective to which direction an electron moves, the orbital frequency
reduces by the factor gamma. This is simple geometry and the physical
cause of dilation in SR. On the other hand, if the electron moves
towards another object to undergo an interaction there, then the other
object experiences an increase of frequency by the Doppler effect. This
Doppler effect over-compensates the relativistic reduction. - By the
way, this consideration was the starting point for de Broglie when he
began to think about elementary particles, which ended with the Nobel
price.
> To say that electron scattering occurs in your model with only one of
> the two rotating point-like particles and the other is pulled along
> without inertial resistance doesn’t work for me and seems very
> non-physical.
As the "other" sub-particle has no inertial mass, it can follow any
acceleration. This is (also) covered by Newton's law of inertia. But as
both sub-particles are bound to each other by a field which is subject
to the finite speed of light, the "other" one causes the inertia of the
whole configuration by the delay of field propagation. - It is essential
for the understanding of this model to understand the underlying
mechanism of inertia. See further down.
>
> 6) the fact that the electron’s z-component of spin 1/2 hbar is not
> clearly present in your model whose radius is the reduced Compton
> wavelength hbar/mc and not the Dirac amplitude hbar/2mc which easily
> yields the electron’s spin 1/2 , zitterbewegung frequency,
> double-looping in a resting electron and the Dirac 720 degree
> rotational symmetry of the electron. (This is the same problem I see
> with John M’s electron model, which also doesn’t have a clear spin 1/2
> hbar since its radius is also hbar/mc and not hbar/2mc .)
The sub-particles in this model are bound to each other by a multi-pole
field of the strong force. This field causes the inertia of the whole
particle and so tries to inhibit any change of the motion state. As the
sub-particles orbit at c and also the binding field moves at c, the one
sub-particle does not receive the field of the other one from the
opposite direction of the orbital motion, but the force has a component
in the direction of the circumference of the orbit. This inhibits a
change of the orbital motion and causes so an orbital momentum, i.e. a spin.
For an approximate calculation: The mass is given by m = h(bar) / (R*c)
. We can reorder this equation: m*R*c = h(bar). The left side is now the
classical definition of the orbital momentum at speed = c. - This is not
numerically applicable here as the model does not function as a
classical gyroscope. But it shows how spin in principle works.
Regarding Dirac: What Dirac has done is algebra, not physics. It is
often very practical to do algebra do solve physical problems, but we
should always be aware of the fact that we have to trace the algebra
back to the physical processes behind the calculation. And so also his
period of 720 degrees is a kind of mathematical trick helpful for some
calculations. But the physical space does in my understanding not have a
periodicity of 720 degrees.
>
> 7) the wave nature of your model is not clear to me. What in your
> model produces the electron's quantum wave nature, and how does your
> moving electron model generate the relativistic de Broglie wavelength
> quantitatively? Does it? You seem to accept the pilot wave concept of
> de Broglie-Bohm. Does your electron model display quantum non-locality
> and entanglement as Bohm’s does and which is also strongly
> experimentally supported?
The field which binds both sub-particles propagates into any direction
in space. So it is existent also outside of this configuration
"electron". As the electron circulates, it is an alternating field which
emits waves into the surrounding space. When the particle moves, it
takes the wave-field with it. This guides the particle as anticipated by
de Broglie and, among other effects, causes the scattering structure at
a double slit.
Non-locality and entanglement: This was my original motivation to
investigate theoretical physics (originally I am an experimentalist).
But up to now I was not successful to find an explanation for that. -
But that is another topic which has no direct relation to my model. - It
is a new information for me that Bohm did have an explanation for
entanglement.
You are asking for the deduction of the de Broglie wavelength. For
presenting a quantitative deduction I have to investigate some more
details, and so I ask you for some patience. I shall come back to it.
Finally I would like to emphasize the fact that this model is the only
one which explains inertia. As it is meanwhile admitted by mainstream
physics, the Higgs model is not able to provide this. The necessary
Higgs field does definitely not exist.
The reason for mass is that any extended object has inertia, independent
of "elementary masses" which may exist inside an object. The reason is
the finiteness of the speed of light, by which binding fields, which
must be present in any extended object, propagate. This is not an idea
or a wage possibility, but it is completely unavoidable. Applied to a
particle model, a particle can only have inertial if it is extended.
Question: Does anyone of you all here has another working model of inertia?
Here I should end today. But I will be happy to get further - and
critical - questions.
Best regards
Albrecht
>
>> On Sep 29, 2015, at 1:48 AM, John Williamson
>> <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk
>> <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear everyone especially Al, Albrecht and Richard,
>>
>> I have been meaning to weigh-in for some time, but term has just
>> started and I’m responsible for hundreds of new students, tens of
>> PhD’s, there is only one of me and my mind is working on less than
>> ten percent capacity.
>>
>> I think we have to distinguish between what is know, experimentally,
>> and our precious (to us) little theoretical models. Please remember
>> everyone that theory is just theory. It is fun to play with and that
>> is what we are all doing. The primary thing is first to understand
>> experiment – and that is hard as there is a huge amount of
>> mis-information in our “information” technology culture.
>>
>> You are right, Al, that Martin has not carried out experiments,
>> directly, himself, on the electron size in both high energy and at
>> low energy, but I have.
>>
>> I have many papers, published in the most prestigious journals, on
>> precisely those topics. They HAVE had much interest (in total more
>> than ten thousand citations). I have sat up, late at night, alone,
>> performing experimentsboth with the largest lepton microscope ever
>> made (The EMC experiment at CERN) and with my superb (best in the
>> world at the time) millikelvin Cryostat looking at precisely the
>> inner structure of single electrons spread out over sizes much
>> (orders of magnitude) larger than my experimental resolution. It is
>> widely said, but simply not true, that “no experiment resolves the
>> electron size”.This comes, largely, from simple ignorance of what the
>> experiments show. I have not only seen inside single electrons, but
>> then used the observed properties and structure, professionally and
>> in widely published and cited work, to design new devices. Have had
>> them made and measured (in collaboration with others), and seen them
>> thenwork both as expected, but also to reveal deeper mysteries again
>> involving the electron size, its quantum spin, its inner charge
>> distribution and so on. That work is still going on, now carried by
>> my old colleagues and by the rest of the world. Nano – my device was
>> the first nanosemiconductor device. Spintronics, designed the first
>> devices used for this. Inner workings of spin , and the exclusion
>> principle Martin and I hope to crack that soon! Fun! All welcome!
>>
>> Now where Martin is coming from, and where he, personally, late at
>> night etc … HAS done lots of professional experiments and has been
>> widely cited is in playing the same kind of games with light that I
>> have done with electrons. This means that, acting together, we really
>> know what we are talking about in a wide range of physics. Especially
>> particle scattering, quantum electron transport, and light. We may be
>> making up the theories, but we are not making up a wide and deep
>> understanding of experiment.
>>
>> I take your point – and you are so right -that there are so many
>> things one would like to read and understand and has not yet got
>> round to. So much and so little time. Ore papers written per second
>> than one can read per second. There is, however, no substitute for
>> actually having been involved in those very experiments to actually
>> understand what they mean.
>>
>> So what I am about to say is not going to be “shooting from the hip”,
>> but is perhaps more like having spent a couple of decades developing
>> a very large rail gun which has just been loaded for its one-shot at
>> intergalactic exploration …
>>
>> Now I hope you will not take this badly …it is fun to think about
>> this but here goes
>>
>> Here is what you said (making you blue):
>>
>> You have not done an experiment, but (at best) a calculation based on
>> some hypothtical input of your choise. Maybe it's good, maybe not.
>>
>> Not so: I have done the experiments! Myself. This is exactly why I
>> started looking into the extant models decades ago, found them sadly
>> lacking, and hence set out to devise new ones that did agree with
>> experiment at both low and high energy. This is the whole point!
>>
>>
>> The Sun scatters as a point only those projectiles that don't get close.
>>
>> True,
>>
>> So far, no scattering off elecrtons has gotten close enough to
>> engage any internal structure, "they" say (I#ll defer to experts
>> up-to-date).
>>
>> Not so. Lots of papers on this. Some by me. See e.g. Williamson,
>> Timmering, Harmans, Harris and Foxon Phys Rev 42 p 7675. Also – I am
>> an expert (up to date) on HEP as well. A more correct statement is
>> that no high-energy scattering experiment has RESOLVED any internal
>> structure in free electrons. If this was all you knew (and for many
>> HEP guys it seems to be) then one might interpret this as meaning the
>> electron was a point down to 10-18m. It is not. It cannot be. It does
>> not have enough mass to account for its spin (even if at lightspeed)
>> if it is that small. Work it out!
>>
>>
>> Nevertheless, electrons are in constant motion at or near the speed
>> of light (Zitterbewegung) and therefore at the time scales of the
>> projectiles buzz around (zittern) in a certain amout of space, which
>> seems to me must manifest itself as if there were spacially exteneded
>> structure within the scattering cross-section. Why not?
>>
>> Because this is no good if one does not have the forces or the
>> mechanism for making it “zitter”.
>>
>> More importantly -experimentally- because that is not what you see.
>> If it was just zittering in space one could see that zitter. What you
>> see (in deep inelastic lepton scattering, for example), is that there
>> is no size scale for lepton scattering. That is, that no structure is
>> resolved right down to 10^-18 metres. This is NOT the same thing as
>> an electron being a point. That is why one says (if one knows a bit
>> about what one is talking about) that it is “point-like” and not
>> “point” scattering. These qualifiers ALWAYS matter. Point-like – not
>> a point. Charged photon- not a photon. Localised photon – not a
>> photon. Vice-Admiral- not an admiral. Vice-president- more a reason
>> for not shooting the president!
>>
>> That structure is not resolved does NOT mean that the electron is
>> point.This is widely accepted as fact, but just represents a (far too
>> widespread) superficial level of understanding. Any inverse-square,
>> spherically symettric force-field has this property (eg spherical
>> planets if you do not actually hit them). The real problem is to
>> understand how it can appear spherically symettric and inverse square
>> in scattering while ACTUALLY being much much larger than this. This
>> is exactly what I started out working on in 1980 and have been
>> plugging away at ever since. Exactly that! You need to explain all of
>> experiment: that is what this is all about.
>>
>> Not to defend Albrecht's model as he describes it, but many folks
>> (say Peter Rowlands at Liverpool, for example) model elemtary
>> particles in terms of the partiicle itself interacting with its
>> induced virtual image (denoted by Peter as the "rest of the
>> universe"). This "inducement" is a kind of polarization effect.
>> Every charge repells all other like charges and attracts all other
>> unlike charges resulting in what can be modeled as a virtual charge
>> of the opposite gender superimposed on itself in the static
>> approximation. But, because the real situation is fluid, the virtual
>> charge's motion is delayed as caused by finite light speed, so that
>> the two chase each other. Etc. Looks something like Albrecht's pairs.
>>
>> Yes I know. This is the same kind of maths as “image charges” used
>> all the time in modelling the solid state. These are all models. All
>> models have features. We need to confront them with experiment.
>> Problem with the pairs is you don’t see any pairs. If one of the pair
>> has zero mass-energy it is not there at all. If there was a pair,
>> bound to each other with some forces, then one would see something
>> similar to what one sees in proton scattering (see below), and you do
>> not. One then has to explain why and how this process occurs, every
>> time. You always (and only) see one thing for electrons, muons. You
>> see a single object for the electron, and an internal structure for
>> the proton. This is what your theory has to deal with. Really.
>> Properly. In detail. At all energies.
>>
>>
>> I too havn't read your 97 paper yet, but I bet it's unlikely that you
>> all took such consideration into account.
>>
>> You could not know this, but his could not be more wrong. We did. You
>> did not specify the bet. Lets make it a beer. You owe me (and Martin)
>> a beer! If you have not yet read the paper by the time we next meet I
>> think you should buy all the beers! Deal?
>>
>> The whole point of the paper my reason for leaving high energy
>> physics at all, the seven years of work Martin and I put into it to
>> that point, was exactly to resolve this mystery – on the basis of an
>> “electron as a localised photon”. My subsequent work has been to try
>> to develop a proper field theory to deal with the problems inherent I
>> the old model (unknown forces) and in the Dirac theory (ad hoc lump
>> of mass) (amongst others). This is the point of the new theory of
>> light and matter:an attempt to sort all that out. You should read it
>> too! Do that and I will buy you a beer!
>>
>> Now Richard, while I am disagreeing with everyone I am going to
>> disagree with you too! You keep saying that the electron apparent
>> size scales with gamma – and you keep attributing me with agreeing
>> with you (and Martin and Viv and Chip). Let me say this once and for
>> all: I DO NOT agree with this.Now Viv and Chip must speak for
>> themselves, but I’m pretty sure Martin would (largely – though not
>> completely) agree me here.I have said this many times to you – though
>> perhaps not specifically enough.It is not quite wrong – but far too
>> simple. It scales ON AVERAGE so. I agree that it changes apparent
>> size- yes, but not with gamma- no. How it actually scales was
>> discussed in the 1997 paper, and the mathematics of this is explained
>> (for example) in my “Light” paper at SPIE (see Eq. 19). Gamma = ½( x+
>> 1/x). Also, this is amongst other things, in Martin’s “Light is
>> Heavy” paper. Really the apparent size scales BOTH linearly AND
>> inverse linearly (as x and 1/x then). It is the average of these that
>> gives gamma. This is how relativity actually works. You do not put
>> things in, you get things out. You need to look at this and
>> understand how gamma is related. Best thing is to go through the
>> maths yourself, then you will see.
>>
>> The bottom line is that the reason one does not resolve the electron
>> size is that, in a collision, this size scales like light. It gets
>> smaller with increasing energy. Linearly. Likewise the scattering
>> exchange photon scales like light. Linearly. The ratio for head on
>> collisions remains constant – but the exchange photon is always about
>> an order of magnitude bigger that the electron (localised photon).
>> This is WHY it can be big (10^-13 m)and yet appear small. I said this
>> in my talk, but I know how hard it is to take everything in.
>>
>> One does not see internal structure because of this effect – and the
>> fact that the electron is a SINGLE object. Not composite – like a
>> proton (and Albrecht’s model).
>>
>> Now what would one see with lepton scatting on protons? I have dozens
>> of papers on this (and thousands of citations to those papers) – so
>> this is not shooting from the hip. Let me explain as briefly and
>> simply as I can. Lock and load …
>>
>> At low energies (expresses as a length much less than 10^-15 m or
>> so), one sees point-like scattering from, what looks like, a
>> spherically symettric charge distribution. Ok there are differences
>> between positive projectiles (which never overlap) and negative, but
>> broad brush this is so. There is then a transitional stage where one
>> sees proton structure – some interesting resonances and an effective
>> “size” of the proton (though recently this has been shown to be
>> (spectactularly interestingly) different for electron and muon
>> scattering! (This means (obviously) that the electron and muon have a
>> different effective size on that scale). At much higher energies one
>> begins to see (almost) that characteristic point-like scattering
>> again, from some hard bits in the proton. Rutherford atom all over
>> again. These inner parts have been called “partons”. Initially, this
>> was the basis –incorrect in my view – of making the association of
>> quarks with partons. Problem nowadays is that the three valence
>> quarks carry almost none of the energy-momentum of the proton - -
>> keeps getting less and less as the energies go up. I think this whole
>> quark-parton thing is largely bullshit. Experimentally!
>>
>> Now Albrecht you make some good points. You are absolutely right to
>> quote the experiments on the relativity of time with clocks and with
>> muons. You are also right that one is not much better off with double
>> loops (or any other kinds of loops) than with two little hard balls.
>> This is a problem for any model of the electron as a loop in space
>> (Viv, John M, Chip, John D – this is why the electron cannot be a
>> little spatial loop – it is not consistent with scattering
>> experiments!). Now this is a problem in space-space but not in more
>> complex spaces as Martin and I have argued (see SPIE electron paper
>> for up to date description of this – from my perspective). It is more
>> proper to say the loops are in “momentum space” though this is not
>> quite correct either. They are in the space(s) they are in – all nine
>> degrees of freedom (dimensions if you like) of them. None of the nine
>> are “space”. For me, they are not little loops in space. In space
>> they are spherical. You are not correct – as the DESY director said
>> and as I said in the “panel” discussion- that one would not “see”
>> this. One would. Only if one of the balls were not there ( I like
>> your get out of saying that!), would one observe what one observes.
>> In my view, however, if it is not there it is not there. I’m open to
>> persuasion if you can give me a mechanism though!
>>
>> Gotta go ... need to sort out tutorials ...
>>
>> Regards, John W.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:*General
>> [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>> on behalf of Dr. Albrecht Giese [genmail at a-giese.de]
>> *Sent:*Monday, September 28, 2015 4:39 PM
>> *To:*Richard Gauthier; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>> *Subject:*Re: [General] research papers
>>
>> Richard,
>>
>> you have asked some questions about my electron model and I am glad
>> to answer them.
>>
>> Does my model explain the relativistic mass increase of the electron
>> at motion? Yes it does. According to my model the mass of an electron
>> is m=h(bar) / (R_el *c), where R_el is the radius for the electron
>> (which is equally valid for all elementary particles). Now, as the
>> binding field in the electron contracts at motion by gamma (as
>> initially found by Heaviside in 1888), also the size of the electron
>> contracts at motion by gamma. So the mass of the electron increases
>> by gamma and also of course its dynamical energy. - That is very
>> simple and elementary. The same considerations apply for the
>> relativistic momentum of the electron.
>>
>> (This is all described in my web sitewww.ag-physics.org/rmass; you
>> can also find it via Google by the search string "origin of mass".
>> There it is within the first two positions of the list, where the
>> other one is of Frank Wilczek; since 10 years we both are struggling
>> to be the number one.)
>>
>> However, the contraction only occurs in the direction of motion. So
>> the cross section of the electron is not changed by the motion. And
>> in so far this contraction is not able to explain the small size of
>> the electron found in scattering experiments. - Another point is that
>> this small size was also found in scattering experiments at energies
>> smaller than 29 GeV. And, another determination, in the Penning trap
>> the size of the electron turns out to be < 10^-22 m.
>>
>> So there must be something in the electron which is much smaller than
>> the Compton wavelength. The model of two orbiting sub-particles is an
>> extremely simple model which also explains a lot else.
>>
>> Regarding the uncertainty relation of Heisenberg, I have a very
>> "technical" understanding of it as I have explained it in our
>> meeting. There is nothing imprecise within the electron itself, only
>> the measurement has limited precision. The reason is simple. Normally
>> an interaction of the electron is an interaction of its de Broglie
>> wave with another object. This wave is a wave packet, the size of
>> which is round about given by the size of the electron-configuration
>> (Compton wavelength); the size of a wave packet is not very precisely
>> defined. And on the other hand, the frequency of a limited packet is
>> not precisely measurable. The relation of both limitations is well
>> known by electric engineers, the rule is sometimes called "Nyquist
>> theorem". Now, as the frequency is related to the energy of the
>> particle, the Nyquist theorem is identical with Heisenberg's
>> uncertainty relation; only the interpretation of quantum theorists is
>> less technical. They assume that the physical situation itself is
>> imprecise, not only the measurement. Here I do not follow the QM
>> interpretation.
>>
>> Albrecht
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 26.09.2015 um 19:57 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>> Albrecht, Al, Martin et al
>>>
>>> One solution that I think John W, Martin, Chip (I think), Vivian
>>> (as I remember) and I all agree on (I’m not sure about John M’s
>>> electron model) with our electron models is that the electron (as a
>>> circulating light-speed entity) decreases in size with increasing
>>> speed of the electron. Just as a photon’s wavelength (and presumably
>>> also its transverse size or extent) decreases proportionally as 1/E
>>> with a photon’s energy E=hf, a high energy relativistic electron
>>> (whose de Broglie wavelength is nearly equal to the wavelength of a
>>> high energy photon having the same total energy as the high energy
>>> electron) should also decrease its lateral size similarly with its
>>> energy. The lateral size of an electron decreases as 1/gamma
>>> according to John and Martin due to energy considerations. In my
>>> model the radius of the charged photon’s helical trajectory
>>> decreases as 1/gamma^2 but with a more detailed extended (internally
>>> superluminal) model of the charged photon also decreases as 1/gamma
>>> . A 1/gamma decrease is enough to match the high energy (around
>>> 29GeV) scattering size of an electron found to be < 10^-18 meters
>>> even though the size of the resting electron (on the order of the
>>> Compton wavelength) is around 10^-12 - 10^-13 m. So this I think is
>>> a solved problem with respect to our models.
>>>
>>> I don’t know if Albrecht’s electron model decreases as 1/gamma
>>> with increasing electron speed. I think not. But Albrecht’s model
>>> doesn’t I think take into account that the electron’s total energy
>>> increases proportionally with gamma and so the frequency of the 2
>>> circulating mass-less particles should also increase proportionally
>>> with gamma if the energy of his model is to correspond to the
>>> experimentally measured moving electron’s energy E= gamma mc^2 .
>>> That should require the radius of the 2-particle orbit to decrease
>>> with his electron model’s speed if the 2 orbiting particles are to
>>> continue to circulate at light-speed. So Albrecht's model’s size
>>> should also decrease at least as 1/gamma with its speed,and the need
>>> for the 2 massless particles in his model is unnecessary to explain
>>> the small size of the electron at high speeds. As far as
>>> conservation of momentum requiring 2 circulating particles, John
>>> W.’s model proposes to solve this with his p-vot which causes the
>>> photon to curve into a double loop and produce the electron’s rest
>>> mass (as I understand it) and charge. But also the delta x delta p >
>>> hbar/2 requirement of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle for
>>> detectable variability in position and velocity means that probably
>>> for any Compton wavelength electron model the amount of violation of
>>> conservation of momentum of a single light-speed photon-like object
>>> looping around would not be experimentally detectable (and so
>>> allowed since it is not experimentally detected) as being (like a
>>> virtual particle in QED) under the wire of the Heisenberg
>>> uncertainty principle.
>>
>>> Richard
>>>
>>>> On Sep 26, 2015, at 8:57 AM, John Duffield
>>>> <johnduffield at btconnect.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Albrecht:
>>>> In case Martin is tied up, here’s his 1997
>>>> paper:http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdfco-authored with John
>>>> Williamson.
>>>> As regards electron size, it’s field is what it is. Inatomic
>>>> orbitals
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#Electron_properties>electrons
>>>> “exist as standing waves”. Standing wave, standing field. We can
>>>> diffract electrons. I think the electron has size like a seismic
>>>> wave has size. A seismic wave might have an amplitude of 1 metre,
>>>> and a wavelength of a kilometre. But when it travels from A to B it
>>>> isn’t just the houses on top of the AB line that shake. Houses
>>>> shake a hundred miles away. And that seismic wave is still
>>>> detectable on the other side f the Earth. It’s not totally
>>>> different for an ocean wave, seethis gif
>>>> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Deep_water_wave.gif>.
>>>> The amplitude might be 1m, but that isn’t the size of the wave, nor
>>>> is the wavelength. The red test particles are still circulating
>>>> deep below the water.
>>>> Try to imagine a wave going round and round, in a double loop,
>>>> then make it a tighter loop. Then have a look atsome knots
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_knot_theory>. Photon
>>>> momentum is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a wave
>>>> propagating linearly at c. When it’s a 511keV wave going round and
>>>> round at c, we don’t call it a photon any more. But it still
>>>> exhibits resistance to change-in-motion. Only we don’t call it a
>>>> momentum any more. We call it mass. Make sure you readthis
>>>> <http://www.tardyon.de/mirror/hooft/hooft.htm>. It’s not the Nobel
>>>> ‘t Hooft.
>>>> Regards
>>>> John Duffield
>>>> *From:*General
>>>> [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
>>>> Behalf Of*Dr. Albrecht Giese
>>>> *Sent:*26 September 2015 15:46
>>>> *To:*general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>> *Subject:*Re: [General] research papers
>>>>
>>>> Hi Martin, Al, and all,
>>>>
>>>> thank you all for your contributions.
>>>>
>>>> _Regarding the size of the electron:_
>>>>
>>>> As Al argued in his example of the sun: If the scattered object is
>>>> passing by without touching, the angular distribution is
>>>> independent of the size of the object (for the 1/r^2 case). But
>>>> that changes if the scattered particle hits the body of the "ball".
>>>> In a last experiment in 2004 at DESY there was an experiment
>>>> performed in which electrons were scattered against quarks (of a
>>>> proton). The "common" size of both particles resulted in a bit less
>>>> than 10^-18 m. This limit is given by the ratio of scattered events
>>>> which react different from the 1/r^2 rule. - In this experiment it
>>>> was also found that the electron is not only subject to the
>>>> electric interaction but also to the strong interaction. I think
>>>> that this is also important for assessing electron models.
>>>>
>>>> This result of the size seems in clear conflict with the evaluation
>>>> of Schrödinger and Wilczek using the uncertainty relation.
>>>> Schroedinger made the following statement to it: "Here I have got
>>>> the following result for the size of the electron (i.e. the Compton
>>>> radius). But we know that the electron is point-like. So, I must
>>>> have an error in my evaluation. However, I do not find this error."
>>>> So also for Schrödinger this was an unsolvable conflict.
>>>>
>>>> I think that if the electron would be point like on the one hand
>>>> but oscillate far enough so as to fill the size of the Compton
>>>> wavelength, this would be a violation of the conservation of
>>>> momentum. Very clearly, a single object cannot oscillate. That was
>>>> also obvious for Schrödinger and clearly his reason to call the
>>>> internal motion "Zitterbewegung". This is a word which does not
>>>> exist in the German vocabulary of physical terms. But Schrödinger
>>>> hesitated (by good reason) to use the German word for "oscillation".
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, if the electron is built by two sub-particles,
>>>> this solves the problem. The sub-particle is point-like (at least
>>>> with respect to its charge), but both sub-particles orbit each
>>>> other, which reserves the momentum law, and the orbital radius is
>>>> the reduced Compton wavelength. - The argument of Martin that a
>>>> model of two sub-particles is "refuted by the experiment" is often
>>>> heart but not applicable to my model. The usual argument is that a
>>>> sufficient effort has been done to decompose an electron by a
>>>> strong bombardment. This was also done here at DESY. But in my
>>>> model the sub-particles have no mass on their own (the mass of the
>>>> electron is caused by the dynamics of the binding field). And in
>>>> such a case one of the sub-particles may be accelerated by an
>>>> arbitrary amount, the other one can always follow without any force
>>>> coming up. A decomposition by bombardment is therefore never
>>>> possible. - I have discussed this point with the research director
>>>> of DESY who was responsible for such experiments, and after at
>>>> first objecting it, he admitted, that my model is not in conflict
>>>> with these experiments.
>>>>
>>>> Martin: Where do I find your paper of 1997?
>>>>
>>>> _Regarding dilation:_
>>>>
>>>> There is a lot of clear indications for dilation. Two examples:
>>>> - The atomic clocks in the GPS satellites are slowed down which
>>>> has to be compensated for
>>>> - In the Muon storage ring at CERN the lifetime of these Muons was
>>>> extended by the great amount ca. 250, which was in precise
>>>> agreement with special relativity.
>>>>
>>>> Contraction, on the other hand, is in so far more a point of
>>>> interpretation as it cannot be directly measured - in contrast to
>>>> dilation.
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes
>>>> Albrecht
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 26.09.2015 um 01:48 schriebaf.kracklauer at web.de:
>>>>> Well! The water I was trying to offer was: might it not be a good
>>>>> idea to distinguish clearly and specifically between the size of a
>>>>> point and the size of the volumn in which this point is
>>>>> insessently moving about. If your 97 paper does that, my
>>>>> appologies. Does it? Forgive me, I have over a couple hundred
>>>>> papers I'd like to have read and digested laying about, I do my
>>>>> best but still can't get to them all. The chances are better,
>>>>> however, if a paper attracts lots of attention because it
>>>>> predicted something new to be observed empirically. Did it?
>>>>> BTW, I did not imply that the work I refered to is better. But,
>>>>> it (in Rowland's avantar) is certainly as extensive as yours. In
>>>>> any case, it potentially undermines your "shot-from-the-hip"
>>>>> criticism of Albrecht's program by introducing a feature to which
>>>>> neither you nor John refered to, in my best memory, at San Diego.
>>>>> My comment was not intended ad hominum, but made on the
>>>>> presumtion that you too have hundreds of unread papers available.
>>>>> Best, Al
>>>>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 19:56 Uhr
>>>>> *Von:* "Mark, Martin van der"<martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
>>>>> *An:* "Nature of Light and Particles - General
>>>>> Discussion"<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] research papers
>>>>> Al, just read what i wrote. It is not shooting from the hip. I am
>>>>> refering to actual experiments, all cited in the paper i refered
>>>>> to. Further, you are just repeating what i said already. I can
>>>>> only bring you to the water, i cannot make you drink. And then you
>>>>> refer to other doubtfull work, as id it were better. Good luck.
>>>>> Regards, Martin
>>>>>
>>>>> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>> Op 25 sep. 2015 om 19:16 heeft "af.kracklauer at web.de"
>>>>> <af.kracklauer at web.de> het volgende geschreven:
>>>>>> Dear Martin,
>>>>>> Perhaps it's my Texas background, but I think I sense some
>>>>>> "shoot'n from the hip."
>>>>>> You have not done an experiment, but (at best) a calculation
>>>>>> based on some hypothtical input of your choise. Maybe it's good,
>>>>>> maybe not.
>>>>>> The Sun scatters as a point only those projectiles that don't get
>>>>>> close. So far, no scattering off electons has gotten close
>>>>>> enough to engage any internal structure, "they" say (I#ll defer
>>>>>> to experts up-to-date). Nevertheless, electrons are in constant
>>>>>> motion at or near the speed of light (Zitterbewegung) and
>>>>>> therefore at the time scales of the projectiles buzz around
>>>>>> (zittern) in a certain amout of space, which seems to me must
>>>>>> manifest itself as if there were spacially exteneded structure
>>>>>> within the scattering cross-section. Why not?
>>>>>> Not to defend Albrecht's model as he describes it, but many folks
>>>>>> (say Peter Rowlands at Liverpool, for example) model elemtary
>>>>>> particles in terms of the partiicle itself interacting with its
>>>>>> induced virtual image (denoted by Peter as the "rest of the
>>>>>> universe"). This "inducement" is a kind of polarization effect.
>>>>>> Every charge repells all other like charges and attracts all
>>>>>> other unlike charges resulting in what can be modeled as a
>>>>>> virtual charge of the opposite gender superimposed on itself in
>>>>>> the static approximation. But, because the real situation is
>>>>>> fluid, the virtual charge's motion is delayed as caused by finite
>>>>>> light speed, so that the two chase each other. Etc. Looks
>>>>>> something like Albrecht's pairs.
>>>>>> I too havn't read your 97 paper yet, but I bet it's unlikely that
>>>>>> you all took such consideration into account.
>>>>>> Best, Al
>>>>>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 18:44 Uhr
>>>>>> *Von:* "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
>>>>>> *An:* "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion"
>>>>>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, "phys at a-giese.de"
>>>>>> <phys at a-giese.de>
>>>>>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] research papers
>>>>>> Dear Al, dear Albrecht, dear all,
>>>>>> In the paper John W and I published in 1997, the situation is
>>>>>> explained briefly but adequately.
>>>>>> Clearly Albrecht has not read it or, perhaps he did but does not
>>>>>> want to understand it because it really destroys his work. This
>>>>>> is a double pity, of course, but we are talking science, not
>>>>>> sentiment, and I do not want to take away anything from the
>>>>>> person you are Albrecht.
>>>>>> The electron has a finite size, of the oder of the Compton
>>>>>> wavelength, but the Coulomb interaction is perfectly matched in
>>>>>> ANY experiment, which means there are no internal bits to the
>>>>>> electron and that it behaves as a point-LIKE scatterer, not a to
>>>>>> be mistaken by a POINT as is done most of the time. Note that
>>>>>> even the sun has point-like scattering for all comets that go
>>>>>> round it, its gravitational field seems to come from the centre
>>>>>> of the sun. Until you hit other bits. There are no other bits for
>>>>>> the electron, but at very high energy the 4-momentum exchange
>>>>>> combined with the resolving power at that high energy make that a
>>>>>> Compton-size object CANNOT be resolved in principle, if and only
>>>>>> if it is of electromagnetic origin.
>>>>>> The electron is a single thing, of electromagnetic origin only,
>>>>>> there is NO OTHER WAY to fit the experimental results.
>>>>>> Well, maybe there is another way, but I cannot see it. Certainly
>>>>>> it is not two parts rotating about each other, because that is
>>>>>> refuted by experiment, all those models can go in the bin and are
>>>>>> a waste of time and energy.
>>>>>> Regards, Martin
>>>>>> Dr. Martin B. van der Mark
>>>>>> Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare
>>>>>> Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven
>>>>>> High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)
>>>>>> Prof. Holstlaan 4
>>>>>> 5656 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands
>>>>>> Tel: +31 40 2747548
>>>>>> *From:*General
>>>>>> [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
>>>>>> Behalf Of*af.kracklauer at web.de
>>>>>> *Sent:*vrijdag 25 september 2015 18:05
>>>>>> *To:*phys at a-giese.de
>>>>>> <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>;general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>>>> <x-msg://59/UrlBlockedError.aspx>
>>>>>> *Cc:*Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>>>>>> *Subject:*Re: [General] research papers
>>>>>> Gentelmen:
>>>>>> Shouldn't a clear and explicit distinction between the "size" of
>>>>>> the electron and the "extent" of its Zitterbewegung be made. My
>>>>>> best info, perhaps not up-to-date, is that although scattering
>>>>>> experiments put an upper limit on the size (10^-19m), there
>>>>>> exists in fact no evidence that the electron has any finite size
>>>>>> whatsoever. This is in contrast to the space it consumes with
>>>>>> its Zitter-motion, which is what would be calculated using QM
>>>>>> (Heisenberg uncertanty mostly). Seems to me that most of what
>>>>>> folks theorize about is the latter, without saying so, and
>>>>>> perhaps often without even recognizing it. However, since the
>>>>>> Zitter volumn will cause electrons to be moving targets, it must
>>>>>> also have some effect on its scatering cross-section too. I
>>>>>> don't know how this is sorted out in scattering calculations---if
>>>>>> at all. (Albrectht?)
>>>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong. Best, Al
>>>>>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 15:06 Uhr
>>>>>> *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
>>>>>> *An:* "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>,phys at a-giese.de
>>>>>> *Cc:* "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion"
>>>>>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>>>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] research papers
>>>>>> Hello Richard,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> according to present mainstream physics the size of the electron
>>>>>> is not more than 10^-19 m. This is concluded from scattering
>>>>>> experiments where the size of the electric charge is the quantity
>>>>>> of influence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As present mainstream physics (including the QED of Feynman)
>>>>>> assume that the electron has no internal structure and that the
>>>>>> electric force is the only one effective, this size is identified
>>>>>> with the size of the whole electron. This is in severe conflict
>>>>>> with the calculations of Schrödinger and of Wilczek based on QM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have the impression that several of us (including me) have
>>>>>> models of the electron which assume some extension roughly
>>>>>> compatible with the QM calculations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some details of my model related to this question: Here the
>>>>>> electron is built by 2 sub-particles ("basic particles") which
>>>>>> orbit each other at c. The electric force is not the only force
>>>>>> inside. The radius following from the magnetic moment is the
>>>>>> reduced Compton wavelength, and the mass of the electron follows
>>>>>> with high precision from this radius. At motion the size
>>>>>> decreases by the relativistic factor gamma, and so the mass
>>>>>> increases by this factor. - However there was always a point of a
>>>>>> certain weakness in my model: I could not prove that the electron
>>>>>> is built by just 2 sub-particles carrying 1/2 elementary charge
>>>>>> each. Now Wilczek writes in his article that in certain
>>>>>> circumstances - superconductivity in the presence of a magnetic
>>>>>> field - the electron is decomposed into two halves. This is the
>>>>>> result of measurements. How can this happen with a point-like
>>>>>> particle? This is a mystery for Wilczek. But in the view of my
>>>>>> model it is no mystery but quite plausible. It only needs now a
>>>>>> quantitative calculation of this process which I presently do not
>>>>>> have.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All the best to you
>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 23.09.2015 um 19:02 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>>>>>> Hello Albrecht,
>>>>>>> Yes, all of our electron models here have a radius related to
>>>>>>> the Compton wavelength. Dirac’s zitterbewegung amplitude is 1/2
>>>>>>> of the reduced Compton wavelength, or hbar/2mc , which is the
>>>>>>> radius of the generic circulating charged photon’s trajectory in
>>>>>>> my circulating spin 1/2 charged photon model for a resting
>>>>>>> electron. That radius decreases by a factor of gamma^2 in a
>>>>>>> moving electron. Does yours? Incorporating a more detailed spin
>>>>>>> 1/2 charged photon model with the generic model could bring the
>>>>>>> model's radius up to the reduced Compton wavelength hbar/mc.
>>>>>>> all the best,
>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>> On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:13 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese
>>>>>>>> <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dear Richard,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thank you for this reference to the article of Frank Wilczek.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He has a quantum mechanical argument to determine a size for
>>>>>>>> the electron. It is the application of the uncertainty relation
>>>>>>>> to the magnetic moment of the electron. The result is as you
>>>>>>>> write: 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is the Compton wavelength of the
>>>>>>>> electron.
>>>>>>>> This is a bit similar to the way as Erwin Schrödinger has
>>>>>>>> determined the size of the electron using the Dirac function in
>>>>>>>> 1930. There Schrödinger determined the "amplitude of the
>>>>>>>> zitterbewegung" also applying the uncertainty relation to the
>>>>>>>> rest energy of the electron. It was "roughly" 10^-13 m, which
>>>>>>>> also meant in his words the Compton wavelength of the electron.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In my electron model its radius is 3.86 x 10^-13 m, which is
>>>>>>>> exactly the "reduced" Compton wavelength. But here it is not an
>>>>>>>> expectation value as in the cases of Wilczek and Schrödinger
>>>>>>>> but the exact radius of the orbits of the basic particles.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you again and best wishes
>>>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 21.09.2015 um 05:01 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>>>>>>>> This 2013 Nature comment “The enigmatic electron” by Frank
>>>>>>>>> Wilczek at
>>>>>>>>> http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com is
>>>>>>>>> worth a look. He states that due to QM effects, the size of
>>>>>>>>> the electron is about 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is roughly in the
>>>>>>>>> range of some of our electron models.
>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Wolfgang Baer
>>>>>>>>>> <wolf at nascentinc.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I should add you sent me Main-2014.pdf and that may be the
>>>>>>>>>> one not available on the web sight.
>>>>>>>>>> I was looking for a similar one that included the other
>>>>>>>>>> topics as well.
>>>>>>>>>> If you do not have it, its OK, I just like reading from paper.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> best wishes,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wolf
>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>>>>>>> Research Director
>>>>>>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>>>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>>>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/2015 12:45 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> John,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You wrote a long text, so I will enter my answers within
>>>>>>>>>>> your text.
>>>>>>>>>>> Am 14.09.2015 um 02:54 schrieb John Macken:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello David and Albrecht,
>>>>>>>>>>>> It was through the contact with this group that I was
>>>>>>>>>>>> finally able to understand the disconnect that existed
>>>>>>>>>>>> between my idea of vacuum energy and the picture that
>>>>>>>>>>>> others were obtaining from my use of the term “energy”.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Many of the mysteries of quantum mechanics and general
>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity can be traced to the fact that fields exist and
>>>>>>>>>>>> yet we do not have a clear idea of what they are. My
>>>>>>>>>>>> answer is that we live within a sea of vacuum activity
>>>>>>>>>>>> which is the physical basis of the mysterious fields. I
>>>>>>>>>>>> combine all fields into a single “spacetime field” which is
>>>>>>>>>>>> the basis of all particles, fields and forces.
>>>>>>>>>>>> *David*, you asked about the wordsquantum, quantifying and
>>>>>>>>>>>> quantizing. I did a word search and I did not use the word
>>>>>>>>>>>> “quantizing” in either the email or the attachment to my
>>>>>>>>>>>> last post. However, the paper/Energetic Spacetime: The New
>>>>>>>>>>>> Aether/submitted to SPIE as part of the conference
>>>>>>>>>>>> presentation, used and defines the word “quantization”.
>>>>>>>>>>>> This paper was attached to previous posts, and is available
>>>>>>>>>>>> at my website: http://onlyspacetime.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Albrecht*: I can combine my answer to you with the
>>>>>>>>>>>> clarification for David of the word “quantify” and its
>>>>>>>>>>>> derivatives. I claim that my model of the universe
>>>>>>>>>>>> “quantifies” particles and fields. I will start my
>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation of this concept by giving examples of models
>>>>>>>>>>>> which do not “quantify” particles and fields. There have
>>>>>>>>>>>> been numerous particle models from this group and others
>>>>>>>>>>>> which show an electron model as two balls orbiting around a
>>>>>>>>>>>> center of mass. Most of the group identifies these balls
>>>>>>>>>>>> as photons but Albrecht names the two balls “charges of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> strong force”. Both photons and charges of strong force
>>>>>>>>>>>> are just words. To be quantifiable, it is necessary to
>>>>>>>>>>>> describe the model of the universe which gives the strong
>>>>>>>>>>>> force or the electromagnetic force. What exactly are
>>>>>>>>>>>> these? How much energy and energy density does one charge
>>>>>>>>>>>> of strong force have? Can a photon occupy a volume smaller
>>>>>>>>>>>> than a reduced Compton wavelength in radius? Does a muon
>>>>>>>>>>>> have the same basic strong force charge but just rotate
>>>>>>>>>>>> faster? Are the charges of strong force or photons made of
>>>>>>>>>>>> any other more basic component?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding charge: This is a basic entity in my model. At
>>>>>>>>>>> some point a physical theory has to start. My model starts
>>>>>>>>>>> with the assumption that a charge is an "atomic" entity, so
>>>>>>>>>>> possibly point-like, which emits exchange particles (in this
>>>>>>>>>>> point I follow the general understanding of QM). There are
>>>>>>>>>>> two types of charges: the electric ones which we are very
>>>>>>>>>>> familiar with, having two signs, and the strong ones, which
>>>>>>>>>>> are not so obvious in everyday physics; they also have two
>>>>>>>>>>> signs. In the physical nature we find the charges of the
>>>>>>>>>>> strong force only in configurations made of those different
>>>>>>>>>>> signs, never isolated. This is in contrast to the electric
>>>>>>>>>>> charges.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The basic particles are composed of a collection of charges
>>>>>>>>>>> of the strong force so that both basic particles are bound
>>>>>>>>>>> to each other in a way that they keep a certain distance.
>>>>>>>>>>> This distance characterizes an elementary particle. In
>>>>>>>>>>> several (or most) cases there is additionally an electric
>>>>>>>>>>> charge in the basic particle.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The two parameters I have to set - or to find - are the
>>>>>>>>>>> shape of the strong field in the elementary particle. Here I
>>>>>>>>>>> have defined an equation describing a minimum multi-pole
>>>>>>>>>>> field to make the elementary particle stable. The other
>>>>>>>>>>> setting is the strength of this field. This strength can be
>>>>>>>>>>> found e.g. using the electron because the electron is well
>>>>>>>>>>> known and precisely measured. This field is then applicable
>>>>>>>>>>> for all leptons as well as for all quarks. It is also
>>>>>>>>>>> applicable for the photon with the restriction that there
>>>>>>>>>>> may be a correction factor caused by the fact that the
>>>>>>>>>>> photon is not fundamental in the sense of this model but
>>>>>>>>>>> composed of (maybe) two other particles.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The size of the photon is (at least roughly) described by
>>>>>>>>>>> its wavelength. This follows from the mass formula resulting
>>>>>>>>>>> from my model, as with this assumption the (dynamic) mass of
>>>>>>>>>>> the photon is the correct result.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As I wrote, the results of this model are very precise, the
>>>>>>>>>>> prove is in practice only limited by limitations of the
>>>>>>>>>>> measurement processes.
>>>>>>>>>>> I could go on with more questions until it is possible to
>>>>>>>>>>> calculate the properties of an electron from the answers.
>>>>>>>>>>> So far both models lack any quantifiable details except
>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps a connection to the particle’s Compton frequency. I
>>>>>>>>>>> am not demanding anything more than I have already done. For
>>>>>>>>>>> example, I cannot calculate the electron’s Compton frequency
>>>>>>>>>>> or the fine structure constant. However, once I install
>>>>>>>>>>> these into the model that I create, and combine this with
>>>>>>>>>>> the properties of the spacetime field, then I get an
>>>>>>>>>>> electron. Installing a muon’s Compton frequency generates a
>>>>>>>>>>> muon with the correct electric field, electrostatic force,
>>>>>>>>>>> curvature of spacetime, gravitational force and de Broglie
>>>>>>>>>>> waves. I am able to quantify the distortion of spacetime
>>>>>>>>>>> produced by a charged particle, an electric field and a
>>>>>>>>>>> photon. I am able to test these models and show that they
>>>>>>>>>>> generate both the correct energy density and generate a
>>>>>>>>>>> black hole when we reach the distortion limits of the
>>>>>>>>>>> spacetime field.
>>>>>>>>>>> In my model the Compton frequency of the electron (and of
>>>>>>>>>>> the other leptons) follows directly from the size of the
>>>>>>>>>>> particle and the fact that the basic particle move with c.
>>>>>>>>>>> The fine structure constant tells us the relation of the
>>>>>>>>>>> electric force to the strong force. This explanation follows
>>>>>>>>>>> very directly from this model, however was also found by
>>>>>>>>>>> other theorists using algebra of particle physics.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Another result of the model is that Planck's constant -
>>>>>>>>>>> multiplied by c - is the field constant of the strong force.
>>>>>>>>>>> Also this is the result of other models (however not of
>>>>>>>>>>> mainstream physics).
>>>>>>>>>>> My model starts with a quantifiable description of the
>>>>>>>>>>> properties of spacetime. The spacetime model has a specific
>>>>>>>>>>> impedance which describes the properties of waves that can
>>>>>>>>>>> exist in spacetime. Then the amplitude and frequency of the
>>>>>>>>>>> waves in spacetime is quantified. This combination allows
>>>>>>>>>>> the energy density of spacetime to be calculated and this
>>>>>>>>>>> agrees with the energy density of zero point energy. The
>>>>>>>>>>> particle models are then defined as ½ħunits of quantized
>>>>>>>>>>> angular momentum existing in the spacetime field. This
>>>>>>>>>>> model is quantifiable as to size, structure, energy, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>> Also the fact that the rate of time and proper volume is
>>>>>>>>>>> being modulated, it is possible to calculate the effect that
>>>>>>>>>>> such a structure would have on the surrounding volume of
>>>>>>>>>>> spacetime. It is possible to calculate the effect if the
>>>>>>>>>>> spacetime-based particle model would have if the coupling
>>>>>>>>>>> constant was equal to 1 (Planck charge), To get charge/e/,
>>>>>>>>>>> it is necessary to manually install the fine structure
>>>>>>>>>>> constant.
>>>>>>>>>>> How do you get the value½ħfor the angular momentum? What is
>>>>>>>>>>> the calculation behind it? - I understand that in your model
>>>>>>>>>>> the electric charge is a parameter deduced from other facts.
>>>>>>>>>>> Which ones? From alpha? How do you then get alpha?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I personally have in so far a problem with all
>>>>>>>>>>> considerations using spacetime as I have quite thoroughly
>>>>>>>>>>> investigated how Einstein came to the idea of this
>>>>>>>>>>> 4-dimentional construct. His main motivation was that he
>>>>>>>>>>> wanted in any case to avoid an ether. And in his discussions
>>>>>>>>>>> with Ernst Mach he had to realize that he was running into a
>>>>>>>>>>> lot of problems with this assumption. He could solve these
>>>>>>>>>>> problems in general by his "curved spacetime". But this
>>>>>>>>>>> concept still causes logical conflicts which are eagerly
>>>>>>>>>>> neglected by the followers of Einstein's relativity (and
>>>>>>>>>>> which do not exist in the Lorentzian way of relativity).
>>>>>>>>>>> The quantifiable properties of spacetime imply that there
>>>>>>>>>>> should be boundary conditions which imply that the waves in
>>>>>>>>>>> spacetime should be nonlinear. When the nonlinear component
>>>>>>>>>>> is calculated and treated as separate waves, the
>>>>>>>>>>> characteristics of the particle’s gravitational field are
>>>>>>>>>>> obtained (correct: curvature, effect on the rate of time,
>>>>>>>>>>> force and energy density).
>>>>>>>>>>> In my last post I have given an answer about the factor of
>>>>>>>>>>> 10^120 difference between the observable energy density of
>>>>>>>>>>> the universe and the non-observable energy of the universe.
>>>>>>>>>>> This non-observable energy density is absolutely necessary
>>>>>>>>>>> for QED calculations, zero point energy, the uncertainty
>>>>>>>>>>> principle, Lamb shift, spontaneous emission and quantum
>>>>>>>>>>> mechanics in general. This non-observable energy density is
>>>>>>>>>>> responsible for the tremendously large impedance of
>>>>>>>>>>> spacetime c^3 /G. Since I can also show how this
>>>>>>>>>>> non-observable energy density is obtainable from
>>>>>>>>>>> gravitational wave equations, it is necessary for*you*to
>>>>>>>>>>> show how all these effects can be achieved without spacetime
>>>>>>>>>>> being a single field with this non-observable energy
>>>>>>>>>>> density. In fact, the name non-observable only applied to
>>>>>>>>>>> direct observation. The indirect evidence is everywhere. It
>>>>>>>>>>> forms the basis of the universe and therefore is the
>>>>>>>>>>> “background noise” of the universe. For this reason it is
>>>>>>>>>>> not directly observable because we can only detect
>>>>>>>>>>> differences in energy. The constants/c,//G/,/ħ/and/ε_o
>>>>>>>>>>> /testify that spacetime is not an empty void.
>>>>>>>>>>> Up to now I did not find any necessity for zero-point
>>>>>>>>>>> energy. And I find it a dangerous way to assume physical
>>>>>>>>>>> facts which cannot be observed. The greatest argument in
>>>>>>>>>>> favour of this energy is its use in Feynman diagrams. But is
>>>>>>>>>>> there really no other way? I have a lecture of Feynman here
>>>>>>>>>>> where he states that his formalism has good results. But
>>>>>>>>>>> that he has no physical understanding why it is successful.
>>>>>>>>>>> In my understanding of the development of physics this is a
>>>>>>>>>>> weak point.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The discrepancy of 10^120 between assumed and observed
>>>>>>>>>>> energy is taken as a great and unresolved problem by present
>>>>>>>>>>> main stream physics. Those representatives would have all
>>>>>>>>>>> reason to find a solution to keep present QM clean. But they
>>>>>>>>>>> are not able to. This causes me some concern.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The constants you have listed: c is the speed of light what
>>>>>>>>>>> ever the reason for it is. (I have a model, but it is a bit
>>>>>>>>>>> speculative.) But it has nothing to do with energy. G is the
>>>>>>>>>>> gravitational constant which is as little understood as
>>>>>>>>>>> gravity itself. Planck's constant I have explained, it is
>>>>>>>>>>> (with c) the field constant of the strong force (any force
>>>>>>>>>>> has to be described by a field constant); and/ε_o /is the
>>>>>>>>>>> field constant of the electric force with a similar background.
>>>>>>>>>>> If spacetime was an empty void, why should particles have a
>>>>>>>>>>> speed limit of/c/? For a thought experiment, suppose that
>>>>>>>>>>> two spaceships leave earth going opposite directions and
>>>>>>>>>>> accelerate until they reach a speed of 0.75/c/relative to
>>>>>>>>>>> the earth. The earth bound observer sees them separating at
>>>>>>>>>>> 1.5/c/but the rules of relativistic addition of velocity has
>>>>>>>>>>> a spaceship observer seeing the other spaceship moving away
>>>>>>>>>>> at only 0.96/c/. How is this possible if spacetime is an
>>>>>>>>>>> empty void. My model of the universe answers this because
>>>>>>>>>>> all particles, fields and forces are also made of the
>>>>>>>>>>> spacetime field and they combine to achieve Lorentz
>>>>>>>>>>> transformations which affects ruler length and clocks. None
>>>>>>>>>>> of this can happen unless spacetime is filled with dipole
>>>>>>>>>>> waves in spacetime and everything is made of the single
>>>>>>>>>>> component. The universe is only spacetime.
>>>>>>>>>>> If two spaceships move at 0.75 c in opposite direction, the
>>>>>>>>>>> observer at rest may add these speeds and may get 1.5 c as a
>>>>>>>>>>> result. Why not? If an observer in one of the spaceships
>>>>>>>>>>> measures the relative speed of the other spaceship, the
>>>>>>>>>>> result will be less then c (as you write it). The reason is
>>>>>>>>>>> the well known fact that the measurement tools accessible
>>>>>>>>>>> for the observer in the ship are changed and run differently
>>>>>>>>>>> at this high speed. The reason for these changes is for time
>>>>>>>>>>> dilation the internal speed c in elementary particles. For
>>>>>>>>>>> contraction it is the contraction of fields at motion which
>>>>>>>>>>> is a fact independent of relativity (and which was already
>>>>>>>>>>> known before Einstein). In addition when the speed of
>>>>>>>>>>> another object is to be measured several clocks are to be
>>>>>>>>>>> used positioned along the measurement section. These clocks
>>>>>>>>>>> are de-synchronized in relation to the clocks of the
>>>>>>>>>>> observer at rest. These phenomena together cause the
>>>>>>>>>>> measurement result < c. You find these considerations in
>>>>>>>>>>> papers and books about the Lorentzian interpretation of
>>>>>>>>>>> relativity. So, following Lorentz, there is no reason to
>>>>>>>>>>> assume Einstein's spacetime.
>>>>>>>>>>> John M.
>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps I should read your book. But that chould take a lot
>>>>>>>>>>> of time, I am afraid.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>>>>> *From:*Dr. Albrecht Giese [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de]
>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:*Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM
>>>>>>>>>>> *To:*John Macken<john at macken.com>; 'Nature of Light and
>>>>>>>>>>> Particles - General
>>>>>>>>>>> Discussion'<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:*Re: [General] research papers
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hello John,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> great that you have looked so deeply into the model which I
>>>>>>>>>>> have presented. Thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There are some questions which I can answer quite easily. I
>>>>>>>>>>> think that this model in fact explains several points just
>>>>>>>>>>> in contrast to main stream physics. In standard physics the
>>>>>>>>>>> electron (just as an example) is a point-like object without
>>>>>>>>>>> any internal structure. So, how can a magnetic moment be
>>>>>>>>>>> explained? How can the spin be explained? How can the mass
>>>>>>>>>>> be explained? The position of main stream physics is: That
>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be explained but is subject to quantum mechanics. And
>>>>>>>>>>> the fact that it cannot be explained shows how necessary QM is.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In contrast, if the electron is assumed to have a structure
>>>>>>>>>>> like in the model presented, these parameters can be
>>>>>>>>>>> explained in a classical way, and this explanation is not
>>>>>>>>>>> merely a qualitative one but has precise quantitative results.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To your questions in detail:
>>>>>>>>>>> The fact of two basic particles is necessary to explain the
>>>>>>>>>>> fact of an oscillation and to fulfil the conservation of
>>>>>>>>>>> momentum. A single object (as point-like) cannot oscillate.
>>>>>>>>>>> The basic particles are composed of charges of the strong
>>>>>>>>>>> force. In this model the strong force is assumed to be the
>>>>>>>>>>> universal force in our world effective on all particles. A
>>>>>>>>>>> charge is a fundamental object in the scope of this model.
>>>>>>>>>>> There are two kinds of charges according to the two kinds of
>>>>>>>>>>> forces in our world, the strong one and the electric one.
>>>>>>>>>>> The weak force is in fact the strong force but has a smaller
>>>>>>>>>>> coupling constant caused by geometric circumstances. And
>>>>>>>>>>> gravity is not a force at all but a refraction process,
>>>>>>>>>>> which is so a side effect of the other forces. And, by the
>>>>>>>>>>> way, gravity is not curved spacetime. This is not necessary,
>>>>>>>>>>> and besides of this, Einstein's spacetime leads to logical
>>>>>>>>>>> conflicts.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an elementary particle
>>>>>>>>>>> are configured in a way that at a certain distance there is
>>>>>>>>>>> a potential minimum and in this way the distance between the
>>>>>>>>>>> basic particles is enforced. So, this field has attracting
>>>>>>>>>>> and repulsive components. Outside the elementary particle
>>>>>>>>>>> the attracting forces dominate to make the particle a stable
>>>>>>>>>>> one. And those field parts outside have an opposite sign.
>>>>>>>>>>> Now, as the basic particles are orbiting each other, the
>>>>>>>>>>> outside field is an alternating field (of the strong forth).
>>>>>>>>>>> If this field propagates, it is builds a wave. This wave is
>>>>>>>>>>> described by the Schrödinger equation and fulfils the
>>>>>>>>>>> assumptions of de Broglie.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> With the assumption of two basic particles orbiting at c and
>>>>>>>>>>> subject to strong force, the parameters mass, magnetic
>>>>>>>>>>> moment, spin result from it numerically correctly without
>>>>>>>>>>> further assumptions.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This model does not need any vacuum energy or virtual
>>>>>>>>>>> particles. Those are simply not necessary and they are
>>>>>>>>>>> anyway very speculative because not directly observable. And
>>>>>>>>>>> in the case of the vacuum energy of the universe we are
>>>>>>>>>>> confronted with the discrepancy of 10^120 which you also
>>>>>>>>>>> mention in your paper attached to your mail.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Coulomb law can be easily explained by the assumption
>>>>>>>>>>> (standard at quantum mechanics) that a force is realized by
>>>>>>>>>>> exchange particles. The density of exchange particles and so
>>>>>>>>>>> the strength of the field diminishes by 1/r^2, which is
>>>>>>>>>>> simple geometry.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So John, this is my position. Now I am curious about your
>>>>>>>>>>> objections of further questions.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Albrecht and All,
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have attached a one page addition that I will make to my
>>>>>>>>>>>> book. It is a preliminary explanation of my model of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> spacetime field. It has been very helpful to me to
>>>>>>>>>>>> interact with this group because I now understand better
>>>>>>>>>>>> the key stumbling block for some scientists to accept my
>>>>>>>>>>>> thesis. Therefore I have written the attached introduction
>>>>>>>>>>>> to ease the reader of my book into my model.
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Albrecht:*I appreciate your email. We agree on several
>>>>>>>>>>>> points which include the size of the electron and there is
>>>>>>>>>>>> a similarity in the explanation of gravity. The key points
>>>>>>>>>>>> of disagreement are the same as I have with the rest of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> group. Your explanation of a fundamental particle is not
>>>>>>>>>>>> really an explanation. You substitute a fundamental
>>>>>>>>>>>> particle such as an electron with two “basic particles”.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Have we made any progress or did we just double the
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem? What is your basic particles made of? What is
>>>>>>>>>>>> the physics behind the force of attraction between the
>>>>>>>>>>>> particles? What is the physics behind an electric field?
>>>>>>>>>>>> How does your model create de Broglie waves? How does your
>>>>>>>>>>>> model create a gravitational field (curved spacetime)? Can
>>>>>>>>>>>> you derive the Coulomb law and Newtonian gravitational
>>>>>>>>>>>> equation from your model?
>>>>>>>>>>>> These might seem like unfair questions, but my model does
>>>>>>>>>>>> all of these things. All it requires is the reader accept
>>>>>>>>>>>> the fact that the vacuum possesses activity which can be
>>>>>>>>>>>> characterized as a type of energy density that is not
>>>>>>>>>>>> observable (no rest mass or momentum). This is no different
>>>>>>>>>>>> that accepting that QED calculations should be believed
>>>>>>>>>>>> when they assume vacuum energy or that zero point energy
>>>>>>>>>>>> really exists.
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Albrecht*, perhaps I have come on too strong, but I have
>>>>>>>>>>>> decided to take a firmer stand. You just happen to be the
>>>>>>>>>>>> first person that I contrast to my model. I am actually
>>>>>>>>>>>> happy to discuss the scientific details in a less
>>>>>>>>>>>> confrontational way. I just wanted to make an initial point.
>>>>>>>>>>>> John M.
>>>>>>>>>>>> *From:*General
>>>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
>>>>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of*Dr. Albrecht Giese
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:*Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>> *To:*general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:*Re: [General] research papers
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear John Macken,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You write "... would have particular relevance to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to
>>>>>>>>>>>> fermions".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists
>>>>>>>>>>>> working on elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory
>>>>>>>>>>>> is not able to explain inertia. I give you as a reference:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Physics G, Nuclear and Particle Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< ,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes
>>>>>>>>>>>> inertia according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders
>>>>>>>>>>>> of magnitude too small to explain the mass of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> elementary particles. (Another weakness is the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>>> the Higgs theory does not tell us the mass of any
>>>>>>>>>>>> elementary particle even if all other parameters are known.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a
>>>>>>>>>>>> model explaining inertia which does not only work as a
>>>>>>>>>>>> general idea but provides very precise results for the mass
>>>>>>>>>>>> of leptons. The mass is classically deduced from the size
>>>>>>>>>>>> of a particle. It also explains the mass of quarks, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> here the verification is more difficult, due to the lack of
>>>>>>>>>>>> measurements. In addition I have shown that the model also
>>>>>>>>>>>> explains the (dynamic) mass of photons, if the size of a
>>>>>>>>>>>> photon is related to its wavelength.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego
>>>>>>>>>>>> meeting, but also on the following web sites:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> www.ag-physics.org/rmass
>>>>>>>>>>>> www.ag-physics.org/electron.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You may also find the sites by Google search entering the
>>>>>>>>>>>> string "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 of the list, where it has constantly been during the past
>>>>>>>>>>>> 12 years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will
>>>>>>>>>>>> be happy about any discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> With best regards
>>>>>>>>>>>> Albrecht Giese
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your article “Light Is Heavy” to include the mathematical
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> particles with equal energy. Accelerating a reflecting box
>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes different photon pressure which results in a net
>>>>>>>>>>>>> inertial force. I already reference your Light Is Heavy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> article in my book, but expanding the article would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> even better. An expanded article would have particular
>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> give inertia to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> give inertia to confined light. Furthermore, confined
>>>>>>>>>>>>> light exerts exactly the correct inertia and kinetic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy, even at relativistic conditions. I have not seen
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a proof that the Higgs field gives exactly the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount of inertia or kinetic energy to fermions. Any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> particle model that includes either a confined photon or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> confined waves in spacetime propagating at the speed of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>> principles as confined light in a reflecting box.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> John M.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *From:*General
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of*Mark, Martin van der
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:*Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *To:*Nature of Light and Particles - General
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Discussion<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:*[General] research papers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In particular you will find the most recent work:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * On the nature of “stuff” and the hierarchy of forces
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Quantum mechanical probability current as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM fields
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Very best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Martin B. van der Mark
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven
>>>>>>>>>>>>> High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prof. Holstlaan 4
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5656 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tel: +31 40 2747548
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The information contained in this message may be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> confidential and legally protected under applicable law.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
>>>>>>>>>>>>> notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> copies of the original message.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>> <Mail Attachment.jpeg> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren
>>>>>>>>>>>> geprüft.
>>>>>>>>>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> <Mail Attachment.jpeg> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren
>>>>>>>>>>> geprüft.
>>>>>>>>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren
>>>>>>>>>>> geprüft.
>>>>>>>>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>>>>>>>>>>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
>>>>>>>>>> Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List
>>>>>>>>>> atrichgauthier at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>> <a
>>>>>>>>>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
>>>>>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
>>>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________ If you no longer
>>>>>> wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
>>>>>> Particles General Discussion List ataf.kracklauer at web.deClick
>>>>>> here to
>>>>>> unsubscribe<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________ If you no longer
>>>>>> wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
>>>>>> Particles General Discussion List ataf.kracklauer at web.deClick
>>>>>> here to
>>>>>> unsubscribe<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
>>>>>> Light and Particles General Discussion List
>>>>>> atmartin.van.der.mark at philips.com
>>>>>> <a
>>>>>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>> </a>
>>>>> _______________________________________________ If you no longer
>>>>> wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
>>>>> Particles General Discussion List ataf.kracklauer at web.deClick here
>>>>> to
>>>>> unsubscribe<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>>>>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>> </a>
>>>> <electron.pdf>_______________________________________________
>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
>>>> Light and Particles General Discussion List atrichgauthier at gmail.com
>>>> <a
>>>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>> </a>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151001/9d207a0c/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list