[General] research papers

Fri Sep 11 18:47:27 PDT 2015

John
I like the introduction.
Quantum, quantifying and quantizing. One minor clarification to avoid further confusion on some folks part might be to clearly (blatantly and  explicitly note the difference. My guess is there has to be some order to these different words with a common root: quantify, quantum, then quantize might be useful. However, quantum is used to mean elementary particles as well as sub-elementary particle so clarifying assumptions are useful to set the context.
QM assumes that particles are a point which may not be a reality. This may impact how one does the math especially when energy density, or in the case of relativity, momentum-energy.
Another minor point is a terminology mix. There are at least three major choices, all which can be mathematically equivalent.  However, the quantum physicists prefer #3
1. Particles, fields and forces (Macken 2015)
2. Particles, fields and cross-interactions (Sarfatti 2015)
3. Matter and fields (Sutherland 2015 per Quantum Workshop)
YMMV
David 
      From: John Macken <john at macken.com>
 To: phys at a-giese.de; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
 Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 2:51 PM
 Subject: Re: [General] research papers

#yiv6320154031 #yiv6320154031 -- _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Wingdings;panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Consolas;panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}#yiv6320154031 #yiv6320154031 p.yiv6320154031MsoNormal, #yiv6320154031 li.yiv6320154031MsoNormal, #yiv6320154031 div.yiv6320154031MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;color:black;}#yiv6320154031 a:link, #yiv6320154031 span.yiv6320154031MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6320154031 a:visited, #yiv6320154031 span.yiv6320154031MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6320154031 p {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;color:black;}#yiv6320154031 pre {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;color:black;}#yiv6320154031 span.yiv6320154031EmailStyle18 {color:windowtext;}#yiv6320154031 span.yiv6320154031EmailStyle19 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv6320154031 span.yiv6320154031EmailStyle20 {color:#20188C;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;}#yiv6320154031 span.yiv6320154031EmailStyle21 {color:windowtext;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;}#yiv6320154031 span.yiv6320154031HTMLPreformattedChar {font-family:Consolas;color:black;}#yiv6320154031 span.yiv6320154031EmailStyle25 {color:#20188C;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;}#yiv6320154031 .yiv6320154031MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv6320154031 div.yiv6320154031WordSection1 {}#yiv6320154031 _filtered #yiv6320154031 {} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv6320154031 {font-family:Symbol;}#yiv6320154031 ol {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv6320154031 ul {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv6320154031 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
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>
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/publicationsIn 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 MarkPrincipal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare Philips Research Europe - EindhovenHigh Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)Prof. Holstlaan 45656 AE  Eindhoven, The NetherlandsTel: +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 at phys at a-giese.de<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">Click here to unsubscribe</a>

|  | 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 at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.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/20150912/72209b97/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150912/72209b97/attachment.jpeg>