[General] research papers

Fri Sep 25 10:56:38 PDT 2015

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<mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>" <af.kracklauer at web.de<mailto: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<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>>
An: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>, "phys at a-giese.de<mailto:phys at a-giese.de>" <phys at a-giese.de<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
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-mail 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 words quantum, 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 ½ ħ units 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 value ½ ħ for 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 10120 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 c3/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 εo 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 εo 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>
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
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<http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass>
www.ag-physics.org/electron<http://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/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 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"<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>