[General] inertia

[Albrecht Giese]

Dear Andrew,

thank you for your considerations and arguments about my mass model. And 
please apologize that I kept you waiting for a response. I was off for 
several days.

My basic point is that any extended object necessarily has inertia. That 
is not just an idea or a possibility, it is on the contrary completely 
inevitable. I think that I have explained why this is the case. If 
necessary I can of course explain it again.

Now, if we assume or accept that elementary particles are extended, then 
the inertia of particles is inevitably given. And, as you have cited it 
again, the results for leptons and quarks are precise.

The main argument against my model is the general opinion that 
elementary particles, particularly electrons, are point-like and have no 
constituents. The argument of those who have performed the according 
experiments is that it was attempted to decompose the electron by 
bombarding it with particles (like protons) with sufficiently high 
energy, A decomposition has never occurred. From this it was concluded 
that the electron has no constituents. - But this argument does not 
apply to my particle model. The constituents of an elementary particle 
are according to my model mass-less. So one of its constituents may be 
accelerated by an arbitrary amount, the other one - as having no own 
mass - can follow immediately. Not even any force will occur. - 
Accordingly this argument is not applicable against this model.

And the rest is known. If one determines the size of the electron by the 
evaluation of e.g. its magnetic moment, the result for the mass conforms 
very precisely to the measurement.

It is true that the assumption of two constituents for an elementary 
particle is very uncommon. But as long as there are no conflicting facts 
such assumption can be made. It is a common way in physics by my 
understanding. On the other hand there was a kind of indication for two 
constituents described by the article of Frank Wilczek about the 
electron in Nature in summer 2013.

The explanation of inertia of an electron by a bound photon is in my 
understanding not a real explanation as it assumes that a photon itself 
has some kind of inertia, without explaining how this works inside a 
photon. So it just diverts the problem to another particle, at least as 
it was explained during this discussion since October last year. And 
also the task to be done is not only the mass of an electron, but the 
mass of all particles, i.e. all leptons and all quarks. Do you assume 
that all these particles are built by bound photons?

So, in my understanding, if there is another explanation for inertia, 
then we will have two explanations in parallel. Or, if on the other hand 
someone has or knows an experiment which is in conflict with my model, 
that would of course refute my model. Up to now I did not hear about 
such results.

Thank you again for your considerations.

Albrecht


  Fri, 1 Apr 2016 12:49:24 +0530 schrieb Andrew Meulenberg :

> Dear Albrecht,
>
> You have repeatedly based your model on lack of alternatives (with 
> very precise results). E.g.,
>
> Why 2 particles in the model? I say it again:
>
> 1) to maintain the conservation of momentum in the view of oscillations
> 2) to have a mechanism for inertia (which has very precise results, 
> otherwise non-existent in present physics)
>
> I will be happy to see alternatives for both points. Up to now I have 
> not seen any.
>
> I'm sure that alternatives exist. Whether they have very precise 
> results to support them may be up for debate.
>
> My own relativistic model for inertia depends on the electron being, 
> in its ground (restmass) state, a spherically bound photon. Until that 
> concept is accepted, it makes little sense to go further in a 
> description. However, if accepted, it then also leads to understanding 
> the inertia of a photon.
>
> Your two-particle model faces the same challenge. Unless you are able 
> to shape that premise into an acceptable form, it is unlikely that 
> anything that follows will matter. Can you (re)define your particles 
> to be acceptable to an audience and still fulfill your assumptions and 
> derived results?
>
> Andrew
>
> This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
> www.avast.com 
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> 
>
>
>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
> 	Virenfrei. www.avast.com 
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160409/c5ccb810/attachment.htm>