[General] inertia

[John Williamson]

Albrecht - why do you think that somethings "extent" gives it inertia? This is simply non-sense. You have just made this up haven't you?

Experimentally smaller things - with less extent then - have higher mass.

JW.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Albrecht Giese [genmail at a-giese.de]
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2016 8:26 PM
To: Andrew Meulenberg; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] inertia

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<redir.aspx?REF=WHjKkanwaYbQ2cZ2gQTrQGWX69no9zz_hdqSZMuKnDZSFbR4-mDTCAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5hdmFzdC5jb20vc2lnLWVtYWlsP3V0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX3NvdXJjZT1saW5rJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1zaWctZW1haWwmdXRtX2NvbnRlbnQ9d2VibWFpbA..>



[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/2016/icons/icon-envelope-open-tick-round-orange-v1.png]<redir.aspx?REF=02oHT6avpTxZIhLEkEsDCBgDAfQ4gy7EDcHGKbKFGQRSFbR4-mDTCAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5hdmFzdC5jb20vc2lnLWVtYWlsP3V0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX3NvdXJjZT1saW5rJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1zaWctZW1haWwmdXRtX2NvbnRlbnQ9ZW1haWxjbGllbnQ.>   Virenfrei. <redir.aspx?REF=02oHT6avpTxZIhLEkEsDCBgDAfQ4gy7EDcHGKbKFGQRSFbR4-mDTCAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5hdmFzdC5jb20vc2lnLWVtYWlsP3V0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX3NvdXJjZT1saW5rJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1zaWctZW1haWwmdXRtX2NvbnRlbnQ9ZW1haWxjbGllbnQ.> www.avast.com<redir.aspx?REF=IDg2eD5Ad6khGURjpCGA2lOxRyqY2n2SvbEEgfZdI0NSFbR4-mDTCAFodHRwOi8vd3d3LmF2YXN0LmNvbQ..>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160410/d40984a8/attachment.htm>