[General] inertia

Sun Apr 10 11:59:12 PDT 2016

John,

Yes, any extended object has inertia. I think that this is not too 
difficult to understand and to visualize. So again:

What makes an object to be extended? The constituents have to be bound 
to each other so as to maintain a distance. If now one of the 
constituents is moved, the other constituents will follow to keep this 
distance. But that does not happen instantaneously as the binding field 
propagates "only" with the speed of light. That means that for a very 
short time the other constituents remain where they are and the binding 
fields originating in them will not change. So, for this short time the 
constituent being moved has to be taken out of the potential minimum of 
the fields of the other constituents. This requires a force. After a 
short time, the speed of light permits the other particles to move and 
also their fields to move. And as a consequence there is no longer a 
force necessary. - This fact that for an intermediate time a force is 
necessary to change the motion state of an object is called inertia. - 
Really too difficult?

The calculation shows that in fact a smaller object has more inertia. It 
is proportional to the inverse of the distance of the constituents. The 
reason is that on the one hand the binding field is universal for all 
elementary particles, on the other hand the strength of the forces is 
higher at smaller distances, as we know it from all forces. As I have 
said many times, the model provides precise results. This can be found 
on my web site for those interested. This precision applies of course 
also to the relation between size and mass.

Since the time when I started this discussion about inertia 15 years 
ago, I have made the experience that a certain portion of discussion 
partners (maybe 10 to 20 percent) have  problems to understand and to 
visualize this process of inertia. Those persons are mainly physicists 
working in theory and who are more specialized for algebra than for 
physics. But a minority. Last month we had the spring conference of the 
German Physical Society here in Hamburg about particle physics. Even 
though I had to give my talks about inertia and about the error of de 
Broglie in one out of 22 parallel sessions, most people came into my 
session. The acceptance and the discussion about these topics was very 
encouraging. And this is my permanent experience.

Albrecht

Am 10.04.2016 um 06:44 schrieb 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..> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <redir.aspx?REF=02oHT6avpTxZIhLEkEsDCBgDAfQ4gy7EDcHGKbKFGQRSFbR4-mDTCAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5hdmFzdC5jb20vc2lnLWVtYWlsP3V0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX3NvdXJjZT1saW5rJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1zaWctZW1haWwmdXRtX2NvbnRlbnQ9ZW1haWxjbGllbnQ.> 
>> 	Virenfrei. 
>> <redir.aspx?REF=02oHT6avpTxZIhLEkEsDCBgDAfQ4gy7EDcHGKbKFGQRSFbR4-mDTCAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5hdmFzdC5jb20vc2lnLWVtYWlsP3V0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX3NvdXJjZT1saW5rJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1zaWctZW1haWwmdXRtX2NvbnRlbnQ9ZW1haWxjbGllbnQ.>www.avast.com 
>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160410/10bb8f91/attachment.htm>