[General] inertia

Mon Apr 11 19:48:10 PDT 2016

Hello John W, Martin, Andrew, Albrecht, John M, Hodge, David, Chip and all,

I’ve just uploaded a new article “A photon has inertial mass hf/c^2 in mirror reflection and Compton scattering” to academia.edu at https://www.academia.edu/24307968/A_Photon_Has_Inertial_Mass_hv_c_2_in_Mirror_Reflection_and_Compton_Scattering 
I’ve attached below a pdf copy for your convenience. 

Basically I show that when F=Ma is applied to photon reflection and to Compton scattering (viewed in the center of momentum frame), the photon is found to have an inertial mass hv/c^2. The Compton scattering calculation also shows that the electron has an inertial mass gamma m. I show how the photon inertial mass result could relate to the circulating charged photon model of the electron to generate the electron’s inertial mass m from the circling spin 1/2 charged photon's momentum mc.

Comments and criticisms on the new results are welcome.

Richard

> On Apr 10, 2016, at 11:59 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:
> 
> 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 <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] on behalf of Albrecht Giese [genmail at a-giese.de <mailto: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 <x-msg://32/redir.aspx?REF=WHjKkanwaYbQ2cZ2gQTrQGWX69no9zz_hdqSZMuKnDZSFbR4-mDTCAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5hdmFzdC5jb20vc2lnLWVtYWlsP3V0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX3NvdXJjZT1saW5rJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1zaWctZW1haWwmdXRtX2NvbnRlbnQ9d2VibWFpbA..>
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  <x-msg://32/redir.aspx?REF=02oHT6avpTxZIhLEkEsDCBgDAfQ4gy7EDcHGKbKFGQRSFbR4-mDTCAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5hdmFzdC5jb20vc2lnLWVtYWlsP3V0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX3NvdXJjZT1saW5rJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1zaWctZW1haWwmdXRtX2NvbnRlbnQ9ZW1haWxjbGllbnQ.>	Virenfrei.  <x-msg://32/redir.aspx?REF=02oHT6avpTxZIhLEkEsDCBgDAfQ4gy7EDcHGKbKFGQRSFbR4-mDTCAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5hdmFzdC5jb20vc2lnLWVtYWlsP3V0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX3NvdXJjZT1saW5rJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1zaWctZW1haWwmdXRtX2NvbnRlbnQ9ZW1haWxjbGllbnQ.>www.avast.com <x-msg://32/redir.aspx?REF=IDg2eD5Ad6khGURjpCGA2lOxRyqY2n2SvbEEgfZdI0NSFbR4-mDTCAFodHRwOi8vd3d3LmF2YXN0LmNvbQ..>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.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/20160411/78532e72/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: the inertial mass of reflected and Compton photon 4-11-16.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1306111 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160411/78532e72/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160411/78532e72/attachment-0001.htm>