[General] inertia
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Thu Apr 14 07:13:20 PDT 2016
Dear Andrew,
my comments now interleaved in yours:
Am 10.04.2016 um 18:20 schrieb Andrew Meulenberg:
> Dear Albrecht,
>
> See comments interleaved:
> _ _ _
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 12:56 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de
> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
> I think that none of the group would consider point particles as
> possible. Point-like becomes a matter of definition for acceptability.
> 'Extended' would be generally accepted. Di- or multi-point elementary
> particles would be rejected by most (unless one considers the
> transition stages, e.g. electron-positron creation or annihilation). I
> will address constituents below.
"Point-like" means in present main stream physics that they are very
small (< 10^-18 m) and do not have an internal structure. That is
assumed e.g. for the electron and for quarks.
I see that my 2-particle-model is not accepted by most of our community
here (because most have an own model which is different). In general it
is accepted by many. Two examples: Since about 14 years my model is the
number one or in the first three places in the internet if you ask for
"origin of mass" in popular search engines. No physical institute and no
Nobel price winner has achieved this position. And if I give a talk
about this model at German physical conferences then there is a big
auditory; in most cases the lecture hall is full; with good discussions
afterwards.
>
> 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.
>
>
> In the 2011 Nature of Light Symposium, you may remember the attached
> paper. Fernandez-Guasti mentioned the necessity for 2 fields for wave
> phenomena. Since most of us accept that electrons (and other
> elementary particles?) are photon based, they must all have at least 2
> fields. You have described your particles as massless, so being fields
> would be consistent with their photon-based nature. That is one
> alternative consistent with your two-particle model. I would suggest
> that all elementary particles are charged and have bound external EM
> fields when they move. Again, you could have a bound 2-'particle'
> system that would fit your description. Thus there are two models that
> are probably consistent with your equations and would be more
> acceptable to the community.
I have looked into the paper of Fernandez-Guasti once again (thank you
for sending it again). I agree to him that in a harmonic oscillator
there is a permanent exchange of two energies, kinetic and potential
energy. But he assumes then that a wave which may be originated by this
oscillation has also two contribution. I think that this conclusion is
not justified.
Then he uses as an argument that the EM waves are built by two
contributions, the electrical one and the magnetic one. But this is a
very common error. The electric field and the magnetic field are in fact
the same, only viewed from a different perspective. The magnetic field
is a relativistic side effect of the electric field. It is in some way
similar to the Coriolis force, which is not an additional force but the
normal Newtonian inertia viewed from a moving frame. Regarding EM I
refer to the popular book "Special Relativity" of P. French, where it is
explained in a quite handy way. For a thorough deduction please look
into W.G.V. Rosser "Classical Electromagnetism via Relativity".
The dominating force in my model is not caused by the electric charge
as the force would be too weak by a factor of >300. So it can only be
the strong force. The electron has an electric charge in addition, which
is (among other effects) responsible for the Landé factor.
>
> Your approach is similar to claiming that a rubber ball actually
> consists of 2 unobservable particles (with other special properties)
> because the equations predict the observed bouncing performance. No
> matter how well your equations predicted the observed motion, I don't
> think that you would get many people interested in your model. (I
> suspect that quantum mechanics may suffer from a similar problem of
> insisting that the simplified version of a mathematical model is the
> reality.)
Most objects in particle physics are not visible. No one has ever seen a
quark by his own eyes. In general, if an assumption gives in explanation
(and maybe an exclusive explanation) and is in no conflict with any
experiment, it is normally accepted on physics. Without this way of
usage we would not have any modern physics, I think. And this is also
fulfilled by the 2-particle-model.
>
>
> 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?
>
>
> I assume that all particles are built up from resonantly bound photons
> (and a variation of my model for electron inertia will work as well
> for explaining photonic inertia).
I do not follow this idea that elementary particles are built by photons
by the reason that the photon has a comparable complexity as a lepton or
a quark: it has a magnetic moment and a spin. Also it has inertia
(transfers a moment to a mirror). So even if one believes that the
photon is elementary, the fact of inertia has still to be explained. My
model explains it. I do not know of any other model doing this (except
Higgs).
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Your modeling is good. I just wish that it could be tied to a more
> 'physical' pairing.
Thank you, but I think the model is very physical. It is accepted by the
many physicists I have discussed it with over the years, only rejected
by those in main stream who still believe in the Higgs model (even
though it is meanwhile proven that no Higgs field exists).
>
> Best regards,
>
> Andrew
Best regards
Albrecht
> ___________________________________
>
>
> 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 <http://www.avast.com>
>>
>
>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160414/e7eb39a8/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list