[General] inertia

Thu Apr 14 07:18:22 PDT 2016

Sorry, correction:

The photon has of course no magnetic field, but must have electric 
charges inside as it reacts to charges.

Albrecht

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.
>
>     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.
>
> 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.)
>
>
>     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).
>
>
>     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.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Andrew
> ___________________________________
>
>
>     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/20160414/33e9cfea/attachment.htm>