[General] inertia
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
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>
More information about the General
mailing list