[General] inertia

Wed Apr 20 04:25:09 PDT 2016

Dear Richard,

the article about the inertia of the photon is a good presentation of 
cases where the inertia is visible, and the calculation complements this 
in a very good way.

Anyway I have two comments:

1.) The "principle of equivalence" which means here the weak equivalence 
is not the only possible explanation for the fact that every object has 
the same acceleration in a gravitational field. The other possibility is 
that gravitational acceleration has nothing to do with mass and with a 
force. That is particularly visible in the case of the deflection of 
photons passing the sun. Many authors (e.g. Roman Sexl) have shown that 
this can be fully explained as a refraction process.

2.) The calculations of the inertial mass of a photon are very good. 
However they do not cover the question what the origin of inertia in 
physics is. As you mention,the Higgs model does not work. It is a clear 
fact from astronomical observations that the QM Higgs field does not 
exist (conflict between theory and observation being a factor of > 
10^57. You say that this is an open question in physics. Here I insist 
in the position that any extended object inevitably has inertia, and 
that another cause is not needed.

Albrecht

Am 12.04.2016 um 04:48 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
> 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 
> <http://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 
>> <mailto: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] 
>>> 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 
>>>> <x-msg://32/redir.aspx?REF=WHjKkanwaYbQ2cZ2gQTrQGWX69no9zz_hdqSZMuKnDZSFbR4-mDTCAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5hdmFzdC5jb20vc2lnLWVtYWlsP3V0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX3NvdXJjZT1saW5rJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1zaWctZW1haWwmdXRtX2NvbnRlbnQ9d2VibWFpbA..> 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <x-msg://32/redir.aspx?REF=02oHT6avpTxZIhLEkEsDCBgDAfQ4gy7EDcHGKbKFGQRSFbR4-mDTCAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5hdmFzdC5jb20vc2lnLWVtYWlsP3V0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX3NvdXJjZT1saW5rJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1zaWctZW1haWwmdXRtX2NvbnRlbnQ9ZW1haWxjbGllbnQ.> 
>>>> 	Virenfrei.www.avast.com
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of 
>> Light and Particles General Discussion List atrichgauthier at gmail.com
>> <a 
>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>

---
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/20160420/b271027e/attachment.htm>