[General] inertia

Fri Apr 22 06:29:48 PDT 2016

Hello Andrew,

   Thank you for your comments on the unexplained issues of circulating charged photon models of the electron that I mentioned.

1) it’s hard for me to get behind your proposal of an electron and a positron in pair production being connected by a wormhole. I think a more realistic connection between the electron and the positron in pair production is that they are quantum-mechanically entangled because they are produced at the same time from a single photon in the presence of a charged nucleus. I wonder if any experiments have been done to test such quantum entanglement of the electron and positron pair in pair production.

2) I think you are partly right about the stability of a single electron (or a spin-1/2 charged-photon electron model). A spin-1/2 electron can’t decay into a single spin-1 photon without violating conservation of angular momentum and conservation of electric charge, so an electron can’t self-annihilate. Both conservation of charge and conservation of angular momentum support the continued existence of a single electron composed of a circulating negatively-charged spin-1/2 photon. But here’s a proposal about e-p annihilation. If the electron is a curled-up negatively charged spin-1/2 photon, it may occasionally or frequently  be unwinding into the virtual neutral but negative-tending spin-1/2 photon from which it evolved along with a second virtual neutral but positive-tending spin-1/2 photon (both evolved together from a spin-1, greater than 1.022 MeV photon  in e-p pair production.) In the proximity of a positron which is also regularly unwinding into a virtual neutral but positive-tending spin-1/2 photon, these two virtual uncharged (but charge-tending) spin-1/2 photons can combine to form a real but short-lived uncharged spin-0 entity or spin-1 entity, which can then decay into two or three spin-1 uncharged photons in e-p annihilation without violating either conservation of angular momentum or conservation of charge. When a spin-1/2 charge-tending photon is completely uncurled it is uncharged, but when it is curled-up into a double-loop it is a fully-charged electron or positron. An electron gains its negative charge in this curling-up process, when a second spin-1/2 photon of opposite charge-tendency is also curling up to form a positron (in e-p pair production), and the electron loses its negative charge when it is uncurling along with a positively-charged curled-up spin-1/2 photon (which is a positron). 

     Richard

> On Apr 20, 2016, at 7:50 PM, Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Richard,
> 
> You made a comment:
> 
> "There are (at least) two unexplained issues with a circulating-photon hypothesis for modeling a resting electron:"
> 
> These are fundamental questions. I have answers that no one in this, or another, group have ever addressed, or even commented on:
> The reason that an electron can hold together in the face of its apparent self-repulsion is the fact that it is created with a positron and the two are connected in 4 space as well as in 3-space. The falaco soliton is the starting model where there is a stable underwater, as well as a surface connection, between two vortices. A wormhole thru time is the stabilizing element and source of elementary-mass energy for the electron.
> The reason that the moving electron does not radiate away its energy is that, alone, it cannot form a photon. The photon needs an ang mom of hbar and the electron has only hbar/2. Even Hawkings missed this point when he talks of completely evaporating black holes.
> Are these answers too far out, too simplistic, or too uncontestable? For a group interested in light and the photonic electron, at least the 2nd point should be addressed here.
> 
> Andrew
> _____________________________________________
> 
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 12:14 AM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hello Albrecht,
> 
>    Thank you for your comments. I think that if it is recognized that a photon has an inertial mass M= hv/c^2, then it is a short step that in double-looping or single-looping resting electron models composed of a circulating photon of energy Eo = hv =0.511 MeV=mc^2 and having a circulating momentum p=0.511 MeV/c = mc (where m is the electron’s invariant mass Eo/c^2), the circulating photon will also have a  inertial mass M=hv/c^2 = p/c = 0.511MeV/c^2 = m, the invariant mass of the electron. For a double-looping photon model of a resting electron, I show a separate short derivation of the resting electron’s inertial mass M=m at https://www.academia.edu/23184598/Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia_and_Relativistic_Energy_Momentum_Equation_in_the_Spin-_Charged_Photon_Electron_Model <https://www.academia.edu/23184598/Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia_and_Relativistic_Energy_Momentum_Equation_in_the_Spin-_Charged_Photon_Electron_Model> . The resting electron’s inertial mass M=m originates from the internally circulating photon’s momentum p=mc=Eo/c=0.511MeV/c.  And even if it is not recognized that a linearly-moving photon has inertial mass hv/c^2, the derivation of M=m in the above-linked article still stands for circulating-photon models of a resting electron, since this derivation for the electron’s inertial mass in a circulating-photon model does not assume that the circulating photon composing the electron itself has inertial mass M=m. This inertial mass of the circulating photon (and therefore the inertial mass of the electron modeled by the circulating photon) is what is derived in the calculation of M=m for the circulating-photon electron model.
> 
>     As for your comment about the principle of equivalence in relation to photons, I will leave that to experts on general relativity theory. 
> 
>     You say that the calculations of the inertial mass M=hv/c^2 of a photon, though good, don’t explain the origin of inertia in physics. But it is a big step that these calculations of a photon’s inertial mass during reflection help explain the origin of the electron’s inertial mass, as I mentioned above with circulating photon models. I hope that John W, Martin, Chip, Vivian, John M and any others with circulating photon models of the electron will agree. Of course, circulating photon models in their several varieties are still only hypotheses. There are (at least) two unexplained issues with a circulating-photon hypothesis for modeling a resting electron: 1) the source of the large apparent force 0.414 N required to curve a photon with momentum mc into a double-looping circle of radius Ro=hbar/2mc (and a slightly smaller force required for such a photon moving in a single-looping circle of radius R1=hbar/mc) and 2) with a centripetal acceleration of 4.66 x 10^29 m/s^2  in the double-looping charged-photon model (see the above link for these two calculations), how to explain why the circulating electric charge doesn’t radiate away the charged photon's energy 0.511MeV almost instantaneously, if classical radiation laws from an accelerating electric charge apply (which apparently they don’t). Perhaps charge-conservation forbids this. This, by the way, is also a problem for your circling 2-particle electron model since each particle has charge Q= -1/2 e and they both have a similarly huge centripetal acceleration while moving in a circle with the single-loop radius hbar/mc in your model.  But it may also be that the electron is in a quantum "ground state" that doesn’t radiate its rest-mass energy 0.511 MeV away, like the electron's energy level -13.6 eV in the quantum ground state of the hydrogen atom, which is a minimum energy value for the hydrogen atom. The source of the 0.414 N force on the double-looping photon may be found in the future, or perhaps the charged photon follows some kind of electric-charge geodesic and doesn't radiate unless it departs from this geodesic.
> 
>      Richard
> 
>> On Apr 20, 2016, at 4:25 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>> 
>> 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>https://www.academia.edu/24307968/A_Photon_Has_Inertial_Mass_hv_c_2_in_Mirror_Reflection_and_Compton_Scattering <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 <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] on behalf of Albrecht Giese [ <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>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 <>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  <>	Virenfrei.  <http://www.avast.com/>www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at  <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>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 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>">
>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>> </a>
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>	Virenfrei. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160422/a03967af/attachment.htm>