[General] inertia
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Fri Apr 22 07:53:27 PDT 2016
Hello Richard,
your calculations look good. However there has a mechanism to be
understood which is the cause of inertia. This is also seen this way by
main stream physics since a long time (answered there by the Higgs
theory). But if the Higgs mechanism does not work, another one is
needed. I am still convinced that the forces between the constituents of
an extended object in connection with the finiteness of the speed of
light build such a mechanism. Mathematically it works quite perfect as I
have shown repeatedly.
I am still wondering which mechanism causes a photon to move on a
circuit. And how the problem of the conservation of momentum is solved
in this picture.
The fact that circling charges in our models do not radiate is not
surprising. A charge does not "know" what an acceleration is. An object
with inertia knows it, but that is a different phenomenon. Why does e.g.
an electron radiate at acceleration? I have explained it in my mail to
Andrew the other day. Here again:
"The EM field emitted by the electron in case of an acceleration is
caused by the following process. If an electron is accelerated then its
shape is relativistically distorted. As a consequence, one sub-charge is
subject to a changing electrical field of the other sub-charge. This
causes an EM radiation. - This, by the way, is the only cause of
radiation in physics, the situation that one charge is subject to a
changing field. There is no other cause of radiation in physics. Or do
you know one?"
We should not be confused by the fact that Maxwell in his formalism
states that an accelerated charge radiates. Maxwell's equation are a
mathematical formalism which is very beautiful and very well usable by
electrical engineers. But it does not touch the /physical /causes of
electrical and magnetic phenomena.
Albrecht
Am 20.04.2016 um 20:44 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
> 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 .
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> 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>
>>>
>>
>>
>> <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>
>>
>>
>
---
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/20160422/8eb2dc8c/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list