[General] inertia
John Macken
john at macken.com
Fri Apr 22 15:41:34 PDT 2016
Richard, Albrecht and All,
I have seen something that we can agree on. Richard has said, “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)” . I
agree that it is necessary to explain the stabilization of the internal
pressure created by a particle’s energy density. Rather than being just
another one of the loose ends, I claim that this internal pressure and the
offsetting pressure is key to understanding the gravitational force and the
electrostatic force.
To explain my answer I will use my single electron loop model which has a
radius of 3.86 x 10-13 m. The force required to contain this internal
pressure is about 0.212 N. I claim that the pressure that is required to
contain the electron’s energy density is exerted by the zero point energy
which is Planck length/time amplitude dipole waves in spacetime that make
up the spacetime field. This is not just arm waving. It is possible to
calculate the gradient in this pressure across the radius of an electron or
other spacetime particle. The difference in pressure generates two
different types of pressure. The nonlinear component of this pressure
gradient gives the correct gravitational force exerted when an electron is
near another particle. The linear component gives the correct net force if
two separated particles both had Planck charge. Even though this is not
charge e, it is actually the most fundamental unit of charge which has a
coupling constant of 1. Charge e has a coupling constant of 1/137 which
can be considered as a reduction in Planck charge.
In my book I explain all of this. On page 8-11 of my book (available at
http://onlyspacetime.com/ ) I give a numerical example of an electron in
the earth’s gravitational field. If I take the gradient in the rate of
time across the electron and adjust the pressure exerted on opposite sides
of the electron, I get a net force which exactly equals the gravitational
force exerted on an electron in the earth’s gravitational field.
The point is that an electron and other fundamental particles are
conditions where a type of resonance is achieved that stabilizes the
pressure. All forces, including the strong force, is the result of
gradients in the pressure which achieve a net force.
My objection to the approach that the rest of the group is taking is that I
think that you are approaching the problem of developing a model of an
electron and other fundamental particles by starting in the middle. You
assume the existence of photons, and attempt to show that they make
electrons. An equally invalid approach would be to say that a photon is a
liberated electron. Both of these are circular arguments. You never say
what a photon, charge or an electric field is. You never say what confines
the electron to a small volume and you never develop any predictions. My
model develops a new constant of nature, and many predictions. Here is an
equation which comes directly from my model of particles and forces.
Fg/FE = Rs/λc
Fg is the magnitude of the gravitational force between two of the same mass
particles at separation distance r
FE is the magnitude of the electrostatic force between these two particles
at distance r assuming that both particles have Planck charge
Rs = gm/c2 which is the Schwarzschild radius of the a particle with mass m
assuming that the particle is maximally rotating. A nonrotating particle
would have Schwarzschild radius of rs = 2Gm/c2
λc = ħ/mc which is the reduced Compton wavelength of a particle with mass
m. This is the radius of my spacetime based particle
Therefore this equation says that the ratio of forces equals the ratio of
radii. I can give an explanation of the derivation of this equation from
my particle model.
John M.
From: General [mailto:general-
bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of
Albrecht Giese
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 7:53 AM
To: Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Mark, Martin van der <martin.
van.der.mark at philips.com>
Subject: Re: [General] inertia
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_Relati
vistic_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_Mirro
r_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 [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 <x-
msg://32/redir.aspx?REF=WHjKkanwaYbQ2cZ2gQTrQGWX69no9zz_hdqSZMuKnDZSFbR4-
mDTCAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5hdmFzdC5jb20vc2lnLWVtYWlsP3V0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX
3NvdXJjZT1saW5rJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1zaWctZW1haWwmdXRtX2NvbnRlbnQ9d2VibWFpbA..>
<x-
msg://32/redir.aspx?REF=02oHT6avpTxZIhLEkEsDCBgDAfQ4gy7EDcHGKbKFGQRSFbR4-
mDTCAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5hdmFzdC5jb20vc2lnLWVtYWlsP3V0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX
3NvdXJjZT1saW5rJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1zaWctZW1haWwmdXRtX2NvbnRlbnQ9ZW1haWxjbGllb
nQ.>
Virenfrei. 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 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
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=
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. <https://www.avast.com/sig-
email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-
email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-
email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-
email&utm_content=emailclient>
Virenfrei. <https://www.avast.com/sig-
email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-
email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160422/a4b80901/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list