[General] inertia
Richard Gauthier
richgauthier at gmail.com
Sat Apr 23 21:51:43 PDT 2016
Hello John M,
Thank you for your detailed reply. You say that the pressure required to contain your single-loop electron model’s energy density is the zero point energy which is generated by your dipole waves in spacetime. In the double-loop electron the centripetal force required to contain the circulating photon of momentum mc in a radius of hbar/2mc is about 0.424N = (2 m^2 c^3)/hbar (not 0.414N in my earlier e-mail which was a typo, my apologies) while your force value as you said is about 0.212N, which is (m^2 c^3)/hbar . The difference in these force values could lead to a possible test between our two electron models. In the double-loop model the average pressure P required to provide this force on the surface area A of a sphere of electron loop radius Ro= hbar/2mc is P=F/A=0.424N/(4pi Ro^2) = 9.05 x 10^23 N/m^2 . Your value for P for your force over a sphere of radius R1=hbar/mc would be 1/8 as much. The pressure gradient across my electron model of diameter 2Ro = 3.86 x 10^-13 m would be (delta P)/(2Ro) = 2P/2Ro = P/Ro = 4.69 x 10^36 N/m^3 while your value would be 1/16 as much. Do you think either the difference in our pressures or pressure gradients above constitute a possible experimental test of our electron models?
You mentioned in your last email that the modeling of an electron by a circulating photon doesn’t go deep enough. I explained in my latest email to Andrew on April 22 on e-p pair production and annihilation that my photon and electron models are both proposed to be composed of a helically circulating transluminal energy quantum. This transluminal energy quantum approach takes the modeling of the electron and the photon to a deeper level.
Richard
> On Apr 22, 2016, at 3:41 PM, John Macken <john at macken.com> wrote:
>
> 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/ <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_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>
>>>> 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-mDTCAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5hdmFzdC5jb20vc2lnLWVtYWlsP3V0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX3NvdXJjZT1saW5rJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1zaWctZW1haWwmdXRtX2NvbnRlbnQ9d2VibWFpbA..>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <x-msg://32/redir.aspx?REF=02oHT6avpTxZIhLEkEsDCBgDAfQ4gy7EDcHGKbKFGQRSFbR4-mDTCAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5hdmFzdC5jb20vc2lnLWVtYWlsP3V0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX3NvdXJjZT1saW5rJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1zaWctZW1haWwmdXRtX2NvbnRlbnQ9ZW1haWxjbGllbnQ.>
>>>>>>> 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&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>
>>
>
>
> <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>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160423/11c6cde1/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list