[General] inertia
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Sat Apr 30 09:47:36 PDT 2016
Hallo Richard,
you are making good calculations. However, some questions are still open:
1. What does the photon make to move on a circuit? A charge can only be
the cause if there is another charge attracting this one. Or a
corresponding permanent field. I do not see it in your model. - If the
reason is that the photon is curling up, which mechanism makes it to
curl up?
2. You say that inertia and momentum is essentially the same. I agree.
But if you refer the inertial mass of the electron to the momentum of
the circling photon, this is by itself not an explanation. There has to
be a mechanism which causes your charged photon to have a momentum. For
this question I could also not find an answer in your academia.paper.
What did I overlook?
Albrecht
Am 23.04.2016 um 06:44 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
> Hello Albrecht,
>
> Thank you for your further comments and questions about inertial
> mass and my electron model.
>
> It is becoming clear to me that the cause or origin of inertia is
> momentum. Newton’s “law of inertia” (his first law of motion) is just
> an expression of conservation of momentum in the absence of an outside
> force that changes momentum. But “inertia” has been a vague word
> because it has not been understood how an object with a rest mass m
> gets this inertial mass or resistance to acceleration given by m=F/a .
> But when it is understood that a resting electron may be composed of a
> circulating photon carrying momentum mc=Eo/c when the electron’s rest
> energy is Eo=0.511 MeV/c^2, then it becomes clear why an electron has
> inertial mass m — it is quantitatively due to this circulating
> internal momentum mc=Eo/c .
>
> But you raise very important issues: "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.” I
> think the ability of a photon to move in a circle or helix is closely
> related to its ability (for a proposed spin-1/2 photon that forms an
> electron) to carry an electric charge. My proposed model of a spin-1/2
> photon (which I briefly described perhaps a year ago in this “Nature
> of Light and Particles” discussion list, is proposed to exist in a
> curled-up double-loop configuration (as an electron) or in a
> non-curled-up state (where it would be an uncharged spin-1/2 photon)
> or with any degree of curling in between. The more curled-up the
> spin-1/2 photon is, the greater its electric charge, up to a maximum
> of -e for an electron. And once the spin-1/2 charged photon is curled
> up and separated from the second spin-1/2 charged photon formed with
> it that became a positron in e-p production, the curled-up spin-1/2
> charged photon is unable to uncurl itself because this would violate
> conservation of electric charge.
>
> My model of a spin-1/2 charged photon is closely related to the
> model of a spin-1 uncharged photon described in my article
> https://www.academia.edu/4429810/Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron .
> In the spin-1/2 photon model, the proposed transluminal energy quantum
> (TEQ) forming the spin-1/2 photon makes 2 helical loops instead of one
> for each wavelength of the spin-1/2 photon, but the spin-1/2 photon
> model still has a forward internal angle of 45 degrees like the spin-1
> photon model. (These two helical loops per wavelength of the spin-1/2
> charged photon generate the zitterbewegung frequency of the curled-up
> double-looped photon model.) The radius R of the spin-1/2 photon model
> is R=lambda/4pi instead of R=lambda/2pi for the spin-1 photon model.
> In both the spin-1 photon model and the uncurled spin-1/2 photon
> model, the photon moves forward at the speed c but the transluminal
> energy quantum forming the photon moves helically at c sqrt(2).
>
> What about the problem of conservation of momentum in the
> one-particle circulating spin-1/2 charged photon model of the
> electron? It has been calculated that a centripetal force of 0.414 N
> keeps the spin-1/2 charged photon moving in a double-looped circle
> with a radius of hbar/2mc. This centripetal force of 0.414 N is
> continuously changing the direction of the circulating charged
> photon’s momentum mc.The source of this external force on the
> circulating charged photon is not known in the spin-1/2 charged photon
> model, but conservation of momentum is not required for the
> circulating spin-1/2 charged photon if there is an external force
> acting it to change its momentum into a circular trajectory to form
> the electron.
>
> I hope these explanations about the possible origin of inertial
> mass in the electron are helpful.
>
> Richard
>
>
>> On Apr 22, 2016, at 7:53 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de
>> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>>
>> 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> 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>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> <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/20160430/583b4db4/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list