[General] (no subject)

Thu Feb 4 06:03:25 PST 2016

Hi John W. and all

I agree with John.  

This line of discussion is not productive, and is diverting our attention
from reality.

Chip

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 1:36 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; phys at a-giese.de
Cc: Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
Subject: Re: [General] (no subject)

Dear Albrecht,

Sorry to be so direct - but you are quite simply wrong in much of what you
say. This is not wrong in the senso fo a matter of opinion - but just wrong
in that your view are simply contradicted by experiment.

Going on with this is sucking oxygen out of what should be a constructive
debate - and driving people away.

For example on momentum  you say ....

"Momentum and inertia are in my view the same phenomenon. Someone said it
earlier in this discussion: Momentum is the motion of an inertial mass. So,
to explain inertial mass by momentum or momentum by inertia as general
explanation are in my view tautological statements. There is something
explained essentially by itself, nothing new about it."

This is just bullshit.

Photons have no inertial mass. Photons carry momentum. Ergo - bullshit.

No?

Even in classical electromagnetism the momentum density is the cross product
of the E and B fields. Even at this level it is bullshit.

More: there is no sign of a force between parts of the electron not an
electromagnetic force and certainly not a strong force. Experimentally. End
of story.

So more bullshit...

All you are doing is diverting debate into dead ends ... dead ends with no
theory, no equations, no explanations, no dynamics - nothing ....

Please stop!

JGW.

  _____  

From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of Wolfgang Baer [wolf at nascentinc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 9:51 PM
To: phys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de> ; Nature of Light and Particles
- General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] (no subject)

albrecht;
Your paragraph in bold below is a very nice and concise way to summarize
your point, especially if the Lande factor can be fit.
I have "Relativity Based on Physical Processes Rather Than Space-Time" and
the "can a photon be described...." article from SPIE 2015
I can see after eq. 2.6 the words "this is now the inertial mass...'

this calculation makes sense but works out because you have 
1) defined a specific binding field as a multipole bond
2) assumed mass-less particles which react individually to some "external
agent" 

Is there a reference or can you explain both of these assumptions or else
one might think you backed into them.
I mean your requirements for the sub-particles and their fields may be more
complicated than the effects they explain.

"for example you say the internal motion must be circular in order to
account for angular momentum"

Does that not imply an inertial mass when the particles are in their
equilibrium orbits? 
If it takes an external agent force to show the properties of inertial mass,
how does this equilibrium field have a minimum.
in the planetary orbit model the minimum is produced by a a coulomb force
pulling in and a centripetal force pulling out
how did you get your minimum?

best wishes
wolf

Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com

On 1/30/2016 1:22 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:

Hello Richard,

yes, we have to assume fundamentals in physics, and which those are, may be
different for different physicists. In my view, forces are fundamental
phenomena where I do not see an explanation on a lower level, at least at
present. I follow QM at this point in so far, as forces are realized by
exchange particles which are mass-less,  move with c and have a distance law
of 1/r^2. .

Momentum and inertia are in my view the same phenomenon. Someone said it
earlier in this discussion: Momentum is the motion of an inertial mass. So,
to explain inertial mass by momentum or momentum by inertia as general
explanation are in my view tautological statements. There is something
explained essentially by itself, nothing new about it.

Inertia is caused in my view (I think explained here several times) by a
very fundamental process. Every extended object must have inertia. This is
caused by nothing than the finiteness of the speed of light by which the
internal forces in an object propagate. And without internal forces an
extended object cannot exist. This is true for any type of force, so in our
world the strong force and the electric force. In an elementary particle the
strong force dominates, so I have restricted my explanation mostly to the
strong force. To be precise, the electric force must not be overlooked. In
my model the consideration of the electric force in the electron causes the
Landé factor (very precisely!)

So,  the fact that an extended object behaves inert, is not a possibility or
some special theory, but it is completely unavoidable that an extended
object is inert.

Only because you mention it: In my model there does not exist a
gravitational mass because gravity has nothing to do with mass. But this is
another topic. If you are interested you can find it explained on my web
site "origin of gravity" (which is the no. 1 in the internet about this
topic since 12 years).

About Newton's law: As I have understood, Newton has defined mass as F/a.
'F' is in his view an elementary quantity visible e.g. by stretching a
spring. 'a' is defined by length and time, both are also elementaries for
him in the way that length is given by a prototype ruler and time by some
sufficiently defined oscillators like a pendulum. We have better definitions
now using means of higher precision, but that does not change the idea
behind.

One can of course have a lot of cognition-related thoughts about the
understanding of these quantities, but that seems to me to be beyond the
level which we need here.

One famous American physicist ones wrote: Mass is a great mystery. I know
that many understand it this way. But I am very sure that my finding that
every extended object has inertial mass solves this "mystery" completely. It
is my intention to convince my colleagues about this since more than 15 year
on conferences and by the internet. And I have never got a refuting
argument. Most main stream physicists refer to Higgs and say that one does
not need another explanation. But never something more substantial.

My model of inertia is in some way similar to the Higgs mechanism. According
to the Higgs theory there are virtual particles intermediately generated in
the Higgs field. These virtual particles couple to the real particle in view
and keep staying at rest in the same inertial system as the real particle.
If now the real particle is accelerated to any direction, it moves off the
virtual Higgs and that needs a force. This force is inertia. - The
similarity to my model is that in my model the role of the virtual Higgs is
realized by the other (real) sub-particle in the elementary particle. 

My model does not explain why there are certain masses in particles realized
and others not. Otto Greulich has found a numerical relation for the
existing particles but no explanation why it works. In his algorithm the
factor alpha plays an important role. And I have the impression that the
relation of strong force and electric force, which is described by alpha,
plays an essential role in the question if a particle is stable. Otto is
looking for a possible mechanism, but up to now he has no solution. I also
think about it, but presently also with no success.

To your last comment: Momentum is the product of inertial mass and speed, as
you surely know. Mass is scalar, that is right, but speed is a vector and so
it is unavoidable that the product, called momentum, is a vector. But just
from this definition of momentum it is visible that momentum is not
fundamental but a combination of two other units. Isn't it?

Albrecht

Am 28.01.2016 um 01:33 schrieb Richard Gauthier:

Hello Albrecht,

   You want to explain inertia and therefore momentum (in your view) by the
strong force. But what is your “mechanism” or explanation for the strong
force?  You have not explained or even tried to explain the strong force so
you are actually doing what you are accusing me of doing — not explaining
what momentum is or what is its “mechanism”.  But I’m not trying to explain
momentum, I’m trying to explain inertial mass or inertia in terms of
momentum. If inertia can be explained in terms of momentum, I would say that
is progress. If this leads to a greater insights into why inertial mass
equals gravitational mass (if it does), that would be further progress.
Scientific progress occurs in steps, it’s not all or nothing.

    Newton’s F=ma is actually a tautological or circular relationship. A
force F does not CAUSE acceleration. Acceleration is observed and measured.
“Force" is DEFINED as ma, never observed. Or m is DEFINED as F/a.  “Mass" is
also never observed. Physical objects are hypothesized, observed, measured
or inferred. None of Newton’s laws have ever been experimentally proved, at
least according to MIT physics lecturer Walter Lewin (introduction to
mechanics). You can’t prove or disprove a definition. F=ma is a circular
relationship that works within certain limits without knowing what either
force or mass is fundamentally.

     The cause of the inertia of the electron is considered to be one of the
deepest mysteries of physics. Frank Wilczek in his article “The origin of
mass” at
http://web.mit.edu/physics/news/physicsatmit/physicsatmit_03_wilczek_origino
fmass.pdf concludes: 

"Still, as I’ve already mentioned, our understanding of the origin of mass
is by no means complete. We have achieved a beautiful and profound
understanding of the origin of most of the mass of ordinary matter, but not
of all of it. The value of the electron mass, in particular, remains deeply
mysterious even in our most advanced speculations about unification and
string theory. And ordinary matter, we have recently learned, supplies only
a small fraction of mass in the Universe as a whole. More beautiful and
profound revelations surely await discovery. We continue to search for
concepts and theories that will allow us to understand the origin of mass in
all its forms, by unveiling more of Nature’s hidden symmetries." 

And Wilczek is talking about the origin of the magnitude of the electron’s
mass, not the cause of the electron’s inertia.

 I am not claiming, as you do, to derive the electron’s mass m = 0.511
MeV/c^2  in a circular way from the Bohr magneton ehbar/2m which isn’t even
the electron’s experimental magnetic moment, only an approximation
calculated from the known measured values of e, h and m.  But it is not
tautological or circular to derive the electron’s inertial mass m =
0.511Mev/c^2 from a circulating photon model of an electron where this
circulating photon has (for no known reason) energy hf = 0.511MeV and
momentum p = 0.511MeV/c . After all, a photon’s rest mass (0 Mev/c^2)  is
not the same as a photon’s inertial mass (hf/c^2). And the rest mass m of a
moving electron is not the same as the inertial mass gamma m of this moving
electron. 

As far as what you say about the Higgs mechanism and inertia, here’s an
interesting quote from Bernhard Haisch in
http://www.calphysics.org/articles/newscientist.html . Haisch and his
colleagues have been studying inertia and its possible explanation for
years: "But the Higgs mechanism does not explain why mass, or its energy
equivalent, resists motion or reacts to gravity," says Bernard Haisch of the
California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics in Palo Alto. He believes
instead that inertia and gravity are manifestations of far more familiar
effects. 

So the Higgs field, while it may “explain” why some particles have rest mass
and others don't, apparently doesn’t explain the inertia of mass. So your
explanation of inertia is apparently not in competition with the Higgs
mechanism of mass. But I would say that your explanation of inertial mass in
terms of the strong nuclear force IS in competition with the derivation of
inertial mass from momentum. And Occam’s razor and physical facts do apply.

One more comment. Momentum is a vector quantity, with both magnitude and
direction. Inertial mass is a scalar quantity, with magnitude only. So
Inertia cannot be the same as momentum unless inertia is also a vector
quantity, having direction as well as magnitude. Perhaps inertia IS a vector
quantity after all, subject to vector addition (and cancellation). That
would be interesting.

Richard

On Jan 27, 2016, at 1:37 PM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:

Hello Richard,

there is not necessarily a hierarchy between mass and momentum. But the
origin of all is the resistance against a change of the motion state. That
resistance is called inertia. And this resistance causes momentum as well as
mass. 

If you understand the momentum as on the top of the hierarchy, you have to
explain which mechanism causes momentum. There must be one. What is it?

My explanation of inertia is the only working one which I know. And which of
course is not a tautological explanation. The other explanation followed by
main stream is the Higgs model. That is derived from QM, and that is
something which I personally do not like very much. But the strong argument
against the Higgs model is the fact that the necessary Higgs field does not
exist as far as we know. And again, I have never heard about another model
of inertial which is not tautological. 

My model for leptons and for quarks has to function as it does, under the
assumption that inertia has to be explained. And we may not ask for Occam's
Razor if there is no alternative. I do not see any. 

My model explains the photon in a fundamentally similar way as a lepton and
a quark. But for the photon something has to be added to explain its
constant speed, i.e. the fact that it cannot be found at rest. And the fact
of twice the spin. This letter point seems to me not too serious. 

The relativistic increase of the particle mass at motion (not only the
electron, but all) is easily and straight explained by the model. Take the
calculation of the inertial mass and adjust the distance of the
sub-particles for the relativistic contraction. Then the straight result is
the new mass increased by the factor gamma. Your find it in my web site
about "origin of mass". And the relation energy to mass: E=mc^2 follows
immediately from the same calculation. Who else has ever deduced the famous
formula of Einstein? I do not know any else deduction which refers to a
physical mechanism. 

Strong force? In the 1940s calculations of the electron have been made in
Germany which were based on the assumption that there are only electrical
forces in the particle. The resulting mass turned out to be too low by a
factor of ca. 300. This is about the factor by which the strong force is
stronger than the electrical one. So there is no surprise that with the
assumption of the strong force the results are correct. I think this is a
good argument. Isn't it?

Albrecht

Am 26.01.2016 um 01:50 schrieb Richard Gauthier:

Hello Albrecht, 

   I know that you object to my derivation, but I am proposing that momentum
is primary and inertia is secondary. You have got it backwards. The inertial
mass of an electron is (in my approach) quantitatively due to the
circulating internal momentum of its charged (or uncharged) photon. By
extension, the inertial mass of all particles with rest mass is likely due
to internally circulating momenta. It is true as you say that in a world
without inertia (or inertial mass) there would be no momentum, but in a
world without momentum there would also be no inertia (or inertial mass).
Inertia (or inertial mass) is due to momentum (in my approach). Momentum is
not due to inertia. 

  I know that your electron hypothesis attempts to derive the inertia of an
electron differently. But I think you will have to admit that my derivation
of the electron’s inertial mass from the electron’s proposed circulating
internal photon momentum is very much simpler than yours (which is by the
way based on highly questionable premises since there is no accepted
experimental evidence for the strong nuclear force influencing electric
charges, zero experimental evidence for two sub-particles in an electron,
and your electron model’s apparently negative rest mass due to its negative
internal potential energy), and thus by Occam's Razor, much to be preferred.
Plus, your model doesn’t derive the inertial mass of a photon as hf/c^2 or
the inertial mass of a relativistically moving electron as gamma m, does it?

     Richard

On Jan 25, 2016, at 8:33 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:

Dear Richard,

you know that I object to your derivation of inertial mass. You deduce it
from momentum. That is mathematically possible by using the known relations.
But it is not logical in so far as momentum depends on inertia. In a world
without inertia there would be no momentum.

So we have to explain first the mechanism of inertia itself, then we can
derive the momentum and the inertial mass.

Best
Albrecht

Am 24.01.2016 um 20:42 schrieb Richard Gauthier:

Hello Vladimir and Chandra and all,

  Yes, I definitely support the idea of the ether as material space, and
that all physical particles are derived from this ether. This ether can also
be called a plenum or Cosmic Tension Field.

   I don’t however think that it is necessary to explain the inertial mass
of particles in relation to a "coefficient of inertia” or "the amount of
momentum the ether resists." I have shown
(https://www.academia.edu/19652036/The_Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia ) by
a very simple derivation that the inertial mass m of an electron may be
derived from the momentum of the circling photon in a circulating-photon
model of the electron, whose circling photon has momentum mc where m =
Eo/c^2 = hf/c^2 ,  where Eo is the rest energy 0.511 MeV of the electron and
f is the frequency of the circulating photon in the resting electron.
Secondly, in a similar way I derived a linearly moving photon's inertial
mass to be M-inertial = hf/c^2 , where f is the photon’s frequency, even
though a photon has zero rest mass. Thirdly, I derived the inertial mass of
a relativistic electron, whose momentum is p=gamma mv, to be  M-inertial =
gamma m , even though the moving electron's rest mass is m.  

   I present these  derivations below, taken from the academia.edu session
on my electron inertia article at
https://www.academia.edu/s/a26afd55e0?source=link :

"One reason people don’t think that a photon has any inertial mass (because
it has no rest mass) is that how do you get a photon to change its momentum
(i.e. accelerate) in order to measure its inertial mass. It can’t go faster
or slower than c in a vacuum, so it can’t accelerate in a linear direction,
and in normal physics a photon doesn’t follow a curved path (except with
gravity), which would make it possible to measure its centripetal
acceleration c^2/R . But as I showed in my short electron inertia article at
https://www.academia.edu/19652036/The_Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia , the
electron model in a resting electron has the photon going in a circle, with
momentum mc and speed c, and the electron's inertial mass is then calculated
to be M-inertial =(dp/dt)/Acentrifugal =wmc/(c^2/r)= m which is the inertial
mass of the electron. But this calculation of the circling charged photon's
inertial mass is independent of the radius of the charged photon’s circular
orbit. Let that circular radius go towards infinity and you get a photon
traveling in essentially a straight line, still having its inertial mass M
=hf/c^2 (where the photon frequency f decreases as the radius of the circle
increases) . So according to this logic, a linearly moving photon DOES have
inertial mass M-inertial =hf/c^2 even though a photon has zero rest mass.
And when a relativistic electron with momentum p=gamma mv travels in a
circle with speed v, the iner tia l mass c alculation above gives M -in
ertial = gamma m for a circling relativistic electron, and not just m the
electron’s rest mass . Extending the radius here towards infinity also gives
a linearly moving electron an inertial mass M = gamma m and not just the
electron's rest mass m."

      As far as I know these are all original derivations of the inertial
mass of a resting electron, a photon and a relativistic electron based on a
circulating photon model of an electron. I would be pleased to be shown
otherwise.

  Richard

On Jan 24, 2016, at 6:42 AM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra
<chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> wrote:

Yes, Vlad, that is also my viewpoint.

I do not remember whether I have attached this paper while communicating
with you earlier. I call the “plenum” Cosmic Tension Field (CTF), to be
descriptive in its essential properties.

Chandra.

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightan
dparticles.org] On Behalf Of Vladimir Tamari
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2016 7:00 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] (no subject)

Hi Richard 

I barge into your discussion without knowing your views on a "plenum field"
but if it is an ether I definitely think there is one. A "coefficent of
inertia" might be defined as the amount of momentum the ether resists. In a
charged or gravitational field this coefficent would increase...I think of
this in terms of my Beautiful Universe ether of dielectric nodes, except
this may give the wrong idea it is something matter wades in.. not so.
Matter and ether are made if the selfsame nodes of energy!

Cheers

Vladimir

_____________________

vladimirtamari.com

On Jan 21, 2016, at 7:41 AM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
wrote:

Hi Hodge,

    I don’t remember asking that. But if I did, I’m glad the question was
helpful.

   I’m thinking about inertia these days. Do you or others have any insights
about its nature?

         Richard

On Jan 20, 2016, at 1:43 PM, Hodge John <jchodge at frontier.com> wrote:

Richard Gauthier:

You asked if the galaxy redshift, Pioneer anomaly, Pound--Rebka experiment
model had a velocity term. I looked at redshift data for 1 galaxy and found
no indication of a velocity term.

I had not noticed this in the equations. Your suggestion that the plenum
field can look like the Higgs field seems valid. That is, the acceleration
of the plenum field looks like it adds energy (mass) is a Higgs Field
characteristic. Thus, the plenum is closer to the idea of a quantum field
and Higgs field (weak force).

Thanks for the insight.

Hodge

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List atvladimirtamari at hotmail.com
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

<2012.2_JMP_Space as real
field.pdf>_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

  <https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/logo-avast-v1.png> 

Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von Avast
geschützt wird. 
www.avast.com 

  <https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/logo-avast-v1.png> 

Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von Avast
geschützt wird. 
www.avast.com 

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.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/20160204/a56481fe/attachment.htm>