[General] (no subject)
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Wed Jan 27 13:37:39 PST 2016
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
>> <mailto: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
>>> <http://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 <https://www.academia.edu/19652036/The_Origin_of_the_Elect%0Arons_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 inertial
>>> mass calculation 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
>>>> <mailto: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.natureoflightandparticles.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 <http://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 <mailto: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
>>>> 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>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature
>>>> of Light and Particles General Discussion List
>>>> atvladimirtamari at hotmail.com <mailto:vladimirtamari at hotmail.com>
>>>> <a
>>>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.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 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>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?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>
>> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von
>> Avast geschützt wird.
>> 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/20160127/46ab63c6/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list