Hi Chip,
I shall answer with some comments in the text.
Am 03.06.2016 um 15:54 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> Hi Albrecht
>
> Consider that if we are willing to insert magical particles, and
> choose what properties those particles display and what properties
> they don’t display, where none have been detected, we can create
> models which conform to any behavior we wish.
>
My "basic particles" have electrical charge as the electron has it. They
permanently move with speed of light c which is required by SR,
dilation. And they are mass-less as otherwise c is not possible. There
have to be two of them in an elementary particle as otherwise the law of
momentum is violated, which is (one of) the most fundamental laws in
physics. The introduction of the "zitterbewegung" by Schrödinger is a
consequence of this necessity. More assumptions are not necessary. -
What is in your view unnatural with theses assumptions?
>
> After much discussion and reading your work, I feel you have become so
> emotionally attached to your model that you can no longer see beyond
> it to explore where it may be right and may be wrong.
>
I am discussing every property of this model at many conferences here
and abroad (about twice a year) since 2001. There are always many
questions and arguments. But the repeated argument in this discussion
here that my assumption are to some extent arbitrary I have never heard
before (at least I do not remember it). The audience is growing from
case to case, so there is some appreciation that it is substantial. But
of course I am always open for critical questions. Also in this forum as
you may have noticed.
>
> Experimental evidence has clearly indicated that the electron is a
> single entity. Likewise with the photon.
>
I have worked for a research centre where those investigations have been
made very carefully. It is the German Electron Synchrotron (DESY) in
Hamburg. I know the investigations and the arguments. The conclusion of
the investigations was indeed that the electron is not composite. But
the evaluation of the experiments has pre-assumed (as a matter of
course) that, if the electron is composed, then the constituents have a
mass on their own. The other possibility that the constituents are
mass-less was never considered. Because that requires a mechanism for
the generation of mass within a particle. According to the adherence to
the Higgs model main stream physics have not looked at this possibility.
The constituents in my model are mass-less, so the conclusion made is
not applicable. That was even admitted by the research director of this
centre.
The very small size assumed for the electron was also here understood as
the size of the electric charge in it, not of the entire particle. That
was even admitted by main stream.
>
> I will join Richard and discontinue discussing your model, simply
> because your model is not the simplest and most accurate description
> of what we see in nature. I cannot convince you of this, so we are
> wasting our time.
>
I do not see an explanation of particle properties in the other models
presented here. All the models, as far as I understand, assume the
electron to be built by a photon, and the properties of the photon
(which are by themselves unexplained but simply believed) are taken over
for the electron. This is in my view in no way a true explanation. My
explanations are from the scratch. If you disagree to this please tell
your arguments.
I regret if you do not want to further participate in this part of the
discussion, but it is of course you own decision.
>
> My best to you.
>
> Chip
>
The best to you back
Albrecht
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Richard Gauthier
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 02, 2016 5:54 PM
> *To:* phys at a-giese.de
> *Cc:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] inertia
>
> Hello Albrecht,
>
> My electron model is built of a single circulating spin-1/2 charged
> photon. It is not built “by photons”. I know of no experimental
> evidence that a photon is a composite particle as you claim. Please
> cite any accepted experimental evidence that a photon is a composite
> particle. Thanks.
>
> Richard
>
> On Jun 2, 2016, at 1:37 PM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de
> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>
> Hello Richard,
>
> Zero evidence for a composite particle? I think that the evidence
> for a composite particle model is very obvious:
>
> - The model explains the mass and the momentum of a particle with
> NO new parameters, from the scratch
> - The model explains the magnetic moment of a particle
> classically with no new parameters
> - The model explains the constancy of the spin classically
> - The model explains the equation E = h*f classically (was never
> deduced before)
> - The model explains the relativistic increase of mass and the
> mass-energy relation E=m*c^2 independent of Einstein's space-time
> ideas.
>
> And what is the evidence that the electron is NOT a composite
> particle? Your electron model is built by photons, where the
> photon is also a composite particle. So, what?
>
> I do not know any other particle models with this ability. Do you?
> Such properties are taken as a good evidence in physics. Or why do
> main stream physics trust in the existence of an up-quark and a
> down-quark? For both there was no direct evidence in any
> experiment. The reason to accept their existence is the fact that
> this assumption makes some other facts understandable. - The model
> of a composite particle is in no way weaker.
>
> Albrecht
>
> Am 31.05.2016 um 20:19 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>
> Hello Albrecht and all,
>
> Since there is zero experimental evidence that the electron
> is a composite particle, I will no longer comment on
> Albrecht's electron model, which postulates as a principal
> feature that the electron is a composite particle, unless new
> experimental evidence is found that the electron is a
> composite particle after all.
>
> Galileo’s and Newton's “law of inertia" is clearly an
> expression of conservation of momentum of objects or “bodies”
> in the absence of an imposed external net force. It
> revolutionized mechanics because Aristotle had taught otherwise.
>
> If a resting electron is a circulating light-speed
> electrically charged photon with circulating momentum Eo/c,
> then an external force F on the electron equals the additional
> rate of change of momentum dp/dt of the circulating charged
> photon corresponding to that external force: F=dp/dt , beyond
> the constant rate of change of momentum of the circulating
> charged photon. The ratio of this applied force F (for example
> due to an applied electric field) to the circulating charged
> photon’s additional acceleration “a" is called the electron's
> inertial mass and is defined by F=ma or m=F/a . There is no
> separate mass-stuff or inertia-stuff to be accelerated in a
> particle. There is only the circulating momentum Eo/c of the
> circling speed-of-light particle with rest energy Eo , that is
> being additionally accelerated by the applied force F. Since
> the value m = Eo/c^2 of a resting particle (derived from the
> rate of change of the circulating momentum Eo/c as compared to
> its centripetal acceleration) is the same value in different
> reference frames, it is called the particle’s invariant mass
> m, but this invariant mass m is still derived from the resting
> particle’s internally circulating momentum Eo/c . If the
> electron is moving relativistically at v < c, it has an
> additional linear momentum p=gamma mv, which when added
> vectorially to the transverse circulating momentum Eo/c gives
> by the Pythagorean theorem a total circulating vector momentum
> P=gamma Eo/c = gamma mc=E/c where E is the electron’s total
> energy E=gamma mc^2. This is the origin of the electron’s
> relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4
> which is just another way to write the Pythagorean momentum
> vector relationship above: P^2 = p^2 + (Eo/c)^2 .
>
> In my understanding, the Higgs field gives a non-zero
> invariant mass (without being able to predict the magnitude of
> that mass) to certain particles according to the relativistic
> energy-momentum equation, so that any particle moving at v <
> c in a Higgs field has invariant mass m > 0. But the inertia
> of that invariant mass m is not explained by the action of the
> Higgs field, in my understanding.
>
> To try to theoretically explain why a photon has momentum p
> = hf/c and energy E=hf is a separate topic beyond trying to
> explain why a particle has inertial mass, or resistance to
> acceleration by an applied force.
>
> Richard
>
> On May 30, 2016, at 1:04 PM, Albrecht Giese
> <genmail at a-giese.de <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>
> Hello Richard,
>
> your new paper has again a lot of nice mathematics.
> However, it again does not answer the question of inertia.
> As earlier, you relate the inertial mass of an electron to
> the mass of the circling photon which builds in your
> understanding the electron. Then the mass and the momentum
> of the electron is calculated from the mass and momentum
> of the photon.
>
> Such calculation is of course possible if one follows this
> picture of an electron. However, it does not answer the
> question of what the cause of inertia and momentum of the
> photon is. You take this as an 'a priory' fact. But this
> is not our present state of understanding. Physics are
> able to go deeper.
>
> You write in your paper: "The fact is that the inertial
> property of the mass of elementary particles is not
> understood". How can you write this? Main stream physics
> have the Higgs model which is assumed to describe the mass
> of elementary particles. And I have presented a model
> which uses the fact that any extended object inevitably
> has inertia. The reason is, as you know, that the fields
> of the constituents of an extended object propagate with
> the finite speed of light. If the extension of an
> elementary particle is taken from its magnetic moment,
> this model provides very precisely the mass, the momentum,
> and a lot of other parameters and properties of a particle.
>
> If you intend to explain the mass of an electron by the
> mass of a photon, you should have an appropriate
> explanation of the mass and other parameters of a photon.
> Otherwise I do not see any real progress in the
> considerations of your paper.
>
> Albrecht
>
> Am 30.05.2016 um 07:40 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>
> Hello Vladimir,
>
> Thanks. That could be an explanation. But I’m
> hoping I can find a simpler explanation, if possible.
>
> Richard
>
> On May 29, 2016, at 7:29 PM, Vladimir Tamari
> <vladimirtamari at hotmail.com
> <mailto:vladimirtamari at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> Richard,
>
> without going into the details of your model, you
> mentioned:
>
> "It may be that vector momentum is just not
> conserved within fundamental particles even though
> it is conserved between two or more particles in
> their mutual interactions"
>
>
>
> In cellular-automata schemes, such as myBeautiful
> Universe
> <http://vladimirtamari.com/beautiful_univ_rev_oct_2011.pdf>,
> a particle is made up of a pattern of spinning
> nodes in a matrix. The same type of spinning nodes
> also form thesurrounding magnetic, gravitational
> or electrostatic field etc. Any changes in the
> angular momentum or the axis of spin of
> the constituent nodes of a particle (or photon
> wave) is transmitted as a domino effect adjusting
> the angular momentum of surrounding nodes both
> internally and externally. The domino effect is
> diffused unto infinity in inverse-square fashion.
> Nothing is hidden or lost or subject to
> uncertainty, and energy is always conserved.
>
> In your case by taking the photon and electron in
> isolation conservation issues seem to be arising?
> Hope this helps.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Vladimir
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: richgauthier at gmail.com
> <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 17:31:33 -0700
> To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> CC: jsarfatti at aol.com <mailto:jsarfatti at aol.com>
> Subject: Re: [General] inertia
>
> Hello all,
>
> I’ve been thinking about the unexplained 0.424
> Newtons force acting on a circulating
> double-looped charged photon to keep it in its
> trajectory. Any double-looping-photon electron
> model should have this force acting on the
> circling photon, such John and Martin’s model and
> Chip’s model. The force doesn’t have an obvious
> source. It continuously changes the direction of
> the circling momentum without changing the resting
> energy of the photon. It may be that vector
> momentum is just not conserved within fundamental
> particles even though it is conserved between two
> or more particles in their mutual interactions. I
> believe that the Dirac equation solution for a
> free electron hints at this internal
> non-conservation of momentum also during
> zitterbewegung motion of the free electron whose
> average velocity is v but whose eigenvalue for
> speed is c. The position-momentum relations for
> the double-looped photon model of the electron, as
> I recall, are below or just at the the exact
> uncertainty expression of the Heisenberg
> uncertainty principle: delta x times delta p >
> 1/2 hbar , for position and momentum of an
> object in a particular coordinate direction. So it
> might not be possible to experimentally determine
> if linear momentum is conserved or not within a
> particle. The indirect evidence that there is such
> circulating momentum in a particle is the inertial
> mass m=Eo/c^2 of the particle as it is derived
> from the photon’s circulating momentum p=Eo/c . If
> there is circling momentum for a single particle,
> then momentum conservation within the particle IS
> being violated. An analogy: just as an electron
> has spin but it not experimentally known what
> inside it is “spinning", an electron has inertial
> mass but it is not known what inside the particle
> is “massing”. But but the spin and the inertial
> mass are known experimentally. A double-looping
> photon model explains both what is “spinning" and
> what is “massing" in an electron.
>
> Richard
>
> On May 27, 2016, at 11:50 AM, Richard Gauthier
> <richgauthier at gmail.com
> <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> Jack Sarfatti, a well-known physicist, wrote
> back to me about my article saying that no one
> cares about this work, that it is just
> re-inventing the wheel and that it is not a
> good problem to work on. Comments?
>
> Richard
>
> On May 26, 2016, at 8:25 PM, Richard
> Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com
> <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear John W, Martin, Chandra, Alexander,
> Chip, Andrew, Vivian, Albrecht, John M,
> David and all,
>
> <A New Derivation of E=mc^2 explains a
> particle's inertia.pdf>
>
> Here’s my latest input to the
> inertia/particles discussion: my proposed
> new derivation of Eo=mc^2 and the inertial
> mass of a particle from the momentum of a
> circling photon.
>
> Richard
>
> On May 17, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Richard
> Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com
> <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> David
>
> These newly discovered photons seem
> very similar to helically-moving
> spin-1/2 charged photons, except for
> their lack of electric charge. Perhaps
> these new spin-1/2 photons become
> spin-1/2 charged photons when they
> curl up in pairs of photons with
> opposite charge, as in e-p pair
> production : "Researchers made their
> discovery after passing light through
> special crystals to create a light
> beam with a hollow, screw-like
> structure. Using quantum mechanics,
> the physicists theorized that the
> beam's twisting photons were being
> slowed to a half-integer of Planck's
> constant.”
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> On May 17, 2016, at 1:56 PM,
> <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
> <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>>
> <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
> <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Richard
>
> If pbotons weren't confusing
> enough...just as Williams proposed
> a quantum number for energy, these
> researchers are proposing a
> quantum number for angular momentum.
>
> The article
>
> Scientists discover new form of
> light
> <http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2016/05/17/Scientists-discover-new-form-of-light/9061463490086/>
>
> "The newly discovered form of
> light, however, features photons
> with an angular momentum of just
> half the value of Planck's
> constant. The difference sounds
> small, but researchers say the
> significance of the discovery is
> great.'
>
> The paper
>
> There are many ways to spin a
> photon: Half-quantization of a
> total optical angular momentum |
> Science Advances
> <http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/4/e1501748.full>
>
> Best
>
> David
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Richard Gauthier
> <richgauthier at gmail.com
> <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>>
> *To:*Nature of Light and
> Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
> *Cc:*Alexander Burinskii
> <bur at ibrae.ac.ru
> <mailto:bur at ibrae.ac.ru>>
> *Sent:*Saturday, May 14, 2016
> 12:30 AM
> *Subject:*Re: [General] inertia
>
> Hello Chandra and all,
>
> This is very good news.
> I’ve been reading several of
> Alexander Burinskii’s recent
> (2015 and 2016) published
> papers on his Kerr-Newman bag
> model of the electron (2 pdf’s
> attached). His approach
> integrates black-hole
> gravitational theory, Higgs
> theory and electromagnetism to
> produce a
> internally-light-speed model
> of the electron with radius
> hbar/2mc like John W and
> Martin’s, Chip’s, Vivian’s and
> my double-looping-photon
> electron models. Alexander's
> electron model is
> energetically stable, contains
> a circulating light-speed
> singularity (a photon?) in
> addition to an electromagnetic
> wave circling along its outer
> rim along a circular
> gravitational string, has g=2
> (Dirac magnetic moment of
> magnitude 1 Bohr magneton), is
> a fermion and carries the
> electron’s charge. I think
> Alexander’s electron model has
> much to offer, coming from a
> different perspective than
> much of our group’s electron
> modeling. I request Alexander
> to give us a summary of the
> key features (and perhaps a
> brief history) of his electron
> model, emphasizing the nature
> of its stability (an important
> issue in circling-photon
> electron models.) I hope that
> this will stimulate a critical
> discussion of his approach in
> comparison with our various
> approaches to electron
> modeling, which could lead to
> better light-speed-based
> electron models coming up to
> the next SPIE “What are
> photons” conference in San
> Diego in August 2017.
>
> Richard
>
> On May 12, 2016, at 6:12
> PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra
> <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu
> <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>>
> wrote:
>
> I will request Burinskii to
> participate in our next
> conference.
>
> Chandra.
>
> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S®
> 5 ACTIVE™, an AT&T 4G LTE
> smartphone
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Richard Gauthier
> <richgauthier at gmail.com
> <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>>
> Date: 5/12/2016 2:09 AM
> (GMT-05:00)
> To: Nature of Light and
> Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
> Cc: Alexander Burinskii
> <bur at ibrae.ac.ru
> <mailto:bur at ibrae.ac.ru>>
> Subject: Re: [General] inertia
>
> Dear John W, Martin, Chandra,
> Vivian, Andrew, John M, Chip,
> Albrecht, Hodge and others,
>
> I am in contact with the
> Russian physicist and
> academician Alexander
> Burinskii (arXiv page of his
> articles
> athttp://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Alexander+Burinskii/0/1/0/all/0/1 ,
> biography
> athttp://www.scirp.org/journal/DetailedInforOfEditorialBoard.aspx?personID=10183 ),
> who has written a very
> interesting article on arXiv:
> “Gravity vs. quantum theory:
> Is the electron really
> pointlike?” at
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.0225 .
> He draws on the interesting
> resemblance of Kerr-Newman
> gravity formulations to the
> properties of the Dirac
> electron as a light-speed
> particle that can only be
> measured at sub-light speeds.
> Here’s part of the abstract:
>
> "Contrary to the widespread
> opinion that gravity plays
> essential role only on the
> Planck scales, the Kerr-Newman
> gravity displays a new
> dimensional parameter
> a=ℏ/(2m), which for parameters
> of an electron corresponds to
> the Compton wavelength and
> turns out to be very far from
> the Planck scale. Extremely
> large spin of the electron
> with respect to its mass
> produces the Kerr geometry
> without horizon, which
> displays very essential
> topological changes at the
> Compton distance resulting in
> a two-fold structure of the
> electron background. The
> corresponding gravitational
> and electromagnetic fields of
> the electron are concentrated
> near the Kerr ring, forming a
> sort of a closed string,
> structure of which is close to
> the described by Sen heterotic
> string. The indicated by
> Gravity stringlike structure
> of the electron contradicts to
> the statements of Quantum
> theory that electron is
> pointlike and structureless.
> However, it confirms the
> peculiar role of the Compton
> zone of the "dressed" electron
> and matches with the known
> limit of the localization of
> the Dirac electron."
>
>
>
> I think that there some
> potential for Alexander
> Burinskii's Kerr-Newman
> gravity approach to the
> electron and the various
> double-looping photon models
> of the electron to find some
> common ground which may
> benefit both approaches to
> modeling the electron. In
> particular the centripetal
> force of 0.424 N causing a
> photon of energy 0.511 MeV to
> move in a closed
> double-looping trajectory of
> radius Ro=hbar/2mc in a
> resting electron model could
> be related to the
> gravitational and
> electromagnetic fields and
> gravity stringlike structure
> of the Kerr-Newman electron
> model.
>
> Richard
>
> On May 9, 2016, at 4:37
> AM, Albrecht Giese
> <genmail at a-giese.de
> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>>
> wrote:
>
> Hello Richard,
>
> it is true that we do not
> know everything in physics
> (otherwise there would be
> no reason for further
> research). However, many
> facts and rules are
> understood, and I do not
> see a good reason to go
> behind this knowledge.
>
> From my 2-particle model
> it follows for leptons and
> for quarks that there is E
> = h*ny. The frequency is
> the circulation, the
> energy follows from the
> mass which the model
> yields, when using E =
> m*c^2. This latter
> relation also follows from
> this model. (I have
> presented all this in San
> Diego; it was also
> discussed here earlier as
> I remember; and it is on
> my web site "The Origin of
> Mass". Of course I can
> explain it here again if
> there is a demand.)
>
> As these relations
> obviously also apply to
> the photon, it seems very
> plausible that the photon
> has a similar structure
> like a lepton and a quark.
> The rules apply if c is
> inserted for the speed.
> This also leads to p=h*ny/c.
>
> And which further details
> do we know about the
> photon? It must have an
> extension as it has a spin
> which is physically not
> possible without an
> extension. And it must
> have charges as it reacts
> with an electric field
> which is otherwise not
> explainable. There must be
> at least two charges, a
> positive and a negative
> one, as the photon as a
> whole is neutral. The spin
> is twice the one of a
> lepton or a quark, this
> may be an indication that
> the photon is built by 4
> sub-particles rather than
> 2 of the kind which I have
> described.
>
> So, if the photon has
> positive and negative
> charges, which means that
> it has sub-particles with
> positive and negative
> charges, it is quite
> plausible that the photon
> can decompose into a
> positive and a negative
> elementary particle, so
> into a positron and an
> electron.
>
> (You may call this
> speculative. But it has
> some strongly plausible
> aspects which I am missing
> in the other models
> presented here.)
>
> The curling-up which you
> have mentioned has an
> orbital component. To move
> on an orbit needs some
> physical conditions. E.g.
> an influence which causes
> the acceleration to its
> center. This should be
> physically explained.
>
> The conflict between the
> necessary Higgs field and
> the vacuum field in the
> universe is treated in the
> article of F.J. Tipler in
> /arXiv/:/astro/-/ph///0111520v1
> .///It is well known by
> particle physicists I
> have at conferences
> hereaskedseveral times the
> presenters of the Higgs
> model for this
> discrepancy. They have
> always admitted that this
> conflict exists, but some
> have tried to blame the
> astronomers for it. No one
> ever has presented a
> solution for the conflict.
>
> Albrecht
>
>
>
> Am 07.05.2016 um 23:32
> schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>
> Hello Albrecht,
>
> Thank your for
> your further comments
> and questions.
>
> Your are asking me
> why photons have
> momentum p=hv/c .
> That’s like asking why
> photons have energy
> E=hv . In physics
> nobody knows “why”
> anything happens.
> “Why?” questions
> always lead back to a
> big unknown.
> Physicists observe
> nature qualitatively
> and quantitatively and
> search for
> cause-effect
> relations, equations,
> theoretical models and
> symmetry relations
> that work ("save the
> appearances"), and
> lead to further and
> better (more accurate)
> physical predictions
> that often lead to
> practical applications
> and hopefully deeper
> “understanding” of
> physical phenomena.
>
> You ask why a
> spin-1/2 photon curls
> up. You could just as
> well ask why a spin-1
> photon doesn’t curl
> up, since it has spin.
> (My transluminal
> energy quantum model
> of a spin-1 photon
> athttps://www.academia.edu/4429810/Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron is
> a helical model that
> is consistent with
> both a photon's
> spin-1 hbar and its
> forward linear
> momentum p=h/lambda).
>
> Your own
> comments on the
> possible nature and
> make-up of photons are
> extremely speculative
> to say the least. You
> have no photon model
> at all. There is zero
> experimental evidence
> that a photon is
> composite. You should
> at least try to show
> how a sufficiently
> energetic photon leads
> to your electron model
> in electron-positron
> pair production.
>
> You claim that
> astronomers deny the
> existence of a Higgs
> field strong enough to
> explain noticeable
> forces in elementary
> particles. That is a
> blanket statement that
> needs supporting
> evidence. Please
> support your claim
> here with sources.
> It’s like claiming
> that “scientists say”.
> Thanks.
>
> Richard
>
> On May 7, 2016, at
> 10:23 AM, Albrecht
> Giese
> <genmail at a-giese.de
> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>>
> wrote:
>
> Hello Richard,
>
> thank you for your
> mail. I still have
> questions to your
> explanations:
>
> To para 1):
> According to you
> explanations the
> circular motion is
> mainly achieved by
> the fact that the
> particles are
> "curling up".
> Which physical law
> do you have in
> mind that causes
> them to curl up?
> What are the
> quantitative
> consequences? -
> You say that there
> is a
> "configurational"
> force which
> controls the
> internal motion of
> an electron and a
> positron. You
> assume that this
> may come from the
> Higgs field. I
> think that this is
> highly speculative
> as astronomers
> deny the existence
> of a Higgs field
> which is strong
> enough to be an
> explanation for
> noticeable forces
> in elementary
> particles.
>
> To para 2):
> The momentum of a
> photon is h*ny/c,
> true. But what is
> the physical
> mechanism causing
> this momentum?
> Still not answered.
> I believe that my
> mass mechanism is
> applicable to the
> photon. The photon
> has an extension,
> so it has inertia
> by the standard
> mechanism for
> extended objects.
> And in addition I
> think that the
> photon may be
> composed by the
> same sub-particles
> ("basic
> particles") like
> leptons and
> quarks. The
> question still
> open for me is,
> why the photon
> moves steadily
> with c. An
> explanation may be
> that it moves
> always into a
> certain direction
> with respect to
> its internal set
> up. On the other
> hand, the fact
> that the rest mass
> of the photon is
> zero is nothing
> more than a
> mathematical
> result. Was never
> measured.
>
> Albrecht
>
>
>
> Am Sat, 30 Apr
> 2016 um 17:22:00
> schrieb Richard
> Gauthier:
>
> Hello Albrecht,
>
> Thank you for
> your two
> thoughtful
> questions.
>
> To try to
> answer them:
>
> 1) I think it
> is an
> incorrect
> assumption
> that only a
> second
> electric
> charge or a
> corresponding
> permanent
> field can
> cause a
> spin-1/2
> charged photon
> to move in a
> circular or
> helical
> configuration.
> Have you
> considered
> other possible
> explanations?
> One I have
> considered, in
> the context of
> e-p
> production, is
> that two
> uncharged
> spin-1/2
> photons of are
> formed in the
> process of
> electron-positron
> pair
> production
> from a spin-1
> photon of
> sufficient
> energy
> (greater than
> 1.022 MeV). At
> first the two
> uncharged
> spin-1/2
> photons both
> move forward
> together in a
> kind of
> unstable
> equilibrium.
> One has a
> negative
> charge
> potentiality
> and the other
> has a positive
> charge
> potentiality,
> yet both are
> still neutral.
> These two
> uncharged
> spin-1/2
> photons can
> either then
> unite with
> each other to
> form a spin-1
> photon, or
> they can
> separate in
> the presence
> of a nearby
> charged
> nucleus and
> each curl up,
> gaining
> negative and
> positive
> charge
> respectively,
> as well as
> rest mass
> Eo/c^2, and
> slowing down
> (as they
> become an
> electron and
> positron) to
> less than
> light-speed as
> they curl up.
> (Internally
> these spin-1/2
> charged
> photons
> maintain
> light-speed c
> in their
> forward
> direction, but
> their
> curled-up
> configurations
> as a electron
> and a positron
> have v < c .)
> Once they are
> both fully
> curled up to
> form a fully
> charged
> electron and
> positron, they
> continue to
> move apart.
> Now they each
> have a stable
> internal
> equilibrium
> (because of
> conservation
> of electric
> charge) and
> they cannot
> individually
> unroll (except
> perhaps
> virtually) to
> become an
> uncharged
> spin-1/2
> photon, and so
> they remain a
> stable
> electron and a
> stable
> positron.
> Their own
> charged
> curled-up
> stable
> equilibrium
> maintains them
> in their
> curled-up
> configurations,
> supplying the
> necessary
> configurational
> force that
> maintains
> their
> circulating
> motion to form
> an electron or
> a positron.
> This
> configurational
> force that
> maintains each
> of them curled
> up would be a
> non-electrical
> force. Perhaps
> this
> configurational
> force that
> maintains the
> electron and
> the positron
> curled up with
> rest mass and
> moving at less
> than
> light-speed c,
> comes from the
> Higgs field.
>
> When an
> electron and
> positron meet,
> they may first
> form a
> positronium
> atom. Then
> they both
> uncurl and
> unite to form
> an unstable
> neutral
> particle which
> decays
> immediately
> into two or
> three spin-1
> photons, in
> the process of
> electron-positron
> annihilation.
>
> 2) Why does
> the spin-1/2
> charged photon
> have momentum?
> you ask. It
> is because it
> is a photon
> with momentum
> hv/c . My
> model of the
> spin-1/2
> charged photon
> is similar to
> my internally
> transluminal
> model of an
> uncharged
> photon, except
> that the
> spin-1/2
> charged photon
> makes two
> helical loops
> instead of one
> per photon
> wavelength,
> and the
> spin-1/2
> charged photon
> model's
> helical radius
> is 1/2 that of
> the helical
> radius of a
> spin-1 photon
> model , being
> R=lambda/4pi
> instead of
> lambda/2 pi.
> The uncurled
> transluminal
> spin-1/2
> uncharged
> photon model
> curls up
> nicely into a
> curled-up
> double-looping
> spin-1/2
> charged photon
> model of an
> electron. You
> can read about
> my
> superluminal
> uncharged
> photon model
> at
> https://www.academia.edu/4429810/Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron or
> I can e-mail
> you a copy. I
> have only
> talked about
> my current
> model of the
> superluminal
> spin-1/2
> charged photon
> on the “Nature
> of Light and
> Particles”
> e-list during
> the past year.
>
> I hope these
> possible
> explanations
> of the
> spin-1/2
> charged-photon
> model are
> helpful. I
> don’t think
> that you have
> a photon model
> yet that is
> consistent
> with your
> two-particle
> electron
> model, in
> terms of e-p
> production and
> e-p annihilation.
>
> The figure
> below, which I
> included in
> this e-list
> some months
> ago, shows a
> curled-up spin
> 1/2 charged
> photon forming
> a resting
> electron (top
> graphic) and
> at different
> increasing
> relativistic
> speeds (lower
> graphics). The
> green line is
> the
> double-looping
> helical
> trajectory of
> the
> circulating
> charged photon
> forming the
> electron,
> while the red
> line is the
> trajectory of
> the
> superluminal
> energy quantum
> of the
> spin-1/2
> photon model.
> The
> superluminal
> energy quantum
> in the resting
> electron moves
> on the surface
> of a
> mathematical
> horn torus. As
> the speed v of
> the electron
> model
> increases, the
> radius of the
> green helical
> trajectory
> decreases as
> 1/gamma^2 ,
> while the
> radius of the
> red trajectory
> of the
> superluminal
> quantum
> decreases as
> 1/gamma.
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
>
> 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
> atrichgauthier 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">
>
>
>
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to
> receive communication from the
> Nature of Light and Particles
> General Discussion List
> atdavidmathes8 at yahoo.com
> <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.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>Click here to
> unsubscribe
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication
> from the Nature of Light and Particles General
> Discussion List atrichgauthier 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">
> 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 <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <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>
>
>
>
> 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 phys 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>
---
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/20160604/30918c42/attachment.htm>