[General] inertia
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Wed Jun 8 13:34:25 PDT 2016
Hello Richard,
thank you for your response. - My comments again in the text below.
Am 04.06.2016 um 20:20 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
> Hello Albrecht,
>
> I understand your deductive logic for thinking that photons are
> composite, but I think your beginning premise "electric charges can
> only interact with other electric charges” is faulty. And although
> your second premise “electrons can interact with photons” is correct,
> your conclusion "a photon must contain electric charges” is therefore,
> like your first premise, also faulty. Electric charges can interact
> with electric fields which are not electric charges.
What is a field? "Field" is a human abstraction to describe the effect
of a charge onto another charge. If we notice that at a specific
position in the space is a force acting on a charge, we call this
phenomenon a "field". What else is a field? It is the effect of a charge
at a certain distance, nothing else. - So, the natural consequence is
that if a photon has a field, which means that it has an interaction
with a charge, it must contain a charge. Or, what else can the notion of
a "field" mean?
> For example, an electron is accelerated to radiate a photon. The
> electron then annihilates with a positron to produce two photons. So
> there are no more electric charges, and only photons remain.
I think that this is a quite easy situation. If an electron
"annihilates" with a positron then both charges unify to build the
photon. - The situation with an accelerated electron is a bit different.
If there is enough energy, then obviously a pair of a positive and a
negative charge can be built. This generation of pairs of charges also
takes place at particle collisions in an accelerator or a storage ring
(like the LHC). At each collision a lot of new particles is generated,
most of which are charged, so a lot of new pairs of charge is generated.
>
> Your second explanation also is faulty. No one knows the
> composition of a photon. A photon may consist of a single particle
> with a helical spatio-temporal movement. For example, my model of a
> spin-1 photon is that a photon is composed of a single transluminal
> energy quantum (TEQ) moving helically at speed c sqrt(2) but having a
> longitudinal speed of c. It has energy E=hf. It has the photon’s
> momentum p=h/lambda and it has spin 1 hbar.
TEQ? What is energy? In my understanding (which is generally critical
about QM) energy is a property of an object, like speed or momentum or
spin are properties of an object. You cannot have a piece of velocity
somewhere, similarly you cannot have a piece of energy, without having
an object which carries this. - I know that in QM energy is something by
itself, but just this is a core point of the weirdness of QM in my
understanding. And, what is an object? In my understanding candidates
for objects are charges, like the electrical charge or the charge of the
strong force. A configuration of such charges can build a higher order
object. Do we really need more?
> Its forward helical angle is 45 degrees for all different energies of
> photons. Now I think that this TEQ generates speed-of-light quantum
> Huygens wavelets which predict where it will be found in the future,
> and which allow the photon to display reflection, refraction,
> diffraction, and interference and to go through double slits as a
> quantum wave pattern, and yet be detected as a single localized
> particle on the other side.
What is a wavelet? Not so familiar for me. But phenomena like
reflection, refraction, diffraction and interference can be explained by
the superposition of oscillating fields which are the extended
influences of moving charges. A particle model like the one which I have
proposed with mass-less constituents can perfectly explain these
phenomena like reflection, diffraction and interference and also the
fact that behind a double slit there is still a particle present. This
particle existed the entire time, so as it was assumed by de Broglie
when he introduced the pilot wave. I think that it is really not
necessary to assume all the further properties of nature (like a Huygens
wavelet), the situation seems to be much easier. And why should we make
it more complicated than necessary?
>
> Richard
Albrecht
>
>> On Jun 4, 2016, at 7:41 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de
>> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Richard,
>>
>> the experimental evidence that a photon must be a composite object
>> happens e.g. in every radio exchange. The photon interacts with
>> electric charges, this is only possible if one assumes that the
>> photon has electric charge. Now, as it is electrically neutral as a
>> whole, there must be a balance of positive and negative electric
>> charge(s). Those have to have some separation as otherwise they could
>> not react with an outside charge. This is one of the indications that
>> a photon has to be composite.
>>
>> The other way to understand the photon is the way of quantum
>> mechanics. In the view of QM the photon is merely a quantum of
>> energy. Any further understanding of it is - by the view of QM - not
>> possible. To treat a photon physically and quantitatively requires
>> the use of the QM formalism, however, (as usual at QM) without a
>> direct understanding. - This is the position of QM which is formally
>> allows for a point-like photon. But I think that no one in our group
>> is willing to follow QM in this respect. All efforts undertaken here
>> come from the desire to have a physical understanding. And this
>> includes necessarily (in my view) that the photon is composite.
>>
>> Albrecht
>>
>>
>> Am 03.06.2016 um 00:53 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>> 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> 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>
>>>>>> 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> 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
>>>>>>>> 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> 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> 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> 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>
>>>>>>>> <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>
>>>>>>>> *To:*Nature of Light and Particles -
>>>>>>>> General Discussion
>>>>>>>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>>>>>> *Cc:*Alexander Burinskii <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> 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>
>>>>>>>> Date: 5/12/2016 2:09 AM (GMT-05:00)
>>>>>>>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General
>>>>>>>> Discussion
>>>>>>>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>>>>>> Cc: Alexander Burinskii <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> 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> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> atdavidmathes8 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.comClick 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
>>>>>>>> <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>
>>>>>> 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/20160608/19f754eb/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list