[General] inertia

[Eric Reiter]

Wolf,The field transmits frequency information/energy in the case of light.  That is the easy part.   For the matter-wave, there are rich enough ways to encode an element's identity.  That is the hard part.  But with what I call the ratio trick, and a threshold interpretation of our fundamental constants, matter-waves are workable.  It seems I need to express what a photon is.  Please, IMHO a photon is a model, not a thing.  There is energy transmitted of hf, but the photon model excludes the loading theory of continuous absorption.   QM wave-particle duality immediately implies wave-function collapse. entanglement, and all these acts-of-desperation's-worth of imaginative models for QM.  That is how QM works.  Interestingly, if you look at Einstein's 1905 Heuristic paper, he considered continuous absorption.    My tests show continuous absorption.  If one wants to make things more difficult, one can lobby for changing the definition of the photon to a puff of light or something.  That would be far too confusing.   But a particle that can be many places at once is just double-speak to be transcended.   A wave can very easily carry detailed properties.  What I think is wrong with Bell's theory is that they are sending quantized, but not realizing things absorb continuous, with its pre-loaded state.   You see it right away in Bell's early equations.  Those equations bother me so deeply, I am not able to explain them.  I do not need to.  QM gets the same result as Malus' law,  Bell gets a linearity whereas Malus is a cos^2 relation.  I can see it in my Bell-polarizer-simulator, a thing I built, also.  We expect Malus with the loading theory.  I expect all sorts of waves-guiding-particles arguments here.  I know about it.  That is the distinction my experiments draw.Eric

 
      From: Wolfgang Baer <wolf at nascentinc.com>
 To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org 
 Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 3:02 PM
 Subject: Re: [General] inertia
   
  Albrecht and Richard: This is an interesting discussion and certainly the nature of inertia an interesting topic 
  But if  ' "Field" is a human abstraction to describe the effect of a charge onto another charge.' 
  Then the charges are located at the absorber and emitter , the photon is a structure of disturbance that propagates from one charge to the other. How do you possibly get to the "if a photon has a field" ? If I eat a lot of garlic and walk into a closed room containing you. Then when I say "hello" I am emitting a field of garlic smelling particles and lucky you would pick up the smell by absorbing those particles. You would then say that the garlic smell is contained in the particles which make up the field of particles. Which is Albrecht's view of photons - they are carriers of hidden properties.
  However the sound I make when saying "hello" is a pressure disturbance producing a pressure field in the media NOT a particle field. THere is no garlic property attached to the pressure wave picked up by my ear. 
  So you are arguing over the fundamental nature of a photon. Is it a particle that can carry hidden properties from one place to another. Have not Bell's theorem experiments discounted this possibility? 
  best wolf
  
  Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com On 6/8/2016 1:34 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
  
 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> 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" 
  Incellular-automata schemes, such as my Beautiful Universe,  a particle is made up of a pattern of spinning nodes in a matrix. The same type of  spinning nodes also form the surrounding 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
 CC: 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. Theposition-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
  
  "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
  
  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 anelectromagnetic 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 betterlight-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 here asked several 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*n y/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 ofelectron-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.  
   
 
|  | Virenfrei. www.avast.com |

 
 
 
  
  
 
 
   
  
  _______________________________________________
 If you no longer wish to receive communication from the  Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
 <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-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 at 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 at vladimirtamari at hotmail.com Click here to unsubscribe   _______________________________________________
 If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion  List at richgauthier at gmail.com
 <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-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 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>
 
 
 
 
|  | Virenfrei. www.avast.com  |

   
  
 
 
 
 
|  | Virenfrei. www.avast.com  |

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


   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160609/2d5bd089/attachment.htm>