[General] inertia
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Fri Jun 10 01:47:31 PDT 2016
Hi Chip,
following some comments to your mail from my view.
Am 08.06.2016 um 23:52 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> Hi Albrecht
>
> A Wave:
>
> A transverse wave is a distortion of a medium which propagates at the
> velocity dictated by the “density” and the transverse modulus of the
> medium. That is what waves are.
>
You refer here to waves in a medium. That is different from what we are
discussing here. Both have been seen as the same at a time when physics
believed in an "aether" as a medium. But that understanding is gone.
Here it is about electrical waves and maybe waves of the strong force,
no medium involved.
>
> That is what we can observe of all sorts of waves. Maxwell’s equations
> were built on the principals of these wave fundamental mechanics.
>
Where does Maxwell need a medium? Maxwell's equations are anyway a
mathematical formalism, well working, but not related to the physical
origin of the phenomena. A very clear mistake in his understanding is
the equivalence of electricity and magnetism. That is obsolete. We know
since long time (at least since the time of Einstein's activity), that
magnetism is nothing than a relativistic side effect of electricity (in
some way similar to the Coriolis force which is as well not an
additional type of force but a certain view onto the Newtonian force).
>
> You say, “And what is a field? A field is a human abstraction to
> describe the influence of a charge.”
>
> If you tell yourself this in order to try to reject the notion of
> fields being real, then it seems you miss a great opportunity to
> better understand space and the universe.
>
What about space? Also space is a human abstraction which Einstein used
to develop his mathematical formalism of relativity. An important aspect
of space is that there is no way to measure space in physics. All
statements in physics about space are interpretations of observations,
there is nothing direct.
>
> Such distortions of a medium have gradients, it is likely that these
> gradients are the source of the things we call fields. So it may be
> that the elementary charge is topologically created by these “fields”.
> If this is the case then charge is caused by “field” divergence
> (which is the byproduct of confinement of the wave to make a charged
> particle). Also if this is the case then there are forces between
> fields of the right topology where no elementary charge is present.
>
In my view this is an upside-down understanding. You can localize a
charge and transport a charge from one place to another one. You cannot
do this with a field. Conclusion is that a charge is more fundamental
than a field. This is also what my textbook says. And Wikipedia
says: "Electric fields are caused by electric charges ...." .
>
> Your explanation does not explain what charge is. This approach does.
> Your explanation is not simple because it does not explain what
> particles are, and would have to become much more complex in order to
> explain how these particles magically possess the properties you have
> assigned them. This wave approach does explain what particles are and
> illustrates how they obtain most of their properties.
>
Where are the properties of a wave fundamentally defined or explained?
In my view a charge (electric or strong force) is the most fundamental
unit in our world. The effect of a charge in physics is described by the
Coulomb law (in case of electric charge) and by a similar law in case of
the strong force.
In the view of QM the action of a charge is mediated by exchange
particles. These particles are mass-less and move with c. And this view
explains very directly Coulomb's law. So, it appears to me as a very
straight understanding of those phenomena without the need of additional
assumptions. One interesting question is, in which way charges combine
to build a multi-pole field. In the case of atoms, which build a
molecule, this is well understood. In case of elementary particles it is
not treated by present main stream as the methodology of QM is accepted
there, and QM denies to look into the structure of elementary particles.
- I think this is a problem that bothers all of us here.
>
> This wave approach removes “mystification” about particles. This wave
> approach is causal and deterministic. Meaning that for most of the
> topics we have been discussing it provides explanations, instead of
> just accepting that particles exist and have a list of properties, it
> explains what particles are, and why they have the properties they
> possess.
>
Could you please list here all properties which a field or a wave must
have so that the properties of particles and of physical laws follow
from it? I have read some of the discussions here based on waves, and
this has a lot of mystification in my view.
>
> (Of course the next issue would be to try to better understand nature
> of the medium these waves travel through. But I think we should take
> it one step at a time.)
>
> My point is that using the wave approach more of the puzzles are
> solved and there is less “mystification” instead of more.
>
The effect of a charge is fully described by the Coulomb law. Is the
effect and are the properties of a wave described by a law which is
comparatively simple? And comparatively simple to deduce? I do not at
all have this impression if I follow the discussion here.
>
> We don’t need the mystification of imagining magical massless
> “particles”, etc.
>
Even in main stream physics it is assumed since a long time that the
mass of an object is nothing fundamental but a dynamical process (e.g.
in the case of the Higgs model which is so welcome by main stream
physics). But this means that there is a stage in the view into a
particle where a particles does not yet have a mass. And in this view (I
say again: even in main stream physics) the existence of some object
without mass is not exotic but fundamental. So, if I start my view with
mass-less objects, at least at this point I am fully congruent with
standard physics.
>
> Chip
>
Albrecht
>
> *From:*Albrecht Giese [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 08, 2016 3:36 PM
> *To:* Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com>; 'Nature of Light and Particles
> - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] inertia
>
> Hi Chip,
>
> what is a wave? A wave is a field which fluctuates in a somewhat
> regular way. And what is a field? A field is a human abstraction to
> describe the influence of a charge.
>
> Of course a wave can have a positive and a negative region. That is
> the case if the wave is caused by positive and negative charges. So,
> if a photon can be identified with a wave, there must be charges of
> both sign in a photon. - Any other understanding of a field or of a
> wave is in my view a typical mystification as we know it from QM. Why
> refer to such mystifications if they are not necessary? I have
> understood that the goal of all of us (who are looking for particle
> models) is to make the picture as simple as possible. And that should
> mean: No mystifications, so no fields without a cause, no waves
> without a cause. Isn't that simple?
>
> Albrecht
>
> Am 04.06.2016 um 16:52 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> Hi Albrecht
>
> No. A wave in space could easily have a positive region and a
> negative region and still be one wave. So your statement “This is
> one of the indications that a photon has to be composite.” Is not
> really correct.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 04, 2016 9:41 AM
> *To:* Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
> <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] inertia
>
> 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 <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> 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
>
>
---
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/20160610/23311aa2/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list