[General] inertia
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Tue Jun 14 11:59:33 PDT 2016
Hi Chip,
is the vacuum empty? Until Einstein's relativity it was assumed that the
vacuum is filled by some kind of matter as a carrier of light. After
Einstein's break through in 1920 this assumption was abandoned by all
physicists who were willing to follow Einstein. In the general
understanding the vacuum was really empty. Then, in the development of
QM, Heisenberg's uncertainty assumption had the consequence that also in
the vacuum there are virtual particles permanently generated and
disappearing immediately afterwards so that the energy-time relation is
not violated.
This is until these days the opinion of main stream physics. The vacuum
is filled by clouds of virtual particles, but not with any stable
matter. You may look in any text book or into Wikipedia, you will find
this. Here a reference see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
Very few physicists believe to my knowledge that there is a medium which
fills the space.
My specific view is that I doubt that there are virtual particles and so
a vacuum polarization because the effects attributed to this can be
explained by classical means. And, as we know, if the vacuum energy of
the universe is summed up, the result is in conflict with the
observation by the huge factor of 10^120. - For my model I do not need
anything in the space (except the exchange particle which are assumed by
QM). If there should be something then it depends what it is to judge
the situation.
Einstein was always (from the beginning) aware of the fact that an
aether was not disproved by Michelson-Morley. He just found it more
elegant to have a theory without an invisible aether, and for a
positivist, what he was in his early years, a theory should not have
unobservable elements.
All the best
Albrecht
Am 10.06.2016 um 14:04 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> Hi Albrecht
>
> Years ago, just after Einstein’s Special Relativity, but before
> General Relativity, Einstein wrote that there was no need for a medium
> of space. However Einstein himself reversed that opinion with the
> theory of General relativity. After he published General Relativity he
> said, “…the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the
> special theory of relativity”.
>
> Currently it is my understanding that most physicists believe there is
> a medium of space and that this medium has oscillations providing a
> very large background energy density to space. It seems you are still
> of the old opinion that space is empty. I think you will find that
> most physicists no longer concur with that premise. If you choose to
> believe that space is empty then I understand why you must resort to
> your methods to try to figure out the puzzle.
>
> So you are starting with the assumption that space is empty and I
> believe space to be a medium. Therefore we will not agree on
> practically everything else. So no need to continue the discussion.
> We each will perceive the other to be blind to the obvious.
>
> Best to you
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*Albrecht Giese [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 10, 2016 3:48 AM
> *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,
>
> 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>
> <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>; 'Nature of Light and Particles -
> General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>
> Hello Richard,
>
> your new paper has again a lot of nice
> mathematics. However, it again does not answer
> the question of inertia. As earlier, you
> relate the inertial mass of an electron to the
> mass of the circling photon which builds in
> your understanding the electron. Then the mass
> and the momentum of the electron is calculated
> from the mass and momentum of the photon.
>
> Such calculation is of course possible if one
> follows this picture of an electron. However,
> it does not answer the question of what the
> cause of inertia and momentum of the photon
> is. You take this as an 'a priory' fact. But
> this is not our present state of
> understanding. Physics are able to go deeper.
>
> You write in your paper: "The fact is that the
> inertial property of the mass of elementary
> particles is not understood". How can you
> write this? Main stream physics have the Higgs
> model which is assumed to describe the mass of
> elementary particles. And I have presented a
> model which uses the fact that any extended
> object inevitably has inertia. The reason is,
> as you know, that the fields of the
> constituents of an extended object propagate
> with the finite speed of light. If the
> extension of an elementary particle is taken
> from its magnetic moment, this model provides
> very precisely the mass, the momentum, and a
> lot of other parameters and properties of a
> particle.
>
> If you intend to explain the mass of an
> electron by the mass of a photon, you should
> have an appropriate explanation of the mass
> and other parameters of a photon. Otherwise I
> do not see any real progress in the
> considerations of your paper.
>
> Albrecht
>
> Image removed by sender.
> <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/20160614/3f66b1e1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160614/3f66b1e1/attachment.jpeg>
More information about the General
mailing list