[General] inertia
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Tue Jun 14 12:26:59 PDT 2016
Albrecht:
I think your understanding of Einstein and his interpretation of space
is a very good topic and probably worth a paper effort I would like to
work with you on.
However as you know I believe your rotating particle explanation is too
speculative and perhaps more complicated than necessary, so it is your
knowledge and alternatives to Einstein that I believe hits our Zeitgeist
appropriately and can have an impact.
I'll be going to Vigier X and hope to see you there.
best
wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 6/14/2016 11:59 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> 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>
>> *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>
>> *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
>>
>> 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>
>>
>>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> Virenfrei. www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at 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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160614/12df8a0f/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/20160614/12df8a0f/attachment.jpeg>
More information about the General
mailing list