[General] inertia

Tue Jun 14 13:16:30 PDT 2016

Albrecht:
You are absolutely correct about the opinions regarding “what is vacuum” in the main-stream books, Wikipedia, etc.

Your summary of the positivist view as, “a theory should not have unobservable elements”, is very interesting in the context of SR (space-time four dimension). The running time is not a measurable parameter. So, we have built-in contradiction in SR. Our theories must keep on evolving as our thinking evolves and advances.

Remember Newton’s saying that he was able to extend his knowledge horizon because he was fortunate enough to “stand on the shoulders of giants before him”. We have developed the unfortunate collective tendency of bowing down to the giants and reduce our knowledge horizon.

It is the RATE OF CHANGE in the various spatial potential gradients (forces) in the Cosmic Tension Fields (CTF), or the modified ETHER FILED; which we are modeling by elegant mathematics. That does not mean that the continuously running time of the cosmic system is alterable by us; just like we do not have the capacity to alter the space itself. We only alter some very limited sets of behaviors (properties) of different oscillating entities in it (waves and particles). My ASSUMPTION is that we do not change the physical dimension of space; the space properties does assume various time-varying or time-stationary properties; which are at the root of INTERACTIONS and STABILITY (changing evolution) in the manifest entities (particles and EM waves) and their assemblies. The rate of change of spatial properties of different oscillation in the CTF gives us different clocks to measure frequencies; not the absolute running time.

I have expressed before and again I am underscoring that, unlike QM, SR has failed to reveal any fundamental ontological reality. I have presented papers at our conference series and also summarized them in my book [Causal Physics] – the very concept of assigning running time a reality similar to the “extension” of free space, is one of the greatest mistakes of physics. Of course, I could be wrong in these assumptions. I will change my mind in future when I am proven wrong.

We can measure frequencies and alter the frequencies of physical oscillators (that is how all the “clocks work”). But, modern human species have not acquired any godly power to alter the running time of the universe.

By virtue of inventing elegant mathematics, we have not acquired the power to tell nature how she ought to behave. We need to remain humble and keep on trying to understand and visualize the interaction processes in nature; which make the evolving nature keep on making things happen according to her own logics; I call that “Cosmic Logics” (ontological logics).

The earthly human species could vanish in puff of natural calamities, or by virtue of our own mistakes; as we have been arrogantly doing now. But, the Cosmic Logics will continue building and re-building more stars and more earths elsewhere. The chances of another intelligent and analytically thinking species inventing the same mathematical logics like our current math; is very remote. Even in our simple counting, we use decimal system and binary system. There were other systems of counting also in our past.

Chandra.

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Albrecht Giese
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 3:00 PM
To: Chip Akins
Cc: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] inertia

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,

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><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,

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>

[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/2016/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange_184x116-v1.png]<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>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160614/41b10f65/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160614/41b10f65/attachment.jpg>