[General] inertia
John Duffield
johnduffield at btconnect.com
Sun May 1 01:27:11 PDT 2016
1. displacement current.
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpar
ticles.org] On Behalf Of Albrecht Giese
Sent: 30 April 2016 17:48
To: Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Mark, Martin van der
<martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
Subject: Re: [General] inertia
Hallo Richard,
you are making good calculations. However, some questions are still open:
1. What does the photon make to move on a circuit? A charge can only be the
cause if there is another charge attracting this one. Or a corresponding
permanent field. I do not see it in your model. - If the reason is that the
photon is curling up, which mechanism makes it to curl up?
2. You say that inertia and momentum is essentially the same. I agree. But
if you refer the inertial mass of the electron to the momentum of the
circling photon, this is by itself not an explanation. There has to be a
mechanism which causes your charged photon to have a momentum. For this
question I could also not find an answer in your academia.paper. What did I
overlook?
Albrecht
Am 23.04.2016 um 06:44 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
Hello Albrecht,
Thank you for your further comments and questions about inertial mass
and my electron model.
It is becoming clear to me that the cause or origin of inertia is
momentum. Newton's "law of inertia" (his first law of motion) is just an
expression of conservation of momentum in the absence of an outside force
that changes momentum. But "inertia" has been a vague word because it has
not been understood how an object with a rest mass m gets this inertial mass
or resistance to acceleration given by m=F/a . But when it is understood
that a resting electron may be composed of a circulating photon carrying
momentum mc=Eo/c when the electron's rest energy is Eo=0.511 MeV/c^2, then
it becomes clear why an electron has inertial mass m - it is quantitatively
due to this circulating internal momentum mc=Eo/c .
But you raise very important issues: "I am still wondering which
mechanism causes a photon to move on a circuit. And how the problem of the
conservation of momentum is solved in this picture." I think the ability of
a photon to move in a circle or helix is closely related to its ability (for
a proposed spin-1/2 photon that forms an electron) to carry an electric
charge. My proposed model of a spin-1/2 photon (which I briefly described
perhaps a year ago in this "Nature of Light and Particles" discussion list,
is proposed to exist in a curled-up double-loop configuration (as an
electron) or in a non-curled-up state (where it would be an uncharged
spin-1/2 photon) or with any degree of curling in between. The more
curled-up the spin-1/2 photon is, the greater its electric charge, up to a
maximum of -e for an electron. And once the spin-1/2 charged photon is
curled up and separated from the second spin-1/2 charged photon formed with
it that became a positron in e-p production, the curled-up spin-1/2 charged
photon is unable to uncurl itself because this would violate conservation of
electric charge.
My model of a spin-1/2 charged photon is closely related to the model of
a spin-1 uncharged photon described in my article
https://www.academia.edu/4429810/Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Models_of_the_P
hoton_and_the_Electron . In the spin-1/2 photon model, the proposed
transluminal energy quantum (TEQ) forming the spin-1/2 photon makes 2
helical loops instead of one for each wavelength of the spin-1/2 photon, but
the spin-1/2 photon model still has a forward internal angle of 45 degrees
like the spin-1 photon model. (These two helical loops per wavelength of the
spin-1/2 charged photon generate the zitterbewegung frequency of the
curled-up double-looped photon model.) The radius R of the spin-1/2 photon
model is R=lambda/4pi instead of R=lambda/2pi for the spin-1 photon model.
In both the spin-1 photon model and the uncurled spin-1/2 photon model, the
photon moves forward at the speed c but the transluminal energy quantum
forming the photon moves helically at c sqrt(2).
What about the problem of conservation of momentum in the one-particle
circulating spin-1/2 charged photon model of the electron? It has been
calculated that a centripetal force of 0.414 N keeps the spin-1/2 charged
photon moving in a double-looped circle with a radius of hbar/2mc. This
centripetal force of 0.414 N is continuously changing the direction of the
circulating charged photon's momentum mc.The source of this external force
on the circulating charged photon is not known in the spin-1/2 charged
photon model, but conservation of momentum is not required for the
circulating spin-1/2 charged photon if there is an external force acting it
to change its momentum into a circular trajectory to form the electron.
I hope these explanations about the possible origin of inertial mass in
the electron are helpful.
Richard
On Apr 22, 2016, at 7:53 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de
<mailto:genmail at a-giese.de> > wrote:
Hello Richard,
your calculations look good. However there has a mechanism to be understood
which is the cause of inertia. This is also seen this way by main stream
physics since a long time (answered there by the Higgs theory). But if the
Higgs mechanism does not work, another one is needed. I am still convinced
that the forces between the constituents of an extended object in connection
with the finiteness of the speed of light build such a mechanism.
Mathematically it works quite perfect as I have shown repeatedly.
I am still wondering which mechanism causes a photon to move on a circuit.
And how the problem of the conservation of momentum is solved in this
picture.
The fact that circling charges in our models do not radiate is not
surprising. A charge does not "know" what an acceleration is. An object with
inertia knows it, but that is a different phenomenon. Why does e.g. an
electron radiate at acceleration? I have explained it in my mail to Andrew
the other day. Here again:
"The EM field emitted by the electron in case of an acceleration is caused
by the following process. If an electron is accelerated then its shape is
relativistically distorted. As a consequence, one sub-charge is subject to a
changing electrical field of the other sub-charge. This causes an EM
radiation. - This, by the way, is the only cause of radiation in physics,
the situation that one charge is subject to a changing field. There is no
other cause of radiation in physics. Or do you know one?"
We should not be confused by the fact that Maxwell in his formalism states
that an accelerated charge radiates. Maxwell's equation are a mathematical
formalism which is very beautiful and very well usable by electrical
engineers. But it does not touch the physical causes of electrical and
magnetic phenomena.
Albrecht
Am 20.04.2016 um 20:44 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
Hello Albrecht,
Thank you for your comments. I think that if it is recognized that a
photon has an inertial mass M= hv/c^2, then it is a short step that in
double-looping or single-looping resting electron models composed of a
circulating photon of energy Eo = hv =0.511 MeV=mc^2 and having a
circulating momentum p=0.511 MeV/c = mc (where m is the electron's invariant
mass Eo/c^2), the circulating photon will also have a inertial mass
M=hv/c^2 = p/c = 0.511MeV/c^2 = m, the invariant mass of the electron. For a
double-looping photon model of a resting electron, I show a separate short
derivation of the resting electron's inertial mass M=m at
https://www.academia.edu/23184598/Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia_and_Relati
vistic_Energy_Momentum_Equation_in_the_Spin-_Charged_Photon_Electron_Model .
The resting electron's inertial mass M=m originates from the internally
circulating photon's momentum p=mc=Eo/c=0.511MeV/c. And even if it is not
recognized that a linearly-moving photon has inertial mass hv/c^2, the
derivation of M=m in the above-linked article still stands for
circulating-photon models of a resting electron, since this derivation for
the electron's inertial mass in a circulating-photon model does not assume
that the circulating photon composing the electron itself has inertial mass
M=m. This inertial mass of the circulating photon (and therefore the
inertial mass of the electron modeled by the circulating photon) is what is
derived in the calculation of M=m for the circulating-photon electron model.
As for your comment about the principle of equivalence in relation to
photons, I will leave that to experts on general relativity theory.
You say that the calculations of the inertial mass M=hv/c^2 of a photon,
though good, don't explain the origin of inertia in physics. But it is a big
step that these calculations of a photon's inertial mass during reflection
help explain the origin of the electron's inertial mass, as I mentioned
above with circulating photon models. I hope that John W, Martin, Chip,
Vivian, John M and any others with circulating photon models of the electron
will agree. Of course, circulating photon models in their several varieties
are still only hypotheses. There are (at least) two unexplained issues with
a circulating-photon hypothesis for modeling a resting electron: 1) the
source of the large apparent force 0.414 N required to curve a photon with
momentum mc into a double-looping circle of radius Ro=hbar/2mc (and a
slightly smaller force required for such a photon moving in a single-looping
circle of radius R1=hbar/mc) and 2) with a centripetal acceleration of 4.66
x 10^29 m/s^2 in the double-looping charged-photon model (see the above
link for these two calculations), how to explain why the circulating
electric charge doesn't radiate away the charged photon's energy 0.511MeV
almost instantaneously, if classical radiation laws from an accelerating
electric charge apply (which apparently they don't). Perhaps
charge-conservation forbids this. This, by the way, is also a problem for
your circling 2-particle electron model since each particle has charge Q=
-1/2 e and they both have a similarly huge centripetal acceleration while
moving in a circle with the single-loop radius hbar/mc in your model. But
it may also be that the electron is in a quantum "ground state" that doesn't
radiate its rest-mass energy 0.511 MeV away, like the electron's energy
level -13.6 eV in the quantum ground state of the hydrogen atom, which is a
minimum energy value for the hydrogen atom. The source of the 0.414 N force
on the double-looping photon may be found in the future, or perhaps the
charged photon follows some kind of electric-charge geodesic and doesn't
radiate unless it departs from this geodesic.
Richard
On Apr 20, 2016, at 4:25 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de
<mailto:genmail at a-giese.de> > wrote:
Dear Richard,
the article about the inertia of the photon is a good presentation of cases
where the inertia is visible, and the calculation complements this in a very
good way.
Anyway I have two comments:
1.) The "principle of equivalence" which means here the weak equivalence is
not the only possible explanation for the fact that every object has the
same acceleration in a gravitational field. The other possibility is that
gravitational acceleration has nothing to do with mass and with a force.
That is particularly visible in the case of the deflection of photons
passing the sun. Many authors (e.g. Roman Sexl) have shown that this can be
fully explained as a refraction process.
2.) The calculations of the inertial mass of a photon are very good. However
they do not cover the question what the origin of inertia in physics is. As
you mention,the Higgs model does not work. It is a clear fact from
astronomical observations that the QM Higgs field does not exist (conflict
between theory and observation being a factor of > 10^57. You say that this
is an open question in physics. Here I insist in the position that any
extended object inevitably has inertia, and that another cause is not
needed.
Albrecht
Am 12.04.2016 um 04:48 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
Hello John W, Martin, Andrew, Albrecht, John M, Hodge, David, Chip and all,
I've just uploaded a new article "A photon has inertial mass hf/c^2 in
mirror reflection and Compton scattering" to academia.edu
<http://academia.edu/> at
https://www.academia.edu/24307968/A_Photon_Has_Inertial_Mass_hv_c_2_in_Mirro
r_Reflection_and_Compton_Scattering
I've attached below a pdf copy for your convenience.
Basically I show that when F=Ma is applied to photon reflection and to
Compton scattering (viewed in the center of momentum frame), the photon is
found to have an inertial mass hv/c^2. The Compton scattering calculation
also shows that the electron has an inertial mass gamma m. I show how the
photon inertial mass result could relate to the circulating charged photon
model of the electron to generate the electron's inertial mass m from the
circling spin 1/2 charged photon's momentum mc.
Comments and criticisms on the new results are welcome.
Richard
On Apr 10, 2016, at 11:59 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de
<mailto:genmail at a-giese.de> > wrote:
John,
Yes, any extended object has inertia. I think that this is not too difficult
to understand and to visualize. So again:
What makes an object to be extended? The constituents have to be bound to
each other so as to maintain a distance. If now one of the constituents is
moved, the other constituents will follow to keep this distance. But that
does not happen instantaneously as the binding field propagates "only" with
the speed of light. That means that for a very short time the other
constituents remain where they are and the binding fields originating in
them will not change. So, for this short time the constituent being moved
has to be taken out of the potential minimum of the fields of the other
constituents. This requires a force. After a short time, the speed of light
permits the other particles to move and also their fields to move. And as a
consequence there is no longer a force necessary. - This fact that for an
intermediate time a force is necessary to change the motion state of an
object is called inertia. - Really too difficult?
The calculation shows that in fact a smaller object has more inertia. It is
proportional to the inverse of the distance of the constituents. The reason
is that on the one hand the binding field is universal for all elementary
particles, on the other hand the strength of the forces is higher at smaller
distances, as we know it from all forces. As I have said many times, the
model provides precise results. This can be found on my web site for those
interested. This precision applies of course also to the relation between
size and mass.
Since the time when I started this discussion about inertia 15 years ago, I
have made the experience that a certain portion of discussion partners
(maybe 10 to 20 percent) have problems to understand and to visualize this
process of inertia. Those persons are mainly physicists working in theory
and who are more specialized for algebra than for physics. But a minority.
Last month we had the spring conference of the German Physical Society here
in Hamburg about particle physics. Even though I had to give my talks about
inertia and about the error of de Broglie in one out of 22 parallel
sessions, most people came into my session. The acceptance and the
discussion about these topics was very encouraging. And this is my permanent
experience.
Albrecht
Am 10.04.2016 um 06:44 schrieb John Williamson:
Albrecht - why do you think that somethings "extent" gives it inertia? This
is simply non-sense. You have just made this up haven't you?
Experimentally smaller things - with less extent then - have higher mass.
JW.
_____
From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org
<mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightand
particles.org> ] on behalf of Albrecht Giese [genmail at a-giese.de
<mailto:genmail at a-giese.de> ]
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2016 8:26 PM
To: Andrew Meulenberg; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] inertia
Dear Andrew,
thank you for your considerations and arguments about my mass model. And
please apologize that I kept you waiting for a response. I was off for
several days.
My basic point is that any extended object necessarily has inertia. That is
not just an idea or a possibility, it is on the contrary completely
inevitable. I think that I have explained why this is the case. If necessary
I can of course explain it again.
Now, if we assume or accept that elementary particles are extended, then the
inertia of particles is inevitably given. And, as you have cited it again,
the results for leptons and quarks are precise.
The main argument against my model is the general opinion that elementary
particles, particularly electrons, are point-like and have no constituents.
The argument of those who have performed the according experiments is that
it was attempted to decompose the electron by bombarding it with particles
(like protons) with sufficiently high energy, A decomposition has never
occurred. From this it was concluded that the electron has no constituents.
- But this argument does not apply to my particle model. The constituents of
an elementary particle are according to my model mass-less. So one of its
constituents may be accelerated by an arbitrary amount, the other one - as
having no own mass - can follow immediately. Not even any force will occur.
- Accordingly this argument is not applicable against this model.
And the rest is known. If one determines the size of the electron by the
evaluation of e.g. its magnetic moment, the result for the mass conforms
very precisely to the measurement.
It is true that the assumption of two constituents for an elementary
particle is very uncommon. But as long as there are no conflicting facts
such assumption can be made. It is a common way in physics by my
understanding. On the other hand there was a kind of indication for two
constituents described by the article of Frank Wilczek about the electron in
Nature in summer 2013.
The explanation of inertia of an electron by a bound photon is in my
understanding not a real explanation as it assumes that a photon itself has
some kind of inertia, without explaining how this works inside a photon. So
it just diverts the problem to another particle, at least as it was
explained during this discussion since October last year. And also the task
to be done is not only the mass of an electron, but the mass of all
particles, i.e. all leptons and all quarks. Do you assume that all these
particles are built by bound photons?
So, in my understanding, if there is another explanation for inertia, then
we will have two explanations in parallel. Or, if on the other hand someone
has or knows an experiment which is in conflict with my model, that would of
course refute my model. Up to now I did not hear about such results.
Thank you again for your considerations.
Albrecht
Fri, 1 Apr 2016 12:49:24 +0530 schrieb Andrew Meulenberg :
Dear Albrecht,
You have repeatedly based your model on lack of alternatives (with very
precise results). E.g.,
Why 2 particles in the model? I say it again:
1) to maintain the conservation of momentum in the view of oscillations
2) to have a mechanism for inertia (which has very precise results,
otherwise non-existent in present physics)
I will be happy to see alternatives for both points. Up to now I have not
seen any.
I'm sure that alternatives exist. Whether they have very precise results to
support them may be up for debate.
My own relativistic model for inertia depends on the electron being, in its
ground (restmass) state, a spherically bound photon. Until that concept is
accepted, it makes little sense to go further in a description. However, if
accepted, it then also leads to understanding the inertia of a photon.
Your two-particle model faces the same challenge. Unless you are able to
shape that premise into an acceptable form, it is unlikely that anything
that follows will matter. Can you (re)define your particles to be acceptable
to an audience and still fulfill your assumptions and derived results?
Andrew
This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com>
<x-msg://32/redir.aspx?REF=02oHT6avpTxZIhLEkEsDCBgDAfQ4gy7EDcHGKbKFGQRSFbR4-
mDTCAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5hdmFzdC5jb20vc2lnLWVtYWlsP3V0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX
3NvdXJjZT1saW5rJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1zaWctZW1haWwmdXRtX2NvbnRlbnQ9ZW1haWxjbGllb
nQ.>
Virenfrei. www.avast.com <http://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
<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai
gn=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
Virenfrei. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com>
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai
gn=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
Virenfrei. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com>
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai
gn=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
Virenfrei.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai
gn=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160501/0855b490/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list