[General] inertia
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Mon May 2 15:19:21 PDT 2016
There seems to be a lot of discussion about redefining particles and
phenomena in terms of something circulating
Photons, Albrecht's charges , etc.
Does this reflect a trend, perhaps something more fundamental ?
Can any of these efforts be related to String Theory Loops, or Cycles of
action?
Wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 5/1/2016 1:27 AM, John Duffield wrote:
>
> 1.displacement current.
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.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_Photon_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_Relativistic_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_Mirror_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.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.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-mDTCAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5hdmFzdC5jb20vc2lnLWVtYWlsP3V0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX3NvdXJjZT1saW5rJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1zaWctZW1haWwmdXRtX2NvbnRlbnQ9ZW1haWxjbGllbnQ.>
>
>
>
> 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 atrichgauthier at gmail.com
> <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=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_campaign=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_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/20160502/82dd8f07/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list