[General] inertia

Wed May 4 01:04:05 PDT 2016

Hi ChipNo point/particle photons! Einstein based his argument (on the point-like shape of the photon quantum) on statistical reasoning without any experimental evidence whatsoever.
1- Eric Reiter in his essay http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Reiter_challenge2.pdf  explains:
"The Compton effect is often claimed to require QM treatment. A classical treatment is in Compton
Fig. 9 Matter and antimatter. (a) Two positron
beats. (b) Two electron beats.
E S Reiter 7 of 10 2012-07-22
and Allison's book,(13 pg. 232) but it modeled standing de Broglie waves of insufficient amplitude. 
13. A H Compton, S K Allison, X-Rays in Theory and Experiment, pg. 47 and pgs. 232-233, second ed, (1935) Macmillan.
2- Earlier in 2010 I  in a revision of my essay http://vladimirtamari.com/bu3.html I also referred to a wave explanation of the Compton effect.
See for example Ching-Chuan Su A Wave Interpretation of the Compton Effect As a Further Demonstration of the Postulates of de Broglie http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506211
Best wishes to allVladimir

From: chipakins at gmail.com
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 06:26:04 -0500
Subject: Re: [General] inertia

Hi Wolf John Archibald Wheler wrote, “It is my opinion that everything must be based on a simple idea. And it is my opinion that this idea, once we have finally discovered it, will be so compelling, so beautiful, that we will say to one another, yes, how could it have been any different.” It seems that energy propagates through space at the speed of light, and is confined in principally circular topologies to form elementary particles. The following is a partial list of some relevant discovery.Coulomb’s law was published in 1784.Faraday published his law of induction in 1831.Gauss formulated his “flux theorem” in 1835.Maxwell formulated his field equations in the early 1860’s and published in 1865.George Johnstone Stoney noted that electric charge is quantized in 1881.In 1898, Planck recognized that action is also quantized. Einstein proposed the existence of the photon in 1905 and showed that a photon carries momentum in 1909. His work on the photoelectric effect gave us the first indication that light had both wavelike and particle-like properties. Also in 1905 Einstein proposed that there is a mass-energy equivalence. And further, in 1907 and 1911 Einstein showed that E=hv (Planck’s law) was a fundamental law of physics.Arnold Sommerfeld introduced the fine-structure constant in 1916.The Compton Effect was discovered in 1923 at Washington University in St. Louis, further illustrating the discrete nature of photons.  Regarding the Compton Effect, Wikipedia states, “The effect is important because it demonstrates that light cannot be explained purely as a wave phenomenon. Thomson scattering, the classical theory of an electromagnetic wave scattered by charged particles, cannot explain low intensity shifts in wavelength (classically, light of sufficient intensity for the electric field to accelerate a charged particle to a relativistic speed will cause radiation-pressure recoil and an associated Doppler shift of the scattered light,[2] but the effect would become arbitrarily small at sufficiently low light intensities regardless of wavelength). Light must behave as if it consists of particles, if we are to explain low-intensity Compton scattering. Compton's experiment convinced physicists that light can behave as a stream of particle-like objects (quanta), whose energy is proportional to the light wave's frequency.” Given these simple starting conditions, mass energy equivalence E=mc2, and adding the premise that light is in the form of photons, quantized radiation obeying the Planck principle E=hv, and then considering the rest of the discoveries mentioned above, we are now able to construct the idea which John Archibald Wheeler, Einstein, and so many before us sought.But before we can do that we have to realize that we have gotten many things right, but not everything, in our physical theories so far.  As it turns out, some of the things we misunderstood are exactly the things which were keeping us from being able to put the rest of the pieces of this puzzle together correctly.  There is a simple side effect of light and matter being comprised of the same speed-of-light energy. That side effect is a form of relativistic transformation which must occur as a result. This form of relativity is an unavoidable result of matter being made of the same light-speed energy light is made of. This form of relativity is caused by the mass-energy equivalence, and the “constancy” of the speed of light in the medium of space.Mass and energy are equivalent simply because mass is made of energy. And mass is specifically made of confined light-speed energy.If matter is made of the same energy that light is made of, and the energy which circulates in matter can only move at a fixed speed, the speed of light, then when you move matter through space, it would cause the trajectory of the energy in matter to change, this changes the “shape” of the moving matter, making the matter shorter in the direction of motion.  This has the effect of contracting the length of matter when it is moving very fast.  And this is simply due to matter being made of the same energy moving at the same (confined) velocity as the energy in light. The math normally used to represent this length contraction is really quite simple as well. Due to the Pythagorean Theorem, a 3D Euclidian form, we traditionally calculate this length contraction using the velocity of the moving object and the velocity of light. The traditional form of this contraction formula is:  Where Lv is the length with velocity as observed by a “stationary” observer, Lrest is the length of the material object when at rest (not moving), v is the velocity of the object, and c is the speed of light.This relativistic transformation occurs in simple 3D Euclidian space. Time, as we measure it, is the rate at which matter can exchange energy. If we consider a clock which consists of two mirrors separated by a fixed distance, with light bouncing back and for the between the two mirrors, and the mirrors facing each other perpendicular to the direction of motion. Then to measure time we count the number of bounces back and forth.  When the mirrors are still, light simply travels the distance between the mirrors. But when the mirrors are in motion, light must travel at an angle, increasing the distance, and reducing the number of bounces as viewed by a “stationary” observer. This is because the light must travel farther when the mirrors are in motion, because the vector distance the light has to travel between mirrors is farther due to their motion through space. We can know how much the moving clocks will slow by using Pythagorean Theorem.  A traditional form of that equation is:  Where Tv is the time measured for the moving object from the stationary frame, and Trest is the time measured in the “stationary” frame. Again this relativistic transformation occurs in simple 3D Euclidian space.   These relativistic transformations and their causes are unavoidable, so there can be no other form of, or cause for, relativity. Only this one specific form of relativity, dictated by the properties of nature, can be the correct form. In a later section we will delve into the specific details and implications of this very specific form of relativity. So let us look at Planck’s quantization of action.  Planck’s rule  applies to photons as well as elementary fermionic (mass-carrying) particles. This constant h is referring to some kind of quantization. The simplest and most stable form for such quantization is circular motion. So let us assume, given the stability of the particles of nature, that there is a radius which is described by the application of this quantization. For this example let’s use the photon. So rather than assuming that the photon is a simple planar wave without spin, nature and experiment have shown us that we need to consider a spin component in the photon which is transverse to the direction of travel. That could simply mean that the single photon is a rotational wave.  A wave which spins as it moves forward.So using that approach of a rotational wave, we can calculate the mean transport radius for the energy in the spinning wave of a photon. We will use the excellent work of so many before us to arrive at a starting point for calculating the structure of the photon.As we mentioned, it was shown that a photon has momentum, (Einstein 1909).That momentum is expressed as.So if our photon has a frequency of, then its wavelength will be .And if the photon always has a spin angular momentum of: , where, then it must always make one revolution in one wavelength, so the mean transport radius of the wave is: So:  The energy in this wave has momentum p:  So there must be a force acting against that momentum, confining the wave to this circular path, quantizing the wave.The magnitude of that force is an important key to understanding the quantization of light and matter. So let us calculate that force:  We will start with the standard method for calculating centripetal force.  And since our velocity is the speed of light: And using the mass-energy equivalence so that we can then write: So the confinement force, the quantization force in a photon is  and the effective spin radius  of the photon is just the distance where the centripetal force caused by momentum and the confinement force are balanced. The field strength of this force may then be: Or  depending on whether the force is actually between regions of the fields defined by the diameter of the mean energy transport, or between the center region of the particle and the region of the field at the mean energy transport radius. Intuition indicates that it is more likely that the opposite sides of the fields interact to provide confinement.Without this confinement force a photon could not display particle like properties, it would only be a wave. Without this confinement the wave would disperse fairly rapidly and generally become quite weak with distance at the rate of. So we will argue that without this confinement we would not see the effects of individual photons. There would be no wave particle duality, and the force required to confine elementary particles would not exist, so elementary particles themselves would not exist, including the electron. Without this force we would not have Planck’s constant, for it is this force which is the cause for Planck’s constant. The most theoretically economical approach to this set of observations of nature is to conclude that this force does exist, and is the cause for Planck’s constant, which holds true for photons and elementary fermionic particles.  We have come very close to realizing this “simple idea of how the universe works” in the past. For example the “fictitious” value of Planck Charge is apparently not related directly to electric charge, but rather to this force we have been discussing. Take a look at the following equations: Planck Charge:The confinement force:The elementary electric charge e: The force of two elementary charges separated by the distance r:The ratio of the force to the force:So that now, under the circumstances of elementary charges separated by the distance r, we can show:And by comparison:For some time it has been evident that a strong force exists in the nucleus of atoms. But from the discussion above we can see that the existence of Planck’s constant as a quantization of action demonstrates to us that a strong force likely exists in all particles. And since this strong force is likely present in all particles we have the prevalence of the fine structure  in so many ways in physics. Because the fine structure is simply the ratio of the strength of two forces which are ever-present. Understanding this strong force present in all particles removes part of the mystery of the fine structure constant from our understanding of physics. So I think that, yes, there is a thread to these discussions which is getting closer to the truth where particles are made of something circulating.  But I think the thing that is circulating is the form of light-speed energy which exists in space and makes photons and all particles. Then we have a simple mass-energy equivalence, and a simple cause for Planck’s constant, the fine structure constant, etc. Chip    From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Baer
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 5:19 PM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Subject: Re: [General] inertia 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 BaerResearch DirectorNascent Systems Inc.tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432E-mail wolf at NascentInc.comOn 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> 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> 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 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> 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] on behalf of Albrecht Giese [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] inertiaDear 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  Virenfrei. 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
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>  Virenfrei. www.avast.com   Virenfrei. www.avast.com   Virenfrei. www.avast.com  

_______________________________________________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> 
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at vladimirtamari at hotmail.com

Click here to unsubscribe

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160504/a04bf048/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 781 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160504/a04bf048/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 792 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160504/a04bf048/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 442 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160504/a04bf048/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 453 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160504/a04bf048/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.png
Type: image/png
Size: 509 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160504/a04bf048/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image008.png
Type: image/png
Size: 536 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160504/a04bf048/attachment-0005.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image009.png
Type: image/png
Size: 941 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160504/a04bf048/attachment-0006.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image010.png
Type: image/png
Size: 500 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160504/a04bf048/attachment-0007.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image011.png
Type: image/png
Size: 461 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160504/a04bf048/attachment-0008.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image012.png
Type: image/png
Size: 452 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160504/a04bf048/attachment-0009.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image013.png
Type: image/png
Size: 594 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160504/a04bf048/attachment-0010.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image014.png
Type: image/png
Size: 560 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160504/a04bf048/attachment-0011.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image015.png
Type: image/png
Size: 478 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160504/a04bf048/attachment-0012.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image016.png
Type: image/png
Size: 649 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160504/a04bf048/attachment-0013.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image017.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1023 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160504/a04bf048/attachment-0014.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image018.png
Type: image/png
Size: 479 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160504/a04bf048/attachment-0015.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image019.png
Type: image/png
Size: 464 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160504/a04bf048/attachment-0016.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image020.png
Type: image/png
Size: 643 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160504/a04bf048/attachment-0017.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image021.png
Type: image/png
Size: 525 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160504/a04bf048/attachment-0018.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image022.png
Type: image/png
Size: 382 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160504/a04bf048/attachment-0019.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image023.png
Type: image/png
Size: 870 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160504/a04bf048/attachment-0020.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image024.png
Type: image/png
Size: 315 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160504/a04bf048/attachment-0021.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image025.png
Type: image/png
Size: 905 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160504/a04bf048/attachment-0022.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image026.png
Type: image/png
Size: 790 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160504/a04bf048/attachment-0023.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image027.png
Type: image/png
Size: 790 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160504/a04bf048/attachment-0024.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image028.png
Type: image/png
Size: 323 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160504/a04bf048/attachment-0025.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image029.png
Type: image/png
Size: 520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160504/a04bf048/attachment-0026.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image030.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1033 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160504/a04bf048/attachment-0027.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image031.png
Type: image/png
Size: 588 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160504/a04bf048/attachment-0028.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image032.png
Type: image/png
Size: 319 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160504/a04bf048/attachment-0029.png>