[General] inertia

Mon May 9 04:37:52 PDT 2016

Hello Richard,

it is true that we do not know everything in physics (otherwise there 
would be no reason for further research). However, many facts and rules 
are understood, and I do not see a good reason to go behind this knowledge.

 From my 2-particle model it follows for leptons and for quarks that 
there is E = h*ny. The frequency is the circulation, the energy follows 
from the mass which the model yields, when using E = m*c^2. This latter 
relation also follows from this model. (I have presented all this in San 
Diego; it was also discussed here earlier as I remember; and it is on my 
web site "The Origin of Mass". Of course I can explain it here again if 
there is a demand.)

As these relations obviously also apply to the photon, it seems very 
plausible that the photon has a similar structure like a lepton and a 
quark. The rules apply if c is inserted for the speed. This also leads 
to p=h*ny/c.

And which further details do we know about the photon? It must have an 
extension as it has a spin which is physically not possible without an 
extension. And it must have charges as it reacts with an electric field 
which is otherwise not explainable. There must be at least two charges, 
a positive and a negative one, as the photon as a whole is neutral. The 
spin is twice the one of a lepton or a quark, this may be an indication 
that the photon is built by 4 sub-particles rather than 2 of the kind 
which I have described.

So, if the photon has positive and negative charges, which means that it 
has sub-particles with positive and negative charges, it is quite 
plausible that the photon can decompose into a positive and a negative 
elementary particle, so into a positron and an electron.

(You may call this speculative. But it has some strongly plausible 
aspects which I am missing in the other models presented here.)

The curling-up which you have mentioned has an orbital component. To 
move on an orbit needs some physical conditions. E.g. an influence which 
causes the acceleration to its center. This should be physically explained.

The conflict between the necessary Higgs field and the vacuum field in 
the universe is treated in the article of F.J. Tipler in
/arXiv/:/astro/-/ph///0111520v1 . /It is well known by particle 
physicists   I have at conferences here asked several times the 
presenters of the Higgs model for this discrepancy. They have always 
admitted that this conflict exists, but some have tried to blame the 
astronomers for it. No one ever has presented a solution for the conflict.

Albrecht

Am 07.05.2016 um 23:32 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
> Hello Albrecht,
>
>     Thank your for your further comments and questions.
>
>     Your are asking me why photons have momentum p=hv/c . That’s like 
> asking why photons have energy E=hv . In physics nobody knows “why” 
> anything happens. “Why?” questions always lead back to a big unknown. 
> Physicists observe nature qualitatively and quantitatively and search 
> for cause-effect relations,  equations, theoretical models and 
> symmetry relations that work ("save the appearances"), and lead to 
> further and better (more accurate) physical predictions that often 
> lead to practical applications and hopefully deeper “understanding” of 
> physical phenomena.
>
>      You ask why a spin-1/2 photon curls up. You could just as well 
> ask why a spin-1 photon doesn’t curl up, since it has spin. (My 
> transluminal energy quantum model of a spin-1 photon at 
> https://www.academia.edu/4429810/Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron 
>  is a helical model that is consistent with  both a photon's spin-1 
> hbar and its forward linear momentum p=h/lambda).
>
>       Your own comments on the possible nature and make-up of photons 
> are extremely speculative to say the least. You have no photon model 
> at all. There is zero experimental evidence that a photon is 
> composite. You should at least try to show how a sufficiently 
> energetic photon leads to your electron model in electron-positron 
> pair production.
>
>       You claim that astronomers deny the existence of a Higgs field 
> strong enough to explain noticeable forces in elementary particles. 
> That is a blanket statement that needs supporting evidence. Please 
> support your claim here with sources. It’s like claiming that 
> “scientists say”.  Thanks.
>
>         Richard
>
>> On May 7, 2016, at 10:23 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Richard,
>>
>> thank you for your mail. I still have questions to your explanations:
>>
>> To para 1):
>> According to you explanations the circular motion is mainly achieved 
>> by the fact that the particles are "curling up". Which physical law 
>> do you have in mind that causes them to curl up? What are the 
>> quantitative consequences? - You say that there is a 
>> "configurational" force which controls the internal motion of an 
>> electron and a positron. You assume that this may come from the Higgs 
>> field. I think that this is highly speculative as astronomers deny 
>> the existence of a Higgs field which is strong enough to be an 
>> explanation for noticeable forces in elementary particles.
>>
>> To para 2):
>> The momentum of a photon is h*ny/c, true. But what is the physical 
>> mechanism causing this momentum? Still not answered.
>> I believe that my mass mechanism is applicable to the photon. The 
>> photon has an extension, so it has inertia by the standard mechanism 
>> for extended objects. And in addition I think that the photon may be 
>> composed by the same sub-particles ("basic particles") like leptons 
>> and quarks. The question still open for me is, why the photon moves 
>> steadily with c. An explanation may be that it moves always into a 
>> certain direction with respect to its internal set up. On the other 
>> hand, the fact that the rest mass of the photon is zero is nothing 
>> more than a mathematical result. Was never measured.
>>
>> Albrecht
>>
>>
>>
>> Am Sat, 30 Apr 2016 um 17:22:00 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>> Hello Albrecht,
>>> Thank you for your two thoughtful questions.
>>>
>>> To try to answer them:
>>>
>>> 1) I think it is an incorrect assumption that only a second electric 
>>> charge or a corresponding permanent field can cause a spin-1/2 
>>> charged photon to move in a circular or helical configuration. Have 
>>> you considered other possible explanations? One I have considered, 
>>> in the context of e-p production, is that two uncharged spin-1/2 
>>> photons of are formed in the process of electron-positron pair 
>>> production from a spin-1 photon of sufficient energy (greater than 
>>> 1.022 MeV). At first the two uncharged spin-1/2 photons both move 
>>> forward together in a kind of unstable equilibrium. One has a 
>>> negative charge potentiality and the other has a positive charge 
>>> potentiality, yet both are still neutral. These two uncharged 
>>> spin-1/2 photons can either then unite with each other to form a 
>>> spin-1 photon, or they can separate in the presence of a nearby 
>>> charged nucleus and each curl up, gaining negative and positive 
>>> charge respectively, as well as rest mass Eo/c^2, and slowing down 
>>> (as they become an electron and positron) to less than light-speed 
>>> as they curl up. (Internally these spin-1/2 charged photons maintain 
>>> light-speed c in their forward direction, but their curled-up 
>>> configurations as a electron and a positron have v < c .) Once they 
>>> are both fully curled up to form a fully charged electron and 
>>> positron, they continue to move apart. Now they each have a stable 
>>> internal equilibrium (because of conservation of electric charge) 
>>> and they cannot individually unroll (except perhaps virtually) to 
>>> become an uncharged spin-1/2 photon, and so they remain a stable 
>>> electron and a stable positron. Their own charged curled-up stable 
>>> equilibrium maintains them in their curled-up configurations, 
>>> supplying the necessary configurational force that maintains their 
>>> circulating motion to form an electron or a positron. This 
>>> configurational force that maintains each of them curled up would be 
>>> a non-electrical force. Perhaps this configurational force that 
>>> maintains the electron and the positron curled up with rest mass and 
>>> moving at less than light-speed c, comes from the Higgs field.
>>> When an electron and positron meet, they may first form a 
>>> positronium atom. Then they both uncurl and unite to form an 
>>> unstable neutral particle which decays immediately into two or three 
>>> spin-1 photons, in the process of electron-positron annihilation.
>>>
>>> 2) Why does the spin-1/2 charged photon have momentum? you ask.  It 
>>> is because it is a photon with momentum hv/c . My model of the 
>>> spin-1/2 charged photon is similar to my internally transluminal 
>>> model of an uncharged photon, except  that the spin-1/2 charged 
>>> photon makes two helical loops instead of one per photon wavelength, 
>>> and the spin-1/2 charged photon model's helical radius is 1/2 that 
>>> of the helical radius of a spin-1 photon model , being R=lambda/4pi 
>>> instead of lambda/2 pi. The uncurled transluminal spin-1/2 uncharged 
>>> photon model curls up nicely into a curled-up double-looping 
>>> spin-1/2 charged photon model of an electron. You can read about my 
>>> superluminal uncharged photon model at 
>>> https://www.academia.edu/4429810/Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron or 
>>> I can e-mail you a copy. I have only talked about my current model 
>>> of the superluminal spin-1/2 charged photon on the “Nature of Light 
>>> and Particles” e-list during the past year.
>>>
>>> I hope these possible explanations of the spin-1/2 charged-photon 
>>> model are helpful. I don’t think that you have a photon model yet 
>>> that is consistent with your two-particle electron model, in terms 
>>> of e-p production and e-p annihilation.
>>>
>>> The figure below, which I included in this e-list some months ago, 
>>> shows a curled-up spin 1/2 charged photon forming a resting electron 
>>> (top graphic) and at different increasing relativistic speeds (lower 
>>> graphics). The green line is the double-looping helical trajectory 
>>> of the circulating charged photon forming the electron, while the 
>>> red line is the trajectory of the superluminal energy quantum of the 
>>> spin-1/2 photon model. The superluminal energy quantum in the 
>>> resting electron moves on the surface of a mathematical horn torus. 
>>> As the speed v of the electron model increases, the radius of the 
>>> green helical trajectory decreases as 1/gamma^2 , while  the radius 
>>> of the red trajectory of the superluminal quantum decreases as 1/gamma.
>>>
>>>
>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>>> 	Virenfrei.www.avast.com
>>>
>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160509/f7bb4609/attachment.htm>