[General] inertia

Wed May 11 23:08:42 PDT 2016

Dear John W, Martin, Chandra, Vivian, Andrew, John M, Chip, Albrecht, Hodge and others,

   I am in contact with the Russian physicist and academician Alexander Burinskii (arXiv page of his articles at http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Alexander+Burinskii/0/1/0/all/0/1 <http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Alexander+Burinskii/0/1/0/all/0/1> , biography at http://www.scirp.org/journal/DetailedInforOfEditorialBoard.aspx?personID=10183 <http://www.scirp.org/journal/DetailedInforOfEditorialBoard.aspx?personID=10183> ), who has written a very interesting article on arXiv: “Gravity vs. quantum theory: Is the electron really pointlike?” at http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.0225 <http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.0225> . He draws on the interesting resemblance of Kerr-Newman gravity formulations to the properties of the Dirac electron as a light-speed particle that can only be measured at sub-light speeds. Here’s part of the abstract:

"Contrary to the widespread opinion that gravity plays essential role only on the Planck scales, the Kerr-Newman gravity displays a new dimensional parameter a=ℏ/(2m), which for parameters of an electron corresponds to the Compton wavelength and turns out to be very far from the Planck scale. Extremely large spin of the electron with respect to its mass produces the Kerr geometry without horizon, which displays very essential topological changes at the Compton distance resulting in a two-fold structure of the electron background. The corresponding gravitational and electromagnetic fields of the electron are concentrated near the Kerr ring, forming a sort of a closed string, structure of which is close to the described by Sen heterotic string. The indicated by Gravity stringlike structure of the electron contradicts to the statements of Quantum theory that electron is pointlike and structureless. However, it confirms the peculiar role of the Compton zone of the "dressed" electron and matches with the known limit of the localization of the Dirac electron." 

   I think that there some potential for Alexander Burinskii's Kerr-Newman gravity approach to the electron and the various double-looping photon models of the electron to find some common ground which may benefit both approaches to modeling the electron. In particular the centripetal force of 0.424 N causing a photon of energy 0.511 MeV to move in a closed double-looping trajectory of radius Ro=hbar/2mc in a resting electron model could be related to the gravitational and electromagnetic fields and gravity stringlike structure of the Kerr-Newman electron model. 
    Richard

> On May 9, 2016, at 4:37 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:
> 
> 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 <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 < <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>genmail at a-giese.de <mailto: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*n y/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 <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.  <http://www.avast.com/>www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>>> 
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160511/5fce94af/attachment.htm>