[General] Our forum in the absence of our SPIE conference.
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Mon Jan 2 13:46:27 PST 2017
Richard,
perhaps it was an imprecise wording. By inertia I mean inertial mass .
And what it means as an outcome is clearly defined by Newton's law
F=ma. Momentum is an application of inertia or inertial mass, (how ever
you like it). In a physical world without massive objects momentum would
not exist.
For Newton, the ORIGIN of inertial mass has been a mystery, that is
truly correct. But inertial mass of a resting particle is clearly
defined, why not? The equation F=ma is also defined for an initially
resting object.
The basic mechanism of inertia is no longer a mystery but explained by
the mechanism which I have explained frequently: Every extended object
built by mass-less constituents has inertia. This is not only a funny
idea but I have presented the calculations which show, for instance for
leptons, that it has precisely correct results. - This is the
fundamental mechanism.
I see a lot of positive appreciation for this model. Since many years I
give talks at the annual physical conferences in Germany about this
mechanism, and the auditory is growing from year to year. Meanwhile the
auditory fills the bigger lecture halls at those occasions.
And since the year 2001 I have a website explaining it. The site can be
called by its title "origin of mass", and since the year 2003 til today
it is the number one in the results of search engines. Permanently since
14 years without any interruption. The Higgs theory has never had a
chance to come close to it. Not even in the year when the Higgs boson
was found and the excitement about that finding was great. So, I think
that this attention means something. It shows that it makes sense to
understand this mechanism. And I would like to encourage you for it.
Albrecht.
Am 31.12.2016 um 07:25 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
> Albrecht,
>
> You think there is nothing to be gained by explaining the inertial
> mass of an resting electron as the derived inertial mass of a circling
> photon-like object composing the resting electron. You think that
> inertia is basically the same as momentum. I disagree. “Inertia" is a
> vague and non-quantitative word which is somehow related to momentum,
> as in the “law of inertia” meaning Newton’s first law. The term
> “inertial mass” however is well-defined by the relation F=ma in
> Newtonian mechanics, but the ORIGIN of inertial mass has been a
> mystery. The inertial mass of a resting particle is currently a
> quantity without explanation. The relation Eo=mc^2 while factual does
> not in itself explain the origin of the inertial mass m of a resting
> particle. Why should energy have inertial mass? It would be a big
> increase in the understanding of the electron if it could be
> established that it is composed of a circling photon-like object from
> whose circling momentum the inertial mass of the electron could be
> derived.
> Richard
>
>> On Dec 30, 2016, at 9:40 AM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra
>> <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu
>> <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> Albrecht, your remark is important: “We have first to understand (and
>> it is written in every text book about relativity) that Einstein's
>> relativity is pure geometry, it is not physics.”
>> Albrecht: I agree and that is also the point, “pure geometry”. I rest
>> my case for this ongoing debate on SR.
>> Physics is not about elegant mathematics or geometry. The key
>> purpose of physics is to understand and visualize the invisible
>> interaction processes going on in nature. The skills in utilizing the
>> nature-allowed processes in various permutations and combinations to
>> create new techniques and technologies, have been behind the
>> successful emergence of the human as the top species today.*/Elegant
>> geometry and mathematical constructs, by themselves, will not save
>> the human species from going extinct if we blindly keep on following
>> the same current success tracks, both in science and in
>> socio-economic philosophy./*
>> Further, let us not ignore that in many undergraduate text books, SR
>> is still presented as one of the core foundation that is holding the
>> “Edifice of Physics” (meaning, thou shall not be challenge this
>> platform of thinking”)! This has to be turned around.
>> This collective psychology of modern physicists (“messiah complex”)
>> has to be turned around toward*/perpetual critical enquiry/*of the
>> “working theories”. Because, “working theories” have already captured
>> some ontological realities of nature; so they must be leveraged,
>> through deeper enquiry, to extract even deeper ontological realities.
>> I am trying to initiate such an approach through OSA. Further, before
>> the end of 2017, I will write a full paper accommodating and
>> explaining some of the key PHYSICAL PROCESS known to be related to
>> SR, but as old fashioned classical physics.
>> Chandra.
>> *From:*General
>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
>> Behalf Of*Albrecht Giese
>> *Sent:*Thursday, December 29, 2016 11:33 AM
>> *To:*Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>> *Subject:*Re: [General] Our forum in the absence of our SPIE conference.
>>
>> /Chandra/,
>>
>> you have again made some statements about SRT. And I feel that I
>> should comment that.
>>
>> I fully agree with you regarding what you say about the "running
>> time". Also about "space-time" and about the necessity of a kind of
>> an inertial frame. But in the other hand one cannot deny that for
>> instance clocks are running more slowly when in motion. So, what
>> about SRT in general?
>>
>> In my view there is a solution for this which reflects your concern.
>> We have first to understand (and it is written in every text book
>> about relativity) that Einstein's relativity is pure geometry, it is
>> not physics. But the relativistic phenomena can in fact be based on
>> physics. That was done for instance by Lorentz prior to Einstein's
>> first publication. Oliver Heaviside in 1888 derived from Maxwell's
>> theory that fields contract at motion. And also Lorentz and Larmor
>> found out - before Einstein's paper - that there must be a permanent
>> motion in elementary particles to explain dilation. All this is real
>> physics, not geometry. Further Einstein's famous relation E = mc^2
>> was found by others before Einstein and before Einstein declared
>> relativity. For instance by Thomson and Wien (where the result was a
>> bit different but the connection of both notions was seen).
>>
>> Perhaps you remember it (or you have missed it): In all my talks in
>> Mexico and in San Diego I have recommended to use Lorentz' relativity
>> rather than the one of Einstein. And I have also undertaken to
>> develop General Relativity following the concept of Lorentz in order
>> to understand it at a task in physics, not in geometry. That explains
>> gravity without any space-time curvature; it is in that view a weak
>> side effect of the strong force. It is much simpler than the view of
>> Einstein, because no need for four-dimensionality and Riemannian
>> geometry. It explains dark matter quantitatively (for an example
>> which I have calculated), and it has no need for dark energy.
>>
>> The other point: Your idea to maintain the discussion forum may be a
>> usable replacement of the meeting, also the use of the forum of
>> Physics Essays. But it may have the risk that this discussion will
>> slowly come to an end. A meeting is a higher challenge for all who
>> contribute and who attend, so it keeps all active. But if meetings
>> are not possible any more, this will be better than to give up.
>>
>> /Richard/:
>>
>> You know my opinion regarding your way of explaining inertia. In my
>> view that explanations are tautological statements, as you explain
>> the mass of an electron by the mass of its constituents. Or you
>> explain the mass of an object by its momentum, where momentum is
>> essentially the same as inertia, just in a different context. - In
>> contrast to that the mechanism that two objects bound to each other
>> at a distance have inevitably inertia does not need any other
>> assumptions or preconditions than the existence of a binding field
>> and the existence of c.
>>
>> Sincerely
>> Albrecht
>>
>> Am 26.12.2016 um 22:24 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>>
>> Good thinking, Richard!
>> I like your approach, especially that the derivation does
>> not need SR.
>> I have expressed in many of my earlier publications, my book,
>> “Causal Physics” and many comments in this forum that SR does not
>> represent good Physics.
>> To me, the first criterion of a good physics theory is that
>> it must guide us to understand and visualize the invisible
>> interaction processes going on nature. In theorizing such
>> interaction processes, the “primary” parameters must relate to
>> the inherent behavior-representing property of the object whose
>> interaction process is being modeled. The interaction process is
>> guided by nature’s rule (logic) that allows the entity to exist
>> and/or interact with other cosmic entities (large or small). Our
>> perceptible and observable universe is elusive but is not an
>> illusion. This is because we can never measure (acquire) complete
>> information about anything with all the necessary details. We are
>> always “information starved”. So, we must not also describe the
>> universe as “It from bit”. Interaction between “bits” generate
>> data; which human minds interprets as information. Subjective
>> interpretations of data by human minds as information, cannot be
>> the ontological foundation of the universe.
>> The running time “t” is not a parameter of any object in
>> this universe. Everything in this universe is oscillatory from
>> very short to very long periods. We measure the frequency of an
>> oscillator (primary parameter) and then invert it to generate a
>> new secondary parameter, “Delta-t”. While we do need the running
>> time “t” as a mathematical parameter; it is not a physical
>> parameter and hence the assertion that “space-time” is the new
>> physical order of the universe, will only divert us away from
>> fathoming nature’s ontological reality.
>> There are many other reasons that SR is not a physical
>> theory. For example, there are no physical inertial frame in this
>> universe that can be used to validate SR postulates. All
>> planetary platforms are undergoing accelerated motion in closed
>> loop orbits!
>> However, I have postulated that the space itself is the
>> stationary inertial frame of reference filled with Complex
>> Tension Field (CTF), which allows ITS linear excitation to
>> perpetually propagate as EM waves; and ITS phase-resonant
>> self-looped high-energy oscillations are the particles we
>> experience. Their inertial properties have been modeled by us as
>> “Mass”. But there are no “Mass” in this universe in the Newtonian
>> sense of “matter”. Only energy exists in motion (as EM waves and
>> particles) or in quiescent form (as the prime CTF). And 100% of
>> the energy is contained by the CTF. No need to postulate separate
>> Dark Energy and Dark Matter. There are no exchange particles to
>> facilitate various forces. “Forces” are the physically extended
>> potential gradients generated in the CTF due to the complex
>> physical motions of the CTF, which represent various particles.
>> To develop a unified field theory, we need a single field that
>> is capable of generating everything. The necessary postulates for
>> unified field theory cannot be generated while accepting the
>> primacy of the existing but self-contradictory, postulates behind
>> the existing “working” theories.
>> Happy New Year!
>> I am sorry that I failed to re-instate our out-of-box SPIE San
>> Diego Conference, in spite of a lot of quiet appeals.
>> 1.*/This Forum:/*We will maintain this discussion forum.Although,
>> in future, I am thinking of splitting it up into several parallel
>> discussions on well-identified problem. I am open to suggestions
>> from all of you. [As before, the discussion forums do not need to
>> be based upon the unified field, CTF only.]
>> 2.*/Physics Essays:/*You could also utilize the forum of Physics
>> Essays. This out-of-box concept-promoting journal has been
>> running for over 25 years. It has page charge. But, then you can
>> re-post it anywhere in the web after publication. The page-charge
>> is much less than attending the conference.
>> Sincerely,
>> Chandra.
>> *From:*General
>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
>> Behalf Of*Richard Gauthier
>> *Sent:*Monday, December 26, 2016 3:05 PM
>> *To:*Nature of Light and Particles - General
>> Discussion<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Mark,
>> Martin van der<martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
>> <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
>> *Subject:*Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories
>> Hello all,
>> Yes, happy holidays and happy new year to all.
>>
>> Here's what I just added to a discussion on Inertia and Momentum
>> at
>> https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/momentum-vs-inertia.854092/page-2 .
>> It is I think relevant to all who have
>> circling-photon-like-object models of the electron and other
>> particles.
>>
>> What if a fundamental particle like a resting electron is
>> composed of a circling photon-like object with energy Eo and
>> vector momentum p = Eo/c where c is the speed of light? If we
>> start with Newton's second law of motion F = dp/dt = MA where
>> dp/dt is the time rate of change of the circling vector momentum
>> p = Eo/c, M is the inertial mass of the circling photon-like
>> object, and A is the centripetal acceleration c^2/R of the
>> circling photon-like object (where R is the radius of its
>> circle), we find with very easy math (and using the circling
>> vector relation dp/dt = pc/R) that the inertial mass M =
>> (dp/dt)/A = (pc/R)/(c^2/R) = p/c = (Eo/c)/c = Eo/c^2. That is,
>> the inertial mass M of an electron (if it is composed of a
>> circling photon-like object) is derived from the circling
>> photon-like object's energy Eo and its circling vector momentum
>> Eo/c to be M = Eo/c^2 or Eo = Mc^2 , which is Einstein's equation
>> for the energy content Eo of a resting electron of inertial mass M.
>>
>> This result is published at
>> https://www.academia.edu/29799123/Inertia_Explained . This
>> derivation of the relation of the energy content of a resting
>> fundamental particle to its inertial mass is done without using
>> Einstein's special theory of relativity. Note: Einstein's 1905
>> article in which he first derived m = E/c^2 or E = mc^2 for a
>> resting object by using his special theory of relativity is
>> titled "Does the inertia of a body depend on its energy-content?”
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> On Dec 15, 2016, at 2:07 AM, Burinskii A.Ya. <bur at ibrae.ac.ru
>> <mailto:bur at ibrae.ac.ru>> wrote:
>> Dear John,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you very much for very good explanations and reference
>> to good review.
>>
>>
>>
>> I wish also to you and all colleagues Merry Christmas and
>> Happy New Year,
>>
>>
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> ________________________________
>> От: Dr Grahame Blackwell [grahame at starweave.com
>> <mailto:grahame at starweave.com>]
>> Отправлено: 14 декабря 2016 г. 12:48
>> Кому: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>> Копия: Stephen Leary; Vera Biryukova; Darren Eggenschwiler;
>> Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Pete Delaney; Innes Morrison;
>> Alexander Afriat; Phil Butler; Michael Wright; Ariane
>> Mandray; Solomon Freer; Manohar .; Mike Mobley; Niels
>> Gresnigt; Mark, Martin van der; AmancioHasty
>> Тема: Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories
>>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> Many thanks indeed for this very thorough round-up of the
>> 'evidence' on quarks.
>> Very much appreciated.
>>
>> Wishing all colleagues a great Christmas and an excellent New
>> Year.
>> Grahame
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: John Williamson<mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General
>> Discussion<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> Cc: Stephen Leary<mailto:sleary at vavi.co.uk> ; Darren
>> Eggenschwiler<mailto:darren at makemeafilm.com> ; Nick
>> Bailey<mailto:nick at bailey-family.org.uk> ; Anthony
>> Booth<mailto:abooth at ieee.org> ; Pete
>> Delaney<mailto:piet.delaney.2 at gmail.com> ; Innes
>> Morrison<mailto:innes.morrison at cocoon.life> ; Alexander
>> Afriat<mailto:afriat at gmail.com> ; Phil
>> Butler<mailto:phil.butler at canterbury.ac.nz> ; Michael
>> Wright<mailto:mpbw1879 at yahoo.co.uk> ; Ariane
>> Mandray<mailto:ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr> ; Solomon
>> Freer<mailto:slf at unsw.edu.au> ; Manohar
>> .<mailto:manohar_berlin at hotmail.com> ; Vera
>> Biryukova<mailto:biriukovavera at gmail.com> ; Mike
>> Mobley<mailto:Mike.Mobley at gcu.edu> ; Niels
>> Gresnigt<mailto:Niels.Gresnigt at xjtlu.edu.cn> ; Mark,Martin
>> van der<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> ;
>> AmancioHasty<mailto:ahasty at gmail.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2016 4:13 AM
>> Subject: Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Have been meaning to explain a bit more about the proton
>> internal structure for some time in answer to an earlier
>> question from John D about the evidence for quarks inside the
>> proton. I did reference the literature, but this is hard to
>> understand if you are not in the field and the field anyway
>> tries to hide the pure truth with a lot of dense and
>> well-established undergrowth. I had not got round to this
>> earlier due to two things: pressure of other work and the
>> fact that I forgot to note the source for a useful chapter I
>> found on the internet. Just tracked it down and it is at:
>>
>> https://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys741/xji/chapter4.pdf
>>
>> Did not want to send you my copy of it without crediting the
>> source.
>>
>> Anyway,the main thing I wanted to do was cut the through some
>> of the jargon and help explain what the proton structure
>> functions (in fig 4.6 in the above) mean. This is the essence
>> of what is known experimentally about the internal structure
>> of the proton – and contains the main evidence for the
>> quark-parton model. The quark-parton model is the association
>> of hard bits in the proton, the partons, with the pattern of
>> existing particles explained by Gell-Mann’s quark model. This
>> also helps to explain some things about Richard’s question in
>> the recent email – hence the choice to spend time on this in
>> the early hours of this morning.
>>
>> Now I’m not going to explain this in detail – the chapter
>> referenced above does a better job of this – but I want to
>> cut the experiment a bit free from the embedded story of the
>> QCD quark-gluon etc etc model (and it is just a model
>> remember) and explain what the EXPERIMENT tells you.
>>
>> The experiment gives the structure functions in terms of two
>> variables Qsquared and x. Briefly, Qsquared is the measured
>> 4-momentum transfer squared of the interaction in GeV
>> squared. How hard you hit it (squared). To give you an idea
>> of the scale of the hit – 100GeV squared is roughly ten times
>> the mass-energy of the proton itself. And so the data extends
>> out to about a 100 protons worth of “hit”. That is hard!
>>
>> Now x is a more interesting variable. It is the measured
>> fraction of the proton’s 4-momentum carried by whatever you
>> hit. Thinking of the proton in its rest-frame – this is just
>> its rest mass. So x tells you how much of the proton mass was
>> carried by whatever you hit. x is 1 and you got the whole
>> proton. This is what you would always measure if you hit a
>> simple object like the electron. The electron is a single
>> object and it carries all of its mass localized to the
>> electron. This is how you know. The proton is not like that.
>> At the quark-parton models simplest, with no forces and no
>> confinement one thinks of it as three quarks. If each of
>> these carried a third of the proton mass one would have data
>> at only x = 0.33. Note that there is not even any structure
>> there.
>>
>> What one actually sees is completely different to this, or to
>> any three-hard-bits-in-a-bag model. In the vast majority of
>> collisions the effective “mass” of whatever you hit was very
>> very low. Look at the scale for F2. It goes over 12 orders of
>> magnitude. One is hundreds of millions times more likely to
>> hit a “quark-parton” with a practically zero x of 0.000063
>> than one with a (simple model) x of 0.3 ish. Now precisely
>> zero x would be hitting a rest-massless (photon-like) object,
>> one third x would be simple rest-massive quarks in a massless
>> bag with binding energy (gluons if you like) of the same
>> order as the mass. A sixth x would be 3 equal mass quarks
>> with some confinement at the same kind of energy as the quark
>> mass-energy. You get nothing like this. What you get is
>> gloop. There is almost no discernable structure at all.
>>
>> So why do people think there are hard bits in the proton. The
>> evidence for this comes from scaling – a flat distribution
>> with Q squared then. This IS evidenced by the curves in the
>> middle of the figure. At x = 0.08 it is pretty flat. Think
>> about it. If the proton contained hard billiard-ball like
>> bits, how likely you were to hit them with another flung
>> billiard ball does not depend on how hard you fling it, but
>> on the “impact parameter”. This is what is characteristic of
>> single-hard-object scattering.
>>
>> Note that this simple scaling does not apply at low x, where
>> the data shows that it becomes rapidly more likely to find a
>> photon-like object as one hits it harder, and at high x where
>> it becomes rapidly less likely to hit a high-mass
>> constituent. Explain that in a model of a bag of bits. You
>> should resolve the hard bits better, instead it seems they
>> break. Not very hard then. Ok, you are walloping them with a
>> 4-momentum squared many times their mass squared, but one is
>> doing this at lower x as well. The other thing is that, if
>> you integrate over all the bits you hit in deep inelastic
>> proton scattering, you only get about half the proton mass.
>> The rest is something else, something unhittable with charges
>> and photons. This is the meaning of equation 4.77. This is
>> interpreted as arising from the binding. Could well be, but
>> whatever they are binding is mostly, experimentally, a whole
>> pile of really low mass bits (if bits indeed) – more and more
>> of it as one looks harder and harder. Remember, to make up
>> the proton mass there must be (at least) hundreds of millions
>> of them. Hundreds of millions is not 3. One talks about
>> “valence quarks and sea quarks, but this is mostly bullshit.
>> One sees what one sees, not what one would like to see. Also
>> the number in eq. 4.77 is so near 50 percent I favour
>> something much more radical and far simpler. That will
>> eventually become another paper. Quarks, why there are three
>> and what they really are is what comes next.
>>
>> If you want to see how bad it gets for the standard model
>> (and why I left particle physics) the bullshit about the
>> standard model picture gets (much!) worse in the next section
>> about the “proton spin crisis” so read on if you dare …
>>
>> I’m not quite up to speed with who is or is not on the
>> general maiing list, so some of you may get this twice –
>> apologies!
>>
>> Thats it for now.
>>
>> Cheers, John.
>> ________________________________
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>>
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>>
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>
>> </a>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> <~WRD000.jpg> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>>
>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170102/76874955/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list