<html><head></head><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<div class="MsoNormal">John W.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">Do you have an experiment that does not reject your
hypothesis and does reject the opposing view? I may not remember correctly, but
I think your experimental explaination required the Huygens-Fresnel principle
that has been experimentally rejected. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal"> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">Chandra:</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454864755374_3861" class="MsoNormal">Do you have an experiment that does not reject your
hypothesis and does reject the superposition principle?</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454864755374_3851" class="MsoNormal">I read your paper on <span id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454864755374_3860" style="font-size:11.0pt">“Non-Interaction
of Waves”. Would you provide me the reference again, I’d like to re-read it. I
remember thinking the experiment actually performed didn’t reject the superposition
treatment.</span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454864755374_3858" class="MsoNormal"><br><span style="font-size:11.0pt"></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454864755374_3859" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Hodge<br></span></div><div dir="ltr">
</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1454864755374_3764"><span></span></div> <div class="qtdSeparateBR"><br><br></div><div style="display: block;" class="yahoo_quoted"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> <div dir="ltr"><font size="2" face="Arial"> On Sunday, February 7, 2016 8:39 AM, John Williamson <John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:<br></font></div> <br><br> <div class="y_msg_container"><div id="yiv9115068222">
<style>
<!--
_filtered #yiv9115068222 {font-family:Helvetica;}
_filtered #yiv9115068222 {font-family:SimSun;}
_filtered #yiv9115068222 {font-family:SimSun;}
_filtered #yiv9115068222 {font-family:Calibri;}
_filtered #yiv9115068222 {font-family:Tahoma;}
_filtered #yiv9115068222 {font-family:Verdana;}
_filtered #yiv9115068222 {font-family:Consolas;}
_filtered #yiv9115068222 {font-family:Georgia;}
_filtered #yiv9115068222 {font-family:Granjon;}
#yiv9115068222 p.yiv9115068222MsoNormal, #yiv9115068222 li.yiv9115068222MsoNormal, #yiv9115068222 div.yiv9115068222MsoNormal
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", "serif";color:black;}
#yiv9115068222 a:link, #yiv9115068222 span.yiv9115068222MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}
#yiv9115068222 a:visited, #yiv9115068222 span.yiv9115068222MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}
#yiv9115068222 p
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:SimSun;}
#yiv9115068222 pre
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:black;}
#yiv9115068222 p.yiv9115068222MsoAcetate, #yiv9115068222 li.yiv9115068222MsoAcetate, #yiv9115068222 div.yiv9115068222MsoAcetate
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma", "sans-serif";color:black;}
#yiv9115068222 span.yiv9115068222HTMLPreformattedChar
{font-family:Consolas;color:black;}
#yiv9115068222 span.yiv9115068222BalloonTextChar
{font-family:"Tahoma", "sans-serif";color:black;}
#yiv9115068222 p.yiv9115068222msochpdefault, #yiv9115068222 li.yiv9115068222msochpdefault, #yiv9115068222 div.yiv9115068222msochpdefault
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;font-family:SimSun;}
#yiv9115068222 span.yiv9115068222htmlpreformattedchar0
{font-family:Consolas;color:black;}
#yiv9115068222 span.yiv9115068222balloontextchar0
{font-family:"Tahoma", "sans-serif";color:black;}
#yiv9115068222 span.yiv9115068222emailstyle24
{font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;}
#yiv9115068222 span.yiv9115068222EmailStyle29
{font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;}
#yiv9115068222 .yiv9115068222MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt;}
_filtered #yiv9115068222 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
-->
</style><style type="text/css">#yiv9115068222 P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
<div>
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Tahoma;color:#000000;font-size:10pt;"><style>
<!--
#yiv9115068222
_filtered #yiv9115068222 {}
_filtered #yiv9115068222 {font-family:"Cambria Math";panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
_filtered #yiv9115068222 {font-family:Cambria;panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
#yiv9115068222
#yiv9115068222 p.yiv9115068222MsoNormal, #yiv9115068222 li.yiv9115068222MsoNormal, #yiv9115068222 div.yiv9115068222MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Cambria;}
#yiv9115068222 .yiv9115068222MsoChpDefault
{font-family:Cambria;}
_filtered #yiv9115068222 {margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
#yiv9115068222 div.yiv9115068222WordSection1
{}
-->
#yiv9115068222 BODY {}#yiv9115068222 BODY {}#yiv9115068222 BODY {}#yiv9115068222 BODY {}#yiv9115068222 BODY {}</style>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Dear Chandra,</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I agree wholeheartedly that maths is doing more to obscure – rather than illuminate – the basic processes of nature. Comments below in blue.</span></div>
<br>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">A case in point is this obsession with the “fourier transform”. Why? This is mere maths .<span style="">
</span>Maths appropriate for the simple harmonic oscillator – but not much more. It is a red herring.<span style="">
</span>Actually it not nearly as sophisticated as a red herring. Proof: listen to synthesizer music that involves only fourier components…</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Anyway – forget that nonsense - I agree that too much "thought" begins and ends in mere maths …</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> THis is why one has to drop it and make new stuff up. Fortune favours the bold ....</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><br>
</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">In the new maths in my papers, the waves I’m proposing are not plane waves – and not even waves with (necessarily) nodes and antinodes. The solution for the photon, equation 21, is waving (or better –rotating) about the
propagation (z)axis. This is because the combination of the angular momentum about that axis with the axis itself produces an element squaring to negative unity. The result behaves, just as do complex exponentials, and waves. What is new is that - perpendicular
to that axis, the combination of vector and angular momentum (current and spin) yield elements squaring to positive unity – and there is therefore an exponential decay of amplitude perpendicular to the propagation direction. That is the photon. The new maths
gives new solutions. In fact the new maths written symbolically in the papers was itself derived from a (completely new) symbolic representation I invented to mirror my thinking, this is just a translation to something else barely adequate to its description.<br>
</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><br>
</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">In the electron solution (other paper) there is more than one wave. There are 3, of which 2 are pertinent – the twist and the turn (the tumble preserves the radial electric component). They combine to give a smooth, continuous,
node-free circulating distribution with the electric field everywhere inward directed (for the electron). The infinite-wavelength de-broglie wave in the stationary frame is one aspect of this. Ok move it and the interference between the forward and backward
moving components generates a de-Broglie wave – as is observed in experiment.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I know this looks like maths on paper, and is written in maths – but the thinking is in terms of wheels within wheels in dimensions other than space. The maths is only a poor description of the underlying (and stunning!
) beauty.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Regards, John.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><br>
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:#000000;font-size:16px;">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction:ltr;" id="yiv9115068222divRpF923165"><font color="#000000" size="2" face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Roychoudhuri, Chandra [chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, February 06, 2016 6:55 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Mark, Martin van der<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] dB frequency removes duality<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222WordSection1">
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;">Dear John W.: Thanks for underscoring , “….</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">in this limit, this aspect is not waving”.
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;">I interpret this in the following way. This is how I can retrain my brain to make myself feel comfortable with the prevailing culture, whether science or religion. Or, keep on questioning the explanation
from many different angles to validate whether I come to the same conclusion as the proposed “working” theory claims; and then accept it.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><br>
</div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><font color="0000FF">Good!</font><br>
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><a href="" rel="nofollow" name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;"> </span></a></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;">In my viewpoint, the unusual successes of current human mathematics has become the candy in a baby’s hand. We are extremely pleased with the “sweet” taste of so many successes that we do
not want to evolve any more.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><br>
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"><font color="0000FF">Agreed</font><br>
</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;">We do not want to re-write Newton’s laws of motion and the law of gravity because they are really working on earth and within the solar system. This is in spite of Einstein’s formalization
of m = E/c^2; which has told us that mass is not an immutable property of anything in this universe; only energy is. [The Chemists new about this long before from “mass defect” in chemical reactions.] How can an extremely RARE and most massive particle “provide
mass to all other particles”? How can the same Higgs Boson can also be described as a “molasses like field”. Seems like fuzzy logics to make things fit neatly.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><font color="0000FF"><br>
<span style="font-size:11pt;"></span></font></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"><font color="0000FF">Higgs is current flavour of the month. The process is too simple and too contrived. Martin and I
<font color="0000FF">have been </font>working in the new year on a deeper description, within our paper on the nature of division, whih gets the same results from the deeper principle underlying nature of space and time - without introducing any cosmic treacle.</font><br>
</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;">We do not want to visualize the interaction processes going on in the micro universe because it was not built into the QM formalism. But, we have been convinced about the completeness of
QM formalism because Bohr’s brilliant logical mind and his ego succeeded to move the culture his way. Later, Feynman proudly told his students that even he does not understand QM so they should simply shut up and compute.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><br>
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"><font color="0000FF">Right. This is why, if I can pull together the energy to organise it, I want to hold a workshop on quantum emission and quantum collapse - exactly the resolution to this
problem. I am so tired, though, this may have to wait for another year.</font><br>
</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;">Or, coming to mundane issues, already pointed out by Kracklauer, that Fourier modes are non-causal signal as they exist in all space and time. If we build working theories using a non-causal
signal; would it not, at some point, show divergences? But, we keep on applying fuzzy logic to explain away contradictions. Bohr was a master debater, even though not trained in Cambridge. When Fourier modes, representing EM waves, are summed, we get pulses.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"><br>
</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"><font color="0000FF">Right - this is just maths. Things do what they do. One has E-M waves without anything to do with fourier.</font><br>
</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"><br>
</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;">Every book, except mine (“Causal Physics”), repeats this story; even though it is a blatantly wrong postulate. But, all EXPERIMENTS show interference fringes!! Here is the rub. Linear propagating
waves do not reorganize themselves into new energy patterns. This is done by detecting Dipoles by virtue of their quadratic response characteristics to simultaneously passing-by-waves! It took me 40 years to re-establish that I was not going crazy! Waves do
not interfere! Superposition Principle, the bedrock of all physics, is NOT AN OBSERVABLE PHENOMENON in nature.
<br>
</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><br>
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"><font color="0000FF">This question of what is or is not observable is a very interesting one which causes strong feelings precisely because we cling to a basis (if we care at all!) which
enables our minds to get some sort of a grip on the underlying reality. The discussion between Al and I about what is onta and what not is a case in point.</font><br>
</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"><br>
</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;">I had the opportunity to talk with Roy Glauber at a dinner reception just a few years ago. Because of his saying, “ I see a photon only after I detect one”, I assumed that he would understand
my point of view, “Non-Interaction of Waves”. But, he would not accept my argument that Superposition Principle is not an observable phenomenon. But, the Superposition Effect is an observable phenomenon as displayed by some detectors as their quadratic response.
We use math correctly; but assign the “operation” wrongly to the fields. Who cares! The measurable data are correct; except for a detector constant that can be explained away!
<br>
</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><font color="0000FF"><br>
<span style="font-size:11pt;"></span></font></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"><font color="0000FF">Agreed - who cares - all our language and all of our maths remains a poor shadow description of the underlying reality. T<font color="0000FF">h</font>ere is so much one
can think about t<font color="0000FF">ha</font>t one cannot communicate at all. Look at us!</font><br>
</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;">There are many more examples of our using elegant math to explain phenomena because it is “working” (experimentally validated). Such religious culture in science blinds us from discovering
newer and better mapping mathematical logics and re-constructing better physical laws. The elegance is definitely not the primary force behind the physical processes persistently empowering the successful evolution. Fundamental spatial mode out of a laser
is represented by an elegant Gaussian envelope coming out of a finite lateral size laser cavity. In the real world, the lateral laser beam tail must terminate within the edge of the laser cavity, rather than being an ideal infinite Gaussian. We just ignore
this because of mathematical elegance and the data match SUFFICIENTLY closely! So, just compute. It works!</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><br>
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;">T<font color="0000FF">oo true. It seems so hard to merely get the maths that is already there. It is properly liberating, though, to make up new mathematics to fit the physics - not the other
way round. THis is making up a new language to describe a eality which otherwise cannot be thought about all. This is what I am (and have been) doing. The maths must be fluid - where the reality is not. Maths no good - throw it out and invent something better.
Having said this such process must keep all of real value intact - and reduce to simpler thinking methods where these parallel nature well. That includes Newton, Maxwell, Einstein and Dirac!</font><br>
</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;">My point is that if we keep on failing to
</span><b><i><span style="color:windowtext;">teach our ignorance and the diverse limitations to our current knowledge</span></i></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"> to the next, and the next generations; soon everything will be led by FAITH;
because it is sooo comfortable! The genomic codes for enquiring minds, given to us by evolution, will eventually wither away! It is funny that USA, the global power house in money and military, is also the global leader in promoting faith based organizations
and thinking! Our leaders simply cannot be that dumb. Such a culture is useful.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><br>
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"><font color="0000FF">True: fast forward fifty years and it will be that country which best educates its youth in free-thinking that will be dominant. This could well be India!</font><br>
</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;">Sincerely,</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;">Chandra.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><font color="0000FF"><br>
<span style="font-size:11pt;"></span></font></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"><font color="0000FF">Regards, John.</font></span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><br>
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"><font color="0000FF"><font color="0000FF">P.S.
</font></font></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"><br>
</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><font color="0000FF"><span lang="EN-US">I also agree with you that the observed red shift is not a Doppler shift - though I am not 100 percent on board with your CTF! Viv has some very interesting (and in my view good) ideas about where
this might come from well-described in his book.<br>
</span></font></div>
<font color="0000FF"></font>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><font color="0000FF"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></font></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;"> </span></div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;">
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:windowtext;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:windowtext;"> General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>John Williamson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, February 06, 2016 6:59 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Mark, Martin van der<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] dB frequency removes duality</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">Dear Chandra,<br>
<br>
All the de Broglie wavelength becoming "infinity" as something stops moving means is that, in this limit, this aspect is not waving. That is just the normal case in classical physics. Nothing "unphysical" about it.<br>
<br>
No?<br>
<br>
It is not the de Broglie wavelength that characterises the energy: this is the Compton wavelength. That is not zero.<br>
<br>
Regards, John.</span></div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal" style="text-align:center;" align="center">
<hr align="center" size="3" width="100%">
</div>
<div id="yiv9115068222divRpF640332">
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
on behalf of Roychoudhuri, Chandra [chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, February 05, 2016 10:58 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Albrecht Giese; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] dB frequency removes duality</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;">Hello Everybody:
</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;">De Broglie wavelength becomes infinity when the momentum is zero (particle at rest). Such a postulate cannot be physical. The wave length is not a primary physical parameter even for light;
the frequency is.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;">So, I have postulated that stable particles exist as self-looped high frequency oscillations of the Complex Tension Field (CTF; or modified ether, or other names). But, this internal frequency
cannot alter with low velocities. Atoms and molecules in discharge tubes show the same spectroscopic behaviors as in their rest state. So, to accommodate harmonic phase properties in “particle diffraction”, I have postulated that particles develop another
kind of “external” harmonic oscillation, or velocity dependent “kinetic oscillation” (ψ = exp[i2π(E/h)t = exp[i2πft]), where E=mv<sup>2</sup>/2 = hf. When E=0, f=0; no mathematical calamity.
</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;">This postulate also helps me predict that the fringe visibility due to any and all particle diffraction (interference) will always have to be less than unity; dark fringe location can never
be perfectly zero, or free of particle arrival. This is unlike for well controlled optical diffraction where getting unit visibility is quite easy for high school kids. I have attached a brief section out of my book.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;">This postulate also completely removes the non-causal postulate of wave-particle duality. The oscillatory phase factors come from the different kinds of harmonic oscillations of the localized
particles. </span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;">I also believe that this CTF is the universal rest frame for all oscillating particles and waves. The space between atoms in our discharge tube on earth and that between the atoms in the
star-corona, is one and the same stationary CTF. This is the reason why QM predictions for spectral properties of atoms in stars and on earth are one and the same. Maxwellian temperature dependent (collisional) velocity is the limiting velocity experienced
by atoms and molecules everywhere except in human accelerators.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;">This is also the reason why Cosmological Redshift is definitely not a Doppler shift. The white light emitted by atoms in the inner corona picks up the absorption dark lines through the outer-corona
atoms. The relative “collective velocity” between the atoms of the inner corona and the outer coronal in any star is zero (random Maxwellian velocity gives spectral line broadening). Entire white light then undergoes uniform distance dependent frequency loss
due to some weak dissipative property of the CTF and hence the dark line locations are shifted. The punched-in dark lines on the white light do not exist as physical signals; so they cannot undergo any physical transformation, or frequency shift. The entire
band of white light SIGNAL undergoes the frequency shift.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;">SR and Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, both are negative diversions from doing real (ontological) physics.
</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;">Chandra.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;"> </span></div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;">
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:windowtext;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:windowtext;"> General [<a href="" rel="nofollow">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, February 05, 2016 3:46 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Richard Gauthier<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="" rel="nofollow">
general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] (no subject)</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;">Hello Richard,<br>
<br>
your say:<br>
<br>
"As for your explanation that the ‘inertia’ of an object is due to an object being “extended” and therefore that since extended objects have inertia, the inertia problem is solved. This type of explanation is just too “cheap” to be believable."<br>
<br>
Yes, this is my statement that any extended object has necessarily inertia. "Cheap" is not bad if it is in the sense of "simple". Good solutions are normally simple in physics as history has shown.<br>
<br>
But you say, you cannot follow. My point here is: I have explained the kinetic process which causes inertia as a step by step process (explicitly on my website). Any step is mathematically described and stated and the whole job ends with an equation for inertia.
If there is an error in my way, as you assume, it should be quite easy for you to follow this deduction and to find at least one step which is not logical or at which the mathematical treatment is incorrect.
<br>
<br>
Please do this and tell me, where you found an incorrect step. Then we can continue talking about it. (You would be the first one in 15 years to find a bug, but I assure you that I would appreciate such information.)<br>
<br>
Albrecht</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal">Am 01.02.2016 um 21:03 schrieb Richard Gauthier:</div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal">Hello Albrecht,</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> Replying your last comment first: </div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal">To your last comment: Momentum is the product of inertial mass and speed, as you surely know. Mass is scalar, that is right, but speed is a vector and so it is unavoidable that the product, called momentum, is a vector. But just from this
definition of momentum it is visible that momentum is not fundamental but a combination of two other units. Isn't it?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal">Just because momentum is measured in units of mass x velocity = mass x distance/time does not mean that momentum is not a fundamental physical quantity, perhaps more fundamental than mass or distance or time. The international kilogram
standard for mass is a chunk of platinum-iridium metal enclosed in a double glass container in Paris. That hardly indicates that mass is more fundamental than momentum, does it? By the way, the units of energy are mass x distance^2/ time^2 . Does this mean
that energy is also less fundamental than mass or distance or time? You need to distinguish between physical quantities like momentum and units of measurement like mass.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal">As for your explanation that the ‘inertia’ of an object is due to an object being “extended” and therefore that since extended objects have inertia, the inertia problem is solved. This type of explanation is just too “cheap” to be believable.
It is circular reasoning of the crudest type, and I would personally be ashamed if I continually claimed this defective explanation of inertia for almost 20 years. If no one has previously pointed out this defective logic to you in nearly 20 years of your
advocating it, so much the worse. Rather, I would be pleased to have my defective logic pointed out to me, the sooner the better. </div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal">Furthermore, you claim that inertia and momentum are basically the same thing (there may be some truth to this, as my article on the electron’s inertia suggests). But you say that the two circulating particles in your 2-particle model of
the electron neither individually contain mass, momentum, nor energy, yet you claim that this composite model of the electron has inertia. Unbelievable!</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal">Richard </div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal">On Jan 30, 2016, at 1:22 PM, Albrecht Giese <<a href="" rel="nofollow">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</div>
</div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;">Hello Richard,<br>
<br>
yes, we have to assume fundamentals in physics, and which those are, may be different for different physicists. In my view, forces are fundamental phenomena where I do not see an explanation on a lower level, at least at present. I follow QM at this point in
so far, as forces are realized by exchange particles which are mass-less, move with c and have a distance law of 1/r^2. .<br>
<br>
Momentum and inertia are in my view the same phenomenon. Someone said it earlier in this discussion: Momentum is the motion of an inertial mass. So, to explain inertial mass by momentum or momentum by inertia as general explanation are in my view tautological
statements. There is something explained essentially by itself, nothing new about it.<br>
<br>
Inertia is caused in my view (I think explained here several times) by a very fundamental process. Every extended object must have inertia. This is caused by nothing than the finiteness of the speed of light by which the internal forces in an object propagate.
And without internal forces an extended object cannot exist. This is true for any type of force, so in our world the strong force and the electric force. In an elementary particle the strong force dominates, so I have restricted my explanation mostly to the
strong force. To be precise, the electric force must not be overlooked. In my model the consideration of the electric force in the electron causes the Landé factor (very precisely!)<br>
<br>
So, the fact that an extended object behaves inert, is not a possibility or some special theory, but it is completely unavoidable that an extended object is inert.<br>
<br>
Only because you mention it: In my model there does not exist a gravitational mass because gravity has nothing to do with mass. But this is another topic. If you are interested you can find it explained on my web site "origin of gravity" (which is the no. 1
in the internet about this topic since 12 years).<br>
<br>
About Newton's law: As I have understood, Newton has defined mass as F/a. 'F' is in his view an elementary quantity visible e.g. by stretching a spring. 'a' is defined by length and time, both are also elementaries for him in the way that length is given by
a prototype ruler and time by some sufficiently defined oscillators like a pendulum. We have better definitions now using means of higher precision, but that does not change the idea behind.<br>
<br>
One can of course have a lot of cognition-related thoughts about the understanding of these quantities, but that seems to me to be beyond the level which we need here.<br>
<br>
One famous American physicist ones wrote: Mass is a great mystery. I know that many understand it this way. But I am very sure that my finding that every extended object has inertial mass solves this "mystery" completely. It is my intention to convince my colleagues
about this since more than 15 year on conferences and by the internet. And I have never got a refuting argument. Most main stream physicists refer to Higgs and say that one does not need another explanation. But never something more substantial.<br>
<br>
My model of inertia is in some way similar to the Higgs mechanism. According to the Higgs theory there are virtual particles intermediately generated in the Higgs field. These virtual particles couple to the real particle in view and keep staying at rest in
the same inertial system as the real particle. If now the real particle is accelerated to any direction, it moves off the virtual Higgs and that needs a force. This force is inertia. - The similarity to my model is that in my model the role of the virtual
Higgs is realized by the other (real) sub-particle in the elementary particle. <br>
<br>
My model does not explain why there are certain masses in particles realized and others not. Otto Greulich has found a numerical relation for the existing particles but no explanation why it works. In his algorithm the factor alpha plays an important role.
And I have the impression that the relation of strong force and electric force, which is described by alpha, plays an essential role in the question if a particle is stable. Otto is looking for a possible mechanism, but up to now he has no solution. I also
think about it, but presently also with no success.<br>
<br>
To your last comment: Momentum is the product of inertial mass and speed, as you surely know. Mass is scalar, that is right, but speed is a vector and so it is unavoidable that the product, called momentum, is a vector. But just from this definition of momentum
it is visible that momentum is not fundamental but a combination of two other units. Isn't it?<br>
<br>
Albrecht</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal">Am 28.01.2016 um 01:33 schrieb Richard Gauthier:</div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal">Hello Albrecht,</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> You want to explain inertia and therefore momentum (in your view) by the strong force. But what is your “mechanism” or explanation for the strong force? You have not explained or even tried to explain the strong force so you are actually
doing what you are accusing me of doing — not explaining what momentum is or what is its “mechanism”. But I’m not trying to explain momentum, I’m trying to explain inertial mass or inertia in terms of momentum. If inertia can be explained in terms of momentum,
I would say that is progress. If this leads to a greater insights into why inertial mass equals gravitational mass (if it does), that would be further progress. Scientific progress occurs in steps, it’s not all or nothing.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> Newton’s F=ma is actually a tautological or circular relationship. A force F does not CAUSE acceleration. Acceleration is observed and measured. “Force" is DEFINED as ma, never observed. Or m is DEFINED as F/a. “Mass" is also never
observed. Physical objects are hypothesized, observed, measured or inferred. None of Newton’s laws have ever been experimentally proved, at least according to MIT physics lecturer Walter Lewin (introduction to mechanics). You can’t prove or disprove a definition.
F=ma is a circular relationship that works within certain limits without knowing what either force or mass is fundamentally.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> The cause of the inertia of the electron is considered to be one of the deepest mysteries of physics. Frank Wilczek in his article “The origin of mass” at <a href="" rel="nofollow">http://web.mit.edu/physics/news/physicsatmit/physicsatmit_03_wilczek_originofmass.pdf</a> concludes: </div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Granjon;">"Still, as I’ve already mentioned, our understanding of the origin of mass is by no means complete. We have achieved a beautiful and profound understanding of the origin of
<i>most </i>of the mass of ordinary matter, but not of <i>all </i>of it. The value of the electron mass, in particular, remains deeply mysterious even in our most advanced speculations about unification and string theory. And ordinary matter, we have recently
learned, supplies only a small fraction of mass in the Universe as a whole. More beautiful and profound revelations surely await discovery. We continue to search for concepts and theories that will allow us to understand the origin of mass in all its forms,
by unveiling more of Nature’s hidden symmetries." </span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal">And Wilczek is talking about the origin of the magnitude of the electron’s mass, not the cause of the electron’s inertia.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> I am not claiming, as you do, to derive the electron’s mass m = 0.511 MeV/c^2 in a circular way from the Bohr magneton ehbar/2m which isn’t even the electron’s experimental magnetic moment, only an approximation calculated from the known
measured values of e, h and m. But it is not tautological or circular to derive the electron’s inertial mass m = 0.511Mev/c^2 from a circulating photon model of an electron where this circulating photon has (for no known reason) energy hf = 0.511MeV and momentum
p = 0.511MeV/c . After all, a photon’s rest mass (0 Mev/c^2) is not the same as a photon’s inertial mass (hf/c^2). And the rest mass m of a moving electron is not the same as the inertial mass gamma m of this moving electron. </div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal">As far as what you say about the Higgs mechanism and inertia, here’s an interesting quote from Bernhard Haisch in
<a href="" rel="nofollow">http://www.calphysics.org/articles/newscientist.html</a> . Haisch and his colleagues have been studying inertia and its possible explanation for years: <span style="">"But the
Higgs mechanism does not explain why mass, or its energy equivalent, resists motion or reacts to gravity," says Bernard Haisch of the California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics in Palo Alto. He believes instead that inertia and gravity are manifestations
of far more familiar effects. </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal">So the Higgs field, while it may “explain” why some particles have rest mass and others don't, apparently doesn’t explain the inertia of mass. So your explanation of inertia is apparently not in competition with the Higgs mechanism of mass.
But I would say that your explanation of inertial mass in terms of the strong nuclear force IS in competition with the derivation of inertial mass from momentum. And Occam’s razor and physical facts do apply.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal">One more comment. Momentum is a vector quantity, with both magnitude and direction. Inertial mass is a scalar quantity, with magnitude only. So Inertia cannot be the same as momentum unless inertia is also a vector quantity, having direction
as well as magnitude. Perhaps inertia IS a vector quantity after all, subject to vector addition (and cancellation). That would be interesting.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal">Richard</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal">On Jan 27, 2016, at 1:37 PM, Albrecht Giese <<a href="" rel="nofollow">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</div>
</div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;">Hello Richard,<br>
<br>
there is not necessarily a hierarchy between mass and momentum. But the origin of all is the resistance against a change of the motion state. That resistance is called inertia. And this resistance causes momentum as well as mass.
<br>
<br>
If you understand the momentum as on the top of the hierarchy, you have to explain which mechanism causes momentum. There must be one. What is it?<br>
<br>
My explanation of inertia is the only working one which I know. And which of course is not a tautological explanation. The other explanation followed by main stream is the Higgs model. That is derived from QM, and that is something which I personally do not
like very much. But the strong argument against the Higgs model is the fact that the necessary Higgs field does not exist as far as we know. And again, I have never heard about another model of inertial which is not tautological.
<br>
<br>
My model for leptons and for quarks has to function as it does, under the assumption that inertia has to be explained. And we may not ask for Occam's Razor if there is no alternative. I do not see any.
<br>
<br>
My model explains the photon in a fundamentally similar way as a lepton and a quark. But for the photon something has to be added to explain its constant speed, i.e. the fact that it cannot be found at rest. And the fact of twice the spin. This letter point
seems to me not too serious. <br>
<br>
The relativistic increase of the particle mass at motion (not only the electron, but all) is easily and straight explained by the model. Take the calculation of the inertial mass and adjust the distance of the sub-particles for the relativistic contraction.
Then the straight result is the new mass increased by the factor gamma. Your find it in my web site about "origin of mass". And the relation energy to mass: E=mc^2 follows immediately from the same calculation. Who else has ever deduced the famous formula
of Einstein? I do not know any else deduction which refers to a physical mechanism.
<br>
<br>
Strong force? In the 1940s calculations of the electron have been made in Germany which were based on the assumption that there are only electrical forces in the particle. The resulting mass turned out to be too low by a factor of ca. 300. This is about the
factor by which the strong force is stronger than the electrical one. So there is no surprise that with the assumption of the strong force the results are correct. I think this is a good argument. Isn't it?<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal">Am 26.01.2016 um 01:50 schrieb Richard Gauthier:</div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal">Hello Albrecht, </div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> I know that you object to my derivation, but I am proposing that momentum is primary and inertia is secondary. You have got it backwards. The inertial mass of an electron is (in my approach) quantitatively due to the circulating internal
momentum of its charged (or uncharged) photon. By extension, the inertial mass of all particles with rest mass is likely due to internally circulating momenta. It is true as you say that in a world without inertia (or inertial mass) there would be no momentum,
but in a world without momentum there would also be no inertia (or inertial mass). Inertia (or inertial mass) is due to momentum (in my approach). Momentum is not due to inertia. </div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> I know that your electron hypothesis attempts to derive the inertia of an electron differently. But I think you will have to admit that my derivation of the electron’s inertial mass from the electron’s proposed circulating internal photon
momentum is very much simpler than yours (which is by the way based on highly questionable premises since there is no accepted experimental evidence for the strong nuclear force influencing electric charges, zero experimental evidence for two sub-particles
in an electron, and your electron model’s apparently negative rest mass due to its negative internal potential energy), and thus by Occam's Razor, much to be preferred. Plus, your model doesn’t derive the inertial mass of a photon as hf/c^2 or the inertial
mass of a relativistically moving electron as gamma m, does it?</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> Richard</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal">On Jan 25, 2016, at 8:33 AM, Albrecht Giese <<a href="" rel="nofollow">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</div>
</div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;">Dear Richard,<br>
<br>
you know that I object to your derivation of inertial mass. You deduce it from momentum. That is mathematically possible by using the known relations. But it is not logical in so far as momentum depends on inertia. In a world without inertia there would be
no momentum.<br>
<br>
So we have to explain first the mechanism of inertia itself, then we can derive the momentum and the inertial mass.<br>
<br>
Best<br>
Albrecht</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal">Am 24.01.2016 um 20:42 schrieb Richard Gauthier:</div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal">Hello Vladimir and Chandra and all,</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> Yes, I definitely support the idea of the ether as material space, and that all physical particles are derived from this ether. This ether can also be called a plenum or Cosmic Tension Field.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> I don’t however think that it is necessary to explain the inertial mass of particles in relation to a "coefficient of inertia” or "the amount of momentum the ether resists." I have shown (<a href="" rel="nofollow">https://www.academia.edu/19652036/The_Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia</a> )
by a very simple derivation that the inertial mass m of an electron may be derived from the momentum of the circling photon in a circulating-photon model of the electron, whose circling photon has momentum mc where m = Eo/c^2 = hf/c^2 , where Eo is the rest
energy 0.511 MeV of the electron and f is the frequency of the circulating photon in the resting electron. Secondly, in a similar way I derived a linearly moving photon's inertial mass to be M-inertial = hf/c^2 , where f is the photon’s frequency, even though
a photon has zero rest mass. Thirdly, I derived the inertial mass of a relativistic electron, whose momentum is p=gamma mv, to be M-inertial = gamma m , even though the moving electron's rest mass is m. </div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> I present these derivations below, taken from the <a href="" rel="nofollow">academia.edu</a> session on my electron inertia article at <a href="" rel="nofollow">https://www.academia.edu/s/a26afd55e0?source=link</a> :</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span class="yiv9115068222js-non-expanded-comment"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:#494848;">"One reason people don’t think that a photon has any inertial mass (because it has no rest mass) is that how do you get a
photon to change its momentum (i.e. accelerate) in order to measure its inertial mass. It can’t go faster or slower than c in a vacuum, so it can’t accelerate in a linear direction, and in normal physics a photon doesn’t follow a curved path (except with gravity),
which would make it possible to measure its centripetal acceleration c^2/R . But as I showed in my short el</span></span><span class="yiv9115068222js-expanded-comment"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:#494848;">ectron inertia article at
<a href="" rel="nofollow">https://www.academia.edu/19652036/The_Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia</a> , the electron model in a resting electron has the photon going in a circle, with momentum mc and speed c, and the electron's inertial mass
is then calculated to be M-inertial =(dp/dt)/Acentrifugal =wmc/(c^2/r)= m which is the inertial mass of the electron. But this calculation of the circling charged photon's inertial mass is independent of the radius of the charged photon’s circular orbit. Let
that circular radius go towards infinity and you get a photon traveling in essentially a straight line, still having its inertial mass M =hf/c^2 (where the photon frequency f decreases as the radius of the circle increases) . So according to this logic, a
linearly moving photon DOES have inertial mass M-inertial =hf/c^2 even though a photon has zero rest mass. And when a relativistic electron with momentum p=gamma mv travels in a circle with speed v, t he inert ial mass c alculation above gives M -in ertial
= gamma m for a circling relativistic electron, and not just m the electron’s rest mass . Extending the radius here towards infinity also gives a linearly moving electron an inertial mass M = gamma m and not just the electron's rest mass m."</span></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span class="yiv9115068222js-expanded-comment"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#494848;"> As far as I know these are all original derivations of the inertial mass of a resting electron, a photon and a relativistic
electron based on a circulating photon model of an electron. I would be pleased to be shown otherwise.</span></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span class="yiv9115068222js-expanded-comment"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#494848;"> Richard</span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal">On Jan 24, 2016, at 6:42 AM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra <<a href="" rel="nofollow">chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu</a>> wrote:</div>
</div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">Yes, Vlad, that is also my viewpoint.</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">I do not remember whether I have attached this paper while communicating with you earlier. I call the “plenum” Cosmic Tension Field (CTF), to be descriptive in its essential properties.</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">Chandra.</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;">
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">From:</span></b><span class="yiv9115068222apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">General
[<a href="" rel="nofollow">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<span class="yiv9115068222apple-converted-space"> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class="yiv9115068222apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Vladimir
Tamari<br>
<b>Sent:</b><span class="yiv9115068222apple-converted-space"> </span>Saturday, January 23, 2016 7:00 PM<br>
<b>To:</b><span class="yiv9115068222apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b><span class="yiv9115068222apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] (no subject)</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal">Hi Richard </div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal">I barge into your discussion without knowing your views on a "plenum field" but if it is an ether I definitely think there is one. A "coefficent of inertia" might be defined as the amount of momentum the ether resists. In a charged or gravitational
field this coefficent would increase...I think of this in terms of my Beautiful Universe ether of dielectric nodes, except this may give the wrong idea it is something matter wades in.. not so. Matter and ether are made if the selfsame nodes of energy!</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal">Cheers</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal">Vladimir<br>
<br>
_____________________</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><a href="" rel="nofollow"><span style="color:purple;">vladimirtamari.com</span></a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;"><br>
On Jan 21, 2016, at 7:41 AM, Richard Gauthier <<a href="" rel="nofollow">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal">Hi Hodge,</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> I don’t remember asking that. But if I did, I’m glad the question was helpful.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> I’m thinking about inertia these days. Do you or others have any insights about its nature?</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> Richard</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal">On Jan 20, 2016, at 1:43 PM, Hodge John <<a href="" rel="nofollow">jchodge@frontier.com</a>> wrote:</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div id="yiv9115068222yui_3_16_0_1_1453325918779_2533">
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="">Richard Gauthier:</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="yiv9115068222yui_3_16_0_1_1453325918779_2535">
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="">You asked if the galaxy redshift, Pioneer anomaly, Pound--Rebka experiment model had a velocity term. I looked at redshift data for 1 galaxy and found no indication
of a velocity term.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="yiv9115068222yui_3_16_0_1_1453325918779_2537">
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style=""> </span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="yiv9115068222yui_3_16_0_1_1453325918779_2539">
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="">I had not noticed this in the equations. Your suggestion that the plenum field can look like the Higgs field seems valid. That is, the acceleration of the plenum
field looks like it adds energy (mass) is a Higgs Field characteristic. Thus, the plenum is closer to the idea of a quantum field and Higgs field (weak force).</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="yiv9115068222yui_3_16_0_1_1453325918779_2541">
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style=""> </span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="yiv9115068222yui_3_16_0_1_1453325918779_2543">
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="">Thanks for the insight.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="yiv9115068222yui_3_16_0_1_1453325918779_2545">
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style=""> </span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="yiv9115068222yui_3_16_0_1_1453325918779_2579">
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal" style="background:white;">Hodge</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class="yiv9115068222apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="" rel="nofollow">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br>
<a href="<a href="" rel="nofollow">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<a href="" rel="nofollow">vladimirtamari@hotmail.com</a><br>
<a href="<a href="" rel="nofollow">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><2012.2_JMP_Space as real field.pdf><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class="yiv9115068222apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a href="" rel="nofollow">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"><br>
<a href="</span><a href="" rel="nofollow">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a></span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;"><br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<pre>_______________________________________________</pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="" rel="nofollow">phys@a-giese.de</a></pre>
<pre><a href=<a href="" rel="nofollow">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe</pre>
<pre></a></pre>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
<table class="yiv9115068222MsoNormalTable yahoo-compose-table-card" style="border:none;border-top:solid #AAABB6 1.0pt;" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="3">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:78.75pt;border:none;padding:11.25pt .75pt .75pt .75pt;" width="131">
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal" style="margin-top:22.5pt;"><a href="" rel="nofollow"><span style="text-decoration:none;"><img id="yiv9115068222_x0000_i1053" border="0"></span></a></div>
</td>
<td style="width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:15.0pt .75pt .75pt .75pt;" width="588">
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal" style="margin-top:22.5pt;line-height:13.5pt;"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#41424E;">Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird.
<br>
<a href="" rel="nofollow"><span style="color:#4453EA;">www.avast.com</span></a>
</span></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
<table class="yiv9115068222MsoNormalTable yahoo-compose-table-card" style="border:none;border-top:solid #AAABB6 1.0pt;" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="3">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:78.75pt;border:none;padding:11.25pt .75pt .75pt .75pt;" width="131">
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal" style="margin-top:22.5pt;"><a href="" rel="nofollow"><span style="text-decoration:none;"><img id="yiv9115068222_x0000_i1054" border="0"></span></a></div>
</td>
<td style="width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:15.0pt .75pt .75pt .75pt;" width="588">
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal" style="margin-top:22.5pt;line-height:13.5pt;"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#41424E;">Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird.
<br>
<a href="" rel="nofollow"><span style="color:#4453EA;">www.avast.com</span></a>
</span></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
<table class="yiv9115068222MsoNormalTable yahoo-compose-table-card" style="border:none;border-top:solid #AAABB6 1.0pt;" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="3">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:15.0pt .75pt .75pt .75pt;" width="588">
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal" style="margin-top:22.5pt;line-height:13.5pt;"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#41424E;">Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird.
<br>
<a href="" rel="nofollow"><span style="color:#4453EA;">www.avast.com</span></a>
</span></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"> </div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;"> </div>
<table class="yiv9115068222MsoNormalTable yahoo-compose-table-card" style="border:none;border-top:solid #AAABB6 1.0pt;" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="3">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:15.0pt .75pt .75pt .75pt;" width="588">
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal" style="line-height:13.5pt;"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#41424E;">Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird.
<br>
<a href="" rel="nofollow"><span style="color:#4453EA;">www.avast.com</span></a>
</span></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div class="yiv9115068222MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext;"> </span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div><br>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a ymailto="mailto:jchodge@frontier.com" href="mailto:jchodge@frontier.com">jchodge@frontier.com</a><br><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/jchodge%40frontier.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/jchodge%40frontier.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a><br><br><br></div> </div> </div> </div></div></body></html>