<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear Andrew,<br>
<br>
thank you for your considerations and arguments about my mass
model. And please apologize that I kept you waiting for a
response. I was off for several days.<br>
<br>
My basic point is that any extended object necessarily has
inertia. That is not just an idea or a possibility, it is on the
contrary completely inevitable. I think that I have explained why
this is the case. If necessary I can of course explain it again.<br>
<br>
Now, if we assume or accept that elementary particles are
extended, then the inertia of particles is inevitably given. And,
as you have cited it again, the results for leptons and quarks are
precise.<br>
<br>
The main argument against my model is the general opinion that
elementary particles, particularly electrons, are point-like and
have no constituents. The argument of those who have performed the
according experiments is that it was attempted to decompose the
electron by bombarding it with particles (like protons) with
sufficiently high energy, A decomposition has never occurred. From
this it was concluded that the electron has no constituents. - But
this argument does not apply to my particle model. The
constituents of an elementary particle are according to my model
mass-less. So one of its constituents may be accelerated by an
arbitrary amount, the other one - as having no own mass - can
follow immediately. Not even any force will occur. - Accordingly
this argument is not applicable against this model.<br>
<br>
And the rest is known. If one determines the size of the electron
by the evaluation of e.g. its magnetic moment, the result for the
mass conforms very precisely to the measurement. <br>
<br>
It is true that the assumption of two constituents for an
elementary particle is very uncommon. But as long as there are no
conflicting facts such assumption can be made. It is a common way
in physics by my understanding. On the other hand there was a kind
of indication for two constituents described by the article of
Frank Wilczek about the electron in Nature in summer 2013.<br>
<br>
The explanation of inertia of an electron by a bound photon is in
my understanding not a real explanation as it assumes that a
photon itself has some kind of inertia, without explaining how
this works inside a photon. So it just diverts the problem to
another particle, at least as it was explained during this
discussion since October last year. And also the task to be done
is not only the mass of an electron, but the mass of all
particles, i.e. all leptons and all quarks. Do you assume that all
these particles are built by bound photons?<br>
<br>
So, in my understanding, if there is another explanation for
inertia, then we will have two explanations in parallel. Or, if on
the other hand someone has or knows an experiment which is in
conflict with my model, that would of course refute my model. Up
to now I did not hear about such results.<br>
<br>
Thank you again for your considerations.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
Fri, 1 Apr 2016 12:49:24 +0530 schrieb Andrew Meulenberg :<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:57056777.9070302@a-giese.de" type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container">Dear Albrecht,<br>
<div dir="ltr">
<div> <br>
</div>
You have repeatedly based your model on lack of alternatives
(with very precise results). E.g., <br>
<div>
<div><br>
<div style="margin-left:80px">Why 2 particles in the
model? I say it again:<br>
<br>
1) to maintain the conservation of momentum in the view
of oscillations<br>
2) to have a mechanism for inertia (which has very
precise results, otherwise non-existent in present
physics)<br>
<br>
I will be happy to see alternatives for both points. Up
to now I have not seen any.<span class="im"></span><br>
</div>
<div style="margin-left:40px"><span class="im"></span></div>
<br>
</div>
<div>I'm sure that alternatives exist. Whether they have
very precise results to support them may be up for debate.
<br>
<br>
My own relativistic model for inertia depends on the
electron being, in its ground (restmass) state, a
spherically bound photon. Until that concept is accepted,
it makes little sense to go further in a description.
However, if accepted, it then also leads to understanding
the inertia of a photon. <br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Your two-particle model faces the same challenge.
Unless you are able to shape that premise into an
acceptable form, it is unlikely that anything that follows
will matter. Can you (re)define your particles to be
acceptable to an audience and still fulfill your
assumptions and derived results?<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Andrew<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top:1px solid #aaabb6">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="width:470px;padding-top:20px;color:#41424e;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;line-height:18px">This
email has been sent from a virus-free computer
protected by Avast. <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail"
target="_blank" style="color:#4453ea">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #aaabb6;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/2016/icons/icon-envelope-open-tick-round-orange-v1.png"></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 20px; color: #41424e;
font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei. <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>