<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    Sorry, correction:<br>
    <br>
    The photon has of course no magnetic field, but must have electric
    charges inside as it reacts to charges.<br>
    <br>
    Albrecht<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 10.04.2016 um 18:20 schrieb Andrew
      Meulenberg:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CAOODe7EyTT-7m0SqGr0pzQCQn=u37zcJMz1RqPUTFF+=OJ1QSA@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div>Dear Albrecht,<br>
          <br>
        </div>
        See comments interleaved:<br>
        _ _ _ <br>
        <div>
          <div>
            <div class="gmail_extra"><br>
              <div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 12:56 AM,
                Albrecht Giese <span dir="ltr"><<a
                    moz-do-not-send="true"
                    href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a></a>></span>
                wrote:<br>
                <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
                  0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
                  rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
                  <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
                    <div>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>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </blockquote>
                <br>
                <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
                  0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
                  rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
                  <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
                    <div> 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. </div>
                  </div>
                </blockquote>
                <div><br>
                  I think that none of the group would consider point
                  particles as possible. Point-like becomes a matter of
                  definition for acceptability. 'Extended' would be
                  generally accepted. Di- or multi-point elementary
                  particles would be rejected by most (unless one
                  considers the transition stages, e.g.
                  electron-positron creation or annihilation). I will
                  address constituents below.<br>
                   </div>
                <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
                  0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
                  rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
                  <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
                    <div>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>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </blockquote>
                <div><br>
                </div>
                <div>In the 2011 Nature of Light Symposium, you may
                  remember the attached paper. Fernandez-Guasti
                  mentioned the necessity for 2 fields for wave
                  phenomena. Since most of us accept that electrons (and
                  other elementary particles?) are photon based, they
                  must all have at least 2 fields. You have described
                  your particles as massless, so being fields would be
                  consistent with their photon-based nature. That is one
                  alternative consistent with your two-particle model. I
                  would suggest that all elementary particles are
                  charged and have bound external EM fields when they
                  move. Again, you could have a bound 2-'particle'
                  system that would fit your description. Thus there are
                  two models that are probably consistent with your
                  equations and would be more acceptable to the
                  community.<br>
                  <br>
                </div>
                <div>Your approach is similar to claiming that a rubber
                  ball actually consists of 2 unobservable particles
                  (with other special properties) because the equations
                  predict the observed bouncing performance. No matter
                  how well your equations predicted the observed motion,
                  I don't think that you would get many people
                  interested in your model. (I suspect that quantum
                  mechanics may suffer from a similar problem of
                  insisting that the simplified version of a
                  mathematical model is the reality.)<br>
                </div>
                <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
                  0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
                  rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
                  <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
                    <div> <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>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </blockquote>
                <div><br>
                </div>
                <div>I assume that all particles are built up from
                  resonantly bound photons (and a variation of my model
                  for electron inertia will work as well for explaining
                  photonic inertia). </div>
                <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
                  0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
                  rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
                  <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
                    <div> <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>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </blockquote>
                <div><br>
                </div>
                <div>Your modeling is good. I just wish that it could be
                  tied to a more 'physical' pairing.<br>
                  <br>
                </div>
                <div>Best regards,<br>
                  <br>
                </div>
                <div>Andrew<br>
                  ___________________________________<br>
                </div>
                <div> </div>
                <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
                  0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
                  rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
                  <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
                    <div> <br>
                      Albrecht
                      <div>
                        <div class="h5"><br>
                          <br>
                          <br>
                           Fri, 1 Apr 2016 12:49:24 +0530 schrieb Andrew
                          Meulenberg :<br>
                          <br>
                        </div>
                      </div>
                    </div>
                    <blockquote type="cite">
                      <div>
                        <div class="h5">
                          <div>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></span><br>
                                  </div>
                                  <div style="margin-left:40px"><span></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><br>
                              <table style="border-top:1px solid
                                rgb(170,171,182)">
                                <tbody>
                                  <tr>
                                    <td
style="width:470px;padding-top:20px;color:rgb(65,66,78);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"
                                        style="color:rgb(68,83,234)"
                                        target="_blank">www.avast.com</a>
                                    </td>
                                  </tr>
                                </tbody>
                              </table>
                            </div>
                            <br>
                          </div>
                          <br>
                          <br>
                        </div>
                      </div>
                      <table style="border-top:1px solid
                        rgb(170,171,182)">
                        <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:rgb(65,66,78);font-size:13px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;line-height:18px">Virenfrei.
                              <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                                href="http://www.avast.com"
                                target="_blank">www.avast.com</a> </td>
                          </tr>
                        </tbody>
                      </table>
                    </blockquote>
                    <br>
                  </div>
                </blockquote>
              </div>
              <br>
            </div>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  <br /> <table style="border-top: 1px solid #aaabb6;">
        <tr>
      <td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><img 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 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;">www.avast.com</a>                </td>
        </tr>
</table>
</body>
</html>