<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Dear Andrew,<br>
<br>
my comments now interleaved in yours:<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>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
"Point-like" means in present main stream physics that they are very
small (< 10^-18 m) and do not have an internal structure. That is
assumed e.g. for the electron and for quarks.<br>
<br>
I see that my 2-particle-model is not accepted by most of our
community here (because most have an own model which is different).
In general it is accepted by many. Two examples: Since about 14
years my model is the number one or in the first three places in the
internet if you ask for "origin of mass" in popular search engines.
No physical institute and no Nobel price winner has achieved this
position. And if I give a talk about this model at German physical
conferences then there is a big auditory; in most cases the lecture
hall is full; with good discussions afterwards.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAOODe7EyTT-7m0SqGr0pzQCQn=u37zcJMz1RqPUTFF+=OJ1QSA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<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>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>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I have looked into the paper of Fernandez-Guasti once again (thank
you for sending it again). I agree to him that in a harmonic
oscillator there is a permanent exchange of two energies, kinetic
and potential energy. But he assumes then that a wave which may be
originated by this oscillation has also two contribution. I think
that this conclusion is not justified. <br>
<br>
Then he uses as an argument that the EM waves are built by two
contributions, the electrical one and the magnetic one. But this is
a very common error. The electric field and the magnetic field are
in fact the same, only viewed from a different perspective. The
magnetic field is a relativistic side effect of the electric field.
It is in some way similar to the Coriolis force, which is not an
additional force but the normal Newtonian inertia viewed from a
moving frame. Regarding EM I refer to the popular book "Special
Relativity" of P. French, where it is explained in a quite handy
way. For a thorough deduction please look into W.G.V. Rosser
"Classical Electromagnetism via Relativity". <br>
<br>
The dominating force in my model is not caused by the electric
charge as the force would be too weak by a factor of >300. So it
can only be the strong force. The electron has an electric charge in
addition, which is (among other effects) responsible for the Landé
factor.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAOODe7EyTT-7m0SqGr0pzQCQn=u37zcJMz1RqPUTFF+=OJ1QSA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><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>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Most objects in particle physics are not visible. No one has ever
seen a quark by his own eyes. In general, if an assumption gives in
explanation (and maybe an exclusive explanation) and is in no
conflict with any experiment, it is normally accepted on physics.
Without this way of usage we would not have any modern physics, I
think. And this is also fulfilled by the 2-particle-model.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAOODe7EyTT-7m0SqGr0pzQCQn=u37zcJMz1RqPUTFF+=OJ1QSA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<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>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I do not follow this idea that elementary particles are built by
photons by the reason that the photon has a comparable complexity as
a lepton or a quark: it has a magnetic moment and a spin. Also it
has inertia (transfers a moment to a mirror). So even if one
believes that the photon is elementary, the fact of inertia has
still to be explained. My model explains it. I do not know of any
other model doing this (except Higgs).<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAOODe7EyTT-7m0SqGr0pzQCQn=u37zcJMz1RqPUTFF+=OJ1QSA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<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>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Thank you, but I think the model is very physical. It is accepted by
the many physicists I have discussed it with over the years, only
rejected by those in main stream who still believe in the Higgs
model (even though it is meanwhile proven that no Higgs field
exists).<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAOODe7EyTT-7m0SqGr0pzQCQn=u37zcJMz1RqPUTFF+=OJ1QSA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best regards,<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Andrew<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Best regards<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAOODe7EyTT-7m0SqGr0pzQCQn=u37zcJMz1RqPUTFF+=OJ1QSA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>___________________________________<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>