<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hello Richard,<br>
<br>
it is true that we do not know everything in physics (otherwise
there would be no reason for further research). However, many
facts and rules are understood, and I do not see a good reason to
go behind this knowledge.<br>
<br>
From my 2-particle model it follows for leptons and for quarks
that there is E = h*ny. The frequency is the circulation, the
energy follows from the mass which the model yields, when using E
= m*c^2. This latter relation also follows from this model. (I
have presented all this in San Diego; it was also discussed here
earlier as I remember; and it is on my web site "The Origin of
Mass". Of course I can explain it here again if there is a
demand.)<br>
<br>
As these relations obviously also apply to the photon, it seems
very plausible that the photon has a similar structure like a
lepton and a quark. The
rules apply if c is inserted for the speed. This also leads to
p=h*ny/c.<br>
<br>
And which further details do we know about the photon? It must
have an extension as it has a spin which is physically not
possible without an extension. And it must have charges as it
reacts with an electric field which is otherwise not explainable.
There must be at least two charges, a positive and a negative one,
as the photon as a whole is neutral. The spin is twice the one of
a lepton or a quark, this may be an indication that the photon is
built by 4 sub-particles rather than 2 of the kind which I have
described. <br>
<br>
So, if the photon has positive and negative charges, which means
that it has sub-particles with positive and negative charges, it
is quite plausible that the photon can decompose into a positive
and a negative elementary particle, so into a positron and an
electron. <br>
<br>
(You may call this speculative. But it has some strongly plausible
aspects which I am missing in the other models presented here.)<br>
<br>
The curling-up which you have mentioned has an orbital component.
To move on an orbit needs some physical conditions. E.g. an
influence which causes the acceleration to its center. This should
be physically explained.<br>
<br>
The conflict between the necessary Higgs field and the vacuum
field in the universe is treated in the article of F.J. Tipler in
<br>
<span class="st"><em>arXiv</em>:<em>astro</em>-<em>ph</em>/<em>0111520v1
. </em>It is well known by particle physicists I have at
conferences here </span><span class="st">asked </span><span
class="st">several times the presenters of the Higgs model for
this discrepancy. They have always admitted that this conflict
exists, but some have tried to blame the astronomers for it. No
one ever has presented a solution for the conflict.<br>
<br>
Albrecht</span><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Am 07.05.2016 um 23:32 schrieb Richard Gauthier:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:17B1B82C-6C60-4CBE-A5DD-13EAF23BFF6C@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div class="">Hello Albrecht,</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Thank your for your further comments and
questions.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Your are asking me why photons have momentum
p=hv/c . That’s like asking why photons have energy E=hv . In
physics nobody knows “why” anything happens. “Why?” questions
always lead back to a big unknown. Physicists observe nature
qualitatively and quantitatively and search for cause-effect
relations, equations, theoretical models and symmetry relations
that work ("save the appearances"), and lead to further and
better (more accurate) physical predictions that often lead to
practical applications and hopefully deeper “understanding” of
physical phenomena.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> You ask why a spin-1/2 photon curls up. You
could just as well ask why a spin-1 photon doesn’t curl up,
since it has spin. (My transluminal energy quantum model of a
spin-1 photon at <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.academia.edu/4429810/Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron"
class="">https://www.academia.edu/4429810/Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron</a>
is a helical model that is consistent with both a photon's
spin-1 hbar and its forward linear momentum p=h/lambda). </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Your own comments on the possible nature and
make-up of photons are extremely speculative to say the least.
You have no photon model at all. There is zero experimental
evidence that a photon is composite. You should at least try to
show how a sufficiently energetic photon leads to your electron
model in electron-positron pair production.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> You claim that astronomers deny the existence
of a Higgs field strong enough to explain noticeable forces in
elementary particles. That is a blanket statement that needs
supporting evidence. Please support your claim here with
sources. It’s like claiming that “scientists say”. Thanks.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Richard</div>
<br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On May 7, 2016, at 10:23 AM, Albrecht Giese <<a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a></a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix" style="font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height:
normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Hello Richard,<br
class="">
<br class="">
thank you for your mail. I still have questions to your
explanations:<br class="">
<br class="">
To para 1):<br class="">
According to you explanations the circular motion is
mainly achieved by the fact that the particles are
"curling up". Which physical law do you have in mind that
causes them to curl up? What are the quantitative
consequences? - You say that there is a "configurational"
force which controls the internal motion of an electron
and a positron. You assume that this may come from the
Higgs field. I think that this is highly speculative as
astronomers deny the existence of a Higgs field which is
strong enough to be an explanation for noticeable forces
in elementary particles.<br class="">
<br class="">
To para 2):<br class="">
The momentum of a photon is h<span style="font-family:
Symbol;" class="">*n</span><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>y/c, true. But
what is the physical mechanism causing this momentum?
Still not answered.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br
class="">
I believe that my mass mechanism is applicable to the
photon. The photon has an extension, so it has inertia by
the standard mechanism for extended objects. And in
addition I think that the photon may be composed by the
same sub-particles ("basic particles") like leptons and
quarks. The question still open for me is, why the photon
moves steadily with c. An explanation may be that it moves
always into a certain direction with respect to its
internal set up. On the other hand, the fact that the rest
mass of the photon is zero is nothing more than a
mathematical result. Was never measured.<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">
<br class="">
Albrecht<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br
class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
Am Sat, 30 Apr 2016 um 17:22:00 schrieb Richard Gauthier:<br
class="">
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:b4963817-c31f-44f6-2348-b6395874c7e9@a-giese.de"
type="cite" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size:
12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height:
normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<div class="">Hello Albrecht,</div>
<div class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Thank
you for your two thoughtful questions.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">To try to answer them:</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">1) I think it is an incorrect assumption
that only a second electric charge or a corresponding
permanent field can cause a spin-1/2 charged photon to
move in a circular or helical configuration. Have you
considered other possible explanations? One I have
considered, in the context of e-p production, is that
two uncharged spin-1/2 photons of are formed in the
process of electron-positron pair production from a
spin-1 photon of sufficient energy (greater than 1.022
MeV). At first the two uncharged spin-1/2 photons both
move forward together in a kind of unstable
equilibrium. One has a negative charge potentiality
and the other has a positive charge potentiality, yet
both are still neutral. These two uncharged spin-1/2
photons can either then unite with each other to form
a spin-1 photon, or they can separate in the presence
of a nearby charged nucleus and each curl up, gaining
negative and positive charge respectively, as well as
rest mass Eo/c^2, and slowing down (as they become an
electron and positron) to less than light-speed as
they curl up. (Internally these spin-1/2 charged
photons maintain light-speed c in their forward
direction, but their curled-up configurations as a
electron and a positron have v < c .) Once they are
both fully curled up to form a fully charged electron
and positron, they continue to move apart. Now they
each have a stable internal equilibrium (because of
conservation of electric charge) and they cannot
individually unroll (except perhaps virtually) to
become an uncharged spin-1/2 photon, and so they
remain a stable electron and a stable positron. Their
own charged curled-up stable equilibrium maintains
them in their curled-up configurations, supplying the
necessary configurational force that maintains their
circulating motion to form an electron or a positron.
This configurational force that maintains each of them
curled up would be a non-electrical force. Perhaps
this configurational force that maintains the electron
and the positron curled up with rest mass and moving
at less than light-speed c, comes from the Higgs
field.</div>
<div class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>When
an electron and positron meet, they may first form a
positronium atom. Then they both uncurl and unite to
form an unstable neutral particle which decays
immediately into two or three spin-1 photons, in the
process of electron-positron annihilation.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">2) Why does the spin-1/2 charged photon
have momentum? you ask. It is because it is a photon
with momentum hv/c . My model of the spin-1/2 charged
photon is similar to my internally transluminal model
of an uncharged photon, except that the spin-1/2
charged photon makes two helical loops instead of one
per photon wavelength, and the spin-1/2 charged photon
model's helical radius is 1/2 that of the helical
radius of a spin-1 photon model , being R=lambda/4pi
instead of lambda/2 pi. The uncurled transluminal
spin-1/2 uncharged photon model curls up nicely into a
curled-up double-looping spin-1/2 charged photon model
of an electron. You can read about my superluminal
uncharged photon model at <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.academia.edu/4429810/Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron">https://www.academia.edu/4429810/Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron</a> or
I can e-mail you a copy. I have only talked about my
current model of the superluminal spin-1/2 charged
photon on the “Nature of Light and Particles” e-list
during the past year.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I hope these possible explanations of the
spin-1/2 charged-photon model are helpful. I don’t
think that you have a photon model yet that is
consistent with your two-particle electron model, in
terms of e-p production and e-p annihilation.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">The figure below, which I included in this
e-list some months ago, shows a curled-up spin 1/2
charged photon forming a resting electron (top
graphic) and at different increasing relativistic
speeds (lower graphics). The green line is the
double-looping helical trajectory of the circulating
charged photon forming the electron, while the red
line is the trajectory of the superluminal energy
quantum of the spin-1/2 photon model. The superluminal
energy quantum in the resting electron moves on the
surface of a mathematical horn torus. As the speed v
of the electron model increases, the radius of the
green helical trajectory decreases as 1/gamma^2 ,
while the radius of the red trajectory of the
superluminal quantum decreases as 1/gamma. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
<br class="">
<table style="border-top-width: 1px; border-top-style:
solid; border-top-color: rgb(170, 171, 182);" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;" class=""><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" class=""><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/2016/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-v1.png"
class=""></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;"
class="">Virenfrei.<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
<br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>