<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Hi Chip,</p>
<p>following some comments to your mail from my view.<br>
</p>
Am 08.06.2016 um 23:52 schrieb Chip Akins:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:025501d1c1d0$1cad8ff0$5608afd0$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Roboto;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:STIXGeneral-Italic;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:STIXGeneral-Regular;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Helvetica Neue";}
@font-face
{font-family:"Helvetica Neue \;color\:\#575757";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.ecxyiv2438876326
{mso-style-name:ecxyiv2438876326;}
span.ecxyiv2438876326mathjaxpreview
{mso-style-name:ecxyiv2438876326mathjax_preview;}
span.ecxyiv2438876326mathjax
{mso-style-name:ecxyiv2438876326mathjax;}
span.ecxyiv2438876326math
{mso-style-name:ecxyiv2438876326math;}
span.ecxyiv2438876326mrow
{mso-style-name:ecxyiv2438876326mrow;}
span.ecxyiv2438876326mi
{mso-style-name:ecxyiv2438876326mi;}
span.ecxyiv2438876326mo
{mso-style-name:ecxyiv2438876326mo;}
span.ecxyiv2438876326texatom
{mso-style-name:ecxyiv2438876326texatom;}
span.ecxyiv2438876326mn
{mso-style-name:ecxyiv2438876326mn;}
span.ecxyiv2438876326st
{mso-style-name:ecxyiv2438876326st;}
span.ecxyiv2438876326apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:ecxyiv2438876326apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle32
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle34
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A Wave:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A transverse wave is a distortion of a
medium which propagates at the velocity dictated by the
“density” and the transverse modulus of the medium. That is
what waves are. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">You refer here to waves
in a medium. That is different from what we are discussing here.
Both have been seen as the same at a time when physics believed in
an "aether" as a medium. But that understanding is gone. Here it
is about electrical waves and maybe waves of the strong force, no
medium involved.</font><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:025501d1c1d0$1cad8ff0$5608afd0$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">That is what we can observe of all sorts of
waves. Maxwell’s equations were built on the principals of
these wave fundamental mechanics.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Where does Maxwell need a
medium? Maxwell's equations are anyway a mathematical formalism,
well working, but not related to the physical origin of the
phenomena. A very clear mistake in his understanding is the
equivalence of electricity and magnetism. That is obsolete. We
know since long time (at least since the time of Einstein's
activity), that magnetism is nothing than a relativistic side
effect of electricity (in some way similar to the Coriolis force
which is as well not an additional type of force but a certain
view onto the Newtonian force). </font><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:025501d1c1d0$1cad8ff0$5608afd0$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">You say, <span style="color:#002060">“And
what is a field? A field is a human abstraction to describe
the influence of a charge.”</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If you tell yourself this in order to try
to reject the notion of fields being real, then it seems you
miss a great opportunity to better understand space and the
universe.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">What about space? Also
space is a human abstraction which Einstein used to develop his
mathematical formalism of relativity. An important aspect of space
is that there is no way to measure space in physics. All
statements in physics about space are interpretations of
observations, there is nothing direct.<br>
</font>
<blockquote cite="mid:025501d1c1d0$1cad8ff0$5608afd0$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><o:p></o:p></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><o:p> </o:p></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Such
distortions of a medium have gradients, it is likely that
these gradients are the source of the things we call fields.
So it may be that the elementary charge is topologically
created by these “fields”. If this is the case then charge
is caused by “field” divergence (which is the byproduct of
confinement of the wave to make a charged particle). Also
if this is the case then there are forces between fields of
the right topology where no elementary charge is present.</font></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">In my view this is an
upside-down understanding. You can localize a charge and transport
a charge from one place to another one. You cannot do this with a
field. Conclusion is that a charge is more fundamental than a
field. This is also what my textbook says. And Wikipedia says:
"Electric fields are caused by electric charges ...." . <br>
</font>
<blockquote cite="mid:025501d1c1d0$1cad8ff0$5608afd0$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><o:p> </o:p></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Your
explanation does not explain what charge is. This approach
does. Your explanation is not simple because it does not
explain what particles are, and would have to become much
more complex in order to explain how these particles
magically possess the properties you have assigned them.
This wave approach does explain what particles are and
illustrates how they obtain most of their properties.</font></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Where are the properties
of a wave fundamentally defined or explained?<br>
In my view a charge (electric or strong force) is the most
fundamental unit in our world. The effect of a charge in physics
is described by the Coulomb law (in case of electric charge) and
by a similar law in case of the strong force. <br>
In the view of QM the action of a charge is mediated by exchange
particles. These particles are mass-less and move with c. And this
view explains very directly Coulomb's law. So, it appears to me as
a very straight understanding of those phenomena without the need
of additional assumptions. One interesting question is, in which
way charges combine to build a multi-pole field. In the case of
atoms, which build a molecule, this is well understood. In case of
elementary particles it is not treated by present main stream as
the methodology of QM is accepted there, and QM denies to look
into the structure of elementary particles. - I think this is a
problem that bothers all of us here.<br>
</font>
<blockquote cite="mid:025501d1c1d0$1cad8ff0$5608afd0$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><o:p></o:p></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><o:p> </o:p></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">This
wave approach removes “mystification” about particles. This
wave approach is causal and deterministic. Meaning that for
most of the topics we have been discussing it provides
explanations, instead of just accepting that particles exist
and have a list of properties, it explains what particles
are, and why they have the properties they possess.</font></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Could you please list
here all properties which a field or a wave must have so that the
properties of particles and of physical laws follow from it? I
have read some of the discussions here based on waves, and this
has a lot of mystification in my view. <br>
</font>
<blockquote cite="mid:025501d1c1d0$1cad8ff0$5608afd0$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><o:p></o:p></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><o:p> </o:p></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">(Of
course the next issue would be to try to better understand
nature of the medium these waves travel through. But I think
we should take it one step at a time.)<o:p></o:p></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><o:p> </o:p></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">My
point is that using the wave approach more of the puzzles
are solved and there is less “mystification” instead of
more. </font></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">The effect of a charge is
fully described by the Coulomb law. Is the effect and are the
properties of a wave described by a law which is comparatively
simple? And comparatively simple to deduce? I do not at all have
this impression if I follow the discussion here.</font>
<blockquote cite="mid:025501d1c1d0$1cad8ff0$5608afd0$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">We
don’t need the mystification of imagining magical massless
“particles”, etc.</font></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Even in main stream
physics it is assumed since a long time that the mass of an object
is nothing fundamental but a dynamical process (e.g. in the case
of the Higgs model which is so welcome by main stream physics).
But this means that there is a stage in the view into a particle
where a particles does not yet have a mass. And in this view (I
say again: even in main stream physics) the existence of some
object without mass is not exotic but fundamental. So, if I start
my view with mass-less objects, at least at this point I am fully
congruent with standard physics.<br>
</font>
<blockquote cite="mid:025501d1c1d0$1cad8ff0$5608afd0$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><o:p></o:p></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><o:p> </o:p></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Chip</font></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Albrecht</font><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:025501d1c1d0$1cad8ff0$5608afd0$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
Albrecht Giese [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">mailto:genmail@a-giese.de</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, June 08, 2016 3:36 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Chip Akins <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"><chipakins@gmail.com></a>;
'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] inertia<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>Hi Chip,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>what is a wave? A wave is a field which fluctuates in a
somewhat regular way. And what is a field? A field is a human
abstraction to describe the influence of a charge. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Of course a wave can have a positive and a negative region.
That is the case if the wave is caused by positive and
negative charges. So, if a photon can be identified with a
wave, there must be charges of both sign in a photon. - Any
other understanding of a field or of a wave is in my view a
typical mystification as we know it from QM. Why refer to such
mystifications if they are not necessary? I have understood
that the goal of all of us (who are looking for particle
models) is to make the picture as simple as possible. And that
should mean: No mystifications, so no fields without a cause,
no waves without a cause. Isn't that simple?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 04.06.2016 um 16:52 schrieb Chip
Akins:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>No. A wave in space could easily have a positive region
and a negative region and still be one wave. So your
statement “This is one of the indications that a photon has
to be composite.” Is not really correct.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, June 04, 2016 9:41 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Richard Gauthier <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] inertia</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Hello Richard,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>the experimental evidence that a photon must be a composite
object happens e.g. in every radio exchange. The photon
interacts with electric charges, this is only possible if
one assumes that the photon has electric charge. Now, as it
is electrically neutral as a whole, there must be a balance
of positive and negative electric charge(s). Those have to
have some separation as otherwise they could not react with
an outside charge. This is one of the indications that a
photon has to be composite.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>The other way to understand the photon is the way of
quantum mechanics. In the view of QM the photon is merely a
quantum of energy. Any further understanding of it is - by
the view of QM - not possible. To treat a photon physically
and quantitatively requires the use of the QM formalism,
however, (as usual at QM) without a direct understanding. -
This is the position of QM which is formally allows for a
point-like photon. But I think that no one in our group is
willing to follow QM in this respect. All efforts undertaken
here come from the desire to have a physical understanding.
And this includes necessarily (in my view) that the photon
is composite.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 03.06.2016 um 00:53 schrieb Richard
Gauthier:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello Albrecht,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> My electron model is built of a
single circulating spin-1/2 charged photon. It is not
built “by photons”. I know of no experimental evidence
that a photon is a composite particle as you claim.
Please cite any accepted experimental evidence that a
photon is a composite particle. Thanks.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Richard<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Jun 2, 2016, at 1:37 PM,
Albrecht Giese <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Hello
Richard,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Zero
evidence for a composite particle? I think that
the evidence for a composite particle model is
very obvious:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">-
The model explains the mass and the momentum of a
particle with NO new parameters, from the scratch<br>
- The model explains the magnetic moment of a
particle classically with no new parameters<br>
- The model explains the constancy of the spin
classically<br>
- The model explains the equation E = h*f
classically (was never deduced before)<br>
- The model explains the relativistic increase of
mass and the mass-energy relation E=m*c^2
independent of Einstein's space-time ideas.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">And
what is the evidence that the electron is NOT a
composite particle? Your electron model is built
by photons, where the photon is also a composite
particle. So, what?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">I
do not know any other particle models with this
ability. Do you? Such properties are taken as a
good evidence in physics. Or why do main stream
physics trust in the existence of an up-quark and
a down-quark? For both there was no direct
evidence in any experiment. The reason to accept
their existence is the fact that this assumption
makes some other facts understandable. - The model
of a composite particle is in no way weaker.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 31.05.2016 um 20:19
schrieb Richard Gauthier:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello Albrecht and all,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Since there is zero
experimental evidence that the electron is a
composite particle, I will no longer comment
on Albrecht's electron model, which postulates
as a principal feature that the electron is a
composite particle, unless new experimental
evidence is found that the electron is a
composite particle after all.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Galileo’s and Newton's
“law of inertia" is clearly an expression of
conservation of momentum of objects or
“bodies” in the absence of an imposed external
net force. It revolutionized mechanics because
Aristotle had taught otherwise. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> If a resting electron is
a circulating light-speed electrically charged
photon with circulating momentum Eo/c, then an
external force F on the electron equals the
additional rate of change of momentum dp/dt of
the circulating charged photon corresponding
to that external force: F=dp/dt , beyond the
constant rate of change of momentum of the
circulating charged photon. The ratio of this
applied force F (for example due to an applied
electric field) to the circulating charged
photon’s additional acceleration “a" is called
the electron's inertial mass and is defined by
F=ma or m=F/a . There is no separate
mass-stuff or inertia-stuff to be accelerated
in a particle. There is only the circulating
momentum Eo/c of the circling speed-of-light
particle with rest energy Eo , that is being
additionally accelerated by the applied force
F. Since the value m = Eo/c^2 of a resting
particle (derived from the rate of change of
the circulating momentum Eo/c as compared to
its centripetal acceleration) is the same
value in different reference frames, it is
called the particle’s invariant mass m, but
this invariant mass m is still derived from
the resting particle’s internally circulating
momentum Eo/c . If the electron is moving
relativistically at v < c, it has an
additional linear momentum p=gamma mv, which
when added vectorially to the transverse
circulating momentum Eo/c gives by the
Pythagorean theorem a total circulating vector
momentum P=gamma Eo/c = gamma mc=E/c where E
is the electron’s total energy E=gamma mc^2.
This is the origin of the electron’s
relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2 =
p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 which is just another way
to write the Pythagorean momentum vector
relationship above: P^2 = p^2 + (Eo/c)^2 .<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> In my understanding, the
Higgs field gives a non-zero invariant mass
(without being able to predict the magnitude
of that mass) to certain particles according
to the relativistic energy-momentum equation,
so that any particle moving at v < c in a
Higgs field has invariant mass m > 0. But
the inertia of that invariant mass m is not
explained by the action of the Higgs field, in
my understanding.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> To try to theoretically
explain why a photon has momentum p = hf/c and
energy E=hf is a separate topic beyond trying
to explain why a particle has inertial mass,
or resistance to acceleration by an applied
force.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Richard<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On May 30, 2016, at
1:04 PM, 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:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Hello
Richard,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">your
new paper has again a lot of nice
mathematics. However, it again does not
answer the question of inertia. As
earlier, you relate the inertial mass of
an electron to the mass of the circling
photon which builds in your
understanding the electron. Then the
mass and the momentum of the electron is
calculated from the mass and momentum of
the photon. <br>
<br>
Such calculation is of course possible
if one follows this picture of an
electron. However, it does not answer
the question of what the cause of
inertia and momentum of the photon is.
You take this as an 'a priory' fact. But
this is not our present state of
understanding. Physics are able to go
deeper. <br>
<br>
You write in your paper: "The fact is
that the inertial property of the mass
of elementary particles is not
understood". How can you write this?
Main stream physics have the Higgs model
which is assumed to describe the mass of
elementary particles. And I have
presented a model which uses the fact
that any extended object inevitably has
inertia. The reason is, as you know,
that the fields of the constituents of
an extended object propagate with the
finite speed of light. If the extension
of an elementary particle is taken from
its magnetic moment, this model provides
very precisely the mass, the momentum,
and a lot of other parameters and
properties of a particle. <br>
<br>
If you intend to explain the mass of an
electron by the mass of a photon, you
should have an appropriate explanation
of the mass and other parameters of a
photon. Otherwise I do not see any real
progress in the considerations of your
paper. <br>
<br>
Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br /> <table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<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-tick-round-orange_184x116-v1.png" height="29px" /></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px; 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>