<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p> I think your understanding of Einstein and his interpretation of
space is a very good topic and probably worth a paper effort I
would like to work with you on.</p>
<p>However as you know I believe your rotating particle explanation
is too speculative and perhaps more complicated than necessary, so
it is your knowledge and alternatives to Einstein that I believe
hits our Zeitgeist appropriately and can have an impact.<br>
</p>
<p>I'll be going to Vigier X and hope to see you there.</p>
<p>best</p>
<p>wolf<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/14/2016 11:59 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7c191bf4-1db5-e5d6-0ef3-a7079699e3bd@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p>Hi Chip,</p>
<p>is the vacuum empty? Until Einstein's relativity it was assumed
that the vacuum is filled by some kind of matter as a carrier of
light. After Einstein's break through in 1920 this assumption
was abandoned by all physicists who were willing to follow
Einstein. In the general understanding the vacuum was really
empty. Then, in the development of QM, Heisenberg's uncertainty
assumption had the consequence that also in the vacuum there are
virtual particles permanently generated and disappearing
immediately afterwards so that the energy-time relation is not
violated. <br>
</p>
<p>This is until these days the opinion of main stream physics.
The vacuum is filled by clouds of virtual particles, but not
with any stable matter. You may look in any text book or into
Wikipedia, you will find this. Here a reference see</p>
<p><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy</a></p>
<p>Very few physicists believe to my knowledge that there is a
medium which fills the space. <br>
<br>
My specific view is that I doubt that there are virtual
particles and so a vacuum polarization because the effects
attributed to this can be explained by classical means. And, as
we know, if the vacuum energy of the universe is summed up, the
result is in conflict with the observation by the huge factor of
10^120. - For my model I do not need anything in the space
(except the exchange particle which are assumed by QM). If there
should be something then it depends what it is to judge the
situation.<br>
</p>
<p>Einstein was always (from the beginning) aware of the fact that
an aether was not disproved by Michelson-Morley. He just found
it more elegant to have a theory without an invisible aether,
and for a positivist, what he was in his early years, a theory
should not have unobservable elements.</p>
<p>All the best<br>
Albrecht<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 10.06.2016 um 14:04 schrieb Chip
Akins:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:02d201d1c310$48a6f790$d9f4e6b0$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<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:"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:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* 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.EmailStyle33
{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">Years ago, just after Einstein’s Special
Relativity, but before General Relativity, Einstein wrote
that there was no need for a medium of space. However
Einstein himself reversed that opinion with the theory of
General relativity. After he published General Relativity he
said, “…the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict
with the special theory of relativity”. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Currently it is my understanding that
most physicists believe there is a medium of space and that
this medium has oscillations providing a very large
background energy density to space. It seems you are still
of the old opinion that space is empty. I think you will
find that most physicists no longer concur with that
premise. If you choose to believe that space is empty then I
understand why you must resort to your methods to try to
figure out the puzzle.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So you are starting with the assumption
that space is empty and I believe space to be a medium.
Therefore we will not agree on practically everything else.
So no need to continue the discussion. We each will
perceive the other to be blind to the obvious.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best to you<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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">
Albrecht Giese [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">mailto:genmail@a-giese.de</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, June 10, 2016 3:48 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Chip Akins <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"><chipakins@gmail.com></a>;
'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <a
moz-do-not-send="true" 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>following some comments to your mail from my view.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 08.06.2016 um 23:52 schrieb Chip
Akins:<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<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 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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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).
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My point is that using the wave
approach more of the puzzles are solved and there is less
“mystification” instead of more. <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">We don’t need the mystification of
imagining magical massless “particles”, etc.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Albrecht<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"><chipakins@gmail.com></a>;
'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
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>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"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></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>
<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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border:none;border-top:solid #D3D4DE 1.0pt"
border="1" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:41.25pt;border:none;padding:13.5pt
.75pt .75pt .75pt" width="55">
<p class="MsoNormal"><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"><span style="border:solid
windowtext
1.0pt;padding:0in;text-decoration:none"><img
id="_x0000_i1025"
src="cid:part13.5D72B280.4E8A7BFB@nascentinc.com"
alt="Image removed by sender." height="100"
border="0" width="100"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:12.75pt
.75pt .75pt .75pt" width="470">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:13.5pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#41424E">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"><span style="color:#4453EA">www.avast.com</span></a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<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-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
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>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>