<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<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 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=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:"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 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 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"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></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"
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</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"
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"
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:part9.BB0F253C.5C970150@a-giese.de"
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;">
<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>