<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>so, let's start to work out our understanding and knowledge of
space (and maybe of time).</p>
<p>It is again surprising for me that you find my particle model
speculative and complicated. I believe the opposite. Why?</p>
<p>An elementary particle must be rotating. That is required by</p>
<p>- SR (dilation)<br>
- the fact of an angular momentum (which is otherwise not
explained)<br>
- the fact of a magnetic moment (which also is otherwise not
explained).</p>
<p>Both, angular momentum (spin) and magnetic moment also require
that the particle has an extension. Otherwise both properties
cannot exist. (And further the extension is a very simple and
inevitable explanation for inertia. That is a benefit on top.)</p>
<p>So, why speculative? <br>
</p>
<p>The other explanations presented here in our group which say that
elementary particles are built by photons which anyway have
angular momentum and inertia and which do not need an explanation
for it is just a transfer of the questions to another object. Does
this help the physical understanding? Not in my view.<br>
</p>
<p>Best<br>
Albrecht</p>
<p>PS: See you at Vigier X.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 14.06.2016 um 21:26 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:4534fcc0-6221-f125-36d8-c7a4df96364d@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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"><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"
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:part14.16D9DF1A.9827BCAD@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;">
<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"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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>
</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>