<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Chandra,</p>
<p>the Lorentzian relativity, which is not geometry but physics,
seems meanwhile to be on a good way. There are positive
indications for its acceptance.</p>
<p>Domenico Giulini is one of the top researchers about relativity
in Germany. He holds an "excellence professorship" about this
topic. In an interview of a big German magazine in 2015 he said
about Lorentzian relativity that this way is also a working one,
equally well as the Einsteinian. But he personally still prefers
the way of Einstein as he finds it more elegant. And he finds
Einstein simpler (which is a big error. I had the occasion last
year to demonstrate him this by an example; he was very surprised
and did not object).</p>
<p>So, if elegance should be an essential physical criterion of
truth, then Einstein's way could still have a chance. But if
physical arguments should prevail at the end, then Einstein's time
(with respect to relativity) should be over in some future.</p>
<p>Albrecht</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 30.12.2016 um 18:40 schrieb
Roychoudhuri, Chandra:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BN6PR05MB323462D7E1FEAEF0F19A9A59936A0@BN6PR05MB3234.namprd05.prod.outlook.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;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
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;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.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;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1470896414;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1110792360 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></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">Albrecht, your remark is important: “We
have first to understand (and it is written in every text book
about relativity) that Einstein's relativity is pure geometry,
it is not physics.”<span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">Albrecht: I agree
and that is also the point, “pure geometry”. I rest my case
for this ongoing debate on SR.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"> Physics is
not about elegant mathematics or geometry. The key purpose
of physics is to understand and visualize the invisible
interaction processes going on in nature. The skills in
utilizing the nature-allowed processes in various
permutations and combinations to create new techniques and
technologies, have been behind the successful emergence of
the human as the top species today.
<b><i>Elegant geometry and mathematical constructs, by
themselves, will not save the human species from going
extinct if we blindly keep on following the same current
success tracks, both in science and in socio-economic
philosophy.</i></b> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">Further, let us
not ignore that in many undergraduate text books, SR is
still presented as one of the core foundation that is
holding the “Edifice of Physics” (meaning, thou shall not be
challenge this platform of thinking”)! This has to be turned
around.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">This collective
psychology of modern physicists (“messiah complex”) has to
be turned around toward
<b><i>perpetual critical enquiry</i></b> of the “working
theories”. Because, “working theories” have already captured
some ontological realities of nature; so they must be
leveraged, through deeper enquiry, to extract even deeper
ontological realities. I am trying to initiate such an
approach through OSA. Further, before the end of 2017, I
will write a full paper accommodating and explaining some of
the key PHYSICAL PROCESS known to be related to SR, but as
old fashioned classical physics.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">Chandra. <o:p>
</o:p></span></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 class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b>On
Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, December 29, 2016 11:33 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> 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] Our forum in the absence
of our SPIE conference.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><i>Chandra</i>,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>you have again made some statements about SRT. And I feel
that I should comment that.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I fully agree with you regarding what you say about the
"running time". Also about "space-time" and about the
necessity of a kind of an inertial frame. But in the other
hand one cannot deny that for instance clocks are running more
slowly when in motion. So, what about SRT in general?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>In my view there is a solution for this which reflects your
concern. We have first to understand (and it is written in
every text book about relativity) that Einstein's relativity
is pure geometry, it is not physics. But the relativistic
phenomena can in fact be based on physics. That was done for
instance by Lorentz prior to Einstein's first publication.
Oliver Heaviside in 1888 derived from Maxwell's theory that
fields contract at motion. And also Lorentz and Larmor found
out - before Einstein's paper - that there must be a permanent
motion in elementary particles to explain dilation. All this
is real physics, not geometry. Further Einstein's famous
relation E = mc<sup>2</sup> was found by others before
Einstein and before Einstein declared relativity. For instance
by Thomson and Wien (where the result was a bit different but
the connection of both notions was seen).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Perhaps you remember it (or you have missed it): In all my
talks in Mexico and in San Diego I have recommended to use
Lorentz' relativity rather than the one of Einstein. And I
have also undertaken to develop General Relativity following
the concept of Lorentz in order to understand it at a task in
physics, not in geometry. That explains gravity without any
space-time curvature; it is in that view a weak side effect of
the strong force. It is much simpler than the view of
Einstein, because no need for four-dimensionality and
Riemannian geometry. It explains dark matter quantitatively
(for an example which I have calculated), and it has no need
for dark energy.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>The other point: Your idea to maintain the discussion forum
may be a usable replacement of the meeting, also the use of
the forum of Physics Essays. But it may have the risk that
this discussion will slowly come to an end. A meeting is a
higher challenge for all who contribute and who attend, so it
keeps all active. But if meetings are not possible any more,
this will be better than to give up.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><i>Richard</i>: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>You know my opinion regarding your way of explaining inertia.
In my view that explanations are tautological statements, as
you explain the mass of an electron by the mass of its
constituents. Or you explain the mass of an object by its
momentum, where momentum is essentially the same as inertia,
just in a different context. - In contrast to that the
mechanism that two objects bound to each other at a distance
have inevitably inertia does not need any other assumptions or
preconditions than the existence of a binding field and the
existence of c.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Sincerely<br>
Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 26.12.2016 um 22:24 schrieb
Roychoudhuri, Chandra:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Good
thinking, Richard!</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> I
like your approach, especially that the derivation does
not need SR.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I have
expressed in many of my earlier publications, my book,
“Causal Physics” and many comments in this forum that SR
does not represent good Physics.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> To
me, the first criterion of a good physics theory is that
it must guide us to understand and visualize the invisible
interaction processes going on nature. In theorizing such
interaction processes, the “primary” parameters must
relate to the inherent behavior-representing property of
the object whose interaction process is being modeled. The
interaction process is guided by nature’s rule (logic)
that allows the entity to exist and/or interact with other
cosmic entities (large or small). Our perceptible and
observable universe is elusive but is not an illusion.
This is because we can never measure (acquire) complete
information about anything with all the necessary details.
We are always “information starved”. So, we must not also
describe the universe as “It from bit”. Interaction
between “bits” generate data; which human minds interprets
as information. Subjective interpretations of data by
human minds as information, cannot be the ontological
foundation of the universe. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> The
running time “t” is not a parameter of any object in this
universe. Everything in this universe is oscillatory from
very short to very long periods. We measure the frequency
of an oscillator (primary parameter) and then invert it to
generate a new secondary parameter, “Delta-t”. While we do
need the running time “t” as a mathematical parameter; it
is not a physical parameter and hence the assertion that
“space-time” is the new physical order of the universe,
will only divert us away from fathoming nature’s
ontological reality.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> There
are many other reasons that SR is not a physical theory.
For example, there are no physical inertial frame in this
universe that can be used to validate SR postulates. All
planetary platforms are undergoing accelerated motion in
closed loop orbits! </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> However,
I have postulated that the space itself is the stationary
inertial frame of reference filled with Complex Tension
Field (CTF), which allows ITS linear excitation to
perpetually propagate as EM waves; and ITS phase-resonant
self-looped high-energy oscillations are the particles we
experience. Their inertial properties have been modeled by
us as “Mass”. But there are no “Mass” in this universe in
the Newtonian sense of “matter”. Only energy exists in
motion (as EM waves and particles) or in quiescent form
(as the prime CTF). And 100% of the energy is contained by
the CTF. No need to postulate separate Dark Energy and
Dark Matter. There are no exchange particles to facilitate
various forces. “Forces” are the physically extended
potential gradients generated in the CTF due to the
complex physical motions of the CTF, which represent
various particles. To develop a unified field theory, we
need a single field that is capable of generating
everything. The necessary postulates for unified field
theory cannot be generated while accepting the primacy of
the existing but self-contradictory, postulates behind the
existing “working” theories.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Happy New
Year!</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I am sorry
that I failed to re-instate our out-of-box SPIE San Diego
Conference, in spite of a lot of quiet appeals.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">1.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt">This Forum:</span></i></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"> We will maintain this discussion
forum.</span>
<span style="font-size:11.0pt">Although, in future, I am
thinking of splitting it up into several parallel
discussions on well-identified problem. I am open to
suggestions from all of you. [As before, the discussion
forums do not need to be based upon the unified field, CTF
only.]</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">2.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt">Physics Essays:</span></i></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"> You could also utilize the forum
of Physics Essays. This out-of-box concept-promoting
journal has been running for over 25 years. It has page
charge. But, then you can re-post it anywhere in the web
after publication. The page-charge is much less than
attending the conference. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Sincerely,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chandra.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><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">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b>On
Behalf Of </b>Richard Gauthier<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, December 26, 2016 3:05 PM<br>
<b>To:</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>;
Mark, Martin van der <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">
<martin.van.der.mark@philips.com></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] nature of light
particles & theories</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello all,<br>
Yes, happy holidays and happy new year to all.<br>
<br>
Here's what I just added to a discussion on Inertia and
Momentum at <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/momentum-vs-inertia.854092/page-2">https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/momentum-vs-inertia.854092/page-2</a> .
It is I think relevant to all who have
circling-photon-like-object models of the electron and other
particles.<br>
<br>
What if a fundamental particle like a resting electron is
composed of a circling photon-like object with energy Eo and
vector momentum p = Eo/c where c is the speed of light? If
we start with Newton's second law of motion F = dp/dt = MA
where dp/dt is the time rate of change of the circling
vector momentum p = Eo/c, M is the inertial mass of the
circling photon-like object, and A is the centripetal
acceleration c^2/R of the circling photon-like object (where
R is the radius of its circle), we find with very easy math
(and using the circling vector relation dp/dt = pc/R) that
the inertial mass M = (dp/dt)/A = (pc/R)/(c^2/R) = p/c =
(Eo/c)/c = Eo/c^2. That is, the inertial mass M of an
electron (if it is composed of a circling photon-like
object) is derived from the circling photon-like object's
energy Eo and its circling vector momentum Eo/c to be M =
Eo/c^2 or Eo = Mc^2 , which is Einstein's equation for the
energy content Eo of a resting electron of inertial mass M. <br>
<br>
This result is published at <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.academia.edu/29799123/Inertia_Explained">https://www.academia.edu/29799123/Inertia_Explained</a> .
This derivation of the relation of the energy content of a
resting fundamental particle to its inertial mass is done
without using Einstein's special theory of relativity. Note:
Einstein's 1905 article in which he first derived m = E/c^2
or E = mc^2 for a resting object by using his special
theory of relativity is titled "Does the inertia of a body
depend on its energy-content?”<br>
<br>
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 Dec 15, 2016, at 2:07 AM,
Burinskii A.Ya. <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bur@ibrae.ac.ru">bur@ibrae.ac.ru</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear John,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Thank you very much for very good explanations and
reference to good review.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I wish also to you and all colleagues Merry
Christmas and Happy New Year,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Alex<br>
<br>
________________________________<br>
От: Dr Grahame Blackwell [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">grahame@starweave.com</a>]<br>
Отправлено: 14 декабря 2016 г. 12:48<br>
Кому: Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion<br>
Копия: Stephen Leary; Vera Biryukova; Darren
Eggenschwiler; Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Pete
Delaney; Innes Morrison; Alexander Afriat; Phil
Butler; Michael Wright; Ariane Mandray; Solomon
Freer; Manohar .; Mike Mobley; Niels Gresnigt; Mark,
Martin van der; AmancioHasty<br>
Тема: Re: [General] nature of light particles &
theories<br>
<br>
Hi John,<br>
<br>
Many thanks indeed for this very thorough round-up
of the 'evidence' on quarks.<br>
Very much appreciated.<br>
<br>
Wishing all colleagues a great Christmas and an
excellent New Year.<br>
Grahame<br>
----- Original Message -----<br>
From: John Williamson<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk">mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>><br>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>
Cc: Stephen Leary<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:sleary@vavi.co.uk">mailto:sleary@vavi.co.uk</a>>
; Darren Eggenschwiler<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:darren@makemeafilm.com">mailto:darren@makemeafilm.com</a>>
; Nick Bailey<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nick@bailey-family.org.uk">mailto:nick@bailey-family.org.uk</a>>
; Anthony Booth<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:abooth@ieee.org">mailto:abooth@ieee.org</a>>
; Pete Delaney<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:piet.delaney.2@gmail.com">mailto:piet.delaney.2@gmail.com</a>>
; Innes Morrison<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:innes.morrison@cocoon.life">mailto:innes.morrison@cocoon.life</a>>
; Alexander Afriat<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:afriat@gmail.com">mailto:afriat@gmail.com</a>>
; Phil Butler<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:phil.butler@canterbury.ac.nz">mailto:phil.butler@canterbury.ac.nz</a>>
; Michael Wright<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mpbw1879@yahoo.co.uk">mailto:mpbw1879@yahoo.co.uk</a>>
; Ariane Mandray<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr">mailto:ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr</a>>
; Solomon Freer<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:slf@unsw.edu.au">mailto:slf@unsw.edu.au</a>>
; Manohar .<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:manohar_berlin@hotmail.com">mailto:manohar_berlin@hotmail.com</a>>
; Vera Biryukova<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:biriukovavera@gmail.com">mailto:biriukovavera@gmail.com</a>>
; Mike Mobley<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Mike.Mobley@gcu.edu">mailto:Mike.Mobley@gcu.edu</a>>
; Niels Gresnigt<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Niels.Gresnigt@xjtlu.edu.cn">mailto:Niels.Gresnigt@xjtlu.edu.cn</a>>
; Mark,Martin van der<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a>>
; AmancioHasty<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ahasty@gmail.com">mailto:ahasty@gmail.com</a>><br>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2016 4:13 AM<br>
Subject: Re: [General] nature of light particles
& theories<br>
<br>
Hi everyone,<br>
<br>
Have been meaning to explain a bit more about the
proton internal structure for some time in answer to
an earlier question from John D about the evidence
for quarks inside the proton. I did reference the
literature, but this is hard to understand if you
are not in the field and the field anyway tries to
hide the pure truth with a lot of dense and
well-established undergrowth. I had not got round
to this earlier due to two things: pressure of other
work and the fact that I forgot to note the source
for a useful chapter I found on the internet. Just
tracked it down and it is at:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys741/xji/chapter4.pdf">https://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys741/xji/chapter4.pdf</a><br>
<br>
Did not want to send you my copy of it without
crediting the source.<br>
<br>
Anyway,the main thing I wanted to do was cut the
through some of the jargon and help explain what the
proton structure functions (in fig 4.6 in the above)
mean. This is the essence of what is known
experimentally about the internal structure of the
proton – and contains the main evidence for the
quark-parton model. The quark-parton model is the
association of hard bits in the proton, the partons,
with the pattern of existing particles explained by
Gell-Mann’s quark model. This also helps to explain
some things about Richard’s question in the recent
email – hence the choice to spend time on this in
the early hours of this morning.<br>
<br>
Now I’m not going to explain this in detail – the
chapter referenced above does a better job of this –
but I want to cut the experiment a bit free from the
embedded story of the QCD quark-gluon etc etc model
(and it is just a model remember) and explain what
the EXPERIMENT tells you.<br>
<br>
The experiment gives the structure functions in
terms of two variables Qsquared and x. Briefly,
Qsquared is the measured 4-momentum transfer squared
of the interaction in GeV squared. How hard you hit
it (squared). To give you an idea of the scale of
the hit – 100GeV squared is roughly ten times the
mass-energy of the proton itself. And so the data
extends out to about a 100 protons worth of “hit”.
That is hard!<br>
<br>
Now x is a more interesting variable. It is the
measured fraction of the proton’s 4-momentum carried
by whatever you hit. Thinking of the proton in its
rest-frame – this is just its rest mass. So x tells
you how much of the proton mass was carried by
whatever you hit. x is 1 and you got the whole
proton. This is what you would always measure if you
hit a simple object like the electron. The electron
is a single object and it carries all of its mass
localized to the electron. This is how you know. The
proton is not like that. At the quark-parton models
simplest, with no forces and no confinement one
thinks of it as three quarks. If each of these
carried a third of the proton mass one would have
data at only x = 0.33. Note that there is not even
any structure there.<br>
<br>
What one actually sees is completely different to
this, or to any three-hard-bits-in-a-bag model. In
the vast majority of collisions the effective “mass”
of whatever you hit was very very low. Look at the
scale for F2. It goes over 12 orders of magnitude.
One is hundreds of millions times more likely to hit
a “quark-parton” with a practically zero x of
0.000063 than one with a (simple model) x of 0.3
ish. Now precisely zero x would be hitting a
rest-massless (photon-like) object, one third x
would be simple rest-massive quarks in a massless
bag with binding energy (gluons if you like) of the
same order as the mass. A sixth x would be 3 equal
mass quarks with some confinement at the same kind
of energy as the quark mass-energy. You get nothing
like this. What you get is gloop. There is almost no
discernable structure at all.<br>
<br>
So why do people think there are hard bits in the
proton. The evidence for this comes from scaling – a
flat distribution with Q squared then. This IS
evidenced by the curves in the middle of the figure.
At x = 0.08 it is pretty flat. Think about it. If
the proton contained hard billiard-ball like bits,
how likely you were to hit them with another flung
billiard ball does not depend on how hard you fling
it, but on the “impact parameter”. This is what is
characteristic of single-hard-object scattering.<br>
<br>
Note that this simple scaling does not apply at low
x, where the data shows that it becomes rapidly more
likely to find a photon-like object as one hits it
harder, and at high x where it becomes rapidly less
likely to hit a high-mass constituent. Explain that
in a model of a bag of bits. You should resolve the
hard bits better, instead it seems they break. Not
very hard then. Ok, you are walloping them with a
4-momentum squared many times their mass squared,
but one is doing this at lower x as well. The other
thing is that, if you integrate over all the bits
you hit in deep inelastic proton scattering, you
only get about half the proton mass. The rest is
something else, something unhittable with charges
and photons. This is the meaning of equation 4.77.
This is interpreted as arising from the binding.
Could well be, but whatever they are binding is
mostly, experimentally, a whole pile of really low
mass bits (if bits indeed) – more and more of it as
one looks harder and harder. Remember, to make up
the proton mass there must be (at least) hundreds of
millions of them. Hundreds of millions is not 3. One
talks about “valence quarks and sea quarks, but this
is mostly bullshit. One sees what one sees, not what
one would like to see. Also the number in eq. 4.77
is so near 50 percent I favour something much more
radical and far simpler. That will eventually become
another paper. Quarks, why there are three and what
they really are is what comes next.<br>
<br>
If you want to see how bad it gets for the standard
model (and why I left particle physics) the bullshit
about the standard model picture gets (much!) worse
in the next section about the “proton spin crisis”
so read on if you dare …<br>
<br>
I’m not quite up to speed with who is or is not on
the general maiing list, so some of you may get this
twice – apologies!<br>
<br>
Thats it for now.<br>
<br>
Cheers, John.<br>
________________________________<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
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"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br>
<a href="<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>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" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center">
<hr style="color:#909090" align="center" noshade="noshade"
size="2" width="99%">
</div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse"
border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 11.25pt 0in 6.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"><span
style="border:solid windowtext
1.0pt;padding:0in;text-decoration:none"><img
style="width:1.0416in;height:1.0416in"
id="_x0000_i1026"
src="cid:part32.6D77F461.291562D0@a-giese.de"
alt="Image removed by sender. Avast logo"
height="100" border="0" width="100"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#3D4D5A">Diese
E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren
geprüft.
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></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/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; 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>