<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Dear Andrew,</p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">thank you for your
response. </font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">The development of my
model was in my understanding a compelling step by step
development. Comprising the following steps:</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">o If one understands
Special Relativity not as a mathematically abstract system for
time and space, but rather as a physical phenomenon, which means
to follow Lorentz and Poincaré instead Einstein, then
relativistic dilation is explained by the internal oscillation
of particles with c. (This was later re-detected by Dirac /
Schrödinger as Zitterbewegung.)</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">o If now there is an
internal oscillation / motion at c in particles, then the
constituents moving this way must be mass-less - otherwise c is
not possible</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">o This conforms BTW
also with mainstream physics which says since many decades that
mass is not a fundamental property but an additional function
for particles</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">o If there is an
oscillation then there must be at least two constituents.
Otherwise the conservation of momentum, which in my
understanding is the most fundamental law in all physics, would
be violated</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">o This oscillation in
a particle has to be a circular one in order to explain spin and
magnetic moment.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Now the open question
would be what the cause of inertia is. Mainstream says that this
is given by the Higgs model. But that model is not complete and
the Higgs field does in fact not exist. My model on the other
side explains inertia by the very fundamental fact that every
extended object necessarily has inertial behaviour. This is
caused by the finiteness of the speed of light by which the
binding fields propagate. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">These are the
fundamental aspects of my model. I do not see much play to make
different choices. Or would do you think?</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Further answers in the
text below:</font></p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 18.09.2017 um 01:49 schrieb Andrew
Meulenberg:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAOODe7G82Tk+P2CPRNP9APTOLJO6rrcuoH2+-UOpooAwEM2kfw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Dear Albrecht,<br>
<br>
</div>
comments below<br>
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 6:15 AM,
Albrecht Giese <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Dear Andrew, dear Richard, and dear All,</p>
<p>I think that the cause of all problems regarding
the electron is caused by the assumption given by
Hestenes in his paper:<br>
</p>
<p>"High energy scattering experiments limit the
size of the electron to less that 10<sup>−16</sup>
cm, ... which rules out models of the electron as
an extended body."</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>I also disagree with this statement. This is one of
the items that I feel can be corrected in his model.
So it is necessary to examine his assumptions (and
those of the electron accelerator groups) and his
(their) logic. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Hestenes simply refers to the statements of experimenters who are
saying this. And he simply relies on them. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAOODe7G82Tk+P2CPRNP9APTOLJO6rrcuoH2+-UOpooAwEM2kfw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>This assumption causes a blocking of an
understanding of the electron (and other
particles).<br>
</p>
<p>I have discussed this assumption with professors
of the DESY accelerator in Hamburg, where such
experiments have been performed very extensively.
One of them was the research director at that
accelerator. The conclusions from these
discussions resulted in the following:<br>
</p>
<p>At first the result that the size of the electron
is that small. If we look at those experiments,
then the result is in fact the size of the <i>electric
charge </i>in the electron. And now we have to
see that the usual assumption that the electron is
built up by the electric charge only is a possible
one, but not the only possible one.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>I agree that, in energetic scattering experiments,
the electric charge may be diminished either in size
or magnitude, or both. This may compensate for the
relativistic effects of potentials that can greatly
increase (by ~2 orders of magnitude) the interaction
forces. However, I believe that charge and mass are
directly connected (and I now think that spin is tied
into that connection) and Hestenes work may be able to
help us derive this effect. Of course, we also have to
examine the assumptions of the scattering analysis and
the relativistic near-field effects.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Why so complicated? Why can we not assume that an electric charge
has an "atomic" shape, so it is in fact point-like. And this is a
clear result of the scattering experiments that the size of this
elementary charge is < 10<sup>-18</sup> m. <br>
Then no assumptions about any relativistic behaviour of a charge are
necessary. - And if we follow the relativity of Lorentz and
Poincaré, then relativity starts with particles as entire units, not
with their constituents. <br>
<br>
And mass is not an elementary process in physics as written above.
That is not the understanding of present physics and not reasonable
also in my view. - Further on, spin is in this model the simple
classical process of angular momentum. Also the magnetic moment can
be calculated on a purely classical way.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAOODe7G82Tk+P2CPRNP9APTOLJO6rrcuoH2+-UOpooAwEM2kfw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>The other result of these experiments was that it
was not possible to break up the electron by the
bombardment with other particles of a sufficiently
high energy. So it was concluded that the electron
is not built by any constituents. - But this
latter conclusion is only true if it is assumed
that the constituents do have individual masses.
If we however assume that the constituents are
mass-less then such an electron can never be
decomposed by bombardment. Because if one
constituent is accelerated at any huge
acceleration, the other one can follow this
acceleration without any restriction. So, no
breakup can happen.<br>
</p>
<p>Here now can my model serve as an explanation. In
my model the electron (like any other elementary
particle) is built by two constituents which do
not have any mass at all. The particle as a whole
has an inertial behaviour, but that is a dynamical
process which I have repeatedly described here and
at our meetings. It is also described on my
website with the title "Origin of Mass". (This
site has top ranking in the internet for this
title continuously since 15 years, so there exists
a lot of response).</p>
<p>If this model is used, we can explain the
properties of e.g. the electron like the inertial
mass, the magnetic moment, the constancy the spin,
the zitter frequency <i>with high precision </i>and
without the need for quantum mechanical
considerations. No free parameters are needed. The
parameters used in the model are merely the speed
of light c, Planck's constant h, the elementary
charge e<sub>0</sub>, and as a type dependent
variable the size of the particle (which is of
course much greater than the one cited also by
Hestenes). So I am asking again: what else is
needed? Or what are objections against this model?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>I'll have to reread your paper to make specific
comments. From a quick refresher, I find some very
useful developments and some weaknesses. I don't like
the use of paired identical particles. On the other
hand, if these can be distortions of, or oscillations
in, space and time, I would be much happier. While
your assumption of massless charge pairs is not very
illuminating, my assumption that spin is a result of
physical motion about a time axis may not be much
better. Nevertheless, both provide a basis for
physical observables and for the testing of physical
models.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
We should not refer to any considerations regarding space an time.
This is not real physics. There is no means to measure space
physically, space is just a mathematical concept, so no real
physics. And also time cannot be measured directly. What we do
measure is in fact oscillations, not time.<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAOODe7G82Tk+P2CPRNP9APTOLJO6rrcuoH2+-UOpooAwEM2kfw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best regards,<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Andrew<br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Best regards<br>
Albrecht<br>
</p>
<div>
<div class="m_6034641129745152495h5"> <br>
<div
class="m_6034641129745152495m_-3786212815325519655moz-cite-prefix">Am
15.09.2017 um 16:09 schrieb Richard Gauthier:<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div class="m_6034641129745152495h5">
<div>Hi Andrew and all,</div>
<div> I’m familiar with Hestene’s zitter
model of the electron, though I don’t follow
his Clifford spacetime algebra that he used
to derive it from the Dirac equation.
Hestenes doesn’t call his
helically-circulating (with helical radius
hbar/2mc = Lambda-compton/4pi) light-speed
charged-particle zitter electron model a
spin-1/2 charged photon, but it sounds like
it could be one to me. Dirac said in his
Nobel lecture: </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<p><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Cambria">“It
is found that an electron which seems to
us to be moving slowly, must actually
have a very high frequency oscillatory
motion of small amplitude superposed on
the regular motion which appears to us.
As a result of this oscillatory motion,
the velocity of the electron at any time
equals the velocity of light. This is a
prediction which cannot be directly
verified by experiment, since the
frequency of the oscillatory motion is
so high and its amplitude is so small.
But one must believe in this consequence
of the theory, since other consequences
of the theory which are inseparably
bound up with this one, such as the law
of scattering of light by an electron,
are confirmed by experiment.” </span><font
size="3" face="Cambria"><a
href="https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1933/dirac-lecture.pdf"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.nobel<wbr>prize.org/nobel_prizes/physics<wbr>/laureates/1933/dirac-lecture.<wbr>pdf</a> ,
p322.</font><span
style="font-family:Cambria;font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div> Dirac's electron description also seems
consistent with the idea that the electron
is a spin-1/2 charged photon. </div>
<div> Richard</div>
<br>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On Sep 14, 2017, at 8:57 PM, Andrew
Meulenberg <<a
href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">mules333@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br
class="m_6034641129745152495m_-3786212815325519655Apple-interchange-newline">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Dear Richard,<br>
<br>
</div>
I noticed that you are following
Hestenes on researchgate. Have you
read his <br>
<h3><a
href="http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf/ZBWinQM15**.pdf"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Zitterbewegung
in Quantum Mechanics <font
size="2"><span
style="font-weight:normal"><br>
D. Hestenes, published in:
Foundations of Physics, Vol.
40, 1-54 (2010); (also
available at</span></font></a><font
size="2"> </font><span
style="font-weight:normal"><a
href="http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/html/GAinQM.html"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/ht<wbr>ml/GAinQM.html</a>)</span></h3>
<p>If so, I think there are some
important points, which we could
discuss, that pertain to both
photons and electrons. For example,
below eq 44:</p>
<p style="margin-left:40px"><span
class="m_6034641129745152495m_-3786212815325519655gmail-fontstyle2">"<b>S</b>
</span><span
class="m_6034641129745152495m_-3786212815325519655gmail-fontstyle0">cannot
be a timelike bivector, though it
can be null</span> "</p>
<p>and</p>
<p style="margin-left:40px">"<span
class="m_6034641129745152495m_-3786212815325519655gmail-fontstyle0">for
a lightlike particle<i> [a photon]</i>
the spin must be a lightlike
bivector.</span>"</p>
<p>He doesn't come out and say that
electron spin is a spacelike
bivector; but, he should. (Perhaps
he has done so in another paper?) <br>
</p>
<p>Once it is recognized that spin is
a rotation about a time axis (for
all but photons), rather than a
space axis, many of the QM problems
associated with electrons and their
interactions are reduced or
eliminated.</p>
<p>Andrew M.<br>
</p>
<p><br
style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
</p>
</div>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive
communication from the Nature of Light
and Particles General Discussion List at
<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br>
<a href="<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.natureoflig<wbr>htandparticles.org/options.<wbr>cgi/general-natureoflightandpa<wbr>rticles.org/richgauthier%<wbr>40gmail.com?unsub=1&<wbr>unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset
class="m_6034641129745152495m_-3786212815325519655mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="m_6034641129745152495m_-3786212815325519655moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="m_6034641129745152495m_-3786212815325519655moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflig<wbr>htandparticles.org/options.<wbr>cgi/general-natureoflightandpa<wbr>rticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?<wbr>unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div
id="m_6034641129745152495m_-3786212815325519655DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top:1px solid #d3d4de">
<tbody>
<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" moz-do-not-send="true"><img
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
alt="" style="width:46px;height:29px"
moz-do-not-send="true" height="29"
width="46"></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"
style="color:#4453ea" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a
href="#m_6034641129745152495_m_-3786212815325519655_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"
width="1" height="1" moz-do-not-send="true"> </a></div>
</div>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from
the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion
List at <a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">mules333@gmail.com</a><br>
<a href="<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.natureoflig<wbr>htandparticles.org/options.<wbr>cgi/general-natureoflightandpa<wbr>rticles.org/mules333%40gmail.<wbr>com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" 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>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>