What is the origin of mass and the progress in physics?

[elas]

Surely you should not be argueing over the things Einstein got right, but over the things he got wrong.

Relativity does not give a correct explanation of the observed rotatation of stars around the galatic centre. Neither (according to Enc. Brit.) does it give an acceptable explanation of the transmission of light between galaxies (see: Enc. Brit. Unsolved problems of physics).

 

[Albrecht]

Originally quoted by Ambitwistor
If two interpretations lead to the same physics, then it is a philosophical opinion which interpretation one likes -- it is not a matter of physics.

The slowing down of clocks etc. is the consequence of the internal rotation of elementary particles, which is a fact. The assumption that "time" itself slows down is a statement, nothing more.

When Copernikus stated the helio-centric view of the planetary system, the next question was: why do the planets orbit the sun? The answer of Rene Descartes was: It is a fundamental law in this world that everything has the tendency to orbit. In contrast to him Newton did have a law of motion and a theory of gravity. - Wasn't the latter the real physics?

Einstein told us that the time is slowing down with motion as a fundamental law of physics. This is very similar to Descartes. Main stream physics is still lacking the correspondence to the step of Newton.

You have no field equation which predicts, given a particular source configuration, what the speed of light as a function of position will be.

The field equations descibe how the speed of light is reduced. Not why. The answer to the "WHY" would be physics.

Einstein's version of relativity explains particle physics quite well, in the form of quantum field theory.

So, why do we not know what the origin of mass is? Why do we deal with odd thoughts like the Higgs fields? Even if the Higgs theory would be true, it is not able to tell what the mass of e.g. the electron is?

So we know very little about this. Einstein founded relativity ca. 100 years ago. He died ca. 50 years ago. He did not know these problem and could have not answers to it.

Newton. Einstein.

Lets begin with Newton. In his equation F = G * m*M/r^2 Newton had to assume that m is the inertial mass of an object and works as well for gravity. This assumption is the assumption of the equivalence principle.

How can mass cause a gravitational acceleration? Elementary particles have, according to the standard model, no mass by it's own. Mass is a dynamic process within the particle which is dominated by the strong force, in a certain configuration of it`s constituents. Why does the strong interaction cause a gravitational acceleration just in a specific configuration? Who anwers this? Or, to speak with Einstein, why should this specific configuration cause the space to get curved? Ever heard an answer??

Originally prosted by elas
Surely you should not be argueing over the things Einstein got right, but over the things he got wrong.

We have too many open questions. My textbooks say that Einstein's gravity is in conflict with particle physics (QM). No one knows the origin of mass. (There I have in fact a theory, in contrast to main stream physics, which works quantitatively correct
http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass )
There is in fact still to do a lot in physics.

It does, if you accept the existence of dark matter

Dark matter is real guesswork. It shows a bit how helpless present astronomy is when they attempt to explain the expansion of the universe.

 

[elas]

You do not have an explanation of "why" the speed of light is reduced, and you don't even have an equation that will predict, in general, how it is reduced.

The speed of light is directly related to field elasticity.

So, why do we not know what the origin of mass is?

Mass originates from the reduction of the vacuum force. the rest energy of the mass and the vacuum force at a given point is always equal to the same quantity, (constant).

Why do we deal with odd thoughts like the Higgs fields?

Because no one applied the Law of Economy to Quantum Physics.

How can mass cause a gravitational acceleration?

It does not. Gravitational acceleration is caused by the vacuum force.

We need to be able to predict the orbits of bodies

Of course we do and if you read the reports on the rotation of galaxies you will know that this is where GR fails completely. The outer stars are orbiting 5 to 6 times faster than GR predicts, and should (according to GR) be flying off out into space.
GR also fails to predict the observed gravitational relationship between galaxies within a group of galaxies. Add to this its failure to predict the observed universal expansion and tell me please, what is left of GR?

 

[spacetravel101]

If I remeber correctly, the rotation of the outer stars is directly a function of the super massive black holes at the center of every galaxy.

 

[elas]

If I remeber correctly, the rotation of the outer stars is directly a function of the super massive black holes at the center of every galaxy.

A Black Hole is just another vacuum field where the density of the force carrier is high due to a high vacuum force. You can get some idea of how this works from my explanation of atomic structure; simply repeat the process on a larger scale.
This is the beauty of of the Vacuum Model in that every structure from quark to black hole can be seen to be a repitition of a single structural building process, nature simply repeats itself in different volumes and densities in order to produce the variety we observe (and are part of).
Given that vacuum is a negative quantity and the force potential of the mass has a positive quantity then at any given point

Vacuum force plus latent energy force equals zero

This applies to all fields regardless of changes in volume and density.

If you then look at my explanation of movement you can see that the greater the density of the force carrier the greater the drag it applies to movement of the vacuum field. Given that photons pass through vacuum fields of other particles (including gravitons) then one can understand how the speed of light is controlled by nature.

An imbalance in the number of particles in two or more adjacent groups creates an imbalance in the vacuum fields, given rise to so-called magnetic action, in reality there is no separate magnetic force it is a variation of vacuum force.

This concept of a vacuum theory does not invalidate current theory, it changes the way current theory is explained, thereby allowing the question of how and why to be answered.
So far it seems to be the relativity groups who are trying to develope a vacuum theory to replace the unsatisfactory relativity theory. But particle and quantum physics groups need to wake up to the fact that if we want a T.O.E. then vacuum theory is the simplest way forward. Black Hole and String theories are an unwarrented distraction. Particle and quantum physicists already have all the data needed to build a vacuum theory, relativity groups do not.

 

[Albrecht]

Originally quoted by Ambitwistor
(What is the "internal rotation of elementary particles", anyway? Intrinsic spin?) Time dilation is empirically independent of any known property of particles.
...
When all physical processes are observed to take place more slowly, that is the definition of "time slowing down".

From the Dirac equation it follows that the electron performs an internal oscillation with c. (This causes the spin and the magnetic moment of it). From the dependency of the gyromagnetic relation from the mass of an elementary particle, it can be concluded that this fact, the internal oscillation with c, is universal for all elementary particles.

If now a particle is moved then the oscillation frequency has to slow down to keep the oscillation velocity at c in relation to the observer or to the frame at rest. This follows simple from the theorem of Pythagoras which leads directly to the Lorentz factor. You find the calculation in detail in my website http://www.ag-physics.org/rtime

All objects are built by elementary particles. That makes this behaviour universal. In such situations it happens easily that humans take it as a universal property of nature. But making physics should mean to find the details.

A similar phenomenon is the equivalence of mass and energy. Both are different physical parameters. As another consequence of the similar structure of all elementary particles our measurement show this equivalence. But we loose information if we mix both parameters.

Newton merely gave a more precise statement of a body's tendency to orbit; he didn't specify a mechanism any more than Descartes did.

The following happened in sequence:
1. Copernicus detected that the planets orbit the sun (only the fact, nothing more)
2. Kepler gave us a kinematic law which described the relation between radius, angular velocity and period of their motion
3. Newton presented a dynamic law from which 2. can be derived.

This is the normal step-wise development of physical understanding.

Regarding GR we are somewhere between step 1 and step 2.
Step 3 is still completely open.

You are confused. The strong interaction does not dictate mass or gravitational acceleration. The Higgs mechanism dicates mass, and a theory of gravity dictates the resulting gravitational field of that mass.

I have shown (on my web site) that the inertial mass results from the strong interaction and the internal structure of an elementary particle. According to this, the mass depends on the size of a particle. I applied this to the electron: From it's magnetic moment the radius of the electron can easily be calculated. If I take this radius and insert it into my formula, it yields the correct mass of the electron with a residual deviation of 0.1% . (This is because I ignored electric effects). - To my understanding this is a good proof of this model.

It is true that there are still physicists who believe in the Higgs theory. This will continue for another ca. 3 years from now. Then the LHC at Cern will be finished and will have started operation. And people will have to realize that they do not find Higgs bosons even at that energy. - Anyway, even if the Higgs theory should be working, it is obviously not able to provide results like the one mentioned above for the electron.

Originally quoted by elas
Mass originates from the reduction of the vacuum force.

Can you please explain how this works, of correspondingly what "vacuum force" is?

GR also fails to predict the observed gravitational relationship between galaxies within a group of galaxies.

Astronomy has these problems to explain the motion of galaxies and the expansion of the universe in general. The assumption of dark matter is an attempt to find an answer. To my opinion it is very probable that gravitation does not depend on the mass but on the number of elementary particles and on their fields. That would mean that also neutrinos can give a considerable contribution to the gravitational field.

For our planetary system we do not notice this. It does not cause a large numerical error if we assume that the mass is the origin of gravity. The objects in our system have a very similar composition.

 

[elas]

You never say anything real about physics

All the work on the opening page of my website is based on graphs constructed using 'Emsley's' 'Tables of Elements', a standard work in Particle Physics, the author being on the staff of Cambridge University, a world leader in Particle and Quantum Physics. A large number of the quantities used were found by experiment; the rest are predicted from known quatities. This is reality as far as we know it.

The interpretations I make are new and therefore do not contradict current theory since current theory makes no such interpretations, it deals only with predictions. I am not concerned with prediction, but with structure. My work explains observed structure and therefore is an attempt to explain the reality of particles and wave structure .

There is a world of difference between prediction and reality and I am the one dealing with reality. On that basis I challenge you to justify the statement you made, which is quoted above at the start of my reply.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Predictions are observations which may be made. Any theory must make these, and these predictions MUST match all previous observations as well, or do a damn good job convincing us why the way we observed something was flawed. You have yet to do this. Example: The claim that two particles orbit each other with the speed of light. This is absolutely forbidden by Special Relativity, which is extremely well verified. You need to get a better understanding of the physics before you can be justified in saying that you are correct.

 

[elas]

Predictions are observations which may be made. Any theory must make these

Correct.

Relativity predicts the speed of galatic rotation and is out by 500%.
Relativity predicted the expansion of the universe and got it completely wrong.
Relativity predicted the radius of a black hole and was out by 900%.

Astrophysicist think Relativity will be replaced by either a vacuum or string theory.

I am using particle physics to predict that it is a vacuum based theory that will win this debate. The observations needed to justify my claim have already been made, they just need intelligent interpretation.

 

[Albrecht]

Originally posted by Ambitwistor
The Dirac equation doesn't actually say that. It does say something about spin, but it doesn't say it's due to any "internal oscillation".

I did not evaluate the Dirac equation by myself. But the Austrian Erwin Schrödinger has evaluated it short time after it was published. And he stated that it follows from the Dirac equation that the electron oscillates internally with the speed of light c. This result was to my knowledge never questioned by the physical community. David Hestenes (Arizona) e.g. used it as a basis for his theoretical work on electrons.

The purpose of the Dirac equation was to take relativity into the wave function. To my opinion Dirac has inadvertently found the cause of (special) relativity. I just continue from that point.

What are you talking about? GR has a dynamic law from which 2 can be derived: the Einstein field equation.

Wasn't it clear that this is an analogy? Newton could derive the orbital motion from gravity. Now we have to derive gravity from something more fundamental. That is still an open issue.

Ah, the last refuge of the crackpot: "I can't prove them wrong, but history will vindicate me."

I do not keep it open for an unpredictable future. We have only to wait for a limited time to clarify the Higgs issue.

You never say anything real about physics, just a bunch of claims you make up and never support. You haven't produced a theory of gravity, and you haven't produced a theory of elementary particles.

I have leaned that a theory is the better, the fewer assumptions are necessary for it. My intention is to show that classical physics and a quite simple particle model are sufficient to explain relativity (and in the other case the origin of mass).

I can derive the equivalence principle from my (simple) assumptions and I can also,using the same model, derive the mass of a particle from it's other parameters. I do not know any alternative approach which is doing this.

Once again, groundless speculation with no testable theory to back it up.

(This quote was with reference to a composition dependency of gravity)

The investigations which have been made in the 1980ies to investigate the assumption of a "fifth force" gave some indication to a possible dependency of the gravitational constant on the composition of the gravitational objects. This result is not very significant but could show the direction, where a further investigation could be useful.

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
The claim that two particles orbit each other with the speed of light. This is absolutely forbidden by Special Relativity, which is extremely well verified.

It is just the contrary. Did you realize that the two basic particles are mass-less? Where is then the conflict to Special Relativity?

My approach is conflict-free in contrast to the normal conclusions from the Dirac function. The Dirac function is normally interpreted in the way that the electron itself is making an orbital oscillation with c. This interpretation has two problems:

1. As the electron as a whole has a mass, it cannot move with c
2. An object, which orbits on it's own, is a permanent violation of the momentum law.

The standard answer of main stream physics to this conflict is, that this process is subject to QM and as such not understandable by the human brain with normal imagination.

If you accept my particle model, both conflicts disappear and the process is easily accessible by our imagination.

 

[FZ+]

It is just the contrary. Did you realize that the two basic particles are mass-less? Where is then the conflict to Special Relativity?

The idea that they are orbiting - ie. accelerating.

 

[Albrecht]

Originally posted by FZ+
The idea that they are orbiting - ie. accelerating.

Sorry, is this a comment or a question?
I am not sure if I understand what you mean.

 

[elas]

you forgot to mention that all of your responses have nothing to do with the known laws of physics

All my responses are based on atomic data used in Particle Physics. I do not seek to change the Laws of Physics, but to enforce them. My argument is that the Law of Economy (Occam's Law) has not been applied with sufficient vigour. If doctors treatd medical science the way physicists treat Quantum Physics they would all be doing time for malpractice.

By the way, "what is left of GR" is the dozens of experiments that which have verified GR's predictions to high precision.

Then why did 'Scientific American' feel that the dissatisfaction with 'GR' was sufficient to warrent a special issue on this issue; dealing largely with the need for change. The articles are all by experts in their field.

It only gives the wrong prediction if you assume that all the mass-energy in the universe is luminous. But we know that is not the case; the question is just a matter of, how much of it is non-luminous, and why?

The last article I read on this subject stated that the latest observation proved that the maximum possible quantity of dark matter was insufficient to make up the difference in orbital speeds.

Your comments on equations are so wide of the agreed rules on "What constitutes a new theory" as to be unworthy of a reply.

 

[Albrecht]

Originally posted by Ambitwistor
I need not remind you again that one or two calculations demonstrate nothing.

I have many calculations, but at least 2 of them (origin of mass and derivation of the equivalence principle) are not available from existing theories.

And that works for all particles? Or even all Dirac particles? If it doesn't, your theory is wrong.

It works for all leptons and for all quarks.

On conferences I have asked particle theorists what will happen if no Higgs bosons are found. The answer: We will have to re-think large areas of our physics. - Are we prepared for that?

I think Brad_Ad23's point was just that massless particles in special relativity can travel only in straight lines, and therefore cannot orbit.

If you look to my web site, the basic particles are bound to each other by a multipole field. This makes them orbiting at a fixed distance (which is of course subject to relativistic contraction).

But your theory is not consistent with special relativity anyway.

On the contrary, my model defines special relativity. It is in detail in http://www.ag-physics.org/relat

No, Albrecht, that is your nonsense interpretation.

The interpretations which I have cited about the oscillation within an electron and the difficulty to understand them are copied from David Hestenes, who has done a lot of theoretical work about the electron and particularly it's "Zitterbewegung".

You may give him a call and tell him that he has written "nonsense". Have fun!

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by elas
Then why did 'Scientific American' feel that the dissatisfaction with 'GR' was sufficient to warrent a special issue on this issue; dealing largely with the need for change. The articles are all by experts in their field.

Could you cite it? All I could find was this (about SR):

After a century, Einstein's special theory of relativity, which describes the motion of particles moving at close to the speed of light, has held up remarkably well.

I do not seek to change the Laws of Physics, but to enforce them.

Um... ahh, nevermind. You probably already know.

 

[Albrecht]

Originally posted by Ambitwistor
You can predict the masses of all particles from first principles? What do you get for the values?

If I know either the size or the magnetic moment, the mass follows from it. The formula is given e.g. in http://www.ag-physics.org/electron

There are non-Higgs theories that have tried to account for mass, too, like technicolor. They may experience a renaissance.

Do they work?

Fields, multipole or not, do not deflect massless particles in special relativity.

There is no conflict with special relativity if a massless particle moves with c on an orbit.

A theory with a variable speed of light isn't SR.

True. But that was not the point.

The point was that 2 massless ("basic") particles orbiting each other fulfill - besides the field contraction already known before Einstein - the conditions for being the origin of special relativity.

 

[Albrecht]

Originally posted by Ambitwistor
But that is not an independent prediction of mass; it's a relation between mass, charge, and magnetic moment: no different than the Dirac equation, which also does not predict the masses of the elementary particles.

Did Dirac find the equation
m = h(bar)/r*c ? Can you please give me a reference for your statetment?

I have presented this origin of mass, which uses the fact that every extended object must behave inertially, at 6 physical conferences till now. During the very engaged discussions no one has ever stated that this idea or the formula which I derived was previously found by somebody else.

Yes, there is. Special relativity says that a massless particle must move in a straight line.
...
Special relativity does not permit massless particles to orbit each other.

Please give me a reference which states this. I have presented this model to some of the German top researchers in relativity. No one has ever stated this. And I do not see where the conflict could be.

 

[Albrecht]

Originally posted by Ambitwistor
No, but that's irrelevant. You don't have an independent measurement for r; you have to derive it from the magnetic moment. Thus, to determine m, you need to know the charge and magnetic moment of the electron, which is the same as what Dirac needed.

The Basic Particle model does not tell why an electron exists. It provides the dependencies of it's parameters. It derives the dependency from basic assumptions.

The Dirac equation on the other hand describes the situation correctly using the QM formalism. It does not explain why it is as it is. If Dirac would explain the origin of mass, nobody would look for Higgs bosons.

If tomorrow it would be measured that the electron has a different mass or a different spin or a different mag. moment, the Dirac function could be easily adapted. But the Basic Particle model would in that case be void. The model does not have free parameters in this respect.

Are you denying that, in special relativity, photons always travel along null geodesics of Minkowski spacetime?

I do not talk about photons, but about particles which are really massless.

If the photon is bound into an orbit, this will be a classical dynamic process using the dynamic mass of the photon. The basic particle has no mass / no energy even if moving with c. Mass (and energy) is caused by the configuration of a pair of basic particles. This is the essential assumption of this model.

And also: The configuration of a pair of basic particles constitutes special relativity. Below that level (i.e. below the level of an elementary particle) there is consequently no relativity

 

[spacetravel101]

All this talk and no real progress. Do look up where others are going.
I found this website,
http://www.faraday.ru/faraday_english.html,

if it is true I haven't found anything comparable to this in the West.

 

[QuantumNet]

I thought the Schwarzschild Radius was due of relativistic effects.


M = black hole mass

a = MG(1-(v/c)²)^½/r² = MG(1-(MG/(rc)^2))^½/r² =c

But this results in MG/c whatever you do.

 

[Albrecht]

Originally posted by spacetravel101
All this talk and no real progress.

You are right, the discussion proceeds sometimes on a circle. The sequence of the discussion should always be: 1. reading; 2. thinking about it (at least a little bit); 3. then commenting.

But this discussion is not useless, it meets a lot of interest. There have been 800 visits to this discussion, and meanwhile 40'000 visits to the web sites I mentioned. This shows also to me how big the ‘hunger’ is for understandable physics.

Originally posted by Ambitwistor
Your theory doesn't predict the mass of an electron any better than the Dirac equation does. Your theory requires the same physical input that the Dirac equation does (and gets the answer wrong, too, because it doesn't have the correct gyromagnetic ratio).

Again: If Dirac would explain mass, no one would do a search on Higgs bosons. (And, anyway, the Higgs theory does not cover the electron.) The model I have gives the cause of mass - for all elementary particles.

My calculation does not yield the gyromagnetic ratio incorrectly, but as it is clearly stated on the site it only gives an upper bond. (I did not have time to make the calculation which to my understanding is only possible by a numerical integration).

Suppose the electron were measured to have twice the magnetic moment it is believed to have today, all other properties remaining the same. As far as I can tell, your model would give twice the radius and half the mass.

That is exactly what I said: If one parameter would be changed, nothing would fit any more. This shows again that the model does not have free parameters. – I want to make clear that I did not tune the model so as to produce results that fit. The model did fit as it was developed.

Replace the word "photon" in my questions with "massless particle".

A truly massless particle can move at a speed of c on any track if there is a potential guiding it. There is no physical reason that this cannot happen.

Your usual handwaving is ignored.

My website http://www.ag-physics.org/relat has no ‘handwaving’. The fact that the basic particle model constitutes special relativity is mathematically proven on more than 10 pages (including the links). – Of course, I cannot present these proofs by posting 5 lines here.

 

[Albrecht]

Originally posted by Ambitwistor
I also said that your theory does not predict the mass of the electron any better than the Dirac equation does, because it doesn't.

No, sorry, this is the essential difference. Both give the relation between the mass and the other parameters, that is right. But from my model this relation can be derived. Dirac has taken the experimental results and put them into a formula.

Comparable situation from the history of astronomy: Kepler has described the observed motion of the planets by a motion formula. Newton has presented a theory which tells, why this motion law is as it is. - With a different observation Kepler would have adapted his law. Newton would have failed.

What upper bound do you obtain? [for the spin]

I have stated that the actual angular momentum of an elementary particle depends on the orientation of it's axis. For the orientation of the maximum value my model yields the result S=1*h(bar) - (independent of particle properties). Now one has to integrate over all orientations which will cause a lower value as an average. I did not have the time yet to do it, but it will happen.

I can then claim, as you do, that the Dirac equation "has no free parameters" and "is compatible with only one value of the mass of the electron" and "was not tuned to produce the results that fit".

The Dirac equation was built to reflect the known parameters of an electron. If the electron would have different parameters, Dirac would have taken that into account.

In contrast, my equation was not adapted to the existing parameters. If I hadn't found any value for the mass of the electron in literature, my result would have been the same as it is. And I have in fact a deviation of 0.1% from the true value. This would not have happened if this would not been an independent derivation. - Did Dirac also find this deviation (which is caused by QED)?

I can't even tell if the speed of your massless particles is supposed to be always c, or if it's supposed to be c only in the rest frame of the pair.

I state in the website that I follow the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity. That means that I assume an absolute system at rest. (This version of relativity provides the same results as the version of Einstein which assumes that there is no system at rest. For a prove of this equivalence I have to refer to the literature which I give in my site: Prokhovnik and Selleri; the latter has also published papers in English language).

So, the basic particles are assumed to move always at speed c in relation to the absolute frame at rest.

... then in the moving frame, it will have a vertical velocity of c and a horizontal velocity of v, with a speed v(c2+v2). Your figure appears to depict a particle moving with speed c. I also don't know what your "reduced orbital speed" is;

At rest of the whole configuration, the particles orbit at c. If the configuration (i.e. the elementary particle) is now moved into an axial direction, the basic (massless) particles move on a helix rather than a circle, still at speed c. But now the projection of the speed onto the circle will be reduced to √(c2-v2). As a consequence the circular frequency on the orbit is reduced. - That is the origin of "dilaton".

The time it takes to complete one period, in the sense that it passes through the horizontal axis twice, is the same as in the pair's rest frame.

I hope that it is clear now that this is not correct; the period is in fact extended.

... if you postulate that the massless particle always travels with speed c in any frame, then that is precisely Einstein's postulate ...

I do not postulate it for any frame, as I have explained above. There is one speed in this world, which is c, which is in reference to an absolute system at rest. It is not c in any other reference system. However, due to contraction and dilation during our measurement processes, we always measure c as a result.

Do you also have the relativity postulate?

Of course I do not. To my understanding, a postulate can only be a temporary assumption in physics until it's basic causes are found.

 

[Hurkyl]

And I have in fact a deviation of 0.1% from the true value.

Shouldn't that be considered a failure, since the relative experimental error on the mass of an electron is over 4 orders of magnitude smaller than 0.1%? (Numbers taken from NIST)

However, due to contraction and dilation during our measurement processes, we always measure c as a result.

That is Einstein's postulate.


Incidentally, you assert "It is not c in any other reference system," so this and the other quote begs the question of how you define a reference system.

 

[Loren Booda]

What would be the most apparent change in the geometry of the universe if the speed of light were not constant?

 

[Albrecht]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Shouldn't that be considered a failure, since the relative experimental error on the mass of an electron is over 4 orders of magnitude smaller than 0.1%?

It is not a failure because it has a well understood cause. In the determination of the magnetic moment which is used in my calculation there is a necessary QED correction necessary which accounts for these 0.1%.
I find it important that this slightly deviating result proves that my derivation was independent and not a tautological calculation. So there is no conflict.

That is Einstein's postulate.

[However, due to contraction and dilation during our measurement processes, we always measure c as a result.]
It would be phantastic if you could get the physical community to agree to your understanding. We will get rid of the 4-dim. spacetime and the Minkowski metric because, what you state, conforms to the "Lorentzian interpretation of relativiy", which uses Euclidian metric and Galilei's understanding of time.

For "reference system" I use the normal definition of an intertial system in which the observer resides.

Originally posted by Ambitwistor
You can derive the relationship between magnetic moment, charge, and mass from the Dirac equation. There is no essential difference. Dirac postulates one mechanism, you postulate another.

The point seems to be difficult, but there is indeed a difference beween descibing a valid relationship or given the physical cause of it.

In the Dirac equation, the gyromagnetic ratio is exactly 2, which is the wrong value. I don't know whether Dirac knew that it was wrong when he invented his equation;

Now I understand what you meant. The value of g=2 comes from the fact that historically the calculation the magnetic moment yielded half of the correct value. Later a way was found to get the correct value by QM formalism, and it was stated that only QM is able to provide the correct value.
My particle model yields the correct value by a classical derivation. The detailed reason is that in this model the electron is composed by two constituents.

If you're using Lorentz ether theory, then "deriving SR" isn't anything to brag about. Lorentz beat you by about a century.

Lorentz was partially right when he explained the Michelson Morley experiment by the contraction of the apparatus in motion. But he failed to accept the time dilation. In the version which in these days is called the "Lorentzian" the dilation is now included.

My model provides the cause of this relativity which is available the first time to my knowledge.

Who cares about a circle? The period in the moving frame is how long it takes to complete one helical loop.

Yes, and that takes more time because (in the motion state) one period on the helix means a longer path.

Didn't you just say the particles move at speed c along a helix in the moving frame, as well as speed c along a circle in the rest frame?

Is it that difficult?
The speed is c on the helical path. It is reduced with respect to the circle. An observer moving with the particle will still observe the particles on a circle and oberves the reduced speed g=sqrt(c2-v2).

I've got news for you: every theory always has postulates. Merely having postulates is not a weakness in a theory.

Yes, of course. But as long as we are not at the very end of understanding our physical world, any time we use a postulate which looks correct, we have to search for postulates (axioms) at a lower level from which the postulate in question can be derived. In this sense I have a postulate (i.e. my particle model) from which the postulate of relativity can be derived. So this model is one step ahead of main stream physics.

Originally posted by Loren Booda
What would be the most apparent change in the geometry of the universe if the speed of light were not constant?

Difficult to say as long as we do not know why the speed of light has the value it has. But following Lorentz (and my model) there should be no change (Geometry is a human choice anyway).

 

[Albrecht]

Originally posted by Ambitwistor
Yet you claim that Dirac's calculation was also tautological and could accommodate any experimental result, even though he too got a deviating result.

Not even tautological, the whole point is stated here out of the right context. At the time when Dirac developed his equation, the general understanding was that mass is a fundamental fact of nature. Our present understanding that mass is not fundamental but has to be derived (which has caused the Higgs search) came decades later.

So Dirac never intended to explain the mass of the electron, nor he did.

It is well-known that Lorentz's ether theory is operationally equivalent to special relativity.

I agree to the equivalence but "well known" seems not to be the case. I answered this same statement as a post to a threat about relativity earlier (in August) and the reaction was some almost furious protest of your colleagues, the mentors and advisors of this forum. I would be happy if the understanding would be as you say. You should have a discussion with your colleagues.

But you just said that the speed is c only in the absolute rest frame of the pair. If the speed is c in a moving frame too, then you just reproduced Einstein's light speed postulate.

Once again: the speed is c in relation to the absolute frame at rest. This is in contrast to Einstein, who says that c is in relation to every inertial system. - What I also state (in accordance to the Lorentzian interpretation) that the result of a measurement of c is the same in every inertial system.

No, we don't.

Which means: you don't.

It is of course your decision either to retire or to contribute to the development of our physical understanding. The majority of the physical community wants to continue, to find the GUT (Grand Universal Theory) and that only works by searching further down the fundamentals.

We are on a good way in respect to the unification of forces. 30 years ago there were 4 forces: strong, weak, electro-mag, and gravity. Strong and weak is in between understood as being the same. Gravity disappears as a force if gravity is understood as a refraction process which causes an acceleration only.

And following my particle model I do not see a problem to understand the strong force and the electric force as being the same.

There are many, many different formulations of special relativity other than Einstein's original formulation.

Can you please post a list of the important ones and give literature references?

It [c] has the value it has because of our choice of units. In other units, its value can be anything, including 1.

Are you kidding?? The photon (e.g.) does not care which units are used by humans. It moves by fundamental laws and facts. And we have to understand these laws and facts.
(Possibly you mix up physical quantities and real numbers.)

Geometry is physics, not a "human choice". It is not a "human choice" that the circumference of a circle is equal to ð times its diameter, it is a mathematical and physical fact.

You missed the context. Loren Booda meant the geometry of "space", and that is to my understanding subject to human concepts.

Einstein did have a different understanding of it than Euclid.

 

[Hurkyl]

It is not a failure because it has a well understood cause. In the determination of the magnetic moment which is used in my calculation there is a necessary QED correction necessary which accounts for these 0.1%.
I find it important that this slightly deviating result proves that my derivation was independent and not a tautological calculation. So there is no conflict.

Ok, but that's a QED correction, not a correction done in a way compatable with your theory.

 

[Albrecht]

Originally posted by Ambitwistor
I've said that several times. I've also said that you haven't, either. [means the origin of mass]

This is too much of philosophy meanwhile. So, back to the facts: what is the origin of mass, what is the way I did it?

If 2 massless particles A and B are bound to each other so that a specific distance is forced (by a multipole field), then this configuration has inevitably an inertial behaviour. The reason: Due to the limited speed of light c by which fields propagate, the displacement of particle A is noticed by B with a delay. During twice this delay time, the displacement of A requires an intermediate force. This is what inertial mass means.

The quantity of this effect depends on the strength of the field and on the distance. The strength of the field is known from the frequency-to-energy relation and is so contained in Planck's constant h.

So mass is m= h(bar)/r*c^2 .

This is an independent derivation of mass which was never done before (to my knowledge). For the detailed calculation see http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass , which has also 2 animations to visualize the field propagation.

What is physically interesting is whether you can produce a genuinely new theory, that makes different, testable predictions.

What is progress in physics? An example:

100 years ago the investigation of the atomic spectra was a major topic. Mathematical equations were developed which described the spectra correctly. But it was not understood why they are as they are.

Later it was understood how an atom is constructed (starting with Bohr's model and using the QM refinements later). From now on it was unterstood why the spectral equatons must be as they are.

This was an essential progress to understand WHY! And of this type is generally progress in our physical understanding.

Correspondingly we have a lot of measurement and descriptions about elementary particles. The next step forward is to detect why the particles are as they are. The "basic particle model" is a contribution to this next step as it gives the cause of mass, among other points.

So? That doesn't change the fact that the speed of light can take on any value.

Please no confusion: If the photon X is faster than the photon Y, this fact does not depend on any measurement unit. - THIS was the original question here.

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Ok, but that's a QED correction, not a correction done in a way compatable with your theory.

During the derivation of my model I have omitted all electric influences including the ones of QED. Because I have to go on in an economic way. It is not a problem in so far as these influences do not falsify the result. - It is my strong intention also to continue with QED, but I am not able to do everything at the same time besides my industrial job.