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

[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.