Inertia is the tendency of a body to resist being accelerated or
decelerated. An accelerated charged particle creates an electrodynamic
field proportional to and in the opposite direction of the acceleration.
The inertia of a particle is explained by considering the electrodynamic
field created as acting on the self-same particle to produce the
inertial force equal and opposite to the accelerating force. Equating
the negative of the inertial force with the accelerating force in
accordance with Newton's second law of motion, gives the mass of the
particle in terms of electrical quantities. For a neutral body
containing an equal number of positively charged and negatively charged
particles, the electrodynamic fields, from all the particles, cancel out
externally, but internally the field from each charged particle acts on
the very particle, at its location, to produce the inertial force. For
further explanation, please see: www.musada.net/Papers/Paper6.pdf

musada wrote:

Inertia is the tendency of a body to resist being accelerated or
decelerated. An accelerated charged particle creates an electrodynamic
field proportional to and in the opposite direction of the acceleration.
The inertia of a particle is explained by considering the electrodynamic
field created as acting on the self-same particle to produce the
inertial force equal and opposite to the accelerating force.

1) Accelerate a neutron.
2) Accelerate an electron by allowing it to vacuum free fall in a
uniform gravitational field.
3) Stochastic electrodynamics. They are better at it than you are
and they are terrifically discredited.

http://www.calphysics.org/inertia.html

Equating
the negative of the inertial force with the accelerating force in
accordance with Newton's second law of motion, gives the mass of the
particle in terms of electrical quantities. For a neutral body
containing an equal number of positively charged and negatively charged
particles, the electrodynamic fields, from all the particles, cancel out
externally, but internally the field from each charged particle acts on
the very particle, at its location, to produce the inertial force. For
further explanation, please see: www.musada.net/Papers/Paper6.pdf

Charge and mass are not proportional. We take a neutral hydrogen atom
molecular beam and measure its atoms' inertial vs. gravitational
masses by dropping them down the Bremen drop tower, a 357-foot
vertical vacuum chamber. Repeat the experiment for a proton beam and
a hydride beam.

The 5.4x10^(-4) relative decrement or increment in mass (electron mass
and binding energy) is vastly overshadowed by the full changed
charge. Everything accelerates identically. You are thereby
disproven. One can similarly drop deuterium atoms, deuterons, and
deuteride to show neutrons (isospin) make no difference. One can
similarly drop neutral uranium atoms and uranium(92+).

What remains of your proposal? Charge creates inertia but the ratio
of charge to mass is irrelevant? Uranium(92)+ has a *smaller* inertia
than neutral uranium?

If you do not like vacuum drop towers, do an Eotvos experiment
opposing neutral lithium-7 metal and lithium-6 hydride. Metals have
no internal electric field, the salt is a fully ionized lattice with
large charge to mass ratios. The Equivalence Principle will be
validated to at least 5x10^(-14) difference/average as the Earth
inertially spins about its axis while gravitationally accelerating
around the sun. Or drop a ball of each in Bremen's tower and measure
their differential fall.

Never predict the Day of Rapture occuring during your tenure as
priest. The universe wholly unforgiving. It expresses its
displeasure by ignoring you.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Uncle Al wrote:
musada wrote:
Inertia is the tendency of a body to resist being accelerated or
decelerated. An accelerated charged particle creates an electrodynamic
field proportional to and in the opposite direction of the acceleration.
The inertia of a particle is explained by considering the electrodynamic
field created as acting on the self-same particle to produce the
inertial force equal and opposite to the accelerating force.

1) Accelerate a neutron.
2) Accelerate an electron by allowing it to vacuum free fall in a
uniform gravitational field.
3) Stochastic electrodynamics. They are better at it than you are
and they are terrifically discredited.

http://www.calphysics.org/inertia.html

One would assume that the inertia of a neutron arises from charges on
its quarks, given the original hypothesis. So points 1 and 2 are not
relevant.

=============== Moderator's note ======================================

As far as we know the mass of hadrons, consisting of light valence quarks
due to the strong interaction, not the electromagnet or weak interaction.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

==========Moderator's note =============================

The statement quoted, I made before, has been a bit brief perhaps.
You are right, the valence quarks do not contribute much mass to
the proton. The point I wanted to make was that the hadrons consisting
of light valence quarks get their mass from the strong interaction, not
from the Higgs mechanism of the weak interaction. I didn't mean that its
mass comes from the valence quarks, but that it's dynamically generated
by the strong force which leads to the forming of both a gluon and a quark
condensate in vacuo.

This is different for, e.g., heavy mesons like quarkonia or bottomonia
whose mass can be understood from (non-relativistic) bound-state models
of a heavy quark-antiquark pair, interacting by an effective potential
like the Cornell potential.

Hendrik van Hees wrote:

Uncle Al wrote:
musada wrote:
Inertia is the tendency of a body to resist being accelerated or
decelerated. An accelerated charged particle creates an electrodynamic
field proportional to and in the opposite direction of the acceleration.
The inertia of a particle is explained by considering the electrodynamic
field created as acting on the self-same particle to produce the
inertial force equal and opposite to the accelerating force.

1) Accelerate a neutron.
2) Accelerate an electron by allowing it to vacuum free fall in a
uniform gravitational field.
3) Stochastic electrodynamics. They are better at it than you are
and they are terrifically discredited.

http://www.calphysics.org/inertia.html

One would assume that the inertia of a neutron arises from charges on
its quarks, given the original hypothesis. So points 1 and 2 are not
relevant.

=============== Moderator's note ======================================

As far as we know the mass of hadrons, consisting of light valence quarks
due to the strong interaction, not the electromagnet or weak interaction.

If one looks to the refereed literature seeking to assign the
fundamental origins of a hadron's spin and mass one finds that its
valence quark substituents contribute a very small fraction of
either. Spin and mass are modeled as arising from gluon fields and
higher order virtual particle contributors. The "obvious" answer does
not obtain at all.

A similar search will disclose General Relativity cannot handle
fermions as a class,

"The Immirzi parameter and fermions with non-minimal coupling"
Class. Quantum Grav. 25 145012 (2008)

Electrons are observed to unremarkably fall in vacuum, as do neutrons
(the fabulous gravitational bounce experiments); matter
interferometers. Classical gravitation is remarkably flawed in it
structure. No attempt to patch the holes has resulted in revised
theory. Classical gravitation looks like a second rate vacuum line
covered with blobs of glyptol to plug leaks.

Supergravity, lattice and loop quantum gravity, and above all string
and M-theory predict nothing. Euclid reigned for nearly 2000 years
than precipitously fell in the 1800s for his weak Fifth Postulate.
Contemporary physics is revealed to be dreadfully insufficient: The
SI standard of mass is a physical artifact, Newton's G cannot be
calculated, the Standard Model arrives massless. Supersymmetry's
partners refuse to appear, protons do not decay, the Higgs mechanism
does not reveal its vector boson.

Uncle Al has repeatedly suggested a fundamental challenge to massed
sector vacuum isotropy, the parity Eotvos and parity calorimetry
experiments. Physics is a twice a coward - once for spinning
cockadoodle theories as a way around observation and again for not
performing an obvious experiment to solve the problem.

Ed Witten cannot save you. The worst a massed sector vacuum parity
experiment can do is suceed.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

On Jul 1, 11:12*am, Uncle Al wrote:
As far as we know the mass of hadrons, consisting of light valence quarks
due to the strong interaction, not the electromagnet or weak interaction.

If one looks to the refereed literature seeking to assign the
fundamental origins of a hadron's spin and mass one finds that its
valence quark substituents contribute a very small fraction of
either. *Spin and mass are modeled as arising from gluon fields and
higher order virtual particle contributors. *The "obvious" answer does
not obtain at all.

There's an equally obvious problem with this argument -- its
incompleteness.

The "charge" of a particle is NOT its electric charge; but its total
gauge charge; i.e. that which is involved in Wong's equation. You
forgot, there's more than one force involved; and for gauge fields,
the electric charge now becomes a vector-valued quantity with one
degree of freedom for each component of the gauge field. So, the
charge of a particle is a 12-component vector.

The "neutral" atom may very well be of higher charge than the
"charged" version!

So, let's do this one step at a time: We'll do this with
electromagnetism and then generalize it to gauge fields.

There is a simple and clear way to see that the mass of a charge MUST
come from its field: take a positron and electron. Slowly bring the
positron toward the electron (never mind what kinds of controls we
need to carry this out, this is just a thought experiment). As they
draw closer to each other, they cross an increasing amount of electric
potential, so that the total potential energy of the system drops.

What happens when they've crossed through a total potential equal to
-2mc^2/e? At this particular moment, the system itself has 0 charge, 0
total energy and 0 mass; and all the energy that was there has been
released as radiation. There's nothing there, but a vacuum.

That's precisely the state which occurs AFTER the two have annihilated
one another! So, we may conclude that when the very moment the
positron has crossed a potential equal to -2mc^2/e, there's nothing
left of either the positron or electron to move toward one another
anymore.

Taking this process backwards, what you're doing is literally
polarizing the vacuum, itself; by pumping energy into it. All the
energy goes into the potential through which the products of that
polarization cross when they separate from one another. Hence,
whatever the process was that brought about their annihilation,
whatever their struture may be; the one thing that must be true is
that all the inertia of the 2-body system that arises after the vacuum
was polarized is that contained in their potential energy -- i.e. the
field.

This argument was essentially the one made by Maxwell and Faraday
(with a slight modernization by Poincare' in 1900, when he published
the non-relativistic form of E = mc^2).

Suppose the vacuum is polarized by a strong field, sufficiently much
that opposite charges are actually drawn out of it. For a field whose
dynamics are given by a linear constitutive law, the total energy
pumped into the 2-body configuration will be the value of the
potential which the charges cross, multiplied by twice the value of
the charge (assuming the charges are equal and opposite).

Under the Poincare' form of E = mc^2 (which would probably be rendered
today as m = mu epsilon E for an isotropic medium with constitutive
coefficients mu and epsilon), this would produce a total mass of m = 2
mu epsilon U e for the system.

In turn, this yields the total potential through which the
polarization took place as 2m/(mu epsilon e). For a Lorentzan vacuum,
mu = mu_0, epsilon = epsilon_0 and you'd end up getting the in-vacuuo
value of 2mc^2/e for the total potential U. For an isotropic medium
(whether it be Lorentzian or Galilean) the same value of U would yield
a slightly different value for m, depending on the coefficients mu/
mu_0 and epsilon/epsilon_0.

(For a linear constitutive law, the only finite consistent value for
total energy of a concentrated distribution -- is basically the one
obtained by this construction. For a more general field (where the
Lagrangian need not yield linear constitutive laws), only one value is
possible for the total energy (or none at all), and it can be written
in a form that's independent of the Lagrangian, though it has an
explicit dependence on the Lagrangian, itself. For Lagrangians
homogeneous to the 2nd degree in the field (ergo with linear
constitutive laws) this works out to twice the charge multiplied by
the potential crossed when polarizing the vacuum.

In effect, this is the account also included in Barut's classic
"Electrodynamics and Classical Theory of Fields and Particles",
section V.5 (which applies the classical arguments in a Relativitic
setting).

The punchline is all this generalizes direcly for gauge fields; which,
too, can be rendered in the form of a (non-linear) Maxwell equations.
The key difference, however, is that the constitutive law can be
EXTREMELY complex. In place of the coefficients epsilon, mu are now 4
families of coefficients (yielding 11 coefficients for a U(1) x SU(2)
gauge field; and upwards of 45 for U(1) x SU(2) x SU(3)); and in an
isotropic medium, this number ramps from 4 up to 7 families. The
analogue of epsilon and mu are the gauge group metrics, via the
correspondence epsilon c - k_{ab}; mu c - k^{ab}. For a gauge
field based on a simple gauge group, k_{ab} normalizes to delta_{ab}/
g^2, where g is the corresponding coupling coefficient. For a non-
linear field theory, g (and more generally k_{ab}, k^{ab}) become
complex functions of position (e.g. the non-Abelian analogue of
epsilon can exhibit asymptotic freedom (*classically*), infrared
slavery, screening or anti-screening and Landau poles).

The Poincare/in-media version of E = mc^2 -- the "Poincare'" form m =
mu epsilon E -- substantially increases in complexity, now with mu and
epsilon replaced by the huge number of constitutive coefficients of
the gauge field to replace mu and epsilon. Anything could happen,
including.

The linear case of gauge fields -- analogous to the classical (Maxwell-
Lorentz) linear-constitutive theory -- is Yang-Mills Theory. Quantized
theory, in constrast is (when you get everything done right) actually
the quantization of a dynamics with a NON-linear constitutive law; a
non-Yang-Mills gauge field. So, the non-linear constitutive law can
lead to all sorts of complexity, along the lines just described above;
and things need not be as simple as the Maxwell/Faraday case of an
abelian gauge field.

(Yes, by the way, it's proper to attribute Abelian gauge fields to
Maxwell. He briefly discussed the 2 degree-of-freedom gauge field,
during his discussion of the question of where the sign of electrical
charge comes from; and his discussion about using a mixing angle to
combine gravity with electromagnetism).

Rock Brentwood wrote:

On Jul 1, 11:12 am, Uncle Al wrote:
As far as we know the mass of hadrons, consisting of light valence quarks
due to the strong interaction, not the electromagnet or weak interaction.

If one looks to the refereed literature seeking to assign the
fundamental origins of a hadron's spin and mass one finds that its
valence quark substituents contribute a very small fraction of
either. Spin and mass are modeled as arising from gluon fields and
higher order virtual particle contributors. The "obvious" answer does
not obtain at all.

There's an equally obvious problem with this argument -- its
incompleteness.

The "charge" of a particle is NOT its electric charge; but its total
gauge charge; i.e. that which is involved in Wong's equation. You
forgot, there's more than one force involved; and for gauge fields,
the electric charge now becomes a vector-valued quantity with one
degree of freedom for each component of the gauge field. So, the
charge of a particle is a 12-component vector.

The "neutral" atom may very well be of higher charge than the
"charged" version!

So, let's do this one step at a time: We'll do this with
electromagnetism and then generalize it to gauge fields.

There is a simple and clear way to see that the mass of a charge MUST
come from its field: take a positron and electron. Slowly bring the
positron toward the electron (never mind what kinds of controls we
need to carry this out, this is just a thought experiment). As they
draw closer to each other, they cross an increasing amount of electric
potential, so that the total potential energy of the system drops.

What happens when they've crossed through a total potential equal to
-2mc^2/e? At this particular moment, the system itself has 0 charge, 0
total energy and 0 mass; and all the energy that was there has been
released as radiation. There's nothing there, but a vacuum.

That's precisely the state which occurs AFTER the two have annihilated
one another! So, we may conclude that when the very moment the
positron has crossed a potential equal to -2mc^2/e, there's nothing
left of either the positron or electron to move toward one another
anymore.

Taking this process backwards, what you're doing is literally
polarizing the vacuum, itself; by pumping energy into it. All the
energy goes into the potential through which the products of that
polarization cross when they separate from one another. Hence,
whatever the process was that brought about their annihilation,
whatever their struture may be; the one thing that must be true is
that all the inertia of the 2-body system that arises after the vacuum
was polarized is that contained in their potential energy -- i.e. the
field.
[snip remainder]

So stipulated. Consider the vacuum is isotropic in the massless
sector (photons) but has anisiotrpic structure in the massed sector (a
chiral pseudoscalar vacuum background comes to mind). All EM
observations will be blind to massed sector vacuum anisotropy.
Achiral and racemic massed sector observations will be blind to massed
sector vacuum anisotropy. Chirality is an extrinsic property and an
emergent phenomenon (e.g., from atomic mass distribution in a
composition of matter whose crystal structure is a pair of
enantiomorphic space groups). Physics - as a matter of aesthetics and
contingent absence of precedent - dismisses such out of hand. There
is no reason to consider extrinsic properties when formulating
fundamental theory.

Chirality requires a static configuration of least four points in
three-space. Maximum parity divergence apparently requires 20 (for
anonymous points). The differential property wll suddenly switch on.
It will be amplified for the chiral atomic mass distribution having
tight packing, massive accumulation... gaplessly in-phase configured
as a periodic crystal. No prior observation of vacuum properties,
from optical cosmology to matter interferometers, bears on the
question: Do left and right shoes vacuum fee fall identically? If
not, a rather large number of physical theory failings are suddenly
resolved.

The Big Bang launched with an intense massed sector chiral
pseudoscalar vacuum background. Its dilution powered cosmic
inflation; the Weak interaction froze out left-handed; matter
dominated antimatter as broken symmetry forced baryon number and other
conservation violations during false vacuum decay. Biological
homochirality was universally biased by residual chiral anisotropic
vacuum background long thereafter. Quantized gravitation theories
require supplementing Einstein-Hilbert action with a parity-violating
Chern-Simons term. That is why they fail - they are wrong at the
founding postulate level and patches later applied won't plug all the
holes.

Does a parity Eotvos experiment opposing chemically and
macroscopically identical, right- and left-handed quartz test masses
(space groups P3(1)21 and P3(2)21 respectively) give a non-zero net
output? Prizes are awarded for discoverng that sort of thing.
Somebody should look.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2