I have proposed that the electron's inertial mass and its relativistic energy-momentum equation can be derived at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298214348_Origin_of_the_Electron%27s_Inertia_and_Relativistic_Energy-Momentum_Equation_in_the_Spin-12_Charged-Photon_Electron_Model  from a circulating spin-1/2 charged photon model of the electron. Are there any better explanations?

Working Paper Origin of the Electron's Inertia and Relativistic Energy‐Mom...

We know since Einstein's photoelectric proof that electromagnetic photons have longitudinal inertia.

We also know that electron-positron pairs, that are massive, meaning that they have omnidirectional inertia, can be produced from the decoupling of electromagnetic photons having energy 1.022 MeV or more, which is the exact amount of energy making up the invariant rest masses of 1 electron plus 1 positron. If the photon has more than 1.022 MeV, the remainder is verifiably related to the velocity in opposite directions of both new particles.

It would seem then that during the conversion process, the two amounts of 0.511 MeV of energy that have longitudinal inertia and that convert to the massive particles acquire omnidirectional inertia by some process still to be identified.

According to my arxiv paper, for the electron it seems to be easy: the radiation of the massless charge generates standing waves. The momentum of the radiation is compensated and leads thus to E^2-(pc)^2=(mc^2)^2

 Hello Guenter,

   Your article on the wave character of the electron has many similar properties as my spin-1/2 charged photon model of the electron, such as the light-speed massless charge field which sounds like a charged photon. Very interesting work. Does you approach also generate the electron's inertial mass?

   Hello Andre,

    Yes, the process of the conversion of a 1.022+ MeV photon into two 0.511 MeV electron/positrons needs elaboration. I think that the single spin-1 photon splits into two spin 1/2 photons having a positive and a negative charge, and these spin-1/2 charged photons immediately curl up (in the presence of a nucleus to absorb excess momentum) to become an electron-positron pair.

Absolutely.

Even more interesting, pair creation during close flyby of two photons, at least one of which exceeds the 1.022 MeV minimum energy threshold without any atomic nuclei being close by, was experimentally confirmed by Kirk McDonald et al. at the Stanford Linear Accelerator in 1997 with experiment #e144:

http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.1626

But it not understood hyt how the half-photons "curl up" as you say to acquire omnidirectional inertial.

Hello Andre,

   Yes, I remember reading about that experiment. Very nice!

I have a model of a spin-1 photon which is published and is described in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259461313_TRANSLUMINAL_ENERGY_QUANTUM_MODELS_OF_THE_PHOTON_AND_THE_ELECTRON , and an unpublished model of a spin-1/2 (presumably charged) photon that is somewhat similar in structure to the spin-1 photon model. Both are internally superluminal but move forward longitudinally at light speed as a photon does. Their internal motions are both helical with a forward helical angle of 45 degrees. The internal superluminal speed of each is c sqrt(2) = 1.414 c . The free spin-1/2 charged photon model has characteristics that fit the double-loop-curled-up-photon electron model, so I think that one could easily turn into the other (uncurled spin-1/2 photon becomes curled-up spin-1/2 photon and vice versa.) It's not really a half-photon model but a spin-1l2 photon model that I am proposing (as in my spin-1/2 charged-photon model of an electron). It is a new, previously unnoticed variety of photon, since it is normally called an electron when curled up.

Data Transluminal-Energy Quantum Models of the Photon and the Electron

Dear Richard!

I'll do not give a judgement on your paper. But your thoughts are interesting. Maybe the approach should be in greater depth and devoid of all current theoretically standards.

Are you in doubt about the Higgs-theory?

Regards!

Hans

Hi Richard

Your summary description looks interesting.

As I still work full time, I am rather squeezed during daytime for reading opportunities. Tonight however (EST) I will read your papers and the tell you what I think.

Hello Hans, It's important to question everything, including all current theoretical standards. Of course I am in doubt about the Higgs theory. Any competent theoretical physicist would have his/her doubts about this theory and all other theories, which are only temporary conceptual structures that may assist in gaining deeper understanding/experience of nature. Here I support Shakespeare's approximate quote "there is more in heaven and earth that is dreamt of in your philosophy."

Hi Richard

Rather thorough analysis of past attempts at description.

I must say this is the most complete and mechanically detailed theory I have seen about the photon and electron possible internal structure as could be described within the restrictive frame of 4 dimentional spacetime.

I clearly understand why your TEQ needs to exceed c due to its ellical motion along th particle's direction of motion.

I observe that you noticed that the electron has one aspect of its energy twice the frequency of that of a photon having the same energy (0.511 MeV). Important telltale.

You also conclude that the energy making up the rest mass of the electron can never be internally at rest. Total agreement.

I also agree with your conclusion that "This leads to a testable prediction that the inertia of the rotating object could change with its angular velocity. The object could become more or less massive, with correspondingly larger or smaller weight"

However, I think relativistic rotation velocities would need to be reached to obtain a measurable change, and it seems doubtful to me that even the densest material  would not disintegrate outwards long before such rotating velocities are reached, but I may be wrong.

I must say that I also have thought up a theory about the possible internal structure of energy for localized photons and electrons, and establishment of omnidirectional inertia for electrons and positrons. But it involves expanding the space geometry beyond 4D spacetime, which allows defining a model that does not force the particle's internal motion of the energy to exceed c within the particle, and allows a clear mechanical process to describe the decoupling of photons into elecron-positron pairs.

This geometry and the photon model were submitted in a paper titled "On de Broglie's Double Particle photon Hypothesis" to the Journal of Physical Mathematics, and have been deemed Maxwell compliant by the editors and peer-reviewers on December 11 of 2015. The paper should be published within a few weeks or months with doi: "http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2090-0902.1000153" (not yet active right now) in issue 7, year 2016.

A less deeply justified descriptions is however available in papers published in 2013 in an engineering journal:

for the expanded space geometry and photon LC equation:

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol6-issue8/G06083145.pdf

and for pair production from a photon:

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol6-issue10/F06103649.pdf

Hello André,

  Your papers describing a 1.022 MeV photon producing two "half-photons" which form an electron-positron pair are very interesting and I think highly relevant to my unpublished model of a spin-1/2 charged photon. I speculated a few months ago about electron-positron pair production in relation to my spin-1/2 charged photon model in a private physics email discussion group called "nature of light and particles." One interesting and relevant aspect of this internally superluminal spin-1/2 charged photon model is that it makes two helical loops for each wavelength of the spin-1/2 charged photon as measured along the charged photon's helical axis. This compares with one helical loop per photon wavelength in my spin-1 photon model. That means that a spin-1/2 photon corresponding to an electron's energy 0.511 MeV and photon wavelength 1 Compton wavelength h/mc actually "looks like" it has half this wavelength or 1/2 Compton wavelength, which equals the wavelength of a photon of energy  2 x 0.511 MeV = 1.022 MeV. The two spin-1/2 charged photons also each have half the radius of a spin-1 photon with the same energy, or in other words the same radius as a spin 1 photon with twice the energy (and half the wavelength) of a spin-1/2 photon. So it would be very easy for a single photon of energy 1.022 MeV (or more for extra kinetic energy) to split into two spin-1/2 charged photons (positive and negative) without changing the charged photons'  "apparent" wavelength or their radius as compared to that of the 1.022 MeV photon. The spin-1/2 charged photons each of energy 0.511 MeV (or more for extra kinetic energy) could then separate and curl up to form an electron and a positron (each composed of a circulating double-looping spin-1/2 charged photon. What do you think?

This doesn't seem to go against self-consistency of your model.

There is no doubt in my mind either that the electrons and positrons have the same internal dynamic energy structure as photons, since they can be represented with the same LC equation with as the only difference the 90 degree shift in orientation of the motion axis in the 3-spaces model.

I was always astonished that energy can be mathematically represented in so many manners.

I wonder however how the double-looping spin 1/2 charges can relate to the inverse cube magnetic interaction relation that was confirmed between 2 electrons in 2014:

http://www.nature.com/articles/nature13403.epdf?referrer_access_token=yoC6RXrPyxwvQviChYrG0tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PdPJ4geER1fKVR1YXH8GThqECstdb6e48mZm0qQo2OMX_XYURkzBSUZCrxM8VipvnG8FofxB39P4lc-1UIKEO1

There is just another model (under construction) of photons and electrons and more, called "hypotron theory" (HT):

http://kreuzer-dsr.de/kdsr/bulletin/KDSR_HypotronTheory_Flyer.pdf

(ch.2-ch.11 of my personal "research notes" are available as a "booklet", up to now written in German.)

In this HT the photon and the electron and other 'elementary' particles are considered as 'bound states' of 6 fractional charged objects which I called "hypotrons", i.e. the two "low-hypotrons" with charge +1/3 , -1/3

and the two "high-hypotron" with charge +2/3 , -2/3.

Thereby, by hypothesis an 'elementary' particle is considered as a six-pole which carries some charge. Six-poles with integral charge are:

(A) 6 classes of 'elem.' particles with zero charge

(B) 12 classes with pos. integral charge 

(C) 12 classes with neg. integral charge

i.e. the total number of classes of six-poles with integral charge is 30.

Defining a non-additive quantity which I called "supercharge" and using a minimum principle for the square of supercharge and an assumption that a particle of reality is a compound object of a 'core' (i.e. a six-pole mentioned above) plus a 'shell' (consisting out of zero-charge sixpoles) plus a 'field' (consisting out of hypotron-dipoles and hypotron-quadrupoles) it turns out that for some of such 'dressed' particles the (total) supercharge vanishes, i.e. there are

4 (selfconjugate) particle classes with charge 0 which are identified as 'photon', 'strongon' (=gluon), 'weakon' (=Z-particle), and a new 'virolon' (=?, maybe a 'higgs'???))

and

2 (conjugate) particle classes with charge 0 which are identified with the neutrino and antineutrino

and

2 particle classes with charge +1 which are identified with positron and proton

and

1 particle class with charge +2 which might be 'building block' for stable 'dark matter' and which is called 'duolon'

and

1 particle class with charge +3  ('dark matter'?) , which is called 'quatrolon'.

This indicates that the 'stability' of particles of reality might be a result of the specific charge configurations of the six-poles, because only for some of the six-poles it is possible that the square of supercharge of the 'dressed' six-pole is zero.

Denoting a six-pole by a "hypotron configuration vector (N_low+,N_low-,N_high+,N_high-) where N_low+ | N_low- | N_high+ | N_high- is the number of its low-plus-hypotrons | low-minus-hypotrons | high-plus-hypotrons | high-minus-hypotrons, in HT the 'photon' is (3,3,0,0) and the 'neutrino' is (4,0,0,2) and 'electron' is (3,0,0,3) and the 'proton' is (5,0,0,1) and the 'antineutrino' is (0,4,2,0) and the 'positron' is (0,3,3,0) and the 'antiproton' is (0,5,1,0).

Six-poles can be thought of to be arranged in such a way that 3 of the hypotrons perform an oscillating (or stochastically fluctuating) motion along an axis (and thereby specifying this axis) and that the other 3 hypotrons are circulating around this axis!!! This would represent a sixpole which has a 'spin' and an 'energy'.

Up to now I only have a vague idea where in this HT the 'mass' of such six-poles might come from. Maybe 'mass' is somehow related to (1) the configuration of the hypotrons of the six-pole (i.e. the core of a 'dressed' six-pole or 'particle') and to (2) charge and to (3) supercharge and to an (4) 'intrinsic' motion of the fractionally charged parts of six-poles. 

Because HT predicts (just by considering charge and supercharge of six-poles) 5 classes of 'dressed' six-poles to have zero supercharge, beeing identified with the 'neutrino', 'electron', 'proton', and two objects named 'duolon' and 'quatrolon', and because 'dressed' six-poles can be characterized by 10 parameters (including!!! parameters characterizing the 'shell' and the 'field' of a 'dressed' six-pole) it seems that the SO(5) Lie algebra might be useful for further investigations concerning HT and to get further ideas how the notion of 'mass' could enter the framework of "hypotron theory".

Hello André,

I don't know how my model could relate to the experimental inverse-cube magnetic interaction relationship that you mentioned, but it is a good question.

I'm interested in knowing more about de Broglie's 2-particle approach to the photon. Can you suggest a good online reference or other reference? Thanks.

Hello Karl.

   Thanks. Would you briefly summarize how your "hypotron theory" explains the origin of the electron's inertia? Thanks.

   Richard

Hi Richard

Unfortunately, I know of no easily available online references for de Broglies hypothesis.

The reason is that since he was a causalist, most of his work, quite extensive I must say, was not translated to English. I summarize his hypothesis in the first paper I gave you a link to published in an engineering journal.

Still available in French are 2 books, one by himself and the other by George Lochak, his colleague and lifetime friend:

De Broglie Louis (1993) La physique nouvelle et les quanta, Flammarion, France 1937, 2nd Edition 1993, with new 1973 Preface by Louis de Broglie. ISBN: 2-08-081170-3.

Lochak George (1992) Louis de Broglie, Flammarion, Collection Champs. ISBN: 2-08-081337-4.

I have been familiar with his hypothesis since the 1960's so I have had time to completely integrate the idea.

It was him who came up with the idea of spin 1/2 for elementary particles and spin 1 for photons to explain light polarization.

In the 1930's and 1940's he came up with a theory based on wave mechanics, that involves two "half-photons"  (his own term: demi-photon) being singularities in an underlying wave phenomenon.

It never took solid root in the community.

In the 1970's a second theory was developped based on Quantum Chromodynamics and Quantum Mechanics involving a mix of quark-antiquark pairs and gluons.

Both theories however do not give a specific function to the magnetic aspect of electromagnetic energy.

However, if interested you could learn all about de Broglies ideas if you communicate with the

Fondation Louis de Broglie: http://aflb.ensmp.fr/presentation.html

I think George Lochak is still active and he or other members could give you the complete story and/or the references you are looking for that I may not be aware of.

Hello André,

   Thanks.

   I found a copy of de Broglie's book at 

https://archive.org/details/LaPhysiqueNouvelleEtLesQuantaDeBroglie1 . I do want to look into this approach in greater detail and discuss it with you.

    Richard

Hi Richard

Suits me fine. Note that in the paper soon to be released in the JPM, I analyze the considerations that should allow the magnetic aspect of EM energy to be introduced in the photon description, from my perspective, of course.

Note that when de Broglie wrote this book (1935, 1936) he had not yet completely come up with his wave mechanics solution. but interspersed in the text, you will find by bits the foundation of his approach.

Hello André, You propose that the electron-positron pair exists in a different space than the 3D space of the photon they originate from. But don't electrons and positrons also exist in 3D space? By the way, with my superluminal models of the spin 1/2 charged photon, two spin 1/2 photons could first exist without charge and move together to compose a single spin 1 photon, since each of these two "half-photons" has a spin and helical amplitude that is 1/2 that of a spin 1 photon, and their apparent wavelengths, (since in the model they have two helical loops per photon wavelength (each half photon having energy 0.511 MeV or more) would apparently match the wavelength of the 1.022 Mev (or more) spin-1 photon. As the two spin 1/2 photons slowly separate from each other in the spin-1 composite photon, they would also slowly generate their positive and negative electric charges to become two fully charged spin-1/2 photons which are the electron and the positron. 

Available online at www.ilcpa.pl

International Letters of Chemistry, Physics and Astronomy

10 (2014) 14-24 ISSN 2299-3843

Nature of Inertia forces

Yu. A. Baurov

Closed Joint Stock Company, Research Institute of Cosmic Physics, 141070,

Moscow region, Pionerskaya 4, Korolyov, Russia

E-mail address: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

The physical nature of inertia forces is shown on the base of theory of byuons, the theory of “life’ of special unobservable discrete objects – byuons from which the surrounding physical space (dark matter) and the world of elementary particles are formed. The theory of byuons predicts a new non-gauge force of nature which explains of physical nature of inertia forces.

Keywords: byuon; new force; inertia forces

The origin of the electron's inertial mass-as well as that of the  electrically charged leptons, more generally as well as that  of the W and Z bosons-is its interaction with the Higgs. However what's not known is what sets the scale of its Yukawa coupling. What should be kept in mind, however, is that it doesn't make sense to ask about the value of the mass of any particular particle, since this is a dimensionful quantity, but of mass ratios. What controls the mass ratios of the known particles is not known, for the moment.

Photons do not have longitudinal inertia-they're massless-and the photoelectric effect doesn't affect this. The photoelectric effect doesn't have anything to do with pair production-it's ionization. And the fact that electrons are massive doesn't mean they have longitudinal polarization-it means their helicities aren't invariant quantities. 

Hi Richard

If you read again the description of the 3-spaces geometry, you will see that I do not propose that the electron-positron pair exists in a different space, I propose that half of the photon's energy LC-oscillates between 2 spaces that are perpendicular to each other, both of which being perpendicular to normal space, while the other half of the photon's energy remains unidirectional within normal space, aka translational, propelling the oscillating half at the speed of light in vacuum.

I think I must have gotten the idea from de Broglie himself as he was introspecting on what could make representing elementary particles with any precision:

Quote from the book you are reading (translated to English):

""... the non-individuality of particles, the exclusion principle and exchange energy are three intimately related enigmas; all three are tied to the im­possibility of exactly representing elementary physical entities within the frame of continuous three dimensional space (or more generally of continu­ous four dimensional space-time). Some day maybe, by escaping from this frame, will we better grasp the meaning, still quite cryptic today, of these ma­jor guiding principles of the new physics." (page 273)."

You say "By the way, with my superluminal models of the spin 1/2 charged photon, two spin 1/2 photons could first exist without charge and move together to compose a single spin 1 photon"

That's one thing I liked about your model, because if you read correctly my description, you will see that I do not assign "signs" to the charges of the half-photons (niether did de Broglie). They have to be "neutral", whatever they are, within the photon, and acquire signs as the photon decouples into a pair.

Richard

Reading again your message, I see that I did not completely address your mention that "that the electron-positron pair exists in a different space".

In the 3-spaces geometry, since half of a photon's energy is unidirectional in normal space, thus has only longitudinal inertia, the only way for it to acquire omnidirectional inertia is for it to transfer to one of the perpendicular spaces, where energy by definition has omnidirectional inertia. In this expanded space geometry, there is only one manner in wich this could be mechanically accomplished.

After conversion, half of an electron's energy oscillates between magnetostatic space and normal space, while the other half remains unididirectional within electrostatic space in a fixed manner (determining the unit sign intensity of the charge). This fixed status within electrostatic space is borne out by a demonstrated conclusion of Paul Marmet that only the magnetic aspect of an electron increases in intensity with velocity.

In a few weeks, I hope, my accepted paper will be released by the Journal of Physical Mathematics. All required considerations are put in more obvious perspective.

Hello Yurly,  I found your article at http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/yadda/element/bwmeta1.element.baztech-99e8655c-c77a-47b5-bc88-43441a530e67/c/Baurov.pdf .     Richard

 Hello André, Thank you for that clarification about spaces.

I think that the idea of an electron-positron pair evolving continuously from a single photon is a nice one. I also think the Pauli exclusion principle, which applies to fermions but not to bosons, could be relevant here. Could two neutral half-photons each with spin 1/2 coexist very long as a spin 1 photon? Or would they be "pushed apart" by the Pauli exclusion principle as soon as they appeared as two separate spin-1/2 particles from a spin 1 photon?

Hello Stam, The origin of the electron's inertial mass could be a two-step process: first the Higgs field causes a massless light-speed spin-1/2 particle with the electron's  momentum Eo/c or more to curl up (this should happen to these light-speed particles in pairs in order to conserve net electric charge) and then, instead of moving linearly as before, move helically as in my spin-1/2 charged photon model (how they curl up to form electrons is not explained in my origin-of-inertia model for the electron, but it requires a huge force per electron as mentioned in my article) and then the curled up light-speed particle now with invariant circulating momentum Eo/c = mc gets its measured inertial mass m from this circulating momentum Eo/c as described in my inertia article. Does the Higgs field act every time a photon of energy greater than 1.022 MeV converts to an electron-positron pair in the presence of a nearby nucleus?

Hi Richard

I absolutely agree. In the 3-spaces geometry, Pauli's exclusion principle definitely applies to fermions and simply does not apply to 2 particle bosons such as the photon.

If you carefully examine the LC relation involved, you will observe that the motion of the photon's energy within magnetostatic space can be dipolar only along the time dimension, because the spherical expansion phase cannot possibly occur at the same time as the spherical regression phase. In a manner of speaking, both spins occur sequentially within the photon and do not come in conflict. In the 3-spaces model, the two half-spin characteristic of the internally oscillating energy do not coexist by structure.

As the two half-photons separate in case of pair creation, then the internal energy of each separate particles, (the half of their energy that oscillates between magnetostatic space and normal space), still has this spherically increasing phase followed by a spherical decreasing phase within magnetostatic space, which means that for them, Pauli's exclusion principle is satisfied when two such particles are in anti-parallel spin alignment, allowing covalent bounding between atoms and orbital filling by electron pairs.

Antiparallel spin alignment occurs in the 3-spaces model when one electron is in its increasing magnetic phase while a second electron is its decreasing magnetic phase, resolving in inverse cube magnetic attraction. Parallel spin alignment occurs when increasing and decreasing phases of both electrons occur synchronously at the same time, resolving in inverse cube magnetic repulsion.

I analyzed this as the outcome of an experiment I carried out in 1998, documented in this paper published in 2013. Note that the inverse cube experiment carried out in 2014 with 2 electrons that I gave a link to previously comes in confirmation of my own lab bench experiment.

http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue5/H0705050066.pdf

The fact that both electric inverse square interaction and magnetic inverse cube interaction are in permanent action between electromagnetic fermions even explains why the electron cannot fall on the nucleus in a hydrogen atom. There is no way that it can remain closer than the mean rest orbital other than fleetingly before being repelled. This is analyzed in the same paper. This seems to explain atomic stability and much more.

Another path to source of inertia: resurrection of Mach´s principle exactly as found by Einstein in his book 'The meaning of relativity'.

Einstein's GR theory contains an inductive interaction in analogy with electromagnetism. By applying this interaction to the rest of the universe, taking into account retarded interaction, the inertial mass may be generated from this gravitational interaction. Have a look at

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273306994_Sources_of_inertia_in_an_expanding_universe

Article Sources of inertia in an expanding universe

The physical nature of inertia forces is shown on the base of theory of byuons, the theory of “life’ of special unobservable discrete objects – byuons from which the surrounding physical space (dark matter) and the world of elementary particles are formed. The theory of byuons predicts a new non-gauge force of nature which explains of physical nature of inertia forces. (Int. Letter of Chemistry, Physics and Astronomy 10(2014) 14-24)

Dear Richard Gauthier

Electron’s inertia comes from the same mechanism generating the de Broglie periodicity, which results from the superposition of vibrations implicit in the wave-packet (there are several studies proving this).

Remember: Vibrations -> energy -> mass (or inertia)

Electrons are massless elementary electrical charges (MEEC) subject to the influence of the Planck’s vacuum (a distribution of non-observable half-quantum electromagnetic waves), and as such, its dynamics confuse with the dynamics of the zero-point radiation (at the Compton’s frequency); exchanging half-quantum bosons (Higgs) to get the rest mass, acquiring the light speed (Schrödinger’s zitterbewegung), and performing random local circulatory evolutions compatible with spin. Nevertheless, the continually tangled zero-point radiation (by MEEC) — light speed of electrons (Dirac) — conflicts with the ordinary translational motion of bodies. Explaining, vacuum induced fluctuations have spherical symmetry in the co-moving frame. Combining these fluctuations (random circles at the light speed) with the ordinary motion of bodies, appears myriads of violations of the light speed limit (don’t worry about, this strangeness is implicit in the improper phase velocity of the implied de Broglie material wave, viewed as a quantum superposition), which according to the Maxwell equations cannot be greater nor lower than c. Consequently, to preserve the natural speed of radiation (i.e. the speed of the tangled zero-point radiation) particles vibrate (truncations and restorations of the ordinary motion), which can be inferred from the velocity operator of a free electron [Schrödinger, Dirac, Sakurai, Messiah].

Hi Fernando. Sounds interesting but complicated. I just published a possibly simpler derivation of inertial mass at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314151256_Derivation_of_the_Inertial_Mass_m_E_o_c_2_of_an_Electron_Composed_of_a_Circling_Spin-12_Charged_Photon

   Richard

Article Derivation of the Inertial Mass m = E o / c 2 of an Electron...

Dear Richard Gauthier

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler (Einstein).

Your model starts from the well-known fact that the momentum of circulating bodies is given by p = mv, where v is the tangential velocity. Deliberately, this body becomes a “postulated circling radiation (photon) of spin-1/2”, for which p -> E/c, v -> c, and m -> mass-equivalent of radiation (then imputed to the body); simplification to a bit.

Descartes and Fermat have stablished that light (radiation) only change direction when the index of refraction (at the time, a resistance) change (today universally accepted). Moreover, the general relativity only allows circulating photons when gravity -> infinite (clearly, an impossibility). In the present days, were detected only two types of radiation: integer-quantum radiation (the observed radiation of the first Planck’s radiation law) and half-quantum radiation (considered in Casimir based experiments), i.e., the well-known zero-point radiation (only observed, indirectly, through special means), existing in the so-called Planck’s vacuum, independently of temperature (second Planck’s radiation law). Both, considering short distances in vacuum (not astronomical), describe straight lines (an approximation universally accepted). So, your model (postulating circling radiation) has serious problems. Moreover, in a sense, it inserts a postulate inside another postulate (light speed invariance), which is not a recommended procedure when trying to explain the foundations of the observed physics.

Massless elementary electrical charges (MEEC), in the co-moving frame, indeed circulates, randomically, in agreement with the statistical nature of spin; Schrödinger prove it from the Heisenberg picture of quantum mechanics allied to the Dirac Hamiltonian; zitterbewegung. Inexorably, the Schrödinger’s zitterbewegung says that electrons move as radiation (this inspired the idea that MEEC needs Higgs bosons to get mass). It happens because zero-point radiation — traveling over straight lines — presenting a big density, fires MEEC resonantly (they are extended distributions of charge, so have internal structure), isotropically and conservatively (absorbed energy equal to the emitted energy, incident momentum equal to the reaction momentum). Consequently, the space domain of the induced fluctuations is the space domain of half-quantum zero-point radiation (Compton’s space domain). By incorporating this radiation (continually but for a while), MEEC gain rest energy (mass). Inertial mass only appears when these vacuum induced fluctuations (random circles generating spin) gets the ordinary translational motion, which induces additional vibrations in agreement with the de Broglie periodicity. These vibrations prevent violations of the light speed limit (radiation tangled by MEEC) when combining spherical vacuum induced fluctuations with the ordinary translational motion. Amazingly, this idea, without violating any known physical law, is in full agreement with:

1. X-ray spread

2. Quantum wave-packet (infinite number of vibrations accompanying particles)

3. de Broglie duality (intimately related to inertia)

4. The improper phase velocity of the material wave (resulting from violations of the light speed)

5. Lorentz transformation (time spent in preserving the light speed of the tangled radiation is observed only in the fixed frame)

6. The velocity operator of the Dirac electron

7. Why de Broglie periodicity seems to be a Doppler Shift.

as can be seen in the reference [Ogiba F. On the Quantum-Relativistic Behavior of moving particles].

Hello Fernando,

   Thank you for your detailed comments and objections to my derivation of inertial mass from a proposed spin-1/2 charged photon model. Of course normal spin-1 photons don't move in circles. My proposed spin-1/2 charged photon DOES move in circles in a resting electron and in a helical trajectory in a moving electron. Please see my article https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281322081_Electrons_are_spin_12_charged_photons_generating_the_de_Broglie_wavelength . So while I accept your objection concerning the normal spin-1 photon, I don't accept your objection concerning the proposed spin-1/2 charged photon model that composes my electron model and gives it its inertial mass. The main questions are "Does the spin-1/2 charged photon exist?" and "Does it compose an electron, and other similar particles?"

Research Electrons are spin 1/2 charged photons generating the de Bro...

The physical nature of inertia forces is shown on the base of theory of byuons, the theory of “life’ of special unobservable discrete objects – byuons from which the surrounding physical space (dark matter) and the world of elementary particles are formed. The theory of byuons predicts a new non-gauge force of nature which explains of physical nature of inertia forces.

Hello Yuriy Alexeevich,

 It's quite amazing that there are such varied ways of understanding inertia. Are other colleagues at the Russian Academy of Sciences actively working on understanding inertia?

     Richard

Dear Dr. Richard GauthierI

I think not because RAS investigate a nature using standard gauge modern physics where an inertia is connected with a systen of coordinates.

Sincerely Yours!

Baurov Yu.A. Ph.D.