[General] Reply of comments from what a model…
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Mon Dec 14 13:35:20 PST 2015
Hello Richard,
you have made correct calculations in your paper. But regarding the
context and the result, I think that you know my position about it.
Inertial mass and momentum have the same physical origin. Mass is the
resistance against a change of the state of motion, as you write it.
Momentum tells us, how long we have to apply a certain force in order to
stop a moving mass. That are two different aspects of the same origin.
In my view we cannot explain one aspect by using the relation to the
other aspect.
The question is, what is this origin? And my position is that the origin
is the extension of an object in connection with the finiteness of the
speed of light, by which the binding forces propagate. That explains
mass /and /momentum.
Another question which was raised by David is, what is the physical
connection of this origin of mass to gravity? This question is used to
be asked at conferences, where the Higgs mechanism is a topic. If this
question is asked to the Higgs people, they never have an answer. That
is at least my experience.
Albrecht
Am 14.12.2015 um 18:25 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
> Hello Albrecht and others,
>
> I’ve just found a short derivation for the inertia or rest mass m of
> a resting electron from the momentum mc of a circulating charged
> photon modeling the electron. I’ve written up a short note at
> https://www.academia.edu/19652036/The_Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia .
> Here’s the abstract:
>
> "The inertia or rest mass m of an electron, modeled as a circulating
> charged photon, is simply derived from Newton’s second law F=ma , the
> time rate of change of the vector momentum mc of the circulating
> charged photon having the energy mc^2 of the electron, and the
> centripetal acceleration of the circulating charged photon.”
>
> Basically the proof is
>
> M= F/a = (dp/dt)/(c^2/r) = (wp)/(w^2 r) = p/wr = (mc)/c = m
>
> Richard
>
>
>> On Dec 10, 2015, at 11:49 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de
>> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Richard,
>> my comments again in your text:
>>
>> Am 09.12.2015 um 07:19 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>> Hello Albrecht,
>>> Let us for the sake of argument assume that your statement “ So an
>>> extended electron has necessarily inertia. But not only as a
>>> qualitative result but quantitatively with high precision! And this
>>> is not only true for the electron but also for all fermions (leptons
>>> and quarks). “ is correct. But since there is no experimental
>>> evidence for an extended electron, your argument falls apart right
>>> from the start. This is the case no matter how many people attend
>>> your talks.
>> Again the following arguments for an extended electron (as well for
>> the other leptons, for all quarks)
>>
>> 1.) The extension is a precondition of relativistic dilation
>> 2.) The extension is the cause of inertial mass (I do not know any
>> other cause)
>> 3.) The extension is a precondition of the magnetic moment at a
>> charged particle (is otherwise not possible)
>> 4.) The extension is a precondition of the spin (is as well
>> otherwise not explained).
>>
>> I know very few cases in the history of physics where the evidence
>> was so great!
>>>
>>> Then you write:
>>>> If you derive inertia from an occurrence of momentum, then this is
>>>> circular reasoning. As momentum without inertial is not possible.
>>>
>>> Inertia is the quantitative measure equal to the rest mass of an
>>> object and nothing else. Otherwise "Inertia" is just a vague word.
>> Inertia is the resistance against a change of the state of motion. It
>> is very well defined (once by Newton).
>>> An unconfined photon traveling linearly carries momentum but has no
>>> rest mass and therefore has no inertia.
>> If you want to change the motion state of a photon, which means in
>> the case of the photon a change or its direction, you need a force.
>> That means inertia by definition.
>>> Light must be confined or self-confined to have rest-mass/inertia A
>>> charged photon traveling helically and modeling an electron DOES
>>> have rest mass (as calculated from the electron's relativistic
>>> energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 ) and therefore by
>>> definition has inertia.
>> The famous relation E = m*c^2 (as part of your equation above)
>> describes a relation between mass and energy. Originally (as derived
>> by Einstein) in the differential form: dE = dm * c^2. That means that
>> a change in energy causes a change of mass. This has no explaining
>> power for the mechanism itself which causes inertia. If a photon has
>> inertia then we have to explain this mechanism within the photon
>> which causes the photon to be inertial.
>>> The helical trajectory of the charged photon model may be the origin
>>> of inertia, not a two-ghost-particle electron model. One can claim
>>> that there is no evidence for the charged photon. But first
>>> something has to be conceived before evidence for its existence can
>>> be found. Objects exist first mentally as a conception or
>>> hypothesis. Then support for the conception is sought
>>> experimentally. This is how science works and progresses.
>> Science means at least as a final result that we have to find the
>> mechanism of a phenomenon, here of inertia. I do not see a connection
>> between a possible charge in a photon and the fact that a photon has
>> inertial behaviour. You have written in the beginning: "Otherwise
>> "Inertia" is just a vague word." There are all words here vague
>> words as long as not a mechanism or process is given. And exactly
>> that I find missing in most of the discussion here about inertia.
>>> Richard
>> Albrecht
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Dec 8, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello Richard,
>>>>
>>>> I fell a little bit like Sisyphos. No progress.
>>>>
>>>> Am 07.12.2015 um 06:20 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>>>> Hello Albrecht,
>>>>>
>>>>> The nature of scientific exploration is that “anything goes” if
>>>>> it ethically produces new scientific discoveries. So your idea of
>>>>> an indirect strong force on electrons to explain your two-particle
>>>>> model of the electron COULD be correct despite the current lack of
>>>>> any accepted evidence for your model. The law of conservation of
>>>>> momentum is NOT evidence for your specific electron model.
>>>> No, as I wrote earlier: The conservation of momentum follows from
>>>> the symmetry of space. And that is very fundamental. Is used by my
>>>> model and by the whole rest of the physical world. Formally
>>>> introduced by the mathematician Emmy Noether in 1918.
>>>>> The unexplained results at DESY do not provide support for any
>>>>> hypothesis, including yours.
>>>> They have to be explained. I have an explanation which you may not
>>>> like. Your alternative??
>>>>> Your electron hypothesis could be wrong, and is very like to be
>>>>> wrong as I think you will admit. So far your hypothesis hasn’t
>>>>> produced any good scientific results that I know of. I for one am
>>>>> not convinced that your electron hypothesis explains inertia
>>>>> quantitatively (by deriving the electron’s mass from the Bohr
>>>>> magneton ehbar/2m , which already contains the electron’s mass).
>>>> NO! NO! NO! I have explained it several times now. Inertia is
>>>> caused by the fact that *any extended object **has **necessarily
>>>> inertial behaviour*. It is the consequence of the finiteness of the
>>>> speed by which the binding forces propagate. Very fundamental
>>>> physics. So an extended electron has necessarily inertia. But not
>>>> only as a qualitative result but quantitatively with high
>>>> precision! And this is not only true for the electron but also for
>>>> all fermions (leptons and quarks).
>>>>
>>>> Any theory or model needs at least on parameter which is measured.
>>>> This is in case of my model Planck's constant. I use the Bohr
>>>> magneton to connect Planck's constant to my model. I could as well
>>>> have used the relation E = h * frequency. But I found the other way
>>>> more elegant.
>>>>
>>>> I do not know any other working model for inertia. The Higgs theory
>>>> does not work as we know. On the other hand my website about
>>>> "origin of mass" is the number one in the internet since 13 years.,
>>>> And when I give talks about it on conferences in Germany, the
>>>> lecture hall is normally overcrowded. An indication of weakness?
>>>>> I don’t accept that your electron hypothesis is the only
>>>>> hypothesis that can explain inertia, as you claim. Inertia could
>>>>> be explained by the “hidden momentum” component mc in my
>>>>> charged-photon electron model.
>>>> If you derive inertia from an occurrence of momentum, then this is
>>>> circular reasoning. As momentum without inertial is not possible.
>>>>> My charged-photon electron model, and John W’s and John M’s and
>>>>> Vivian’s and Chip’s electron models could also all be wrong. But I
>>>>> think that we are collectively making progress. Eliminating
>>>>> deadwood and dead-ends is also part of progress. I don’t see any
>>>>> progress in your model, despite all the energy you put into
>>>>> defending its many weaknesses. You still have not explained how
>>>>> your electron model can have a positive total energy based on its
>>>>> strong nuclear force's negative binding energy. Maybe this will
>>>>> not be possible without radically changing your electron model of
>>>>> two circulating particles that individually have no mass and no
>>>>> energy, but are bound together by the strong nuclear force.
>>>> No reason for a change as anything works with very good precision.
>>>> And from the scratch.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don’t know of any awards for electron models. De Broglie and
>>>>> Dirac both got Nobel prizes for their electron equations without
>>>>> having electron models. Heisenberg and Schrodinger also didn’t
>>>>> have electron models when they won their Nobel prizes for
>>>>> discovering quantum mechanics. Perhaps we could start a
>>>>> competition for the best electron model. That could possibly speed
>>>>> up the progress in getting a really good one. But the best
>>>>> electron model will be the one that has the best potential to lead
>>>>> to the best new scientific results.
>>>> What de Broglie, Schrödinger, and Dirac did was more algebra than
>>>> physics. That is their common weakness. And as we have found out in
>>>> our discussion here is that de Broglie has a logical error in his
>>>> derivation. And Schrödinger and Dirac based on his result. How
>>>> proper can that be?
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn’t have any position on quarks when they were first
>>>>> introduced. My introductory physics professor in 1963 at MIT Henry
>>>>> Kendall was one of the high energy experimental physicists that
>>>>> later experimentally discovered the first quark. The other five
>>>>> quarks were also discovered by the methods of experimental high
>>>>> energy physics. I think the general positive trend of modern
>>>>> physics is to overturn traditional dogmatic materialism and to
>>>>> open up new ways of understanding the relationships among matter,
>>>>> energy and mind. Physicists should not replace old dogmas by new
>>>>> dogmas. Getting new ideas and concepts accepted in physics is not
>>>>> easy, nor should it be. There’s a lot of junk out there.
>>>> Just to remind you: The Up-quark and the Down-quark have never been
>>>> discovered. They have been assumed to exist as this has eased the
>>>> formal treatment of nucleons. Nothing better.
>>>>
>>>> With best regards
>>>> Albrecht
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> With best regards,
>>>>> Richard
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 6, 2015, at 7:28 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> what do you expect from science? Do your claims describe the way
>>>>>> as science works?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you look into the history of physics, discoveries have
>>>>>> happened in a different way than following your demands here. I
>>>>>> shall give two examples.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is about the quarks, the Up-quark and the Down-quark? No one
>>>>>> has ever seen them, no lab was able to isolate them. Nevertheless
>>>>>> no one in main stream physics questions that these two quarks
>>>>>> exist. The advantage of this assumption is that interactions with
>>>>>> nucleons can be mathematically handled in a better way. That is
>>>>>> by common view sufficient since more than 40 years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was a student when the quark was introduced. Many established
>>>>>> physicists in research laughed about this idea. And the quark was
>>>>>> not visible, is not visible until today. But those who introduced
>>>>>> it received the Nobel price. - What was your position to quarks
>>>>>> at that time? Or what is it now?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And as I wrote in my last answer: The strong force was believed
>>>>>> to exist for 40 years before detailed proofs could be given (by
>>>>>> the existence of gluons). /If this is the only choice, then it is
>>>>>> the answer//(at least temporary)//. That is the rule in physics. /
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The same is true for the strong force in the electron. It is the
>>>>>> only way (at present) to deduce inertia. And there is no
>>>>>> counter-proof. The direct positive proof is difficult in so far
>>>>>> as the coupling between quarks and electrons is very weak caused
>>>>>> by the very different size of both particles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regarding the excess of certain events in the DESY experiment: Do
>>>>>> you have a solution? Or a better solution? Perhaps then /you /can
>>>>>> win an award ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 05.12.2015 um 19:10 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>>>>>> Albrecht,
>>>>>>> You wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The conclusion now of a direct interaction of the strong force
>>>>>>>> between the quark and the electron is a more indirect proof,
>>>>>>>> but the only one left at present - in my view.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you are the only one in the world to come to this
>>>>>>> conclusion, and DESY did not come to this conclusion (which
>>>>>>> would have probably won them a Nobel prize if correct), then I
>>>>>>> am not willing to accept it and I doubt that any logical and
>>>>>>> independent scientist will either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you then write
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> further that a lot of other problems can be resolved with the
>>>>>>>> assumption that the strong force is the universal force in the
>>>>>>>> world, then this is in my view an even better argument than the
>>>>>>>> one in the 1930s for the strong force.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You say that a lot of problems could be solved if the strong
>>>>>>> force affects the electron. This is not a good or logical reason
>>>>>>> to accept that the strong force affects the electron. If rivers
>>>>>>> flowed with milk, a lot of world hunger problems would be
>>>>>>> solved, but this is not a reason to accept that rivers flow with
>>>>>>> milk.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Dec 5, 2015, at 7:36 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello Richard,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> my answers in the text:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:00:23 -0800 schrieb Richard Gauthier :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hello Albrecht,
>>>>>>>>> In physics no one can validly claim that the strong force
>>>>>>>>> nuclear acting on electrons was “seen” at DESY if such an
>>>>>>>>> important and unexpected result was never confirmed by any
>>>>>>>>> other qualified laboratory in all the years afterward. So
>>>>>>>>> please let go of your claim about the strong nuclear force
>>>>>>>>> acting on electrons at least until it is confirmed by another
>>>>>>>>> laboratory. I am not saying that conventional wisdom is always
>>>>>>>>> right (obviously it isn’t). But in experimental physics one
>>>>>>>>> needs to play by the statistical “rules” (which are in any
>>>>>>>>> case designed to guard against “false positives” like the DESY
>>>>>>>>> experiment might have been) if one wants to have credibility
>>>>>>>>> among other knowledgeable physicists. (We are not talking
>>>>>>>>> about credibility by the general public here.)
>>>>>>>> There were two teams at DESY who have seen an excess of
>>>>>>>> triggers in electron-quark interactions, which could not be
>>>>>>>> explained by leptonic interactions based on the electrical
>>>>>>>> force. The attempt to postulate a new "leptoquark", which could
>>>>>>>> mediate between the electron and the strong force, failed. The
>>>>>>>> conclusion now of a direct interaction of the strong force
>>>>>>>> between the quark and the electron is a more indirect proof,
>>>>>>>> but the only one left at present - in my view.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But what was the evidence of the strong force when it came up?
>>>>>>>> See below.
>>>>>>>>> And without confirmation of the DESY results (or their
>>>>>>>>> logical interpretation), your 2-particle electron model goes
>>>>>>>>> nowhere fast. As you wrote, “ Without referring to the strong
>>>>>>>>> force, the calculation of the mass of the electron has
>>>>>>>>> incorrect results by a factor of several hundred. “ So
>>>>>>>>> everything else in your model hinges on an unconfirmed result
>>>>>>>>> from one physics laboratory. As theoretical physicists say (or
>>>>>>>>> should say) when their predictions are not confirmed by
>>>>>>>>> experiments: “Well, back to the drawing board.”
>>>>>>>> The strong force was postulated in the 1930s when it became
>>>>>>>> clear that there are >1 protons in the nucleus which are bound
>>>>>>>> to each other despite of the repulsive force of the electric
>>>>>>>> charges. The stable bind was the only reason at that time to
>>>>>>>> assume a "strong force". It was not earlier than in the year
>>>>>>>> 1978, so ca. 40 years later, that gluons have been identified
>>>>>>>> at DESY and so the strong force has become more than an assumption.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If I say that the strong force in the electron is the only
>>>>>>>> cause of inertia, which is presently available, further that a
>>>>>>>> lot of other problems can be resolved with the assumption that
>>>>>>>> the strong force is the universal force in the world, then this
>>>>>>>> is in my view an even better argument than the one in the 1930s
>>>>>>>> for the strong force.
>>>>>>>>> with best wishes,
>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>> Best wishes back
>>>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 26, 2015, at 8:53 AM, Albrecht Giese
>>>>>>>>>> <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hallo Richard,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> thank you for your alternative proposal. Unfortunately there
>>>>>>>>>> are some points of misunderstanding with respect to my model.
>>>>>>>>>> And also some other physical arguments I like to point to -
>>>>>>>>>> in your text.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Am 23.11.2015 um 19:43 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Albrecht,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I’m glad that you say that developing a 2-particle model
>>>>>>>>>>> of the electron was not your main interest. I think it will
>>>>>>>>>>> be useful to see what parts of your model may be saved, and
>>>>>>>>>>> what parts may have to go, to get a working model in
>>>>>>>>>>> progress for the electron which most of us here might agree
>>>>>>>>>>> on. First, since there is no generally accepted evidence of
>>>>>>>>>>> a nuclear strong force relation to electrons, let’s drop
>>>>>>>>>>> that proposal for holding your 2 circulating charged
>>>>>>>>>>> massless particles in orbit, at least for now.
>>>>>>>>>> Here I object. 1) The strong force in the electron was seen
>>>>>>>>>> at DESY experiments in the 1990s. 2) Without referring to the
>>>>>>>>>> strong force, the calculation of the mass of the electron has
>>>>>>>>>> incorrect results by a factor of several hundred. This was
>>>>>>>>>> found out by physicists in the 1940s, e.g. by Helmut Hönl. (I
>>>>>>>>>> can send you his paper if you are interested, however in German.)
>>>>>>>>>>> Second, since there’s no evidence for a two-particle
>>>>>>>>>>> structure of the electron from any scattering or other
>>>>>>>>>>> experiments, let’s also consider dropping that proposal for
>>>>>>>>>>> now. Your insistence that a 2-particle model is required for
>>>>>>>>>>> conservation of momentum at the sub-electron level does not
>>>>>>>>>>> seem sufficient to accept this part of your 2-particle
>>>>>>>>>>> model. We don’t even know experimentally that conservation
>>>>>>>>>>> of momentum exists at the sub-electron level, do we? Just an
>>>>>>>>>>> article of faith?
>>>>>>>>>> This may be a point of personal judgement, but in my view the
>>>>>>>>>> conservation if momentum is a fundamental law in physics,
>>>>>>>>>> maybe the most fundamental law. It follows logically from the
>>>>>>>>>> symmetry of space (refer to Emmy Noether, who has set some
>>>>>>>>>> logical basics for QM).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So what is left of your model? You claim that your two
>>>>>>>>>>> particles are massless and travel at light speed. But you
>>>>>>>>>>> don’t say that they are also without energy, do you? If
>>>>>>>>>>> there are two massless particles, they will still each have
>>>>>>>>>>> to have 0.511/2 MeV of energy if the electron’s total
>>>>>>>>>>> resting energy 0.511 MeV is divided equally between them.
>>>>>>>>>> I have explained this in a former comment. The two "basic"
>>>>>>>>>> particles do not have any energy by themselves. The energy is
>>>>>>>>>> caused by the motion of the basic particles in the situation
>>>>>>>>>> of a bind. Mass is anyway a dynamic property of matter as it
>>>>>>>>>> is even seen by present main stream physics.
>>>>>>>>>>> One kind of particle that has no rest mass but has energy
>>>>>>>>>>> and travels at light speed is a photon.
>>>>>>>>>> This assumption is not true as explained above.
>>>>>>>>>>> (Let’s forget about gluons here for now since there is no
>>>>>>>>>>> accepted evidence for a strong nuclear force on electrons).
>>>>>>>>>>> So each of your two particles (if there are still two for
>>>>>>>>>>> some other reason besides conservation of momentum, and a
>>>>>>>>>>> need for an attractive force between them to overcome their
>>>>>>>>>>> electric repulsion) could be a charged photon (circulating
>>>>>>>>>>> charge is necessary to get a magnetic moment for the model)
>>>>>>>>>>> with energy 0.511/2 MeV, which has energy but no rest mass. OK.
>>>>>>>>>> Not true!
>>>>>>>>>>> But each of these two charged photons, each of energy
>>>>>>>>>>> 0.511/2 MeV = mc^2/2 will have a wavelength of 2 Compton
>>>>>>>>>>> wavelengths = 2 h/mc . If 1 wavelength of each photon is
>>>>>>>>>>> turned into a single closed loop, the each loop would have a
>>>>>>>>>>> radius 2hbar/mc, which is twice the radius hbar/mc of your
>>>>>>>>>>> proposed electron model. To make each of these photons move
>>>>>>>>>>> circularly in a way that each of their wavelengths gives a
>>>>>>>>>>> radius of hbar/mc as in your model, each photon would have
>>>>>>>>>>> to move in a double loop. So there will be two photons each
>>>>>>>>>>> of energy 0.511/2 moving in a double loop in this model.
>>>>>>>>>>> This is getting complicated.
>>>>>>>>>> The Compton wavelength has a different origin. It comes from
>>>>>>>>>> scattering of photons at an electron (example). The Compton
>>>>>>>>>> wavelength is then the maximum change of the wavelength of
>>>>>>>>>> the photon in such process. - This wavelength is in this way
>>>>>>>>>> not any geometrical extension of the electron. Yes, we find
>>>>>>>>>> this value in some calculations, but we should be cautious to
>>>>>>>>>> use it for the determination of dimension.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Let’s drop one of the two photons for simplicity (Occam’s
>>>>>>>>>>> razor put to good use) so that the other photon will have
>>>>>>>>>>> the full electron energy 0.511 MeV .
>>>>>>>>>> What is the origin of this energy in the photon? And which
>>>>>>>>>> mechanism causes actually the energy of this photon? A photon
>>>>>>>>>> can in general have any energy, doesn't it?
>>>>>>>>>>> This photon will now have a wavelength 1 Compton wavelength.
>>>>>>>>>>> If this 1 Compton wavelength charged photon moves in a
>>>>>>>>>>> single loop it will create an electron with magnetic moment
>>>>>>>>>>> 1 Bohr magneton and a spin of 1 hbar. That’s good for the
>>>>>>>>>>> experimental magnetic moment of the electron (slightly more
>>>>>>>>>>> than 1 Bohr magneton) but bad for its experimental spin
>>>>>>>>>>> (which you tried to reduce to 1/2 hbar in your model by a
>>>>>>>>>>> delayed force argument). If the photon moves in a double
>>>>>>>>>>> loop it will be good for the spin (which now is exactly 1/2
>>>>>>>>>>> hbar) but bad for the magnetic moment (now 1/2 Bohr magneton).
>>>>>>>>>> Why does the double loop reduce the spin? Why the Bohr
>>>>>>>>>> magneton? The magnetic moment depends on the area in the
>>>>>>>>>> loop. How large is this area in this case?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The magnetic moment is larger than the Bohr magneton. In my
>>>>>>>>>> model this is the contribution of the (small) electrical
>>>>>>>>>> charges in view of the (large) strong charges.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And which mechanism causes the double loop? It cannot come
>>>>>>>>>> from itself. A circuit is a simple structure which does not
>>>>>>>>>> need many influences. A double loop is more and needs a cause.
>>>>>>>>>>> So there’s still a problem with the model’s magnetic moment.
>>>>>>>>>>> But this double-looping charged photon model now has gained
>>>>>>>>>>> the zitterbewegung frequency of the Dirac electron which is
>>>>>>>>>>> desirable for an electron model which hopes to model the
>>>>>>>>>>> Dirac electron. And it also has 720 degree symmetry which
>>>>>>>>>>> the Dirac electron has (while your original 2-particle model
>>>>>>>>>>> has a rotational symmetry of 180 degrees, since each
>>>>>>>>>>> particle would take the place of the other after a
>>>>>>>>>>> half-circle rotation).
>>>>>>>>>> In my model the zitterbewegung frequency is the circulation
>>>>>>>>>> frequency of the basic particles. The rotational symmetry is
>>>>>>>>>> not 180 but 360 degrees as the strong field of the basic
>>>>>>>>>> particles is not equal, but one basic particle changes the
>>>>>>>>>> other one by electrical influence. This works analogue to the
>>>>>>>>>> case of the van der Waals force.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think of this new model so far?
>>>>>>>>>> Did I explain it sufficiently?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 22, 2015, at 9:43 AM, Albrecht Giese
>>>>>>>>>>>> <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Richard,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I never have persistently tried to develop a 2-particle
>>>>>>>>>>>> model. What I have persistently tried was to find a good
>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation for relativistic dilation. And there I found a
>>>>>>>>>>>> solution which has satisfied me. All the rest including the
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 particles in my model where logical consequences where I
>>>>>>>>>>>> did not see alternatives. If there should be a model which
>>>>>>>>>>>> is an alternative in one or the other aspect, I will be
>>>>>>>>>>>> happy to see it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 22.11.2015 um 00:13 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Albrecht,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I admire your persistence in trying to save your doomed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (in my opinion) 2-particle electron model.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why 2 particles in the model? I say it again:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) to maintain the conservation of momentum in the view of
>>>>>>>>>>>> oscillations
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) to have a mechanism for inertia (which has very precise
>>>>>>>>>>>> results, otherwise non-existent in present physics)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I will be happy to see alternatives for both points. Up to
>>>>>>>>>>>> now I have not seen any.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand how unreasonable and irrational it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears for you to write: "Then I had to determine the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> field constant S which is normally provided by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiments. But quantum mechanics is so unprecise
>>>>>>>>>>>>> regarding the numeric value of the strong force that there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is no number available in the data tables. Here I found
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I could use the Bohr magneton to determine the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant. (Which turned out to be S = hbar*c, merely a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant).” ?
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have once asked one of the leading theorists at DESY for
>>>>>>>>>>>> a better quantitative explanation or determination of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> strong force. His answer: Sorry, the strong force is not
>>>>>>>>>>>> good enough understood so that I cannot give you better
>>>>>>>>>>>> information.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How could the number S that you could not find in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> “unprecise” tables about the strong force possibly be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> same number that can be found precisely from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> electron’s Bohr magneton ehbar/2m and which you claim is S
>>>>>>>>>>>>> = hbar*c ? This is an unbelievable, desperate stretch of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> imagination and "grasping at straws", in my opinion.
>>>>>>>>>>>> When I have realized that my model deduces the Bohr
>>>>>>>>>>>> magneton, I have used the measurements available in that
>>>>>>>>>>>> context to determine my field constant. (I could also go
>>>>>>>>>>>> the other way: I can use the Planck / Einstein relation E =
>>>>>>>>>>>> h * f and the Einstein-relation E = m*c^2 to determine the
>>>>>>>>>>>> constant S from the internal frequency in my model. Same
>>>>>>>>>>>> result. But I like the other way better. BTW: Do you know
>>>>>>>>>>>> any other model which deduces these relations rather than
>>>>>>>>>>>> using them as given?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the meaning of “grasping at straws” from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasp+at+straws :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> grasp at straws
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also,*clutch at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> straws*.Makeadesperateattemptatsavingoneself.Forexample,/He had
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lost the argument, but he kept grasping at straws, naming
>>>>>>>>>>>>> numerous previous cases that had little to do with this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> one/.Thismetaphoricexpressionalludestoadrowningperson
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tryingtosavehimselfbygrabbingatflimsyreeds.Firstrecordedin1534,thetermwas
>>>>>>>>>>>>> usedfigurativelybythelate1600s.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not at all opposed to using desperate measures to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> find or save a hypothesis that is very important to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Max Planck described his efforts to fit the black body
>>>>>>>>>>>>> radiation equation using quantized energies of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hypothetical oscillators as an "act of desperation”. So
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are of course free to keep desperately trying to save
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your 2-particle electron hypothesis. I personally think
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that your many talents in physics could be better spent in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> other ways, for example in revising your electron model to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> make it more consistent with experimental facts.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you know any other electron model which is so much
>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent with experimental facts (e.g. size and mass) as
>>>>>>>>>>>> this one (without needing the usual mystifications of
>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum mechanics)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> By the way, van der Waals forces do not "bind atoms to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> form a molecule". They are attractive or repulsive forces
>>>>>>>>>>>>> between molecules or between parts of a molecule.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Wikipedia:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> " the *van der Waals forces* (or *van der Waals'
>>>>>>>>>>>>> interaction*), named after Dutch
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands>scientist
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist>Johannes Diderik
>>>>>>>>>>>>> van der Waals
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Diderik_van_der_Waals>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the sum of the attractive or repulsive forces between
>>>>>>>>>>>>> molecules <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecule> (or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> between parts of the same molecule) other than those due
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to covalent bonds
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond>, or the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> electrostatic interaction
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_interaction> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ions <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion> with one another,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with neutral molecules, or with charged molecules.^[1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-1>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The resulting van der Waals forces can be attractive or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> repulsive.^[2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-Van_OssAbsolom1980-2>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, my arrangement of charges of the strong force causes
>>>>>>>>>>>> as well a combination of attractive and repulsive forces
>>>>>>>>>>>> and is doing the same like in the van der Waals case. That
>>>>>>>>>>>> was my reason to refer to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>>>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 21, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Albrecht Giese
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Richard,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am a bit confused how badly my attempted explanations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have reached you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have NOT used the Bohr magneton to determine the radius
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R of an electron. I deduced the radius directly from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measured magnetic moment using the classical equation for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the magnetic moment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the binding force of the sub-particles I needed a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multipole field which has a potential minimum at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distance R_0 . The simplest shape of such a field which I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could find was for the force F:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> F = S * (R_0 - R) /R^3 . Here R_0 is of course the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equilibrium distance and S the field constant. I wanted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to refer to an existing field of a proper strength, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that could only be the strong force. Then I had to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine the field constant S which is normally provided
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by experiments. But quantum mechanics is so unprecise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regarding the numeric value of the strong force that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no number available in the data tables. Here I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found that I could use the Bohr magneton to determine the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant. (Which turned out to be S = hbar*c, merely a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From the equation for F given above the inertial mass of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the particle follows from a deduction which is given on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my website: www.ag-physics.org/rmass . Too long to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> present it here, but straight and inevitable. Here the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result again: m = S / (R * c^2 ) .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you are unsatisfied by my deduction of this field,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what is about the van der Waals forces which bind atoms
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to build a molecule? Did van der Waals have had a better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way of deduction in that case? I think that the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the von der Waals forces act so as observed, is enough
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the physical community to accept them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you ask for an independent calculation of S which I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should present in your opinion. Now, Is there anyone in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physics or in astronomy who can present an independent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculation of the gravitational constant G? No, nobody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can calculate G from basic assumptions. Why asking for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more in my case? I think that this demand is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realistic and not common understanding in physics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again: where is circular reasoning?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 20.11.2015 um 23:02 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Albrecht,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your detailed response. I think the key
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is in your determination of your “field
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant” S which you say describes the "binding field"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for your two particles. This definition of S is too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general and empty of specific content as I understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it applies to any "binding field” at any nuclear or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atomic or molecular level. With your 2-particle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electron model you then calculate the radius R=hbar/mc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the Bohr Magneton e*hbar/2m, assuming the values
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of m, e, h and c. . Then you calculate S from the Bohr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magneton and find it to be S=c*hbar. You then calculate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> m from the equation m=S/(R*c^2). How can a binding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field S be described by such a universal term hbar * c ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s why I think that your derivation is circular.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You use the Bohr magneton e*hbar/2m to calculate R and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> S, (using the Bohr magneton) and then you use R and S to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculate m. You have no independent calculation of S
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> except from the Bohr magneton. That’s the problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resulting in circularity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 20, 2015, at 1:09 PM, Albrecht Giese
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hallo Richard,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I find it great that we have made similar calculations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and came at some points to similar conclusions. That is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a matter of course, as you find in all textbooks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is impossible to get these results in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classical way, but that in the contrary it needs QM to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> come to these results.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here now again the logical way which I have gone: I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assume the circular motion of the elementary electric
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> charge (2* 1/2 * e_0 ) with speed c. Then with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formula (which you give here again) M = i*A one can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclude A from the measured magnetic moment. And so we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know the radius to be R = 3.86 x 10^-13 m for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electron. No constants and no further theory are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary for this result. I have then calculated the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inertial mass of a particle which turns out to be m = S
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> / (R * c^2 ) where the parameter S describes the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> binding field. I did initially have no knowledge about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the quantity of this field. But from the mass formula
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there follows for the magnetic moment: M=
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1/2)*(S/c)*(e /m). To this point I have not used any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge except the known relation for the magnetic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment. Now I look to the Bohr magneton in order to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find the quantity of my field constant S: M=
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1/2)*hbar*(e /m). Because the Planck constant has to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be measured in some way. For doing it myself I would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need a big machine. But why? Basic constants never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> follow from a theory but have to be measured. I can use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such a measurement, and that tells me for my field
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant S = c*hbar (from Bohr magneton). So, where do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you see circular reasoning?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I have no theory, why specific elementary particles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist. Maybe later I find a way, not now. But now I can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use the (measurable) magnetic moment for any particle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to determine the radius, and then I know the mass from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my formula. This works for all charged leptons and for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all quarks. Not good enough?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And yes, the Landé factor. Not too difficult. In my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deduction of the mass I have used only the (initially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unknown) constant S for the field. Which I assume to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the strong field as with the electric field the result
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is too small (by a factor of several hundred). The only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stronger alternative to the electrical force is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong force, already known. Is this a far-fetched
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea? But I have in this initial deduction ignored that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the two basic particles have an electrical charge of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e/2 each, which cause a repelling force which increases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the radius R a bit. With this increase I correct the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result for e.g. the magnetic moment, and the correction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is quite precisely the Landé factor (with a deviation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of ca. 10^-6 ).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, what did I invent specially for my model, and which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters do I use from others? I have assumed the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shape of the binding field as this field has to cause
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the bind at a distance. And I have used the measurement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the Planck constant h which other colleagues have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performed. Nothing else. I do not have do derive the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantity e as this is not the task of a particle model.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If e could be derived (what nobody today is able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do), then this would follow from a much deeper insight
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into our physical basics as anyone can have today.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact of two constituents is a necessary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precondition to obey the conservation of momentum and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to support the mechanism of inertia. I do not know any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other mechanism which works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where do I practice circular reasoning?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 18.11.2015 um 15:42 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Albrecht,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let’s look at your listed assumptions of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electron model in relation to the electron’s magnetic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment. It is known that the magnitude of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electron’s experimental magnetic moment is slightly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than the Bohr magneton which is Mb = ehbar/2m =
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9.274 J/T in SI units. Your 2-particle model aims to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate a magnetic moment to match this Bohr magneton
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value (which was predicted for the electron by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirac equation) rather than the experimental value of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the electron’s magnetic moment which is slightly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> larger. The standard equation for calculating the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnetic moment M of a plane current loop is M = IA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for loop area A and current I. If the area A is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circle and the current is a circular current loop I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around this area, whose value I is calculated from a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> total electric charge e moving circularly at light
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed c (as in your 2-particle electron model) with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> radius R, a short calculation will show that if the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> radius of this circle is R = hbar/mc = 3.86 x 10-13 m
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (the reduced Compton wavelength corresponding to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circle of circumference one Compton wavelength h/mc),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then this radius R for the current loop gives a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnetic moment M = IA = Bohr magneton ehbar/2m . I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have done this calculation many times in my electron
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modeling work and know that this is the case. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values of h and also e and m of the electron have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be known accurately to calculate the Bohr magneton
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ehbar/2m . When the radius of the circular loop is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R=hbar/mc, the frequency f of the charge e circling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the loop is easily found to be f=c/(2pi R)= mc^2/h ,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is the frequency of light having the Compton
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wavelength h/mc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the current loop radius R=hbar/mc that is required
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your 2-particle model to derive the Bohr magneton
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ehbar/2m using M=IA obviously cannot also be used to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derive either of the values h or m since these values
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were used to calculate the Bohr magneton ehbar/2m in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first place. So your model cannot be used to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derive any of the values of e, h or m, and seems to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an exercise in circular reasoning. Please let me know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how I may be mistaken in this conclusion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 18, 2015, at 2:03 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Al,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I completely disagree with your conclusions about the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivation towards my model because my intention was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to develop a particle model. My intention was to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop a better understanding of time in relativity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My present model was an unexpected consequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this work. I show you my arguments again and ask you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to indicate the point where you do not follow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 17.11.2015 um 19:18 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Albrect:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Comments² *IN BOLD*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 17. November 2015 um 18:41 Uhr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Cc:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a model…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Al,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again some responses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 14.11.2015 um 18:24 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Albrecht:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Answers to your questions:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) The SED background explains the Planck BB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution without quantization. It explans
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why an atom doesn't collapse: in equilibrium
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with background, In fact, just about every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect described by 2nd quantization has an SED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parallel explantion without additional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considerations. With the additional input of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the SED origin of deBroglie waves, it provides a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> direct derivation of the Schröedinger eq.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thereby explainiong all of 1st Quantization.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you achieve something when using SED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> background. I do not really understand this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> background, but I do not see a stringent necessity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for it. But SED as an origin to the de Broglie waves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is of interest for me. I am presently working on de
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Broglie waves to find a solution, which does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the logical conflicts which we have discussed here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *See No. 11 (or 1) @ www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for suggetions and some previous work along this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> line.*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Thank you, will have a look.*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Olber's logic is in conflict with Mach's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Principle, so is obviously just valid for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> visible light. Given a little intergalacitc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plasma (1 H/m³), not to mention atmossphere and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interplanatary plama, visible light disappears
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Earthbound observers at visitble freqs to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reappear at other, perhaps at 2.7° even, or at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any other long or hyper short wave length. 'The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe matters'---which is even politically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct nowadays!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olber's logic is simple in so far, as it shows that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the universe cannot be infinite. I have assumed the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same for all background effects. Or are they infinite?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The fly in the ointment is absorbtion. An inf.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe with absorbtion in the visible part of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum will still have a largely dark sky. *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *And the other way around: Even if there is no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absorption, the sky will be dark. And the general
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion is that, even if there is a lot of radiation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absorbed, this absorbing material will heat up by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time and radiate as well. So an absorption should not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change too much.*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is the conflict with Mach's principle?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Mach says: the gravitational "background radiation"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the cause of inertia. This effect is parallel to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the SED bacground causing QM effects. Conflict: if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olber is right, then Mach is probably wrong (too weak).*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *In my understanding, what Mach means is completely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different. Mach's intention was to find a reference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system which is absolute with respect to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acceleration. He assumed that this is caused by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stars in our vicinity. He did not have a certain idea
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how this happens, he only needed the fact. (Einstein
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replaced this necessity by his equivalence of gravity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and acceleration - which however is clearly falsified
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as mentioned several times.)*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) The (wide spread) criticism of 2 particles is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that there is neither an /a-priori/ intuative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason, nor empirical evidence that they exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe they do anyway. But then, maybe Zeus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does too, and he is just arranging appearances
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so that we amuse ourselves. (Try to prove that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong!)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have explained how I came to the conclusion of 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub-particles. Again:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) There is motion with c in an elementary particle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to explain dilation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) With only on particle such process is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanically not possible, and it violates the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conservation of momentum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) In this way it is the only working model theses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> days to explain inertia. And this model explains
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inertia with high precision. What more is needed?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *These assumtions are "teleological," i.e., tuned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to give the desired results. As logic, although
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> often done, this manuver is not legit in the formal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presentation of a theory. For a physics theory,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideally, all the input assuptios have empirical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justification or motivation. Your 2nd partical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (modulo virtual images) has no such motivatin, in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact, just the opposite. *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *My logical way is just the other way around. I had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the plan to work on relativity (the aspects of time),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not on particle physics. The particle model was an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unplanned spin-off. I shall try to explain the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical path again:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _1st step:_ I have calculated the 4-dimensional speed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an object using the temporal part of the Lorentz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transformation. The surprising fact was that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4-dim. speed is always the speed of light. I have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then assumed that this constant shows a permanent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motion with c in a particle. I have accepted this as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a probable solution, but I have never assumed this,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before I had this result. It was in no way a desired
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result. My idea was to describe time by a vector of 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of 4 dimensions. - I have then **no further
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **followed this idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _2nd step:_ If there is some motion in the particle,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it cannot be caused by one constituent. This is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logically not possible as it violates the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conservation of momentum. Also this was not a desired
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result but logically inevitable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _3rd step:_ If the constituents move with c, then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they cannot have any mass. Also this was not a result
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which I wished to achieve, but here I followed my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of relativity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **_*4th *__step:_ The size must be such that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resulting frequency in the view of c yields the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnetic moment which is known by measurements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _5th step:_ I had to find a reason for the mass of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the electron in spite of the fact that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constituents do not have any mass. After some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking I found out the fact that any extended
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object has necessarily inertia. I have applied this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insight to this particle model, and the result was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual mass of the electron, if I assumed that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the force is the strong force. It could not be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electric force (as it was assumed by others at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earlier times) because the result is too weak.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of the results from step 1 thru step 5 was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> desired. Every step was inevitable, because our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard physical understanding (which I did not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change at any point) does not allow for any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative. - _Or at which step could I hav__e had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an alternative in your opinion?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _And btw: which is the stringent argument for only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one constituent? As I mentioned before, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiment is not an argument. I have discussed my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model with the former research director of DESY who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was responsible for this type of electron
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiments, and he admitted that there is no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conflict with the assumption of 2 constituents._
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know from several discussions with particle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physicists that there is a lot of resistance against
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this assumption of 2 constituents. The reason is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that everyone learn at university like with mother's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> milk that the electron is point-like, extremely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> small and does not have any internal structure. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has the effect like a religion. (Same with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity of Hendrik Lorentz. Everyone learns with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same fundamental attitude that Lorentz was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing better than a senile old man how was not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to understand modern physics.) - Not a really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good way, all this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Mystical thinking is indeed a major problem even in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Physics! But, some of the objectiors to a 2nd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particle are not basing their objection of devine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revelation or political correctness. *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) It is ascientific to consider that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> desired result is justification for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hypothetical input. OK, one can say about such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning, it is validated /a posteriori/, that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at least makes it sound substantial. So much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has been granted to your "story" but has not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> granted your story status as a "physics theory."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has some appeal, which in my mind would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enhansed had a rationalization for the 2nd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particle been provided. That's all I'm trying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do. When you or whoever comes up with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better one, I'll drop pushing the virtual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particle engendered by the background. Maybe, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes too many other things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My history was following another way and another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivation. I intended to explain relativity on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis of physical facts. This was my only intention
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for this model. All further properties of the model
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were logical consequences where I did not see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternatives. I did not want to explain inertia. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just was a result by itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, what is the problem? I have a model which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explains several properties of elementary particles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very precisely. It is in no conflict with any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experimental experience. And as a new observation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is even some experimental evidence. - What
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else can physics expect from a theory? - The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument that the second particle is not visible is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> funny. Who has ever seen a quark? Who has ever seen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the internal structure of the sun? I think you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a demand here which was never fulfilled in science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The problem, obviously, is that the existence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 2nd particle, as you have presented it, is not a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact, but a Wunschansatz. [BTW: "See" in this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context is not meant occularly, but figuratively for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experimental verification through any length of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inferance chain.] So, my question is: what problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do you have with a virtual mate for the particle?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, it will be there whether you use it or not.*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And see again Frank Wilczek. He writes: "By
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> combining fragmentation with super-conductivity, we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can get half-electrons that are their own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> antiparticles."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *A "straw in the wind" but sure seems far fetched!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Superconductivity is already a manybody phenomenon,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's theory probably involves some "virtual"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notions to capture the essence of the average effect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if the virtual actors do not really exist. *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This was a nice confirmation in my understanding. So
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as the whole article of Wilczek. The electron is in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact enigmatic if one follows main stream. It looses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of this property if my model is used. - But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even without this experimental hint I do not see any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative to my model without severely violating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> known physics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ciao
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guten Abend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Gleichfalls, Al*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have a good one! Al
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 14. November 2015 um 14:51 Uhr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Cc:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a model…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Al,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do we need a background? If I assume only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local forces (strong and electric) for my model,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the calculation conforms to the measurement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (e.g. between mass and magnetic moment) with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precision of 2 : 1'000'000. This is no incident.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not possible, if a poorly defined and stable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> background has a measurable influence. - And if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there should be such background and it has such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little effect, which mistake do we make if we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignore that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the competition of the 1/r^2 law for range
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of charges and the r^2 law for the quantity of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> charges we have a popular example when we look
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the sky at night. The sky is dark and that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shows that the r^2 case (number of shining
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stars) does in no way compensates for the 1/r^2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case (light flow density from the stars).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why is a 2 particle model necessary?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.) for the conservation of momentum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.) for a cause of the inertial mass
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.) for the radiation at acceleration which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurs most time, but does not occur in specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> situations. Not explained elsewhere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ciao, Albrecht
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 13.11.2015 um 20:31 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Albrecht:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your proposed experiment is hampered by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality! If you do the measurement with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gaget bought in a store that has knobes and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a display, then the measurement is for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certain for signals under a couple hundred
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GHz and based on some phenomena for which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sensitivity of man-made devices is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limited. And, if limited to the electric
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field, then there is a good chance it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing altogether oscillating signals by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtue of its limited reaction time of reset
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time, etc. etc. The vast majority of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> background will be much higher, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> phenomena most attuned to detecting might be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in fact the quantum effects otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explained with mystical hokus-pokus! Also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be noted is that, the processes invovled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your model, if they pertain to elementray
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entities, will have to be at very small size
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and if at the velocity (c) will be very high
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy, etc. so that once again, it is quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable to suppose that the universe is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything but irrelavant!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, there is then the issue of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> divergence of the this SED background.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ameliorated to some extent with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realization that there is no energy at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point in empty space until a charged entity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is put there, whereupon the energy of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interaction with the rest of the universe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (not just by itself being there and ignoring
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the universe---as QM theorists, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself, are wont to do) is given by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sum of interactions over all particles not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the integral over all space, including
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> empty space. Looks at first blush to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why fight it? Where the hell else will you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find a credible 2nd particle?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ciao, Al
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 13. November 2015 um
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12:11 Uhr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Cc:*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] Reply of comments
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from what a model…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Al,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if we look to charges you mention the law
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1/r^2 . Now we can perform a simple physical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiment having an electrically charged
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object and using it to measure the electric
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field around us. I say: it is very weak. Now
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look to the distance of the two half-charges
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within the particle having a distance of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4*10^-13 m. This means an increase of force
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of about 25 orders of magnitude compared to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we do in a lab. And the difference is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much greater if we refer to charges acting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the universe. So I think we do not make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a big mistake assuming that there is nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside the particle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding my model, the logic of deduction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was very simple for me:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.) We have dilation, so there must be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> permanent motion with c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.) There must be 2 sub-particles otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the momentum law is violated; 3 are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible as in conflict with experiments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.) The sub-particles must be mass-less,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise c is not possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4.) The whole particle has mass even though
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sub-particles are mass-less. So there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be a mechanism to cause inertia. It was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> immediately clear for me that inertia is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consequence of extension. Another reason to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assume a particle which is composed of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts. (There is no other working mechanism
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of inertia known until today.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5.) I had to find the binding field for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub-particles. I have taken the simplest one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which I could find which has a potential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minimum at some distance. And my first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempt worked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is all, and I do not see any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility to change one of the points 1.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thru 5.) without getting in conflict with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental physical rules. And I do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invent new facts or rules beyond those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already known in physics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, where do you see any kind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrariness or missing justification?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tschüß!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 12.11.2015 um 17:51 schrieb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> af.kracklauer at web.de:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Albrect:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are making some progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To your remark that Swinger & Feynman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced virtual charges, I note that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they used the same term: "virtual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> charge/particle," in spite of the much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> older meaning in accord with the charge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and mirror example. In the finest of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum traditions, they too ignored the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rest of the universe and instead tried
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to vest its effect in the "vacuum."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This idea was suitably mystical to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow them to introduce the associated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plaver into the folk lore of QM, given
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sociology of the day. Even in spite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this BS, the idea still has merit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your objection on the basis of the 1/r²
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fall-off is true but not conclusive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This fall-off is matched by a r²
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> increase in muber of charges, so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrated total interaction can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expected to have at least some effect,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no matter what. Think of the universe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to 1st order as a neutral, low-density
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plasma. I (and some others) hold that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this interaction is responcible for all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum effects. In any case, no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particle is a universe unto itself, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rest have the poulation and time to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a toll!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, this is history repeating itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once upon a time there was theory of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brownian motion that posited an internal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause known as "elan vital" to dust
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specks observed hopping about like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mexican jumping beans. Ultimately this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense was displaced by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observation that the dust spots were not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alone in their immediate universe but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imbededded in a slurry of other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particles, also in motion, to which they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were reacting. Nowadays atoms are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analysed in QM text books as if they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were the only object in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe---all others being too far away
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (so it is argued, anyway).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your model, as it stands, can be free of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradiction and still unstatisfying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because the inputs seem to be just what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is needed to make the conclusions you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aim to make. Fine, but what most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> critics will expect is that these inputs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to have some kind of justification
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or motivation. This is what the second
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particle lacks. Where is it when one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really looks for it? It has no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> empirical motivation. Thus, this theory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then has about the same ultimate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> structure, and pursuasiveness, as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying: 'don't worry about it, God did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it; go home, open a beer, pop your feet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up, and forget about it---a theory which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explains absolutely everything!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tschuß, Al
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 12. November
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2015 um 16:18 Uhr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <genmail at a-giese.de>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Cc:*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] Reply of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments from what a model…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Al,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have gotten a different understanding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of what a virtual particle or a virtual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> charge is. This phenomenon was invented
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by Julian Schwinger and Richard Feynman.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They thought to need it in order to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain certain reactions in particle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physics. In the case of Schwinger it was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Landé factor, where I have shown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that this assumption is not necessary.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there is a charge then of course this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> charge is subject to interactions with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all other charges in the universe. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. But because of the normal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution of these other charges in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the universe, which cause a good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compensation of the effects, and because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the distance law we can think about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> models without reference to those. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also there is the problem with virtual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particles and vacuum polarization (which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is equivalent), in that we have this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> huge problem that the integrated energy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of it over the universe is by a factor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of 10^120 higher than the energy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measured. I think this is a really big
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument against virtual effects.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your example of the virtual image of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> charge in a conducting surface is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different case. It is, as you write, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rearrangement of charges in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conducting surface. So the partner of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the charge is physically the mirror, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the picture behind it. But which mirror
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can cause the second particle in a model
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if the second particle is not assumed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be real?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And what in general is the problem with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a two particle model? It fulfils the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> momentum law. And it does not cause
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> further conflicts. It also explains why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an accelerated electron sometimes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> radiates, sometimes not. For an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experimental evidence I refer again to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the article of Frank Wilczek in "Nature"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which was mentioned here earlier:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He writes: "By combining fragmentation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with super-conductivity, we can get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> half-electrons that are their own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> antiparticles."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For Wilczek this is a mysterious result,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in view of my model it is not, on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contrary it is kind of a proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Grüße
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 12.11.2015 um 03:06 schrieb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> af.kracklauer at web.de:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Albrecht:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Virtual particles are proxys for an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ensemble of real particles. There
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is nothing folly-lolly about them!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They simply summarize the total
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect of particles that cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored. To ignore the remainder of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the universe becasue it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inconvenient for theory formulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is for certain leading to error.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "No man is an island," and no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single particle is a universe!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, it can be argued that, to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject the concept of virtual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particles is to reject a facit of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality that must be essential for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an explantion of the material world.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, if a positive charge is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> placed near a conducting surface,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the charges in that surface will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respond to the positive charge by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rearranging themselves so as to give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a total field on the surface of zero
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strength as if there were a negative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> charge (virtual) behind the mirror.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Without the real charges on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mirror surface, the concept of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "virtual" negative charge would not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be necessary or even useful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The concept of virtual charge as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second particle in your model seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to me to be not just a wild
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposition, but an absolute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessity. Every charge is, without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice, in constant interaction with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every other charge in the universe,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has been so since the big bang (if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such were) and will remain so till
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the big crunch (if such is to be)!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The universe cannot be ignored. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you reject including the universe by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means of virtual charges, them you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a lot more work to do to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your theory reasonable some how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else. In particular in view of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that the second particles in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your model have never ever been seen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or even suspected in the various
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiments resulting in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disasssmbly of whatever targert was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MfG, Al
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Viren geprüft.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Viren geprüft.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> List at richgauthier at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Viren geprüft.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> geprüft.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151214/b3f131a7/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list