[General] Reply of comments from what a model…

[Hodge John]

Inertial mass, momentum and the kinetic energy are all part of the same mass: inertial mass, the proportionality constant between the transformed quantity force and acceleration. A more enlightening relationship would be the core of the Equivalence Principle , with gravitational mass. That is, physics ASSUMES the Equivalence principle, better would be the derivation of the Equivalence principle from more basic principles. 


    On Monday, December 14, 2015 4:35 PM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:
 

  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> 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*c2 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. Make a desperate attempt at saving oneself. For example, He had lost the argument, but he kept grasping at straws, naming numerous previous cases that had little to do with this one. This metaphoric expression alludes to a drowning person trying to save himself by grabbing at flimsy reeds. First recorded in 1534, the term was used figuratively by the late 1600s.  
  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 scientist Johannes Diderik van der Waals, is the sum of the attractive or repulsive forces between molecules (or between parts of the same molecule) other than those due to covalent bonds, or the electrostatic interaction of ions with one another, with neutral molecules, or with charged molecules.[1] The resulting van der Waals forces can be attractive or repulsive.[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 R0. The simplest shape of such a field which I could find was for the  force F:
 F = S * (R0 - R) /R3. Here R0 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 * c2) .
 
 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 * e0) 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 * c2) 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 have 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/r2 law for range of charges and the r2 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  r2 case (number of shining stars) does in no way compensates  for the 1/r2 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/r2. 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     
       
      
       
 
 
    
|   |  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. 
 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>
 
 
 
 
  
|      |   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. 
 www.avast.com   |

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at jchodge at frontier.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/jchodge%40frontier.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>


  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151214/33b38307/attachment-0001.htm>