[General] Quantized photonic E field

Sat Nov 14 21:27:03 PST 2015

Chip, John and all,
I will out of town for a week in the great outdoors of the California coastal redwoods under primitive conditions at a science camp (flora type)  - no electronics, sat phone for emergencies and no internet. Well, there is a pay phone but I haven't used one in about 20 years...
On my return I will try to respond to any emails regarding the phat photon and phat lasers. 
Best regards,
David

      From: "davidmathes8 at yahoo.com" <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> 
Cc: "pete at leathergoth.com" <pete at leathergoth.com>; David Williamson <david.williamson at ed.ac.uk>; "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> 
 Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2015 9:11 PM
 Subject: Re: [General] Quantized photonic E field

John and Chip
>The detailed properties of Phat photons will constitute an interesting test of the new theory. 
That's an interesting statement. Bravo. Nature tells us what the math should be. In the case of Williams work, one will need to study up on  particular Weyl's gauge theory. 
The applications are in nano lithography, surgical procedures, dental procedures, and directed energy systems.
A few years ago there was some discussion with Couder and his team on simulating phat photons to determine the effects in one and two slit experiments.
Chip, Williams noted in his paper on Phat Photonshttp://www.physicsandbeyond.com/pdf/Phat%20Photons.pdf

    "ε = N 2 hν             ( 9 ) 
IV. Experimental Verification
The prediction of quantized photon energy in Equation (9) argues that the frequencies associated with quantum numbers above unity may have already been measured. A look at theNational Institute of Standards and Technology web site shows C.E. Moore11 reported thefundamental frequency for hydrogen was listed with a magnitude of 1,000, the N=2 frequencyshowed a magnitude of 80 and the N=3 frequency magnitude was 12. J. D. Garcia & J. E.Mack12 reported similar numbers for the helium atom. 
Further, these frequencies do not have asource noted for them as do the other frequencies reported as these frequencies do notcorrespond to any known transitions. The predictions of Equation (9) then find verification indata already reported."   
Williams final paper was presented at SPIE in 2013 "Phat photons and Phat lasers."http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1747236

>From the abstract...
"...Further, while the stimulated and spontaneous emission probabilities are proportional to 1/N2 the Rayleigh scattering cross section diminishes by 1/N8. This reduction in the scattering cross section means that a laser emitting phat photons with N>1 will lose less energy traveling through the Earth’s atmosphere than lasers using N=1. This reduction in energy losses through the atmosphere means increased efficiency for Earth based beamed applications. This presentation discusses the fundamental theory, emission probabilities, and cross section calculations."
A final note...in 2012-2013 a phat electron model conjecture was discussed with Williams based on two known topologies; Ring torus (W&vdM) and Spindle torus (Gauthier) whereby two electrons were merged and eased into one larger electron. The difficulty was one of stability. Energy would be required to be conserved; emission was most likely though. The focus at that time was only on the phat photon from the phat laser. The superposition of electrons or photons should produce comparable results or at least indicate the differences between the photon and electron especially the internals of the electron. 
Best
David

   From: John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
 To: "davidmathes8 at yahoo.com" <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> 
Cc: "pete at leathergoth.com" <pete at leathergoth.com>; David Williamson <david.williamson at ed.ac.uk>; "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> 
 Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2015 8:39 PM
 Subject: Re: [General] =?utf-8?Q?RE:_=5BGeneral=5D Reply_of_comments_?=from what a model…

 Hello everyone,

I was grateful to David for flagging up the Phat photon stuff - because I had considered what would happen if one tried to superimpose two photons on top of each other. My conclusion was that this would lead to an energy of the overlap not of 1+1 = 2 but of 1+1 = 4, putting yet another on top of this would give 1+1+1 = 9. Just the sequence for Phat photons then. This is the photon analogue of the mechanism Martin and I proposed for the Pauli exclusion principle and which I talked about at MENDEL2012. The underlying reason for this is that the fields add quadratically - provided the photons are perfectly everywhere in phase (same polarisation and wave-train length).

So - if this is indeed what phat photons are - then I can answer some of the questions on the basis of thinking in  the new theory. Red below.
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of davidmathes8 at yahoo.com [davidmathes8 at yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 12:23 AM
To: Chip Akins; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] =?utf-8?Q?RE:_=5BGeneral=5D Reply_of_comments_?=from what a model…

Chip
There are a lot of questions yet to be determined both theoretically and experimentally. Given the fundamental nature of quantizing the E-field, every known experiment in a graduate physics book would need to be rerun for N.NOT EQUAL.1
Some preliminaries...Without experiments, everything is theoretical although Williams was able to find at least one paper that experimentally supported the theory. See Williams "phat photons and phat lasers" A fragile laser crystal with n=2 was developed. Further work requires significant funding. 
A phat photon laser is required to study the phenomena. The initial milliwatt crystal would have two product paths - larger laser crystals up to 100 watts initially with a goal of 1,000 to 10k watts. Phat photon laser is under development and test with no published results. I'm not working on the experimental side. The laser crystal material is custom made. N=2 is the only experimental level I'm aware of although N=3 material was waiting funding. 4 and 5 are considered to be doable only after 2 and 3 have been extensively tested.
One of them is whether there the E vector should be linearly added, the current assumption of a single source (no two particle source Albrecht) and no off-axis E vectors. Stability and emission/decay processes are not in the current theory. The expectation is that N=4 will be the maximum practical level with the possibility of N=5. 
That said...Using blue...
David

From: Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com>
To: davidmathes8 at yahoo.com; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2015 1:42 PM
Subject: =?utf-8?Q?RE:_=5BGeneral=5D Reply_of_comments_?=from what a model…

#yiv1372293515 #yiv1372293515 -- -- filtered {font-family:Helvetica;}#yiv1372293515 filtered {font-family:Calibri;}#yiv1372293515 p.yiv1372293515MsoNormal, #yiv1372293515 li.yiv1372293515MsoNormal, #yiv1372293515 div.yiv1372293515MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv1372293515 a:link, #yiv1372293515 span.yiv1372293515MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1372293515 a:visited, #yiv1372293515 span.yiv1372293515MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1372293515 p {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv1372293515 p.yiv1372293515MsoListParagraph, #yiv1372293515 li.yiv1372293515MsoListParagraph, #yiv1372293515 div.yiv1372293515MsoListParagraph {margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv1372293515 p.yiv1372293515msonormal, #yiv1372293515 li.yiv1372293515msonormal, #yiv1372293515 div.yiv1372293515msonormal {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv1372293515 p.yiv1372293515msochpdefault, #yiv1372293515 li.yiv1372293515msochpdefault, #yiv1372293515 div.yiv1372293515msochpdefault {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv1372293515 p.yiv1372293515msonormal1, #yiv1372293515 li.yiv1372293515msonormal1, #yiv1372293515 div.yiv1372293515msonormal1 {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;color:black;}#yiv1372293515 span.yiv1372293515msohyperlink1 {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1372293515 span.yiv1372293515msohyperlinkfollowed1 {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1372293515 span.yiv1372293515emailstyle201 {color:black;}#yiv1372293515 p.yiv1372293515msochpdefault1, #yiv1372293515 li.yiv1372293515msochpdefault1, #yiv1372293515 div.yiv1372293515msochpdefault1 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:10.0pt;color:black;}#yiv1372293515 span.yiv1372293515EmailStyle30 {color:black;}#yiv1372293515 .yiv1372293515MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv1372293515 filtered {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv1372293515 ol {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv1372293515 ul {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv1372293515 #yiv1372293515 BODY {direction:ltr;font-family:Tahoma;color:#000000;font-size:10pt;}#yiv1372293515 P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}#yiv1372293515 BODY {}#yiv1372293515 BODY {}#yiv1372293515 BODY {}Hi David About Phat photons… As stated... E = N^2 hv Lots of questions: 1.      What is the spin angular momentum of a Phat Photon? Have there been any experiments to try to determine this?
As can be determined so far, the spin of the phat photon where N=2 is 1. Dirac only, no Majorna or Weyl versions. Williams theory does not explore or speculate on a spin 1/2 photon of any type. 

Not sure. If no lateral effect, spin would be in the sequence 4, 9 16 etc ... otherwise the sequence 1 , 2, 3.  Spin half is not just a number. No spin half (fermionic!) photons.

2.     Are Phat Photons conventionally polarizable, or are there additional constraints on the ability to polarize them?
           This area has not been explored as of yet.           The assumption is that the E vector is represented by linear multiples of E. I would suggest using e^i theta            instead of just cos (theta) to capture any off-axis E quantities.     
           In order to test polarized phat photons, what may be needed is the SU(N) EM theory (Barrett, Williamson, etc.) to support the partial differential of polarization.

For the overlap to work - the di-photon (4) or the tri-photon(9) would have to be in the same state - have the same polarisation then. That would mean they were simply polarisable in the same way as normal photons.

3.     Has there been any measurement for the speed of Phat Photons? Is it just c as in other photons?
In theory, the permittivity and permeability do not appear to be influenced, ignoring the polarized vacuum work by Puthoff, White and others. However, until a true time measurement experiment, we will not know if the phat photon travels at the speed of light in a zero vacuum. Some thought (no experiment) has been given to a supercavitation of the zero vacuum at microwave, optical and X-ray frequencies. This method involves lowering the permittivity. Experiments have been suggested but fall short of the Schwinger limit. Engineering the quantum vacuum is something Puthoff and others are working on.

Expect just c. These objects are still rest-massless.

4.     Can N be only integers, or can N be any number?
Williams paper works with positive integers only. Negative integers would produce similar mathematical results but it's difficult for me to conceptualize that in nature. Certain complex values may be of use although one is has to explain the complex part.

No ... just integers. That is the point of quantisation.

I suggested an analog version where N could be continuous from 1 to 5. No experimental evidence other than 1 and 2. We did discuss fractal E fields as well (generated by fractal antennas). So the answer for now is....no, N can only be an integer.
Some discussion explored the possibility of N  quanta that are in a tight orbit and therefore, closely-coupled within the photon as the source generating the required E field. This approach fits the two and possible three particle model for sub-elementary quanta. However, I consider this speculative currently since the theory does not support this currently, and quanta within the photon have not been measured.
5.     Has anyone been able to synthesize Phat Photons in a controllable and predictable manner for study?
          In a word, no. Not for serious study.            The construction of the laser crystal is critical to the success.   The custom material is very limited and not commercially available.            N=2 is the only one under limited test. No word on when results will be published.
Comment:

The detailed properties of Phat photons will constitute an interesting test of the new theory.

Best
David

Regards, John.

Chip  

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]On Behalf Of davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2015 11:06 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; phys at a-giese.de
Subject: Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model… Chip Ahhhh...the phat EM wave... For E = N^2 hv, here is one possible approach for a single particle, quantized E. 1 = photon2 = electron3 = muon 4 = tau (and speculatively, 5 = tau prime ) Such a model might explain the instabilities of the muon and tau. Best David
From: Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com>
To: phys at a-giese.de; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2015 8:13 AM
Subject: Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model… Hi Albrecht What if, for purposes of conjecture, we replace your two “particles” in the electron, with an EM wave which has a wavelength of twice the circumference?  And now let us consider that the “binding force” which holds this wave in a circular confinement is the same “force” which causes spin angular momentum in light.  The EM “wave” would have the negative portion always away from the center for the electron, and the confinement of the wave causes a curvature in (divergence of) the E field which in turn would be the cause for the appearance of the elementary charge. It seems that such a model would 1) conserve momentum, 2) cause inertial mass(because of confined momentum and the speed of light velocity limit), and 3) radiate when accelerated under most circumstances(except gravitational acceleration, if gravity is simply the diffraction of waves.) If we do this, we have an electron model which consists ofjust one item and explains (it seems) the same things that your model explains, but without the need for two entities within this elementary particle. The reason for posing this question is that there is no experimental evidence that the electron is comprised of two particles.  However there is much evidence that it is a single thing comprised of energy. Chip  From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]On Behalf Of Dr. Albrecht Giese
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2015 7:52 AM
To: af.kracklauer at web.de
Cc: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Subject: 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, AlbrechtAm 13.11.2015 um 20:31 schriebaf.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 schriebaf.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,  AlGesendet: 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 schriebaf.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 Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. November 2015 um 22:37 Uhr
Von: "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
An: af.kracklauer at web.de,general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Betreff: Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…Hi Al,

if we think in categories of a virtual image, then we are in my understanding fully on the path of present main stream QM. I have understood that we all want to do something better than that.

Regarding virtual phenomena I would like to remind you again of the history of such ideas. In the 1940ies Julian Schwinger has introduced vacuum polarization (which is equivalent to virtual particles according to Feynman) to determine the Landé factor for refining the Bohr magneton. This was the birth of it.

On the other hand I have shown that I can deduce the Bohr magneton as well as the Landé factor in a classical way if I use my particle model. And that is possible and was done on a pure classical way. For me this is a good example that we can do things better than by QM. In particular I try to have correct results without using any virtual objects.

Back to your question: If we build a particle model on a classical basis then there is no place for a virtual image, and so I see the need for two sub-particles.

Ciao, Albrecht

  Am 11.11.2015 um 17:27 schriebaf.kracklauer at web.de:
  Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. November 2015 um 11:54 Uhr
Von: "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
An: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Betreff: Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…Hi  Albrecht: You said:  A model with only one particle is in my view also not possible as it violates the conservation of momentum. A single object can never oscillate. I ask:   Why can't a single particle oscillate against, or in consort with, its own virtual image. (Presuming there is charge complex around---mirror in 2d, negative sphere (I think) in 3d)?  ciao,  Al 
|  | 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 ataf.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe 

|  | 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 atdavidmathes8 at yahoo.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a> 

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.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/20151115/a47d5d72/attachment.htm>