[General] Reply of comments from what a model…

Albrecht Giese genmail at a-giese.de
Tue Nov 24 09:48:19 PST 2015


Dear John Duffield,

following my comments in green.

Am 19.11.2015 um 09:13 schrieb John Duffield:
>
> Albrecht:
>
> It’s easy to understand the electron if you look at the evidence of 
> things like gamma-gamma pair production, electron magnetic moment, the 
> Einstein-de Haas effect, electron diffraction, spherical harmonics, 
> and electron-positron annihilation back to gamma photons.
>
According to my model the photon is made up by the same basic elements 
like an electron, but may have more than two. On the other hand, 
particle physics have shown us that additional particles can be 
generated in an unlimited number as long as certain laws of conservation 
are fulfilled. - I think that the facts you mention are again good 
arguments in favour of my model.
>
> An electron is a wave going round and round in a standing-wave 
> configuration, such that a field-variation looks like a standing 
> field. It isn’t complicated or mysterious.
>
By which fact, force, or whatever can a wave be made to move on a 
circuit? From normal physics (in contrast to micro-physics we are 
talking here about) such a process is not known. And this process, if it 
exists, must be quantitatively explained in the way that another path 
than this circular one is excluded. And the parameters have to be 
deduced. That is particularly true for the double period in the picture 
you have attached here.
>
> Nor is inertia. The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content.
>
This sounds to me a bit upside down. We know that an object which has 
inertial mass also has energy. I deduce this from the set up of a 
particle. Not difficult. But why should energy cause inertia? If you 
think this to be possible - or even plausible - please give us a 
mechanism which causes this.

I know that Einstein has once said that mass and energy are two word for 
the same physical fact. Similarly Einstein has said that gravity and 
acceleration are two words for the same fact (the latter being falsified 
meanwhile). The first one is also not acceptable if we assume that 
forces are mediated by exchange particles (which is main stream standard 
these days). Exchange particles like gluons do not have any mass but 
transport energy.

I cannot imagine that it helps our understanding of physics if 
phenomena, which have a clearly different meaning, are mashed up. We 
should go into the opposite direction to gain better understanding, i.e. 
have a better differentiation of entities.
>
> It’s like the photon in the box, see http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.06478. 
> Photon energy-momentum is resistance to change-in-motion for a wave 
> propagating linearly at c.  Electron mass is resistance to 
> change-in-motion for a wave going round and round at c.
>
True: "Photon energy-momentum is resistance to change-in-motion". 
However, saying this is not an explanation why it is this way. I have an 
explanation in contrast to these sayings. And: A photon does have mass. 
Nobody has ever seen a mass-less photon. The interesting question is why 
a photon moves with c. If this is answered then the rest will be easy.
>
> Forget Wilczek, the guy is a peddler of pompous woo 
> <http://frankwilczek.com/2013/multiverseEnergy01.pdf>, and there re is 
> no mystery. But don’t forget the wave nature of matter. Replace your 
> two particles by two loops of a 511keV E=hf photon wave, and then your 
> model matches observation. Win win!
>
> Regards
>
> John D
>
Regards
Albrecht


> *From:*General 
> [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] 
> *On Behalf Of *Dr. Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* 18 November 2015 20:19
> *To:* John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>; Nature of Light 
> and Particles - General Discussion 
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Cc:* pete at leathergoth.com; Nick Bailey <nick at bailey-family.org.uk>; 
> Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>; David 
> Williamson <david.williamson at ed.ac.uk>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…
>
> John,
>
> Wilczek has written about several aspects of the electron. Some of 
> them sound to my like the usual QM mystifications. Among them also 
> aspects of collective states. But at the end his remark about 
> /half-electrons /is another view:"By combining fragmentation with 
> super-conductivity, we can get half-electrons that are their own 
> antiparticles."
> This is a clear statement in my understanding.
>
> And else, his whole article is a fight with the usual logical 
> paradoxes, if one tries to understand the electron on the basis of 
> present main stream physics. This is also obvious in his last 
> paragraph: "So, what is an electron? An electron is a particle and a 
> wave; it is ideally simple and unimaginably complex .." Do we not have 
> a better understanding today? At least I have it, if I look to my 
> model. There may be open questions left but no mystery.
>
> But apart of this: I found it a funny incident to see this article in 
> view of our discussion about my 2-particle-model. But this reference 
> is of course not my serious argument. The most powerful argument is 
> that this assumption of a 2-particle extended model explains inertia. 
> And it yields not just an idea what inertia could be, but precise 
> mathematical results. In contrast to all what is available these days 
> about this topic in particle physics.
>
> Regards
> Albrecht
>
> Am 17.11.2015 um 07:13 schrieb John Williamson:
>
>     Sorry Albrecht, but you are not really getting what Frank is
>     talking about in his article at all.
>
>
>
>     He is, as Al is alluding to, discussing collective systems – the
>     Fractional quantum Hall effect and superconductors – and
>     (theoretical) attempts that are being made to understand them. In
>     those attempts people are coming up with models like yours – with
>     multiple components – three for the fractional quantum Hall effect
>     – two for superconductors. These are COMPOSITE systems of light
>     and matter. Simple-minded attempts to understand them without
>     getting what the electron is or what the photon is (the current
>     situation) is bound to prove challenging. In superconductors you
>     have, practically, a di-electron system – but it is also extended
>     to include an overlap over a whole crystal – extra protons in the
>     system then. One is looking a whole, collective, state of matter –
>     with pairs of spin-opposite, electrons extended for many
>     centimetres (whatever the size of the superconductor is). Ok there
>     are TWO paired, opposite spin electrons in any “Cooper pair” and ,
>     at some level, one is going to observe this and the symmetries
>     inherent in this. Antiparticles they are only the sense you know
>     they have opposite spin. Everything else, in the experiments, is
>     spin – if you will pardon the pun. One is blindly thrashing about
>     in the mist further.
>
>
>     Regards, John
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     *From:*General
>     [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>     <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
>     on behalf of Dr. Albrecht Giese [genmail at a-giese.de]
>     *Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2015 9:16 PM
>     *To:* Chip Akins; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
>     *Subject:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…
>
>     Hi Chip,
>
>     thanks for your proposals. I have inserted some comments into the
>     text.
>
>     Am 14.11.2015 um 17:13 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
>         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?
>
>     How can you bind a wave to something? That sounds very strange to
>     me. In the vicinity of a charge we can feel a force. It is an
>     abstraction to call this situation a field. And if this field
>     changes with time and propagates into the space, we call it a
>     wave. You cannot bind a wave to something, so as you cannot bind
>     the wind to a tree.
>
>     What we can bind is the charge which is the cause of the field and
>     of a wave. And a wave cannot build a spin. As a comparison, a
>     squirl in the air or in the water can build an angular momentum.
>     But that has to do with the air or the water. The squirl without
>     air or water, which is a pure abstraction, cannot cause any
>     binding forces. Similar to an electric wave apart from a charge.
>
>     An EM wave is an electric field which is modulated and which
>     propagates. The magnetic part of it is, as discussed here before,
>     nothing than an impression which we have of the electric field. A
>     relativistic side effect. Similar to the Coriolis force which is
>     as well an impression (i.e. also a seeming side effect, but in
>     this case not relativistic).
>
>     So we should talk about real things and that are charges in my
>     understanding.
>
>         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.)/
>
>     How do you think to accelerate an abstract wave?
>
>     If you understand this wave as a cause of inertial mass, can you
>     present a quantitative calculation of the mass which is the result
>     of this effect? - I can do it for my model with high precision
>     (see below).
>
>     If gravity is a case of diffraction, or better of refraction, then
>     there is an object refracted or a moving charge, but not a wave.
>
>         If we do this, we have an electron model which consists of
>         /just one item/ and explains (it seems) the same things that
>         your model explains, but without the need for two entities
>         within this elementary particle.
>
>     As a wave cannot have a momentum it will not violate the
>     conservation of momentum, true, but it cannot build anything than
>     mathematical equations.
>
>         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.
>
>     I say it again: There is evidence for two sub-particles. And I
>     refer again to the experiment described by Frank Wilczek where two
>     halves of an electron have been observed:
>
>     http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com
>
>     And there is NO evidence of a "single thing" if investigated in
>     relation to my model (having mass-less constituents).
>
>     And another evidence (an indirect one): Only an object built by
>     two constituents (as a minimum) can have inertia. We all know that
>     the Higgs model does not work for inertia. And my model using 2
>     sub-particles yields the mass of e.g. the electron with an
>     accuracy of 1 : 500'000. Do you know any model which yields
>     results of this accuracy? -
>     I do not know any else model for this, and am presenting this
>     model since 15 years on conferences all over the world, and there
>     have been no objections.
>
>     Best
>     Albrecht
>
>
>         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 <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
>         *Cc:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>         <mailto: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/r^2 law for range of charges and
>         the r^2 law for the quantity of charges we have a popular
>         example when we look at the sky at night. The sky is dark and
>         that shows that the r^2 case (number of shining stars) does in
>         no way compensates for the 1/r^2 case (light flow density from
>         the stars).
>
>         Why is a 2 particle model necessary?
>
>         1.) for the conservation of momentum
>         2.) for a cause of the inertial mass
>         3.) for the radiation at acceleration which occurs most time,
>         but does not occur in specific situations. Not explained
>         elsewhere.
>
>         Ciao, Albrecht
>
>         Am 13.11.2015 um 20:31 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>
>             Hi Albrecht:
>
>             Your proposed experiment is hampered by reality!  If you
>             do the measurement with a gaget bought in a store that has
>             knobes and a display, then the measurement is for certain
>             for signals under a couple hundred GHz and based on some
>             phenomena for which the sensitivity of man-made devices is
>             limited.  And, if limited to the electric field, then
>             there is a good chance it is missing altogether
>             oscillating signals by virtue of its limited reaction time
>             of reset time, etc. etc.  The vast majority of the
>             background will be much higher, the phenomena most attuned
>             to detecting might be in fact the quantum effects
>             otherwise explained with mystical hokus-pokus!  Also to be
>             noted is that, the processes invovled in your model, if
>             they pertain to elementray entities, will have to be at
>             very small size and if at the velocity (c) will be very
>             high energy, etc. so that once again, it is quite
>             reasonable to suppose that the universe is anything but
>             irrelavant!
>
>             Of course, there is then the issue of the divergence of
>             the this SED background.  Ameliorated to some extent with
>             the realization that there is no energy at a point in
>             empty space until a charged entity is put there, whereupon
>             the energy of interaction with the rest of the universe
>             (not just by itself being there and ignoring the
>             universe---as QM theorists, and yourself, are wont to do)
>             is given by the sum of interactions over all particles not
>             by the integral over all space, including empty space.
>              Looks at first blush to be finite.
>
>             Why fight it?  Where the hell else will you find a
>             credible 2nd particle?
>
>             ciao,  Al
>
>             *Gesendet:* Freitag, 13. November 2015 um 12:11 Uhr
>             *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
>             *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
>             *Cc:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>             <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>             *Betreff:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…
>
>             Hi Al,
>
>             if we look to charges you mention the law 1/r^2 . Now we
>             can perform a simple physical experiment having an
>             electrically charged object and using it to measure the
>             electric field around us. I say: it is very weak. Now look
>             to the distance of the two half-charges within the
>             particle having a distance of 4*10^-13 m. This means an
>             increase of force of about 25 orders of magnitude compared
>             to what we do in a lab. And the difference is much greater
>             if we refer to charges acting from the universe. So I
>             think we do not make a big mistake assuming that there is
>             nothing outside the particle.
>
>             Regarding my model, the logic of deduction was very simple
>             for me:
>
>             1.) We have dilation, so there must be a permanent motion
>             with c
>             2.) There must be 2 sub-particles otherwise the momentum
>             law is violated; 3 are not possible as in conflict with
>             experiments.
>             3.) The sub-particles must be mass-less, otherwise c is
>             not possible
>             4.) The whole particle has mass even though the
>             sub-particles are mass-less. So there must be a mechanism
>             to cause inertia. It was immediately clear for me that
>             inertia is a consequence of extension. Another reason to
>             assume a particle which is composed of parts. (There is no
>             other working mechanism of inertia known until today.)
>             5.) I had to find the binding field for the sub-particles.
>             I have taken the simplest one which I could find which has
>             a potential minimum at some distance. And my first attempt
>             worked.
>
>             That is all, and I do not see any possibility to change
>             one of the points 1.) thru 5.) without getting in conflict
>             with fundamental physical rules. And I do not invent new
>             facts or rules beyond those already known in physics.
>
>             So, where do you see any kind of arbitrariness or missing
>             justification?
>
>             Tschüß!
>             Albrecht
>
>             Am 12.11.2015 um 17:51 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de
>             <mailto: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
>
>                     *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 schrieb af.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
>
>                         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                         Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>                         	
>
>                         Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast
>                         Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
>                         www.avast.com
>
>
>                         _______________________________________________ If
>                         you no longer wish to receive communication
>                         from the Nature of Light and Particles General
>                         Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click
>                         here to unsubscribe
>                         <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>
>
>
>                     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                     Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>                     	
>
>                     Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software
>                     auf Viren geprüft.
>                     www.avast.com
>
>
>
>                 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>                 	
>
>                 Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf
>                 Viren geprüft.
>                 www.avast.com
>
>
>
>             ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>             Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>             	
>
>             Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren
>             geprüft.
>             www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>         	
>
>         Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren
>         geprüft.
>         www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>     	
>
>     Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
>     www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> 	
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>



---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151124/b1ebf065/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3792 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151124/b1ebf065/attachment.jpeg>


More information about the General mailing list