[General] research papers
Dr. Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Tue Oct 20 10:06:48 PDT 2015
Hello Richard,
thank you for your explanations. I would like to ask further questions
and will place them into the text below.
Am 19.10.2015 um 20:08 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
> Hello Albrecht,
>
> Thank your for your detailed questions about my electron model,
> which I will answer as best as I can.
>
> My approach of using the formula e^i(k*r-wt) = e^i (k dot r
> minus omega t) for a plane wave emitted by charged photons is also
> used for example in the analysis of x-ray diffraction from crystals
> when you have many incoming parallel photons in free space moving in
> phase in a plane wave. Please see for example
> http://www.pa.uky.edu/~kwng/phy525/lec/lecture_2.pdf
> <http://www.pa.uky.edu/%7Ekwng/phy525/lec/lecture_2.pdf> . When Max
> Born studied electron scattering using quantum mechanics (where he
> used PHI*PHI of the quantum wave functions to predict the electron
> scattering amplitudes), he also described the incoming electrons as a
> plane wave moving forward with the de Broglie wavelength towards the
> target. I think this is the general analytical procedure used in
> scattering experiments. In my charged photon model the helically
> circulating charged photon, corresponding to a moving electron, is
> emitting a plane wave of wavelength lambda = h/(gamma mc) and
> frequency f=(gamma mc^2)/h along the direction of its helical
> trajectory, which makes a forward angle theta with the helical axis
> given by cos (theta)=v/c. Planes of constant phase emitted from the
> charged photon in this way intersect the helical axis of the charged
> photon. When a charged photon has traveled one relativistic wavelength
> lambda = h/(gamma mc) along the helical axis, the intersection point
> of this wave front with the helical axis has traveled (as seen from
> the geometry of Figure 2 in my charged photon article) a distance
> lambda/cos(theta) = lambda / (v/c) = h/(gamma mv) i.e the
> relativistic de Broglie wavelength along the helical axis.
Here I have a question with respect to your Figure 2. The circling
charged photon is accompanied by a wave which moves at any moment in the
direction of the photon on its helical path. This wave has its normal
wavelength in the direction along this helical path. But if now this
wave is projected onto the axis of the helix, which is the axis of the
moving electron, then the projected wave will be shorter than the
original one. So the equation will not be lambda_deBroglie =
lambda_photon / cos theta , but: lambda_deBroglie = lambda_photon * cos
theta . The result will not be the (extended) de Broglie wave but a
shortened wave. Or do I completely misunderstand the situation here?
Or let's use another view to the process. Lets imagine a scattering
process of the electron at a double slit. This was the experiment where
the de Broglie wavelength turned out to be helpful.
So, when now the electron, and that means the cycling photon, approaches
the slits, it will approach at a slant angle theta at the layer which
has the slits. Now assume the momentary phase such that the wave front
reaches two slits at the same time (which means that the photon at this
moment moves downwards or upwards, but else straight with respect to the
azimuth). This situation is similar to the front wave of a /single/
normal photon which moves upwards or downwards by an angle theta. There
is now no phase difference between the right and the left slit. Now the
question is whether this coming-down (or -up) will change the temporal
sequence of the phases (say: of the maxima of the wave). This distance
(by time or by length) determines at which angle the next interference
maxima to the right or to the left will occur behind the slits.
To my understanding the temporal distance will be the same distance as
of wave maxima on the helical path of the photon, where the latter is
lambda_1 = c / frequency; frequency = (gamma*mc^2 ) / h. So, the
geometric distance of the wave maxima passing the slits is lambda_1 =
c*h / (gamma*mc^2 ). Also here the result is a shortened wavelength
rather than an extended one, so not the de Broglie wavelength.
Again my question: What do I misunderstand?
For the other topics of your answer I essentially agree, so I shall stop
here.
Best regards
Albrecht
>
> Now as seen from this geometry, the slower the electron’s
> velocity v, the longer is the electron’s de Broglie wavelength — also
> as seen from the relativistic de Broglie wavelength formula Ldb =
> h/(gamma mv). For a resting electron (v=0) the de Broglie wavelength
> is undefined in this formula as also in my model for v = 0. Here, for
> stationary electron, the charged photon’s emitted wave fronts (for
> waves of wavelength equal to the Compton wavelength h/mc) intersect
> the axis of the circulating photon along its whole length rather than
> at a single point along the helical axis. This condition corresponds
> to the condition where de Broglie said (something like) that the
> electron oscillates with the frequency given by f = mc^2/h for the
> stationary electron, and that the phase of the wave of this
> oscillating electron is the same at all points in space. But when the
> electron is moving slowly, long de Broglie waves are formed along the
> axis of the moving electron.
>
> In this basic plane wave model there is no limitation on how far
> to the sides of the charged photon the plane wave fronts extend. In a
> more detailed model a finite side-spreading of the plane wave would
> correspond to a pulse of many forward moving electrons that is limited
> in both longitudinal and lateral extent (here a Fourier description of
> the wave front for a pulse of electrons of a particular spatial extent
> would probably come into play), which is beyond the present description.
>
> You asked what an observer standing beside the resting electron,
> but not in the plane of the charged photon's internal circular motion)
> would observe as the circulating charged photon emits a plane wave
> long its trajectory. The plane wave’s wavelength emitted by the
> circling charged photon would be the Compton wavelength h/mc. So when
> the charged photon is moving more towards (but an an angle to) the
> stationary observer, he would observe a wave of wavelength h/mc (which
> you call c/ny where ny is the frequency of charged photon’s orbital
> motion) coming towards and past him. This is not the de Broglie
> wavelength (which is undefined here and is only defined on the helical
> axis of the circulating photon for a moving electron) but is the
> Compton wavelength h/mc of the circulating photon of a resting
> electron. As the charged photon moves more away from the observer, he
> would observe a plane wave of wavelength h/mc moving away from him in
> the direction of the receding charged photon. But it is more
> complicated than this, because the observer at the side of the
> stationary electron (circulating charged photon) will also be
> receiving all the other plane waves with different phases emitted at
> other angles from the circulating charged photon during its whole
> circular trajectory. In fact all of these waves from the charged
> photon away from the circular axis or helical axis will interfere and
> may actually cancel out or partially cancel out (I don’t know),
> leaving a net result only along the axis of the electron, which if the
> electron is moving, corresponds to the de Broglie wavelength along
> this axis. This is hard to visualize in 3-D and this is why I think a
> 3-D computer graphic model of this plane-wave emitting process for a
> moving or stationary electron would be very helpful and informative.
>
> You asked about the electric charge of the charged photon and how
> it affects this process. Clearly the plane waves emitted by the
> circulating charged photon have to be different from the plane waves
> emitted by an uncharged photon, because these plane waves generate the
> quantum wave functions PHI that predict the probabilities of finding
> electrons or photons respectively in the future from their PHI*PHI
> functions. Plus the charged photon has to be emitting an additional
> electric field (not emitted by a regular uncharged photon), for
> example caused by virtual uncharged photons as described in QED, that
> produces the electrostatic field of a stationary electron or the
> electro-magnetic field around a moving electron.
>
> I hope this helps. Thanks again for your excellent questions.
>
> with best regards,
> Richard
>
>
>> On Oct 19, 2015, at 8:13 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de
>> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>>
>> Richard:
>>
>> I am still busy to understand the de Broglie wavelength from your
>> model. I think that I understand your general idea, but I would like
>> to also understand the details.
>>
>> If a photon moves straight in the free space, how does the wave look
>> like? You say that the photon emits a plane wave. If the photon is
>> alone and moves straight, then the wave goes with the photon. No
>> problem. And the wave front is in the forward direction. Correct? How
>> far to the sides is the wave extended? That may be important in case
>> of the photon in the electron.
>>
>> With the following I refer to the figures 1 and 2 in your paper
>> referred in your preceding mail.
>>
>> In the electron, the photon moves according to your model on a
>> circuit. It moves on a helix when the electron is in motion. But let
>> take us first the case of the electron at rest, so that the photon
>> moves on this circuit. In any moment the plane wave accompanied with
>> the photon will momentarily move in the tangential direction of the
>> circuit. But the direction will permanently change to follow the path
>> of the photon on the circuit. What is then about the motion of the
>> wave? The front of the wave should follow this circuit. Would an
>> observer next to the electron at rest (but not in the plane of the
>> internal motion) notice the wave? This can only happen, I think, if
>> the wave does not only propagate on a straight path forward but has
>> an extension to the sides. Only if this is the case, there will be a
>> wave along the axis of the electron. Now an observer next to the
>> electron will see a modulated wave coming from the photon, which will
>> be modulated with the frequency of the rotation, because the photon
>> will in one moment be closer to the observer and in the next moment
>> be farer from him. Which wavelength will be noticed by the observer?
>> It should be lambda = c / ny, where c is the speed of the propagation
>> and ny the frequency of the orbital motion. But this lambda is by my
>> understanding not be the de Broglie wave length.
>>
>> For an electron at rest your model expects a wave with a momentarily
>> similar phase for all points in space. How can this orbiting photon
>> cause this? And else, if the electron is not at rest but moves at a
>> very small speed, then the situation will not be very different from
>> that of the electron at rest.
>>
>> Further: What is the influence of the charge in the photon? There
>> should be a modulated electric field around the electron with a
>> frequency ny which follows also from E = h*ny, with E the dynamical
>> energy of the photon. Does this modulated field have any influence to
>> how the electron interacts with others?
>>
>> Some questions, perhaps you can help me for a better understanding.
>>
>> With best regards and thanks in advance
>> Albrecht
>>
>> PS: I shall answer you mail from last night tomorrow.
>>
>>
>> Am 14.10.2015 um 22:32 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>> Hello Albrecht,
>>>
>>> I second David’s question. The last I heard authoritatively,
>>> from cosmologist Sean Carroll - "The Particle at the End of the
>>> Universe” (2012), is that fermions are not affected by the strong
>>> nuclear force. If they were, I think it would be common scientific
>>> knowledge by now.
>>>
>>> You wrote: "I see it as a valuable goal for the further development
>>> to find an answer (a/physical /answer!) to the question of the de
>>> Broglie wavelength."
>>> My spin 1/2 charged photon model DOES give a simple physical
>>> explanation for the origin of the de Broglie wavelength. The
>>> helically-circulating charged photon is proposed to emit a plane
>>> wave directed along its helical path based on its relativistic
>>> wavelength lambda = h/(gamma mc) and relativistic frequency f=(gamma
>>> mc^2)/h. The wave fronts of this plane wave intersect the axis of
>>> the charged photon’s helical trajectory, which is the path of the
>>> electron being modeled by the charged photon, creating a de Broglie
>>> wave pattern of wavelength h/(gamma mv) which travels along the
>>> charged photon’s helical axis at speed c^2/v. For a moving electron,
>>> the wave fronts emitted by the charged photon do not intersect the
>>> helical axis perpendicularly but at an angle (see Figure 2 of my
>>> SPIE paper at
>>> https://www.academia.edu/15686831/Electrons_are_spin_1_2_charged_photons_generating_the_de_Broglie_wavelength )
>>> that is simply related to the speed of the electron being modeled.
>>> This physical origin of the electron’s de Broglie wave is similar
>>> to when a series of parallel and evenly-spaced ocean waves hits a
>>> straight beach at an angle greater than zero degrees to the beach —
>>> a wave pattern is produced at the beach that travels in one
>>> direction along the beach at a speed faster than the speed of the
>>> waves coming in from the ocean. But that beach wave pattern can't
>>> transmit “information” along the beach faster than the speed of the
>>> ocean waves, just as the de Broglie matter-wave can’t (according to
>>> special relativity) transmit information faster than light, as de
>>> Broglie recognized. As far as I know this geometric interpretation
>>> for the generation of the relativistic electron's de Broglie
>>> wavelength, phase velocity, and matter-wave equation is unique.
>>>
>>> For a resting (v=0) electron, the de Broglie wavelength lambda =
>>> h/(gamma mv) is not defined since one can’t divide by zero. It
>>> corresponds to the ocean wave fronts in the above example hitting
>>> the beach at a zero degree angle, where no velocity of the wave
>>> pattern along the beach can be defined.
>>>
>>> Schrödinger took de Broglie’s matter-wave and used it
>>> non-relativistically with a potential V to generate the
>>> Schrödinger equation and wave mechanics, which is mathematically
>>> identical in its predictions to Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics. Born
>>> interpreted Psi*Psi of the Schrödinger equation as the probability
>>> density for the result of an experimental measurement and this
>>> worked well for statistical predictions. Quantum mechanics was built
>>> on this de Broglie wave foundation and Born's probabilistic
>>> interpretation (using Hilbert space math.)
>>>
>>> The charged photon model of the electron might be used to derive
>>> the Schrödinger equation, considering the electron to be a
>>> circulating charged photon that generates the electron’s
>>> matter-wave, which depends on the electron’s variable kinetic energy
>>> in a potential field. This needs to be explored further, which I
>>> began in
>>> https://www.academia.edu/10235164/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_Fits_the_Schrödinger_Equation
>>> <https://www.academia.edu/10235164/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_Fits_the_Schr%C3%B6dinger_Equation> .
>>> Of course, to treat the electron relativistically requires the Dirac
>>> equation. But the spin 1/2 charged photon model of the relativistic
>>> electron has a number of features of the Dirac electron, by design.
>>>
>>> As to why the charged photon circulates helically rather than
>>> moving in a straight line (in the absence of diffraction, etc) like
>>> an uncharged photon, this could be the effect of the charged photon
>>> moving in the Higgs field, which turns a speed-of-light particle
>>> with electric charge into a less-than-speed-of-light particle with a
>>> rest mass, which in this case is the electron’s rest mass 0.511
>>> MeV/c^2 (this value is not predicted by the Higgs field theory
>>> however.) So the electron’s inertia may also be caused by the Higgs
>>> field. I would not say that an unconfined photon has inertia,
>>> although it has energy and momentum but no rest mass, but opinions
>>> differ on this point. “Inertia” is a vague term and perhaps should
>>> be dropped— it literally means "inactive, unskilled”.
>>>
>>> You said that a faster-than-light phase wave can only be caused by
>>> a superposition of waves. I’m not sure this is correct, since in my
>>> charged photon model a single plane wave pattern emitted by the
>>> circulating charged photon generates the electron’s
>>> faster-than-light phase wave of speed c^2/v . A group velocity of an
>>> electron model may be generated by a superposition of waves to
>>> produce a wave packet whose group velocity equals the
>>> slower-than-light speed of an electron modeled by such an
>>> wave-packet approach.
>>>
>>> with best regards,
>>> Richard
>>>
>>>> On Oct 14, 2015, at 7:14 AM, <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
>>>> <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Albrecht
>>>>
>>>> A lepton with strong force...that is rather interesting.
>>>>
>>>> I could not find the DESY 2004 reference. Do you have it handy?
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> *From:*Dr. Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de
>>>> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>>
>>>> *To:*Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>>; 'Nature of Light and
>>>> Particles - General Discussion'
>>>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>>>> *Sent:*Wednesday, October 14, 2015 5:40 AM
>>>> *Subject:*Re: [General] research papers
>>>>
>>>> Hello Richard,
>>>>
>>>> I refer to your first reference given below "The Charged-Photon
>>>> Model of the Electron ... ". Which I liked very much to read,
>>>> but without agreeing to everything of it.
>>>>
>>>> The crucial thing seems to be the 'de Broglie wavelength'. I
>>>> can follow your deduction. You take the energy and so the
>>>> momentum of the orbiting charged photon. You calculate the wave
>>>> number of the photon from the momentum. Then you take the
>>>> actual component of the wave number in the direction of the
>>>> whole electron. And the result is in fact the de Broglie
>>>> wavelength. - But what is the physics behind that?
>>>>
>>>> If the electron moves slowly, the phase speed is much more than
>>>> c. In the case of the electron at rest it is even infinite. So,
>>>> the whole wave oscillates with a fixed phase until infinity.
>>>> What kind of wave can that be? Yes, a phase can move faster
>>>> than a material wave. But such a different (and higher) phase
>>>> speed can only be caused by a superposition of waves. Who
>>>> contributes to this superposition? You mention as an example
>>>> that e.g. a pulse can be understood as a superposition of a
>>>> collection of single waves. Correct. But just in this case the
>>>> length of the resulting phase wave will never be infinite. So,
>>>> what is the physics behind? I do not see an answer in your
>>>> paper. And I for myself have as well no answer to it.
>>>>
>>>> The same is true for de Broglie. In his paper of 1924 he
>>>> deduces an equation for the phase speed so that the de Broglie
>>>> wavelength, which has turned out to be practical to describe
>>>> scattering at double slits etc, is the result of his
>>>> mathematical procedure. But de Broglie himself states the lack
>>>> of physical understanding (as you also quote so in your paper):
>>>>
>>>> „… so that the present theory may be considered a formal scheme
>>>> whose physical content is not yet fully determined, rather than
>>>> a full-fledged definite doctrine.”
>>>> So, even de Broglie admits in his paper that this is a formal
>>>> result which does not represent really understood physics. But
>>>> despite of this, Erwin Schrödinger has integrated this "vague"
>>>> approach into his famous "Schrödinger equation". This is - as
>>>> far as I understand it - still the state of QM today. Nothing
>>>> better.
>>>>
>>>> With this I do not want to criticise you as I for myself have
>>>> at present no solution. This also answers your question
>>>> regarding the relation of my model to the de Broglie wavelength.
>>>>
>>>> I see it as a valuable goal for the further development to find
>>>> an answer (a/physical/answer!) to the question of the de
>>>> Broglie wavelength.
>>>>
>>>> Apart of this I would like to ask the following questions to
>>>> your model with a charged photon.
>>>>
>>>> - If this photon is orbiting in the electron, by which force
>>>> is it hold on its orbit?
>>>> - The photon has a mass or a momentum (which I find
>>>> equivalent) in it. So it has inertia. What is the mechanism
>>>> which causes this inertia?
>>>> - A photon as we know it does not have a charge. So this
>>>> particle can be understood to be a different one. Would it not
>>>> be better to give it a new name, just for clarity?
>>>>
>>>> You ask me why my particle model does not only have one
>>>> orbiting particle but two? The answer is simply that this
>>>> explains the circular motion. One object cannot move on a
>>>> circular path without any bind to something else.
>>>>
>>>> And should not any electron model have an answer to the fact
>>>> that there is also the strong interaction found in the electron
>>>> (DESY 2004)?
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>> Albrecht
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 05.10.2015 um 19:17 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello Albrecht,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your further comments and questions.
>>>>>
>>>>> De Broglie's “harmony of phases” argument is a little hard to
>>>>> follow or picture. His derivation is given in my article
>>>>> athttps://www.academia.edu/9973842/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_the_de_Broglie_Wavelength_and_a_New_Interpretation_of_Quantum_Mechanics
>>>>> on p. 5 in the section “Comparison of the charged-photon
>>>>> derivation to de Broglie’s derivation”. "Harmony of phases" is
>>>>> generally accepted. I’m quite pleased that I was able with
>>>>> simple math to derive the electron's relativistic de Broglie
>>>>> wavelength without it. I also derived the electron’s
>>>>> relativistic matter-wave equation A e^i(kx-wt) for a free
>>>>> relativistic electron from the circulating charged photon
>>>>> model, based on the circulating charged photon emitting a
>>>>> plane wave along the charged photon’s helical trajectory, with
>>>>> the circulating charged photon’s wavelength h/(gamma mc) and
>>>>> frequency f = (gamma mc^2)/h, using the relation cos(theta) =
>>>>> v/c where theta is the forward angle of the charged photon’s
>>>>> helical trajectory. The intersection of this circulating plane
>>>>> wave with the longitudinal axis of the circulating charged
>>>>> photon’s helical trajectory generates the electron’s
>>>>> matter-wave equation with the relativistic de Broglie
>>>>> wavelength and phase velocity c^2/v .
>>>>>
>>>>> The momentum of the circulating charged photon is p = gamma mc
>>>>> because the energy E of the circulating charged photon is set
>>>>> equal the total energy E of moving electron E=gamma mc^2 and
>>>>> the energy-momentum relation for a photon is p= E/c: p =
>>>>> E/c = (gamma mc^2) / c = gamma mc for the total momentum of
>>>>> the circulating charged photon along its helical trajectory.
>>>>> This total momentum's longitudinal component along the helical
>>>>> axis is p cos(theta)= gamma mc x v/c = gamma mv which is the
>>>>> relativistic momentum of the electron being modeled by the
>>>>> circulating charged photon. The transverse component of the
>>>>> charged photon's total momentum is mc .
>>>>>
>>>>> Since your “basic particles” don’t, as you state, have
>>>>> relativistic behavior, why not just have one circulating
>>>>> light-speed particle instead of two? Insisting on conservation
>>>>> of momentum between two circulating non-physical particles
>>>>> (for which there is no experimental evidence) doesn’t seem
>>>>> logical.
>>>>>
>>>>> For your reference, my recent article is
>>>>> at*https://www.academia.edu/15686831/Electrons_are_spin_1_2_charged_photons_generating_the_de_Broglie_wavelength .*
>>>>>
>>>>> No one knows why the electron’s rest mass is m = E(resting
>>>>> electron)/c^2 = 0.511 MeV/c^2 . The Higgs mechanism doesn’t
>>>>> predict m. A photon carrying the energy E of the rest mass m
>>>>> of an electron has energy hf = E=mc^2 and momentum p=mc . So
>>>>> mc is more fundamental than m since this photon is not at rest
>>>>> but has momentum mc. If this photon is then converted into a
>>>>> resting electron, this electron now has internal invariant
>>>>> circulating momentum mc and a corresponding rest mass m which
>>>>> the original photon did not have. So the photon's original
>>>>> momentum mc, which precedes the electron’s formation, is more
>>>>> fundamental than the electron’s rest mass m.
>>>>>
>>>>> with best regards,
>>>>> Richard
>>>>> *
>>>>> *
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 4, 2015, at 2:01 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese
>>>>>> <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>> Hello Richard,
>>>>
>>>> Am 02.10.2015 um 07:45 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>>> Hello Albrecht,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your detailed explanations. Yes, I will wait for
>>>> your quantitative derivation of the relativistic de Broglie
>>>> wavelength from your electron model. De Broglie’s original
>>>> derivation has the internal frequency of his electron both
>>>> increasing (due to its energy as gamma mc^2 = hf AND also
>>>> decreasing due to relativistic time dilation. He managed to
>>>> reconcile both of these frequencies by his ingenious “harmony
>>>> of phases” relationship. Your electron model only seems to have
>>>> a decreasing frequency with increasing speed, where you say
>>>> this decreasing frequency is due to time dilation. Without an
>>>> increasing internal frequency proportional to the electron's
>>>> energy gamma mc^2 I think you will have difficulty deriving
>>>> the relativistic de Broglie wavelength. My model derives the de
>>>> Broglie wavelength value h/(gamma mv) easily from the
>>>> relativistic wavelength h/(gamma mc) of the circulating charged
>>>> photon whose frequency is given by hf=gamma mc^2, without
>>>> referring to relativistic time dilation.
>>>> These are two questions or problems. One is the increase of the
>>>> internal frequency of a particle at motion despite of dilation.
>>>> There is an easy way to see how it in principle works. I said
>>>> earlier that the dilation, so the reduction of the internal
>>>> frequency, is over-compensated by the Dopplereffect, which is
>>>> effective for an observer who receives the particle.
>>>> Mathematically: If you divide the Doppler function (the source
>>>> moving towards the observer) by the square of the gamma
>>>> function, then the result is more than 1. This shows that the
>>>> Doppler effect over-compensates the reduction of the frequency
>>>> by dilation at least by gamma. The result should however be
>>>> exactly one. When I am at home again (presently I am not) I
>>>> will investigate my literature to get a precise result.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your note about the "harmony of phases". The idea
>>>> takes care of the problem that on the one hand the frequency in
>>>> an elementary particle follows E=mc^2=h*frequency, on the other
>>>> hand the de Broglie wavelength does not follow this relation.
>>>> What is the reason for that? In my present understanding
>>>> the "harmony of phases" was an ad hoc attempt of de Broglie to
>>>> solve this problem mathematically. I do not have the impression
>>>> that it is based on a true understanding of a physical process.
>>>> I shall come back to this as soon as I am back at home.
>>>>> You say at one point: "We can reorder this equation: m*R*c =
>>>>> h(bar). The left side is now the classical definition of the
>>>>> orbital momentum at speed = c.” But mc is not the momentum of
>>>>> a particle with rest mass traveling at c, i.e. p = mv where v
>>>>> is replaced by c. Could you have misunderstood p=mc for the
>>>>> relativistic equation for momentum p = gamma mv for a particle
>>>>> with rest mass m traveling at velocity v but never able to
>>>>> reach c.
>>>> I have referred to the classical definition of angular momentum
>>>> to show that the spin can be visualized for such a type of
>>>> model (i.e. my model). Of course the units do not fit with
>>>> exact numbers. If we treat the model as a classical gyroscope
>>>> (what it definitely not is) then this equation describes the
>>>> angular momentum. In that case/m/is of course
>>>> the/effective/mass, in this case however not applicable in so
>>>> far as there are no single "masses" in this model. (Mass is a
>>>> dynamical process within the whole.) The speed c is not a
>>>> problem in so far as the "basic particles" do not have a
>>>> relativistic behavior. Relativistic effects are caused by the
>>>> elementary particle as a whole as particularly visible for the
>>>> phenomenon of dilation. But one point results very clearly from
>>>> this view: The resulting angular momentum (=spin) is
>>>> independent of other properties of the particle. That is a
>>>> physical result here, not a result of some algebra. And the
>>>> numerical result is very close to the correct one which is not
>>>> a matter of course.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, the momentum quantity mc does appear in my
>>>>> circulating charged photon model as the invariant transverse
>>>>> component of the helically circulating charged photon’s total
>>>>> momentum gamma mc.
>>>> Why is the momentum/gamma mc/? If the photon is subject to
>>>> relativistic effects, on which level of your model is
>>>> relativity founded? The increase of/m/by/gamma/must have some
>>>> reason. Which reason is it? (I do not see Einstein's algebra as
>>>> a reason.)
>>>>> The longitudinal component of the charged photon’s circulating
>>>>> momentum is gamma mv, which is the momentum of the
>>>>> relativistic electron being modeled by the circulating charged
>>>>> photon. The transverse momentum component mc contributes to
>>>>> the spin hbar/2 of a slow moving or resting electron composed
>>>>> of a circulating photon at radius hbar/2mc in this way: Sz =
>>>>> r x p = hbar/2mc x mc = hbar/2 . My charged photon model is a
>>>>> generic charged photon model, which needs a more detailed
>>>>> charged photon model incorporated into it that will give the
>>>>> charged photon model a spin hbar/2 also at relativistic
>>>>> velocities, since the electron has spin hbar/2 at all
>>>>> velocities. I have such a possible charged photon model that
>>>>> is internally superluminal and has spin hbar/2 at all
>>>>> energies, which might be incorporated into the generic charged
>>>>> photon model.
>>>> This is a collection of equations which are listed here but not
>>>> deduced or substantiated. I guess that they are (quantitative)
>>>> consequences of the foundations of your model. I do not have
>>>> details of your model here at hand as I am not at home. Is it
>>>> difficult for you to give me just a quick reference? - The
>>>> occurrence of superluminal speed is a problem in so far as it
>>>> constitutes a new property which is very different from present
>>>> understanding of physics. Better if we do not need such
>>>> assumptions.
>>>>>
>>>>> You asked if someone besides you has an explanation of
>>>>> particle inertia. This invariant circulating transverse
>>>>> momentum component p=mc in my charged photon model of the
>>>>> electron gives my electron model an invariant rest mass m and
>>>>> so this circulating momentum component mc may be the origin of
>>>>> inertia or rest mass of material particles like the electron.
>>>> In my understanding you put the logic here upside down. You
>>>> refer to the momentum/p=mc/. But here is/m/the origin of the
>>>> momentum. So, if mass is not defined, also this expression is
>>>> undefined. - Only after the mass generation has been found, it
>>>> makes sense to talk about momentum. No the other way around.
>>>>
>>>> Albrecht
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 1, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese
>>>>>> <genmail at a-giese.de <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>> Dear Richard,
>>>>
>>>> thank you for your list of explicit questions. That makes it
>>>> easy to answer in a structured way. And I hope that my answers
>>>> can also answer some of the other questions and doubts which
>>>> came up during the last days and mails.
>>>>
>>>> Hello John and Albrecht and all,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks John, I stand corrected on the issue of your electron
>>>> model not falling off in lateral size as 1/gamma.
>>>>
>>>> Albrecht, I am still not satisfied with your electron model for
>>>> a number of reasons:
>>>>
>>>> 1) no experimental evidence for multi-particle structure of the
>>>> electron even at high energies.
>>>> Yes, this model makes it difficult to show experimentally this
>>>> structure of the electron. It is difficult by the reason that
>>>> both sub-particles do not have any mass. So the particle cannot
>>>> be decomposed by bombardment, which is the normal way of
>>>> investigating a particle structure in high energy physics (like
>>>> a proton). On the other hand it should not be a problem to
>>>> accept that a particle is big as a whole, but by a scattering
>>>> experiment only a sub-particle is detected. That has a
>>>> historical analogy in the Rutherford experiment, where
>>>> Rutherford wished to measure the size of an atom but found the
>>>> size of the nucleus. In case of the electron the experimenters
>>>> look for the size of the electron but find the size of the
>>>> basic particle.
>>>>
>>>> However there is now indeed an experimental evidence. As Frank
>>>> Wilczek wrote in his article in Nature, in a specific situation
>>>> (superconductivity in a magnetic field), half-electrons were
>>>> detected. In his understanding it is a complete mystery. In the
>>>> view of this particle model not so much a mystery.
>>>>
>>>> An important theoretical argument for a pair of sub-particles
>>>> is the fact the there is an internal motion (mag. moment,
>>>> spin), but the conservation of momentum must not be violated.
>>>> This needs at least 2 sub-particles.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) your light-speed charged, massless circulating particles
>>>>> carry no resting inertia — why not just call them circulating
>>>>> charged photons, and just have one of them rather than two,
>>>>> based on the lack of experimental evidence for multi-particle
>>>>> structure of the electron?
>>>> Arguments against a photon: A photon at c has inertia. With
>>>> this assumption the model cannot work (look for the mechanism
>>>> of inertia). And a photon does not have a single (or half)
>>>> electric charge. And scattering of other charged particles
>>>> (like quarks) at a photon would not display a size < 10^-18. A
>>>> photon cannot be that small.
>>>>
>>>> Further the photon has spin of 1 h(bar), the electron has 1/2
>>>> of it. If the electron would be built by 2 photons, the
>>>> combined spin should be 0 or 2. Or there must be an additional
>>>> orbital momentum which is otherwise not known in particle physics.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) there is no clear model of a photon in your system (maybe I
>>>>> missed it) and how electron-positron pair production of your
>>>>> electron model and positron model would emerge from a single
>>>>> photon in the vicinity of a nucleus (a common method of pair
>>>>> production).
>>>> I must admit that I do not have a consistent model for a
>>>> photon. I tend to the idea of de Broglie that a photon is
>>>> composed by 2 elementary particles. But I do not assume 2
>>>> neutrinos as de Broglie did but maybe of 4 basic particles in a
>>>> very special configuration. At least a photon has to have
>>>> positive and negative electric charges inside, otherwise it
>>>> would not react with electric charges as it does.
>>>>
>>>> If we assume that the photon is e.g. built by 2 other particles
>>>> which are similar to electrons, pair production is quite
>>>> plausible. On the other hand, the generation of elementary
>>>> particles by interaction processes, which should mean in this
>>>> context the generation of basic particles, needs some
>>>> additional understanding. My model just uses generations like
>>>> those but has no explanation yet for them.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4) the two-dimensionality of your electron model. Delta x in
>>>>> the third dimension appears to be zero and delta Px in the
>>>>> third dimension is also zero. So delta x delta Px is also zero
>>>>> , a strong violation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
>>>>> Is that a problem for your model?
>>>> The orbital motion of the 2 sub-particles goes on in a
>>>> 2-dimensional area, that is true. Problem with Heisenberg's
>>>> principle? (I prefer to say: the uncertainty relation, because
>>>> nature is not determined by principles, as elementary particles
>>>> etc. do not have a mind so that they can understand and follow
>>>> principles.) The uncertainty is a "technical" consequence of
>>>> the de Broglie wave which surrounds and guides a particle. Such
>>>> wave can only be determined with uncertainty, that is the
>>>> uncertainty found in measurements. I do not see any uncertainty
>>>> in particles themselves as everywhere when we can measure
>>>> parameters in an interaction, the conservation laws are
>>>> fulfilled without an uncertainty.
>>>>>
>>>>> 5) the fact that your model’s lateral size doesn’t decrease as
>>>>> electron speed increases. Since the 2 particles still move at
>>>>> light speed, this would require that the frequency of their
>>>>> circulation will reduce, rather than increase as would be
>>>>> expected with the electron's increasing energy as its speed
>>>>> increases. That also leaves your high energy relativistic
>>>>> electron model about 100,000 times too big, compared with high
>>>>> energy electron scattering experiments.
>>>> Irrespective to which direction an electron moves, the orbital
>>>> frequency reduces by the factor gamma. This is simple geometry
>>>> and the physical cause of dilation in SR. On the other hand, if
>>>> the electron moves towards another object to undergo an
>>>> interaction there, then the other object experiences an
>>>> increase of frequency by the Doppler effect. This Doppler
>>>> effect over-compensates the relativistic reduction. - By the
>>>> way, this consideration was the starting point for de Broglie
>>>> when he began to think about elementary particles, which ended
>>>> with the Nobel price.
>>>>> To say that electron scattering occurs in your model with only
>>>>> one of the two rotating point-like particles and the other is
>>>>> pulled along without inertial resistance doesn’t work for me
>>>>> and seems very non-physical.
>>>> As the "other" sub-particle has no inertial mass, it can follow
>>>> any acceleration. This is (also) covered by Newton's law of
>>>> inertia. But as both sub-particles are bound to each other by a
>>>> field which is subject to the finite speed of light, the
>>>> "other" one causes the inertia of the whole configuration by
>>>> the delay of field propagation. - It is essential for the
>>>> understanding of this model to understand the underlying
>>>> mechanism of inertia. See further down.
>>>>>
>>>>> 6) the fact that the electron’s z-component of spin 1/2 hbar
>>>>> is not clearly present in your model whose radius is the
>>>>> reduced Compton wavelength hbar/mc and not the Dirac amplitude
>>>>> hbar/2mc which easily yields the electron’s spin 1/2 ,
>>>>> zitterbewegung frequency, double-looping in a resting electron
>>>>> and the Dirac 720 degree rotational symmetry of the electron.
>>>>> (This is the same problem I see with John M’s electron model,
>>>>> which also doesn’t have a clear spin 1/2 hbar since its radius
>>>>> is also hbar/mc and not hbar/2mc .)
>>>> The sub-particles in this model are bound to each other by a
>>>> multi-pole field of the strong force. This field causes the
>>>> inertia of the whole particle and so tries to inhibit any
>>>> change of the motion state. As the sub-particles orbit at c and
>>>> also the binding field moves at c, the one sub-particle does
>>>> not receive the field of the other one from the opposite
>>>> direction of the orbital motion, but the force has a component
>>>> in the direction of the circumference of the orbit. This
>>>> inhibits a change of the orbital motion and causes so an
>>>> orbital momentum, i.e. a spin.
>>>>
>>>> For an approximate calculation: The mass is given by m = h(bar)
>>>> / (R*c) . We can reorder this equation: m*R*c = h(bar). The
>>>> left side is now the classical definition of the orbital
>>>> momentum at speed = c. - This is not numerically applicable
>>>> here as the model does not function as a classical gyroscope.
>>>> But it shows how spin in principle works.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding Dirac: What Dirac has done is algebra, not physics.
>>>> It is often very practical to do algebra do solve physical
>>>> problems, but we should always be aware of the fact that we
>>>> have to trace the algebra back to the physical processes behind
>>>> the calculation. And so also his period of 720 degrees is a
>>>> kind of mathematical trick helpful for some calculations. But
>>>> the physical space does in my understanding not have a
>>>> periodicity of 720 degrees.
>>>>>
>>>>> 7) the wave nature of your model is not clear to me. What in
>>>>> your model produces the electron's quantum wave nature, and
>>>>> how does your moving electron model generate the relativistic
>>>>> de Broglie wavelength quantitatively? Does it? You seem to
>>>>> accept the pilot wave concept of de Broglie-Bohm. Does your
>>>>> electron model display quantum non-locality and entanglement
>>>>> as Bohm’s does and which is also strongly experimentally
>>>>> supported?
>>>> The field which binds both sub-particles propagates into any
>>>> direction in space. So it is existent also outside of this
>>>> configuration "electron". As the electron circulates, it is an
>>>> alternating field which emits waves into the surrounding space.
>>>> When the particle moves, it takes the wave-field with it. This
>>>> guides the particle as anticipated by de Broglie and, among
>>>> other effects, causes the scattering structure at a double slit.
>>>>
>>>> Non-locality and entanglement: This was my original motivation
>>>> to investigate theoretical physics (originally I am an
>>>> experimentalist). But up to now I was not successful to find an
>>>> explanation for that. - But that is another topic which has no
>>>> direct relation to my model. - It is a new information for me
>>>> that Bohm did have an explanation for entanglement.
>>>>
>>>> You are asking for the deduction of the de Broglie wavelength.
>>>> For presenting a quantitative deduction I have to investigate
>>>> some more details, and so I ask you for some patience. I shall
>>>> come back to it.
>>>>
>>>> Finally I would like to emphasize the fact that this model is
>>>> the only one which explains inertia. As it is meanwhile
>>>> admitted by mainstream physics, the Higgs model is not able to
>>>> provide this. The necessary Higgs field does definitely not exist.
>>>>
>>>> The reason for mass is that any extended object has inertia,
>>>> independent of "elementary masses" which may exist inside an
>>>> object. The reason is the finiteness of the speed of light, by
>>>> which binding fields, which must be present in any extended
>>>> object, propagate. This is not an idea or a wage possibility,
>>>> but it is completely unavoidable. Applied to a particle model,
>>>> a particle can only have inertial if it is extended.
>>>>
>>>> Question: Does anyone of you all here has another working model
>>>> of inertia?
>>>>
>>>> Here I should end today. But I will be happy to get further -
>>>> and critical - questions.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>> Albrecht
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 29, 2015, at 1:48 AM, John Williamson
>>>>>> <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear everyone especially Al, Albrecht and Richard,
>>>>>> I have been meaning to weigh-in for some time, but term has
>>>>>> just started and I’m responsible for hundreds of new
>>>>>> students, tens of PhD’s, there is only one of me and my mind
>>>>>> is working on less than ten percent capacity.
>>>>>> I think we have to distinguish between what is know,
>>>>>> experimentally, and our precious (to us) little theoretical
>>>>>> models. Please remember everyone that theory is just theory.
>>>>>> It is fun to play with and that is what we are all doing. The
>>>>>> primary thing is first to understand experiment – and that is
>>>>>> hard as there is a huge amount of mis-information in our
>>>>>> “information” technology culture.
>>>>>> You are right, Al, that Martin has not carried out
>>>>>> experiments, directly, himself, on the electron size in both
>>>>>> high energy and at low energy, but I have.
>>>>>> I have many papers, published in the most prestigious
>>>>>> journals, on precisely those topics. They HAVE had much
>>>>>> interest (in total more than ten thousand citations). I have
>>>>>> sat up, late at night, alone, performing experimentsboth with
>>>>>> the largest lepton microscope ever made (The EMC experiment
>>>>>> at CERN) and with my superb (best in the world at the time)
>>>>>> millikelvin Cryostat looking at precisely the inner structure
>>>>>> of single electrons spread out over sizes much (orders of
>>>>>> magnitude) larger than my experimental resolution. It is
>>>>>> widely said, but simply not true, that “no experiment
>>>>>> resolves the electron size”.This comes, largely, from simple
>>>>>> ignorance of what the experiments show. I have not only seen
>>>>>> inside single electrons, but then used the observed
>>>>>> properties and structure, professionally and in widely
>>>>>> published and cited work, to design new devices. Have had
>>>>>> them made and measured (in collaboration with others), and
>>>>>> seen them thenwork both as expected, but also to reveal
>>>>>> deeper mysteries again involving the electron size, its
>>>>>> quantum spin, its inner charge distribution and so on. That
>>>>>> work is still going on, now carried by my old colleagues and
>>>>>> by the rest of the world. Nano – my device was the first
>>>>>> nanosemiconductor device. Spintronics, designed the first
>>>>>> devices used for this. Inner workings of spin , and the
>>>>>> exclusion principle Martin and I hope to crack that soon!
>>>>>> Fun! All welcome!
>>>>>> Now where Martin is coming from, and where he, personally,
>>>>>> late at night etc … HAS done lots of professional experiments
>>>>>> and has been widely cited is in playing the same kind of
>>>>>> games with light that I have done with electrons. This means
>>>>>> that, acting together, we really know what we are talking
>>>>>> about in a wide range of physics. Especially particle
>>>>>> scattering, quantum electron transport, and light. We may be
>>>>>> making up the theories, but we are not making up a wide and
>>>>>> deep understanding of experiment.
>>>>>> I take your point – and you are so right -that there are so
>>>>>> many things one would like to read and understand and has not
>>>>>> yet got round to. So much and so little time. Ore papers
>>>>>> written per second than one can read per second. There is,
>>>>>> however, no substitute for actually having been involved in
>>>>>> those very experiments to actually understand what they mean.
>>>>>> So what I am about to say is not going to be “shooting from
>>>>>> the hip”, but is perhaps more like having spent a couple of
>>>>>> decades developing a very large rail gun which has just been
>>>>>> loaded for its one-shot at intergalactic exploration …
>>>>>> Now I hope you will not take this badly …it is fun to think
>>>>>> about this but here goes
>>>>>> Here is what you said (making you blue):
>>>>>> You have not done an experiment, but (at best) a calculation
>>>>>> based on some hypothtical input of your choise. Maybe it's
>>>>>> good, maybe not.
>>>>>> Not so: I have done the experiments! Myself. This is exactly
>>>>>> why I started looking into the extant models decades ago,
>>>>>> found them sadly lacking, and hence set out to devise new
>>>>>> ones that did agree with experiment at both low and high
>>>>>> energy. This is the whole point!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Sun scatters as a point only those projectiles that don't
>>>>>> get close.
>>>>>> True,
>>>>>> So far, no scattering off elecrtons has gotten close enough
>>>>>> to engage any internal structure, "they" say (I#ll defer to
>>>>>> experts up-to-date).
>>>>>> Not so. Lots of papers on this. Some by me. See e.g.
>>>>>> Williamson, Timmering, Harmans, Harris and Foxon Phys Rev 42
>>>>>> p 7675. Also – I am an expert (up to date) on HEP as well. A
>>>>>> more correct statement is that no high-energy scattering
>>>>>> experiment has RESOLVED any internal structure in free
>>>>>> electrons. If this was all you knew (and for many HEP guys it
>>>>>> seems to be) then one might interpret this as meaning the
>>>>>> electron was a point down to 10-18m. It is not. It cannot be.
>>>>>> It does not have enough mass to account for its spin (even if
>>>>>> at lightspeed) if it is that small. Work it out!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nevertheless, electrons are in constant motion at or near the
>>>>>> speed of light (Zitterbewegung) and therefore at the time
>>>>>> scales of the projectiles buzz around (zittern) in a certain
>>>>>> amout of space, which seems to me must manifest itself as if
>>>>>> there were spacially exteneded structure within the
>>>>>> scattering cross-section. Why not?
>>>>>> Because this is no good if one does not have the forces or
>>>>>> the mechanism for making it “zitter”.
>>>>>> More importantly -experimentally- because that is not what
>>>>>> you see. If it was just zittering in space one could see that
>>>>>> zitter. What you see (in deep inelastic lepton scattering,
>>>>>> for example), is that there is no size scale for lepton
>>>>>> scattering. That is, that no structure is resolved right down
>>>>>> to 10^-18 metres. This is NOT the same thing as an electron
>>>>>> being a point. That is why one says (if one knows a bit about
>>>>>> what one is talking about) that it is “point-like” and not
>>>>>> “point” scattering. These qualifiers ALWAYS matter.
>>>>>> Point-like – not a point. Charged photon- not a photon.
>>>>>> Localised photon – not a photon. Vice-Admiral- not an
>>>>>> admiral. Vice-president- more a reason for not shooting the
>>>>>> president!
>>>>>> That structure is not resolved does NOT mean that the
>>>>>> electron is point.This is widely accepted as fact, but just
>>>>>> represents a (far too widespread) superficial level of
>>>>>> understanding. Any inverse-square, spherically symettric
>>>>>> force-field has this property (eg spherical planets if you do
>>>>>> not actually hit them). The real problem is to understand how
>>>>>> it can appear spherically symettric and inverse square in
>>>>>> scattering while ACTUALLY being much much larger than this.
>>>>>> This is exactly what I started out working on in 1980 and
>>>>>> have been plugging away at ever since. Exactly that! You need
>>>>>> to explain all of experiment: that is what this is all about.
>>>>>> Not to defend Albrecht's model as he describes it, but many
>>>>>> folks (say Peter Rowlands at Liverpool, for example) model
>>>>>> elemtary particles in terms of the partiicle itself
>>>>>> interacting with its induced virtual image (denoted by Peter
>>>>>> as the "rest of the universe"). This "inducement" is a kind
>>>>>> of polarization effect. Every charge repells all other like
>>>>>> charges and attracts all other unlike charges resulting in
>>>>>> what can be modeled as a virtual charge of the opposite
>>>>>> gender superimposed on itself in the static approximation.
>>>>>> But, because the real situation is fluid, the virtual
>>>>>> charge's motion is delayed as caused by finite light speed,
>>>>>> so that the two chase each other. Etc. Looks something like
>>>>>> Albrecht's pairs.
>>>>>> Yes I know. This is the same kind of maths as “image charges”
>>>>>> used all the time in modelling the solid state. These are all
>>>>>> models. All models have features. We need to confront them
>>>>>> with experiment. Problem with the pairs is you don’t see any
>>>>>> pairs. If one of the pair has zero mass-energy it is not
>>>>>> there at all. If there was a pair, bound to each other with
>>>>>> some forces, then one would see something similar to what one
>>>>>> sees in proton scattering (see below), and you do not. One
>>>>>> then has to explain why and how this process occurs, every
>>>>>> time. You always (and only) see one thing for electrons,
>>>>>> muons. You see a single object for the electron, and an
>>>>>> internal structure for the proton. This is what your theory
>>>>>> has to deal with. Really. Properly. In detail. At all energies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I too havn't read your 97 paper yet, but I bet it's unlikely
>>>>>> that you all took such consideration into account.
>>>>>> You could not know this, but his could not be more wrong. We
>>>>>> did. You did not specify the bet. Lets make it a beer. You
>>>>>> owe me (and Martin) a beer! If you have not yet read the
>>>>>> paper by the time we next meet I think you should buy all the
>>>>>> beers! Deal?
>>>>>> The whole point of the paper my reason for leaving high
>>>>>> energy physics at all, the seven years of work Martin and I
>>>>>> put into it to that point, was exactly to resolve this
>>>>>> mystery – on the basis of an “electron as a localised
>>>>>> photon”. My subsequent work has been to try to develop a
>>>>>> proper field theory to deal with the problems inherent I the
>>>>>> old model (unknown forces) and in the Dirac theory (ad hoc
>>>>>> lump of mass) (amongst others). This is the point of the new
>>>>>> theory of light and matter:an attempt to sort all that out.
>>>>>> You should read it too! Do that and I will buy you a beer!
>>>>>> Now Richard, while I am disagreeing with everyone I am going
>>>>>> to disagree with you too! You keep saying that the electron
>>>>>> apparent size scales with gamma – and you keep attributing me
>>>>>> with agreeing with you (and Martin and Viv and Chip). Let me
>>>>>> say this once and for all: I DO NOT agree with this.Now Viv
>>>>>> and Chip must speak for themselves, but I’m pretty sure
>>>>>> Martin would (largely – though not completely) agree me
>>>>>> here.I have said this many times to you – though perhaps not
>>>>>> specifically enough.It is not quite wrong – but far too
>>>>>> simple. It scales ON AVERAGE so. I agree that it changes
>>>>>> apparent size- yes, but not with gamma- no. How it actually
>>>>>> scales was discussed in the 1997 paper, and the mathematics
>>>>>> of this is explained (for example) in my “Light” paper at
>>>>>> SPIE (see Eq. 19). Gamma = ½( x+ 1/x). Also, this is amongst
>>>>>> other things, in Martin’s “Light is Heavy” paper. Really the
>>>>>> apparent size scales BOTH linearly AND inverse linearly (as x
>>>>>> and 1/x then). It is the average of these that gives gamma.
>>>>>> This is how relativity actually works. You do not put things
>>>>>> in, you get things out. You need to look at this and
>>>>>> understand how gamma is related. Best thing is to go through
>>>>>> the maths yourself, then you will see.
>>>>>> The bottom line is that the reason one does not resolve the
>>>>>> electron size is that, in a collision, this size scales like
>>>>>> light. It gets smaller with increasing energy. Linearly.
>>>>>> Likewise the scattering exchange photon scales like light.
>>>>>> Linearly. The ratio for head on collisions remains constant –
>>>>>> but the exchange photon is always about an order of magnitude
>>>>>> bigger that the electron (localised photon). This is WHY it
>>>>>> can be big (10^-13 m)and yet appear small. I said this in my
>>>>>> talk, but I know how hard it is to take everything in.
>>>>>> One does not see internal structure because of this effect –
>>>>>> and the fact that the electron is a SINGLE object. Not
>>>>>> composite – like a proton (and Albrecht’s model).
>>>>>> Now what would one see with lepton scatting on protons? I
>>>>>> have dozens of papers on this (and thousands of citations to
>>>>>> those papers) – so this is not shooting from the hip. Let me
>>>>>> explain as briefly and simply as I can. Lock and load …
>>>>>> At low energies (expresses as a length much less than 10^-15
>>>>>> m or so), one sees point-like scattering from, what looks
>>>>>> like, a spherically symettric charge distribution. Ok there
>>>>>> are differences between positive projectiles (which never
>>>>>> overlap) and negative, but broad brush this is so. There is
>>>>>> then a transitional stage where one sees proton structure –
>>>>>> some interesting resonances and an effective “size” of the
>>>>>> proton (though recently this has been shown to be
>>>>>> (spectactularly interestingly) different for electron and
>>>>>> muon scattering! (This means (obviously) that the electron
>>>>>> and muon have a different effective size on that scale). At
>>>>>> much higher energies one begins to see (almost) that
>>>>>> characteristic point-like scattering again, from some hard
>>>>>> bits in the proton. Rutherford atom all over again. These
>>>>>> inner parts have been called “partons”. Initially, this was
>>>>>> the basis –incorrect in my view – of making the association
>>>>>> of quarks with partons. Problem nowadays is that the three
>>>>>> valence quarks carry almost none of the energy-momentum of
>>>>>> the proton - - keeps getting less and less as the energies go
>>>>>> up. I think this whole quark-parton thing is largely
>>>>>> bullshit. Experimentally!
>>>>>> Now Albrecht you make some good points. You are absolutely
>>>>>> right to quote the experiments on the relativity of time with
>>>>>> clocks and with muons. You are also right that one is not
>>>>>> much better off with double loops (or any other kinds of
>>>>>> loops) than with two little hard balls. This is a problem for
>>>>>> any model of the electron as a loop in space (Viv, John M,
>>>>>> Chip, John D – this is why the electron cannot be a little
>>>>>> spatial loop – it is not consistent with scattering
>>>>>> experiments!). Now this is a problem in space-space but not
>>>>>> in more complex spaces as Martin and I have argued (see SPIE
>>>>>> electron paper for up to date description of this – from my
>>>>>> perspective). It is more proper to say the loops are in
>>>>>> “momentum space” though this is not quite correct either.
>>>>>> They are in the space(s) they are in – all nine degrees of
>>>>>> freedom (dimensions if you like) of them. None of the nine
>>>>>> are “space”. For me, they are not little loops in space. In
>>>>>> space they are spherical. You are not correct – as the DESY
>>>>>> director said and as I said in the “panel” discussion- that
>>>>>> one would not “see” this. One would. Only if one of the balls
>>>>>> were not there ( I like your get out of saying that!), would
>>>>>> one observe what one observes. In my view, however, if it is
>>>>>> not there it is not there. I’m open to persuasion if you can
>>>>>> give me a mechanism though!
>>>>>> Gotta go ... need to sort out tutorials ...
>>>>>> Regards, John W.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> *From:*General
>>>>>> [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>>>>>> on behalf of Dr. Albrecht Giese [genmail at a-giese.de]
>>>>>> *Sent:*Monday, September 28, 2015 4:39 PM
>>>>>> *To:*Richard Gauthier; Nature of Light and Particles -
>>>>>> General Discussion
>>>>>> *Subject:*Re: [General] research papers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you have asked some questions about my electron model and I
>>>>>> am glad to answer them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does my model explain the relativistic mass increase of the
>>>>>> electron at motion? Yes it does. According to my model the
>>>>>> mass of an electron is m=h(bar) / (R_el *c), where R_el is
>>>>>> the radius for the electron (which is equally valid for all
>>>>>> elementary particles). Now, as the binding field in the
>>>>>> electron contracts at motion by gamma (as initially found by
>>>>>> Heaviside in 1888), also the size of the electron contracts
>>>>>> at motion by gamma. So the mass of the electron increases by
>>>>>> gamma and also of course its dynamical energy. - That is very
>>>>>> simple and elementary. The same considerations apply for the
>>>>>> relativistic momentum of the electron.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (This is all described in my web
>>>>>> sitewww.ag-physics.org/rmass; you can also find it via Google
>>>>>> by the search string "origin of mass". There it is within the
>>>>>> first two positions of the list, where the other one is of
>>>>>> Frank Wilczek; since 10 years we both are struggling to be
>>>>>> the number one.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, the contraction only occurs in the direction of
>>>>>> motion. So the cross section of the electron is not changed
>>>>>> by the motion. And in so far this contraction is not able to
>>>>>> explain the small size of the electron found in scattering
>>>>>> experiments. - Another point is that this small size was also
>>>>>> found in scattering experiments at energies smaller than 29
>>>>>> GeV. And, another determination, in the Penning trap the size
>>>>>> of the electron turns out to be < 10^-22 m.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So there must be something in the electron which is much
>>>>>> smaller than the Compton wavelength. The model of two
>>>>>> orbiting sub-particles is an extremely simple model which
>>>>>> also explains a lot else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regarding the uncertainty relation of Heisenberg, I have a
>>>>>> very "technical" understanding of it as I have explained it
>>>>>> in our meeting. There is nothing imprecise within the
>>>>>> electron itself, only the measurement has limited precision.
>>>>>> The reason is simple. Normally an interaction of the electron
>>>>>> is an interaction of its de Broglie wave with another object.
>>>>>> This wave is a wave packet, the size of which is round about
>>>>>> given by the size of the electron-configuration (Compton
>>>>>> wavelength); the size of a wave packet is not very precisely
>>>>>> defined. And on the other hand, the frequency of a limited
>>>>>> packet is not precisely measurable. The relation of both
>>>>>> limitations is well known by electric engineers, the rule is
>>>>>> sometimes called "Nyquist theorem". Now, as the frequency is
>>>>>> related to the energy of the particle, the Nyquist theorem is
>>>>>> identical with Heisenberg's uncertainty relation; only the
>>>>>> interpretation of quantum theorists is less technical. They
>>>>>> assume that the physical situation itself is imprecise, not
>>>>>> only the measurement. Here I do not follow the QM interpretation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 26.09.2015 um 19:57 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>>>>>> Albrecht, Al, Martin et al
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One solution that I think John W, Martin, Chip (I think),
>>>>>>> Vivian (as I remember) and I all agree on (I’m not sure
>>>>>>> about John M’s electron model) with our electron models is
>>>>>>> that the electron (as a circulating light-speed entity)
>>>>>>> decreases in size with increasing speed of the electron.
>>>>>>> Just as a photon’s wavelength (and presumably also its
>>>>>>> transverse size or extent) decreases proportionally as 1/E
>>>>>>> with a photon’s energy E=hf, a high energy relativistic
>>>>>>> electron (whose de Broglie wavelength is nearly equal to the
>>>>>>> wavelength of a high energy photon having the same total
>>>>>>> energy as the high energy electron) should also decrease its
>>>>>>> lateral size similarly with its energy. The lateral size of
>>>>>>> an electron decreases as 1/gamma according to John and
>>>>>>> Martin due to energy considerations. In my model the radius
>>>>>>> of the charged photon’s helical trajectory decreases as
>>>>>>> 1/gamma^2 but with a more detailed extended (internally
>>>>>>> superluminal) model of the charged photon also decreases as
>>>>>>> 1/gamma . A 1/gamma decrease is enough to match the high
>>>>>>> energy (around 29GeV) scattering size of an electron found
>>>>>>> to be < 10^-18 meters even though the size of the resting
>>>>>>> electron (on the order of the Compton wavelength) is around
>>>>>>> 10^-12 - 10^-13 m. So this I think is a solved problem with
>>>>>>> respect to our models.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don’t know if Albrecht’s electron model decreases as
>>>>>>> 1/gamma with increasing electron speed. I think not. But
>>>>>>> Albrecht’s model doesn’t I think take into account that the
>>>>>>> electron’s total energy increases proportionally with gamma
>>>>>>> and so the frequency of the 2 circulating mass-less
>>>>>>> particles should also increase proportionally with gamma if
>>>>>>> the energy of his model is to correspond to the
>>>>>>> experimentally measured moving electron’s energy E= gamma
>>>>>>> mc^2 . That should require the radius of the 2-particle
>>>>>>> orbit to decrease with his electron model’s speed if the 2
>>>>>>> orbiting particles are to continue to circulate at
>>>>>>> light-speed. So Albrecht's model’s size should also decrease
>>>>>>> at least as 1/gamma with its speed,and the need for the 2
>>>>>>> massless particles in his model is unnecessary to explain
>>>>>>> the small size of the electron at high speeds. As far as
>>>>>>> conservation of momentum requiring 2 circulating particles,
>>>>>>> John W.’s model proposes to solve this with his p-vot which
>>>>>>> causes the photon to curve into a double loop and produce
>>>>>>> the electron’s rest mass (as I understand it) and charge.
>>>>>>> But also the delta x delta p > hbar/2 requirement of
>>>>>>> Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle for detectable
>>>>>>> variability in position and velocity means that probably for
>>>>>>> any Compton wavelength electron model the amount of
>>>>>>> violation of conservation of momentum of a single
>>>>>>> light-speed photon-like object looping around would not be
>>>>>>> experimentally detectable (and so allowed since it is not
>>>>>>> experimentally detected) as being (like a virtual particle
>>>>>>> in QED) under the wire of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sep 26, 2015, at 8:57 AM, John Duffield
>>>>>>>> <johnduffield at btconnect.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Albrecht:
>>>>>>>> In case Martin is tied up, here’s his 1997
>>>>>>>> paper:http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdfco-authored with
>>>>>>>> John Williamson.
>>>>>>>> As regards electron size, it’s field is what it is.
>>>>>>>> Inatomic orbitals
>>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#Electron_properties>electrons
>>>>>>>> “exist as standing waves”. Standing wave, standing field.
>>>>>>>> We can diffract electrons. I think the electron has size
>>>>>>>> like a seismic wave has size. A seismic wave might have an
>>>>>>>> amplitude of 1 metre, and a wavelength of a kilometre. But
>>>>>>>> when it travels from A to B it isn’t just the houses on top
>>>>>>>> of the AB line that shake. Houses shake a hundred miles
>>>>>>>> away. And that seismic wave is still detectable on the
>>>>>>>> other side f the Earth. It’s not totally different for an
>>>>>>>> ocean wave, seethis gif
>>>>>>>> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Deep_water_wave.gif>.
>>>>>>>> The amplitude might be 1m, but that isn’t the size of the
>>>>>>>> wave, nor is the wavelength. The red test particles are
>>>>>>>> still circulating deep below the water.
>>>>>>>> Try to imagine a wave going round and round, in a double
>>>>>>>> loop, then make it a tighter loop. Then have a look atsome
>>>>>>>> knots
>>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_knot_theory>.
>>>>>>>> Photon momentum is a measure of resistance to
>>>>>>>> change-in-motion for a wave propagating linearly at c. When
>>>>>>>> it’s a 511keV wave going round and round at c, we don’t
>>>>>>>> call it a photon any more. But it still exhibits resistance
>>>>>>>> to change-in-motion. Only we don’t call it a momentum any
>>>>>>>> more. We call it mass. Make sure you readthis
>>>>>>>> <http://www.tardyon.de/mirror/hooft/hooft.htm>. It’s not
>>>>>>>> the Nobel ‘t Hooft.
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> John Duffield
>>>>>>>> *From:*General
>>>>>>>> [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
>>>>>>>> Behalf Of*Dr. Albrecht Giese
>>>>>>>> *Sent:*26 September 2015 15:46
>>>>>>>> *To:*general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>>>>>> *Subject:*Re: [General] research papers
>>>>>>>> Hi Martin, Al, and all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thank you all for your contributions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _Regarding the size of the electron:_
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As Al argued in his example of the sun: If the scattered
>>>>>>>> object is passing by without touching, the angular
>>>>>>>> distribution is independent of the size of the object (for
>>>>>>>> the 1/r^2 case). But that changes if the scattered particle
>>>>>>>> hits the body of the "ball". In a last experiment in 2004
>>>>>>>> at DESY there was an experiment performed in which
>>>>>>>> electrons were scattered against quarks (of a proton). The
>>>>>>>> "common" size of both particles resulted in a bit less than
>>>>>>>> 10^-18 m. This limit is given by the ratio of scattered
>>>>>>>> events which react different from the 1/r^2 rule. - In this
>>>>>>>> experiment it was also found that the electron is not only
>>>>>>>> subject to the electric interaction but also to the strong
>>>>>>>> interaction. I think that this is also important for
>>>>>>>> assessing electron models.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This result of the size seems in clear conflict with the
>>>>>>>> evaluation of Schrödinger and Wilczek using the uncertainty
>>>>>>>> relation. Schroedinger made the following statement to it:
>>>>>>>> "Here I have got the following result for the size of the
>>>>>>>> electron (i.e. the Compton radius). But we know that the
>>>>>>>> electron is point-like. So, I must have an error in my
>>>>>>>> evaluation. However, I do not find this error." So also for
>>>>>>>> Schrödinger this was an unsolvable conflict.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think that if the electron would be point like on the one
>>>>>>>> hand but oscillate far enough so as to fill the size of the
>>>>>>>> Compton wavelength, this would be a violation of the
>>>>>>>> conservation of momentum. Very clearly, a single object
>>>>>>>> cannot oscillate. That was also obvious for Schrödinger and
>>>>>>>> clearly his reason to call the internal motion
>>>>>>>> "Zitterbewegung". This is a word which does not exist in
>>>>>>>> the German vocabulary of physical terms. But Schrödinger
>>>>>>>> hesitated (by good reason) to use the German word for
>>>>>>>> "oscillation".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On the other hand, if the electron is built by two
>>>>>>>> sub-particles, this solves the problem. The sub-particle is
>>>>>>>> point-like (at least with respect to its charge), but both
>>>>>>>> sub-particles orbit each other, which reserves the momentum
>>>>>>>> law, and the orbital radius is the reduced Compton
>>>>>>>> wavelength. - The argument of Martin that a model of two
>>>>>>>> sub-particles is "refuted by the experiment" is often heart
>>>>>>>> but not applicable to my model. The usual argument is that
>>>>>>>> a sufficient effort has been done to decompose an electron
>>>>>>>> by a strong bombardment. This was also done here at DESY.
>>>>>>>> But in my model the sub-particles have no mass on their own
>>>>>>>> (the mass of the electron is caused by the dynamics of the
>>>>>>>> binding field). And in such a case one of the sub-particles
>>>>>>>> may be accelerated by an arbitrary amount, the other one
>>>>>>>> can always follow without any force coming up. A
>>>>>>>> decomposition by bombardment is therefore never possible. -
>>>>>>>> I have discussed this point with the research director of
>>>>>>>> DESY who was responsible for such experiments, and after at
>>>>>>>> first objecting it, he admitted, that my model is not in
>>>>>>>> conflict with these experiments.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Martin: Where do I find your paper of 1997?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _Regarding dilation:_
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is a lot of clear indications for dilation. Two examples:
>>>>>>>> - The atomic clocks in the GPS satellites are slowed down
>>>>>>>> which has to be compensated for
>>>>>>>> - In the Muon storage ring at CERN the lifetime of these
>>>>>>>> Muons was extended by the great amount ca. 250, which was
>>>>>>>> in precise agreement with special relativity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Contraction, on the other hand, is in so far more a point
>>>>>>>> of interpretation as it cannot be directly measured - in
>>>>>>>> contrast to dilation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best wishes
>>>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 26.09.2015 um 01:48 schriebaf.kracklauer at web.de:
>>>>>>>>> Well! The water I was trying to offer was: might it not
>>>>>>>>> be a good idea to distinguish clearly and specifically
>>>>>>>>> between the size of a point and the size of the volumn in
>>>>>>>>> which this point is insessently moving about. If your 97
>>>>>>>>> paper does that, my appologies. Does it? Forgive me, I
>>>>>>>>> have over a couple hundred papers I'd like to have read
>>>>>>>>> and digested laying about, I do my best but still can't
>>>>>>>>> get to them all. The chances are better, however, if a
>>>>>>>>> paper attracts lots of attention because it predicted
>>>>>>>>> something new to be observed empirically. Did it?
>>>>>>>>> BTW, I did not imply that the work I refered to is better.
>>>>>>>>> But, it (in Rowland's avantar) is certainly as extensive
>>>>>>>>> as yours. In any case, it potentially undermines your
>>>>>>>>> "shot-from-the-hip" criticism of Albrecht's program by
>>>>>>>>> introducing a feature to which neither you nor John
>>>>>>>>> refered to, in my best memory, at San Diego. My comment
>>>>>>>>> was not intended ad hominum, but made on the presumtion
>>>>>>>>> that you too have hundreds of unread papers available.
>>>>>>>>> Best, Al
>>>>>>>>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 19:56 Uhr
>>>>>>>>> *Von:* "Mark, Martin van der"<martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
>>>>>>>>> *An:* "Nature of Light and Particles - General
>>>>>>>>> Discussion"<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>>>>>>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] research papers
>>>>>>>>> Al, just read what i wrote. It is not shooting from the
>>>>>>>>> hip. I am refering to actual experiments, all cited in the
>>>>>>>>> paper i refered to. Further, you are just repeating what i
>>>>>>>>> said already. I can only bring you to the water, i cannot
>>>>>>>>> make you drink. And then you refer to other doubtfull
>>>>>>>>> work, as id it were better. Good luck.
>>>>>>>>> Regards, Martin
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Op 25 sep. 2015 om 19:16 heeft "af.kracklauer at web.de"
>>>>>>>>> <af.kracklauer at web.de> het volgende geschreven:
>>>>>>>>>> Dear Martin,
>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps it's my Texas background, but I think I sense
>>>>>>>>>> some "shoot'n from the hip."
>>>>>>>>>> You have not done an experiment, but (at best) a
>>>>>>>>>> calculation based on some hypothtical input of your
>>>>>>>>>> choise. Maybe it's good, maybe not.
>>>>>>>>>> The Sun scatters as a point only those projectiles that
>>>>>>>>>> don't get close. So far, no scattering off electons has
>>>>>>>>>> gotten close enough to engage any internal structure,
>>>>>>>>>> "they" say (I#ll defer to experts up-to-date).
>>>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, electrons are in constant motion at or
>>>>>>>>>> near the speed of light (Zitterbewegung) and therefore at
>>>>>>>>>> the time scales of the projectiles buzz around (zittern)
>>>>>>>>>> in a certain amout of space, which seems to me must
>>>>>>>>>> manifest itself as if there were spacially exteneded
>>>>>>>>>> structure within the scattering cross-section. Why not?
>>>>>>>>>> Not to defend Albrecht's model as he describes it, but
>>>>>>>>>> many folks (say Peter Rowlands at Liverpool, for example)
>>>>>>>>>> model elemtary particles in terms of the partiicle itself
>>>>>>>>>> interacting with its induced virtual image (denoted by
>>>>>>>>>> Peter as the "rest of the universe"). This "inducement"
>>>>>>>>>> is a kind of polarization effect. Every charge repells
>>>>>>>>>> all other like charges and attracts all other unlike
>>>>>>>>>> charges resulting in what can be modeled as a virtual
>>>>>>>>>> charge of the opposite gender superimposed on itself in
>>>>>>>>>> the static approximation. But, because the real
>>>>>>>>>> situation is fluid, the virtual charge's motion is
>>>>>>>>>> delayed as caused by finite light speed, so that the two
>>>>>>>>>> chase each other. Etc. Looks something like Albrecht's pairs.
>>>>>>>>>> I too havn't read your 97 paper yet, but I bet it's
>>>>>>>>>> unlikely that you all took such consideration into account.
>>>>>>>>>> Best, Al
>>>>>>>>>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 18:44 Uhr
>>>>>>>>>> *Von:* "Mark, Martin van der"
>>>>>>>>>> <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
>>>>>>>>>> *An:* "Nature of Light and Particles - General
>>>>>>>>>> Discussion"
>>>>>>>>>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>,
>>>>>>>>>> "phys at a-giese.de" <phys at a-giese.de>
>>>>>>>>>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] research papers
>>>>>>>>>> Dear Al, dear Albrecht, dear all,
>>>>>>>>>> In the paper John W and I published in 1997, the
>>>>>>>>>> situation is explained briefly but adequately.
>>>>>>>>>> Clearly Albrecht has not read it or, perhaps he did but
>>>>>>>>>> does not want to understand it because it really destroys
>>>>>>>>>> his work. This is a double pity, of course, but we are
>>>>>>>>>> talking science, not sentiment, and I do not want to take
>>>>>>>>>> away anything from the person you are Albrecht.
>>>>>>>>>> The electron has a finite size, of the oder of the
>>>>>>>>>> Compton wavelength, but the Coulomb interaction is
>>>>>>>>>> perfectly matched in ANY experiment, which means there
>>>>>>>>>> are no internal bits to the electron and that it behaves
>>>>>>>>>> as a point-LIKE scatterer, not a to be mistaken by a
>>>>>>>>>> POINT as is done most of the time. Note that even the sun
>>>>>>>>>> has point-like scattering for all comets that go round
>>>>>>>>>> it, its gravitational field seems to come from the centre
>>>>>>>>>> of the sun. Until you hit other bits. There are no other
>>>>>>>>>> bits for the electron, but at very high energy the
>>>>>>>>>> 4-momentum exchange combined with the resolving power at
>>>>>>>>>> that high energy make that a Compton-size object CANNOT
>>>>>>>>>> be resolved in principle, if and only if it is of
>>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic origin.
>>>>>>>>>> The electron is a single thing, of electromagnetic origin
>>>>>>>>>> only, there is NO OTHER WAY to fit the experimental results.
>>>>>>>>>> Well, maybe there is another way, but I cannot see it.
>>>>>>>>>> Certainly it is not two parts rotating about each other,
>>>>>>>>>> because that is refuted by experiment, all those models
>>>>>>>>>> can go in the bin and are a waste of time and energy.
>>>>>>>>>> Regards, Martin
>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Martin B. van der Mark
>>>>>>>>>> Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare
>>>>>>>>>> Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven
>>>>>>>>>> High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)
>>>>>>>>>> Prof. Holstlaan 4
>>>>>>>>>> 5656 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands
>>>>>>>>>> Tel: +31 40 2747548
>>>>>>>>>> *From:*General
>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
>>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of*af.kracklauer at web.de
>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:*vrijdag 25 september 2015 18:05
>>>>>>>>>> *To:*phys at a-giese.de;general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>>>>>>>> *Cc:*Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:*Re: [General] research papers
>>>>>>>>>> Gentelmen:
>>>>>>>>>> Shouldn't a clear and explicit distinction between the
>>>>>>>>>> "size" of the electron and the "extent" of its
>>>>>>>>>> Zitterbewegung be made. My best info, perhaps not
>>>>>>>>>> up-to-date, is that although scattering experiments put
>>>>>>>>>> an upper limit on the size (10^-19m), there exists in
>>>>>>>>>> fact no evidence that the electron has any finite size
>>>>>>>>>> whatsoever. This is in contrast to the space it consumes
>>>>>>>>>> with its Zitter-motion, which is what would be calculated
>>>>>>>>>> using QM (Heisenberg uncertanty mostly). Seems to me
>>>>>>>>>> that most of what folks theorize about is the latter,
>>>>>>>>>> without saying so, and perhaps often without even
>>>>>>>>>> recognizing it. However, since the Zitter volumn will
>>>>>>>>>> cause electrons to be moving targets, it must also have
>>>>>>>>>> some effect on its scatering cross-section too. I don't
>>>>>>>>>> know how this is sorted out in scattering
>>>>>>>>>> calculations---if at all. (Albrectht?)
>>>>>>>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong. Best, Al
>>>>>>>>>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 15:06 Uhr
>>>>>>>>>> *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
>>>>>>>>>> *An:* "Richard Gauthier"
>>>>>>>>>> <richgauthier at gmail.com>,phys at a-giese.de
>>>>>>>>>> *Cc:* "Nature of Light and Particles - General
>>>>>>>>>> Discussion" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>>>>>>>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] research papers
>>>>>>>>>> Hello Richard,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> according to present mainstream physics the size of the
>>>>>>>>>> electron is not more than 10^-19 m. This is concluded
>>>>>>>>>> from scattering experiments where the size of the
>>>>>>>>>> electric charge is the quantity of influence.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As present mainstream physics (including the QED of
>>>>>>>>>> Feynman) assume that the electron has no internal
>>>>>>>>>> structure and that the electric force is the only one
>>>>>>>>>> effective, this size is identified with the size of the
>>>>>>>>>> whole electron. This is in severe conflict with the
>>>>>>>>>> calculations of Schrödinger and of Wilczek based on QM.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have the impression that several of us (including me)
>>>>>>>>>> have models of the electron which assume some extension
>>>>>>>>>> roughly compatible with the QM calculations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Some details of my model related to this question: Here
>>>>>>>>>> the electron is built by 2 sub-particles ("basic
>>>>>>>>>> particles") which orbit each other at c. The electric
>>>>>>>>>> force is not the only force inside. The radius following
>>>>>>>>>> from the magnetic moment is the reduced Compton
>>>>>>>>>> wavelength, and the mass of the electron follows with
>>>>>>>>>> high precision from this radius. At motion the size
>>>>>>>>>> decreases by the relativistic factor gamma, and so the
>>>>>>>>>> mass increases by this factor. - However there was always
>>>>>>>>>> a point of a certain weakness in my model: I could not
>>>>>>>>>> prove that the electron is built by just 2 sub-particles
>>>>>>>>>> carrying 1/2 elementary charge each. Now Wilczek writes
>>>>>>>>>> in his article that in certain circumstances -
>>>>>>>>>> superconductivity in the presence of a magnetic field -
>>>>>>>>>> the electron is decomposed into two halves. This is the
>>>>>>>>>> result of measurements. How can this happen with a
>>>>>>>>>> point-like particle? This is a mystery for Wilczek. But
>>>>>>>>>> in the view of my model it is no mystery but quite
>>>>>>>>>> plausible. It only needs now a quantitative calculation
>>>>>>>>>> of this process which I presently do not have.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All the best to you
>>>>>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Am 23.09.2015 um 19:02 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Albrecht,
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, all of our electron models here have a radius
>>>>>>>>>>> related to the Compton wavelength. Dirac’s
>>>>>>>>>>> zitterbewegung amplitude is 1/2 of the reduced Compton
>>>>>>>>>>> wavelength, or hbar/2mc , which is the radius of the
>>>>>>>>>>> generic circulating charged photon’s trajectory in my
>>>>>>>>>>> circulating spin 1/2 charged photon model for a resting
>>>>>>>>>>> electron. That radius decreases by a factor of gamma^2
>>>>>>>>>>> in a moving electron. Does yours? Incorporating a more
>>>>>>>>>>> detailed spin 1/2 charged photon model with the generic
>>>>>>>>>>> model could bring the model's radius up to the reduced
>>>>>>>>>>> Compton wavelength hbar/mc.
>>>>>>>>>>> all the best,
>>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:13 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese
>>>>>>>>>>>> <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Richard,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> thank you for this reference to the article of Frank
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wilczek.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> He has a quantum mechanical argument to determine a
>>>>>>>>>>>> size for the electron. It is the application of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> uncertainty relation to the magnetic moment of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> electron. The result is as you write: 2.4 x 10^-12 m,
>>>>>>>>>>>> which is the Compton wavelength of the electron.
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a bit similar to the way as Erwin Schrödinger
>>>>>>>>>>>> has determined the size of the electron using the Dirac
>>>>>>>>>>>> function in 1930. There Schrödinger determined the
>>>>>>>>>>>> "amplitude of the zitterbewegung" also applying the
>>>>>>>>>>>> uncertainty relation to the rest energy of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> electron. It was "roughly" 10^-13 m, which also meant
>>>>>>>>>>>> in his words the Compton wavelength of the electron.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In my electron model its radius is 3.86 x 10^-13 m,
>>>>>>>>>>>> which is exactly the "reduced" Compton wavelength. But
>>>>>>>>>>>> here it is not an expectation value as in the cases of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wilczek and Schrödinger but the exact radius of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> orbits of the basic particles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you again and best wishes
>>>>>>>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 21.09.2015 um 05:01 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This 2013 Nature comment “The enigmatic electron” by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Frank Wilczek at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> worth a look. He states that due to QM effects, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> size of the electron is about 2.4 x 10^-12 m, which is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> roughly in the range of some of our electron models.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Wolfgang Baer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <wolf at nascentinc.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I should add you sent me Main-2014.pdf and that may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be the one not available on the web sight.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was looking for a similar one that included the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other topics as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you do not have it, its OK, I just like reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from paper.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> best wishes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wolf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Research Director
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/2015 12:45 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You wrote a long text, so I will enter my answers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within your text.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 14.09.2015 um 02:54 schrieb John Macken:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello David and Albrecht,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was through the contact with this group that I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was finally able to understand the disconnect that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existed between my idea of vacuum energy and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> picture that others were obtaining from my use of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the term “energy”. Many of the mysteries of quantum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanics and general relativity can be traced to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fact that fields exist and yet we do not have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear idea of what they are. My answer is that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live within a sea of vacuum activity which is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physical basis of the mysterious fields. I combine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all fields into a single “spacetime field” which is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the basis of all particles, fields and forces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *David*, you asked about the wordsquantum,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantifying and quantizing. I did a word search and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not use the word “quantizing” in either the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email or the attachment to my last post. However,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper/Energetic Spacetime: The New
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aether/submitted to SPIE as part of the conference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presentation, used and defines the word
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “quantization”. This paper was attached to previous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> posts, and is available at my website:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://onlyspacetime.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Albrecht*: I can combine my answer to you with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the clarification for David of the word “quantify”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and its derivatives. I claim that my model of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe “quantifies” particles and fields. I will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start my explanation of this concept by giving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples of models which do not “quantify”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particles and fields. There have been numerous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particle models from this group and others which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show an electron model as two balls orbiting around
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a center of mass. Most of the group identifies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these balls as photons but Albrecht names the two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> balls “charges of the strong force”. Both photons
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and charges of strong force are just words. To be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantifiable, it is necessary to describe the model
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the universe which gives the strong force or the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic force. What exactly are these? How
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much energy and energy density does one charge of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong force have? Can a photon occupy a volume
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smaller than a reduced Compton wavelength in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> radius? Does a muon have the same basic strong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force charge but just rotate faster? Are the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> charges of strong force or photons made of any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other more basic component?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding charge: This is a basic entity in my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model. At some point a physical theory has to start.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My model starts with the assumption that a charge is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an "atomic" entity, so possibly point-like, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emits exchange particles (in this point I follow the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general understanding of QM). There are two types of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> charges: the electric ones which we are very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> familiar with, having two signs, and the strong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ones, which are not so obvious in everyday physics;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they also have two signs. In the physical nature we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find the charges of the strong force only in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations made of those different signs, never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isolated. This is in contrast to the electric charges.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The basic particles are composed of a collection of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> charges of the strong force so that both basic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particles are bound to each other in a way that they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep a certain distance. This distance characterizes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an elementary particle. In several (or most) cases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is additionally an electric charge in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basic particle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The two parameters I have to set - or to find - are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the shape of the strong field in the elementary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particle. Here I have defined an equation describing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a minimum multi-pole field to make the elementary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particle stable. The other setting is the strength
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this field. This strength can be found e.g. using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the electron because the electron is well known and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precisely measured. This field is then applicable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for all leptons as well as for all quarks. It is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also applicable for the photon with the restriction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that there may be a correction factor caused by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that the photon is not fundamental in the sense
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this model but composed of (maybe) two other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The size of the photon is (at least roughly)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described by its wavelength. This follows from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mass formula resulting from my model, as with this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumption the (dynamic) mass of the photon is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct result.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I wrote, the results of this model are very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precise, the prove is in practice only limited by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limitations of the measurement processes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I could go on with more questions until it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible to calculate the properties of an electron
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the answers. So far both models lack any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantifiable details except perhaps a connection to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the particle’s Compton frequency. I am not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demanding anything more than I have already done.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, I cannot calculate the electron’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Compton frequency or the fine structure constant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, once I install these into the model that I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create, and combine this with the properties of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spacetime field, then I get an electron. Installing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a muon’s Compton frequency generates a muon with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct electric field, electrostatic force,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> curvature of spacetime, gravitational force and de
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Broglie waves. I am able to quantify the distortion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of spacetime produced by a charged particle, an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electric field and a photon. I am able to test these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> models and show that they generate both the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy density and generate a black hole when we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the distortion limits of the spacetime field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In my model the Compton frequency of the electron
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and of the other leptons) follows directly from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> size of the particle and the fact that the basic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particle move with c. The fine structure constant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tells us the relation of the electric force to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong force. This explanation follows very directly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from this model, however was also found by other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theorists using algebra of particle physics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another result of the model is that Planck's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant - multiplied by c - is the field constant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the strong force. Also this is the result of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other models (however not of mainstream physics).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My model starts with a quantifiable description of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the properties of spacetime. The spacetime model has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a specific impedance which describes the properties
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of waves that can exist in spacetime. Then the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amplitude and frequency of the waves in spacetime is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantified. This combination allows the energy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> density of spacetime to be calculated and this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agrees with the energy density of zero point energy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The particle models are then defined as ½ħunits of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantized angular momentum existing in the spacetime
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field. This model is quantifiable as to size,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> structure, energy, etc. Also the fact that the rate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of time and proper volume is being modulated, it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible to calculate the effect that such a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> structure would have on the surrounding volume of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spacetime. It is possible to calculate the effect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if the spacetime-based particle model would have if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the coupling constant was equal to 1 (Planck
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> charge), To get charge/e/, it is necessary to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manually install the fine structure constant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you get the value½ħfor the angular momentum?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is the calculation behind it? - I understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that in your model the electric charge is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameter deduced from other facts. Which ones? From
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alpha? How do you then get alpha?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I personally have in so far a problem with all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considerations using spacetime as I have quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thoroughly investigated how Einstein came to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea of this 4-dimentional construct. His main
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivation was that he wanted in any case to avoid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an ether. And in his discussions with Ernst Mach he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had to realize that he was running into a lot of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems with this assumption. He could solve these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems in general by his "curved spacetime". But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this concept still causes logical conflicts which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are eagerly neglected by the followers of Einstein's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity (and which do not exist in the Lorentzian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way of relativity).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The quantifiable properties of spacetime imply that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there should be boundary conditions which imply that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the waves in spacetime should be nonlinear. When the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonlinear component is calculated and treated as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate waves, the characteristics of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particle’s gravitational field are obtained
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (correct: curvature, effect on the rate of time,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force and energy density).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In my last post I have given an answer about the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factor of 10^120 difference between the observable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy density of the universe and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-observable energy of the universe. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-observable energy density is absolutely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary for QED calculations, zero point energy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the uncertainty principle, Lamb shift, spontaneous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emission and quantum mechanics in general. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-observable energy density is responsible for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tremendously large impedance of spacetime c^3 /G.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since I can also show how this non-observable energy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> density is obtainable from gravitational wave
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equations, it is necessary for*you*to show how all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these effects can be achieved without spacetime
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being a single field with this non-observable energy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> density. In fact, the name non-observable only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to direct observation. The indirect evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is everywhere. It forms the basis of the universe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and therefore is the “background noise” of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe. For this reason it is not directly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observable because we can only detect differences in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy. The constants/c,//G/,/ħ/and/ε_o /testify
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that spacetime is not an empty void.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Up to now I did not find any necessity for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero-point energy. And I find it a dangerous way to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assume physical facts which cannot be observed. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greatest argument in favour of this energy is its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use in Feynman diagrams. But is there really no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other way? I have a lecture of Feynman here where he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> states that his formalism has good results. But that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he has no physical understanding why it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> successful. In my understanding of the development
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of physics this is a weak point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The discrepancy of 10^120 between assumed and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observed energy is taken as a great and unresolved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem by present main stream physics. Those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> representatives would have all reason to find a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solution to keep present QM clean. But they are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to. This causes me some concern.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The constants you have listed: c is the speed of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light what ever the reason for it is. (I have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model, but it is a bit speculative.) But it has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing to do with energy. G is the gravitational
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant which is as little understood as gravity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself. Planck's constant I have explained, it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (with c) the field constant of the strong force (any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force has to be described by a field constant);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and/ε_o /is the field constant of the electric force
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a similar background.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If spacetime was an empty void, why should particles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a speed limit of/c/? For a thought experiment,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suppose that two spaceships leave earth going
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposite directions and accelerate until they reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a speed of 0.75/c/relative to the earth. The earth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bound observer sees them separating at 1.5/c/but the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules of relativistic addition of velocity has a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spaceship observer seeing the other spaceship moving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away at only 0.96/c/. How is this possible if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spacetime is an empty void. My model of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe answers this because all particles, fields
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and forces are also made of the spacetime field and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they combine to achieve Lorentz transformations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which affects ruler length and clocks. None of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can happen unless spacetime is filled with dipole
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waves in spacetime and everything is made of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single component. The universe is only spacetime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If two spaceships move at 0.75 c in opposite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> direction, the observer at rest may add these speeds
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and may get 1.5 c as a result. Why not? If an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observer in one of the spaceships measures the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative speed of the other spaceship, the result
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be less then c (as you write it). The reason is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the well known fact that the measurement tools
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accessible for the observer in the ship are changed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and run differently at this high speed. The reason
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for these changes is for time dilation the internal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed c in elementary particles. For contraction it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the contraction of fields at motion which is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact independent of relativity (and which was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already known before Einstein). In addition when the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed of another object is to be measured several
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks are to be used positioned along the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measurement section. These clocks are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> de-synchronized in relation to the clocks of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observer at rest. These phenomena together cause the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measurement result < c. You find these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considerations in papers and books about the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lorentzian interpretation of relativity. So,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following Lorentz, there is no reason to assume
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein's spacetime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John M.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps I should read your book. But that chould
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take a lot of time, I am afraid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *From:*Dr. Albrecht Giese [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:*Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *To:*John Macken<john at macken.com>; 'Nature of Light
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Particles - General
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Discussion'<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:*Re: [General] research papers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello John,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> great that you have looked so deeply into the model
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which I have presented. Thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are some questions which I can answer quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily. I think that this model in fact explains
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several points just in contrast to main stream
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physics. In standard physics the electron (just as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an example) is a point-like object without any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> internal structure. So, how can a magnetic moment be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explained? How can the spin be explained? How can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mass be explained? The position of main stream
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physics is: That cannot be explained but is subject
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to quantum mechanics. And the fact that it cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explained shows how necessary QM is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In contrast, if the electron is assumed to have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> structure like in the model presented, these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters can be explained in a classical way, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this explanation is not merely a qualitative one but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has precise quantitative results.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To your questions in detail:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact of two basic particles is necessary to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain the fact of an oscillation and to fulfil the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conservation of momentum. A single object (as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point-like) cannot oscillate. The basic particles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are composed of charges of the strong force. In this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model the strong force is assumed to be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universal force in our world effective on all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particles. A charge is a fundamental object in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scope of this model. There are two kinds of charges
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to the two kinds of forces in our world,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the strong one and the electric one. The weak force
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is in fact the strong force but has a smaller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coupling constant caused by geometric circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And gravity is not a force at all but a refraction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process, which is so a side effect of the other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forces. And, by the way, gravity is not curved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spacetime. This is not necessary, and besides of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this, Einstein's spacetime leads to logical conflicts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an elementary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particle are configured in a way that at a certain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distance there is a potential minimum and in this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way the distance between the basic particles is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enforced. So, this field has attracting and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repulsive components. Outside the elementary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particle the attracting forces dominate to make the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particle a stable one. And those field parts outside
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have an opposite sign. Now, as the basic particles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are orbiting each other, the outside field is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternating field (of the strong forth). If this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field propagates, it is builds a wave. This wave is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described by the Schrödinger equation and fulfils
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the assumptions of de Broglie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With the assumption of two basic particles orbiting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at c and subject to strong force, the parameters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mass, magnetic moment, spin result from it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numerically correctly without further assumptions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This model does not need any vacuum energy or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtual particles. Those are simply not necessary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and they are anyway very speculative because not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly observable. And in the case of the vacuum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy of the universe we are confronted with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discrepancy of 10^120 which you also mention in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper attached to your mail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Coulomb law can be easily explained by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumption (standard at quantum mechanics) that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force is realized by exchange particles. The density
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of exchange particles and so the strength of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field diminishes by 1/r^2, which is simple geometry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So John, this is my position. Now I am curious about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your objections of further questions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Albrecht and All,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have attached a one page addition that I will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make to my book. It is a preliminary explanation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my model of the spacetime field. It has been very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> helpful to me to interact with this group because I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now understand better the key stumbling block for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some scientists to accept my thesis. Therefore I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have written the attached introduction to ease the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reader of my book into my model.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Albrecht:*I appreciate your email. We agree on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several points which include the size of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electron and there is a similarity in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation of gravity. The key points of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagreement are the same as I have with the rest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the group. Your explanation of a fundamental
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particle is not really an explanation. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> substitute a fundamental particle such as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electron with two “basic particles”. Have we made
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any progress or did we just double the problem?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is your basic particles made of? What is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physics behind the force of attraction between the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particles? What is the physics behind an electric
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field? How does your model create de Broglie waves?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How does your model create a gravitational field
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (curved spacetime)? Can you derive the Coulomb law
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Newtonian gravitational equation from your model?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These might seem like unfair questions, but my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model does all of these things. All it requires is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the reader accept the fact that the vacuum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possesses activity which can be characterized as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type of energy density that is not observable (no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rest mass or momentum). This is no different that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepting that QED calculations should be believed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when they assume vacuum energy or that zero point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy really exists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Albrecht*, perhaps I have come on too strong, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have decided to take a firmer stand. You just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen to be the first person that I contrast to my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model. I am actually happy to discuss the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientific details in a less confrontational way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just wanted to make an initial point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John M.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *From:*General
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of*Dr. Albrecht Giese
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:*Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *To:*general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:*Re: [General] research papers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear John Macken,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to answer a specific topic in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mail below. You write "... would have particular
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevance to the concept that the Higgs field is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed to give inertia to fermions".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We should not overlook that even mainstream
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physicists working on elementary particles admit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the Higgs theory is not able to explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inertia. I give you as a reference:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Journal of Physics G, Nuclear and Particle Physics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 38, 4(2011) 43201< ,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which has the result that the Higgs field, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes inertia according to the theory, is by at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least 56 orders of magnitude too small to explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mass of the elementary particles. (Another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tell us the mass of any elementary particle even if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all other parameters are known.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you may remember, in our meeting I have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented a model explaining inertia which does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only work as a general idea but provides very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precise results for the mass of leptons. The mass
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is classically deduced from the size of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particle. It also explains the mass of quarks, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here the verification is more difficult, due to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lack of measurements. In addition I have shown that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the model also explains the (dynamic) mass of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons, if the size of a photon is related to its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wavelength.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may find details in the proceedings of our San
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diego meeting, but also on the following web sites:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.ag-physics.org/rmass
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.ag-physics.org/electron.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may also find the sites by Google search
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entering the string "origin of mass". You will find
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it on position 1 or 2 of the list, where it has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constantly been during the past 12 years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have any questions about it, please ask me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will be happy about any discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With best regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Albrecht Giese
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wanted to remind you that I think that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should update your article “Light Is Heavy” to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include the mathematical proof that confined light
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has exactly the same inertia as particles with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equal energy. Accelerating a reflecting box causes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different photon pressure which results in a net
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inertial force. I already reference your Light Is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Heavy article in my book, but expanding the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article would be even better. An expanded article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would have particular relevance to the concept
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inertia to confined light. Furthermore, confined
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light exerts exactly the correct inertia and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kinetic energy, even at relativistic conditions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have not seen a proof that the Higgs field gives
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy to fermions. Any particle model that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes either a confined photon or confined
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waves in spacetime propagating at the speed of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same principles as confined light in a reflecting box.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John M.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *From:*General
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of*Mark, Martin van der
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:*Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *To:*Nature of Light and Particles - General
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Discussion<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:*[General] research papers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In particular you will find the most recent work:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * On the nature of “stuff” and the hierarchy of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Quantum mechanical probability current as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic 4-current from topological EM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fields
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Very best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Martin B. van der Mark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prof. Holstlaan 4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5656 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tel: +31 40 2747548
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The information contained in this message may be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confidential and legally protected under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applicable law. The message is intended solely for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the addressee(s). If you are not the intended
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message is strictly prohibited and may be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please contact the sender by return e-mail and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> destroy all copies of the original message.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Mail Attachment.jpeg>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Viren geprüft.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Mail Attachment.jpeg> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Viren geprüft.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Viren geprüft.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.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 atrichgauthier at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf
>>>>>>>>>>>> Viren geprüft.
>>>>>>>>>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren
>>>>>>>>>> geprüft.
>>>>>>>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ If you no
>>>>>>>>>> longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
>>>>>>>>>> Light and Particles General Discussion List
>>>>>>>>>> ataf.kracklauer at web.deClick here to
>>>>>>>>>> unsubscribe<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ If you no
>>>>>>>>>> longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
>>>>>>>>>> Light and Particles General Discussion List
>>>>>>>>>> ataf.kracklauer at web.deClick here to
>>>>>>>>>> unsubscribe<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
>>>>>>>>>> Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List
>>>>>>>>>> atmartin.van.der.mark at philips.com
>>>>>>>>>> <a
>>>>>>>>>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.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
>>>>>>>>> ataf.kracklauer at web.deClick here to
>>>>>>>>> unsubscribe<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>>>>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>>>>>>>>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>>>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>>>> <electron.pdf>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
>>>>>>>> Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List
>>>>>>>> atrichgauthier 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>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
---
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/20151020/1cdf850f/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list