[General] [SPAM?] Re: research papers

[Mark, Martin van der]

Dear all,
thanks for the interesting exchange of opinions, ideas, good explanations but also some mistakes.
It seems very hard to ask one thing or to explain that thing without getting into another, each having issues, but well  here I go again.
In order to make progress it is important to stick as close to the subject as possible until ideas are exhausted.

First Eherenfest's rotating wheel is a paradox (a seemingly contradictory matter). As mentioned and discussed here recently, special relativity makes things look weird as a consequence of perspective by the observer only. The Lorentz contraction is only happening to the projection in the propagation direction of an object, and in fact, real objects would be seen as rotated away from the observer on the front side of the motion, so much in severe cases, that you can actually see its backside well before it passes at right angles. Obviously this has repercussions on the Eherenfest wheel.
The brim does not shrink, really, nor do the spokes, of course. Now I am not going to claim that I understand every detail, simply because I have never seen such a wheel (these things tend to fly apart before they reach even moderate speed), and others have written good papers about it. The Sagnac effect is real and used in airplanes as a gyroscope, and this shows there is an interesting thing happening with the measurement of time when going (over the brim) in the direction of rotation compared to going against it, see Dieks' papers for an in depth analysis. This is another re-introduction to the De Broglie wavelength, by the way.

Second I would like to point out that EPR experiments are strange beasts, and that this can be appreciated INDEPENDENT of (the validity of) Bell's inequalities.
Adam came up with a nice story about two marbles of opposite color, put in closed envelopes and sent off to well separated receivers.
This is a very good analogy to begin and compare  to an EPR experiment of a singlet state of two photons or two fermions (of whatever nature, electrons for example).
The analogy is such that the color of the marble one receives represents the spin or polarization state of the particle when it is detected.
Now, in the EPR experiment a photon can be polarized in many ways: the complete set of possible states covers the Poincare' sphere, where the equator has all orientations of linear polarization, the poles correspond to left and right circular polarization and the rest of the surface to all kinds of elliptical polarization. The pure state, a singlet state, has two photons with polarization states exactly on opposite sides of the sphere. (For fermions it works exactly the same, but the sphere is called the Bloch sphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloch_sphere ). It should be noted that in a pure state, the particles are in coherence; they share the phase of their (single) wave function, and whatever their future evolution, together they must, amongst others, conserve momentum and angular momentum.
In an EPR experiment it is essential to try to measure the polarization state. If the polarizers are removed, the whole thing is trivial, there will be a click on both detectors, whatever.
With the polarizers in place (linear, circular, elliptic, really any orientation) it becomes quite interesting. In analogy with the marbles, each specific state on the Poincare sphere now corresponds to a different color, and we can make a convenient rule such as we are used to with the color circle where opposite colors combined give "white" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_wheel . In the marble experiment the detector and polarizer are made by the mailbox and the slit respectively, and the slit either accepts or rejects. Further, the slit projects the color of the marble according to its own state, for example when the slit is mounted vertically, it transmits red with 100% certainty but rejects green with 100% certainty. Would an orange marble arrive, it may pass the slit with perhaps 50% chance and is stripped from its yellow component, leaving a purely red marble in the mailbox.
Note that I am translating the real EPR experiment into the marble experiment, that is all I do. In the real experiment, photon is transmitted whole or not at all, but if transmitted it is projected into the polarization state of the analyzing polarizer, so that is what we must demand is happening to the marbles too.
In Adam's explanation there is no mystery because the example does not resemble an EPR experiment. In the example given above the mystery is about to happen: The blue counterpart of the orange marble arrives at the other mailbox, who's slit may have any orientation. What we know for certain in an EPR experiment is, however, that a parallel slit will 100% accept red and 100% reject green (in the latter case we may but a waste bin below the mailbox to collect the marble, as can be done in photonics by the use of a polarizing beam splitter and two detectors). Since we have measured the orange marble to be red ( with equal probability it could have been rejected, and labeled green), the other marble seems to have changed color, wherever it is or will be, it will respond as if it is green, not blue. In other words, it will pass a horizontal slit for green with 100% certainty, despite the fact that we had assumed that it is blue. So now this means that the sender must have put red and green, and not blue and orange marbles in the respective envelopes. But what if I change the orientation of the mailbox's slit while the postman is still eating lunch? So this is where the mystery is. In fact the whole idea of a coherent singlet state is that it has total spin zero, and that is all you know: the marbles are grey and anti-grey, equally potent to giving white and black or red and green or blue and orange for orthogonal slits.
So at this level it is mysterious if one takes causality and finite speed of propagation of information seriously. Yet it is what experiment shows to be the case. (and what quantum mechanics predicts, but that is not the point)
There is lot more that I could say about 3 particle correlations GHZ (Greenberg Horner Zeilinger) entanglement, etcetera, so that any seemingly cunning objection is dealt with straight away, but that is also not the point. As a matter of fact, to any one, try to argue why it is a mystery and spooky or why not until you have come to total agreement and awe with what nature has to offer. And please do not tell me about it.

It has been shown that a local hidden variable theory cannot solve the matter of the EPR experiment, the essence of the mystery is in the non-locality (non-causality in another Lorentz frame) of the events. The so-called collapse of the wave function (even for a single particle) is as problematic, I would say.

A problem can only be solved if one is aware that it exists at all in the first place. So that is the next task, and faster than light phase velocity, coherence and zero interval are going to be part of it, I believe. That however takes me away from explaining physics as it is generally known and accepted and I would be talking about my own work. I will give a glimpse of that in the next two points.

Third, John D you are right, there is a further explanation required. The zero interval idea for photons is in fact about an ALMOST but not quite zero interval: For example an emission of a photon, leading to an absorption at some distance by a detector in the same Lorentz frame implies that there is  a finite length in the problem as a whole, Another example is that of an emission of a photon by an atom with short lived state, hence a short coherence length of the photon, also has a finite length or life time that must be taken into account. The result is that the phase and group transit time of the photon are never going to be exactly the same (although very closely the same) even in a non-dispersive medium. Hence the vent of absorption and emission are still distinguishable, but always in each other's near field and therefore coupled with essentially zero phase difference.
Sometimes I refer to this as: No photon can be on shell.

Fourth, causality and locality are what All has pointed out correctly in an email just sent out minutes ago.
Can we see any kind of influence faster than light? It does not seem to be possible, but if we have a coherent state, putatively, the phase velocity of the fields within can actually help to communicate between the two particles since on the one hand the phase velocity is faster than light, v_phase = c^2/v_particle, and on the other hand the particles maintain their own internal, synchronized clocks. So this is signaling without energy transfer. Only when you are part of that coherent state yourself you may be able to take advantage, from the outside we never know the relative phase of any of the clocks and cannot therefore determine how the wave function ends (is projected and  altered) on a detector and how or when the detector will fire.

I hope this helps.
Best, Martin

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: zaterdag 24 oktober 2015 11:10
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: 'Joakim Pettersson' <joakimbits at gmail.com>; 'ARNOLD BENN' <arniebenn at mac.com>; 'Anthony Booth' <abooth at ieee.org>; 'Ariane Mandray' <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>
Subject: Re: [General] [SPAM?] Re: research papers

John/Martin:

I think the best way to appreciate the photon thing is to imagine you're moving at the speed of light. You're totally time dilated, for you there is no local motion. But that's all it is. Your departure and arrival are not part of the same event. If you think that, I can soon disabuse you of this notion because I know your course, and with a little help from Al, I can put an asteroid in your way:

BLAM!

Remember that if you advocate anything that can be portrayed as woo, some people will use it against you.

Regards
John D

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: 24 October 2015 08:45
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Cc: Joakim Pettersson <joakimbits at gmail.com<mailto:joakimbits at gmail.com>>; ARNOLD BENN <arniebenn at mac.com<mailto:arniebenn at mac.com>>; Anthony Booth <abooth at ieee.org<mailto:abooth at ieee.org>>; Ariane Mandray <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr<mailto:ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>>
Subject: Re: [General] [SPAM?] Re: research papers

Look, before I go ...

If what you were saying were true, then every photon event would have to LITERALLY bend all of space time to the same point. That is, manifestly, not so. That is not what relativity is saying - or ever said. The Lorentz contraction is a transformation of space to time and vice versa, not literally - but from different perspectives (in the Leonardo sense). It is just that the whole universe is a whole lot smaller for a photon. REALLY.

I do not get why people do not get this!

Look .. the photon has neither the emission energy nor the absorption energy (always different to each other) but another energy. THINK ABOUT IT. It is blindingly obvious when you get it and I do not think it is very hard. You need to think energy and momentum not space and time (actually you need to think both at once - so I suppose it IS a bit hard). It is explained in my SPIE papers.

Cheers. JGW.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of af.kracklauer at web.de<mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de> [af.kracklauer at web.de]
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2015 8:21 AM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Joakim Pettersson; Anthony Booth; Ariane Mandray; ARNOLD BENN
Subject: Re: [General] [SPAM?] Re: research papers
Hi Martin et al.:

Some points to ponder:

The zero-length notion from Minkowski analysis pertains to simultaniously RECEIVED signals; they cannot be resolved by the seer in terms of their origin's location or time-instant, thus, for him (i.e., anyone at his light cone vertex) they have zero diffentiation.  This cannot be turned on its head to say that the two source events communicate instantaniously.

Tetrode, and others of his era, developed a field-free form of mechanics that evades the famouls self field divergecies (as well as other, from this point of view, spurious field-theory effects).  In doing so, however, therir arguments were huristic and sleightly faulty so that they concluded that there is both backwards (on the light cone) and forwards (i.e. from the future) interaction.  If true, this ould mean that the present is 1/2 determined by the future!  Not only is this a serious philosopical issue for "causality" (although diminished by 50%) but even for rock-headed, nonphilosophical mathematical physicists a serious problem in so far as it renders the coupled equations of motion deduced by this school unsolvable in that the whole solution must be known aforehand as initial conditions to find a solution!  Go figure.  BTW, this problem was fixed in part by Schwartzshild, but ignored ever since.  Also, I have taken my own shots at this target; see No. 6 on:  www.non-loco-physics.0catch.com<http://www.non-loco-physics.0catch.com>

Anyone wishing to support SR completely should feel compelled to enlighten the critics as to the solution to the Eherenfest paradox.  (Recall: the issue is: what happens to the edge of a rapidly rotatiing disk---so much so that its outer circumfeance should suffere Lorentz-contraction.)   Estimates indicate that at least stresses should be engendered that would be visible as the bending of filer markks made across the diameter of the disk.  T. Phipps mounted a small disk on a dimond tip, drove it with compressed air to >20K revs/sec. (my best recall) for 6 months.  The filer mark did not bend.  Even under a microscope.

Modern field theories, including the so-called "Standard Model," inherited these issues.  There is LOTS of room for rumination.  Even among the QM founding fathers, only for Heisenberg and Bohr can it be thought that today they would be truly orthodox. (Of course, even Bohr recognized the problems, but talked as if his "word salad" resolved them.  Perhaps it may be noticed that, mental illness was no stranger in his family).

For what it's worth,  Al



Gesendet: Freitag, 23. Oktober 2015 um 21:40 Uhr
Von: "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>>
An: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Cc: "Joakim Pettersson" <joakimbits at gmail.com<mailto:joakimbits at gmail.com>>, "ARNOLD BENN" <arniebenn at mac.com<mailto:arniebenn at mac.com>>, "Anthony Booth" <abooth at ieee.org<mailto:abooth at ieee.org>>, "Ariane Mandray" <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr<mailto:ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>>
Betreff: Re: [General] [SPAM?] Re: research papers
Dear Al,
yes I know and agree. That is, I'm not compleyely sure yet about Bell's inequality, i need to study it more but have not found the time yet. In my previous answers i have only addressed the things that I found to be relevant for the discussion, such as getting the order of events correct and giving some lead to understand why quantum mexhanics and special relativity are in fact intimately related, and that this is de Broglie's contribution.
The whole EPR discussion between Bohr and Einstein took place much, much later indeed. Here I tried to point out that there is a very strong idea that is apparently to hard to digest by many and perhaps therefore not too well known. It is the concept of zero interval for light speed waves by Tetrode, Feynman and Wheeler that implies that emission and absorption are part of the same event. Which in turn explains why quantum mystiscism only looks mystical because we are tempted to take the causality assumptions that may not be applied as we do.

Unfortunately, sorry Adam, many in this group still do not have a clue what the EPR experiments are really telling us, but indeed it takes some frustration, energy and preserverance to get it.

Very best,
Martin

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone

Op 23 okt. 2015 om 18:42 heeft "af.kracklauer at web.de<UrlBlockedError.aspx>" <af.kracklauer at web.de<UrlBlockedError.aspx>> het volgende geschreven:

Hi Martin:

For whatever reason your review of history neglected the discussion of the physical nature of a wave function.  AE criticised its interpretation in 1927 at the Solvey Conf. it terms of a beam passing through a pin hole centered on a semispherical detector.  The detector, he noted, does not respond at once over the whole of its surface, but only at flash points.  That is, the wave function for beam particles "collapses" to points instantiously from its immediately preceeding finite existence just above the detector surface.  That is, superluminally.  Singlet states and entanglement, therefore, enter the story first about 35-40 years latter, and don't seem relevant for these early criticisms.   Also, von Neumann dogmatized the collapse notion in 1923 with the idea of the "Projection Hypothesis."  Then proceeded to make a famous error, since noticed by many.

BTW, Bell did not employ conditionnal probabilities correctly in his inequality derivation; so that it is correct only for uncorrelated events actually.  But he then used it for correlated events.  Etc.

If you chose to respond, please don't do so sociologiclly, i.e., "everybody knows" or the like.  In stead, go straight for a logical or mathematical error in the story as I unfolded it.  Thanks.

ciao,  Al

Gesendet: Donnerstag, 22. Oktober 2015 um 17:25 Uhr
Von: "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<UrlBlockedError.aspx>>
An: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<UrlBlockedError.aspx>>
Cc: "Joakim Pettersson" <joakimbits at gmail.com<UrlBlockedError.aspx>>, "ARNOLD BENN" <arniebenn at mac.com<UrlBlockedError.aspx>>, "Anthony Booth" <abooth at ieee.org<UrlBlockedError.aspx>>, "Ariane Mandray" <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr<UrlBlockedError.aspx>>
Betreff: Re: [General] [SPAM?] Re: research papers
Dear Adam, Richard and John W,
Thank you very much for the conversation and the links.

Adam,
indeed I was thinking of EPR and wave function collapse like spooky action at a distance when I said that special relativity and quantum mechanics do not seem to match. This is where Einstein was right and wrong at the same time: Quantum mechanics is incomplete (right) but spooky action can and does actually happen! Special relativity must and does still apply, but in an unexpected way.
What Einstein helped to bring to the world was the idea that light is both a wave and a particle (waves can behave as a particle: the photon). De Broglie did the opposite: particles can be waves, and he did it all using Einstein's theory of relativity, E=hf and E=mc^2. De Broglie realized that both time and frequency are important and that there must be harmony between them. If I am correct, Schroedinger then made a wave theory out of this, first a relativistic one which was second order in the time derivative, and didn't know how to deal with it. Then he invented the famous Schroedinger equation that deals with it at non-relativistic speeds, but that also screws up the phase and harmony of the wave function. Low speed energy and momentum are fine, but all connection with the roots of it (special relativity) are lost.
What then about the non-local or non-causal aspects of the EPR experiment? In essence, when we create a singlet state of two particles, the particles share their phase(s). For example two phases (making a two-component spinor) with a definite mutual relationship with each of the particles, if we have two photons of arbitrary (but entangled) polarization. Wherever the photons may, be upon projection of the singlet state, as happens during a measurement of one of the particles, it will be the same for both, and be travelling at the PHASE velocity. For massive particles this is essential. This is all standard textbook stuff really, but from here we come on less accepted ground, I am warning. For the photons, we only have to bring in the fact that there is a zero interval for light-speed objects to understand that emission and absorption are part of the same event (Tetrode, Feynman). Causality is not in the direction of time, but in the transport of energy, it seems...
Best, Martin

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<UrlBlockedError.aspx>] On Behalf Of Adam K
Sent: donderdag 22 oktober 2015 7:21
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<UrlBlockedError.aspx>>
Cc: Joakim Pettersson <joakimbits at gmail.com<UrlBlockedError.aspx>>; ARNOLD BENN <arniebenn at mac.com<UrlBlockedError.aspx>>; Anthony Booth <abooth at ieee.org<UrlBlockedError.aspx>>; Ariane Mandray <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr<UrlBlockedError.aspx>>
Subject: Re: [General] [SPAM?] Re: research papers

John,

YES! Schrodinger said that the mathematical difficulties were always trivial in the end. The real difficulties are conceptual. Anyone who tries to discover knows this to be true. When you solve a math problem, the math disappears, the symbols all speak for themselves and are perfectly transparent.

Since we both love Einstein and Leonardo, here are my two favorite quotes from both men:

"The Heisenberg-Bohr tranquilizing philosophy -- or religion? -- is so delicately contrived that, for the time being, it provides a gentle pillow for the true believer from which he cannot very easily be aroused. So let him lie there." (Letter to Schrodinger)

and

"He who can go to the fountain does not go to the water jar." (Speaking of taking knowledge from nature, rather than people. This is just my favorite at the time, almost everything he says is phenomenal.)

I am pretty strongly convinced that within the next several years we will see The Tranquilizing Philosophy revealed for the medieval, ridiculous sham it is. When the curtain is drawn and the naked whelp revealed it will become, for all posterity, far more interesting for what it says about the fallibility and sociology of science than for any of its constitutive ideas (insofar as it has any).

Adam








On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:30 PM, John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>> wrote:
Dear Adam,

Thank you for your mail and your quotes and references about Einstein and de Broglie.

I could not agree more. The process of making REAL progress in physics is, pretty much, entirely intuition. Intuition where one keeps, at once, the whole of physics-as-we-know-it in mind. It is, pretty much, absolutely nothing to do with mere mathematics.

Making REAL progress is very very hard indeed. THis is why, pretty much, it only happens about once a century - if that.

It must be carefully felt, tested against a host of things one thinks one knows. Written down. Have pictures drawn of it. Talk about it with friends over a beer. Throw away many, many (MANY!) tentative trials and ideas. Explore many possibilities. Eventually, try to slot it carefully into the (eventually) ONE thing that is the whole of natural philosophy and compare it with its match both to that and to ALL of experiment. Tricky. Fun! It is even fun to try, and fail.

I, too, think that Einstein was on the right path (or at least lost in the woods where I think the right path lay) for the majority of his later career where most people now think he was wasting his time. For me it is tragic and almost physically painful to see him lose the important thread, of understanding how (4) current and field intertwined, and then see that huge intellect struggle with the consequences of missing the start of that path. Waite talks about this (see ref in my papers). Einstein was so very very good that no one else, as far as I know, was even in the same wood at the time (even de Broglie and Dirac, who, in this analogy, were up on nearby hilltops at the time). Most, now, dismiss the area as a useless wasteland (including in this both Dirac and de Broglies hilltops). I just wish I could have met Einstein there (and had a nice wee chat over a cup of tea made on a campfire) - but he died at just about the point I was conceived. I love the man - and have tried to read everything he has written (in whatever language he wrote it). The only others who give me quite so much pure intellectual pleasure (if anyone is up for that) are, indeed, Leonardo and de Broglie (even just his exquisite French is pure joy) . Feynmann and Dirac come close - but not very close. One possible chap at the same sort of level, for me,is a man called (Gordon) Pask - but I would not recommend anyone trying his stuff unless they feel they have a strong constitution. If you do talk to Nick Green.
For what it is worth, for me, de Broglies pinnacle is his "harmony of phases" and Dirac's his ideas about charge as gauge (series of 3 papers in the fifties - thread now closed - except for me) .
Martin and have a camp in the wood now if anyone would like to visit!

Regards, John.

________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Richard Gauthier [richgauthier at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 4:49 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Joakim Pettersson; ARNOLD BENN; Anthony Booth; Ariane Mandray
Subject: [SPAM?] Re: [General] research papers
Hello Adam and others,
   The book "Quantum theory at the crossroads" is also available online at arxiv.org<http://arxiv.org> at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609184 .
         Richard

On Oct 21, 2015, at 6:20 PM, Adam K <afokay at gmail.com<mailto:afokay at gmail.com>> wrote:

Martin,

So the story of Einstein vs Bohr at Solvay is exceedingly interesting, as is de Broglie's attempt there to interpret quantum physics in a non-crazy way.

This book http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Theory-Crossroads-Reconsidering-Conference/dp/1107698316 is pretty interesting on the subject.

It is specifically cast as a revisitation of de Broglie's pilot wave hypothesis, and why it gained no traction at the time. Pauli is made into something of a villain.

This review http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.5956.pdf is not particularly sympathetic to the authors' thesis, but is an interesting quick read and contains some great quotes by de Broglie.

I am not sure what you mean about people thinking QM cannot be reconciled with special relativity. Are you talking about entanglement and spooky action at a distance? (EPR).

Adam



On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>> wrote:
Dear Adam,
thank you for that, I do agree. Contrary to popular believes, I think Einstein was more right about  almost anything than he perhaps believed himself. But this is just my personal opinion.
But that does not mean I disagree very much with Richard. In fact Einstein and the rest of physicists were not yet ready for the next thing after relativity: quantum mechanics. Planck was there, but he had his own opinion. Einstein did actually get the photon concept, of course. Rutherford added an important piece of the puzzle.

And then came Bohr with his model of the atom. And then the other famous quantum people.
There is one that got famous, but not quite as famous as he should have been. At one Solvay conference Bohr's PR and style of arguing apparently won at the cost of the point of view of Louis de Broglie's.
As a consequence, we still suffer and the masses believe that quantum mechanics cannot be reconciled with special relativity. The opposite is true: Louis de Broglie DERIVED quantum mechanics from special relativity. Even better, EPR experiments are in accordance with special relativity, see Feynman, Wheeler, Tetrode and Carver Mead.
All that is left from de Broglie is his wavelength, and his Harmony of Phases, which he derived from special relativity, is hardly known by the physics community.

Cheers, Martin


From: Adam K [mailto:afokay at gmail.com]
Sent: donderdag 22 oktober 2015 0:06
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Cc: Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>>; Joakim Pettersson <joakimbits at gmail.com<mailto:joakimbits at gmail.com>>; ARNOLD BENN <arniebenn at mac.com<mailto:arniebenn at mac.com>>; Anthony Booth <abooth at ieee.org<mailto:abooth at ieee.org>>; Ariane Mandray <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr<mailto:ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>>

Subject: Re: [General] research papers


"If he had been more clever and intuitive,"

My own beliefs impel me point out that this is a hugely presumptuous thing to say about Einstein, even as a joke. Einstein was arguably the paradigm of intuition. All of the below quotes on intuition are by him:
"Indeed, it is not intellect, but intuition which advances humanity. Intuition tells man his purpose in this life."
"The mind can proceed only so far upon what it knows and can prove. There comes a point where the mind takes a leap-call it intuition or what you will-and comes out upon a higher plane of knowledge, but can never prove how it got there. All great discoveries have involved such a leap."
"I believe in intuition and inspiration. At times I feel certain I am right while not knowing the reason. When the eclipse of 1919 confirmed my intuition, I was not in the least surprised. In fact I would have been astonished had it turned out otherwise. "
"The supreme task of the physicist is the discovery of the most general elementary laws from which the world-picture can be deduced logically. But there is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance, and this Einfühlung (feeling-one's-way-in) is developed by experience."
L. de Broglie referred to Einstein's theory of relativity as "un effort intellectuel peut-être sans exemple." His own investigations were a matter of passion for him, "une difficulté qui m'a longtemps intrigué" and he would not have thought Einstein should have been more clever or intuitive. Finally, it was Einstein's intuition that led him to recognize immediately that de Broglie was onto something serious with his thesis, when it was passed to him from de Broglie's examiners, who had no clue what to make of it.

Adam








On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Martin,
   Right you are. As I remember Einstein's 1905 article "Is the inertia of matter a measure of its energy content?" (it's been a while), Einstein imagined two emitted rays of light of equal frequency moving in opposite directions coming from a stationary mass. When the rest frame of the mass and the two oppositely moving rays of light is shifted to a moving frame and the mass is moving in the same direction as one of the light rays, the light ray moving in the direction of the mass' velocity gains more energy from the relativistic Doppler shift than the light ray moving in the other direction loses, leaving a net gain in the energy of the two light rays from the moving mass, as measured in this moving frame. Einstein equated this net gain in energy of the two oppositely moving light rays with the energy lost by the mass when it emitted the two light rays, and from this he derived E= mc^2  (modern terms). If he had been more clever and intuitive, he would have also in 1905 derived the de Broglie wavelength for a moving electron, which comes from setting his two energy formulas  -  E = hf for a photon's energy and  E = gamma mc^2 for an electron's total energy - equal to each other:  hf = gamma mc^2 , which together imply (not logically but intuitively) that an electron is a circulating charged photon generating the de Broglie wavelength. But he unfortunately didn't do this, and missed out on a second Nobel. If he had done this we would unfortunately never have heard of M. Louis de Broglie and "la comedie francaise". Instead it would have been "la comedie suisse". With these two "errors" (photons and matter waves) on his scientific resume, instead of just one, Einstein probably would never have received Planck's recommendation for a job in Berlin.
     all the best,
          Richard

On Oct 21, 2015, at 10:18 AM, Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>> wrote:

Hi Richard, just for the record, E=mc^2 came before de Broglie and he in turn came  before schroedinger and quantummechanics,
Cheers, Martin


Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone

Op 21 okt. 2015 om 18:40 heeft Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>> het volgende geschreven:
Hello John and Albrecht and all,
     Yes, I'm very much aware that the de Broglie wavelength can be generated from the relativistic Doppler interference of two Compton wavelength waves moving in opposite directions. This is the light-in-a-box-standing-wave-transferred-into-another-relativistic-frame explanation and I used it also in a previous circulating-photon electron model to generate the de Broglie wavelength, just as Martin did in 1991 and you and  Martin did in your 1997 paper and John M also did. I think Einstein used it in his 1905 paper to derive E=mc^2.  My derivation was independent of your paper, which I hadn't read when I gave my derivation, which was borrowed from the derivation of an electron modeler with a "space resonance" model of the electron. He though my approach to the electron was "clever, but wrong". I refrained from returning the compliment. All these derivations requires that there are waves moving in opposite directions and interfering to generate the de Broglie wavelength. In my spin-1/2 charged photon model however, the de Broglie wavelength is generated, without wave interference, from a helically circulating charged photon moving in a longitudinally forward direction and emitting plane waves along the direction the charged photon is moving along the helix. This derivation generates along the helical z-axis the de Broglie relativistic matter-wave equation PHI = A e^i(kz-wt) for a moving electron having the relativistic de Broglie wavelength h/(gamma mv).
     Albrecht, a reply for your "fundamental objection" to my model is in process. Don't worry, I can answer it.
with best wishes,
             Richard


On Oct 21, 2015, at 7:34 AM, John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>> wrote:

Dear all,

The de Broglie wavelength is best understood, in my view, in one of two ways. Either read de Broglies thesis for his derivation (if you do not read french, Al has translated it and it is available online). Alternatively derive it yourself. All you need to do is consider the interference between a standing wave in one (proper frame) as it transforms to other relativistic frames. That is standing-wave light-in-a-box. This has been done by may folk, many times. Martin did it back in 1991. It is in our 1997 paper. One of the nicest illustrations I have seen is that of John M - circulated to all of you earlier in this series.

It is real, and quite simple.

Regards, John.
________________________________
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: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 3:14 PM
To: Richard Gauthier
Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; David Mathes
Subject: Re: [General] research papers
Hello Richard,

thanks for your detailed explanation. But I have a fundamental objection.

Your figure 2 is unfortunately (but unavoidably) 2-dimensional, and that makes a difference to the reality as I understand it.

In your model the charged electron moves on a helix around the axis of the electron (or equivalently the axis of the helix). That means that the electron has a constant distance to this axis. Correct? But in the view of your figure 2 the photon seems to start on the axis and moves away from it forever. In this latter case the wave front would behave as you write it.

Now, in the case of a constant distance, the wave front as well intersects the axis, that is true. But this intersection point moves along the axis at the projected speed of the photon to this axis. - You can consider this also in another way. If the electron moves during a time, say T1, in the direction of the axis, then the photon will during this time T1 move a longer distance, as the length of the helical path (call it L)  is of course longer than the length of the path of the electron during this time (call it Z). Now you will during the time T1 have a number of waves (call this N) on the helical path L. On the other hand, the number of waves on the length Z has also to be N. Because otherwise after an arbitrary time the whole situation would diverge. As now Z is smaller than L, the waves on the axis have to be shorter. So, not the de Broglie wave length. That is my understanding.

In my present view, the de Broglie wave length has no immediate correspondence in the physical reality. I guess that the success of de Broglie in using this wave length may be understandable if we understand in more detail, what happens in the process of scattering of an electron at the double (or multiple) slits.

Best wishes
Albrecht
Am 21.10.2015 um 06:28 schrieb
Richard Gauthier:
Hello Albrecht,

   Thank you for your effort to understand the physical process described geometrically in my Figure 2. You have indeed misunderstood the Figure as you suspected. The LEFT upper side of the big 90-degree triangle is one wavelength h/(gamma mc) of the charged photon, mathematically unrolled from its two-turned helical shape (because of the double-loop model of the electron) so that its full length h/(gamma mc) along the helical trajectory can be easily visualized. The emitted wave fronts described in my article are perpendicular to this mathematically unrolled upper LEFT side of the triangle (because the plane waves emitted by the charged photon are directed along the direction of the helix when it is coiled (or mathematically uncoiled), and the plane wave fronts are perpendicular to this direction). The upper RIGHT side of the big 90-degree triangle corresponds to one of the plane wave fronts (of constant phase along the wave front) emitted at one wavelength lambda = h/(gamma mc) of the helically circulating charged photon. The length of the horizontal base of the big 90-degree triangle, defined by where this upper RIGHT side of the triangle (the generated plane wave front from the charged photon) intersects the horizontal axis of the helically-moving charged photon, is the de Broglie wavelength h/(gamma mv) of the electron model (labeled in the diagram). By geometry the length (the de Broglie wavelength) of this horizontal base of the big right triangle in the Figure is equal to the top left side of the triangle (the photon wavelength h/(gamma mc) divided (not multiplied) by cos(theta) = v/c because we are calculating the hypotenuse of the big right triangle starting from the upper LEFT side of this big right triangle, which is the adjacent side of the big right triangle making an angle theta with the hypotenuse.

   What you called the projection of the charged photon's wavelength h/(gamma mc) onto the horizontal axis is actually just the distance D that the electron has moved with velocity v along the x-axis in one period T of the circulating charged photon. That period T equals 1/f = 1/(gamma mc^2/h) = h/(gamma mc^2). By the geometry in the Figure, that distance D is the adjacent side of the smaller 90-degree triangle in the left side of the Figure, making an angle theta with cT,  the hypotenuse of that smaller triangle, and so D = cT cos (theta) = cT x v/c = vT , the distance the electron has moved to the right with velocity v in the time T. In that same time T one de Broglie wavelength has been generated along the horizontal axis of the circulating charged photon.

   I will answer your question about the double slit in a separate e-mail.

        all the best,
            Richard

On Oct 20, 2015, at 10:06 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de<mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:

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  lambdadeBroglie = lambdaphoton / cos theta , but: lambdadeBroglie = lambdaphoton * 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  lambda1 = c / frequency; frequency = (gamma*mc2) / h. So, the geometric distance of the wave maxima passing the slits is   lambda1 = c*h / (gamma*mc2). 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


________________________________
[Avast logo]<https://www.avast.com/antivirus>

Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/antivirus>




_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto:martin.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>

________________________________
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 at richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>


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


_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at afokay at gmail.com<mailto:afokay at gmail.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%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 at af.kracklauer at web.de<UrlBlockedError.aspx> Click 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 at martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<UrlBlockedError.aspx>
<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 at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151024/acd2485f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Dieks AmJPhys1990.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 708695 bytes
Desc: Dieks AmJPhys1990.pdf
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151024/acd2485f/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DieksRotation.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 126475 bytes
Desc: DieksRotation.pdf
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151024/acd2485f/attachment-0001.pdf>