[General] research papers
Dr. Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Fri Sep 25 02:07:13 PDT 2015
Thank you, Chandra, for the link.
The author of that paper, Manor, assumes that the effect of
relativistically increased mass means in reality a change in gravity.
But what about situations where gravity is not essential?
At the DESY accelerator in Hamburg electrons have been accelerated so
that e.g. its relativistic mass reaches 900 MeV, so about the rest mass
of the proton. If now the electron collides with a proton, the
mechanical reaction is so as if two objects of similar mass collide.
This is generally taken as an indication that the mass of the electron
is in fact increased. - This situation is not measurably influenced by
gravity.
Regarding Special Relativity: You mean that the time dilation is an "at
hoc" assumption? The dilation is
- easily visible; one can move a clock forth and back and compare it
later to another clock which was at rest all the time. The clock in
motion is then retarded. This fact is used (and so also proven) at the
operation of GPS satellites.
- there are a lot of indications that in elementary particles there is
a permanent motion at c (speed of light), "zitterbewegung". This is a
simple physical reason for dilation. It does not even need a relativity
principle.
Sincerely
Albrecht
Am 24.09.2015 um 18:24 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>
> http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=59224&utm_campaign=papersubmission&utm_source=e_cp&utm_medium=nl_physics_20150911_huangytb
>
> Hello Everybody: Here is an interesting paper, “Gravity, Not Mass
> Increases with Velocity”, worth reading and re-interpreting in the
> context of my proposal, space as a stationary Complex Tension Field
> (CTF). Perpetually propagating EM waves are linear excitations.
> Inertial particles are non-linear excitations of the same CTF that are
> localized self-looped oscillations. [Thus, M-M experiments cannot
> refute the existence of the CTF concept.] These self-looped
> oscillations experience velocity-dependent inertial resistance even in
> the absence of any other force fields. Fluid mechanics supports this
> concept. We do not need gravity on any other force to increase for
> higher velocity particles. The inertial resistance of the particles
> (self-looped oscillation) increases as it tries to move with higher
> and higher velocity through the CTF. This is a much better */physical
> model/* than the ad hoc Special Relativistic mass increase, time
> dilation and space contraction.
>
> I am enjoying Spain (Barcelona and Valencia) giving workshop lectures
> on the Non-Interaction of Waves while celebrating “2015- International
> Year of Light”.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Chandra.
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
> Behalf Of *Richard Gauthier
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 23, 2015 1:03 PM
> *To:* phys at a-giese.de
> *Cc:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] research papers
>
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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>
> <mailto:john at macken.com>; 'Nature of Light and
> Particles - General
> Discussion'<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass>
> www.ag-physics.org/electron
> <http://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>
> <mailto: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
>
> 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 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> <Mail Attachment.jpeg> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf
> Viren geprüft.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf
> Viren geprüft.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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 <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>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150925/cce4d0c6/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list