[General] research papers

Tue Sep 29 01:52:33 PDT 2015

Dear everyone especially Al, Albrecht and Richard,
I have been meaning to weigh-in for some time, but term has just started and I’m responsible for hundreds of new students, tens of PhD’s, there is only one of me and my mind is working on less than ten percent capacity.
I think we have to distinguish between what is know, experimentally, and our precious (to us) little theoretical models. Please remember everyone that theory is just theory. It is fun to play with and that is what we are all doing. The primary thing is first to understand experiment – and that is hard as there is a huge amount of mis-information in our “information” technology culture.
You are right, Al, that Martin has not carried out experiments, directly, himself, on the electron size in both high energy and at low energy, but I have.
I have many papers, published in the most prestigious journals, on precisely those topics. They HAVE had much interest (in total more than ten thousand citations). I have sat up, late at night, alone, performing experiments  both with the largest lepton microscope ever made (The EMC experiment at CERN) and with my superb (best in the world at the time) millikelvin Cryostat looking at precisely the inner structure of single electrons spread out over sizes much (orders of magnitude) larger than my experimental resolution. It is widely said, but simply not true, that “no experiment resolves the electron size”.  This comes, largely, from simple ignorance of what the experiments show. I have not only seen inside single electrons, but then used the observed properties and structure, professionally and in widely published and cited work, to design new devices. Have had them made and measured (in collaboration with others), and seen them thenwork both as expected, but also to reveal deeper mysteries again involving the electron size, its quantum spin, its inner charge distribution and so on. That work is still going on, now carried by my old colleagues and by the rest of the world. Nano – my device was the first nanosemiconductor device. Spintronics, designed the first devices used for this. Inner workings of spin , and the exclusion principle Martin and I hope to crack that soon! Fun! All welcome!
Now where Martin is coming from, and where he, personally, late at night etc … HAS done lots of professional experiments and has been widely cited is in playing the same kind of games with light that I have done with electrons. This means that, acting together, we really know what we are talking about in a wide range of physics. Especially particle scattering, quantum electron transport, and light. We may be making up the theories, but we are not making up a wide and deep understanding of experiment.
I take your point – and you are so right -that there are so many things one would like to read and understand and has not yet got round to. So much and so little time. Ore papers written per second than one can read per second. There is, however, no substitute for actually having been involved in those very experiments to actually understand what they mean.
So what I am about to say is not going to be “shooting from the hip”, but is perhaps more like having spent a couple of decades developing a very large rail gun which has just been loaded for its one-shot at intergalactic exploration …
Now I hope you will not take this badly …  it is fun to think about this but here goes
Here is what you said (making you blue):
You have not done an experiment, but (at best) a calculation based on some hypothtical input of your choise.  Maybe it's good, maybe not.
Not so: I have done the experiments! Myself. This is exactly why I started looking into the extant models decades ago, found them sadly lacking, and hence set out to devise new ones that did agree with experiment at both low and high energy. This is the whole point!

The Sun scatters as a point only those projectiles that don't get close.
True,
   So far, no scattering off elecrtons has gotten close enough to engage any internal structure, "they" say (I#ll defer to experts up-to-date).
Not so. Lots of papers on this. Some by me. See e.g. Williamson, Timmering, Harmans, Harris and Foxon Phys Rev 42 p 7675. Also – I am an expert (up to date) on HEP as well. A more correct statement is that no high-energy scattering experiment has RESOLVED any internal structure in free electrons. If this was all you knew (and for many HEP guys it seems to be) then one might interpret this as meaning the electron was a point down to 10-18m. It is not. It cannot be. It does not have enough mass to account for its spin (even if at lightspeed) if it is that small. Work it out!

 Nevertheless, electrons are in constant motion at or near the speed of light (Zitterbewegung) and therefore at the time scales of the projectiles buzz around (zittern) in a certain amout of space, which seems to me must manifest itself as if there were spacially exteneded structure within the scattering cross-section.  Why not?
Because this is no good if one does not have the forces or the mechanism for making it “zitter”.
More importantly -experimentally- because that is not what you see. If it was just zittering in space one could see that zitter. What you see (in deep inelastic lepton scattering, for example), is that there is no size scale for lepton scattering. That is, that no structure is resolved right down to 10^-18 metres. This is NOT the same thing as an electron being a point. That is why one says (if one knows a bit about what one is talking about) that it is “point-like” and not “point” scattering. These qualifiers ALWAYS matter. Point-like – not a point. Charged photon- not a photon. Localised photon – not a photon. Vice-Admiral- not an admiral. Vice-president- more a reason for not shooting the president!
That structure is not resolved does NOT mean that the electron is point.  This is widely accepted as fact, but just represents a (far too widespread) superficial level of understanding. Any inverse-square, spherically symettric force-field has this property (eg spherical planets if you do not actually hit them). The real problem is to understand how it can appear spherically symettric and inverse square in scattering while ACTUALLY being much much larger than this. This is exactly what I started out working on in 1980 and have been plugging away at ever since. Exactly that! You need to explain all of experiment: that is what this is all about.
Not to defend Albrecht's model as he describes it, but many folks (say Peter Rowlands at Liverpool, for example) model elemtary particles in terms of the partiicle itself interacting with its induced virtual image (denoted by Peter as the "rest of the universe").   This "inducement" is a kind of polarization effect.  Every charge repells all other like charges and attracts all other unlike charges resulting in what can be modeled as a virtual charge of the opposite gender superimposed on itself in the static approximation.  But, because the real situation is fluid, the virtual charge's motion is delayed as caused by finite light speed, so that the two chase each other. Etc. Looks something like Albrecht's pairs.
Yes I know. This is the same kind of maths as “image charges” used all the time in modelling the solid state. These are all models. All models have features. We need to confront them with experiment. Problem with the pairs is you don’t see any pairs. If one of the pair has zero mass-energy it is not there at all. If there was a pair, bound to each other with some forces, then one would see something similar to what one sees in proton scattering (see below), and you do not. One then has to explain why and how this process occurs, every time. You always (and only) see one thing for electrons, muons. You see a single object for the electron, and an internal structure for the proton. This is what your theory has to deal with. Really. Properly. In detail. At all energies.

I too havn't read your 97 paper yet, but I bet it's unlikely that you all took such consideration into account.
You could not know this, but his could not be more wrong. We did. You did not specify the bet. Lets make it a beer. You owe me (and Martin) a beer! If you have not yet read the paper by the time we next meet I think you should buy all the beers! Deal?
The whole point of the paper my reason for leaving high energy physics at all, the seven years of work Martin and I put into it to that point, was exactly to resolve this mystery – on the basis of an “electron as a localised photon”. My subsequent work has been to try to develop a proper field theory to deal with the problems inherent I the old model (unknown forces) and in the Dirac theory (ad hoc lump of mass) (amongst others). This is the point of the new theory of light and matter:an attempt to sort all that out. You should read it too! Do that and I will buy you a beer!
Now Richard, while I am disagreeing with everyone I am going to disagree with you too! You keep saying that the electron apparent size scales with gamma – and you keep attributing me with agreeing with you (and Martin and Viv and Chip). Let me say this once and for all: I DO NOT agree with this.  Now Viv and Chip must speak for themselves, but I’m pretty sure Martin would (largely – though not completely) agree me here.  I have said this many times to you – though perhaps not specifically enough.  It is not quite wrong – but far too simple. It scales ON AVERAGE so. I agree that it changes apparent size- yes, but not with gamma- no. How it actually scales was discussed in the 1997 paper, and the mathematics of this is explained (for example) in my “Light” paper at SPIE (see Eq. 19). Gamma = ½( x+ 1/x). Also, this is amongst other things, in Martin’s “Light is Heavy” paper. Really the apparent size scales BOTH linearly AND inverse linearly (as x and 1/x then). It is the average of these that gives gamma. This is how relativity actually works. You do not put things in, you get things out. You need to look at this and understand how gamma is related. Best thing is to go through the maths yourself, then you will see.
The bottom line is that the reason one does not resolve the electron size is that, in a collision, this size scales like light. It gets smaller with increasing energy. Linearly. Likewise the scattering exchange photon scales like light. Linearly. The ratio for head on collisions remains constant – but the exchange photon is always about an order of magnitude bigger that the electron (localised photon). This is WHY it can be big (10^-13 m)  and yet appear small. I said this in my talk, but I know how hard it is to take everything in.
One does not see internal structure because of this effect – and the fact that the electron is a SINGLE object. Not composite – like a proton (and Albrecht’s model).
Now what would one see with lepton scatting on protons? I have dozens of papers on this (and thousands of citations to those papers) – so this is not shooting from the hip. Let me explain as briefly and simply as I can. Lock and load …
At low energies (expresses as a length much less than 10^-15 m or so), one sees point-like scattering from, what looks like, a spherically symettric charge distribution. Ok there are differences between positive projectiles (which never overlap) and negative, but broad brush this is so. There is then a transitional stage where one sees proton structure – some interesting resonances and an effective “size” of the proton (though recently this has been shown to be (spectactularly interestingly) different for electron and muon scattering! (This means (obviously) that the electron and muon have a different effective size on that scale). At much higher energies one begins to see (almost) that characteristic point-like scattering again, from some hard bits in the proton. Rutherford atom all over again. These inner parts have been called “partons”. Initially, this was the basis –incorrect in my view – of making the association of quarks with partons. Problem nowadays is that the three valence quarks carry almost none of the energy-momentum of the proton - - keeps getting less and less as the energies go up. I think this whole quark-parton thing is largely bullshit. Experimentally!
Now Albrecht you make some good points. You are absolutely right to quote the experiments on the relativity of time with clocks and with muons. You are also right that one is not much better off with double loops (or any other kinds of loops) than with two little hard balls. This is a problem for any model of the electron as a loop in space (Viv, John M, Chip, John D – this is why the electron cannot be a little spatial loop – it is not consistent with scattering experiments!). Now this is a problem in space-space but not in more complex spaces as Martin and I have argued (see SPIE electron paper for up to date description of this – from my perspective). It is more proper to say the loops are in “momentum space” though this is not quite correct either. They are in the space(s) they are in – all nine degrees of freedom (dimensions if you like) of them. None of the nine are “space”. For me, they are not little loops in space. In space they are spherical. You are not correct – as the DESY director said and as I said in the “panel” discussion- that one would not “see” this. One would. Only if one of the balls were not there ( I like your get out of saying that!), would one observe what one observes. In my view, however, if it is not there it is not there. I’m open to persuasion if you can give me a mechanism though!
Regards, John W.

________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Dr. Albrecht Giese [genmail at a-giese.de]
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 4:39 PM
To: Richard Gauthier; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] research papers

Richard,

you have asked some questions about my electron model and I am glad to answer them.

Does my model explain the relativistic mass increase of the electron at motion? Yes it does. According to my model the mass of an electron is   m=h(bar) / (Rel*c), where Rel  is the radius for the electron (which is equally valid for all elementary particles). Now, as the binding field in the electron contracts at motion by gamma (as initially found by Heaviside in 1888), also the size of the electron contracts at motion by gamma. So the mass of the electron increases by gamma and also of course its dynamical energy. - That is very simple and elementary.  The same considerations apply for the relativistic momentum of the electron.

(This is all described in my web site www.ag-physics.org/rmass<http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass> ; you can also find it via Google by the search string "origin of mass". There it is within the first two positions of the list, where the other one is of Frank Wilczek; since 10 years we both are struggling to be the number one.)

However, the contraction only occurs in the direction of motion. So the cross section of the electron is not changed by the motion. And in so far this contraction is not able to explain the small size of the electron found in scattering experiments. - Another point is that this small size was also found in scattering experiments at energies smaller than 29 GeV. And, another determination, in the Penning trap the size of the electron turns out to be < 10^-22 m.

So there must be something in the electron which is much smaller than the Compton wavelength. The model of two orbiting sub-particles is an extremely simple model which also explains a lot else.

Regarding the uncertainty relation of Heisenberg, I have a very "technical" understanding of it as I have explained it in our meeting. There is nothing imprecise within the electron itself, only the measurement has limited precision. The reason is simple. Normally an interaction of the electron is an interaction of its de Broglie wave with another object. This wave is a wave packet, the size of which is round about given by the size of the electron-configuration (Compton wavelength); the size of a wave packet is not very precisely defined. And on the other hand, the frequency of a limited packet is not precisely measurable. The relation of both limitations is well known by electric engineers, the rule is sometimes called "Nyquist theorem". Now, as the frequency is related to the energy of the particle, the Nyquist theorem is identical with Heisenberg's uncertainty relation; only the interpretation of quantum theorists is less technical. They assume that the physical situation itself is imprecise, not only the measurement. Here I do not follow the QM interpretation.

Albrecht

Am 26.09.2015 um 19:57 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
Albrecht, Al, Martin et al

   One solution that I think John W, Martin, Chip (I think), Vivian (as I remember) and I all agree on (I’m not sure about John M’s electron model) with our electron models is that the electron (as a circulating light-speed entity) decreases in size with increasing speed of the electron. Just as a photon’s wavelength (and presumably also its transverse size or extent) decreases proportionally as 1/E with a photon’s energy E=hf, a high energy relativistic electron (whose de Broglie wavelength is nearly equal to the wavelength of a high energy photon having the same total energy as the high energy electron) should also decrease its lateral size similarly with its energy. The lateral size of an electron decreases as 1/gamma according to John and Martin due to energy considerations. In my model the radius of the charged photon’s helical trajectory decreases as 1/gamma^2 but with a more detailed extended (internally superluminal) model of the charged photon also decreases as 1/gamma . A 1/gamma decrease is enough to match the high energy (around 29GeV) scattering size of an electron found to be < 10^-18 meters even though the size of the resting electron (on the order of the Compton wavelength) is around 10^-12 - 10^-13 m. So this I think is a solved problem with respect to our models.

    I don’t know if Albrecht’s electron model decreases as 1/gamma with increasing electron speed. I think not. But Albrecht’s model doesn’t I think take into account that the electron’s total energy increases proportionally with gamma and so the frequency of the 2 circulating mass-less particles should also increase proportionally with gamma if the energy of his model is to correspond to the experimentally measured moving electron’s energy E= gamma mc^2 . That should require the radius of the 2-particle orbit to decrease with his electron model’s speed if the 2 orbiting particles are to continue to circulate at light-speed. So Albrecht's model’s size should also decrease at least as 1/gamma with its speed,and the need for the 2 massless particles in his model is unnecessary to explain the small size of the electron at high speeds.  As far as conservation of momentum requiring 2 circulating particles, John W.’s model proposes to solve this with his p-vot which causes the photon to curve into a double loop and produce the electron’s rest mass (as I understand it) and charge. But also the delta x delta p > hbar/2 requirement of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle for detectable variability in position and velocity means that probably for any Compton wavelength electron model the amount of violation of conservation of momentum of a single light-speed photon-like object looping around would not be experimentally detectable (and so allowed since it is not experimentally detected) as being (like a virtual particle in QED) under the wire of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

    Richard

On Sep 26, 2015, at 8:57 AM, John Duffield <<mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>johnduffield at btconnect.com<mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>> wrote:

Albrecht:

In case Martin is tied up, here’s his 1997 paper: <http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf> http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf co-authored with John Williamson.

As regards electron size, it’s field is what it is. In atomic orbitals<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#Electron_properties> electrons “exist as standing waves”. Standing wave, standing field. We can diffract electrons. I think the electron has size like a seismic wave has size. A seismic wave might have an amplitude of 1 metre, and a wavelength of a kilometre. But when it travels from A to B it isn’t just the houses on top of the AB line that shake. Houses shake a hundred miles away. And that seismic wave is still detectable on the other side f the Earth. It’s not totally different for an ocean wave, see this gif<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Deep_water_wave.gif>. The amplitude might be 1m, but that isn’t the size of the wave, nor is the wavelength. The red test particles are still circulating deep below the water.

Try to imagine a wave going round and round, in a  double loop, then make it a tighter loop. Then have a look at some knots<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_knot_theory>. Photon momentum is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a wave propagating linearly at c. When it’s a 511keV wave going round and round at c, we don’t call it a photon any more. But it still exhibits resistance to change-in-motion. Only we don’t call it a momentum any more. We call it mass. Make sure you read this<http://www.tardyon.de/mirror/hooft/hooft.htm>. It’s not the Nobel ‘t Hooft.

Regards
John Duffield

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Albrecht Giese
Sent: 26 September 2015 15:46
To: <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] research papers

Hi Martin, Al, and all,

thank you all for your contributions.

Regarding the size of the electron:

As Al argued in his example of the sun: If the scattered object is passing by without touching, the angular distribution is independent of the size of the object (for the 1/r^2 case). But that changes if the scattered particle hits the body of the "ball". In a last experiment in 2004 at DESY there was an experiment performed in which electrons were scattered against quarks (of a proton). The "common" size of both particles resulted in a bit less than 10^-18 m. This limit is given by the ratio of scattered events which react different from the 1/r^2 rule. - In this experiment it was also found that the electron is not only subject to the electric interaction but also to the strong interaction. I think that this is also important for assessing electron models.

This result of the size seems in clear conflict with the evaluation of Schrödinger and Wilczek using the uncertainty relation. Schroedinger made the following statement to it: "Here I have got the following result for the size of the electron (i.e. the Compton radius). But we know that the electron is point-like. So, I must have an error in my evaluation. However, I do not find this error." So also for Schrödinger this was an unsolvable conflict.

I think that if the electron would be point like on the one hand but oscillate far enough so as to fill the size of the Compton wavelength, this would be a violation of the conservation of momentum. Very clearly, a single object cannot oscillate. That was also obvious for Schrödinger and clearly his reason to call the internal motion "Zitterbewegung". This is a word which does not exist in the German vocabulary of physical terms. But Schrödinger hesitated (by good reason) to use the German word for "oscillation".

On the other hand, if the electron is built by two sub-particles, this solves the problem. The sub-particle is point-like (at least with respect to its charge), but both sub-particles orbit each other, which reserves the momentum law, and the orbital radius is the reduced Compton wavelength. - The argument of Martin that a model of two sub-particles is "refuted by the experiment" is often heart but not applicable to my model. The usual argument is that a sufficient effort has been done to decompose an electron by a strong bombardment. This was also done here at DESY. But in my model the sub-particles have no mass on their own (the mass of the electron is caused by the dynamics of the binding field). And in such a case one of the sub-particles may be accelerated by an arbitrary amount, the other one can always follow without any force coming up. A decomposition by bombardment is therefore never possible. - I have discussed this point with the research director of DESY who was responsible for such experiments, and after at first objecting it, he admitted, that my model is not in conflict with these experiments.

Martin: Where do I find your paper of 1997?

Regarding dilation:

There is a lot of clear indications for dilation. Two examples:
-  The atomic clocks in the GPS satellites are slowed down which has to be compensated for
-  In the Muon storage ring at CERN the lifetime of these Muons was extended by the great amount ca. 250, which was in precise agreement with special relativity.

Contraction, on the other hand, is in so far more a point of interpretation as it cannot be directly measured - in contrast to dilation.

Best wishes
Albrecht

Am 26.09.2015 um 01:48 schrieb <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de> af.kracklauer at web.de<mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>:
Well!  The water I was trying to offer was: might it not be a good idea to distinguish clearly and specifically between the size of a point and the size of the volumn in which this point is insessently moving about.  If your 97 paper does that, my appologies.  Does it?  Forgive me, I have over a couple hundred papers I'd like to have read and digested laying about, I do my best but still can't get to them all.  The chances are better, however, if a paper attracts lots of attention because it predicted something new to be observed empirically.  Did it?

BTW, I did not imply that the work I refered to is better.  But, it (in Rowland's avantar) is certainly as extensive as yours.  In any case, it potentially undermines your "shot-from-the-hip" criticism of Albrecht's program by introducing a feature to which neither you nor John refered to, in my best memory, at San Diego.  My comment was not intended ad hominum, but made on the presumtion that you too have hundreds of unread papers available.

Best,  Al

Gesendet: Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 19:56 Uhr
Von: "Mark, Martin van der" <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com><mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
An: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Betreff: Re: [General] research papers
Al, just read what i wrote. It is not shooting from the hip. I am refering to actual experiments, all cited in the paper i refered to. Further, you are just repeating what i said already. I can only bring you to the water, i cannot make you drink. And then you refer to other doubtfull work, as id it were better. Good luck.
Regards, Martin

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone

Op 25 sep. 2015 om 19:16 heeft "<mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>af.kracklauer at web.de<mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>" <af.kracklauer at web.de<mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>> het volgende geschreven:

Dear Martin,

Perhaps it's my Texas background, but I think I sense some "shoot'n from the hip."

You have not done an experiment, but (at best) a calculation based on some hypothtical input of your choise.  Maybe it's good, maybe not.

The Sun scatters as a point only those projectiles that don't get close.   So far, no scattering off electons has gotten close enough to engage any internal structure, "they" say (I#ll defer to experts up-to-date).  Nevertheless, electrons are in constant motion at or near the speed of light (Zitterbewegung) and therefore at the time scales of the projectiles buzz around (zittern) in a certain amout of space, which seems to me must manifest itself as if there were spacially exteneded structure within the scattering cross-section.  Why not?

Not to defend Albrecht's model as he describes it, but many folks (say Peter Rowlands at Liverpool, for example) model elemtary particles in terms of the partiicle itself interacting with its induced virtual image (denoted by Peter as the "rest of the universe").   This "inducement" is a kind of polarization effect.  Every charge repells all other like charges and attracts all other unlike charges resulting in what can be modeled as a virtual charge of the opposite gender superimposed on itself in the static approximation.  But, because the real situation is fluid, the virtual charge's motion is delayed as caused by finite light speed, so that the two chase each other. Etc. Looks something like Albrecht's pairs.

I too havn't read your 97 paper yet, but I bet it's unlikely that you all took such consideration into account.

Best, Al

Gesendet: Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 18:44 Uhr
Von: "Mark, Martin van der" <<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>>
An: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>, "phys at a-giese.de<UrlBlockedError.aspx>" <<UrlBlockedError.aspx>phys at a-giese.de<mailto:phys at a-giese.de>>
Betreff: Re: [General] research papers
Dear Al, dear Albrecht, dear all,
In the paper John W and I published in 1997, the situation is explained briefly but adequately.
Clearly Albrecht has not read it or, perhaps he did but does not want to understand it because it really destroys his work. This is a double pity, of course, but we are talking science, not sentiment, and I do not want to take away anything from the person you are Albrecht.
The electron has a finite size, of the oder of the Compton wavelength, but the Coulomb interaction is perfectly matched in ANY experiment, which means there are no internal bits to the electron and that it behaves as a point-LIKE scatterer, not a to be mistaken by a POINT as is done most of the time. Note that even the sun has point-like scattering for all comets that go round it, its gravitational field seems to come from the centre of the sun. Until you hit other bits. There are no other bits for the electron, but at very high energy the 4-momentum exchange combined with the resolving power at that high energy make that a Compton-size object CANNOT be resolved in principle, if and only if it is of electromagnetic origin.
The electron is a single thing, of electromagnetic origin only, there is NO OTHER WAY to fit the experimental results.
Well, maybe there is another way, but I cannot see it. Certainly it is not two parts rotating about each other, because that is refuted by experiment, all those models can go in the bin and are a waste of time and energy.
Regards, Martin

Dr. Martin B. van der Mark
Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare

Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven
High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)
Prof. Holstlaan 4
5656 AE  Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 40 2747548

From: General [<mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de> af.kracklauer at web.de<mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
Sent: vrijdag 25 september 2015 18:05
To: phys at a-giese.de<mailto:phys at a-giese.de>; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<UrlBlockedError.aspx>
Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] research papers

Gentelmen:

Shouldn't a clear and explicit distinction between the "size" of the electron and the "extent" of its Zitterbewegung be made.   My best info, perhaps not up-to-date, is that although scattering experiments put an upper limit on the size (10^-19m), there exists in fact no evidence that the electron has any finite size whatsoever.  This is in contrast to the space it consumes with its Zitter-motion, which is what would be calculated using QM (Heisenberg uncertanty mostly).    Seems to me that most of what folks theorize about is the latter, without saying so, and perhaps often without even recognizing it.  However, since the Zitter volumn will cause electrons to be moving targets, it must also have some effect on its scatering cross-section too.  I don't know how this is sorted out in scattering calculations---if at all.  (Albrectht?)

Correct me if I'm wrong.  Best,  Al

Gesendet: Freitag, 25. September 2015 um 15:06 Uhr
Von: "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <<mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>genmail at a-giese.de<mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>>
An: "Richard Gauthier" <<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>>, phys at a-giese.de<mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
Cc: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Betreff: Re: [General] research papers
Hello Richard,

according to present mainstream physics the size of the electron is not more than 10^-19 m. This is concluded from scattering experiments where the size of the electric charge is the quantity of influence.

As present mainstream physics (including the QED of Feynman) assume that the electron has no internal structure and that the electric force is the only one effective, this size is identified with the size of the whole electron. This is in severe conflict with the calculations of Schrödinger and of Wilczek based on QM.

I have the impression that several of us (including me) have models of the electron which assume some extension roughly compatible with the QM calculations.

Some details of my model related to this question: Here the electron is built by 2 sub-particles ("basic particles") which orbit each other at c. The electric force is not the only force inside. The radius following from the magnetic moment is the reduced Compton wavelength, and the mass of the electron follows with high precision from this radius. At motion the size decreases by the relativistic factor gamma, and so the mass increases by this factor. - However there was always a point of a certain weakness in my model: I could not prove that the electron is built by just 2 sub-particles carrying 1/2 elementary charge each. Now Wilczek writes in his article that in certain circumstances - superconductivity in the presence of a magnetic field - the electron is decomposed into two halves. This is the result of measurements. How can this happen with a point-like particle? This is a mystery for Wilczek. But in the view of my model it is no mystery but quite plausible. It only needs now a quantitative calculation of this process which I presently do not have.

All the best to you
Albrecht

Am 23.09.2015 um 19:02 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
Hello Albrecht,
   Yes, all of our electron models here have a radius related to the Compton wavelength. Dirac’s zitterbewegung amplitude is 1/2 of the reduced Compton wavelength, or hbar/2mc , which is the radius of the generic circulating charged photon’s trajectory in my circulating spin 1/2 charged photon model for a resting electron. That radius decreases by a factor of gamma^2 in a moving electron. Does yours? Incorporating a more detailed spin 1/2 charged photon model with the generic model could bring the model's radius up to the reduced Compton wavelength hbar/mc.
    all the best,
         Richard

On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:13 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese <<mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>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> 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 <<mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>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-mail wolf 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 words quantum, 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 ½ h units 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 value ½ h for 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 10120 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 c3/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, h and eo 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 eo 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>mailto:genmail at a-giese.de]
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM
To: John Macken <mailto:john at macken.com> <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>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:

<http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass>www.ag-physics.org/rmass<http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass>
<http://www.ag-physics.org/electron>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>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>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 at phys 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>