[General] De Broglie Wave
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Tue Feb 23 06:26:32 PST 2016
Hi Wolf,
who is the addressee of your mail? Where do you see a specific difficulty?
With respect to my first step of explaining inertia caused by extension:
Was that explanation understandable? I would appreciate to have a feedback.
Albrecht
Am 22.02.2016 um 21:58 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
> Yes I think Al has described things well.
> My only additional comment is not to feel rejected and disappointed.
> It is very difficult to write from the perspective of a new reader
> when one has been involved in ones own ideas for a long time.
> It is already a major break through in communication when people have
> enough interest to point out what they do not understand about your work.
>
> wolf
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
> On 2/19/2016 5:15 PM, af.kracklauer at web.de wrote:
>> Hi Albrecht & all:
>> Let me formulate Wolfgang's point in my prefered style. In telling
>> your story, for my taste, you do not follow a structure in accord
>> with formal logic. That is, you do not FIRST list all of your
>> hypothetical inputs, which are things (mysteries) that you do not
>> intend to prove or explain. Then with something like sylogisims
>> prove or deduce new outputs, i.e., the benefits of the story. In
>> stead, you tell a chapter or so of your story, at which point further
>> development requires a so far unused hypothtical new input, and
>> then, zipp!, in she goes, without mostly, proper introduction. In
>> the end, the reader or consumer of your story is unsure that the
>> number of benefits is actually larger than the number of inputs,
>> thereby making the effort to ingest and digest the complexitites of
>> the story worth the effort. It's like reading a poorly composed
>> Russian novel: the reader loses all coherance with respect to
>> characters coming and going and has the feeling of being swept along
>> as if in a megacity's rush hour subway throng!
>> Also, some of your points are manifestly dimentional analysis---they
>> prove nothing new, they just reshuffel the building blocks. Some see
>> this a proof of internal consistency, but without recognizing that
>> the consistency thereby proved, if any, is within the inputs taken
>> from previous work (often tautological definitions of terms), most
>> often somebody else's. Such consistency is not to the credit of the
>> results of the supposed new structure/story.
>> For what it's worth, Al
>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 19. Februar 2016 um 21:14 Uhr
>> *Von:* "Wolfgang Baer" <wolf at nascentinc.com>
>> *An:* "Albrecht Giese" <phys at a-giese.de>
>> *Cc:* "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'"
>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] De Broglie Wave
>> Albrecht:
>>
>> Thank you for , yes more of an explanation than I was expecting.
>> And I certainly agree with your motives and your examples from high
>> energy physics.
>> You are being motivated by all the applications to simplify physics
>> and see this reward immediately in front of you.
>>
>> I and it looks like Kracklauer are in a different position. We first
>> see a model we cannot understand that eliminates inertial mass and
>> the centrifugal force which is largely responsible for holding things
>> apart in he old concepts. We must understand your model first before
>> we can appreciate the benefits.
>>
>> >From my point of view you have not described the nature of the two
>> particles or the nature of the force that holds them in their orbits.
>>
>> If they are charges, how do charges perhaps "assemblies of charges
>> build multi-pole field" that maintains incredible stability of a
>> minimum energy at a specific distance when moving in a circle at the
>> speed of light?
>> What is the nature of the external force that acts on one charge and
>> not the other to generate the internal resistance you identify as
>> inertia?
>>
>> You must answer these simple technical questions first even if the
>> answers are not simple.
>>
>> best wishes,
>> wolf
>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>> Research Director
>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>> On 2/18/2016 7:35 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>
>> Wolf,
>>
>> do I explain one mystery by another one? I think that the
>> situation should be envisioned in a different way.
>>
>> Our physical understanding and our ongoing follows the
>> reductionism. That means that we explain physical phenomena on a
>> specific level by use of facts, which are taken as facts on a
>> more fundamental level. And later the more fundamental level has
>> to be explained. Example from astronomy: Kepler's law was at
>> first stated as a formula, then it could be explained by Newton's
>> laws of motion and of gravity. Next step now in reductionism is
>> to explain, how the law of gravity and the law of motion is caused.
>>
>> I am using the fact that there are forces in physics which bind
>> objects to each other and at the same time cause a distance
>> between these objects. This fact is universal in physics. If
>> elementary particles or atoms or molecules would not keep
>> distances then our whole universe could be but into a ball of,
>> say, 10 meters diameter. - In few cases the distance can be
>> explained by a planetary model, in most cases (in particle
>> physics) this is not the solution. The bind of atoms in a
>> molecule is an example. And quarks are bound to build a proton or
>> neutron, and this is not caused by a planetary process. The size
>> of the nucleon is by a factor of >1000 greater than the one of a
>> quark. Who causes the distance? As it is not a planetary system
>> then there must be a force between the quarks which just causes
>> this distance even though it binds them. - I do not think that
>> the bind of atoms in a molecule are a mystery. To my knowledge
>> the (two) types of bind are well understood.
>>
>> I assume the same for the sub-particles in my model. And a fact
>> is that a distance causes inertia without the need of further
>> assumptions (except the finiteness of c).
>>
>> I have assumed a certain shape of that field which leads to
>> Newton's law of inertia. - Now one can ask how this field is
>> built. I have assumed that it is caused by a collection of
>> charges. This is my attempt to have an explanation on the next
>> more fundamental level. Perhaps I should not publish such
>> thoughts. Necessary is only the field as it is. And if I stick at
>> this level now, I am not weaker than Main Stream physics, as they
>> also assume distances without any explanation for it. (Yes, they
>> talk about "principles", but that does not mean explanations.)
>>
>> I use this configuration it explain inertia. It is a fundamental
>> explanation that any extended object must have inertia. An
>> extended object cannot exist without having inertia. - Another
>> fundamental explanation of inertia is the Higgs model (if one
>> likes QM as explanation). But Higgs is lacking by the fact that
>> measurements deny the Higgs field. And the theory is very
>> incomplete as it does not give us a result for particles for
>> which everything is known except the mass. - The other models of
>> inertia discussed here are not fundamental in so far as they
>> refer to momentum, which is physically identical to inertia.
>>
>> Why does a charge not radiate when orbiting? In my view it is a
>> fundamental error in present physics that an accelerated
>> electrical charge radiates. This is concluded from the Maxwell
>> equations. But Maxwell has given us a formal mathematical system
>> which in the daily work of a technician works fine, but it does
>> not tell us the physics behind. So he has postulated a symmetry
>> between electricity and magnetism. Completely wrong as we
>> understand it meanwhile. Magnetism is a relativistic side effect
>> of the electrical field. Very well explained by a video clip of
>> veritasium:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0
>>
>> An electric charge does not "know" what acceleration is. It only
>> "knows" what an electrical field is. And if this field changes
>> then the charge will radiate. That is the reason that an electron
>> normally radiates at acceleration. Because during acceleration
>> the electron is relativistically distorted. This causes that one
>> sub-particle senses a changing field from the other partner.
>>
>> What is strong force? What is electrical force? I have no
>> explanation for that (reductionistic) level where charges are
>> caused. Why do I say that the force in my model is the strong
>> force? The reconstruction of the force from a known mass shows
>> that this force is at least by a factor of 300 stronger than the
>> electrical one. And the only force with this strength which I
>> know is the strong one. - Perhaps I should keep this open.
>>
>> Is this more like an explanation which you are expecting?
>>
>> Albrecht
>>
>> Am 18.02.2016 um 05:46 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>
>> Albrecht:
>> I tend to be skeptical as well about the gravity wave
>> announcement.
>> But then I generally discount a lot of high energy work since
>> without extremely detailed knowledge it is hard to trust
>> anything as complex and deeply imbedded in statistics.
>>
>> Regarding your model I basically have the same problem as
>> Kracklauer, is your particle model not simply a substitution
>> of one mystery with another?
>>
>> otherwise I'll just follow up on one question. You said
>> "They( the two charges) have assemblies of charges to build a
>> multi-pole field which has a minimum of potential at some
>> distance."
>>
>> So does this mean that the two particle drawings you publish
>> are approximations to assemblies of charges?
>> I and probably anyone would need a clear derivation of the
>> force curve
>>
>> Although molecular forces gives an analogy such an analogy
>> assumes all the things you are trying to explain
>> (mass, inertia, etc.) and even that makes the whole question
>> of how atoms are held together a pandora's box of mystery.
>> why no radiation from a bound accelerating electron, why the
>> exclusion principle in the first place. Principles principles
>> everywhere.
>>
>> Wolf
>>
>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>> Research Director
>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>
>> On 2/14/2016 12:43 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>
>> Hi Wolf,
>>
>> my answers in the text.
>> Am 12.02.2016 um 21:28 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>
>> Albrecht
>>
>> What do you think of the gravity wave detection
>> announcement?
>>
>> I would be happier with this discovery if some other lab
>> would have seen it as well. They say that the
>> significance is better than 5 sigma. That is in fact a
>> lot. However we still have to believe it. The chirp did
>> have a length of 200 ms. Such "chirp" signals are in some
>> way similar. During 100 days there are approx. 50 million
>> windows of 200 ms. So, a coincidence may happen. Of
>> course one has to assume that this was taken into account
>> by the team. But I would feel better to see details.
>>
>> Another uncomfortable feeling is that it has taken only
>> 200 ms to merge two black holes with masses of approx. 50
>> suns. Can this happen that quickly? We know from
>> Einstein's theory that any temporal process in the
>> vicinity of the event horizon slows down until no motion.
>> I see this as a strong argument against such short time.
>> I have asked this question in the forum of the German
>> version of Nature. My question was not published. - Very
>> funny!
>>
>>
>> thank you for your answers, and I appreciate your
>> time constraints, we are all busy so answer when you can.
>>
>> There are a few comments
>> a) so your two particles are two oppositely charged
>> charges?
>>
>> They have assemblies of charges to build a multi-pole
>> field which has a minimum of potential at some distance.
>> That is similar to the situation in a molecule where
>> atoms are bound to each other. But the force here is
>> stronger.
>>
>> b) Calibration is an after the fact fitting that is
>> not a bad technique but cannot be considered first
>> principle derivation.
>> In addition the force you define has an attraction,
>> repulsion and a minimum that keeps the particles in a
>> fixed orbit when not disturbed.
>> How is this minimum established out of rotating
>> electric charges? Are we talking a kind of strong
>> force or something new? What about magnetic forces
>> between two moving charges.
>>
>> >From my model it follows that the force between the
>> sub-particles is ca. 300 - 500 times the electrical
>> force. To have a better precision I have used the
>> measurements to determine Planck's constant or
>> equivalently the measurements to determine the magnetic
>> moment. From comparison with measurements it follows that
>> my constant is S = h*c. In my understanding this is the
>> square of the field constant of the strong force . - This
>> is however not the position of Main Stream. On the other
>> hand, Chip Akins has just yesterday presented ideas which
>> conform to this result.
>>
>>
>> c) "Origin of Mass" in Figure 6.1 shows the drawing
>> of a retarded interaction which I think is used to
>> explain the 1/2 factor in spin.
>> However the effective radius is now smaller and thus
>> if your potential curve fig 2.1 is accurate the
>> particles would be repelled along the retarded
>> potential line. Would you not have to show a radial
>> and tangential component?
>>
>> It would be at the end better to show a radial and a
>> tangential component. But independent of this, the
>> effective distance between the charges is less than twice
>> the radius. But this is covered by a fixed correction
>> factor which is implicitly taken into account by the
>> calibration. This calibration would mean nothing if it
>> would be used only for the electron. But the result is
>> then valid for all leptons and for all quarks (in a
>> limited way also for the photon.)
>>
>>
>> e) should an outside force impulse when the particles
>> are aligned along the force vector effecting one
>> particle first and then the other producing your
>> inertia result. However when the particle separation
>> is perpendicular both particles would see the same
>> force. If its an electric impulse on plus and
>> negative charge it would introduce a rotation. This
>> introduces an asymmetry.
>> Is this eliminated by averaging ? If so your
>> derivation is an instantaneous approximation and if a
>> smeared out calculation is made would much of your
>> result not cancel or show oscillations?
>>
>> The electrical charges on the sub-particles have the same
>> sign in all cases, 2x 1/2 elementary charge in case of
>> the electron. So, an external electrical force does not
>> impose an angular momentum or an asymmetry. The force
>> needed for acceleration depends on the direction. It has
>> to be integrated over all directions. This is normally
>> however not necessary as this is also covered by the
>> calibration. Only in the moment when I take into account
>> the general influence of the electric charges to
>> calculate the Landé factor, the directions have to be
>> taken into account more individually. I my according
>> calculation I do it and the result is the correct factor.
>>
>> Best, Albrecht
>>
>>
>> best,
>> Wolf
>>
>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>> Research Director
>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>
>> On 2/12/2016 6:28 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>
>> Wolf,
>>
>> I apologize if I have not answered questions
>> which you have asked. I am preparing for a
>> conference where I will give 7 contributions and
>> that keeps me quite busy.
>>
>> I think that I have already answered some of the
>> questions which you are asking in this mail. But
>> no problem, I shall do it again.
>>
>> You have looked at my web site "the Origin of
>> Gravity". My model of gravity uses (and needs)
>> this particle model, at least certain properties
>> of it. But otherwise the fact of inertia has
>> nothing to do with gravity.
>>
>> To start with your questions regarding inertial
>> mass: The basic point is that any extended object
>> necessarily has inertia. Just for this fact -
>> without details of parameters - there are no
>> preconditions needed except the assumption that
>> there are forces which cause the object to exist
>> and to have an extension, and that these forces
>> propagate at speed of light c.
>> I have explained details earlier. It is also
>> explained as a step by step process on my web
>> site "The Origin of Mass". So I do not repeat the
>> basic explanation again here. But I can do so if
>> you (ore someone else) will ask for it. - But
>> this is the fundamental and essential fact.
>>
>> Next answers in the text below.
>> Am 10.02.2016 um 20:28 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>
>> Albrecht;
>> Sorry to mistake your feelings it sounded
>> like you were getting frustrated at not being
>> understood.
>>
>> However I'm getting frustrated since I've
>> read much of your work and have asked
>> questions which have not been answered.
>> Perhaps they have not been clear or gotten
>> lost, so here they are again.
>> Ref: Albrecht;
>> Sorry to mistake your feelings it sounded
>> like you were getting frustrated at not being
>> understood.
>>
>> However I'm getting frustrated since I've
>> read much of your work and have asked
>> questions which perhaps have not been clear
>> or gotten lost, so here they are again ref:
>> The Origin of Gravity Figure 3.1: Basic
>> Particle Model
>> It looks like you are presenting a new
>> explanation of inertial mass with a theory
>> which has a large number of assumptions:
>> a) a new set of orbiting particles that are
>> made of What?
>>
>> The minimum assumptions for my model is that an
>> elementary particle has an extension; as said
>> above in the beginning. To further detail it, I
>> assume that the sub-particles have charges which
>> cause a binding field. This field has also to
>> achieve a distance between the sub-particles.
>> (Such a field structure is known in physics in
>> the binding of atoms to molecules; but there it
>> is caused by a different type of charge.) In the
>> case of electrically charged elementary particles
>> there are also electrical charges in the
>> sub-particles. The sub-particles may have further
>> properties, but those are not essential for this
>> model.
>>
>> b) a force between those particles you made
>> up to fit your desired result, where does
>> this force come from?
>> why is the minimum not a
>> combination of two forces like a coulomb
>> attraction and centrifugal repulsion
>>
>> I have only assumed that there are charges in it,
>> positive and negative ones (to cause attraction
>> and repulsion). The strength of the force is
>> determines later by the calibration.
>> Centrifugal repulsion is of course not possible
>> as it would need that the sub-particles have
>> inertial mass each. I do not assume an inertial
>> mass as a precondition as this would subvert my
>> goal to explain mass fundamentally. (This also
>> conforms to the position of present main stream
>> physics.)
>>
>>
>> c) assume this force also propagates at light
>> speed "c" and Why does rapid rotation not
>> change the interaction energy curve?
>> I always have trouble understanding
>> the stability of particles rotating at or
>> near the speed of light when the force signals
>> are also moving at this speed.
>>
>> With this respect my model is presented a bit
>> simplified in most of my drawings. If one assumes
>> that the sub-particles move at c and also the
>> field (maybe represented by exchange particles)
>> moves at c, then the force coming from one
>> particle does not reach the other sub-particle
>> when it is opposite in the circuit but at a
>> different position. This changes the calculation
>> by a certain, fixed factor. But this effect is
>> compensated by the calibration. - You find a
>> drawing showing this on my site "Origin of Mass"
>> in Figure 6.1 .
>>
>> d) a media or space of propagation between
>> those particles that is flat
>>
>> I find it practical to assume that the forces are
>> realized by exchange particles (also moving at
>> c). In a space without gravity they move
>> undisturbed. If there is gravity then the speed
>> of light is reduced which changes the forces a
>> little, little bit.
>>
>> e) a force on one of the particles from an
>> outside agent that does not effect the other
>> particle
>> so you can calculate the reaction force.
>> Would the outside force not introduce
>> asymmetries depending on the angle of incidence?
>>
>> If there is a force from the outside (like an
>> electrical one) it will touch both sub-particles.
>> There might be a very small time delay reaching
>> both. And it will be in practice a very, very
>> small influence in relation to the forces within
>> the particle. The fact that /both /sub-particles
>> are affected will not change the process of
>> inertia as these forces are always very weak in
>> relation to the forces inside.
>>
>>
>> My question is not that your calculations are
>> wrong but given the above hidden assumptions
>> 1) why would I not simply say inertial mass
>> is an intrinsic property of matter?
>>
>> This "intrinsic mass" was the old understanding
>> in physics. Since several decades also Main
>> Stream has changed its opinion to it (otherwise
>> there would not have been a search for the
>> Higgs). And with this assumption of an intrinsic
>> a-priory-mass we would not have an explanation
>> for the further properties of a particle (like
>> spin and magnetic moment). Particularly no
>> explanation for the relativistic behaviour like
>> relativistic mass increase and the relation E =
>> mc^2. These relations are results of this model.
>> (Einstein and QM have given us these relations,
>> but a physical cause was never given by both).
>>
>> 2) What advantage or new phenomena are you
>> predicting?
>>
>> The advantage of my model is similar like with
>> Copernicus: We have physical explanations for
>> facts which we already knew, but up to now
>> without an explanation. So a better understanding
>> of physics in general. To be able to predict
>> something is always the greatest situation. Up to
>> now I do not have any in mind. (Also Copernicus
>> did not have any, even though he has in fact
>> caused a great step forward.)
>>
>> 3) It looks like you are throwing out Mach's
>> Principle since the existence of distant masses
>> has no effect on your
>> calculations since inertia is now still
>> intrinsic to your orbiting particles rather
>> than a point mass
>>
>> A point mass does not exist in my understanding.
>> Regarding Mach's Principle: I assume like Mach
>> that there is a fundamental frame in this world.
>> Maybe caused by distant masses, I think it is
>> better to relate it to the Big Bang. That means
>> for my model that the speed of light effective in
>> the particle is related to a specific fixed
>> frame. - This is in contrast to Einstein but in
>> accordance to the Lorentzian interpretation of
>> relativity.
>>
>>
>> That said I agree with most of your criticism
>> of current interpretations, the most
>> interesting for me is the simplicity
>> introduced by the use of a variable speed of
>> light and a refraction model to explain light
>> bending.
>>
>> Thank you! (The latter point has to do with
>> gravity, not with inertia.)
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Wolf
>>
>>
>> If you have further question or concerns, please
>> ask again. I appreciate very much that you have
>> worked through my model
>>
>> Best
>> Albrecht
>>
>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>> Research Director
>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>
>> On 2/10/2016 5:13 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>
>> Hi Wolf,
>>
>> why do you think that I am frustrated?
>> Why should I? Since I found 17 years ago
>> the mechanism of inertia, which functions
>> so straight and logical with precise
>> results, I am continuously happy. And the
>> appreciation by interested physicists is
>> great. Since 14 years my site about mass
>> in internationally #1 in the internet.
>> Only sometimes the mass site of Nobel
>> Prize winner Frank Wilzcek is one step
>> higher. But that is good companionship.
>>
>> True that it is a problem with Main
>> Stream. They do not object but just do
>> not care. They love the Higgs model even
>> though it is proven not to work. - It
>> just need patience. I still have it.
>>
>> Yes, quantum numbers work fine, but they
>> are physically little or not founded. It
>> is similar to the known Pauli Principle.
>> That also works, but nobody knows why.
>> And the bad thing is that nobody from
>> Main Stream concerned about this
>> non-understanding. That is the biggest
>> weakness in today's physics in my view.
>>
>> Albrecht
>>
>> Am 09.02.2016 um 20:35 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>
>> I can feel your frustration, Albrecht,
>> The oldies are probably all wrong,
>> but it's important to remember that
>> right or wrong they give us the
>> platform from which to see farther.
>> "standing on the shoulders of
>> others", and right or wrong they give
>> us something tangible to argue about
>> and what quantum numbers have done
>> for us to organize chemistry is amazing.
>>
>> wolf
>>
>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>> Research Director
>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>
>> On 2/9/2016 10:18 AM, Albrecht Giese
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Al,
>>
>> the choice of de Broglie is not
>> suboptimal, it is clearly wrong.
>> Badly wrong. The wave he has
>> introduced does not exist, and if
>> it would exist its behaviour
>> would cause a physical behaviour
>> which is in conflict with
>> measurements (if those are
>> comprehensively done).
>>
>> I agree with you that the main
>> object now is to move forward.
>> But we will not move successfully
>> forward if we carry millstones
>> with us. De Broglie's wave is a
>> millstone. I just had a look into
>> a new textbook about QM, which
>> was highly recommended by our
>> university. It makes full use of
>> de Broglie's relation between
>> momentum and wavelength, so this
>> is unfortunately not just history.
>>
>> But looking into the history:
>> Bohr, Sommerfeld and others have
>> used the result of de Broglie to
>> explain quantum numbers.
>> Particularly the quantisation of
>> the angular momentum on atomic
>> shells is explained by "standing
>> waves" where the wavelength is
>> the one defined by dB. This
>> obviously hides the true reason
>> of this quantisation, but as
>> anyone believes that the Ansatz
>> using de Broglie is right, nobody
>> is looking for the correct cause.
>> - This is one of the reasons for
>> our sticking physics.
>>
>> Tschüss back
>> Albrecht
>>
>> Am 09.02.2016 um 14:57 schrieb
>> af.kracklauer at web.de:
>>
>> Hi Albrecht:
>> As you fully know, the very
>> same idea can be expressed in
>> various languages. This is
>> true of physics also. The
>> very same structure can be
>> attached to variuos words and
>> images. I do not defend
>> deBroglie's choice of words
>> and images. I too find his
>> choice suboptimal and
>> somewhat contrdictory. So
>> what? He was playing his
>> hand at that time with the
>> hand he was delt at that
>> time. Since then, other
>> ideas have been found in the
>> deck, as it were. I find
>> that, without changing any of
>> his math, one can tell a
>> story that is vastly less
>> etherial and mysterious and,
>> depending on the reader's
>> depth of analysis, less
>> self-contradictory. I think
>> my story is the one DeBrogle
>> would have told if he had
>> been inspired by some facits
>> of SED. And, some people
>> have a greater affinty and
>> interest in abstract
>> structures, in particular
>> when their mathematical
>> redintion seems to work, that
>> for the stories told for
>> their explication. This is
>> particularly true of all
>> things QM.
>> Anyway, the main object now
>> (2016) is to move forward,
>> not critique historical
>> personalitites. So, I'm
>> trying to contribute to this
>> discussion by adding what I
>> know now, and what I have
>> found to be useful. We are
>> "doing" physics, not history.
>> Let's make new errors, not
>> just grind away on the old ones!
>> BTW, to my info, both Dirac
>> and Schrödinger would agree
>> that deBroglie proposed some
>> not too cogent arguments
>> regarding the nature of
>> QM-wave functions. Still, the
>> best there at that time. All
>> the same, they too went to
>> their graves without having
>> found a satisfactory
>> interpretation. SED throws
>> some new ingredients into the
>> mix.
>> Tschuss, Al
>> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 09.
>> Februar 2016 um 13:41 Uhr
>> *Von:* "Albrecht Giese"
>> <genmail at a-giese.de>
>> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
>> *Cc:*
>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org,
>> "Richard Gauthier"
>> <richgauthier at gmail.com>
>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] De
>> Broglie Wave
>> Hi Al,
>>
>> I have the impression that
>> you have a solution for
>> particle scattering which is
>> in some way related to the
>> idea of de Broglie. (I also
>> have of course a solution).
>> But was this the goal of our
>> discussion and of my original
>> contribution? It was not! My
>> objection was de Broglie's
>> original idea as stated in
>> his thesis and as taken over
>> by Schrödinger and Dirac.
>>
>> You have a lot of elements in
>> your argumentation which I do
>> not find in the thesis of de
>> Broglie. (There is e.g.
>> nothing at dB about SED ore
>> background.)
>>
>> The essential point of our
>> discussion is the meaning of
>> his wave - and his
>> wavelength. I think it is
>> very obvious from his thesis
>> (which you clearly know) that
>> his "fictitious wave"
>> accompanies a particle like
>> the electron/all of the
>> time/. There is no
>> interaction mentioned except
>> that there is an observer at
>> rest who measures the
>> frequency of the particle.
>> But without influencing the
>> particle.
>>
>> Now it is normal knowledge
>> that a frequency and as well
>> a wavelength appears changed
>> for an observer who is in
>> motion. This is caused by the
>> Doppler effect. But the
>> Doppler effect will never
>> cause that a finite
>> wavelength changes to
>> Infinite if an observer moves
>> at some speed unequal to c.
>> But just that happens to the
>> wave invented by de Broglie.
>> It follows the equation
>>
>> lambda = h/(m*v) where v is
>> the speed difference between
>> the particle and the observer
>> (to say it this time this
>> way). And this is in conflict
>> to any physics we know.
>>
>> Best, Albrecht
>>
>> Am 08.02.2016 um 17:20
>> schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>>
>> Hi Albrecht:
>> Your challenge is easy!
>> In fact my last responce
>> covered it. The RELEVANT
>> velocity is the relative
>> velocity between the
>> particle and the slit;
>> not that between the
>> observer-particle or
>> observer-slit. An
>> observer will see all
>> kinds of distortions of
>> the events, starting with
>> simple persepctive due to
>> being at some distance
>> from the slit and its
>> registration screen. In
>> additon this observer
>> will see those deB waves
>> affecting the particle
>> (NOT from the particle,
>> nor from the slit, but
>> from the universal
>> background there before
>> either the particle or
>> slit came into being) as
>> perspectively-relativistically
>> distorted (twin-clock
>> type distortion). BUT,
>> the observer will still
>> see the same over-all
>> background because the
>> totality of background
>> signals (not just those
>> to which this particle is
>> tuned), i.e., its
>> spectral energy density,
>> is itself Lorentz
>> invariant. That is, the
>> observer's motion does
>> not enable it to
>> empirically distinguish
>> between the background in
>> the various frames, nor
>> does the background
>> engender friction forces.
>> You have got to get your
>> head around the idea that
>> deB waves are independant
>> of particles whatever
>> their frame.
>> Schrördinger did toy with
>> some aspects that
>> deBroglie used, but never
>> did succeed in
>> rationalizing his eq. in
>> those or any other terms.
>> For him, when died, wave
>> functions were
>> ontologically completely
>> mysterious. From SED
>> proponents, I'm told, my
>> thoughts in #7 on
>> www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com,
>> are unique in formulating
>> S's eq. in terms of deB
>> concepts. Try it, maybe
>> you'll like it.
>> There are other SED-type
>> stories too, but as they
>> are based on diffusion
>> (parabolic, not
>> hyperbolic) precesses, I
>> find them self contradictory.
>> ciao, Al
>> *Gesendet:* Montag, 08.
>> Februar 2016 um 141 Uhr
>> *Von:* "Albrecht Giese"
>> <genmail at a-giese.de>
>> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
>> *Cc:*
>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org,
>> "Richard Gauthier"
>> <richgauthier at gmail.com>
>> *Betreff:* Re: [General]
>> De Broglie Wave
>> Hi Al,
>>
>> if you follow de Broglie,
>> you should have an
>> explanation for the
>> following experiment
>> (here again):
>>
>> Electrons move at 0.1 c
>> towards the double slit.
>> Behind the double slit
>> there is an interference
>> pattern generated, which
>> in the frame of the slit
>> follows the rule of de
>> Broglie. But now there is
>> an observer also moving
>> at 0.1 c parallel to the
>> beam of electrons. In his
>> frame the electrons have
>> momentum=0 and so
>> wavelength=infinite. That
>> means: No interference
>> pattern. But there is in
>> fact a pattern which does
>> not disappear just
>> because there is another
>> observer. And the moving
>> observer will see the
>> pattern. - This is a
>> falsification of de
>> Broglie's rule. What else?
>>
>> The understanding that
>> the de Broglie wave is a
>> property of the particle
>> (even though depending on
>> their speed, but not on
>> an interaction) was not
>> my idea but the one of
>> Schrödinger and Dirac and
>> many others. Also by de
>> Broglie himself.
>>
>> Ciao Albrecht
>>
>> Am 08.02.2016 um 03:30
>> schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>>
>> Hi Albrecht:
>> BUT, the laws of
>> Physics for "being"
>> in a frame are not
>> the laws for
>> interacting between
>> frames! The deB.
>> wave is not a feature
>> of a particle in its
>> own frame, but a
>> feature of the
>> interaction of such a
>> particle with at
>> least one other
>> particle in another
>> frame. When the two
>> frames are moving
>> with respect to each
>> other, then the
>> features of the
>> interaction cannot be
>> Lorentz invariants.
>> When one particle is
>> interacting with
>> another particle (or
>> ensemble---slit say)
>> the relevant physics
>> is determined by the
>> deB wave in that
>> sitation, whatever it
>> looks like to an
>> observer in a third
>> frame with yet
>> different relative
>> velocities. It is a
>> perspective effect: a
>> tree is the same
>> ontological size in
>> fact no matter how
>> small it appears to
>> distant observers.
>> Observed diminished
>> size(s) cannot be
>> "invriant."
>> Appearances =/= ,,so
>> sein''.
>> You have gotten your
>> head stuck on the
>> idea that deB. waves
>> are characteristics
>> intrinsic to
>> particles in an of
>> themselves.
>> Recalibrate! DeB
>> waves are
>> charactteristics of
>> the mutual
>> interaction of particles.
>> Best, Al
>> *Gesendet:* Sonntag,
>> 07. Februar 2016 um
>> 22:10 Uhr
>> *Von:* "Albrecht
>> Giese"
>> <genmail at a-giese.de>
>> *An:*
>> af.kracklauer at web.de
>> *Cc:*
>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org,
>> "Richard Gauthier"
>> <richgauthier at gmail.com>
>> *Betreff:* Re:
>> [General] De Broglie Wave
>> Hi Al,
>>
>> at one of your points
>> I really disagree.
>> The physical laws
>> have to be fulfilled
>> in every frame. That
>> means that all
>> physical processes
>> have to obey the same
>> laws in all frames.
>> So also the process
>> at the double slit.
>> But the rule given by
>> de Broglie looks
>> correct in only one
>> frame, that is the
>> frame where the
>> double slit is at
>> rest. For an observer
>> in motion the
>> diffraction pattern
>> looks very similar as
>> for the observer at
>> rest, but for the
>> observer in motion
>> the results according
>> to de Broglie are
>> completely different,
>> because the momentum
>> of the particle is
>> different in a wide
>> range in the frame of
>> a moving observer and
>> so is the wavelength
>> assigned to the particle.
>>
>> The specific case: At
>> electron scattering,
>> the observer
>> co-moving with the
>> electron will see a
>> similar pattern as
>> the observer at rest,
>> but de Broglie says
>> that for this
>> observer there does
>> not exist any
>> pattern. That is
>> strongly incorrect.
>>
>> The Schrödinger
>> equation and also the
>> Dirac function should
>> have correct results
>> in different frames,
>> at least at
>> non-relativistic
>> speeds. This
>> requirement is
>> clearly violated
>> through their use of
>> de Broglie's rule.
>>
>> Grüße
>> Albrecht
>>
>> PS: Your article
>> refers to "Stochastic
>> Electrodynamics".
>> That is in my
>> knowledge not
>> standard physics and
>> so a new assumption.
>>
>> Am 07.02.2016 um
>> 19:03 schrieb
>> af.kracklauer at web.de:
>>
>> Hi Albrecht:
>> In my view the
>> story in my paper
>> has no new
>> assunptions,
>> rather new words
>> for old
>> assumptions. As
>> I, along with
>> most others, see
>> it, there is no
>> conflict with
>> experiment, but a
>> less than fully
>> transparent
>> explantion for
>> experimental
>> observations
>> (particle beam
>> diffrction)
>> otherwise
>> unexplained. At
>> the time of
>> writing, and
>> nowadays too
>> (although I'd to
>> think that my
>> paper
>> rationalizes
>> DeB's story) it
>> was the most
>> widely accepted
>> story for this
>> phenomna.
>> The only entities
>> that logically
>> need to be
>> Lorentz invariant
>> are the particle.
>> I the deB wave
>> is not a
>> 'Bestandteil' of
>> the particle, but
>> of its relations
>> with its
>> envionment, then
>> invariance is not
>> defined nor useful.
>> M.f.G. Al
>> *Gesendet:* Sonntag,
>> 07. Februar 2016
>> um 14:39 Uhr
>> *Von:* "Albrecht
>> Giese"
>> <genmail at a-giese.de>
>> *An:*
>> af.kracklauer at web.de
>> *Cc:*
>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org,
>> "Richard
>> Gauthier"
>> <richgauthier at gmail.com>
>> *Betreff:* Re:
>> [General] De
>> Broglie Wave
>> Hi Al,
>>
>> thank you for
>> your reference.
>> Your paper has a
>> lot of
>> intelligent
>> thoughts but also
>> a lot of
>> additional
>> assumptions. With
>> reference to the
>> de Broglie wave,
>> I think, is the
>> situation much
>> simpler on the
>> level of
>> conservative
>> knowledge. De
>> Broglie has
>> misunderstood
>> relativity
>> (particularly
>> dilation) and so
>> seen a conflict
>> which does in
>> fact not exist.
>> He has solved the
>> conflict by
>> inventing an
>> additional
>> "fictitious" wave
>> which has no
>> other foundation
>> in physics, and
>> also his "theorem
>> of harmonic
>> phases" which as
>> well is an
>> invention without
>> need. And his
>> result is in
>> conflict with the
>> experiment if we
>> ask for Lorentz
>> invariance or
>> even for Galilean
>> invariance. - If
>> we follow the
>> basic idea of de
>> Broglie by,
>> however, avoiding
>> his logical error
>> about relativity,
>> we come easily to
>> a description of
>> matter waves
>> without logical
>> conflicts. This
>> does not need new
>> philosophy or
>> other effort at
>> this level.
>>
>> Best, Albrecht
>>
>> Am 06.02.2016 um
>> 03:15 schrieb
>> af.kracklauer at web.de:
>>
>> Hi Albrecht:
>> DeBroglie's
>> verbage is
>> indeed quite
>> rococo!
>> Nonetheless,
>> his
>> machinations,
>> although
>> verbalized,
>> in the true
>> tradtion of
>> quantum
>> mechanics,
>> mysteriously,
>> can be
>> reinterpreted
>> (i.e.,
>> alternate
>> verbage found
>> without
>> changing any
>> of the math)
>> so as to tell
>> a fully, if
>> (somewhat)
>> hetrodoxical,
>> story. See
>> #11 on
>> www.Nonloco-Physics.0catch.com.
>> cc: Waves
>> are never a
>> characteristic of
>> a single,
>> point-like
>> entity, but
>> colletive
>> motion of a
>> medium. IF
>> they exist at
>> all. My view
>> is that E&M
>> waves are a
>> fiction
>> wrought by
>> Fourier
>> analysis.
>> The only
>> real physical
>> part is an
>> "interaction", which
>> mnight as
>> well be
>> thought of an
>> absract
>> string
>> between
>> charges.
>> Also,
>> neutrons have
>> electric
>> multipole
>> moments;
>> i.e., they
>> are totally
>> neutral but
>> not charge-free.
>> Best, Al
>> *Gesendet:* Freitag,
>> 05. Februar
>> 2016 um 21:43 Uhr
>> *Von:* "Albrecht
>> Giese"
>> <genmail at a-giese.de>
>> *An:*
>> af.kracklauer at web.de,
>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> *Cc:* "Richard Gauthier"
>> <richgauthier at gmail.com>
>> *Betreff:* Re: [General]
>> De Broglie Wave
>> Hi Al,
>>
>> true, in the
>> frame of the
>> particle the
>> dB wavelength
>> is infinite.
>> Because in
>> its own frame
>> the momentum
>> of the
>> particle is
>> 0. The
>> particle
>> oscillates
>> with the
>> frequency of
>> the
>> particle's
>> Zitterbewegung (which
>> background
>> fields do you
>> have in mind?
>> De Brogie
>> does not
>> mention
>> them). This
>> oscillation
>> is in no
>> contradiction
>> with this
>> wavelength as
>> the phase
>> speed is also
>> infinite. For
>> the
>> imagination,
>> the latter
>> means that
>> all points of
>> that wave
>> oscillate
>> with the same
>> phase at any
>> point.
>>
>> Which
>> background
>> waves do you
>> have in mind?
>> What is the
>> CNONOICAL
>> momentum? And
>> what about
>> E&M
>> interactions?
>> De Broglie
>> has not
>> related his
>> wave to a
>> specific
>> field. An E&M
>> field would
>> anyway have
>> no effect in
>> the case of
>> neutron
>> scattering
>> for which the
>> same de
>> Broglie
>> formalism is
>> used. And
>> into which
>> frame do you
>> see the wave
>> Lorentz-transformed?
>>
>> So, an
>> electron in
>> his frame has
>> an infinite
>> wavelength
>> and in his
>> frame has the
>> double slit
>> moving
>> towards the
>> particle. How
>> can an
>> interference
>> at the slits
>> occur? No
>> interference
>> can happen
>> under these
>> conditions.
>> But, as I
>> have
>> explained in
>> the paper,
>> the normal
>> wave which
>> accompanies
>> the electron
>> by normal
>> rules (i.e.
>> phase speed =
>> c) will have
>> an
>> interference
>> with its own
>> reflection,
>> which has
>> then a
>> wavelength
>> which fits to
>> the
>> expectation
>> of de
>> Broglie. But
>> that is a
>> very local
>> event (in a
>> range of
>> approx.
>> 10^-12 m for
>> the electron)
>> and it is not
>> at all a
>> property of
>> the electron
>> as de Broglie
>> has thought.
>>
>> To say it
>> again: The de
>> Broglie
>> wavelength
>> cannot be a
>> steady
>> property of
>> the particle.
>> But
>> Schrödinger
>> and Dirac
>> have
>> incorporated
>> it into their
>> QM equations
>> with this
>> understanding.
>>
>> If I should
>> have
>> misunderstood
>> you, please
>> show the
>> mathematical
>> calculations
>> which you mean.
>>
>> Ciao, Albrecht
>>
>> Am 05.02.2016
>> um 19:20
>> schrieb
>> af.kracklauer at web.de:
>>
>> Hi: Albrecht:
>> Your
>> arguments
>> don't
>> resonate
>> with me.
>> The deB'
>> wave
>> length is
>> infinite
>> in the
>> particles
>> frame: it
>> is the
>> standing
>> wave
>> formed by
>> the
>> inpinging
>> background waves
>> having a
>> freq. =
>> the
>> particle's Zitterbewegung.
>> If these
>> TWO waves
>> are each
>> Lorentz
>> x-formed
>> to
>> another
>> frame and
>> added
>> there,
>> they
>> exhibit
>> exactly
>> the DeB'
>> modulation wavelength
>> proportional
>> to the
>> particle's momentum.
>> The only
>> mysterious feature
>> then is
>> that the
>> proportionality
>> is to the
>> CNONICAL
>> momentum,
>> i.e.,
>> including
>> the
>> vector
>> potential
>> of
>> whatever
>> exterior
>> E&M
>> interactions
>> are
>> in-coming. Nevertheless,
>> everything works
>> our
>> without
>> contradiction.
>> A
>> particle
>> oscillates in
>> place at
>> its
>> Zitter
>> freq.
>> while the
>> Zitter
>> signals
>> are
>> modulated
>> by the
>> DeB'
>> wavelength as
>> they move
>> through
>> slits, say.
>> ciao, L
>> *Gesendet:* Freitag,
>> 05.
>> Februar
>> 2016 um
>> 12:28 Uhr
>> *Von:* "Albrecht
>> Giese"
>> <genmail at a-giese.de>
>> *An:* "Richard
>> Gauthier"
>> <richgauthier at gmail.com>,
>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> *Betreff:* Re:
>> [General]
>> De
>> Broglie Wave
>> Hi
>> Richard
>> and Al,
>> hi All,
>>
>> recently
>> we had a
>> discussion here
>> about two
>> topics:
>>
>> 1. The
>> functionality
>> of the de
>> Broglie
>> wave,
>> particularly
>> its
>> wavelength
>> if seen
>> from a
>> different
>> inertial
>> system.
>> Such
>> cases
>> lead to
>> illogical
>> situations.
>> 2. The
>> problem
>> of the
>> apparent
>> asymmetry
>> at
>> relativistic
>> dilation.
>>
>> I have
>> investigated
>> these
>> cases and
>> found
>> that they
>> are in
>> some way
>> connected. Relativistic
>> dilation
>> is not as
>> simple as
>> it is
>> normally
>> taken. It
>> looks
>> asymmetric if
>> it is
>> incorrectly
>> treated.
>> An asymmetry
>> would
>> falsify
>> Special
>> Relativity.
>> But it is
>> in fact
>> symmetrical
>> if
>> properly
>> handled
>> and
>> understood.
>>
>> It is
>> funny
>> that both
>> problems
>> are
>> connected
>> to each
>> other
>> through the
>> fact that
>> de
>> Broglie
>> himself
>> has
>> misinterpreted
>> dilation.
>> From this
>> incorrect
>> understanding
>> he did
>> not find
>> another
>> way out
>> than to
>> invent
>> his
>> "theorem
>> of phase
>> harmony";
>> with all
>> logical
>> conflicts
>> resulting
>> from this
>> approach.
>>
>> If
>> relativity is
>> properly
>> understood,
>> the
>> problem
>> seen by
>> de Broglie
>> does not
>> exist.
>> Equations
>> regarding
>> matter
>> waves can
>> be
>> derived which
>> work
>> properly,
>> i.e.
>> conform
>> to the
>> experiments
>> but avoid
>> the logical
>> conflicts.
>>
>> As
>> announced, I
>> have
>> composed
>> a paper
>> about
>> this. It
>> can be
>> found at:
>>
>> https://www.academia.edu/21564534/The_Conflict_with_the_De_Broglie_Wavelength
>> .
>>
>> I thank
>> Richard
>> Gauthier
>> for the
>> discussion which
>> we had
>> about this
>> topic. It
>> caused me
>> to
>> investigate
>> the
>> problem
>> and to
>> find a
>> solution.
>>
>> Albrecht
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Diese
>> E-Mail
>> wurde von
>> Avast
>> Antivirus-Software
>> auf Viren
>> geprüft.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no
>> longer
>> wish to
>> receive
>> communication
>> from the
>> Nature of
>> Light and
>> Particles
>> General
>> Discussion List
>> at
>> af.kracklauer at web.de
>> <a
>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>> Click
>> here to
>> unsubscribe
>> </a>
>>
>> Diese E-Mail
>> wurde von
>> einem
>> virenfreien
>> Computer
>> gesendet, der
>> von Avast
>> geschützt wird.
>> www.avast.com
>>
>> Diese E-Mail
>> wurde von einem
>> virenfreien
>> Computer
>> gesendet, der von
>> Avast geschützt wird.
>> www.avast.com
>>
>> Diese E-Mail wurde
>> von einem virenfreien
>> Computer gesendet,
>> der von Avast
>> geschützt wird.
>> www.avast.com
>>
>> Diese E-Mail wurde von
>> einem virenfreien
>> Computer gesendet, der
>> von Avast geschützt wird.
>> www.avast.com
>>
>> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem
>> virenfreien Computer
>> gesendet, der von Avast
>> geschützt wird.
>> www.avast.com
>>
>> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem
>> virenfreien Computer gesendet,
>> der von Avast geschützt wird.
>> www.avast.com
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>> <a href="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 atphys at a-giese.de
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>>
>> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien
>> Computer gesendet, der von Avast
>> geschützt wird.
>> www.avast.com
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>
>>
>> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer
>> gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird.
>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>
>>
>> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer
>> gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird.
>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>
>>
>> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der
>> von Avast geschützt wird.
>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish
>> to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles
>> General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to
>> unsubscribe
>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>> <a href="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 at phys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160223/1a47078d/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list