[General] De Broglie Wave

Richard Gauthier richgauthier at gmail.com
Fri Feb 26 13:09:41 PST 2016


Hello Albrecht,

   Is the 1/r^3 repulsive force that you mention a universal law of nature? Are you claiming that Newton’s 3 laws of motion require the existence of such a law of repulsive force (or even a law of attraction of 1/r^2 for that matter?)  I found a reference to a 1/r^3 force in a discussion of Yukawa’s work at http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/NuclearForces.htm <http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/NuclearForces.htm> . 
but the 1/r^3 force postulated by Yukawa was an ATTRACTIVE  force, while he postulated a 1/r^4 REPULSIVE force !  :

"In 1935 a scientist by the name of Hideki Yukawa hypothesised that there exists a force that could bind nucleons (protons and neutrons) together. He called this the ‘strong nuclear force’ because it had to be stronger than the electrical force that would otherwise push protons apart.

The strong nuclear force (SNF) was a curious contrivance that required some unusual properties:

1. The force, while stronger than the electrical force, needed to operate only within a short range. Otherwise it would attract protons at any distance.

2. The force needed to become neutral at even shorter distances. Otherwise protons would be forced together, possibly extinguishing themselves as an electron and positron are said to do.

3. The force also needed to work on neutrons which have neutral electric charge. Thus the possibility exists that the force should probably affect all subatomic particles and also cause electrons to cling together.

To overcome the first problem it was proposed that the SNF’s strength might vary with the inverse cube of the distance, i.e. 1/r3. To overcome the second it was proposed that a repulsive SNF also exists. This would need to be even stronger than the first and work at an even shorter range, for example as the inverse forth power of the distance, i.e. 1/r4.

With such an unusual range of forces, the SNF was shaping up to be somewhat bizarre. Normally in three-dimensional space we would expect a force function to vary with the inverse square of distance. Yet here were cubed and forth powers. What have we now: 4D and 5D space?" 

   But Yukawa’s hypothesis of such forces has anyway been superseded by quantum chromodynamics, quarks and gluons, hasn’t it?
     By the way, what do you think of the work of Vernon Brown, who mentions you in his website photontheory.com
       Richard

> On Feb 26, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:
> 
> Hello Richard,
> 
> in no way I assume inertia in my derivation. 
> 
> My derivation goes logically in two steps:
> 
> Step 1: It is inevitable that an extended object has inertia. This works for any shape of a field as long as it has a potential minimum which defines the distance between the partners.
> Step 2: To reproduce Newton's law of motion, it is necessary to assume a certain shape (some call it reverse engineering). 
> In my case I was lucky in so far as I have initially looked for the simplest shape which I could find in order to make a numerical deduction. I took the 1/r^2 law for attraction and the 1/r^3 law for repulsion. And with this assumption the result was Newton's law. 
> 
> But again: Logically the steps have to be done in sequence.
> 
> Albrecht
> 
> 
> Am 25.02.2016 um 05:58 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>> Hello Albrecht,
>>    You wrote 
>>>> I have assumed a certain shape of that field which leads to Newton's law of inertia.
>> 
>> How can you claim that you are deriving inertia for an extended body when you are assuming that inertia exists in your derivation?
>>         Richard
>> 
>> 
>>> On Feb 23, 2016, at 6:26 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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-mail wolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>>>> On 2/19/2016 5:15 PM,  <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto: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"  <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com><wolf at nascentinc.com> <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>
>>>>> An: "Albrecht Giese"  <mailto:phys at a-giese.de><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] 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-mail wolf at NascentInc.com <x-msg://12/wolf@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 <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-mail wolf at NascentInc.com <x-msg://12/wolf@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-mail wolf at NascentInc.com <x-msg://12/wolf@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-mail wolf at NascentInc.com <x-msg://12/wolf@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-mail wolf at NascentInc.com <x-msg://12/wolf@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  <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto: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"  <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de><genmail at a-giese.de> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>
>>>>> An:  <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
>>>>> Cc:  <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, "Richard Gauthier"  <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com><richgauthier at gmail.com> <mailto: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 <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto: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  <http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com/>www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com <http://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"  <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de><genmail at a-giese.de> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>
>>>>> An:  <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
>>>>> Cc:  <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, "Richard Gauthier"  <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com><richgauthier at gmail.com> <mailto: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 <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto: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"  <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de><genmail at a-giese.de> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>
>>>>> An:  <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
>>>>> Cc:  <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, "Richard Gauthier"  <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com><richgauthier at gmail.com> <mailto: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 <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto: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" <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de><genmail at a-giese.de> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>
>>>>> An: <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
>>>>> Cc: <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, "Richard Gauthier" <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com><richgauthier at gmail.com> <mailto: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 <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto: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 <http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com/>www.Nonloco-Physics.0catch.com <http://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" <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de><genmail at a-giese.de> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>
>>>>> An: <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>, <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>>> Cc: "Richard Gauthier" <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com><richgauthier at gmail.com> <mailto: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 <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto: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" <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>, <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto: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>https://www.academia.edu/21564534/The_Conflict_with_the_De_Broglie_Wavelength <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>https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
>>>>> <a href= <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" <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.
>>>>>  <http://www.avast.com/>www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/> 
>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird.
>>>>>  <http://www.avast.com/>www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/> 
>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird.
>>>>>  <http://www.avast.com/>www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/> 
>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird.
>>>>>  <http://www.avast.com/>www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/> 
>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird.
>>>>>  <http://www.avast.com/>www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/> 
>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der                                                           von Avast geschützt wird.
>>>>>  <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>   
>>>>>  
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com <x-msg://12/Wolf@nascentinc.com>
>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>> </a>
>>>>>    
>>>>>  
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de <x-msg://12/phys@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>
>>>>>  
>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird.
>>>>>  <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/> 
>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird.
>>>>>  <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>www.avast.com <http://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> 
>>>>> 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 ataf.kracklauer at web.de <mailto: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 at Wolf at nascentinc.com <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>> </a>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List 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>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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  <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>">
>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>> </a>
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160226/1f8251b4/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list