[General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Wed Aug 9 11:53:53 PDT 2017
To All:
I've had a lightning strike and have been off the Inet for some time.
Also It takes me some time to study so please excuse me for being a
catch up.
However reading Albrechts last E-mails and going back to some of his
explanations I can say that I fully agree that The Lorenzian explanation
that elecro-magnetic interactions in nothing space cause material to
shrink and clocks made out of that material to slow down makes sense
because these materials are used to parameterize space in the first place.
Regarding the question of photons it seems obvious that it is best to
think of light as waves in some experiments and as particles in others
so there should be no conflict with his analysis of his thesis
experiment. The question then is how to explain this wave particle
duality?
Am 01.08.2017 um 23:55 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
Similarly, an electron can break up into a pair of Gamma wave packets.
Their velocity always remain “c”, within materials (except nucleons), or
in vacuum!! They are profoundly different from inertial particles.
Would this give support to Albrect's theory that pairs of particles
traveling at "c' could exhibit the property of inertial mass?
Then I'm reading slowly the packet of papers Chandra sent.*What is a
photon?**Rodney Loudon*/**University of Essex, Colchester, UK/
It cannot be emphasized too strongly that the spatial modes of the
optical system, classical and quantum, include the combinations of all
routes through the apparatus that are excited
by the light sources. In the wavepacket picture, a single photon excites
this complete spatial distribution, however complicated, and what is
measured by a detector is determined
both by its position within the complete system and by the time
dependence of the excitation.
To me this says that there is a general principle at work which is that
boundary conditions on EM radiation impose apparent particle properties.
Could this be the principle behind Albrecht's theory? Do the forces that
contain entities moving at "c" make things act like particles. This is
also Cynthia Whitney's argument that boundary conditions are generally
neglected. If light is a particle what determines the spatial size if
cot material containment?
This brings me to my theory which in this context states that the human
being is always a boundary condition on any experiment that produces
data. I am proud to say that my paper "The rose-tintes Glasses Effect"
is the lead article in the August issue of "the Journal of Consciousness
Studies" the which for this discussion suggests that it is the
interaction between EM radiation and matter that produce the point
particle interaction (Chanda's dipole interactions) that make observers
project particles as explanations into EM fields.
Lastly I want to confess that I do not understand quantum theory or
Relativity because neither of them jives with my intuitive understanding
of life, the universe, and my role in it as well as can be expressed by
classic physics concepts. So I've presented some equations that simply
add classic potential energy of the surrounding mass shell to the
classic Lagrangian. And this simple addition gives me an mc^2 energy
correction and a gravity/inertia clock rate effect that is compatible
with all experiments to (v/c)4 order. To the best of my knowledge this
is the accuracy that has been verified by experiments . I believe space
warp and time dilation beyond these limits are based upon circular
reasoning. So I'm asking for references that tell me I'm wrong.
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
On 8/7/2017 12:14 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> Dear Chip,
>
> thank you for your response. - I think I have to give some more
> comments about my model.
>
> I am using the concept of exchange particles (the only idea I have
> borrowed from QM) which is not to be confused with virtual particles.
> I also believe that virtual particles do not exist. One well known
> problem with them is the cosmological "vacuum catastrophe", which
> means the difference between the theoretical energy of all virtual
> particles summed up and the real energy in the universe, which means a
> conflicting factor of 120 orders of magnitude. This assumption, also
> called "vacuum polarization", was invented to explain the Landé factor
> of the electron. In my model this Landé factor can be classically
> explained.
>
> Exchange particles on the other hand are assumed to mediate forces. In
> case of the electric force the photon is assumed to be the exchange
> particle, which is (in this case) not a virtual particle.
>
> How do you unify gravity and the electric force? This was attempted by
> many, also by Einstein who did not succeed with this idea. A general
> counterargument is the fact that gravity is so different from the
> other "three" forces that I think it is a completely different
> phenomenon, not even a force.
>
> My approach to gravity is so a completely different one. We know from
> measurements (and also from Einstein's thoughts) that the speed of
> light is reduced in a gravitational field. (A formula for it follows
> from Einstein's GRT, but can also be deduced classically, what my
> model does.) If accordingly a light-like particle moves in a
> gravitational field, then its path is classically refracted towards
> the gravitational source. This - applied to the internal oscillations
> of a particle - causes the particle to move towards the gravitational
> source by a constant acceleration. This process fully explains
> gravitation, the classical one (as of Newton) as well as the
> relativistic one (as of Einstein).
>
> Regarding space as pure emptiness, you ask the question: "If we assume
> space is completely empty then it does become quite difficult to
> explain the cause for relationships between space and time, and the
> cause for a fixed velocity of light." In my understanding this is not
> a problem. Because if we follow the relativity of Lorentz rather
> Einstein, there does not exist a special relationship between space
> and time. And the good thing about the Lorentzian relativity is that
> it is mathematically much simpler than Einstein's, more related to
> physics, and even though has fundamentally the same results as with
> Einstein. Space is then fully described by Euclidean geometry.
>
> And regarding the speed of light we can change the statement "nothing
> can move faster than c" to a more radical one: "all objects at the
> lowest level, i.e. basic particles and exchange particles, /only move
> at c/; there is no other speed". Any objects moving at a different
> speed than c are not particles but configurations of particles, which
> of course can move at any speed. And why is this speed c constant?
> Because if mass-less objects moving at c interact, it is on the lowest
> level always an elastic interaction. Such interaction will change the
> direction of a motion, but never the speed of a motion. So if we now
> assume that during the Big Bang, in this very dense situation, all
> objects have taken the same speed, this speed has normally no reason
> to change any more later.
>
> I think that one of the strongest reasons that physics did not
> progress during the last century is the assumption that space has
> certain properties rather than being empty. Particularly Einstein's
> assumptions about space and time have hampered progress in physics. It
> seems to me like a religion as it makes the understanding more complex
> without any necessity. Any comparison of the relativity of Einstein
> with the approach of Lorentz shows this very clearly.
>
> Best regards
> Albrecht
>
> Am 06.08.2017 um 20:43 schrieb Chip Akins:
>>
>> Dear Albrecht
>>
>> I really appreciate your response. You give detailed yet concise
>> explanations and is very helpful.
>>
>> It is quite amazing to me that our two completely different
>> approaches and perceptions resolves to mathematics which agree with
>> such accuracy and consistency.
>>
>> I have read much of your work, and find it mentally stimulating.
>>
>> However, with the approach I have used, I am able to do all the
>> things you have mentioned as well. But I am also able to demonstrate
>> quantized electric charge without resorting to “virtual particles” to
>> do so. In fact I do not think such particles exist. I have also been
>> able, recently, to unify the force of electric charge with gravity,
>> and to show specific cause for inertial and gravitational mass
>> equivalence. We have both found that the strong force exists in all
>> particles, and that force is unified with the other forces as well.
>> Using this approach there is no reason to try to explain how light
>> mysteriously only propagates forward at c. It is not a mystery using
>> this approach. If we assume space is completely empty then it does
>> become quite difficult to explain the cause for relationships between
>> space and time, and the cause for a fixed velocity of light.
>>
>> So in my view, particles are not the most fundamental, but rather
>> space and energy are fundamental.
>>
>> There are problems with conventional QM which can be removed using
>> such an approach.
>>
>> For a time in our recent scientific history many physicists felt that
>> space was empty. This of course occurred after the introduction of
>> Special Relativity. But later Einstein himself reversed his view on
>> this topic, and stated that with General Relativity space is warped
>> by gravity. One cannot warp what does not exist. But by the time
>> General Relativity was introduced, the logical damage had already
>> been done to the then developing QM theories. So we are stuck with
>> mysterious “virtual particles” to explain force at a distance, when
>> space itself is actually the most theoretically economical explanation.
>>
>> So, I agree, that if you are going to start with the assumption that
>> space is nothing, empty, then your approach is about the best one can
>> do.
>>
>> But it is not requisite that we constrain our thinking just because
>> many others have a particular concept.
>>
>> I feel one of the obstacles which has prevented our further progress,
>> and caused physics to become more stagnant in the last century, is
>> this concept that space is empty. For using that approach, leads to
>> the unexplainable, or to “magical” explanations, instead of sound
>> logical cause and effect.
>>
>> Warmest Regards
>>
>> Chip
>>
>> *From:*General
>> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
>> *Sent:* Sunday, August 06, 2017 10:16 AM
>> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection
>>
>> Dear Chip,
>>
>> thank you for your detailed information. My approach is indeed a bit
>> different and I would like to explain where and why.
>>
>> You refer a lot of the phenomena to properties of space. That is
>> something I do not. I have just finished reading a book which
>> explains, in which way Einstein during his whole life has attempted
>> to explain physical phenomena as properties of the space. He even
>> tried to develop a universal field theory (a GTE) in this way. He did
>> not have success. - I try to do the opposite, so to develop physical
>> models under the assumption that space is nothing than emptiness. One
>> specific physical property which is normally related to space, the
>> speed of light, is in my view the speed of all (massless) exchange
>> particles which permanently move at the speed of light. Why are they
>> doing it? I have a quite simple model for this, but even then it is
>> too extensive to present it now at this place.
>>
>> Most of the facts which you have addressed in the following are
>> explained by my (2-particle) model.
>>
>> At first the unresolved question why an electron (which is assumed to
>> be smaller than 10^-18 m) can have a magnetic moment and a spin
>> having the known values: QM says merely that this cannot be explained
>> by visualisation, as it is a QM topic. So, not explained. My model
>> explains it quantitatively.
>>
>> Further points:
>>
>> o particle-wave: the particle has an alternating field around,
>> which fulfils the requirements in this question
>>
>> o the mass of any lepton and any quark is correctly given by the
>> size of the particle. There is only one parameter free for the
>> corresponding formula, which is h*c (so nothing new)
>>
>> o the magnetic moment and the spin of all leptons and all quarks is
>> also quantitatively explained by this model, no further free
>> parameters needed
>>
>> o the relation /E=hv / follows from this model for leptons, for
>> quarks, and surprisingly also for photons. So it is according to my
>> model not a property of the space but of the model. This can be
>> another indication that the photon is a particle
>>
>> o the relativistic dilation follows immediately from this model, no
>> further free parameters needed
>>
>> o the relativistic increase of mass at motion follows directly from
>> this model, no further free parameters needed
>>
>> o the relativistic equation /E=mc^2 / follows from the model, no
>> further free parameters needed
>>
>> o the dynamical mass of the photon follows from the model even
>> though not all properties of the photon are explained by the model.
>> But also the relation /E=hv/ follows formally also for the photon.
>>
>> o energy conservation is in my view not a general property of the
>> physical world (as it is violated in the case of exchange particles)
>> but also this is a consequence of the set up of a particle as
>> described by this model. So the saying that something is a
>> "consequence of energy in space" is not reflected by the physical reality
>>
>> I think that it is a reasonable requirement to judge physical models
>> by asking for _quantitative_ results of a model. During my time
>> working on models and participating in the according conferences I
>> have seen so many elegant looking models that I did not find a better
>> criterion for looking deeper into a model than looking for results,
>> which can be compared to measurements.
>>
>> As an introduction I refer again to my web site
>> www.ag-physics.org/rmass <http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass> .
>>
>> This was hopefully not too confusing (?)!
>>
>> Albrecht
>>
>> Am 04.08.2017 um 17:47 schrieb Chip Akins:
>>
>> Dear Albrecht and Chandra
>>
>> If you don’t mind I would like to join this discussion on the
>> nature of light.
>>
>> This has been an area of study for me, also for decades, as
>> Chandra has mentioned.
>>
>> But still, it is not so easy to resolve this issue.
>>
>> In this discussion group, many have made good points on both
>> sides of this discussion.
>>
>> The best analysis I have been able to make of the experimental
>> data so far, seems to indicate that light often acts like
>> particles when reacting with particles, and acts like waves when
>> propagating through space.
>>
>> As Chandra has pointed out, it is possible that light is a wave
>> and the quantization we notice is induced by the particles
>> (dipoles made of charges from particles).
>>
>> The underlying cause for action is what I feel we have to look
>> for. If energy behaves in a specific manner when confined within
>> a particle, it is due to the properties of space. Which is to say
>> that the rules which govern the quantization of energy in
>> particles are rules imposed by the properties of space. So if
>> those rules exist in space in order to cause particles of mass,
>> it would follow that some of the same rules (since these rules
>> are part of space) might govern the way energy behaves in light.
>>
>> As we analyze the available data /E=hv /becomes evident. This is
>> a set of boundary conditions imposed on the behavior of energy in
>> space. But /E=hv /applies to the energy in light. The energy in
>> particles is better characterized by /E=hv/2/. And the frequency
>> /v/ in particles of mass is /2v/ the frequency in light.
>>
>> It occurs to me that the NIW property which Chandra has
>> rediscovered could be due to the simple preservation of momentum,
>> or it could be due to the point-like localization of the “energy”
>> at the origin of what we call a photon.
>>
>> So, I am still trying to sort all this out. But given the
>> information which is known, it currently feels to me that we
>> should consider that space imposes a set of rules on the behavior
>> of energy in space.
>>
>> If we follow the concept that space is a tension field, then we
>> must also realize that in that model, energy must PULL on space,
>> in order for us to sense that /E=hv/. This is specifically why we
>> would see that more energetic particles are *smaller particles*.
>> And following that premise to a logical conclusion, light would
>> almost have to be a quantized wave packet.
>>
>> I have found remarkable agreement between Albrecht’s math and my
>> research, but I have come to these equations using a totally
>> different approach, and I do not think the two massless particle
>> explanation for the electron is the most instructive way to
>> envision this particle.
>>
>> My view is more similar to Chandra’s view that space is a tension
>> field, and particles are made of energy (which is pulling on this
>> tension field, causing displacements,) which propagate at the
>> speed of light. But that premise seems to me to require that the
>> reaction of space to energy sets up oscillatory boundary
>> conditions, making more energetic particles smaller, and
>> quantizing all transverse propagation of energy in space. This
>> means that I currently feel that photons exist. But I am willing
>> to entertain alternate suggestions.
>>
>> Chip
>>
>> *From:*General
>> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>> *On Behalf Of *Roychoudhuri, Chandra
>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 03, 2017 5:09 PM
>> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path to
>> introspection
>>
>> Albrecht: Let me start by quoting your concluding statement:
>>
>> /“You have the idea of your Complex Tension Field. Now doubt that
>> this is an intelligent idea. My goal, however, is to find a model
>> for all this, which is as simple and as classical as possible
>> (avoiding phenomena like excitations), and at present I believe
>> that my model is closer to this goal.”/
>>
>> The implied meaning to me is that I have proposed a model that is
>> totally irreconcilable to your model of the universe. My book,
>> “Causal Physics: Photon by Non-Interaction of Waves” CRC, 2014)
>> has given better explanations for most of the optical phenomena
>> based upon this re-discovered NIW-property of all waves; which I
>> have also summarized many times in this forum. See the last
>> paragraph to appreciate why my mental logic was forced to accept
>> the “Complex Tension Field” holds 100% of the cosmic energy. I
>> understand that it is a radical departure from the prevailing
>> “successful” theories. However, it makes a lot of mutually
>> congruent sense even for some cosmological phenomena.
>>
>> Differences in our opinions are OK. That is the purpose of this
>> forum. Further, I would not dare to claim that my model of the
>> universe is THE correct one; or even the best one for the
>> present! I am open to enriching my thinking by learning from
>> other models. This is the key reason why I have been investing
>> decades of my time to re-energize the enquiring minds of many
>> through (i) organizing special publications, (ii) special
>> conferences and this (iii) web-based open forum. Because, I,
>> alone, simply cannot solve the culturally and historically
>> imposed tendency of believing what appears to be currently
>> working knowledge, as the final knowledge. Presently, this is
>> happening in all spheres of human theories (knowledge), whether
>> meant for Nature Engineering (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.)
>> and Social Engineering (politics, economics, religions, etc.).
>>
>> I also believe that we are all “blind people”, modeling the
>> Cosmic Elephant based on our individual perceptions and
>> self-congruent logical intelligence. We now need to keep working
>> to develop some “logical connectivity” to bring out some form of
>> “conceptual continuity” between our different and imagined
>> descriptions of the Cosmic Elephant. Finding working logics
>> behind persistent, but logical evolution, in nature cannot be
>> resolved by democratic consensus. Further, we are in a position
>> to declare our current understanding as the final laws of nature.
>> The working rules in nature has been set many billions of years
>> before our modern Gurus started defining the creator of the
>> universe as various forms of gods. None of our major messiahs
>> have ever alerted us that we must develop the technology to
>> travel to planets in distant stars before the earth is vaporized
>> due to the eventual arrival of Solar Warming due to its evolution
>> into a Red Giant! Fortunately, some of our foresighted engineers
>> have already started to develop the early experimental steps
>> towards that vision.
>>
>> However much you may dislike “philosophy” (methodology of
>> thinking, or epistemology);*/it is the key platform where we can
>> mingle our ideas to keep generating something better and better
>> and better. /*That has been the entire history of human
>> evolution. Except, human species have now become too
>> self-centered and too arrogant to care for the biosphere. We are
>> now virtually a pest in the biosphere. Scientific epistemology
>> that is totally disconnected from our sustainability would be,
>> eventually, a path to our own extinction. Our epistemology must
>> be grounded to sustainability for our own collective wellbeing.
>> All the accomplishments, from the ancient times, then from
>> Galileo, Newton, then from Einstein, Heisenberg, and then, all
>> the way to recent times, would not mean an iota to our
>> grand-grand-grand kids if the Global warming takes a decisive
>> irreversible slide! None other than Einstein pronounced in 1947:
>>
>> /“Science without epistemology is — insofar as it is thinkable at
>> all — /*/primitive and muddled./*/”/
>>
>> This is why I have started promoting the overarching concept,
>> “The Urgency of Evolution */Process /*Congruent Thinking”. The
>> “Process” is connected to engineering (practical) thinking. It is
>> not some grandiose and complex approach like mathematics behind
>> the “String Theory”, which only a limited number of people with
>> mathematically inclined brains can understand and participate
>> after dedicating at least a decade of their professional lives.
>>
>> The recognition of the importance of “Evolution Process Congruent
>> Thinking” is trivially simple. What has been the basic urge
>> common to all species, from bacteria to humans? (i) Keep striving
>> to do better than our current best and (ii) live forever
>> pragmatically through our progenies. For knowledgeable humans, it
>> means to assure the sustainability of our biosphere that
>> collectively nurtures mutually dependent all lives.
>>
>> Finally, I need to underscore the origin of my concept of Complex
>> Tension Field (CTF). This was necessary to accommodate (i)
>> constant velocity of light in every part of the universe and (ii)
>> Optical Doppler Shifted spectra from atoms in any star in any
>> galaxy, including our Sun. All atoms, whether in earth lab or in
>> a distant star corona, are experiencing the same stationary CTF.
>> But, the trigger point to conceive CTF came from my re-discovery
>> of the Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW); which is already built
>> into our current math. However, the inertia of our cultural
>> tendency is to continue believing in non-causal postulate of
>> wave-particle duality from the erroneous assumption that
>> Superposition Principle is an observable phenomenon. It is not.
>> The observable phenomenon is the causal and measurable
>> Superposition Effect reported through physical transformation in
>> detectors. My book, “Causal Physics: Photon Model by
>> Non-Interaction of Waves”, is the result of some 50 years of wide
>> variety of optical experiments. By my own philosophy, it is
>> definitely not infallible. However, it would be hard to neglect,
>> at least in the field of optical sciences. Please, go to the web
>> site to down load my recent Summer School course summarizing my
>> book.
>>
>> http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/
>>
>> It summarizes the breadth of my book as applied to optical
>> sciences. [Indian paperback is already published. I am now
>> working on a Chinese edition and then convert to Senior level
>> optics text.
>>
>> Sorry, Albrecht, for such a long reply.
>>
>> Chandra.
>>
>> *From:*General
>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 03, 2017 2:30 PM
>> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path to
>> introspection
>>
>> Chandra,
>>
>> do you really see a structural difference of photons (or of EM
>> waves) depending on their frequency/energy? You surely know that
>> this does not conform to the general understanding of present
>> physics? And now in your view: at which frequency/energy does the
>> structure change? Because at some point there must be a break,
>> doesn't it?
>>
>> Why do you think that photons (Gamma wave packets) do not have
>> inertial mass? They have energy, no doubt. And energy is related
>> to inertial mass, agree? Photons / Gamma wave packets - also low
>> energy wave packets - have a momentum and cause a radiation
>> pressure. We know - and can measure - the radiation pressure of
>> the sun. Spaceships react on it. To my knowledge, no one has
>> never met a photons which no mass. The assumption of no-mass is
>> the result of a model, nothing more.
>>
>> The conversion of particles is an unresolved question of present
>> physics. QM is giving descriptions - they have generation
>> operators - but as usual no physical explanation. - I find it
>> funny that photons can be generated in large numbers when an
>> electric charge experiences a changing field, supposed the
>> necessary energy is present. The other reaction, the conversion
>> of a photon into an electron-positron pair is in the view of my
>> particle model not surprising. You may remember that in my model
>> a lepton and a quark is built by a pair of massless "Basic"
>> particles (which have electric charge). I find it possible that
>> also a photon is built in this way, but as the photon has twice
>> the spin of a lepton/quark it may be built by two pairs of basic
>> particles rather than one, which have in this case positive and
>> negative electric charges. And if now the photon interacts with
>> another object so that momentum can be exchanged, it may break
>> off into two halves, so into an electron and a positron as all
>> necessary constituents are already there.
>>
>> Why does a photon cause scattering, interference, and so on?
>> Because in this model it has positive and negative electric
>> charges in it. And as these charges a orbiting (with c of course)
>> they cause an alternating electric field in the vicinity, and so
>> there is a classical wave causing this wave-related behaviour. I
>> find this simple, and it fits to de Broglie's idea, and in
>> addition it solves the particle-wave question very classically.
>> And this works independent of the energy (=frequency) of the photon.
>>
>> You have the idea of your Complex Tension Field. Now doubt that
>> this is an intelligent idea. My goal, however, is to find a model
>> for all this, which is as simple and as classical as possible
>> (avoiding phenomena like excitations), and at present I believe
>> that my model is closer to this goal.
>>
>> I think that this is the difference between our models.
>>
>> Albrecht
>>
>> Am 01.08.2017 um 23:55 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>>
>> Albrecht:
>>
>> Your “photon” is of Gamma frequency, whose behavior is
>> dramatically different from those of frequencies of X-rays
>> and all the lower ones to radio. Yes, I agree that the
>> behavior of Gamma wave packet is remarkably similar to
>> particles; */but they are not inertial particles/*. They are
>> still non-diffracting EM */wave packets/*, always traveling
>> with the same velocity “c” in vacuum and within materials,
>> except while directly head-on encountering heavy nucleons.
>>
>> I have written many times before that the Huygens-Fresnel
>> diffraction integral correctly predicts that the propensity
>> of diffractive spreading of EM waves is inversely
>> proportional to the frequency. Based upon experimental
>> observations in multitudes of experiments, it is clear that
>> EM waves of Gamma frequency do not diffractively spread; they
>> remain localized. */Buried in this transitional behavior of
>> EM waves lies deeper unexplored physics. I do not understand
>> that./* But, that is why I have been, in general, pushing for
>> incorporating Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology
>> (IPM-E), over and above the prevailing Measurable Data
>> Modeling Epistemology (MDM-E).
>>
>> Current particle physics only predicts and validates that
>> Gamma-energy, through interactions with heavy nucleons, can
>> become a pair of electron and positron pair. Similarly, an
>> electron can break up into a pair of Gamma wave packets.
>> Their velocity always remain “c”, within materials (except
>> nucleons), or in vacuum!! They are profoundly different from
>> inertial particles.
>>
>> This is why, I have also postulated that the 100% of the
>> energy of the universe is in the form of a very tense and
>> physically stationary Complex Tension Field (CTF). This CTF
>> is also the universal inertial reference frame. Elementary
>> particles that project inertial mass-like property through
>> interactions, are self-looped resonant oscillation of the
>> same CTF. This internal velocity is the same c as it is for
>> EM waves. However, their The linear excitations of the CTF,
>> triggered by diverse dipoles, EM waves are perpetually pushed
>> by the CTF to regain its state of unexcited equilibrium
>> state. This is the origin of perpetual velocity of EM wave
>> packets. For self-looped oscillations, f, at the same
>> velocity c, the CTF “assumes” that it is perpetually pushing
>> away the perturbation at the highest velocity it can.
>> Unfortunately, it remains locally micro-stationary
>> (self-looped). The corresponding inertial property becomes
>> our measured (rest mass = hf-internal). When we are able to
>> bring other particles nearby, thereby introducing effective
>> perceptible potential gradient to the first particle, it
>> “falls” into this potential gradient, acquiring extra kinetic
>> energy of (1/2)mv-squared = hf-kinetic. This f-kinetic is a
>> secondary oscillatory frequency that facilitates the physical
>> movement of the particle through the CTF. This f-kinetic
>> frequency replaces de Broglie pilot wave and removes the
>> unnecessary postulate of wave-particle duality. [See the
>> attached Ch.11 of my book.
>>
>> Most likely, you would not be happy with my response because,
>> (i) we model nature very differently, and (ii) I do not
>> understand the physical processes behind the transformations:
>> Gamma to Electron+Positron, or Electron to Gamm-Pair.
>>
>> Chandra.
>>
>> *From:*General
>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
>> Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 01, 2017 4:30 PM
>> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path to
>> introspection
>>
>> Chandra,
>>
>> I now feel a bit helpless. I thought that I have written
>> clearly enough that the Compton Effect is NOT the aspect I
>> wanted to present and to discuss here. True that this was the
>> original purpose of the experiment, but the aspect of the
>> experiment used for my question was different. But now you
>> write: "So, I assume that you are asking me to explain
>> physical process behind Compton Effect by classical
>> approach." What can I do that you do not turn around my
>> intention? Write in capital letters?
>>
>> So once again the following process: An electron of a certain
>> energy is converted into something called traditionally a
>> "photon". Then after a flight of about 10 meters through air
>> this photon is re-converted into an electron-position pair.
>> The energy of this pair is exactly the energy of the
>> originating electron. And again my question: How can one
>> explain this process if it is not assumed that this "photon"
>> carried exactly this amount of energy? And what is wrong with
>> the assumption that this "photon" was - at least in this
>> application - some type of a particle?
>>
>> You have attached several papers about photons. I have looked
>> through most of them (as much as it was possible in a limited
>> time). I have found almost nothing there which has to do with
>> my question above.
>>
>> The first paper is about the Compton Effect. So, not at all
>> my topic here.
>>
>> The second paper is a combination of several sub-papers. In
>> the third of these sub-papers the author (Rodney Loudon) has
>> presented different occurrences of a photon with respect to
>> different experiments. And in his view the photon can exhibit
>> a behaviour as it appeared in my experiment. In the others I
>> did not find something similar. (Perhaps I have overlooked
>> the corresponding portions and you can help me with a reference.)
>>
>> The third paper (of W.E. Lamp) denies the occurrence of a
>> photon like in my experiment completely. How should I make
>> use of this paper?
>>
>> Or what did I overlook?
>>
>> In general I see good chances to explain many physical
>> phenomena classically which are according to main stream only
>> treatable (however mostly not "understandable") by quantum
>> mechanics. This is a master goal of my work. But the papers
>> which you have sent me are all following main stream in using
>> quantum mechanics. So, also the mystification of physics done
>> by QM/Copenhagen. I thought that also you have been looking
>> for something alternative and new.
>>
>> Albrecht
>>
>> Am 31.07.2017 um 21:45 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>>
>> Albrecht:
>>
>> “How do you explain */the process going on in my
>> experiment/* without assuming the photon as a particle?
>> (Details again below.)
>>
>> “And I have (also) repeatedly referred to my */PhD
>> experiment, which was Compton scattering at protons./*”…
>> Albrecht
>>
>> I picked up the above quotations from below. So, I assume
>> that you are asking me to explain physical process behind
>> Compton Effect by classical approach.
>>
>> I am attaching two papers in support of semi-classical
>> approach. Dodd directly goes to explain Compton Effect by
>> semi-classical model. Nobeliate Lamb puts down the very
>> “photon” concept generically. I knew Lamb through many
>> interactions. Myself and another colleague had edited a
>> special issue in his honor (see attached) dedicated on
>> his 90^th birthday.
>>
>> Chandra.
>>
>> */PS: /**/Regarding Philosophy:/*In my viewpoint, the
>> */gravest mistake/* of the physics community for several
>> hundred years has been to consider self-introspection of
>> our individual thinking logic as unnecessary philosophy.
>> Erroneous assumption behind that is to think that our
>> neural network is a perfectly objective organ; rather
>> than a generic “hallucinating” organ to assure our
>> successful biological evolution. It is high time that
>> physicists, as a community, start appreciating this
>> limiting modes of thinking logic have been holding us
>> back. This is why I have become a “broken record” to
>> repeatedly keep on “playing” the same ancient story of
>> five collaborating blind men modeling an elephant. Their
>> diverse “objective” observations do not automatically
>> blend in to a logically self-consistent living animal.
>> Only when they impose the over-arching condition that it
>> is a living animal, their iterative attempts to bring
>> SOME conceptual continuity between the diverse
>> “objective” observations; their model starts to appear as
>> “elephant-like”! The Cosmic Elephant, that we are trying
>> to model, is a lot more complex system. We are not yet in
>> a position to declare a*/ny of our component theories
>> /*as a final theory! Fortunately, reproducible
>> experimental validations of many mathematical theories
>> imply that the laws of nature function causally. Sadly,
>> Copenhagen Interpretation insists on telling nature that
>> she ought to behave non-causally at the microscopic
>> level. As if, a macro */causal universe/* can emerge out
>> of */non-causal micro universe/*!
>>
>> ==================================================
>>
>> On 7/29/2017 1:19 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>
>> Chandra,
>>
>> my intention this time was to avoid a too
>> philosophical discussion, interesting as it may be,
>> and to avoid the risk to extend it towards infinity.
>> So, this time I only intended to discuss a specific
>> point.
>>
>> Therefore the main point of my mail: How do you
>> explain */the process going on in my
>> experiment/*without assuming the photon as a
>> particle? (Details again below.)
>>
>> Albrecht
>>
>> Am 29.07.2017 um 00:28 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>>
>> Albrecht:
>>
>> Thanks for your critical questions. I will try to
>> answer to the extent I am capable of. They are
>> within your email text below.
>>
>> However, I am of the general opinion that Physics
>> has advanced enough to give us the confidence
>> that generally speaking, we have been heading in
>> the right direction – the laws of natural
>> evolution are universally causal in action and
>> are independent of the existence or non-existence
>> of any particular species, including human species.
>>
>> History has also demonstrated (Kuhn’s
>> Structure of Scientific revolutions) that all
>> working theories eventually yield to newer
>> theories based upon constructing better
>> fundamental postulates using better and
>> broad-based precision data. So, this century is
>> destined to enhance all the foundational
>> postulates behind most working theories and
>> integrate them into a better theory with much
>> less “hotchpotch” postulates like “wave
>> particle-duality”, “entanglement”, “action at a
>> distance”, etc., etc. Our community should agree
>> and stop the time-wasting philosophical debates
>> like, “Whether the moon EXISTS when I am not
>> looking for it!” Would you waste your time
>> writing a counter poem, if I write, “The moon is
>> a dusty ball of Swiss cheese”?
>>
>> */In summary, leveraging the evolutionary power
>> of self-introspection, human observers will have
>> to learn to CONSCIOUSLY direct further evolution
>> of their own mind out of its current trap of
>> biologically evolved neural logics towards pure
>> logic of dispassionate observers who do not
>> influence the outcome of experimental
>> observations!/* Let us not waste any more of our
>> valuable time reading and re-reading the
>> inconclusive Bohr-Einstein debates. We are not
>> smarter than them; but we have a lot more
>> observational data to structure our logical
>> thinking than they had access to during their
>> life time. So, lets respectfully jump up on the
>> concept-shoulders of these giants, a la Newton,
>> and try to increase our Knowledge Horizon. Bowing
>> down our head at their feet will only reduce our
>> Knowledge Horizon.
>>
>> Chandra.
>>
>> *From:*General
>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
>> Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
>> *Sent:* Friday, July 28, 2017 11:55 AM
>> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Role of observer, a
>> deeper path to introspection
>>
>> Chandra,
>>
>> you have written here a lot of good and true
>> considerations; with most of them I can agree.
>> However two comments from my view:
>>
>> 1.) The speed of light:
>> The speed of light when /measured in vacuum
>> /shows always a constant value. Einstein has
>> taken this result as a fact in so far that the
>> real speed of light is constant. [Sorry there are
>> no perfect vacuum in space, or on earth. Even a
>> few atoms per 100-Lamda-cubed volume defines an
>> effective refractive index for light in that
>> volume. The outer space is a bit more rarer.]
>>
>> I forgot to say: Measurement of c outside a
>> gravitational field. - Of course this and the vacuum
>> is nowhere perfectly available, but we come so close
>> to it that we have sufficiently good results. In the
>> gravitational field on the earth the speed of light
>> is reduced by round about a portion of about 10^-6 .
>> And in the DESY synchrotron there was a vacuum good
>> enough so that c was only reduced by a portion of
>> about 10^-15 . I think that this comes close enough
>> to the ideal conditions so that we can draw
>> conclusions from it. And the equations describing
>> this can be proven by a sufficient precision.
>>
>>
>>
>> However if we follow the Lorentzian
>> interpretation of relativity then only the
>> /measured /c is constant. It looks constant
>> because, if the measurement equipment is in
>> motion, the instruments change their indications
>> so that the result shows the known constant
>> value. - I personally follow the Lorentzian
>> relativity because in this version the
>> relativistic phenomena can be deduced from known
>> physical behaviour.[I am more comfortable with
>> Lorentzian logics than Einsteinian. However, I do
>> not consider this thinking will remain intact as
>> our understanding evolves further. ]
>>
>> Which kind of changes do you expect?
>>
>>
>>
>> So, it is true physics.[Sorry, I do not believe
>> that we will ever have access to a final (“true”)
>> physics theory! We will always have to keep on
>> iterating the postulates and the corresponding
>> theories to make them evolve as our mind evolves
>> out of biological-survival-logics towards
>> impartial-observer-logics.]
>>
>> Perhaps it was bad wording from my side. - Whereas I
>> understand Einstein's relativity as a mathematical
>> system, the Lorentzian is intended to describe
>> physics. That was meant.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is a different understanding of what Wolf
>> thinks. He has in the preceding discussion here
>> given an equation, according to which the speed
>> of light can go up to infinity. This is to my
>> knowledge in conflict with any measurement.[I
>> agree with you. All equations for propagating
>> wave tell us that the speed is determined by the
>> intrinsic physical tension properties of the
>> corresponding mother “field”. I have not found
>> acceptable logic to support infinite speed for
>> propagating waves.]
>>
>> 2) The quantisation of light:
>> This was also discussed repeatedly here in these
>> mails. And I have (also) repeatedly referred to
>> my */PhD experiment, which was Compton scattering
>> at protons./*[There are number of papers that
>> explain Compton Effect using semi classical
>> theory, using X-rays as classical wave packets.
>> De Broglie got his Nobel based on his short PhD
>> thesis proposing “Pilot Wave” for electron
>> diffraction phenomenon along with “Lambda= “h/p”.
>> I happened to have proposed particles as
>> localized harmonic oscillators with
>> characteristic “Kinetic Frequency”, rather than
>> wavelength (See Ch.11 of my “Causal Physics”
>> book). This explains particle diffraction without
>> the need of “wave particle duality”. I have
>> separately published paper modeling, using
>> spectrometric data, that QM predicted photon is a
>> transient photon at the moment of emission with
>> energy “hv”. Then it quickly evolves into a
>> quasi-exponential wave packet with a carrier
>> frequency “v”. This bridges the gap between the
>> QM predictions and all the successes of the
>> classical HF integral. ]
>>
>> I am sorry that I mentioned that this experiment was
>> intended to check a specific property of the Compton
>> effect. Because this fact is of no relevance for our
>> discussion here. The relevant point is that an
>> electron of a defined energy was converted into
>> something which we call a "photon". And after about
>> 10 meters flight through the air with a negligible
>> deflection it was reconverted into an
>> electron-positron pair, which then represented the
>> energy of the original electron. And this was done
>> for different energies of this original electron. -
>> My question is how this process can be explained
>> without the assumption that the photon did have a
>> quantized amount of energy, which means it to be a
>> particle.
>>
>> Regarding the particle wave question I have presented
>> every time at our SPIE meeting in San Diego a
>> particle model which is in fact a specific
>> realization of de Broglie's pilot wave idea. I did
>> not develop the model for this purpose but to explain
>> SRT, gravity and the fact of inertial mass. The
>> result was then that is also fulfils the idea of de
>> Broglie. It explains the process of diffraction and
>> the relation between frequency and energy. - And last
>> time in San Diego I have also explained that it
>> explains - with some restrictions - the photon.
>>
>>
>>
>> An electron of defined energy was converted into
>> a photon. The photon was scattered at a proton at
>> extreme small angles (so almost no influence) and
>> then re-converted into an electron-positron pair.
>> This pair was measured and it reproduced quite
>> exactly (by better than 2 percent) the energy of
>> the originals electron. This was repeated for
>> electrons of different energies. - I do not see
>> any explanation for this process without the
>> assumption that there was a photon (i.e. a
>> quantum) of a well defined energy, not a light
>> wave. [Albrecht, with my limited brain-time, I do
>> not understand , nor can I dare to explain away
>> everything. But, remember, that literally,
>> millions of optical engineers for two centuries,
>> have been using Huygens-Fresnel’s classical
>> diffraction integral to explain many dozens of
>> optical phenomena and to design and construct
>> innumerable optical instruments (spectroscopes,
>> microscopes, telescopes (including grazing angle
>> X-ray telescope), etc. QM has never succeeded in
>> giving us any simple integral equivalent to
>> HF-integral. That is why all these millions of
>> optical scientists and engineers give only “lip
>> service” to the photon concept and happily and
>> successfully keep on using the HF integral! My
>> prediction is that this will remain so for quite
>> a while into the future.
>>
>> I again refer to my particle model as said above. It
>> explains all the known optical phenomena.
>>
>>
>>
>> Let us recall that neither Newtonian, nor
>> Einsteinian Gravity can predict the measured
>> distribution of velocities of stars against the
>> radial distance in hundreds of galaxies; even
>> though they are excellent within our solar
>> system. However, Huygens postulate (Newton’s
>> contemporary) of wave propagation model of
>> leveraging some tension field still lives-on
>> remarkably well. This significance should be
>> noted by particle physicists!].
>>
>> I do not see what in detail is not postulated
>> regarding the stars observed. My model also explains
>> phenomena like Dark Matter and Dark Energy if you
>> mean this. And my model of gravity (which is an
>> extension of the Lorentzian relativity to GRT) is
>> since 13 years in the internet, and since 12 years it
>> is uninterruptedly the no. one regarding the
>> explanation of gravitation (if looking for "The
>> Origin of Gravity" by Google). Maybe worth to read it.
>>
>>
>>
>> How does this fit into your understanding?
>>
>> Best wishes
>> Albrecht
>>
>> PS: Can I find your book "Causal Physics" online?
>>
>> Am 26.07.2017 um 18:52 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>>
>> Wolf:
>>
>> You have said it well:
>>
>> /“Concentrating on finding the mechanisms of
>> connection between the Hallucination and the
>> reality is my approach. I think the constant
>> speed of light assumption is one of the first
>> pillars that must fall. If there is such a
>> constant it should in my opinion be
>> interpreted as the speed of Now…”. /
>>
>> Yes, “constant c” is a fundamentally flawed
>> postulate by the theoretician Einstein, so
>> fond of “Gedanken Experiments”.
>> Unfortunately, one can cook up wide varieties
>> of logically self-consistent mathematical
>> theories and then match them up with
>> “Gedanken” experiments! We know that in the
>> real world, we know that the velocity of
>> light is dictated by both the medium and the
>> velocity of the medium. Apparently,
>> Einstein’s “Gedanken Experiment” of riding
>> the crest of a light wave inspired him to
>> construct SRT and sold all the mathematical
>> physicists that nature if 4-diemsional. Out
>> of the “Messiah Complex”, we now believe that
>> the universe could be 5, or, 7, or 11, or,
>> 13, …. dimensional system where many of the
>> dimensions are “folded in” !!!! By the way,
>> running time is not a measurable physical
>> parameter. We can contract or dilate
>> frequency of diverse oscillators, using
>> proper physical influence, not the running
>> time. Frequency of oscillators help us
>> measure a period (or time interval).
>>
>> Wise human thinkers have recognized this
>> “Hallucination” problem from ancient times,
>> which are obvious (i) from Asian perspective
>> of how five blinds can collaborate to
>> construct a reasonable model of the Cosmic
>> Elephant and then keep on iterating the model
>> ad infinitum, or (ii) Western perspective of
>> “shadows of external objects projected inside
>> a cave wall”. Unfortunately, we become
>> “groupies” of our contemporary “messiahs” to
>> survive economically and feel “belonging to
>> the sociaety”. The result is the current sad
>> state of moribund physics thinking.
>> Fortunately, many people have started
>> challenging this moribund status quo with
>> papers, books, and web forums.
>>
>> So, I see well-recognizable renaissance in
>> physics coming within a few decades! Yes, it
>> will take time. Einstein’s “indivisible
>> quanta” of 1905 still dominates our
>> vocabulary; even though no optical engineer
>> ever try to propagate an “indivisible
>> quanta”; they always propagate light waves.
>> Unfortunately, they propagate Fourier
>> monochromatic modes that neither exits in
>> nature; nor is a causal signal. [I have been
>> trying to correct this fundamental confusion
>> through my book, “Causal Physics”.]
>>
>> Coming back to our methodology of thinking, I
>> have defined an iterative approach in the
>> Ch.12 of the above book. I have now
>> generalized the approach by anchoring our
>> sustainable evolution to remain anchored with
>> the reality of nature! “Urgency of Evolution
>> Process Congruent Thinking” [see attached].
>>
>> However, one can immediately bring a
>> challenge. If all our interpretations are
>> cooked up by our neural network for survival;
>> then who has the authority to define
>> objective reality? Everybody, but
>> collaboratively, like modeling the “Cosmic
>> Elephant”.
>>
>> Let us realize the fact that the seeing
>> “color” is an interpretation by the brain. It
>> is a complete figment of our neuro-genetic
>> interpretation! That is why none of us will
>> succeed in quantitatively defining the
>> subtlety of color variation of any
>> magnificent color painting without a
>> quantitative spectrometer. The “color” is not
>> an objective parameter; but the frequency is
>> (not wavelength, though!). One can now
>> recognize the subtle difference, from seeing
>> “color”, to */quantifying energy content per
>> frequency interval./* This is “objective”
>> science determined by instruments without a
>> “mind”, which is reproducible outside of
>> human interpretations.
>>
>> And, we have already mastered this technology
>> quite a bit. The biosphere exists. It has
>> been nurturing biological lives for over 3.5
>> billion years without the intervention of
>> humans. We are a very late product of this
>> evolution. This is an objective recognition
>> on our part! Our, successful evolution needed
>> “instantaneous color” recognition to survive
>> for our day-to-day living in our earlier
>> stage. We have now overcome our survival mode
>> as a species. And we now have become a pest
>> in the biosphere, instead of becoming the
>> caretaker of it for our own long-term future.
>> */This is the sad break in our wisdom./* This
>> is why I am promoting the concept, “Urgency
>> of Evolution Process Congruent Thinking”.
>> This approach helps generate a common, but
>> perpetually evolving thinking platform for
>> all thinkers, whether working to understand
>> Nature’s Engineering (Physics, Chemistry,
>> Biology, etc.) or, to carry out our Social
>> Engineering (Economics, Politics, Religions,
>> etc.).
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Chandra.
>>
>> *From:*General
>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
>> Behalf Of *Wolfgang Baer
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 26, 2017 12:40 AM
>> *To:*
>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Role of observer, a
>> deeper path to introspection
>>
>> Chandra:
>>
>> Unfortunately the TED talk does not work on
>> my machine but the transcript is available
>> and Anl Seth states what many people studying
>> the human psyche as well as eastern
>> philosophy have said for centuries , Yes we
>> are Hallucinating reality and our physics is
>> built upon that hallucination, but it works
>> so well, or does it?
>>
>> However as Don Hoffmancognitive scientist UC
>> Irvine contends
>> https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as_it_is
>>
>> What we see is like the icons on a computer
>> screen, a file icon may only be a symbol of
>> what is real on the disk, but these icons as
>> well as the "hallucinations" are connected to
>> some reality and we must take them seriously.
>> Deleting the icon also deletes the disk which
>> may have disastrous consequences.
>>
>> For our discussion group it means we can take
>> Albrechts route and try to understand the
>> universe and photons first based upon the
>> idea that it is independently real and then
>> solve the human consciousness problem or we
>> can take the opposite approach and rebuild a
>> physics without the independent physical
>> reality assumption and see if we cannot build
>> out a truly macroscopic quantum theory.
>> Concentrating on finding the mechanisms of
>> connection between the Hallucination and the
>> reality is my approach. I think the constant
>> speed of light assumption is one of the first
>> pillars that must fall. If there is such a
>> constant it should in my opinion be
>> interpreted as the speed of Now , a property
>> we individually apply to all our observations.
>>
>> best
>>
>> Wolf
>>
>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>
>> Research Director
>>
>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>
>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>
>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>>
>> On 7/23/2017 2:44 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear colleagues:
>>
>> Lately there has been continuing
>> discussion on the role of observer and
>> the reality. I view that to be healthy.
>>
>> We must guide ourselves to understand and
>> model the universe without human mind
>> shaping the cosmic system and its working
>> rules. This suggestion comes from the
>> fact that our own logic puts the universe
>> to be at least 13 billion years old,
>> while we, in the human form, have started
>> evolving barely 5 million years ago (give
>> or take).
>>
>> However, we are not smart enough to
>> determine a well-defined and decisive
>> path, as yet. Our search must accommodate
>> perpetual iteration of thinking strategy
>> as we keep on advancing. This is well
>> justified in the following TED-talk.
>>
>> Enjoy:
>>
>> https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2017-07-22&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=talk_of_the_week_image
>>
>> Chandra.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>> <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
>>
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>>
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>
>> </a>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>>
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>>
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>
>> </a>
>>
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>
>>
>>
>> Virenfrei. www.avast.com
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>>
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>>
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>
>> </a>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
>>
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>>
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>
>> </a>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>>
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>>
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>
>> </a>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>>
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>>
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>
>> </a>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>>
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>>
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>
>> </a>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170809/ded8ad79/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list