[General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Wed Aug 16 12:30:24 PDT 2017
Dear Chip:
my remarks in your text below.
Am 14.08.2017 um 17:05 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> Dear Albrecht
>
> This is such an interesting discussion. Thank you for explaining your
> views in a compelling manner, and for supporting your views with
> logical arguments.
>
> We grope around, kind of in the dark, looking for logic and reason, so
> we can make sense of the amazing puzzle of the universe.
>
> In that quest, let me share with you some of the thoughts I have had,
> some of the reasoning behind my view of these puzzles.
>
> To begin, the concept that particles are made of energy is very
> interesting to me.
>
Short interrupt: How is energy defined? -> Energy is the ability to do
work. So, if there is energy somewhere, there must be a mechanism to
transfer this energy to some object to give this object energy. Now my
question: how can energy exist by itself as an abstract phenomenon so
that some object can pick up this energy? There should be a mechanism,
and with your position you should describe this mechanism.
On the other hand, if energy is always connected to an object, i.e. it
is a property of an object, it can easily be transferred to another
object by the application of forces. That is understandable to me, so I
prefer this approach.
>
>
> My thoughts are that the simple, elementary particles, like the
> electron, which displays no internal structure of other particles in
> any experiment we have been able to conduct, is then probably a direct
> manifestation, of how energy forms particles. I have been finally
> able to put together a model of the electron which displays all the
> properties of the electron, and is comprised of displacements of space
> (the result of energy pulling on space) which propagate in a confined
> transverse manner, to constitute the principally spherical electron.
>
For me an interesting question is how something abstract - like energy -
can form something real - like a particle. (Perhaps I need more details
to understand it.)
>
> The reason I mention this model, is that it yields the properties of
> the electron.
>
> 1.½ hbar spin when measured from any direction,
>
> 2.the exact electric charge of the electron,
>
> 3.the magnetic moment of the electron,
>
> 4.including the magnetic moment anomaly (accurate to 10 (or more)
> decimal places),
>
> 5.the rest mass of the electron,
>
> 6.the inertial and gravitational mass of the electron,
>
> 7.a gravity field (as do photons in the same sort of model),
>
> 8.Point-like appearance in many types of experiments
>
> 9.The zitter frequency of the electron,
>
> 10. de Broglie’s waves are generated by this model,
>
> 11.The model produces a “pilot wave” (for photons also),
>
> 12.The ability to simply derive E=mc^2 from the model.
>
> 13.Energy must be added to move the electron (which causes an internal
> mass increase)
>
This is an impressive list of facts and properties. But to judge it, it
is of course necessary to have your model as a /quantitative /one, so
that the single points can be checked. So, go ahead! - My model
anyway does all this - and quantitatively by only assuming c and h as
constants - as I have described it on my site "The origin of mass" and
the sites referenced there.
>
> While some of the listed properties are not of direct relevance to our
> discussion so far, the number of properties which agree with
> experiment may indicate that the model is getting closer to a model of
> the real electron.
>
> I am sure you can see now, why it is that I am of a different view
> than you, with regards to some of the fundamentals. Like any invested
> scientist, you and I have been able to find some answers by pursuing
> different perspectives of the same puzzles, and we each treasure what
> we have gained, so yes I am a bit psychologically and philosophically
> invested, as I am sure you are.
>
If I look at your list above, my model also yields all what you claim.
So, why do you say that it shows that we have different results?
>
> Now to address some of your comments:
>
> You commented:
>
> “/My objection is that momentum and mass have a common cause, and that
> is inertia. One cannot explain inertia by momentum as inertia is the
> cause of momentum. If there would be no inertia in the world there
> would also be no momentum of the kind known.”/
>
> //
>
> While it is quite true that the momentum of massive objects can be
> related to (and attributed to) inertia, it is not likely accurate to
> say that, from this alone, we can logically conclude that momentum
> cannot also cause inertia. *We see many examples in physics of
> reciprocal relationships between causes and effects.* Momentum and
> Inertia may also be reciprocal. One can cause the other. We have no
> evidence which excludes this.
>
What we can say at least is that there is a strict correlation between
inertia and momentum. The rest is a question of the model we are using
- But I go a step further saying that inertia and momentum are notions
for a physically identical fact, we just use the different notions for
practical reasons depending on the application.
>
> Momentum is a type of force which tends to keep an object in motion.
>
> Inertia is also such a force which tends to keep an object in motion.
>
> In some ways they are names for the same effect. The difference
> arises when we introduce the concept of mass. If there is a
> mechanism, for example, which gives a photon momentum, do we then say
> that the photon has mass? Some have done this, but it is not strictly
> the same as the mass of an object, for we cannot bring a photon to
> rest, nor can we accelerate it. Without getting into semantics
> arguments, I would suggest that we call this property of a photon
> “momentum”, instead of “inertia”, because the photon does not behave
> like a massive particle or object.
>
> If you agree with this line of reasoning, then we could also agree
> that the photon is an example of momentum without mass.
>
> Even if you disagree, bear with me for a moment, while we discuss the
> implications of a photon having momentum without mass. If the photon,
> a massless, light speed particle, has momentum, then we have an
> example of momentum which may indicate that momentum is more
> fundamental than mass, and could actually be a cause for mass. Even if
> you disagree with this concept please keep it in mind, for it may
> prove useful in the future.
>
But perhaps semantics at this moment. How is inertia defined? -> Inertia
is the resistance against a change of the speed of an object. Now this
is not necessarily restricted to the amount of speed, but can also mean
the direction of the speed vector. And then: the speed vector of a
photon can be changed and this change needs a force, and in the general
case the force transfers energy. In this respect the situation is not
different from other particles.
>
> But given the previous few paragraphs, I must disagree with you about
> inertia and momentum. I feel that there is no proof that momentum
> cannot cause mass or inertia, in fact I find significant evidence that
> momentum does in fact cause both mass and therefore inertia.
>
Then there must be a mechanism causing momentum. Which is this
mechanism? If you have this opinion you should be able do describe it. -
For inertia I have a basic mechanism which only needs the finiteness of
c and the existence of binding forces, nothing more.
>
> (In the paper I mentioned on Gravity, it was requisite to also include
> a discussion of the creation of fundamental momentum as a natural
> consequence of the propagation of transverse displacements in the
> tension medium of space. I will share a copy when that is paper is
> ready.)
>
> This issue regarding gravity is another significant reason that I feel
> that momentum is fundamental, and is created by the propagation
> mechanism of transverse displacements. This is because, with momentum
> created in this manner, which in turn creates mass when those
> propagations are suitably confined, the *force* of gravity comes from
> the energy (mass) within the particle. Gravity is then a refraction of
> the propagation of the displacements within the particle. All
> particles have the same refraction (acceleration) in a gravitational
> field, all objects would fall at the same rate, but a more massive
> object (an object which contains more of this propagating energy)
> would generate a greater force in the gravity field.
>
You say:"... with momentum created in this manner ...". So, please, in
which manner is momentum created? And earlier you say: " ... I feel that
momentum is fundamental ...". Isn't this a logical conflict? Either
"fundamental" or "created" ...
And "momentum creates mass" and from "this mass comes force"? Which
physics is going on there?
>
> So there are many solutions, which become easy and evident using such
> an approach, too many for me to reject the concept that momentum may
> be more fundamental than mass or inertia. There are too many clues,
> too much supporting evidence, that this is the correct premise, for me
> to conclude otherwise.
>
Form the preceding I do not see how it works. And particularly: how does
it work /quantitatively/? Where are the equations for it?
>
> Regarding conservation of energy: I understand that you must reject
> the fundamental conservation of energy in order for your model to
> remain viable. And then reconstruct a higher level cause for it, at
> the particle level, so that it can remain intact in the macro,
> observable world. But I think this is an area for some careful
> consideration. Do we change (reinterpret) the evidence so that it
> fits our models? We may do that, but it seems we have to be very
> careful, because the objective is to model the real universe.
>
My logic is the other way around. I can see from my model why energy is
conserved - on the level of an elementary particle or above that. And
following this consequence, I do not have a problem with exchange particles.
And, BTW, quantum mechanics are using exchange particles, they have
introduced it. And they have the position that energy conservation is
fundamental. So, they do not see a conflict here. It is just me to
suspect this conflict. Which, however, does not exist in my model.
>
> You Commented:
>
> “/There have been many ideas in the past to have a theory of an ether,
> but those all have caused great problems…”/
>
> On the contrary, the “great problems” you mention above don’t seem to
> exist.
>
> *John Stewart Bell said*.”/I would say that the cheapest resolution is
> something like going back to relativity as it was before Einstein,
> when people like Lorentz and Poincar´e thought that there was an
> aether – a preferred frame of reference – but that our measuring
> instruments were distorted by motion in such a way that we could not
> detect motion through the aether. Now, in that way you can imagine
> that there is a preferred frame of reference, and in this preferred
> frame of reference (some) things do go faster than light”…” Behind the
> apparent Lorentz invariance of the phenomena, there is a deeper level
> which is not Lorentz invariant, a pre-Einstein position of Lorentz and
> Poincar´e, Larmor and Fitzgerald, was perfectly coherent, and is not
> inconsistent with relativity theory. The idea that there is an aether,
> and these Fitzgerald contractions and Larmor dilations occur, and that
> as a result the instruments do not detect motion through the aether –
> that is a perfectly coherent point of view./”
>
> I have found the same things which Bell expressed.
>
> A perfectly coherent model.
>
What John Bell says here is exactly what my position is. In my last mail
I have said that I believe the existence of an ether of the kind that
there is an absolute frame of reference. I do not see here that Bell
assumes space to be filled with something, a property or a material. -
(Where did you find this text of Bell?)
My remark that "ether" has caused problems in the history is directed to
an ether model which assumes that space is filled with something,
whatever it may be.
>
> A model in which the contractions and dilations, Lorentz
> Transformation, MUST occur due to the nature of matter, and of energy.
>
> I this model, the correct value of the force of electric charge is
> easily calculated. Gravity is easily understood, including the
> equivalence mechanism for gravitational and inertial mass.
>
In the Lorentzian relativity (i.e. SRT) there are two mechanisms
fundamental. One is the fact that fields contract at motion. This has
nothing to do with energy or other influences. (And it can be explained
best if exchange particles are assumed.) The other one is the fact that
there is a permanent motion at c in elementary particles, which causes
dilation. This motion is what Schrödinger has called "Zitterbewegung".
He found that the Dirac function can only work on the basis of this
assumption.
How do you calculate the force of the electric charge quantitatively?
>
> So, yes, I will continue to refrain from accepting exchange particles
> for the creation of charge, or the Higgs mechanism for the creation of
> mass. It seem much more fully understandable, much more elegant and
> simple, to take this other specific view of the causes for what we
> observe. That view is that space is a fairly simple tension medium,
> and fundamental energy pulls on space to displace space. This does
> not address what it is that comprises space itself, only that there
> must be at least two components which constitute space. This does mean
> that space has a set of properties which are universal. Identifying
> and quantifying those properties are part of my current work. As to
> what space is made of, unknown at this time. But we have to take this
> discovery like peeling an onion, one layer at a time.
>
I am very curious about your quantitative description of the tension
field which as you say fills the space. - But one correction: exchange
particles are not assumed to create charge. They are emitted from
charges and mediate the force between charges.
>
> Thank you again for this stimulating discussion.
>
> Chip
>
I think we are not so different as it looks like. So, let's go on!
Albrecht
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Monday, August 14, 2017 3:10 AM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection
>
> Dear Chip,
>
> I think that we are coming to a point where we have to argue / decide
> the permanent question which theory is the easiest one and needs the
> smallest number of assumptions. I shall try to apply this to our
> discussion points in the following.
>
> Am 10.08.2017 um 22:17 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> Dear Albrecht
>
> Thank you once again for some thought provoking comments.
>
> I will also reply in the body of the text below.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 10, 2017 1:59 PM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path to
> introspection
>
> Dear Chip,
>
> thank you for careful reading. But your objections are in my view
> the result of specific preconditions in your view which are not
> necessary. I shall respond within your text.
>
> Am 08.08.2017 um 19:53 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
>
> Dear Albrecht
>
> Thank you for your thoughtful response.
>
> A few items occur to me while reading your message.
>
> Exchange particles are a difficult concept, especially if
> space is empty. For if space is empty then there is no causal
> mechanism which can tell a charged particle that another
> charge is in its vicinity. Therefore how do they know to
> “exchange photons” if space is completely empty? We know that
> a charged particle at rest is NOT continually radiating
> photons. We could imagine that it is continually radiating and
> absorbing photons to maintain its energy level, but then we
> would be able to detect such radiation, and we do not detect
> any such radiation from a charged particle at rest.
>
> The concept of exchange particles which I know (and so far have
> borrowed from QM) assumes that a charge is permanently radiating
> exchange particles to all directions. As they are understood to be
> particles they can fly through empty space without any problem.
> And you are right that the radiation of exchange particles is a
> permanent violation of the conservation of energy. So, I think
> that conservation of energy is not a basic law of nature but a
> consequence of the set up of particles. For example, my particle
> model is built in a way that it conserves energy, But that is, as
> I said, a consequence of the configuration, not at all a general
> law. And further, as a consequence there cannot be energy by
> itself somewhere in space but energy is a property of an object.
> There must be objects so that we have energy.
>
> This conservation of energy issue is not a concern, and energy is
> conserved, if we view space as a tension medium instead of empty.
> With that one simple premise, we then have conservation of energy,
> and a causal explanation of specifically how particles possess
> energy, and how fields possess energy. I feel the conservation of
> energy is crucial and is probably a law of physics. It seems that
> to ignore such a concept violates cause and effect and then
> becomes “not physics” as you have stated regarding other topics. I
> think therefore there must be energy so that we can have objects.
>
> Historically the understanding that energy is conserved is quite
> young. It was found in the middle of the 19th century by the
> observation that mechanical energy is converted into heat energy so
> that a conservation could be assumed. This seems important to me
> because if /logic /would demand this conservation, then I think that
> it would have been detected much earlier.
>
> Anyway if we see it as an advantage of a theory that as few as
> possible laws are taken as fundamental and as many as possible laws as
> deducible, then I conclude that a theory that deduces this
> conservation of energy should be superior. I understand this as an
> argument in favour of my model.
>
> And one advantage for my assumption that the conservation of energy is
> a property of the configuration within particles is that with this
> assumption I do not see any arguments in disfavour of exchange
> particles (which is of course a model, not necessarily final
> understanding).
>
> Another problem with “exchange particles”, specifically
> photons as exchange particles for electric charge, is the
> phase continuity problem. The idea, as I understand it, is
> that the frequency and phase of the exchange photon determines
> whether it pushes or pulls on the affected particle. But
> charge is constant and very predictable at any given distance,
> while phase would change with distance. We simply do not see
> the kind of behavior in electric charge we would see if it
> were mediated by photons. I have tried to simulate how it is
> that photons could provide the force we sense as electric
> charge, at any distance, without anomaly, and there just does
> not seem to be any way that can work without invoking some
> magical and unseen, anti-causal, mechanism.
>
> You address an important problem here: the exchange particle
> emitted by a positive charge must be different from an exchange
> particle emitted by a negative charge. I have asked several
> theoreticians of main stream physics just this question. The
> result was a bit funny. Some of them were confused and did not
> know how to answer, some said that there is never only one
> exchange particle but always a collection of them and the
> configuration within this collection tell the other charge whether
> they come form a positive or a negative one. - I for myself do not
> think that this is a workable mechanism. But I like better the
> idea that these so called photons are not the same ones as the
> normal photons carrying energy, but they are another kind of
> particle. - I agree that main stream is propagating an
> inconsistent model here.
>
> Due to these problems with exchange particles, I began a few
> decades ago, looking for some logical alternate explanation. This
> is what led me to explore the possibility that we had gotten it
> wrong, and that space might not be empty. That study has been
> more fruitful than I could have imagined. The approach I have been
> suggesting makes things much simpler to model and understand.
> While that in itself does not mean this approach is the right
> approach, there are many other supporting clues and evidence which
> become apparent as this avenue is explored. One reason I
> currently prefer this approach is the fortunate effect such an
> approach has in removing the host of “magical” explanations we
> have become so accustomed to accepting without supporting cause or
> proofs.
>
> To see this I need more knowledge about your approach. Particularly
> the property of a non-empty space. What is in it? There have been many
> ideas in the past to have a theory of an ether, but those all have
> caused great problems to my knowledge. So please give details.
>
> Of course we all do not want "magical" explanations. But that is a
> matter of judgement, not of facts.
>
> It is also quite interesting to me that you hold Lorentzian
> relativity to be more correct than Special relativity, but
> reject the foundation upon which Lorentz formulated his
> relativity. His concept, as best I can determine from
> historical accounts, was that space was a medium, and that the
> Pythagorean relationships he formulated were due to the fixed
> speed of light and energy propagation in the medium. I also
> believe that Lorentzian relativity is more accurate than
> Special relativity, but I believe that it is more accurate due
> to a clear cause and effect, which is only present if space is
> a medium.
>
> Lorentz did not understand space as a medium. There was an
> interesting and detailed discussion between Einstein and Lorentz
> about the necessity of an ether. Einstein did not want an ether as
> we know, but Lorentz found it necessary to explain acceleration
> and rotation (which is GRT). And in this discussion it became very
> clear that Lorentz did not want anything more than an absolute
> frame of reference. Einstein's argument was that the equivalence
> of gravity and acceleration makes this unnecessary; which I find
> difficult logic. - The basic difference between the concept of
> Einstein and the one of Lorentz regarding SRT are two points:
> Einstein says that space contracts at motion, Lorentz says that
> fields contract at motion. The measurable consequences of both are
> the same. For dilation Einstein says that time slows down whereas
> Lorentz says that oscillations slow down; again there is no
> difference regarding measurements. - I like the Lorentzian way
> because it means physics whereas Einstein's way means mathematical
> abstractions.
>
> That is interesting, My reading of all I could get of
> Lorentz’s work, has left me with the impression that he
> actually preferred a fixed frame in a medium of space.
>
> Can you please give a reference for a text which gave you this
> impression about the ether of Lorentz? If you look at the logic of his
> deduction of relativity, he only seems to need the assumption that the
> speed of light is defined with respect to some fixed reference frame,
> nothing more. - I can give as a reference a book:
> [Ludwik_Kostro]_Einstein_and_the_ether(BookFi.org.pdf) .
> Ludwik Kostro is a Polish professor for theoretical physics who has
> worked many years about the topic of ether. In this book he shows in
> detail the discussions of Einstein also with Lorentz about ether, and
> that shows quite clearly the position of Lorentz about it.
>
>
>
> Yes. Gravity is different than the other forces. And it is a
> warping of the fabric of space as Einstein imagined with
> General Relativity. The force of gravity is not generated by
> the gravitational “field”, for the gravitational “field” is
> simply a gradient in space which causes refraction of energy
> propagating through the gradient. The force we feel from that
> refraction is actually created by the momentum of the energy
> circulating within fermionic particles. So the force is
> related to the energy content (mass) of the object which is in
> the refracting field. In this way, the momentum of the energy
> circulating within the particle causes both inertial mass and
> gravitational mass. So there is a causal mechanism, which
> makes gravitational and inertial mass appear equivalent, in a
> specific manner.
>
> What is a "gradient of space"? Space is something which we cannot
> measure physically, so it is merely a mathematical concept. The
> reduction of c in a gravitational field, so in the vicinity of an
> object, is clearly measurable (even though not explained by saying
> this). But if we assume that forces are mediated by exchange
> particles, it is easily understandable that the interaction of any
> kind of exchange particles disturbs the path of a light-like
> particle and so reduces its speed. More is not necessary. - You
> say: "The momentum of the energy circulation within the particle
> causes both inertial mass and gravitational mass". To my
> understanding momentum does not cause inertial mass but is
> identical to inertial mass, just understood in a different
> context. And what is gravitational mass? Which mechanism causes a
> mass to be attracted by another mass? I have never heart an
> argument why this should be. The reduction of c by exchange
> particles is a possible mechanism and so serves as an argument.
>
> And the good point in my view of gravity is that this concept is
> extremely easier to handle. I have as a demonstration listed (from
> a textbook) the deduction of the Schwarzschild solution via
> Einstein. It is a sequence of > 80 equations which need Riemannian
> geometry (i.e. a curved 4-dim. space) whereas the reduction of the
> Schwarzschild solution by the relativity of Lorentz and the use of
> refraction needs about a dozen equations of school mathematics (so
> Euclidean geometry) and it yields the same result. Isn't this a
> good argument?
>
> A gradient of space is a gradient in the tension field of space
> caused by the displacement of space which is in turn caused by
> energy of particles. Much as displacement caused a gradient in an
> elastic solid. Refraction of propagating transverse displacements
> in a medium is quite naturally caused by such a gradient, and we
> have many examples of such refraction.
>
> To understand this I need more information about what this tension
> field is. Up to now I am afraid that it could be very complicated,
> which would not be good.
>
> You also say at the end that gravitation is caused by the energy of
> particles (one could also say: by the mass of particles). In my view
> this is not the case but every elementary particles contributes
> equally to the gravitational field. This is unfamiliar, but I do not
> know any experiment which is in conflict with this assumption. On the
> contrary, there are two points which could be in favour of it: One is
> the fact that every object has the same gravitational acceleration
> independent of its mass. This fact was never understood and is said to
> be one of the great mysteries of present physics. The other benefit is
> that this assumption explains the rotation curves of rotating
> galaxies. They are, as you surely know, presently "explained" by the
> assumption of some mysterious Dark Matter, for which the experimenters
> look since some time without any indication that there is something
> like that. But with my assumption the photons serve as this Dark
> Matter, and this is not only an idea but it works quantitatively for
> precisely observed and measured galaxies.
>
> You say that exchange particles explain gravity and that “more is
> not necessary” but exchange particles themselves are unexplainable
> by any of our existing physics, so I think more is necessary my
> friend.
>
> Why are exchange particles unexplainable? Their existence is kind of a
> model as there are many, and this model does not need many
> assumptions. Only the asumption that charges of any kind emit and
> receive these particles and each interaction with an exchange particle
> transfers a certain momentum - attracting or repelling - in the
> direction where the e.p. comes. They are mass-less and move always at
> c. And at emission they move uniformly into all directions. Which
> explains the 1/r^2 law of forces in a simple and geometric way. For
> which there is to my knowledge no other explanation available. - So,
> what is complicated or unexplainable with this assumption?
>
> Regarding momentum, the force Fc that you and I have discussed,
> plays a role in the creation of momentum for the energy
> circulating within particles. I can provide a fairly complete
> hypothesis for this creation of momentum if you are interested,
> but it is also based on the concept that space is a tension medium
> and the energy causes a displacement of space by pulling on space.
>
> Any details available?
>
> Once we can see how it is that momentum is created by this force,
> we can then see why it is that confined circulating momentum
> causes inertial mass in fermions, but is just evident as momentum
> in photons. Richard Gauthier has written a paper on how confined
> momentum creates inertial mass. I have a slightly different
> derivation but they are principally the same.
>
> I know the concept of Richard Gauthier as we have discussed this some
> time ago. My objection is that momentum and mass have a common cause,
> and that is inertia. One cannot explain inertia by momentum as inertia
> is the cause of momentum. If there would be no inertia in the world
> there would also be no momentum of the kind known. And I do not know
> any explanation in physics for inertia except the Higgs concept (which
> does not work as the Higgs field does not exist) and my model which
> refers it to the finite propagation speed of forces and which has
> precise quantitative results.
>
> I am finishing up a paper on gravity and will soon share this if
> you are interested in looking at such a different approach for you
> own.
>
> I will be curious to see your paper.
>
> Albrecht, thank you for your thoughtful and intelligent
> discussion. While we do not agree on certain aspects, the
> exchanges are definitely quite helpful to me. I appreciate that.
>
> Chip
>
> It is nice to have this discussion with you. Thanks
> Albrecht
>
> Nice discussion!!!
>
> Chip
>
> Still exciting!
> Albrecht
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Monday, August 07, 2017 2:15 PM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path to
> introspection
>
> 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
> <mailto: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://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif
> <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 <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 at phys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170816/d5616ee2/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list