[General] Our forum in the absence of our SPIE conference.

Sun Jan 1 12:48:19 PST 2017

Hi Richard

Thank you.  I had not seen that.  So then the relationship would be:

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2017 2:17 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Our forum in the absence of our SPIE conference.

Hi Chip,

 Until your formulas are  dimensionally correct, it’s hard to work with your ideas. The formula you gave has momentum p=F/t (in terms of dimensions), but this equation is dimensionally incorrect and therefore invalid. The correct equation dimensionally is F=p/t.

     Richard

On Dec 31, 2016, at 3:13 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> > wrote:

Hi Chandra

I have studied waves extensively, and understand the material cause for forward momentum of a propagating wave in a material medium made of particles of mass.  However I feel there is a more fundamental form of momentum which is not generated by the motion of mass, but rather generated by a differential force through time when energy displaces space. This approach allows space to be a massless medium (tensor based medium) yet still creates a net force through time, an impulse, which is what momentum is.

Hi Richard

Yes.  Let’s talk about the photon and explore this idea. 

If the equal but opposite force, which opposes differential displacement of space, develops slightly slower than the displacement itself, then there is a differential force (front to back) on the displacement, simply because the force at the back of the displacement has had time to develop more fully.  If we start with a basic assumption that each half of the differential displacement is principally hemispherical in shape, then we could estimate the impulse to be:

<image001.png>

Where p is momentum, delta Fc is the difference in the force Fc at the front and the rear of the differential displacement, t is the time it takes for the displacement to propagate past a point (traverse a perpendicular plane), and θ is the mean angle (front and back) of the displacement envelope. For a hemisphere this θ may just be 45 degrees.

I think this situation would satisfy the requirements for the creation of momentum.  

But there then would be several things we would need to sort out.  The shape of the displacement, the rate of displacement versus the rate of the development of the opposing force,  The resultant “time constant” and the full set of relationships which cause that time constant.

Thoughts?

Chip

From: General [ <mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Roychoudhuri, Chandra
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2016 12:01 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' < <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Our forum in the absence of our SPIE conference.

Hello Chip and Richard:

     I have not spent any systematic time thinking about the “momentum” issue. So, I am not going to make/suggest any new concepts/ideas about the “momentum”. I would simply like to raise questions based on my Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology.

     I would like to underscore that our current “evidence based science” generates and mathematically models the measurable data. Data are physical transformations experienced by some entity (detecting agent) in our sensor by exchanging energy with the desired interactant. So, the Detector tells us what it “sees, colored by its own goggles it is wearing” (limited to the mutual force of interaction valid for the context).

     The prevailing tendency in physics has been to assign the observed property (our interpretation of the data) on to the entity itself  under observation, ignoring the “coloration” by the “detector-the-observer”. [Humans are not the observers. They are merely interpreters of the measured/recorded data. The fathers of the Copenhagen Interpretation do not want to recognize this.]

     Ocean and river waves have been transforming the land masses on the Earth for billions of years by virtue of the “interaction momentum response” perceived by the land masses and the stones obstructing the propagation of water waves. 

   My question is: Is this “material experienced momentum” an intrinsic property of the un-hindered water waves? Is the mechanical momentum experienced by material atoms (or a bulk body) while interacting with EM waves, an inherent property of the freely propagating waves, or is it just the experience (response through energy exchange) of the material body while obstructing and interacting with the freely propagating EM waves? 

Chandra.

From: General [ <mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2016 11:12 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion < <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Chip Akins < <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> chipakins at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [General] Our forum in the absence of our SPIE conference.

HI Chip,

  Could you elaborate for the case of an electron and/or photon? 

    "We measure this forward force as momentum”. Force is not the same as momentum so this needs clarification.

      Richard

On Dec 31, 2016, at 7:08 AM, Chip Akins < <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Richard, Albrecht, Chandra, and all

I have been working to better understand momentum.

So far my thoughts are as follows:

1.      Space is “displaced” by energy. But space is not a regular material medium. 

2.      Space would then be comprised of two equal but opposite components, collocated when energy is not present.  

3.      These two components of space are differentially displaced by energy. 

4.      Space opposes this displacement with an equal and opposite reaction which creates a force. 

5.      This opposing force is the confinement force for particles. 

6.      The opposing force develops slightly slower than the displacement, which causes energy to always move, and gives energy a forward force (impulse) as well. 

7.      We measure this forward force as momentum.

This approach shows cause for the confinement of energy to become particles. Interestingly this approach also shows cause for electric charge. 

So it looks like it is possible to have the momentum we observe for a photon, from just space, the properties of space, and differential displacement energy.

The components of space can be thought of as massless particles, or as a tensor based medium. The important part is the tensor and how it develops with displacement. 

Thoughts?

Chip Akins

From: General [ <mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2016 12:26 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion < <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Our forum in the absence of our SPIE conference.

Albrecht, 

   You think there is nothing to be gained by explaining the inertial mass of an resting electron as the derived inertial mass of a circling photon-like object composing the resting electron. You think that inertia is basically the same as momentum. I disagree. “Inertia" is a vague and non-quantitative word which is somehow related to momentum, as in the “law of inertia” meaning Newton’s first law. The term “inertial mass” however is well-defined by the relation F=ma in Newtonian mechanics, but the ORIGIN of inertial mass has been a mystery. The inertial mass of a resting particle is currently a quantity without explanation. The relation Eo=mc^2 while factual does not  in itself explain the origin of the inertial mass m of a resting particle. Why should energy have inertial mass? It would be a big increase in the understanding of the electron if it could be established that it is composed of a circling photon-like object from whose circling momentum the inertial mass of the electron could be derived.

     Richard 

On Dec 30, 2016, at 9:40 AM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra < <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> wrote:

Albrecht, your remark is important: “We have first to understand (and it is written in every text book about relativity) that Einstein's relativity is pure geometry, it is not physics.”

Albrecht: I agree and that is also the point, “pure geometry”. I rest my case for this ongoing debate on SR.

     Physics is not about elegant mathematics or geometry. The key purpose of physics is to understand and visualize the invisible interaction processes going on in nature. The skills in utilizing the nature-allowed processes in various permutations and combinations to create new techniques and technologies, have been behind the successful emergence of the human as the top species today.Elegant geometry and mathematical constructs, by themselves, will not save the human species from going extinct if we blindly keep on following the same current success tracks, both in science and in socio-economic philosophy.      

Further, let us not ignore that in many undergraduate text books, SR is still presented as one of the core foundation that is holding the “Edifice of Physics” (meaning, thou shall not be challenge this platform of thinking”)! This has to be turned around.

This collective psychology of modern physicists (“messiah complex”) has to be turned around toward perpetual critical enquiry of the “working theories”. Because, “working theories” have already captured some ontological realities of nature; so they must be leveraged, through deeper enquiry, to extract even deeper ontological realities. I am trying to initiate such an approach through OSA. Further, before the end of 2017, I will write a full paper accommodating and explaining some of the key PHYSICAL PROCESS known to be related to SR, but as old fashioned classical physics.

Chandra.  

From: General [ <mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Albrecht Giese
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 11:33 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion < <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Our forum in the absence of our SPIE conference.

Chandra,

you have again made some statements about SRT. And I feel that I should comment that.

I fully agree with you regarding what you say about the "running time". Also about "space-time" and about the necessity of a kind of an inertial frame. But in the other hand one cannot deny that for instance clocks are running more slowly when in motion. So, what about SRT in general?

In my view there is a solution for this which reflects your concern. We have first to understand (and it is written in every text book about relativity) that Einstein's relativity is pure geometry, it is not physics. But the relativistic phenomena can in fact be based on physics. That was done for instance by Lorentz prior to Einstein's first publication. Oliver Heaviside in 1888 derived from Maxwell's theory that fields contract at motion. And also Lorentz and Larmor found out - before Einstein's paper - that there must be a permanent motion in elementary particles to explain dilation. All this is real physics, not geometry. Further Einstein's famous relation E = mc2 was found by others before Einstein and before Einstein declared relativity. For instance by Thomson and Wien (where the result was a bit different but the connection of both notions was seen).

Perhaps you remember it (or you have missed it): In all my talks in Mexico and in San Diego I have recommended to use Lorentz' relativity rather than the one of Einstein. And I have also undertaken to develop General Relativity following the concept of Lorentz in order to understand it at a task in physics, not in geometry. That explains gravity without any space-time curvature; it is in that view a weak side effect of the strong force. It is much simpler than the view of Einstein, because no need for four-dimensionality and Riemannian geometry. It explains dark matter quantitatively (for an example which I have calculated), and it has no need for dark energy.

The other point: Your idea to maintain the discussion forum may be a usable replacement of the meeting, also the use of the forum of Physics Essays. But it may have the risk that this discussion will slowly come to an end. A meeting is a higher challenge for all who contribute and who attend, so it keeps all active. But if meetings are not possible any more, this will be better than to give up.

Richard: 

You know my opinion regarding your way of explaining inertia. In my view that explanations are tautological statements, as you explain the mass of an electron by the mass of its constituents. Or you explain the mass of an object by its momentum, where momentum is essentially the same as inertia, just in a different context. - In contrast to that the mechanism that two objects bound to each other at a distance have inevitably inertia does not need any other assumptions or preconditions than the existence of a binding field and the existence of c.

Sincerely
Albrecht

Am 26.12.2016 um 22:24 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:

Good thinking, Richard!

     I like your approach, especially that the derivation does not need SR.

I have expressed in many of my earlier publications, my book, “Causal Physics” and many comments in this forum that SR does not represent good Physics.

     To me, the first criterion of a good physics theory is that it must guide us to understand and visualize the invisible interaction processes going on nature. In theorizing such interaction processes, the “primary” parameters must relate to the inherent behavior-representing property of the object whose interaction process is being modeled. The interaction process is guided by nature’s rule (logic) that allows the entity to exist and/or interact with other cosmic entities (large or small). Our perceptible and observable universe is elusive but is not an illusion. This is because we can never measure (acquire) complete information about anything with all the necessary details. We are always “information starved”. So, we must not also describe the universe as “It from bit”. Interaction between “bits” generate data; which human minds interprets as information. Subjective interpretations of data by human minds as information, cannot be the ontological foundation of the universe. 

     The running time “t” is not a parameter of any object in this universe. Everything in this universe is oscillatory from very short to very long periods. We measure the frequency of an oscillator (primary parameter) and then invert it to generate a new secondary parameter, “Delta-t”. While we do need the running time “t” as a mathematical parameter; it is not a physical parameter and hence the assertion that “space-time” is the new physical order of the universe, will only divert us away from fathoming nature’s ontological reality.

     There are many other reasons that SR is not a physical theory. For example, there are no physical inertial frame in this universe that can be used to validate SR postulates. All planetary platforms are undergoing accelerated motion in closed loop orbits! 

     However, I have postulated that the space itself is the stationary inertial frame of reference filled with Complex Tension Field (CTF), which allows ITS linear excitation  to perpetually propagate as EM waves; and ITS phase-resonant self-looped high-energy oscillations are the particles we experience. Their inertial properties have been modeled by us as “Mass”. But there are no “Mass” in this universe in the Newtonian sense of “matter”. Only energy exists in motion (as EM waves and particles) or in quiescent form (as the prime CTF). And 100% of the energy is contained by the CTF. No need to postulate separate Dark Energy and Dark Matter. There are no exchange particles to facilitate various forces. “Forces” are the physically extended potential gradients generated in the CTF due to the complex physical motions of the CTF, which represent various particles.  To develop a unified field theory, we need a single field that is capable of generating everything. The necessary postulates for unified field theory cannot be generated while accepting the primacy of the existing but self-contradictory, postulates behind the existing “working” theories.

Happy New Year!

I am sorry that I failed to re-instate our out-of-box SPIE San Diego Conference, in spite of a lot of quiet appeals.

1.     This Forum: We will maintain this discussion forum. Although, in future, I am thinking of splitting it up into several parallel discussions on well-identified problem. I am open to suggestions from all of you. [As before, the discussion forums do not need to be based upon the unified field, CTF only.]

2.     Physics Essays: You could also utilize the forum of Physics Essays. This out-of-box concept-promoting journal has been running for over 25 years. It has page charge. But, then you can re-post it anywhere in the web after publication. The page-charge is much less than attending the conference.  

Sincerely,

Chandra.

From: General [ <mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2016 3:05 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion  <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Mark, Martin van der  <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
Subject: Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories

Hello all,
  Yes, happy holidays and happy new year to all.

 Here's what I just added to a discussion on Inertia and Momentum at  <https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/momentum-vs-inertia.854092/page-2> https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/momentum-vs-inertia.854092/page-2 . It is I think relevant to all who have circling-photon-like-object models of the electron and other particles.

  What if a fundamental particle like a resting electron is composed of a circling photon-like object with energy Eo and vector momentum p = Eo/c where c is the speed of light? If we start with Newton's second law of motion F = dp/dt = MA where dp/dt is the time rate of change of the circling vector momentum p = Eo/c,   M is the inertial mass of the circling photon-like object, and A is the centripetal acceleration c^2/R of the circling photon-like object (where R is the radius of its circle), we find with very easy math (and using the circling vector relation dp/dt = pc/R) that the inertial mass M = (dp/dt)/A = (pc/R)/(c^2/R) = p/c = (Eo/c)/c = Eo/c^2. That is, the inertial mass M of an electron (if it is composed of a circling photon-like object) is derived from the circling photon-like object's energy Eo and its circling vector momentum Eo/c to be M = Eo/c^2 or Eo = Mc^2 , which is Einstein's equation for the energy content Eo of a resting electron of inertial mass M. 

  This result is published at  <https://www.academia.edu/29799123/Inertia_Explained> https://www.academia.edu/29799123/Inertia_Explained . This derivation of the relation of the energy content of a resting fundamental particle to its inertial mass is done without using Einstein's special theory of relativity. Note: Einstein's 1905 article in which he first derived m = E/c^2  or  E = mc^2 for a resting object by using his special theory of relativity is titled "Does the inertia of a body depend on its energy-content?”

   Richard

On Dec 15, 2016, at 2:07 AM, Burinskii A.Ya. < <mailto:bur at ibrae.ac.ru> bur at ibrae.ac.ru> wrote:

Dear John,

Thank you very much for very good explanations and reference to good review.

I wish also to you and all colleagues Merry Christmas and Happy New Year,

Alex

________________________________
От: Dr Grahame Blackwell [ <mailto:grahame at starweave.com> grahame at starweave.com]
Отправлено: 14 декабря 2016 г. 12:48
Кому: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Копия: Stephen Leary; Vera Biryukova; Darren Eggenschwiler; Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Pete Delaney; Innes Morrison; Alexander Afriat; Phil Butler; Michael Wright; Ariane Mandray; Solomon Freer; Manohar .; Mike Mobley; Niels Gresnigt; Mark, Martin van der; AmancioHasty
Тема: Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories

Hi John,

Many thanks indeed for this very thorough round-up of the 'evidence' on quarks.
Very much appreciated.

Wishing all colleagues a great Christmas and an excellent New Year.
Grahame
----- Original Message -----
From: John Williamson< <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion< <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: Stephen Leary< <mailto:sleary at vavi.co.uk> mailto:sleary at vavi.co.uk> ; Darren Eggenschwiler< <mailto:darren at makemeafilm.com> mailto:darren at makemeafilm.com> ; Nick Bailey< <mailto:nick at bailey-family.org.uk> mailto:nick at bailey-family.org.uk> ; Anthony Booth< <mailto:abooth at ieee.org> mailto:abooth at ieee.org> ; Pete Delaney< <mailto:piet.delaney.2 at gmail.com> mailto:piet.delaney.2 at gmail.com> ; Innes Morrison< <mailto:innes.morrison at cocoon.life> mailto:innes.morrison at cocoon.life> ; Alexander Afriat< <mailto:afriat at gmail.com> mailto:afriat at gmail.com> ; Phil Butler< <mailto:phil.butler at canterbury.ac.nz> mailto:phil.butler at canterbury.ac.nz> ; Michael Wright< <mailto:mpbw1879 at yahoo.co.uk> mailto:mpbw1879 at yahoo.co.uk> ; Ariane Mandray< <mailto:ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr> mailto:ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr> ; Solomon Freer< <mailto:slf at unsw.edu.au> mailto:slf at unsw.edu.au> ; Manohar .< <mailto:manohar_berlin at hotmail.com> mailto:manohar_berlin at hotmail.com> ; Vera Biryukova< <mailto:biriukovavera at gmail.com> mailto:biriukovavera at gmail.com> ; Mike Mobley< <mailto:Mike.Mobley at gcu.edu> mailto:Mike.Mobley at gcu.edu> ; Niels Gresnigt< <mailto:Niels.Gresnigt at xjtlu.edu.cn> mailto:Niels.Gresnigt at xjtlu.edu.cn> ; Mark,Martin van der< <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> ; AmancioHasty< <mailto:ahasty at gmail.com> mailto:ahasty at gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2016 4:13 AM
Subject: Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories

Hi everyone,

Have been meaning to explain a bit more about the proton internal structure for some time in answer to an earlier question from John D about the evidence for quarks inside the proton. I did reference the literature, but this is hard to understand if you are not in the field and the field anyway tries to hide the pure truth with a lot of dense and well-established undergrowth.  I had not got round to this earlier due to two things: pressure of other work and the fact that I forgot to note the source for a useful chapter I found on the internet. Just tracked it down and it is at:

 <https://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys741/xji/chapter4.pdf> https://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys741/xji/chapter4.pdf

Did not want to send you my copy of it without crediting the source.

Anyway,the main thing I wanted to do was cut the through some of the jargon and help explain what the proton structure functions (in fig 4.6 in the above) mean. This is the essence of what is known experimentally about the internal structure of the proton – and contains the main evidence for the quark-parton model. The quark-parton model is the association of hard bits in the proton, the partons, with the pattern of existing particles explained by Gell-Mann’s quark model. This also helps to explain some things about Richard’s question in the recent email – hence the choice to spend time on this in the early hours of this morning.

Now I’m not going to explain this in detail – the chapter referenced above does a better job of this – but I want to cut the experiment a bit free from the embedded story of the QCD quark-gluon etc etc model (and it is just a model remember) and explain what the EXPERIMENT tells you.

The experiment gives the structure functions in terms of two variables Qsquared and x. Briefly, Qsquared is the measured 4-momentum transfer squared of the interaction in GeV squared. How hard you hit it (squared). To give you an idea of the scale of the hit – 100GeV squared is roughly ten times the mass-energy of the proton itself. And so the data extends out to about a 100 protons worth of “hit”. That is hard!

Now x is a more interesting variable. It is the measured fraction of the proton’s 4-momentum carried by whatever you hit. Thinking of the proton in its rest-frame – this is just its rest mass. So x tells you how much of the proton mass was carried by whatever you hit. x is 1 and you got the whole proton. This is what you would always measure if you hit a simple object like the electron. The electron is a single object and it carries all of its mass localized to the electron. This is how you know. The proton is not like that. At the quark-parton models simplest, with no forces and no confinement one thinks of it as three quarks. If each of these carried a third of the proton mass one would have data at only x = 0.33. Note that there is not even any structure there.

What one actually sees is completely different to this, or to any three-hard-bits-in-a-bag model. In the vast majority of collisions the effective “mass” of whatever you hit was very very low. Look at the scale for F2. It goes over 12 orders of magnitude. One is hundreds of millions times more likely to hit a “quark-parton” with a practically zero x of 0.000063 than one with a (simple model) x of 0.3 ish. Now precisely zero x would be hitting a rest-massless (photon-like) object, one third x would be simple rest-massive quarks in a massless bag with binding energy (gluons if you like) of the same order as the mass. A sixth x would be 3 equal mass quarks with some confinement at the same kind of energy as the quark mass-energy. You get nothing like this. What you get is gloop. There is almost no discernable structure at all.

So why do people think there are hard bits in the proton. The evidence for this comes from scaling – a flat distribution with Q squared then. This IS evidenced by the curves in the middle of the figure. At x = 0.08 it is pretty flat. Think about it. If the proton contained hard billiard-ball like bits, how likely you were to hit them with another flung billiard ball does not depend on how hard you fling it, but on the “impact parameter”. This is what is characteristic of single-hard-object scattering.

Note that this simple scaling does not apply at low x, where the data shows that it becomes rapidly more likely to find a photon-like object as one hits it harder, and at high x where it becomes rapidly less likely to hit a high-mass constituent. Explain that in a model of a bag of bits. You should resolve the hard bits better, instead it seems they break. Not very hard then. Ok, you are walloping them with a 4-momentum squared many times their mass squared, but one is doing this at lower x as well. The other thing is that, if you integrate over all the bits you hit in deep inelastic proton scattering, you only get about half the proton mass. The rest is something else, something unhittable with charges and photons. This is the meaning of equation 4.77. This is interpreted as arising from the binding. Could well be, but whatever they are binding is mostly, experimentally, a whole pile of really low mass bits (if bits indeed) – more and more of it as one looks harder and harder. Remember, to make up the proton mass there must be (at least) hundreds of millions of them. Hundreds of millions is not 3. One talks about “valence quarks and sea quarks, but this is mostly bullshit. One sees what one sees, not what one would like to see. Also the number in eq. 4.77 is so near 50 percent I favour something much more radical and far simpler. That will eventually become another paper. Quarks, why there are three and what they really are is what comes next.

If you want to see how bad it gets for the standard model (and why I left particle physics) the bullshit about the standard model picture gets (much!) worse in the next section about the “proton spin crisis” so read on if you dare …

I’m not quite up to speed with who is or is not on the general maiing list, so some of you may get this twice – apologies!

Thats it for now.

Cheers, John.
________________________________
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at  <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href=" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at  <mailto:phys at a-giese.de> 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/antivirus> <~WRD000.jpg>

Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft. 
 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> www.avast.com

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at  <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href=" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at  <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href=" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at  <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href=" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170101/7263125f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1495 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170101/7263125f/attachment.png>