Hi Chip,
I have to apologize to you - and to Wolf - that I am delayed to answer
your mails. Next week I join a conference here where I plan to give four
talks. That keeps me very busy.
To the conservation of energy: I agree that this is fulfilled in the
practical cases. But not in every case. My example of a charge which
additionally interacts with another charge in the universe is a
difficult example.
Assume the case that an electron interacts with another one, maybe both
are inside the same atom. That is an easy case and energy will be
locally preserved. But assume another charge outside, then the reaction
of the electron has to reflect that in order to conserve energy. Now
assume that another charged object orbits the moon. Then at certain
moments it moves towards the earth and at other moments away from the
earth. The effect of its charge to our electron is different in both
cases. This can in principle affect our interaction process, no problem
so far. But the motion vector at which our electron will see this
external charge is different from its true motion and position. The
delay, which is about one second in the case of the mood, means a
violation of the energy balance. So the conservation of energy is
violated, at least for a limited time.
But there may also be a charged particle which moves at very high speed,
close to c, away from us. In this case our electron will cause an energy
imbalance for a very long time, maybe forever. Conservation of energy
needs - to be true and valid - the connection of all elements of the
universe without any delay. And this is not the reality as we know as
propagation of forces is restricted to c.
Should the whole universe be a closed system then it can be assumed that
energy is conserved globally (even though not testable). But it cannot
be conserved locally as the local process does not get the information
of the other influences in time - as I have written above.
What is your problem with the picture of a particle?
Your question how a frame in an empty space is realized is a good one. I
have a concept for it, and I found that I am not alone with it. But I
developed the following on my own.
In this model the reference for the absolute frame is the speed of
light. In elementary particles there is a permanent motion with c
(Zitterbewegung) of the constituents of the particle. These constituents
are mass-less. Forces are mediated and transferred by exchange particles
which as well move at c and have no mass. (These will be the mediators
you are looking for.) So every interaction between particles means that
these constituents interact via the mass-less exchange particles, which
means that it is an elastic interaction which only changes the direction
of a particle but never its speed. That is a fundamental (and constant)
type of exchange. In this way the speed of light will never change as
long as only two objects of this kind interact.
How was this unique speed caused? I think that it was during the first
short time after the Big Bang. In that moment all these basic objects
were extremely close together so that multiple interactions happened.
And in this way the speed was aligned to each other; by multiple
contacts. Later when the particle were at distance to each other, this
process could not continue, so the speed was conserved.
Constancy of c means here of course constancy with relation to a certain
motion state. As it was understood by Lorentz. And this is most probably
the motion state of the Big Bang.
Albrecht
Am 13.03.2018 um 13:09 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> Hi Albrecht
>
> The conservation of energy “law” is that the total energy of an
> isolated system remains constant.
>
> And that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
>
> Of course it is not possible to have a totally isolated system because
> we cannot prevent radiation and cannot prevent particles from
> interacting in some form.
>
> But I am not seeing any violation of the conservation of energy in
> your example. All of the energy still exists.
>
> In fact I see no evidence that energy can be either created or
> destroyed. Which is conservation of energy.
>
> I do feel that charge is a specific form of distortion of space.
> Induced by energy. A compression of sorts.
>
> The point particle concept is a quite naive and unworkable model for
> many reasons, and is just incorrect.
>
> But one thing is a question for me. How can you feel there is a fixed
> frame of space… if space itself is nothing?
>
> If there is nothing there, then there is no means in space to impose a
> fixed frame.
>
> I also believe that a more Lorentzian fixed frame is the correct
> definition of space.
>
> But I don’t see any way that space can have properties (like ε0 and
> μ0), and a fixed frame, and still be totally empty.
>
> The basic concept of force at a distance, which has intrigued us for
> centuries, seems to hint that space cannot just be empty.
>
> So I feel that space itself is the mediator of charge, and all forces,
> and the fabric upon which all particles are built.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Monday, March 12, 2018 2:40 PM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Photon
>
> Hi Chip,
>
> I do agree that we, when developing a theory, should start with
> something which is as fundamental as possible and derive as much as we
> can as emergent quantities, the more the better as indication of a
> well usable theory.
>
> This is my goal as well. And here I have developed an opinion (or
> position) which is a bit different from yours. Let me explain.
>
> I do not follow the position that energy is fundamental. I have read
> that some of our participants here have used this as an argument.
> There are two arguments which I have to come to a different result:
> 1) Energy is not always conserved. We know it from particle physics,
> particularly if we use exchange particles which mediate forces. These
> exchange particles can move from a source into the universe and if
> they meet a partner (e.g. another charge) maybe after a very long
> time, they are able to transfer energy. So they have to possess energy
> and in case of a charge they carry energy away form the source which
> will in most cases not come back. So a permanent violation of
> conservation. )And this is not covered by the uncertainty relation.)
> And further in the context of special relativity, there are cases of
> temporary violation if a transfer of energy, momentum or whatever
> needs time to go from one object to the other one.
>
> 2) I do not accept energy as fundamental because, using my model, I
> can deduce the conservation of energy. But I can only deduce it in the
> cases where no violation (as mentioned above) occurs. So this seems to
> fit better to the physical reality than the assumption that
> conservation of energy is a fundamental law.
>
> You have mentioned the known relations: E=mc^2 , E=hv. These relations
> are also not fundamental in my view as I can deduce them using my
> model. Have you ever seen them deduced? Yes, Einstein has deduced
> E=mc^2 , but the relation E=hv was never deduced to my knowledge, but
> both follow from my model, the first one much easier than Einstein has
> done it, the latter one the first time to my knowledge. Planck at
> least did not deduce it. - The fact that a photon has energy is a
> matter of course, it is a particle and energy is a normal property of
> a particle. A charge in a field (of another charge) of course has
> energy. But a particle in its own field does not as there is no force
> on it.
>
> If it is said (as John Williamson does) that a charge has energy by
> itself then one can ask easily: How can I use this energy? Or how
> transfer this energy to another system? I do not know any case so that
> this statement is theory in the bad sense as it can never be checked
> or falsified.
>
> When Maxwell developed his formalism, he did not have the
> understanding of photons as carriers of the EM waves. This was
> introduced much later by Einstein. So the understanding of Maxwell
> with respect to these questions does not help.
>
> If you are able to derive a charge from more fundamental objects,
> please let us know. I know one argument where this may come from. In
> present particle theory it is assumed that a charge is in fact
> compressed charge density. And this compression process of course
> needs energy and the result of it has energy. And there is another
> problem in present understanding. As the electron is generally assumed
> to be point-like, this compression energy must be extreme. It is not
> compatible with the known or assumed particle properties.
>
> But why believe this? Why not assume that a charge is an "atomic"
> occurrence? I do not see a clear experimental evidence for one or the
> other position, so why not take the assumption which makes physics easier?
>
> Why to follow the Lorentzian view? In his view space is simple, just
> the emptiness around us. Maybe this assumption is too simple to
> explain the physical phenomena. But I am busy with this question since
> a long time, and up to now I did not find any argument that this
> simple assumption about space is insufficient. And time in his sense
> is a human concept to explain oscillations. - This was also already
> argued by Chandra. - All relativistic phenomena can be understood
> if following Lorentz, and the understanding is much easier than with
> Einstein. And another benefit: The problems of Dark Matter and Dark
> Energy do not exist in the world of Lorentz. And those are generally
> said to be "the greatest problems in present physics". Isn't this a
> clear indication?
>
> I hope that I have something here where you can follow.
>
> Albrecht
>
> Am 12.03.2018 um 16:30 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> Hi Albrecht
>
> Thank you.
>
> When we observe that charge possesses energy as John has pointed
> out, and we see that E=mc^2 , so that mass is also comprised of
> energy, and we observe that E=hv, and ω_E = ½ ε0 E^2 so that
> photons (electromagnetics) are comprised of energy. It leaves us
> with the consideration that actually energy itself may be more
> fundamental, and that charge, forces, mass, Planck’s constant,
> etc. are emergent properties, all caused by energy.
>
> There was a time when the objective of physics was to explain
> everything possible about the nature of our universe. So logically
> it would seem that we should be eventually able to identify the
> cause for all emergent properties (properties which are the result
> of energy or comprised of energy) like charge and mass.
>
> There has been an argument that we cannot know more, starting
> about the time of the Copenhagen Interpretation, and I completely
> disagree with this philosophy. There are so many different ways
> for us to gather information that we can absolutely learn more, if
> we try to assemble all we have studied, observed, and measured
> into a coherent model.
>
> So I have to conclude that a theory which begins with charge as
> fundamental is simply incomplete and a “shortcut” which moves us
> toward our objective, but does not reach the goal. Especially if
> the theory assumes that charge is fundamental and that charge does
> not contain energy.
>
> I find your model quite interesting, and have seen many
> comparisons and parallels between your model and the observable.
> But I have also been able to imagine a model where the principles
> are causal, and derived from a more fundamental basis. A model
> where charge, forces, momentum and mass are explained and are
> emergent properties.
>
> We have different perspectives and goals. Perhaps your theory
> meets your goals. But my objective is to understand what charge
> is, what particles are, what mass is, what causes the measurable
> electromagnetic fields, etc. And I finally have made some very
> good headway in this endeavor.
>
> There have been many theories proposed which are all based at
> least in part on the observables and known. We each choose what
> portions of the historical theories we want to believe and what we
> want to reject. But I felt too swayed by the opinion of others
> while reviewing our theoretical history, and decided to do a
> personal logical evaluation of what we observe and what we
> believe, and why we believe. What I found is that logically a
> more Lorentzian view of space and relativity is supportable by the
> evidence. And that we can explain much (perhaps all) of what we
> observe if we discard portions of popular theories which are
> actually logically arbitrary. It is somewhat surprising how
> simple much of it becomes.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Monday, March 12, 2018 9:56 AM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Photon
>
> Hi Chip,
>
> every theory in physics has to start at/with some basics. The
> basics in my model are charges. ("The world is built by charges").
> So there is no deduction of charges from anything else as they are
> the basics. And I have two charges: the electric charge and the
> strong charge. The electric charge is described by the elementary
> charge e_0 and the the constant epsilon. And the strong charge is
> described by the expression h*c. (It has historical reasons that
> it is connected to c as Planck did not have this understanding).
>
> About the other forces: The weak force is in my view in fact the
> strong force but the according reactions have a very small
> coupling. If you want, I can explain why the coupling is so weak.
> And gravitation is in fact not a force on its own but is a side
> effect of the other forces, mainly the strong force. The mechanism
> of this force causes the weakness of gravity and the fact that ii
> is only attracting.
>
> It also explains the phenomenon of Dark Matter. But details
> perhaps not now and here.
>
> But thanks for your interest and your questions.
>
> Albrecht
>
> Am 12.03.2018 um 13:24 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> Hi Albrecht
>
> I think you also have to assume a force between the two
> particles in your model besides just h and the elementary charge.
>
> This is indeed a very interesting model, but it does not
> explain charge, nor does it explain the cause for Planck’s
> constant. Please correct me if I am wrong.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Monday, March 12, 2018 7:11 AM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Photon
>
> Hi John and Chip and all,
>
> sorry to object. A charge can have lightspeed and physics have
> cases of this.
>
> We only know elementary particles with charge, which are
> having mass. For these particles it is of course true that
> they cannot reach c. But if we assume a charge alone and
> separate from mass, it does not have energy on its own, and so
> not any mass. There is no physical rule that they must have mass.
>
> Example is the Zitterbewegung of the electron. It means a
> permanent motion at c of the internal charge.
>
> According to David Hestenes, the Zitterbewegung of the charge
> (and so at c) is the cause of the magnetic moment of e.g. the
> electron.
>
> And according to my particle model the sub-particles of the
> electron (and of other particles), which are massless,
> permanently move at c. From this mechanism not only the Bohr
> magneton follows exactly (without any need for QM). Also the
> mass of the electron follows from it with high precision
> (almost 10^-6 ). And this works without any new parameters or
> any adaptation. The only parameters in this model are Planck's
> constant and the elementary charge e_0 , nothing more. Isn't
> this a proof for a model?
>
> Albrecht
>
> Am 12.03.2018 um 08:19 schrieb John Williamson:
>
> Dear all,
>
> You cannot have a charge at lightspeed. A charge is an
> electric field divergence. It therefore always has a
> (rest) mass associated with it - the integral energy in
> the electric field in the frame at which the charge is at
> rest. A charge at lightspeed therefore has infinite energy
> and is not physical.
>
> Just saying.
>
> Regards, JGW.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*General
> [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
> on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com
> <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 11, 2018 6:12 PM
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Photon
>
> Hi Richard
>
> Question. In your helical model of the photon is each half
> of the photon an elementary charge or half an elementary
> charge?
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
> Behalf Of *Wolfgang Baer
> *Sent:* Friday, March 09, 2018 10:00 PM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>;
> Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de>
> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Foundational questions Tension
> field stable particles
>
> Albrecht
>
> Answers below
>
> I'm also making progress on the physics chapter 4 of my
> cognitive Action Theory Book for Routledge press. I think
> a good case can be made for considering ourselves to be
> living inside a black hole of a universe consisting of our
> own material. Our own material is the physical phase of a
> self explanatory/measurement activity cycle (A la Wheeler)
> and thereby generates its own space. In such a space all
> the EM effects of Maxwell and Lorentz would be valid by
> self consistency, since such a Universe runs at its own
> time rate and contains its own 1st person observer , which
> is YOU. I'm looking for readers and comments from
> interested parties. Its not trivial. Chapter 4 and
> appendices are about 100 pages since this is new action
> based physics.
>
> I am sending appendix 1 to peak your interest. It makes
> the case that the applicability of Calculus to physical
> reality is limited and the failure to understand these
> limits leads to conceptual errors such as the concept of a
> space time continuum. I think I am following the kind of
> reassessment of our scientific methods Chandra is advocating.
>
> let me know what you think
>
> 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 3/8/2018 10:50 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> Wolf,
>
> I am going to also answer your other mail. But this
> one first.
>
> Am 07.03.2018 um 07:15 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
> Albrecht:
>
> As you know by now I think the "fixed frame" is
> always the frame defined by the observer , which
> is always the 1st person you, you cannot get out
> of yourself and in that sense makes this frame a
> fixed frame. Each of us lives in our own space and
> refers all our experiences and experimental
> results back to that space
>
> Following Einstein it is true that every observer,
> which means every measuring tool, refers to his/its
> own space. But following Lorentz the space is
> universal. The measurement tools are cheating the
> observer by hiding the difference between the
> different motion states.
>
> By universal do you mean every observer has his own space
> experience or do you mean there is an independent observer
> independent space out there ?
>
> WE must discuss my contention that we are always
> looking through the coordinate frame which is the
> Hilbert space defined by our detector arrays - the
> error in SR pictures is that they show the
> observer riding along with a coordinate frame and
> than assume the observer can see what is out there
> including clock dials and rod lengths as though he
> were god outside the material looking in. But the
> observer must be restricted to look at a TV
> monitor inside the coordinate frame that displays
> the result of detector interactions
>
> Please do not overlook that the so called "Hilbert
> space" is not a physical space but a mathematical tool
> to describe vectors in a convenient way.
>
> Albrecht I keep trying to make progress by suggesting new
> ways to look at things and you keep tweling me I'm wrong
> because i am not conforming to the old way of looking at
> things. Hilbert space is describe as a mathematical tool
> in every text book on Quantum Mechanics I'm fully aware of
> that but I also believe this is a limited and restrictive
> interpretation. If you actually examine actual experiments
> from simple photon polarzation measurements involving two
> state to comlex position measurements involving a spectrum
> of detectors in a bubble chaber you will notice that the
> mathematical Hilbert space is always the the detector cell
> "through which we look" -by that I mean into which we
> project the interpretation of the measurement interactions
> recorded on our side of the detector cells.
>
> If we follow Lorentz position (what I do) then all
> measures like clocks and rods change as soon as we
> move with relation to the basic fixed frame. But we
> know the changes (which is Lorentzian RT) and can
> compensate for them to a certain degree.
>
> I agree wth that as long as you realize that this basic
> fixed frame is defined by the material from which the
> observer - in the end always YOU is built.
>
> Another issue regarding the elimination of the
> magnetic field. If there are more than two charges
> moving in say three independent directions I think
> there is no Lorenz transform that eliminates the
> magnetic field for all the particles , Am I right
> on this?
>
> This is a good question, and I have an idea for this.
> But I did not make a quantitative calculation.
>
> I think that also in this case a motion state can be
> found where a magnetic field disappears. And I base
> this on the following consideration:
> Such magnetic field which you have in mind can also be
> caused by one electric charge like in the standard
> case which has the appropriate motion state. Because
> also for magnetic fields a superposition is possible.
> How can the state of this related single electric
> charge be determined? Assume you have such field then
> you take an (electric) test charge. And then you
> measure the force on this test charge if it is at rest
> with respect to your frame. Then you move this charge
> in arbitrary directions and determine the Lorentz
> force depending on the three possible directions in
> space. So you have at least 4 measurements, which is
> the force at rest and at the three dimensions of the
> magnetic field. Now you can determine the value and
> the motion state of the single electric charge which
> will cause the same measurement. And with respect to
> this single charge you have the situation which we
> have discussed before, which means you can find an own
> motion state for which the magnetism disappears.
>
> I think what you are saying is that the magnetic field of
> all the charges can be vector summed into one composite
> field, and this field can duplicated by a substitute
> average source charge moving in the
> appropriate direction thus reducing the problem to a two
> charge problem to which a Lorenz transformation is
> applied. I have not done the calculation but my guess is
> such a scheme only works under the point particle
> assumption since but the local magnetic field environment
> around a test charge would not be duplicated. However in
> any case it seems one wuld go through the use of magnetic
> forces in order to make them disappear. Why bother wy not
> simply accept the fact that bith gravity and electric forc
> categories have a range and a velocity dependence , and in
> fact possibly acceleration and all the derivatives - it
> just seems easier.
>
> 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>
>
> Albrecht
>
>
>
> On 3/5/2018 1:51 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> Hi Chip,
>
> Einstein used indeed later in his life the
> word "ether", but in a different sense. He did
> not change his mind in the way that he
> permanently and finally refused the
> understanding that there exists a fixed frame
> in the world.
>
> But in his view space has properties. One
> property is the known assumption that space
> and space-time are curved. And Einstein tried
> for the rest of his life to find and to define
> more properties of the space in the
> expectation that the existence of fields can
> be deduced from those properties. Up to the
> end of his life he tried to find in this way a
> / the "Theory of Everything". He was, as we
> know, not successful with it.
>
> But he never gave up his denial of the
> possibility that there is a fixed frame. (I
> refer here particularly to the book of Ludwik
> Kostro, "Einstein and the Ether", where Kostro
> has thoroughly investigated everything what
> Einstein has said and published up to the end
> of his life.)
>
> Albrecht
>
> Am 05.03.2018 um 21:55 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> Gentlemen
>
> Later in Einstein’s career he *reversed
> his opinion* about the “ether”.
>
> As Einstein pointed out, “/There Is an
> Important argument In favor of the
> hypothesis of the ether. To deny the
> existence of the ether means, in the last
> analysis, denying all physical properties
> to empty space/”… and he said, “/the ether
> remains still absolute because its
> influence on the inertia of bodies and on
> the propagation of light is conceived as
> independent of every kind of physical
> influence./”
>
> But the physics community was already so
> attached to the idea that space was empty
> that Einstein’s later comments on the
> subject have been principally ignored.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Monday, March 05, 2018 2:32 PM
> *To:* Wolfgang Baer <wolf at nascentinc.com>
> <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>;
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>;
> Roychoudhuri, Chandra
> <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
> <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Foundational
> questions Tension field stable particles
>
> Wolf:
>
> Am 02.03.2018 um 04:05 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
> I see no conflict between our
> understanding of magnetism and
> coriolis forces and both are
> interpretation that can be created or
> not by the way we look at phenomena.
>
> WE start to disagree what I because we
> agree want to look at the physics of
> the observer as an integral and
> necessary part of how phenomena are
> perceived. And this is where we should
> be focusing our discussion. What
> assumptions are valid and what physics
> would we develop if we change our
> assumptions?
>
> more comments added
>
> ... and some comments back.
>
>
>
> 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 3/1/2018 6:52 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> Wolf:
>
> my answers again in your text.
>
> Am 01.03.2018 um 04:59 schrieb
> Wolfgang Baer:
>
>
>
> Albrecht:
>
> The Coriolis force as a
> surrogate for the Magnetic
> force is a good example that
> shows we are talking about
> ttwo different things. I was
> taught exactly what you
> repeated below in Mr. Bray's
> physics class and did not
> believe it then because when I
> take a ride on a
> Merry-go-Round I feel a force
> that is real. Period.
>
> That is indeed correct. It is a
> real force. If we have a hurricane
> on earth it is a result of the
> Coriolis force and that is a real
> force. The point is, however, that
> it is not a NEW force but the well
> known Newtonian inertial force;
> just interpreted in a different way.
>
> The same with magnetism. Also
> magnetism shows a real force. And
> that force is the electric force,
> but also in this case interpreted
> in a different way.
>
> *OK*
>
>
>
> I do not care what you call it
> You can look at me from many
> different angles and in many
> different ways but the force I
> feel is real,
>
> Yes, it is real, but interpreted
> in a different way.
>
> *OK*
>
>
>
> What I am arguing and what I
> want you to be aware of is
> that in the sentence "The
> Coriolis force is a
> non-existent force." it is the
> name of the force that may be
> the wrong name for the force
> I experience, but the force is
> real.
>
> You are right, better wording
> would be "it does not exist as a
> NEW force".
>
>
>
> All the examples I've give and
> let me add the Lorenz Force
> F= E*q + B xV , where V my
> velocity.You think I am
> arguing but I am not arguing
> that by moving at some
> velocity you can make B
> disappear in your equation and
> by moving at another velocity
> you can make V equal to zero
> in your equation. I am arguing
> that you cannot make the
> phenomena disappear. No matter
> how many theories you invent
> and how many different names
> you invent. The phenomena, the
> force I feel does not depend
> on your theory. I and the
> situation I am in is an
> independent reality. All you
> can do with Lorenz
> transformations is shift the
> name of the force from
> magnatic to and additional
> Coulonb component. Exactly the
> same way moving from
> astationary observer at the
> center of the Merry-go-Round
> shifts the name ov the force
> from acceleration to Coreolis.
> Its the same force!
>
> True, there is a force. But only
> interpreted as something new or
> additional, which is not the case.
>
> "To make magnetism disappear" does
> not mean that every force
> disappears. It means that you can
> explain all what you observe as
> Coulomb force.
>
> And one should be cautious in the
> practical case. In daily physical
> practise we measure magnetism by
> use of a magnetic dipole. But that
> is not the correct way. Correct is
> to use an electric charge, measure
> the force and compare it to the
> Coulomb force as visible from the
> actual state of motion.
>
> *OK*
>
>
>
>
> I recommend again at the
> "Veritasium" video. It shows the
> situation in a good and correct way.
>
>
>
> Unless (and here is where I am
> trying to get us to go) one
> begins to believe and evoke
> the principles of quantum
> theory or its marcro-scopic
> extension which I am trying to
> develop.
>
> All this has nothing to do with
> quantum theory. It is one of the
> sources of QM that physicists
> misinterpret classical physical
> processes, lack an explanation and
> then divert to QM seeking for an
> explanation, which is in those
> cases not needed. But misleading.
>
> *So we agree until we get to this point*
>
>
>
> In those extensions the
> Newtonian, and Maxwellian
> phenomena are true in the
> coordinate frame of the
> observer BECAUSE the
> coordinate frame supplies the
> space , now called Hilbert
> space in which those phenomena
> are displayed to the observer.
> The observer IS the coordinate
> frame and his observable
> phenomena occur within the
> space defined by that
> coordinate frame. Everything
> you see is seen in a space you
> create within the material
> from which you are built.
>
> I personally do not see the space
> as being created by anything. I
> keep my naive view that space is
> nothing than emptiness and has no
> extra properties, Euclidean
> geometry applies and is sufficient.
>
> Should I ever encounter an
> argument that this is not
> sufficient, I am prepared to
> change my mind. But up to now it
> was not necessary.
>
> *Does the fact that you simply are not
> recognizing that it is your first
> person perspective in which "empty"
> space appears that is your fundamental
> experience and any assumption that
> such experience is due to a real space
> is Theory. Do you not ask how is it
> that I am able to create the
> sensations I have. Are you and your
> experiences not part of the reality
> and therefore must be explained as
> part of your if you are to have a
> comprehensive theory. AND there is no
> explanation in classic or relativistic
> physics for the consciousness of the
> observer. One must begin to think in
> Quantum terms*
>
> We know that our brain gives us wrong or
> biased information about this world.
> Because our brains have developed to help
> us to survive, not to have insights. But
> as a guide to help us to survive it can
> only function if our understanding of the
> world is not too far away from the way as
> the world in fact is.
>
> As far as I can see, as long as people try
> to understand this world they (at least
> the scientists) know the problem that our
> brain and our senses are misleading us. So
> this general problem of understanding is
> in the mind of the people and was in their
> mind at least since the time of ancient
> Greece. The only question is how to start
> with an according investigation. One way
> to cope with this problem is and was to
> build measurement tools which give us
> results independent of our mood. These
> tools are continuously developed. And we
> are of course not at the end of this
> development. But we can only develop and
> correct our tools if there are results and
> hints which give us informations on
> errors. Without those informations we are
> playing with dice, and these dice do not
> have 6 numbers but many thousand numbers.
> Does this playing make any sense for us?
>
> Quantum theory has in my view nothing to
> do with the fact that our understanding is
> related to our brain. This assumption that
> a physical process depends on the
> consciousness of the observer has a
> different origin. Heisenberg found himself
> completely unable and helpless to
> understand the particle-wave phenomenon.
> So he once said that we have to go back to
> Plato and so he threw away all that
> progress which Newton has brought into our
> physical understanding. And on the other
> hand he neglected the proposal of Louis de
> Broglie about the particle-wave question
> because at that time he was already so
> much related to a mysterious view that he
> was no more able to leave that. - At this
> point I agree to Einstein and de Broglie
> that a mystification of physics will not
> give us progress.
>
>
>
> All the physics before
> Einstein was developed with
> the assumption that there is
> an independent objective 3D
> reality space ( and it should
> be a stationary ether) in
> which all these objects
> appear. Einstein almost got it
> right. There is no independent
> ether and it all depends upon
> the coordinate frame. He did
> not take the next step. We
> observers are the coordinate
> frame each of us supplies
> the ether.
>
> Here my position is completely
> opposite. We do have an
> independent ether as Lorentz has
> assumed it. And it is an ether in
> the sense that the speed of light
> is related to a fixed frame, and
> this does not cause any logical
> conflicts in my understanding.
>
> *OK so you make the assumption that we
> do have an independent ether. That is
> the old "naive reality" assumption and
> classic mechanics and EM theory is
> built on this assumption. But quantum
> theory is no longer built on this
> assumption.*
>
> Ether is not compatible with Einstein's
> understanding of relativity. But also QM
> is not compatible with Einstein's
> relativity. So I do not see any specific
> connection of QM to the absence of an
> ether. QM simple does not to care.
>
> Einstein said that an ether is not
> necessary and not helpful. Lorentz told
> him situations which by Lorentz view are
> not understandable without ether. Einstein
> repeated his denial of an ether but he
> could not answer the questions of Lorentz.
>
>
>
> *
> So is the ether related to the fixed
> frame ? What ether is attached to my
> fixed frame? Are they different
> ethers? Or is there one ether, and we
> are all material objects moving in
> that ether who just happen to be able
> to interpret some configurations of
> material as space with objects moving
> in them. why should our mental display
> of our experience be anything but one
> possible way of building a mental
> display along a very very long path of
> evolution. Do you really believe you
> are the pinnacle or end of that process?*
>
> The ether of Lorentz does not mean
> anything more than the existence of a
> fixed frame. And in the view of Ludwik
> Kostro and particularly my view, the
> photons of our light are giving us this
> reference. All photons move with the same
> - absolute - speed c, and this speed is
> related to something. I guess to the
> position and motion state of the Big Bang.
> If we look at the CMB we see a different
> red shift depending on the direction. And
> we can quite easily calculate which motion
> with respect to our earth we must have so
> that this red shift becomes isotropic.
> This tells us what the reference of the
> ether most probably is.
>
>
>
> Please read may Vigier X Paper
> again but ignore the first
> part where I'm trying to show
> why SR is wrong - you argued a
> lot with that. The real reason
> SR is wrong is because
> Einstein developed it without
> recognizing that his
> imagination supplied the
> background ether and his rail
> car and .embankment observer
> where "RIDING ALONG" with
> their coordinate frames
> observing Einsteins imaginary
> space. They were not IN their
> own space.
>
> Can you please copy this essential
> part of your paper here? I do not
> have it at hand in this moment.
>
> *SEE ATTACHED*
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> This is where we should return
> to our SR discussion and
> properly add the observer to
> physics
>
> Special relativity gives us in my
> view not any reason to turn to an
> observer dependent physics. For
> Einstein's view it is correct, but
> for the Lorentzian it is not
> necessary.
>
> Ludwik Kostro, who participated in
> Vigier X, has written a book about
> "Einstein and the ether". And he
> has - among other sources -
> reprinted a letter exchange
> between Einstein and Lorentz about
> the necessity of an ether. Lorentz
> described a (Gedanken) experiment
> which in his view is not
> explainable without ether.
> Einstein refused to except an
> ether, but he did not present any
> arguments how this experiment can
> be understood without it.
>
> I still think that Einstein's
> relativity has mislead the
> physical world in a tremendous
> way. There are in fact
> relativistic phenomena, but
> Einstein's way to treat them was
> really bad.
>
> *I agree and this agreement is what
> gave us a common goal of finding a
> better explanation.*
>
> Hopefully
> Albrecht*
>
>
>
> *
>
> CHANDRA- there may be an
> abstract independent CTF but
> my suggestion is that it may
> be the ether each of us is
> made of and therefor may be
> thought to be stationary.
>
> best wishes
>
> wolf
>
> Best wishes
> Albrecht
>
>
>
> 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 2/27/2018 10:28 AM,
> Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> Wolf:
>
> I think that there is a
> simple answer to your
> concern regarding
> magnetism. If you accept
> that magnetism is not a
> real physical entity but a
> seeming effect then there
> should not exist the
> logical conflicts which
> you see.
>
> I think that the Coriolis
> force is a good example to
> understand the situation:
> Assume that you are
> sitting in a cabin without
> a view to the outside. Now
> assume that this cabin is
> rotating very silently so
> that you do not notice the
> rotation. You are sitting
> in a chair in the middle
> on the rotational axis.
> Now you throw a ball from
> your position away from
> you. You will expect that
> the ball flies on a
> straight path off. But you
> will observe that the ball
> flies on a curved path.
> And what will be your
> explanation? You will
> think that there must be a
> force which moves the ball
> to the side. - This is the
> Coriolis force.
>
> But this force does not in
> fact exist. If there is an
> observer on top of the
> cabin and can look into
> the cabin, in his view the
> ball moves on a straight
> line. And there is no
> reason for a force.
>
> The Coriolis force is a
> non-existent force.
> Similarly the magnetic
> field is a non-existent field.
>
> Am 27.02.2018 um 04:46
> schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
> Albrecht:
>
> I have a tremendous
> aversion to believing
> that the observer
> (unless we are talking
> quantum effects where
> measurement interferes
> with the object
> measured ) can have
> any effect on the
> independent “whatever
> it is” out there. But
> physicists often
> confuse measurement
> results with physical
> realities.
>
> Regarding “*The
> relative velocity
> between charges does
> NOT determine the
> magnetic field.”*
>
> Jaxon Classical
> Electrodynamics p 136
> states the force
> between two current
> segments is oin
> differential form
>
> d*F12* = - I1*I2
> (*dl1* ● *dl2*)**X12*
> /(c^2 * |*X12*|^3
>
> now the current is
> charge q1**v1 =
> *I1**dl1 *and q2**v2 =
> *I1**dl1 *substituting
> means the magnetic
> force between the two
> charges is dependent
> on the dot product
> between the two
> velocities (*v1* ● *v2*).
>
> Furthermore Goldstien
> Classical Mechanics
> talks about velocity
> dependent potentials p19
>
> And we all know the
> magnetic force is F =~
> v1 x B12 while the
> magnetic field is
> dependent on v! , so
> the force is dependent
> on two velocities.
>
> Now your statement
> ‘*But the magnetic
> field depends on the
> relative velocity
> between the observer
> and the one charge and
> the observer and the
> other charge. Where
> "observer" means the
> measuring tool.” *Is
> certainly true because
> one can always define
> one coordinate frame
> that moves with
> velocity of the first
> charge and a second
> coordinate frame that
> moves with the
> velocity of the second
> charge. So in these
> two coordinate frames
> each one would say
> there is no B field.
>
> However I see both
> charges in *one
> coordinate frame* and
> that is how the
> experiments leading to
> the force equations
> were conducted. So I
> question whether your
> assumption that there
> are two coordinate
> frames and I assume
> you would like to
> connected by the
> Lorenz transforms
> reflects physical
> reality.
>
> I have asked you in the
> previous mail NOT to argue
> with coordinate frames
> because we should discuss
> physics and not
> mathematics. Now you cite
> me with statements about
> coordinate frames. How can
> I understand that?
>
> However if you really
> insist to talk about
> frames: The saying that
> two charges are in
> different coordinate
> frames means that these
> charges are _at rest_ in
> different coordinate
> frames. They can of course
> be investigated by an
> observer (or a tool) which
> resides in _one _frame.
>
> The equation from Jackson
> which you have cited above
> is essentially the same as
> the one that I gave you in
> the previous mail. And it
> says also that the
> magnetic field depends on
> the _product _of both
> charges involved, not on
> their difference.
>
>
>
> I reiterate the
> concept of fields even
> the coulomb field is
> passed upon the
> measured force between
> a test charge Qt and
> another charge Qn. So
> that the total force
> on the test charge is
>
> F =~ SUM over all n
> ( Qt * Qn / Rtn^2 )
>
> And it is possible to
> introduce a field
>
> E = SUM over all n (
> Qn / Rtn^2 )
>
> As
> that
> F= Qt * E
>
> Perfectly good
> mathematically. But to
> assume that physically
> E is a property of
> space rather than
> simply the sum of
> charge to charge
> interactions that
> would happen if a test
> charge were at that
> space is a counter
> factual. And not
> consistent with the
> quantum photon theory.
>
> Why do you assume that a
> field is a property of
> space? If you assume that
> space is nothing else than
> emptiness then you will
> have all necessary
> results. Why making things
> unnecessarily complicated?
>
>
>
> Which by the way I
> think is also wrong.
> Photons are false
> interpretations of
> charge to charge
> interactions.
>
> I do not remember that we
> talk here about quantum
> theory. For this
> discussion at least it is
> not needed. And regarding
> photons, I have explained
> very detailed that photons
> - as I have measured them
> in my thesis work - are
> particles with specific
> properties; but clearly
> particles. You did not
> object to my arguments but
> you repeat your statement
> that a photon as a
> particle is a false
> interpretation. It would
> be good to hear argument
> than only statements.
>
>
>
> that is for another
> discussion
>
> Which else discussion?
>
>
>
> best wishes
>
> wolf
>
> Best wishes
> Albrecht
>
>
>
> 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 2/26/2018 3:27 AM,
> Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> Wolf,
>
> my comments and
> explanations in
> the text below.
>
> Am 25.02.2018 um
> 05:26 schrieb
> Wolfgang Baer:
>
> Albrecht:
>
> I think I
> understand
> your arguments
> since this is
> what is
> generally
> taught,
> however I have
> always been
> uncomfortable
> with the
> statements
> involving
> “observer”.
>
> So I question
> your statement
> “The different
> amount seen by
> the observer
> can be
> calculated by
> the use of the
> force-related
> Lorentz
> transformation
> - from the
> frame of the
> electrons to
> the frame of
> the observer.”
>
> Now ancient
> experiments
> discovered
> that there are
> two reciprocal
> forces between
> charges. The
> relative
> distance R
> gives the
> Coulomb force
> F_E and the
> relative
> velocity gives
> the Magnetic
> force F_B
>
> Now if these
> are
> independent
> entities whose
> existence does
> not depend
> upon any
> observation
> made by the
> observer
> (until we get
> to quantum
> measurements)
> . /This means
> the physics is
> fixed /and so
> are the
> parameters.
> Any
> measurement
> made by any
> coordinate
> frame when
> properly
> processed for
> its own
> distortions
> will result in
> the same
> parameters, so
> R,V, F_B , F_E
> ^and yes the
> speed of light
> must be constant.
>
> If the
> measurement
> results differ
> either we do
> not have
> objective
> measurement
> independent
> reality or
> else there is
> an unaccounted
> artifact in
> the
> measurement
> process.
>
> There is an error
> in your above
> arguments. The
> relative velocity
> between charges
> does NOT determine
> the magnetic
> field. But the
> magnetic field
> depends on the
> relative velocity
> between the
> observer and the
> one charge and the
> observer and the
> other charge.
> Where "observer"
> means the
> measuring tool.
>
> The entities are
> not independent in
> so far as any
> observer will see
> them in a
> different way.
> That is not a
> consequence of
> quantum mechanics
> but very simply
> the consequence of
> the fact that in a
> moving system the
> tools change (like
> rulers contract
> and clocks are
> slowed down) and
> so their
> measurement
> results differ
> from a tool
> measuring while
> being at rest.
> This is the reason
> that we need a
> Lorentz
> transformation to
> compare physical
> entities in one
> moving frame to
> entities in
> another moving frame.
>
>
>
> I and QM
> claims there
> is no
> objective
> measurement
> independent
> reality.
>
> That may be the
> case but has
> nothing to do with
> our discussion here.
>
>
>
> Lorenz assumed
> the coordinate
> frame dilates
> and shrinks so
> that when raw
> measurements
> are made and
> no correction
> is applied we
> may not
> observe a
> magnetic field
> but instead a
> different
> Coulomb field
> so that the
> actual result
> on the object
> measured
> remains the
> same only the
> names of the
> causes have
> been changed.
>
> You are
> permanently
> referring to
> coordinate frames.
> But we are
> treating here
> physical facts and
> not mathematical
> ones. So
> coordinates should
> be omitted as an
> argument as I have
> proposed it earlier.
>
>
>
> Now consider
> looking at the
> same two
> charges from
> an arbitrary
> coordinate
> frame. then in
> that frame the
> two charges
> will have wo
> velocities V1
> and V2 but
> there will
> always be a
> difference V
>
>
>
>
>
> ^
>
> ^
>
> ^
>
> ^
>
> ^
>
> I contend that
> it does not
> matter what
> frame you
> chose cannot
> get rid of the
> relative
> velocity. The
> only way you
> can get rid of
> the magnetic
> field is if
> there was no
> relative
> velocity in
> the first
> palace. And
> there never
> was a magnetic
> field in the
> physics.
>
> As soon as the
> observer moves in
> the same frame,
> i.e. with the same
> speed vector as
> one of the
> charges, he does
> not see a magnetic
> field. In the
> deduction of the
> magnetic field
> which I have
> attached (from a
> talk at a
> conference last
> year) the magnetic
> force is defined
> by the equation:
>
> where v and u are
> the speeds of two
> charges, q1 and
> q2, , with respect
> to the observer. y
> is the distance
> and gamma the
> Lorentz factor in
> the set up shown.
>
>
>
> Therefore your
> further
> conclusion “As
> soon as an
> observer moves
> with one
> charge, i.e.
> he is at rest
> with respect
> to the frame
> of one of the
> charges, then
> there is no
> magnetic field
> for him.” Is
> only true if
> there was no
> magnetic field
> in the first
> place, a very
> special case.
>
> We must be
> very careful
> not to confuse
> the actual
> physics in a
> situation with
> the way we
> look at it.
>
> I guess that you
> know the Coriolis
> force. This force
> is somewhat
> similar to
> magnetism. It is
> in effect for one
> observer but not
> for another one
> depending on the
> observer's motion.
> And there is
> nothing mysterious
> about it, and also
> quantum mechanics
> is not needed for
> an explanation.
>
> In your logic you
> would have to say:
> If there is no
> Coriolis force
> then there is no
> inertial mass. But
> that is clearly
> not the case.
>
>
>
> If we apply
> the same
> analysis to
> the Michelson
> Morley
> experiment I
> think we will
> also find that
> there never
> was a fringe
> shift in the
> physics. The
> physics states
> charges
> interact with
> other charges,
> basta.
> Introducing
> fields and
> then
> attributing
> what has
> always been a
> summation of
> many charge
> effects on one
> test charge
> onto a
> property of
> empty space is
> simply a
> convenient
> mathematical
> trick that
> hides the
> physical reality.
>
> The MM experiment
> is easily
> explained by the
> fact that there is
> contraction in the
> direction of
> motion. Nothing
> more is needed to
> explain the
> null-result. In
> the view of
> Einstein space
> contracts and in
> the view of
> Lorentz the
> apparatus
> contracts as the
> internal fields
> contract. And the
> latter is a known
> phenomenon in physics.
>
>
>
> I further
> submit this as
> an argument
> that mass and
> charge are
> fundamental
> physics and if
> there is to be
> a CTF it is
> the tension
> that holds
> mass and
> charge
> together when
> electro-magentic
> forces
> operating on
> charge
> densities and
> gravito-inertial
> forces
> operating on
> mass densities
> are not
> balanced and
> pulls mass and
> charge apart.
> I further
> submit the the
> resulting
> fluctuations
> in the
> mass-charge
> densities
> leads to CTF
> propagating
> patterns that
> are an
> ontologically
> defensible
> interpretation
> of
> Schroedingers
> Wave function.
>
> An indication that
> mass is not
> fundamental is the
> fact that mass can
> be converted into
> energy. On the
> other hand charge
> cannot be
> converted into
> energy; this can
> be taken as an
> argument that it
> is fundamental.
>
>
>
> Anything still
> controversial?
> Then please explain.
> Albrecht
>
>
>
> Tell me why
> I’m wrong
>
> 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 2/23/2018
> 6:51 AM,
> Albrecht Giese
> wrote:
>
> Chandra:
>
> If two
> electrons
> move side
> by side,
> the main
> force
> between
> them is of
> course the
> electrostatic
> one. But
> there is
> an
> additional
> contribution
> to the
> force
> which is
> measured
> in the
> frame of
> an
> observer
> at rest
> (like the
> one of
> Millikan).
> In the
> frame of
> the moving
> electrons
> (maybe
> they
> belong to
> the same
> frame)
> there is
> only the
> electrostatic
> force,
> true. The
> different
> amount
> seen by
> the
> observer
> can be
> calculated
> by the use
> of the
> force-related
> Lorentz
> transformation
> - from the
> frame of
> the
> electrons
> to the
> frame of
> the observer.
>
> If the
> oil-drop
> chamber is
> in steady
> motion
> this has
> primarily
> no
> influence.
> Important
> is the
> motion
> state of
> the
> observer.
> If the
> observer
> is at rest
> with
> respect to
> the moving
> oil-drops
> (and so of
> the
> electrons),
> he will
> notice a
> contribution
> of
> magnetism.
> Any motion
> of the
> chamber
> does not
> matter for
> this fact.
>
> In general
> magnetism
> is visible
> for an
> observer
> who is in
> motion
> with
> respect to
> both
> charges
> under
> consideration.
> As soon as
> an
> observer
> moves with
> one
> charge,
> i.e. he is
> at rest
> with
> respect to
> the frame
> of one of
> the
> charges,
> then there
> is no
> magnetic
> field for
> him.
>
> Your
> example of
> two
> compass
> needles is
> a more
> complex
> one even
> if it does
> not look
> so. To
> treat this
> case
> correctly
> we have to
> take into
> account
> the cause
> of the
> magnetism
> of the
> needle,
> that means
> of the
> circling
> charges in
> the atoms
> (in Fe).
> If we
> would do
> this then
> - seen
> from our
> own frame
> - both
> groups of
> charges
> are
> moving,
> the
> charges in
> the
> conductor
> and also
> the
> charges in
> the
> needle's
> atoms. So
> as both
> are moving
> with
> respect to
> the
> observer,
> this is
> the cause
> for a
> magnetic
> field
> between
> both objects.
>
> Albrecht
>
> Am
> 22.02.2018
> um 21:02
> schrieb
> Roychoudhuri,
> Chandra:
>
> Albrecht:
> Your
> point
> is
> well
> taken.
> Not
> being
> expert
> in
> magnetism,
> I need
> to
> spend
> more
> time
> on
> this
> issue.
>
> However,
> let me
> pose a
> question
> to think.
>
> If two
> electrons
> are
> trapped
> in two
> side
> by
> side
> but
> separate
> Millikan
> oil
> drops,
> the
> two
> electrons
> feel
> each
> other’s
> static
> E-field,
> but no
> magnetic
> field.
> If the
> oil-drop
> chamber
> was
> given
> a
> steady
> velocity,
> could
> Millikan
> have
> measured
> the
> presence
> of a
> magnetic
> field
> due to
> the
> moving
> electrons
> (“current”),
> which
> would
> have
> been
> dying
> out as
> the
> chamber
> moved
> further
> away?
> This
> experiment
> can be
> conceived
> in
> many
> different
> ways
> and
> can be
> executed.
> Hence,
> this
> is not
> a pure
> “Gedanken”
> experiment.
> I am
> sure,
> some
> equivalent
> experiment
> has
> been
> done
> by
> somebody.
> Send
> me the
> reference,
> if you
> can
> find one.
>
> Are
> two
> parallel
> current
> carrying
> conductors
> deflecting
> magnetic
> needles
> (undergraduate
> experiment)
> different
> from
> two
> independent
> electrons
> moving
> parallel
> to
> each
> other?
>
> I have
> just
> re-phrased
> Einstein’s
> example
> that
> you
> have
> given
> below.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Chandra.
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
> Behalf
> Of
> *Albrecht
> Giese
> *Sent:*
> Thursday,
> February
> 22,
> 2018
> 2:26 PM
> *To:*
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:*
> Re:
> [General]
> Foundational
> questions
> Tension
> field
> stable
> particles
>
> Chandra,
>
> I like
> very
> much
> what
> you
> have
> written
> here.
> Particularly
> what
> you
> say
> about
> "time"
> which
> physically
> means
> oscillations.
> That
> is
> what
> one
> should
> keep
> in
> mind
> when
> thinking
> about
> relativity.
>
> However
> in one
> point
> I have
> to
> object.
> That
> is
> your
> judgement
> of the
> parameter
> µ. I
> think
> that
> it is
> a
> result
> from
> the
> historical
> fact
> that
> magnetism
> was
> detected
> long
> time
> earlier
> than
> electricity.
> So
> magnetism
> plays
> a
> great
> role
> in our
> view
> of
> physics
> which
> does
> not
> reflect
> its
> role
> there.
> We
> know
> since
> about
> 100
> years
> that
> magnetism
> is not
> a
> primary
> phenomenon
> but an
> apparent
> effect,
> a side
> effect
> of the
> electric
> field
> which
> is
> caused
> by the
> finiteness
> of c.
> If c
> would
> be
> infinite
> there
> would
> not be
> any
> magnetism.
> This
> is
> given
> by the
> equation
> c^2 =
> (1/ϵµ)which
> you
> have
> mentioned.
> This
> equation
> should
> be
> better
> written
> as µ =
> (1/c^2
> ϵ) to
> reflect
> this
> physical
> fact,
> the
> dependency
> of the
> magnetism
> on c.
>
> The
> symmetry
> between
> electricity
> and
> magnetism
> is
> suggested
> by
> Maxwell's
> equation.
> These
> equations
> are
> mathematically
> very
> elegant
> and
> well
> usable
> in
> practice.
> But
> they
> do not
> reflect
> the
> physical
> reality.
> Easiest
> visible
> is the
> fact
> that
> we
> have
> electrical
> monopoles
> but no
> magnetic
> monopoles.
> Einstein
> has
> described
> this
> fact
> by
> saying:
> Whenever
> an
> observer
> is in
> a
> magnetic
> field,
> he can
> find a
> motion
> state
> so
> that
> the
> magnetic
> field
> disappears.
> - This
> is as
> we
> know
> not
> possible
> for an
> electric
> field.
>
> I
> think
> that
> we
> have
> discussed
> this
> earlier.
> Do you
> remember?
>
> Albrecht
>
> Am
> 21.02.2018
> um
> 00:00
> schrieb
> Roychoudhuri,
> Chandra:
>
> /“We
> nee//d
> a
> geometry
> in
> which
> both
> space
> and
> time
> are
> curved
> back
> on
> themselves
> to
> provide
> a
> donut
> in
> which
> the
> forces
> Fem,
> Fgi,
> Fcm,Fmc
> are
> self
> contained
> eigen
> states
> at
> each
> action
> quanta.
> /
>
> /Does
> any
> of
> this
> suggest
> a
> tension
> field
> you
> might
> be
> thinking
> about??”/
>
> Yes,
> Wolf,
> we
> need
> to
> model
> mathematically
> the
> “twists
> and
> turns”
> of
> different
> intrinsic
> potential
> gradients
> embedded
> in
> CTF
> (Complex
> Tension
> Field)
> to
> create
> stationary
> self-looped
> oscillations
> (*/field-particles/*).
> Maxwell
> achieved
> that
> for
> the
> propagating
> linear
> excitations
> using
> his
> brilliant
> observations
> of
> using
> the
> double
> differentiation
> –
> giving
> us
> the
> EM
> wave
> equation.
> We
> need
> to
> find
> non-propagating
> (stationary
> –
> Newton’s
> first
> law)
> self-looped
> oscillations
> –
> the
> in-phase
> ones
> will
> be
> stable,
> others
> will
> “break
> apart”
> with
> different
> life-times
> depending
> upon
> how
> far
> they
> are
> from
> the
> in-phase
> closed-loop
> conditions.
> The
> successes
> of
> the
> mathematical
> oscillatory
> dynamic
> model
> could
> be
> judged
> by
> the
> number
> of
> predicted
> properties
> the
> theory
> can
> find
> for
> the
> */field-particles,/*
> which
> we
> have
> measured
> so
> far.
> The
> physical
> CTF
> must
> remain
> stationary
> holding
> 100%
> of
> the
> cosmic
> energy.
>
>
> However,
> I
> would
> not
> attempt
> to
> keep
> the
> primacy
> of
> Relativity
> by
> trying
> to
> keep
> the
> Space-Time
> 4-D
> concept
> intact.
> If
> we
> want
> to
> capture
> the
> ontological
> reality;
> we
> must
> imagine
> and
> visualize
> the
> potential
> */foundational/*
> physical
> process
> and
> represent
> that
> with
> a
> set
> of
> algebraic
> symbols
> and
> call
> them
> the
> primary
> parameters
> of
> “different
> grades”.
> During
> constructing
> mathematical
> theories,
> it
> is
> of
> prime
> importance
> to
> introduce
> consciously
> this
> concept
> of
> “primary”,
> vs.
> “secondary”,
> vs.
> “tertiary”,
> etc.,
> physical
> parameters
> related
> to
> any
> observable
> physical
> phenomenon.
> The
> physical
> parameter
> that
> dictates
> the
> core
> existence
> of
> an
> entity
> in
> nature
> should
> be
> considered
> as
> primary.
> However,
> it
> is
> not
> going
> to
> be
> easy
> because
> of
> the
> complexities
> in
> the
> different
> interaction
> processes
> –
> different
> parameters
> take
> key
> role
> in
> transferring
> the
> energy
> in
> different
> interactions.
> Besides,
> our
> ignorance
> is
> still
> significantly
> broad
> compared
> to
> the
> “validated”
> knowledge
> we
> have
> gathered
> about
> our
> universe.
> Here
> is
> a
> glaring
> example.
> νλ
> =
> c
> =
> (1/ϵµ).
> If
> I
> am
> doing
> atomic
> physics,
> ν
> is
> of
> primary
> importance
> because
> of
> the
> quantum
> resonance
> with
> ν
> and
> the
> QM
> energy
> exchange
> rule
> is
> “hν”.
> “λ”
> changes
> from
> medium
> to
> medium.
> If
> I
> am
> doing
> Astrophysics,
> ϵ
> and
> µ
> for
> free
> space,
> are
> of
> primary
> significance;
> even
> though
> people
> tend
> to
> use
> “c”,
> while
> missing
> out
> the
> fundamental
> roles
> of
> ϵ
> and
> µ
> as
> some
> of
> the
> core
> building
> blocks
> of
> the
> universe.
> Funny
> thing
> is
> that
> the
> ϵ
> and
> µ
> of
> free
> space
> were
> recognized
> well
> before
> Maxwell
> synthesized
> Electromagnetism.
>
>
> With
> this
> background,
> I
> want
> underscore
> that
> the
> “running
> time,
> “t”
> is
> of
> critical
> importance
> in
> our
> formulation
> of
> the
> dynamic
> universe.
> And,
> yet
> “t’
> is
> not
> a
> directly
> measurable
> physical
> parameter
> of
> any
> object
> in
> this
> universe.
> What
> we
> measure
> is
> really
> the
> frequency,
> or
> its
> inverse,
> the
> oscillation
> periods
> of
> different
> physical
> oscillators
> in
> this
> universe.
> So,
> frequency
> can
> be
> dilated
> or
> contracted
> by
> controlling
> the
> ambient
> physical
> parameter
> of
> the
> environment
> that
> surrounds
> and
> INFLUENCES
> the
> oscillator.
> The
> running
> time
> cannot
> be
> dilated
> or
> contracted;
> even
> though
> Minkowsky
> introduced
> this
> “dilation”
> concept.
> This
> is
> the
> reason
> why
> I
> have
> been
> pushing
> for
> the
> introduction
> in
> physics
> thinking
> the
> Interaction
> Process
> Mapping
> Epistemology
> (IPM-E).
>
>
> Chandra.
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
> Behalf
> Of
> *Wolfgang
> Baer
> *Sent:*
> Monday,
> February
> 19,
> 2018
> 10:56
> PM
> *To:*
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:*
> Re:
> [General]
> Foundational
> questions
> Tension
> field
> stable
> particles
>
> Candra:
>
> Let’s
> consider
> your
> tension
> filed
> is
> a
> medium
> underlying
> the
> experience
> of
> space
> composed
> of
> charge
> and
> mass
> density
> spread
> out
> in
> the
> cross-section
> of
> a
> time
> loop..
> Coordinate
> frame
> cells
> of
> /small
> enough/
> sizes
> can
> be
> described
> by
> constant
> enough
> mass
> and
> charge
> densities
> in
> each
> cell.
> For
> small
> enough
> cells
> the
> mass
> and
> charge
> values
> concentrated
> at
> their
> centers
> may
> be
> used
> in
> stead
> of
> the
> densities.
> The
> resulting
> field
> of
> center
> values
> can
> take
> any
> pattern
> that
> satisfies
> the
> extended
> dAlambert
> principle.
> Besides
> the
> classic
> electro-magnetic
> Fem
> and
> gravito-inertial
> force
> Fgi
> I
> postulate
> forces
> tat
> hold
> charge
> and
> mass
> together
> Fcm,
> Fmc.
> This
> condition
> assures
> mass
> charge
> centers
> in
> each
> cell
> appear
> at
> locations
> of
> balanced
> forces.
> Each
> pattern
> which
> satisfies
> this
> condition
> represents
> a
> static
> state
> of
> the
> loop
> in
> which
> the
> patterns
> are
> fixed
> for
> the
> lifetime
> of
> the
> loop.
>
> **
>
> *The
> Charge-Mass
> Separation
> Vector
> and
> Equilibrium
> States*
>
> The
> physical
> size
> of
> the
> space
> is
> its
> volume.
> The
> volume
> (Vol)
> of
> space
> is
> the
> sum
> of
> the
> infinitesimal
> volumes
> dVol
> of
> each
> of
> the
> cells
> composing
> that
> space
> “Vol
> =
> ∫_all
> space
> dVol”.
> These
> infinitesimal
> volumes
> are
> calculated
> from
> the
> mass-charge
> density
> extensions
> in
> each
> cell
> when
> viewed
> externally
> as
> shown
> in
> figure
> 4.3-3a
> .
> The
> physical
> volume
> depends
> upon
> the
> mass
> charge
> separation
> pattern
> of
> the
> equilibrium
> state
> the
> system
> being
> modeled
> exists
> in.
>
> In
> CAT
> the
> extension
> of
> a
> cell
> can
> be
> calculated
> as
> follows.
> In
> each
> cell
> the
> distance
> between
> the
> center
> of
> charge
> and
> mass
> is
> a
> vector
> d*ζ.*
> The
> projection
> of
> this
> vector
> onto
> the
> degrees
> of
> freedom
> directions
> available
> for
> the
> charge
> and
> mass
> to
> move
> in
> the
> generalized
> coordinate
> space
> allows
> us
> to
> expansion
> this
> vector
> as,
>
> Eq.
> 4.3-1
> *dζ
> =*
> dζ_t
> *∙u_t
> *
> +
> dζ_x
> *∙u_x
> *+
> dζ_y
> *∙u_y
> *+
> dζ_z
> *∙u_z
> +…*
> dζ_f
> *∙u_f
> +…,*
>
> **where
> the
> *u_f
> *’s
> are
> the
> unit
> vectors.
> A
> space
> limited
> to
> Cartesian
> 3-space
> is
> characterized
> by
> three
> x,y,z
> directions,
> but
> CAT
> models
> a
> generalized
> space
> that
> encompasses
> all
> sensor
> modalities
> not
> only
> the
> optical
> ones.
>
> The
> volume
> of
> a
> cell
> calculated
> from
> the
> diagonal
> expansion
> vector
> “*dζ”*
> by
> multiplying
> all
> non
> zero
> coefficients,
>
> Eq.
> 4.3-2
> dVol
> =
> dζ_t
> *∙*dζ_x
> *∙*dζ_y
> *∙*dζ_z
> *∙…∙*dζ_f
> *∙… .*
>
> The
> shape
> of
> this
> volume
> is
> determined
> by
> the
> direction
> of
> the
> expansion
> vector
> which
> in
> turn
> is
> determined
> by
> the
> direction
> and
> strength
> of
> forces
> pulling
> the
> charge
> and
> mass
> apart.
> The
> direction
> of
> pull
> depends
> upon
> the
> number
> of
> dimensions
> available
> in
> the
> generalized
> coordinates
> of
> the
> media.
> The
> forces
> must
> be
> in
> equilibrium
> but
> exact
> equilibrium
> pattern
> depends
> upon
> which
> global
> loop
> equilibrium
> state
> “Ζ”
> the
> event
> being
> modeled
> is
> in.
>
> In
> the
> simplest
> equilibrium
> state
> the
> masses
> and
> charges
> are
> collocated.
> This
> implies
> the
> internal
> forward
> propagating
> in
> time
> forces
> F_cm
> ,F_mc
> ,
> and
> backward
> propagating
> in
> time
> force
> F_mc
> *,F_cm
> *
> are
> zero,
> and
> if
> there
> are
> no
> internal
> force
> pulling
> the
> charges
> and
> masses
> together
> then
> sum
> of
> the
> remaining
> exterior
> gravito-electric
> forces
> pulling
> the
> charge
> and
> mass
> apart
> must
> separately
> be
> zero
> precisely
> at
> the
> collocation
> point.
> A
> trivial
> condition
> that
> satisfies
> these
> equations
> is
> when
> all
> forces
> are
> zero.
> In
> this
> case
> there
> is
> no
> action
> in
> the
> media
> and
> no
> action
> for
> expanding
> the
> coordinate
> frame
> defining
> a
> volume
> of
> space.
> We
> are
> back
> to
> a
> formless
> blob
> of
> zero
> volume,
> where
> all
> charges
> and
> masses
> are
> at
> the
> same
> point.
> This
> is
> the
> absolute
> ground
> state
> of
> material,
> one
> level
> of
> something
> above
> nothing.
> The
> big
> bang
> before
> the
> energy
> of
> action
> flow
> is
> added.
>
>
> To
> exemplify
> the
> methods
> we
> consider
> an
> equilibrium
> state
> of
> a
> single
> isolated
> cell
> whose
> only
> degree
> of
> freedom
> is
> the
> time
> direction.
> This
> means
> the
> volume
> in
> all
> space
> directions
> are
> infinitesimally
> small
> and
> the
> volume
> can
> be
> considered
> a
> single
> line
> of
> extension
> “ΔVol
> =
> ΔT_w
> =
> ∫dζ_t
> “
> along
> the
> time
> direction
> as
> shown
> in
> the
> god’s
> eye
> perspective
> of
> figure
> 4.3-6.
> In
> this
> situation
> we
> can
> consider
> charges
> and
> masses
> to
> be
> point
> particles.
> Forces
> as
> well
> as
> action
> can
> only
> propagate
> along
> the
> material
> length
> of
> the
> line
> time
> line
> represented
> in
> space
> as
> “Qw”.
> We
> now
> list
> the
> sequence
> of
> changes
> that
> can
> propagate
> through
> around
> the
> equilibrium
> positions
> indicated
> by
> numbers
> in
> parenthesis.
>
> (1)The
> upper
> charge
> is
> pushed
> from
> its
> equilibrium
> position
> (filled
> icon)
> forward
> along
> the
> time
> line
>
> (2)It
> exerts
> a
> force
> “Fem”
> on
> the
> left
> charge
> pushing
> it
> forward
> while
> feeling
> a
> reaction
> force
> “Fem*”
> that
> retards
> it
> back
> to
> its
> equilibrium
> position
>
> (3)While
> the
> left
> charge
> is
> moved
> from
> equilibrium
> it
> exerts
> an
> internal
> “Fcm”
> force
> on
> the
> bottom
> mass
> while
> feeling
> a
> reaction
> force
> “Fcm*”
> which
> returns
> it
> to
> equilibrium.
>
> (4)While
> the
> bottom
> mass
> is
> moved
> from
> equilibrium
> it
> exerts
> a
> force
> “Fgi”
> on
> the
> right
> mass
> while
> feeling
> a
> reaction
> force
> “Fgi*”
> which
> returns
> it
> to
> equilibrium.
>
> (5)While
> the
> right
> mass
> is
> moved
> from
> equilibrium
> it
> exerts
> a
> force
> “Fmc”
> on
> the
> upper
> charge
> while
> feeling
> a
> reaction
> force
> “Fmc*”
> which
> returns
> it
> to
> equilibrium.
> We
> are
> now
> back
> to
> (1).
>
> If
> the
> system
> is
> isolated
> there
> is
> no
> dissipation
> into
> other
> degrees
> of
> freedom
> and
> the
> oscillation
> continues
> to
> move
> as
> a
> compression
> wave
> around
> the
> “Qw”
> time
> line
> circumference
> forever.
> The
> graph
> however
> is
> static
> and
> shows
> a
> fixed
> amount
> of
> action
> indicated
> by
> the
> shaded
> arrows
> around
> the
> time
> line.
> Motion
> in
> “block”
> models
> is
> produced
> by
> the
> velocity
> of
> the
> observer
> or
> model
> operator
> as
> he
> moves
> around
> the
> time
> line.
> From
> our
> god’s
> eye
> perspective
> an
> action
> density
> is
> permanently
> painted
> on
> the
> clock
> dial
> and
> thereby
> describes
> an
> total
> event.
> The
> last
> degree
> of
> freedom
> events
> are
> rather
> trivial
>
>
> We
> need
> a
> geometry
> in
> which
> both
> space
> and
> time
> are
> curved
> back
> on
> themselves
> to
> provide
> a
> donut
> in
> which
> the
> forces
> Fem,
> Fgi,
> Fcm,Fmc
> are
> self
> contained
> eigen
> states
> at
> each
> action
> quanta.
>
>
> Does
> any
> of
> this
> suggest
> a
> tension
> field
> you
> might
> be
> thinking
> about??
>
> 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
> 1/24/2018
> 7:20
> PM,
> Roychoudhuri,
> Chandra
> wrote:
>
> 1.
> Yes,
> I
> have
> submitted
> an
> essay.
> FQXi
> has
> not
> sent
> the
> approval
> link
> yet.
>
>
> 2.
> Replacement
> of
> our
> SPIE
> conf.
> Without
> a
> supporting
> infrastructure
> to
> replace
> SPIE-like
> support,
> it
> is
> very
> difficult
> to
> manage.
> I
> will
> try
> NSF
> during
> the
> last
> week
> of
> May.
> Do
> you
> want
> to
> start
> negotiating
> with
> some
> out-of-box
> European
> groups?
>
>
> 3.
> Re-starting
> afresh
> from
> the
> bottom
> up
> is
> the
> only
> way
> to
> start
> re-building
> a
> unified
> field
> theory.
> It
> is
> futile
> to
> force-fit
> whole
> bunch
> of
> different
> theories
> that
> were
> structured
> differently
> at
> different
> states
> of
> human
> cultural
> epoch.
>
> Sent
> from
> my
> iPhone
>
>
> On
> Jan
> 24,
> 2018,
> at
> 6:08
> PM,
> Wolfgang
> Baer
> <wolf at nascentinc.com
> <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Chandra:
>
> Just
> rereading
> your
> 2015
> paper
> "Urgency
> of
> evolution..."
>
> I
> love
> the
> sentiment
> "
> This
> is
> a
> good
> time
> to
> start
> iteratively
> re-evaluating
> and
> restructuring
> all
> the
> foundational
> postulates
> behind
> all
> the
> working
> theories"
>
> Did
> you
> write
> a
> paper
> for
> FQXi?
>
> I
> sent
> one
> in
> https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3043
>
> Is
> there
> any
> chance
> to
> get
> a
> replacement
> for
> the
> SPIE
> conference,
> one
> that
> would
> expand
> the
> questions
>
>
> beyond
> the
> nature
> of
> light?
>
> 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>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If
> you
> no
> longer
> wish
> to
> receive
> communication
> from
> the
> Nature
> of
> Light
> and
> Particles
> General
> Discussion
> List
> at
> chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu
> <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu?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 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 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 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 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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180315/6d51116e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 778 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180315/6d51116e/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 934 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180315/6d51116e/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5404 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180315/6d51116e/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 632 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180315/6d51116e/attachment-0001.png>