<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hi Martin, Al, and all,<br>
<br>
thank you all for your contributions.<br>
<br>
<u>Regarding the size of the electron:</u><br>
<br>
As Al argued in his example of the sun: If the scattered object is
passing by without touching, the angular distribution is independent
of the size of the object (for the 1/r^2 case). But that changes if
the scattered particle hits the body of the "ball". In a last
experiment in 2004 at DESY there was an experiment performed in
which electrons were scattered against quarks (of a proton). The
"common" size of both particles resulted in a bit less than 10^-18
m. This limit is given by the ratio of scattered events which react
different from the 1/r^2 rule. - In this experiment it was also
found that the electron is not only subject to the electric
interaction but also to the strong interaction. I think that this is
also important for assessing electron models. <br>
<br>
This result of the size seems in clear conflict with the evaluation
of Schrödinger and Wilczek using the uncertainty relation.
Schroedinger made the following statement to it: "Here I have got
the following result for the size of the electron (i.e. the Compton
radius). But we know that the electron is point-like. So, I must
have an error in my evaluation. However, I do not find this error."
So also for Schrödinger this was an unsolvable conflict.<br>
<br>
I think that if the electron would be point like on the one hand but
oscillate far enough so as to fill the size of the Compton
wavelength, this would be a violation of the conservation of
momentum. Very clearly, a single object cannot oscillate. That was
also obvious for Schrödinger and clearly his reason to call the
internal motion "Zitterbewegung". This is a word which does not
exist in the German vocabulary of physical terms. But Schrödinger
hesitated (by good reason) to use the German word for "oscillation".<br>
<br>
On the other hand, if the electron is built by two sub-particles,
this solves the problem. The sub-particle is point-like (at least
with respect to its charge), but both sub-particles orbit each
other, which reserves the momentum law, and the orbital radius is
the reduced Compton wavelength. - The argument of Martin that a
model of two sub-particles is "refuted by the experiment" is often
heart but not applicable to my model. The usual argument is that a
sufficient effort has been done to decompose an electron by a strong
bombardment. This was also done here at DESY. But in my model the
sub-particles have no mass on their own (the mass of the electron is
caused by the dynamics of the binding field). And in such a case one
of the sub-particles may be accelerated by an arbitrary amount, the
other one can always follow without any force coming up. A
decomposition by bombardment is therefore never possible. - I have
discussed this point with the research director of DESY who was
responsible for such experiments, and after at first objecting it,
he admitted, that my model is not in conflict with these
experiments.<br>
<br>
Martin: Where do I find your paper of 1997?<br>
<br>
<u>Regarding dilation:</u><br>
<br>
There is a lot of clear indications for dilation. Two examples:<br>
- The atomic clocks in the GPS satellites are slowed down which has
to be compensated for<br>
- In the Muon storage ring at CERN the lifetime of these Muons was
extended by the great amount ca. 250, which was in precise agreement
with special relativity.<br>
<br>
Contraction, on the other hand, is in so far more a point of
interpretation as it cannot be directly measured - in contrast to
dilation.<br>
<br>
Best wishes<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 26.09.2015 um 01:48 schrieb
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-f80d282a-a23b-488c-86fc-f1150a01eb43-1443224928960@3capp-webde-bs06"
type="cite">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Well! The water I was trying to offer was: might it not
be a good idea to distinguish clearly and specifically
between the size of a point and the size of the volumn in
which this point is insessently moving about. If your 97
paper does that, my appologies. Does it? Forgive me, I
have over a couple hundred papers I'd like to have read and
digested laying about, I do my best but still can't get to
them all. The chances are better, however, if a paper
attracts lots of attention because it predicted something
new to be observed empirically. Did it? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>BTW, I did not imply that the work I refered to is
better. But, it (in Rowland's avantar) is certainly as
extensive as yours. In any case, it potentially undermines
your "shot-from-the-hip" criticism of Albrecht's program by
introducing a feature to which neither you nor John refered
to, in my best memory, at San Diego. My comment was not
intended ad hominum, but made on the presumtion that you too
have hundreds of unread papers available. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best, Al</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px; padding:
10px 0 10px 10px; border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Freitag,
25. September 2015 um 19:56 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Mark, Martin van der"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"><martin.van.der.mark@philips.com></a><br>
<b>An:</b> "Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] research papers</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div>
<div>Al, just read what i wrote. It is not shooting
from the hip. I am refering to actual experiments,
all cited in the paper i refered to. Further, you
are just repeating what i said already. I can only
bring you to the water, i cannot make you drink. And
then you refer to other doubtfull work, as id it
were better. Good luck.</div>
<div>Regards, Martin<br>
<br>
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone</div>
<div><br>
Op 25 sep. 2015 om 19:16 heeft "<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>> het
volgende geschreven:<br>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Dear Martin,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Perhaps it's my Texas background, but I
think I sense some "shoot'n from the hip."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You have not done an experiment, but (at
best) a calculation based on some
hypothtical input of your choise. Maybe
it's good, maybe not. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Sun scatters as a point only those
projectiles that don't get close. So far,
no scattering off electons has gotten close
enough to engage any internal structure,
"they" say (I#ll defer to experts
up-to-date). Nevertheless, electrons are in
constant motion at or near the speed of
light (Zitterbewegung) and therefore at the
time scales of the projectiles buzz around
(zittern) in a certain amout of space, which
seems to me must manifest itself as if there
were spacially exteneded structure within
the scattering cross-section. Why not?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Not to defend Albrecht's model as he
describes it, but many folks (say Peter
Rowlands at Liverpool, for example) model
elemtary particles in terms of the partiicle
itself interacting with its induced virtual
image (denoted by Peter as the "rest of the
universe"). This "inducement" is a kind of
polarization effect. Every charge repells
all other like charges and attracts all
other unlike charges resulting in what can
be modeled as a virtual charge of the
opposite gender superimposed on itself in
the static approximation. But, because the
real situation is fluid, the virtual
charge's motion is delayed as caused by
finite light speed, so that the two chase
each other. Etc. Looks something like
Albrecht's pairs.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I too havn't read your 97 paper yet, but
I bet it's unlikely that you all took such
consideration into account.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best, Al </div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 10.0px 5.0px 5.0px
10.0px;padding: 10.0px 0 10.0px
10.0px;border-left: 2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div style="margin: 0 0 10.0px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Freitag,
25. September 2015 um 18:44 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Mark, Martin van der" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a></a>><br>
<b>An:</b> "Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>>,
"<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="phys@a-giese.de"
target="_parent">phys@a-giese.de</a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="phys@a-giese.de"
target="_parent">phys@a-giese.de</a>><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] research
papers</div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family: Calibri ,
sans-serif;color:
rgb(31,73,125);">Dear Al, dear
Albrecht, dear all,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family: Calibri ,
sans-serif;color:
rgb(31,73,125);">In the paper
John W and I published in 1997,
the situation is explained
briefly but adequately.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family: Calibri ,
sans-serif;color:
rgb(31,73,125);">Clearly
Albrecht has not read it or,
perhaps he did but does not want
to understand it because it
really destroys his work. This
is a double pity, of course, but
we are talking science, not
sentiment, and I do not want to
take away anything from the
person you are Albrecht.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family: Calibri ,
sans-serif;color:
rgb(31,73,125);">The electron
has a finite size, of the oder
of the Compton wavelength, but
the Coulomb interaction is
perfectly matched in ANY
experiment, which means there
are no internal bits to the
electron and that it behaves as
a point-LIKE scatterer, not a to
be mistaken by a POINT as is
done most of the time. Note that
even the sun has point-like
scattering for all comets that
go round it, its gravitational
field seems to come from the
centre of the sun. Until you hit
other bits. There are no other
bits for the electron, but at
very high energy the 4-momentum
exchange combined with the
resolving power at that high
energy make that a Compton-size
object CANNOT be resolved in
principle, if and only if it is
of electromagnetic origin.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family: Calibri ,
sans-serif;color:
rgb(31,73,125);">The electron is
a single thing, of
electromagnetic origin only,
there is NO OTHER WAY to fit the
experimental results.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family: Calibri ,
sans-serif;color:
rgb(31,73,125);">Well, maybe
there is another way, but I
cannot see it. Certainly it is
not two parts rotating about
each other, because that is
refuted by experiment, all those
models can go in the bin and are
a waste of time and energy.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family: Calibri ,
sans-serif;color:
rgb(31,73,125);">Regards, Martin</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family: Calibri ,
sans-serif;color:
rgb(31,73,125);"> </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial ,
sans-serif;color: navy;">Dr.
Martin B. van der Mark</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial ,
sans-serif;color: navy;">Principal
Scientist, Minimally Invasive
Healthcare</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family: Calibri ,
sans-serif;color: navy;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial ,
sans-serif;color: navy;">Philips
Research Europe - Eindhoven</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial ,
sans-serif;color: navy;">High
Tech Campus, Building 34
(WB2.025)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial ,
sans-serif;color: navy;">Prof.
Holstlaan 4</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial ,
sans-serif;color: navy;">5656
AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial ,
sans-serif;color: navy;">Tel:
+31 40 2747548</span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family: Calibri ,
sans-serif;color:
rgb(31,73,125);"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:
none;border-top: solid
rgb(181,196,223) 1.0pt;padding:
3.0pt 0.0cm 0.0cm 0.0cm;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Tahoma
, sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Tahoma ,
sans-serif;"> General [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> vrijdag 25
september 2015 18:05<br>
<b>To:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="phys@a-giese.de"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a></a>;
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_parent">
general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Nature of Light
and Particles - General
Discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re:
[General] research papers</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family: Verdana
, sans-serif;">Gentelmen:</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family: Verdana
, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family: Verdana
, sans-serif;">Shouldn't a
clear and explicit
distinction between the
"size" of the electron and
the "extent" of its
Zitterbewegung be made.
My best info, perhaps not
up-to-date, is that
although scattering
experiments put an upper
limit on the size
(10^-19m), there exists in
fact no evidence that the
electron has any finite
size whatsoever. This is
in contrast to the space
it consumes with its
Zitter-motion, which is
what would be calculated
using QM (Heisenberg
uncertanty mostly).
Seems to me that most of
what folks theorize about
is the latter, without
saying so, and perhaps
often without even
recognizing it. However,
since the Zitter volumn
will cause electrons to be
moving targets, it must
also have some effect on
its scatering
cross-section too. I
don't know how this is
sorted out in scattering
calculations---if at all.
(Albrectht?)</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family: Verdana
, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family: Verdana
, sans-serif;">Correct me
if I'm wrong. Best, Al</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family: Verdana
, sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<div style="border:
none;border-left: solid
rgb(195,217,229)
1.5pt;padding: 0.0cm 0.0cm
0.0cm 8.0pt;margin-left:
7.5pt;margin-top:
7.5pt;margin-right:
3.75pt;margin-bottom:
3.75pt;">
<div style="margin-bottom:
7.5pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;">Gesendet:</span></b><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana , sans-serif;"> Freitag,
25. September 2015 um
15:06 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr.
Albrecht Giese" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a></a>><br>
<b>An:</b> "Richard
Gauthier" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a></a>>,
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> "Nature of
Light and Particles -
General Discussion"
<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] research
papers</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;">Hello
Richard,<br>
<br>
according to present
mainstream physics
the size of the
electron is not more
than 10^-19 m. This
is concluded from
scattering
experiments where
the size of the
electric charge is
the quantity of
influence.<br>
<br>
As present
mainstream physics
(including the QED
of Feynman) assume
that the electron
has no internal
structure and that
the electric force
is the only one
effective, this size
is identified with
the size of the
whole electron. This
is in severe
conflict with the
calculations of
Schrödinger and of
Wilczek based on QM.<br>
<br>
I have the
impression that
several of us
(including me) have
models of the
electron which
assume some
extension roughly
compatible with the
QM calculations.<br>
<br>
Some details of my
model related to
this question: Here
the electron is
built by 2
sub-particles
("basic particles")
which orbit each
other at c. The
electric force is
not the only force
inside. The radius
following from the
magnetic moment is
the reduced Compton
wavelength, and the
mass of the electron
follows with high
precision from this
radius. At motion
the size decreases
by the relativistic
factor gamma, and so
the mass increases
by this factor. -
However there was
always a point of a
certain weakness in
my model: I could
not prove that the
electron is built by
just 2 sub-particles
carrying 1/2
elementary charge
each. Now Wilczek
writes in his
article that in
certain
circumstances -
superconductivity in
the presence of a
magnetic field - the
electron is
decomposed into two
halves. This is the
result of
measurements. How
can this happen with
a point-like
particle? This is a
mystery for Wilczek.
But in the view of
my model it is no
mystery but quite
plausible. It only
needs now a
quantitative
calculation of this
process which I
presently do not
have.<br>
<br>
All the best to you<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
</span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;">Am
23.09.2015 um
19:02 schrieb
Richard Gauthier:</span></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:
5.0pt;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;">Hello
Albrecht,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;">
Yes, all of our
electron models
here have a
radius related
to the Compton
wavelength.
Dirac’s
zitterbewegung
amplitude is 1/2
of the reduced
Compton
wavelength, or
hbar/2mc , which
is the radius of
the generic
circulating
charged photon’s
trajectory in my
circulating spin
1/2 charged
photon model for
a resting
electron. That
radius decreases
by a factor of
gamma^2 in a
moving electron.
Does yours?
Incorporating a
more detailed
spin 1/2 charged
photon model
with the generic
model could
bring the
model's radius
up to the
reduced Compton
wavelength
hbar/mc.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;">
all the best,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;">
Richard</span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:
5.0pt;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;">
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;">On
Sep 22, 2015,
at 11:13 AM,
Dr. Albrecht
Giese <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a></a>>
wrote:</span></p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;">
</span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;">Dear
Richard,<br>
<br>
thank you for
this reference
to the article
of Frank
Wilczek.<br>
<br>
He has a
quantum
mechanical
argument to
determine a
size for the
electron. It
is the
application of
the
uncertainty
relation to
the magnetic
moment of the
electron. The
result is as
you write: 2.4
x 10^-12 m,
which is the
Compton
wavelength of
the electron.<br>
This is a bit
similar to the
way as Erwin
Schrödinger
has determined
the size of
the electron
using the
Dirac function
in 1930. There
Schrödinger
determined the
"amplitude of
the
zitterbewegung"
also applying
the
uncertainty
relation to
the rest
energy of the
electron. It
was "roughly"
10^-13 m,
which also
meant in his
words the
Compton
wavelength of
the electron.<br>
<br>
In my electron
model its
radius is 3.86
x 10^-13 m,
which is
exactly the
"reduced"
Compton
wavelength.
But here it is
not an
expectation
value as in
the cases of
Wilczek and
Schrödinger
but the exact
radius of the
orbits of the
basic
particles.<br>
<br>
Thank you
again and best
wishes<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
</span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;">Am
21.09.2015 um
05:01 schrieb
Richard
Gauthier:</span></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:
5.0pt;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;">
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;">This
2013 Nature
comment “The
enigmatic
electron” by
Frank Wilczek
at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com">http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com</a></a> is
worth a look.
He states that
due to QM
effects, the
size of the
electron is
about 2.4 x
10^-12 m,
which is
roughly in the
range of some
of our
electron
models.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;">
Richard</span></p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;">
</span></p>
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:
5.0pt;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;">
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;">On
Sep 16, 2015,
at 12:59 PM,
Wolfgang Baer
<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com">wolf@nascentinc.com</a></a>>
wrote:</span></p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;">
</span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;background:
white;">I
should add you
sent me
Main-2014.pdf
and that may
be the one not
available on
the web sight.</span><br>
<span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;"><span
style="background:
white;">I was
looking for a
similar one
that included
the other
topics as
well.</span><br>
<span
style="background:
white;">If you
do not have
it, its OK, I
just like
reading from
paper.</span><br>
<br>
<span
style="background:
white;">best
wishes,</span><br>
<br>
<span
style="background:
white;">Wolf</span></span><br>
<span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;">
</span></p>
<pre style="background: white;">Dr. Wolfgang Baer</pre>
<pre style="background: white;">Research Director</pre>
<pre style="background: white;">Nascent Systems Inc.</pre>
<pre style="background: white;">tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432</pre>
<pre style="background: white;">E-mail <a moz-do-not-send="true"><span style="color: purple;">wolf@NascentInc.com</span></a></pre>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">On
9/14/2015
12:45 PM, Dr.
Albrecht Giese
wrote:</span></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:
5.0pt;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;word-spacing:
0.0px;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">John,<br>
<br>
You wrote a
long text, so
I will enter
my answers
within your
text.</span><br>
<span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">
</span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">Am
14.09.2015 um
02:54 schrieb
John Macken:</span></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:
5.0pt;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;">
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">Hello
David and
Albrecht,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">It
was through
the contact
with this
group that I
was finally
able to
understand the
disconnect
that existed
between my
idea of vacuum
energy and the
picture that
others were
obtaining from
my use of the
term
“energy”.
Many of the
mysteries of
quantum
mechanics and
general
relativity can
be traced to
the fact that
fields exist
and yet we do
not have a
clear idea of
what they
are. My
answer is that
we live within
a sea of
vacuum
activity which
is the
physical basis
of the
mysterious
fields. I
combine all
fields into a
single
“spacetime
field” which
is the basis
of all
particles,
fields and
forces.<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><b><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">David</span></b><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">,
you asked
about the
words<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span>quantum,
quantifying
and
quantizing. I
did a word
search and I
did not use
the word
“quantizing”
in either the
email or the
attachment to
my last post.
However, the
paper<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>Energetic
Spacetime: The
New Aether</i><span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span>submitted to SPIE as part of the
conference
presentation,
used and
defines the
word
“quantization”.
This paper was
attached to
previous
posts, and is
available at
my website: <span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://onlyspacetime.com/"
target="_blank">http://onlyspacetime.com/</a></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><b><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">Albrecht</span></b><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">:
I can combine
my answer to
you with the
clarification
for David of
the word
“quantify” and
its
derivatives.
I claim that
my model of
the universe
“quantifies”
particles and
fields. I
will start my
explanation of
this concept
by giving
examples of
models which
do not
“quantify”
particles and
fields. There
have been
numerous
particle
models from
this group and
others which
show an
electron model
as two balls
orbiting
around a
center of
mass. Most of
the group
identifies
these balls as
photons but
Albrecht names
the two balls
“charges of
the strong
force”. Both
photons and
charges of
strong force
are just
words. To be
quantifiable,
it is
necessary to
describe the
model of the
universe which
gives the
strong force
or the
electromagnetic
force. What
exactly are
these? How
much energy
and energy
density does
one charge of
strong force
have? Can a
photon occupy
a volume
smaller than a
reduced
Compton
wavelength in
radius? Does a
muon have the
same basic
strong force
charge but
just rotate
faster? Are
the charges of
strong force
or photons
made of any
other more
basic
component?</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><br>
<span
style="font-family:
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">Regarding
charge: This
is a basic
entity in my
model. At some
point a
physical
theory has to
start. My
model starts
with the
assumption
that a charge
is an "atomic"
entity, so
possibly
point-like,
which emits
exchange
particles (in
this point I
follow the
general
understanding
of QM). There
are two types
of charges:
the electric
ones which we
are very
familiar with,
having two
signs, and the
strong ones,
which are not
so obvious in
everyday
physics; they
also have two
signs. In the
physical
nature we find
the charges of
the strong
force only in
configurations
made of those
different
signs, never
isolated. This
is in contrast
to the
electric
charges.<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<br>
The basic
particles are
composed of a
collection of
charges of the
strong force
so that both
basic
particles are
bound to each
other in a way
that they keep
a certain
distance. This
distance
characterizes
an elementary
particle. In
several (or
most) cases
there is
additionally
an electric
charge in the
basic
particle.<br>
<br>
The two
parameters I
have to set -
or to find -
are the shape
of the strong
field in the
elementary
particle. Here
I have defined
an equation
describing a
minimum
multi-pole
field to make
the elementary
particle
stable. The
other setting
is the
strength of
this field.
This strength
can be found
e.g. using the
electron
because the
electron is
well known and
precisely
measured. This
field is then
applicable for
all leptons as
well as for
all quarks. It
is also
applicable for
the photon
with the
restriction
that there may
be a
correction
factor caused
by the fact
that the
photon is not
fundamental in
the sense of
this model but
composed of
(maybe) two
other
particles.<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<br>
The size of
the photon is
(at least
roughly)
described by
its
wavelength.
This follows
from the mass
formula
resulting from
my model, as
with this
assumption the
(dynamic) mass
of the photon
is the correct
result.<br>
<br>
As I wrote,
the results of
this model are
very precise,
the prove is
in practice
only limited
by limitations
of the
measurement
processes.</span><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">
</span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">I
could go on
with more
questions
until it is
possible to
calculate the
properties of
an electron
from the
answers. So
far both
models lack
any
quantifiable
details except
perhaps a
connection to
the particle’s
Compton
frequency. I
am not
demanding
anything more
than I have
already done.
For example, I
cannot
calculate the
electron’s
Compton
frequency or
the fine
structure
constant.
However, once
I install
these into the
model that I
create, and
combine this
with the
properties of
the spacetime
field, then I
get an
electron.
Installing a
muon’s Compton
frequency
generates a
muon with the
correct
electric
field,
electrostatic
force,
curvature of
spacetime,
gravitational
force and de
Broglie
waves. I am
able to
quantify the
distortion of
spacetime
produced by a
charged
particle, an
electric field
and a photon.
I am able to
test these
models and
show that they
generate both
the correct
energy density
and generate a
black hole
when we reach
the distortion
limits of the
spacetime
field.<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">In
my model the
Compton
frequency of
the electron
(and of the
other leptons)
follows
directly from
the size of
the particle
and the fact
that the basic
particle move
with c. The
fine structure
constant tells
us the
relation of
the electric
force to the
strong force.
This
explanation
follows very
directly from
this model,
however was
also found by
other
theorists
using algebra
of particle
physics.<br>
<br>
Another result
of the model
is that
Planck's
constant -
multiplied by
c - is the
field constant
of the strong
force. Also
this is the
result of
other models
(however not
of mainstream
physics). </span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">My
model starts
with a
quantifiable
description of
the properties
of spacetime.
The spacetime
model has a
specific
impedance
which
describes the
properties of
waves that can
exist in
spacetime.
Then the
amplitude and
frequency of
the waves in
spacetime is
quantified.
This
combination
allows the
energy density
of spacetime
to be
calculated and
this agrees
with the
energy density
of zero point
energy. The
particle
models are
then defined
as ½<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span>ħ<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span>units of quantized angular
momentum
existing in
the spacetime
field. This
model is
quantifiable
as to size,
structure,
energy, etc.
Also the fact
that the rate
of time and
proper volume
is being
modulated, it
is possible to
calculate the
effect that
such a
structure
would have on
the
surrounding
volume of
spacetime. It
is possible to
calculate the
effect if the
spacetime-based
particle model
would have if
the coupling
constant was
equal to 1
(Planck
charge), To
get charge<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>e</i>, it is necessary to
manually
install the
fine structure
constant. <span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">How
do you get the
value<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span
style="font-family:
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">½<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span>ħ</span><span
class="apple-converted-space"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;"> </span></span><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">for
the angular
momentum? What
is the
calculation
behind it? - I
understand
that in your
model the
electric
charge is a
parameter
deduced from
other facts.
Which ones?
From alpha?
How do you
then get
alpha?<br>
<br>
I personally
have in so far
a problem with
all
considerations
using
spacetime as I
have quite
thoroughly
investigated
how Einstein
came to the
idea of this
4-dimentional
construct. His
main
motivation was
that he wanted
in any case to
avoid an
ether. And in
his
discussions
with Ernst
Mach he had to
realize that
he was running
into a lot of
problems with
this
assumption. He
could solve
these problems
in general by
his "curved
spacetime".
But this
concept still
causes logical
conflicts
which are
eagerly
neglected by
the followers
of Einstein's
relativity
(and which do
not exist in
the Lorentzian
way of
relativity). </span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">The
quantifiable
properties of
spacetime
imply that
there should
be boundary
conditions
which imply
that the waves
in spacetime
should be
nonlinear.
When the
nonlinear
component is
calculated and
treated as
separate
waves, the
characteristics
of the
particle’s
gravitational
field are
obtained
(correct:
curvature,
effect on the
rate of time,
force and
energy
density).</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">In
my last post I
have given an
answer about
the factor of
10<sup>120</sup><span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span>difference between the observable
energy density
of the
universe and
the
non-observable
energy of the
universe.
This
non-observable
energy density
is absolutely
necessary for
QED
calculations,
zero point
energy, the
uncertainty
principle,
Lamb shift,
spontaneous
emission and
quantum
mechanics in
general. This
non-observable
energy density
is responsible
for the
tremendously
large
impedance of
spacetime c<sup>3</sup>/G.
Since I can
also show how
this
non-observable
energy density
is obtainable
from
gravitational
wave
equations, it
is necessary
for<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><b>you</b><span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span>to show how all these effects can
be achieved
without
spacetime
being a single
field with
this
non-observable
energy
density. In
fact, the name
non-observable
only applied
to direct
observation.
The indirect
evidence is
everywhere.
It forms the
basis of the
universe and
therefore is
the
“background
noise” of the
universe. For
this reason it
is not
directly
observable
because we can
only detect
differences in
energy. The
constants<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>c,</i><span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>G</i>,<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>ħ</i><span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span>and<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>ε<sub>o</sub></i><span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span>testify
that spacetime
is not an
empty void. <span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">Up
to now I did
not find any
necessity for
zero-point
energy. And I
find it a
dangerous way
to assume
physical facts
which cannot
be observed.
The greatest
argument in
favour of this
energy is its
use in Feynman
diagrams. But
is there
really no
other way? I
have a lecture
of Feynman
here where he
states that
his formalism
has good
results. But
that he has no
physical
understanding
why it is
successful. In
my
understanding
of the
development of
physics this
is a weak
point.<br>
<br>
The
discrepancy of
10^120 between
assumed and
observed
energy is
taken as a
great and
unresolved
problem by
present main
stream
physics. Those
representatives
would have all
reason to find
a solution to
keep present
QM clean. But
they are not
able to. This
causes me some
concern.<br>
<br>
The constants
you have
listed: c is
the speed of
light what
ever the
reason for it
is. (I have a
model, but it
is a bit
speculative.)
But it has
nothing to do
with energy. G
is the
gravitational
constant which
is as little
understood as
gravity
itself.
Planck's
constant I
have
explained, it
is (with c)
the field
constant of
the strong
force (any
force has to
be described
by a field
constant); and<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><i><span
style="font-family:
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">ε<sub>o</sub></span></i><span
class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family:
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;"> </span></span><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">is
the field
constant of
the electric
force with a
similar
background. </span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">If
spacetime was
an empty void,
why should
particles have
a speed limit
of<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>c</i>?
For a thought
experiment,
suppose that
two spaceships
leave earth
going opposite
directions and
accelerate
until they
reach a speed
of 0.75<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>c</i><span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span>relative to the earth. The earth
bound observer
sees them
separating at
1.5<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>c</i><span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span>but the rules of relativistic
addition of
velocity has a
spaceship
observer
seeing the
other
spaceship
moving away at
only 0.96<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>c</i>. How is this possible if
spacetime is
an empty
void. My
model of the
universe
answers this
because all
particles,
fields and
forces are
also made of
the spacetime
field and they
combine to
achieve
Lorentz
transformations
which affects
ruler length
and clocks.
None of this
can happen
unless
spacetime is
filled with
dipole waves
in spacetime
and everything
is made of the
single
component.
The universe
is only
spacetime.<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">If
two spaceships
move at 0.75 c
in opposite
direction, the
observer at
rest may add
these speeds
and may get
1.5 c as a
result. Why
not? If an
observer in
one of the
spaceships
measures the
relative speed
of the other
spaceship, the
result will be
less then c
(as you write
it). The
reason is the
well known
fact that the
measurement
tools
accessible for
the observer
in the ship
are changed
and run
differently at
this high
speed. The
reason for
these changes
is for time
dilation the
internal speed
c in
elementary
particles. For
contraction it
is the
contraction of
fields at
motion which
is a fact
independent of
relativity
(and which was
already known
before
Einstein). In
addition when
the speed of
another object
is to be
measured
several clocks
are to be used
positioned
along the
measurement
section. These
clocks are
de-synchronized
in relation to
the clocks of
the observer
at rest. These
phenomena
together cause
the
measurement
result < c.
You find these
considerations
in papers and
books about
the Lorentzian
interpretation
of relativity.
So, following
Lorentz, there
is no reason
to assume
Einstein's
spacetime.</span><span
class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: Helvetica ,
sans-serif;"> </span></span><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">
</span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">John
M.</span></p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">Perhaps
I should read
your book. But
that chould
take a lot of
time, I am
afraid.<br>
<br>
Albrecht </span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div
style="border:
none;border-top:
solid
rgb(225,225,225)
1.0pt;padding:
3.0pt 0.0cm
0.0cm 0.0cm;">
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><b><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span
class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></span><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">Dr.
Albrecht Giese
[<a
moz-do-not-send="true"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">mailto:genmail@a-giese.de</a></a>]<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<b>Sent:</b><span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM<br>
<b>To:</b><span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span>John Macken<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:john@macken.com"><john@macken.com></a></a>; 'Nature of Light and
Particles -
General
Discussion'<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b><span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] research papers</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
12.0pt;background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">Hello
John,<br>
<br>
great that you
have looked so
deeply into
the model
which I have
presented.
Thank you.<br>
<br>
There are some
questions
which I can
answer quite
easily. I
think that
this model in
fact explains
several points
just in
contrast to
main stream
physics. In
standard
physics the
electron (just
as an example)
is a
point-like
object without
any internal
structure. So,
how can a
magnetic
moment be
explained? How
can the spin
be explained?
How can the
mass be
explained? The
position of
main stream
physics is:
That cannot be
explained but
is subject to
quantum
mechanics. And
the fact that
it cannot be
explained
shows how
necessary QM
is.<br>
<br>
In contrast,
if the
electron is
assumed to
have a
structure like
in the model
presented,
these
parameters can
be explained
in a classical
way, and this
explanation is
not merely a
qualitative
one but has
precise
quantitative
results.<br>
<br>
To your
questions in
detail:<br>
The fact of
two basic
particles is
necessary to
explain the
fact of an
oscillation
and to fulfil
the
conservation
of momentum. A
single object
(as
point-like)
cannot
oscillate. The
basic
particles are
composed of
charges of the
strong force.
In this model
the strong
force is
assumed to be
the universal
force in our
world
effective on
all particles.
A charge is a
fundamental
object in the
scope of this
model. There
are two kinds
of charges
according to
the two kinds
of forces in
our world, the
strong one and
the electric
one. The weak
force is in
fact the
strong force
but has a
smaller
coupling
constant
caused by
geometric
circumstances.
And gravity is
not a force at
all but a
refraction
process, which
is so a side
effect of the
other forces.
And, by the
way, gravity
is not curved
spacetime.
This is not
necessary, and
besides of
this,
Einstein's
spacetime
leads to
logical
conflicts.<br>
<br>
The forces
(i.e. strong
force) inside
an elementary
particle are
configured in
a way that at
a certain
distance there
is a potential
minimum and in
this way the
distance
between the
basic
particles is
enforced. So,
this field has
attracting and
repulsive
components.
Outside the
elementary
particle the
attracting
forces
dominate to
make the
particle a
stable one.
And those
field parts
outside have
an opposite
sign. Now, as
the basic
particles are
orbiting each
other, the
outside field
is an
alternating
field (of the
strong forth).
If this field
propagates, it
is builds a
wave. This
wave is
described by
the
Schrödinger
equation and
fulfils the
assumptions of
de Broglie.<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<br>
With the
assumption of
two basic
particles
orbiting at c
and subject to
strong force,
the parameters
mass, magnetic
moment, spin
result from it
numerically
correctly
without
further
assumptions.<br>
<br>
This model
does not need
any vacuum
energy or
virtual
particles.
Those are
simply not
necessary and
they are
anyway very
speculative
because not
directly
observable.
And in the
case of the
vacuum energy
of the
universe we
are confronted
with the
discrepancy of
10^120 which
you also
mention in
your paper
attached to
your mail.<br>
<br>
The Coulomb
law can be
easily
explained by
the assumption
(standard at
quantum
mechanics)
that a force
is realized by
exchange
particles. The
density of
exchange
particles and
so the
strength of
the field
diminishes by
1/r^2, which
is simple
geometry.<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<br>
So John, this
is my
position. Now
I am curious
about your
objections of
further
questions.<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
Albrecht<br>
</span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">Am
11.09.2015 um
23:51 schrieb
John Macken:</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:
5.0pt;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;">
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">Hello
Albrecht and
All,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">I
have attached
a one page
addition that
I will make to
my book. It is
a preliminary
explanation of
my model of
the spacetime
field. It has
been very
helpful to me
to interact
with this
group because
I now
understand
better the key
stumbling
block for some
scientists to
accept my
thesis.
Therefore I
have written
the attached
introduction
to ease the
reader of my
book into my
model. <span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><b><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">Albrecht:</span></b><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> <span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span>I appreciate your email. We agree
on several
points which
include the
size of the
electron and
there is a
similarity in
the
explanation of
gravity. The
key points of
disagreement
are the same
as I have with
the rest of
the group.
Your
explanation of
a fundamental
particle is
not really an
explanation.
You substitute
a fundamental
particle such
as an electron
with two
“basic
particles”.
Have we made
any progress
or did we just
double the
problem? What
is your basic
particles made
of? What is
the physics
behind the
force of
attraction
between the
particles?
What is the
physics behind
an electric
field? How
does your
model create
de Broglie
waves? How
does your
model create a
gravitational
field (curved
spacetime)?
Can you derive
the Coulomb
law and
Newtonian
gravitational
equation from
your model? <span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">These
might seem
like unfair
questions, but
my model does
all of these
things. All it
requires is
the reader
accept the
fact that the
vacuum
possesses
activity which
can be
characterized
as a type of
energy density
that is not
observable (no
rest mass or
momentum).
This is no
different that
accepting that
QED
calculations
should be
believed when
they assume
vacuum energy
or that zero
point energy
really
exists. <span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><b><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">Albrecht</span></b><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">,
perhaps I have
come on too
strong, but I
have decided
to take a
firmer stand.
You just
happen to be
the first
person that I
contrast to my
model. I am
actually happy
to discuss the
scientific
details in a
less
confrontational
way. I just
wanted to make
an initial
point.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">John
M.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div
style="border:
none;border-top:
solid
rgb(225,225,225)
1.0pt;padding:
3.0pt 0.0cm
0.0cm 0.0cm;">
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><b><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span
class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></span><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">General
[<a
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:
purple;"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></span></a>]<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Dr.
Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b><span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM<br>
<b>To:</b><span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b><span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] research papers</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">Dear
John Macken,<br>
<br>
I would like
to answer a
specific topic
in your mail
below. You
write "...
would have
particular
relevance to
the concept
that the Higgs
field is
needed to give
inertia to
fermions".<br>
<br>
We should not
overlook that
even
mainstream
physicists
working on
elementary
particles
admit that the
Higgs theory
is not able to
explain
inertia. I
give you as a
reference:<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
3.0pt;text-align:
justify;background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">>Steven
D. Brass, The
cosmological
constant
puzzle,
Journal of
Physics G,
Nuclear and
Particle
Physics 38,
4(2011)
43201< ,</span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
12.0pt;background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">which
has the result
that the Higgs
field, which
causes inertia
according to
the theory, is
by at least 56
orders of
magnitude too
small to
explain the
mass of the
elementary
particles.
(Another
weakness is
the fact that
the Higgs
theory does
not tell us
the mass of
any elementary
particle even
if all other
parameters are
known.)<br>
<br>
As you may
remember, in
our meeting I
have presented
a model
explaining
inertia which
does not only
work as a
general idea
but provides
very precise
results for
the mass of
leptons. The
mass is
classically
deduced from
the size of a
particle. It
also explains
the mass of
quarks, but
here the
verification
is more
difficult, due
to the lack of
measurements.
In addition I
have shown
that the model
also explains
the (dynamic)
mass of
photons, if
the size of a
photon is
related to its
wavelength.<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<br>
You may find
details in the
proceedings of
our San Diego
meeting, but
also on the
following web
sites:<br>
<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass" target="_blank"><span
style="color:
purple;"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass">www.ag-physics.org/rmass</a></span></a><br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ag-physics.org/electron" target="_blank"><span
style="color:
purple;"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ag-physics.org/electron">www.ag-physics.org/electron</a></span></a><span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span>.<br>
<br>
You may also
find the sites
by Google
search
entering the
string "origin
of mass". You
will find it
on position 1
or 2 of the
list, where it
has constantly
been during
the past 12
years.<br>
<br>
If you have
any questions
about it,
please ask me.
I will be
happy about
any
discussion.<br>
<br>
With best
regards<br>
Albrecht Giese</span><br>
<br>
<span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">Am
04.09.2015 um
18:40 schrieb
John Macken:</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:
5.0pt;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;">
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">Martin,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">I
wanted to
remind you
that I think
that you
should update
your article
“Light Is
Heavy” to
include the
mathematical
proof that
confined light
has exactly
the same
inertia as
particles with
equal energy.
Accelerating a
reflecting box
causes
different
photon
pressure which
results in a
net inertial
force. I
already
reference your
Light Is Heavy
article in my
book, but
expanding the
article would
be even
better. An
expanded
article would
have
particular
relevance to
the concept
that the Higgs
field is
needed to give
inertia to
fermions. The
Higgs field is
not needed to
give inertia
to confined
light.
Furthermore,
confined light
exerts exactly
the correct
inertia and
kinetic
energy, even
at
relativistic
conditions. I
have not seen
a proof that
the Higgs
field gives
exactly the
correct amount
of inertia or
kinetic energy
to fermions.
Any particle
model that
includes
either a
confined
photon or
confined waves
in spacetime
propagating at
the speed of
light gets
inertia and
kinetic energy
from the same
principles as
confined light
in a
reflecting
box.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">John
M.<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div
style="border:
none;border-top:
solid
rgb(225,225,225)
1.0pt;padding:
3.0pt 0.0cm
0.0cm 0.0cm;">
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><b><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span
class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></span><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">General
[<a
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:
purple;"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></span></a>]<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Mark,
Martin van der<br>
<b>Sent:</b><span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM<br>
<b>To:</b><span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles -
General
Discussion<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b><span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span>[General] research papers</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
10.0pt;background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;color:
rgb(31,73,125);">Dear all,</span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
10.0pt;background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;color:
rgb(31,73,125);">My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate:</span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
10.0pt;background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;color:
rgb(31,73,125);"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications"
target="_blank"><span style="color: purple;">https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications</span></a></span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
10.0pt;background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;color:
rgb(31,73,125);">In particular you will find the most recent work:</span></p>
<ul
style="margin-top:
0.0cm;"
type="disc">
<li
class="MsoNormal"
style="color:
rgb(31,73,125);margin-bottom:
10.0pt;background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">On
the nature of
“stuff” and
the hierarchy
of forces</span></li>
<li
class="MsoNormal"
style="color:
rgb(31,73,125);margin-bottom:
10.0pt;background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">Quantum
mechanical
probability
current as
electromagnetic
4-current from
topological EM
fields</span></li>
</ul>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
10.0pt;background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;color:
rgb(31,73,125);">Very best regards,</span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
10.0pt;background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;color:
rgb(31,73,125);">Martin</span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Arial ,
sans-serif;color:
navy;">Dr.
Martin B. van
der Mark</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Arial ,
sans-serif;color:
navy;">Principal
Scientist,
Minimally
Invasive
Healthcare</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;color:
navy;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Arial ,
sans-serif;color:
navy;">Philips
Research
Europe -
Eindhoven</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Arial ,
sans-serif;color:
navy;">High
Tech Campus,
Building 34
(WB2.025)</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Arial ,
sans-serif;color:
navy;">Prof.
Holstlaan 4</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Arial ,
sans-serif;color:
navy;">5656
AE Eindhoven,
The
Netherlands</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Arial ,
sans-serif;color:
navy;">Tel:
+31 40 2747548</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div
class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:
center;background:
white;"
align="center">
<hr size="3"
width="100%"
align="center"></div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
7.5pt;font-family:
Arial ,
sans-serif;color:
gray;">The
information
contained in
this message
may be
confidential
and legally
protected
under
applicable
law. The
message is
intended
solely for the
addressee(s).
If you are not
the intended
recipient, you
are hereby
notified that
any use,
forwarding,
dissemination,
or
reproduction
of this
message is
strictly
prohibited and
may be
unlawful. If
you are not
the intended
recipient,
please contact
the sender by
return e-mail
and destroy
all copies of
the original
message.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><br>
<br>
<br>
<span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<pre style="background: white;">_______________________________________________</pre>
<pre style="background: white;">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a moz-do-not-send="true"><span style="color: purple;">phys@a-giese.de</span></a></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style="color: purple;">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</span></a>></pre>
<pre style="background: white;">Click here to unsubscribe</pre>
<pre style="background: white;"></a></pre>
</blockquote>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
12.0pt;background:
white;"><br>
<br>
<span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<div
class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:
center;background:
white;"
align="center">
<hr
style="color:
rgb(144,144,144);" noshade="noshade" size="1" width="99%" align="center"></div>
<table
class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:
collapse;"
border="0"
cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="padding:
0.0cm 11.25pt
0.0cm 6.0pt;">
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><span
style="color:
purple;border:
solid
windowtext
1.0pt;padding:
0.0cm;text-decoration:
none;"><Mail
Attachment.jpeg></span></a></span></p>
</div>
</td>
<td
style="padding:
0.75pt 0.75pt
0.75pt
0.75pt;">
<p><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;color:
rgb(61,77,90);">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf
Viren geprüft.<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank"><span
style="color:
purple;"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></span></a></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
12.0pt;background:
white;"><br>
<span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<div
class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:
center;background:
white;"
align="center">
<hr
style="color:
rgb(144,144,144);" noshade="noshade" size="1" width="99%" align="center"></div>
<table
class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:
collapse;"
border="0"
cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="padding:
0.0cm 11.25pt
0.0cm 6.0pt;">
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><span
style="color:
purple;border:
solid
windowtext
1.0pt;padding:
0.0cm;text-decoration:
none;"><Mail
Attachment.jpeg></span></a></span></p>
</div>
</td>
<td
style="padding:
0.75pt 0.75pt
0.75pt
0.75pt;">
<p><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;color:
rgb(61,77,90);">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf
Viren geprüft.<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank"><span
style="color:
purple;"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></span></a></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><br>
<br>
<span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">
</span></p>
<div
class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:
center;background:
white;"
align="center">
<hr
style="width:
960.05pt;"
noshade="noshade"
size="1"
width="1280"
align="center"></div>
<table
class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:
collapse;"
border="0"
cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="padding:
0.0cm 11.25pt
0.0cm 6.0pt;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><span
style="color:
purple;text-decoration:
none;"><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
alt="Avast
logo"
id="_x0000_i1029"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" border="0"></span></a></p>
</td>
<td
style="padding:
0.75pt 0.75pt
0.75pt
0.75pt;">
<p><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;color:
rgb(61,77,90);">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf
Viren geprüft.<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank"><span
style="color:
purple;"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></span></a></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;">
</span></p>
<pre style="background: white;">_______________________________________________</pre>
<pre style="background: white;">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a moz-do-not-send="true"><span style="color: purple;">Wolf@nascentinc.com</span></a></pre>
<pre style="background: white;"><a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style="color: purple;">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</span></a>></pre>
<pre style="background: white;">Click here to unsubscribe</pre>
<pre style="background: white;"></a></pre>
</blockquote>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><br>
<span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;"><span
style="background:
white;">_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span
style="background:
white;">If you
no longer wish
to receive
communication
from the
Nature of
Light and
Particles
General
Discussion
List at<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a></a></span><br>
<span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;"><span
style="background:
white;"><a
href="</span></span><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" 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</a></a></span><span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;background:
white;">"></span><br>
<span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;"><span
style="background:
white;">Click
here to
unsubscribe</span><br>
<span
style="background:
white;"></a></span></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><br>
<br>
<span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;">
</span></p>
<div
class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:
center;background:
white;"
align="center">
<hr
style="color:
rgb(144,144,144);" noshade="noshade" size="1" width="99%" align="center"></div>
<table
class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:
collapse;"
border="0"
cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="padding:
0.0cm 11.25pt
0.0cm 6.0pt;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><span
style="text-decoration:
none;"><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
alt="Avast
logo"
id="_x0000_i1031"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" border="0"></span></a></p>
</td>
<td
style="padding:
0.75pt 0.75pt
0.75pt
0.75pt;">
<p><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;color:
rgb(61,77,90);">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf
Viren geprüft.<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><br>
<br>
<span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:
center;background:
white;" align="center">
<hr style="color:
rgb(144,144,144);"
noshade="noshade"
size="1" width="99%"
align="center"></div>
<table
class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:
collapse;" border="0"
cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="padding:
0.0cm 11.25pt
0.0cm 6.0pt;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><span
style="text-decoration:
none;"><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
alt="Avast
logo"
id="_x0000_i1033"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" border="0"></span></a></p>
</td>
<td
style="padding:
0.75pt 0.75pt
0.75pt 0.75pt;">
<p><span
style="font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;color:
rgb(61,77,90);">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf
Viren geprüft.<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:
white;"><br>
<span
style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana ,
sans-serif;">_______________________________________________
If you no longer
wish to receive
communication from
the Nature of Light
and Particles
General Discussion
List at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank">
Click here to
unsubscribe </a></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive
communication from the Nature of Light
and Particles General Discussion List
at <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank"> Click here to
unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span>If you no longer wish to receive
communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"
target="_parent"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a></a></span><br>
<span><a href="<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"></span><br>
<span>Click here to unsubscribe</span><br>
<span></a></span></div>
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________ If you
no longer wish to receive communication from the
Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List
at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank"> Click here to unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" 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"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>