<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Hello Albrecht,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> Thank you for your detailed explanations. Yes, I will wait for your quantitative derivation of the relativistic de Broglie wavelength from your electron model. De Broglie’s original derivation has the internal frequency of his electron both increasing (due to its energy as gamma mc^2 = hf AND also decreasing due to relativistic time dilation. He managed to reconcile both of these frequencies by his ingenious “harmony of phases” relationship. Your electron model only seems to have a decreasing frequency with increasing speed, where you say this decreasing frequency is due to time dilation. Without an increasing internal frequency proportional to the electron's energy gamma mc^2 I think you will have difficulty deriving the relativistic de Broglie wavelength. My model derives the de Broglie wavelength value h/(gamma mv) easily from the relativistic wavelength h/(gamma mc) of the circulating charged photon whose frequency is given by hf=gamma mc^2, without referring to relativistic time dilation.</div><div class=""> </div><div class=""> You say at one point: "We can reorder this equation: m*R*c = h(bar). The left side is now the classical definition of the orbital momentum at speed = c.” But mc is not the momentum of a particle with rest mass traveling at c, i.e. p = mv where v is replaced by c. Could you have misunderstood p=mc for the relativistic equation for momentum p = gamma mv for a particle with rest mass m traveling at velocity v but never able to reach c. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> However, the momentum quantity mc does appear in my circulating charged photon model as the invariant transverse component of the helically circulating charged photon’s total momentum gamma mc. The longitudinal component of the charged photon’s circulating momentum is gamma mv, which is the momentum of the relativistic electron being modeled by the circulating charged photon. The transverse momentum component mc contributes to the spin hbar/2 of a slow moving or resting electron composed of a circulating photon at radius hbar/2mc in this way: Sz = r x p = hbar/2mc x mc = hbar/2 . My charged photon model is a generic charged photon model, which needs a more detailed charged photon model incorporated into it that will give the charged photon model a spin hbar/2 also at relativistic velocities, since the electron has spin hbar/2 at all velocities. I have such a possible charged photon model that is internally superluminal and has spin hbar/2 at all energies, which might be incorporated into the generic charged photon model.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> You asked if someone besides you has an explanation of particle inertia. This invariant circulating transverse momentum component p=mc in my charged photon model of the electron gives my electron model an invariant rest mass m and so this circulating momentum component mc may be the origin of inertia or rest mass of material particles like the electron.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> Richard</div><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Oct 1, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese <<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" class="">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class="">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">
Dear Richard,<br class="">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br class="">
thank you for your list of explicit questions. That makes it easy
to answer in a structured way. And I hope that my answers can also
answer some of the other questions and doubts which came up during
the last days and mails.<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:560B9C78.10805@a-giese.de" type="cite" class="">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8" class="">
<div class="">Hello John and Albrecht and all,</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Thanks John, I stand corrected on the issue
of your electron model not falling off in lateral size as
1/gamma. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Albrecht, I am still not satisfied with your
electron model for a number of reasons:</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">1) no experimental evidence for multi-particle
structure of the electron even at high energies.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, this model makes it difficult to show experimentally this
structure of the electron. It is difficult by the reason that both
sub-particles do not have any mass. So the particle cannot be
decomposed by bombardment, which is the normal way of
investigating a particle structure in high energy physics (like a
proton). On the other hand it should not be a problem to accept
that a particle is big as a whole, but by a scattering experiment
only a sub-particle is detected. That has a historical analogy in
the Rutherford experiment, where Rutherford wished to measure the
size of an atom but found the size of the nucleus. In case of the
electron the experimenters look for the size of the electron but
find the size of the basic particle.<br class="">
<br class="">
However there is now indeed an experimental evidence. As Frank
Wilczek wrote in his article in Nature, in a specific situation
(superconductivity in a magnetic field), half-electrons were
detected. In his understanding it is a complete mystery. In the
view of this particle model not so much a mystery.<br class="">
<br class="">
An important theoretical argument for a pair of sub-particles is
the fact the there is an internal motion (mag. moment, spin), but
the conservation of momentum must not be violated. This needs at
least 2 sub-particles.<br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:560B9C78.10805@a-giese.de" type="cite" class="">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">2) your light-speed charged, massless
circulating particles carry no resting inertia — why not
just call them circulating charged photons, and just have
one of them rather than two, based on the lack of
experimental evidence for multi-particle structure of the
electron? <br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Arguments against a photon: A photon at c has inertia. With this
assumption the model cannot work (look for the mechanism of
inertia). And a photon does not have a single (or half) electric
charge. And scattering of other charged particles (like quarks) at
a photon would not display a size < 10^-18. A photon cannot be
that small.<br class="">
<br class="">
Further the photon has spin of 1 h(bar), the electron has 1/2 of
it. If the electron would be built by 2 photons, the combined spin
should be 0 or 2. Or there must be an additional orbital momentum
which is otherwise not known in particle physics.
<blockquote cite="mid:560B9C78.10805@a-giese.de" type="cite" class="">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">3) there is no clear model of a photon in your
system (maybe I missed it) and how electron-positron pair
production of your electron model and positron model would
emerge from a single photon in the vicinity of a nucleus (a
common method of pair production).</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I must admit that I do not have a consistent model for a photon. I
tend to the idea of de Broglie that a photon is composed by 2
elementary particles. But I do not assume 2 neutrinos as de
Broglie did but maybe of 4 basic particles in a very special
configuration. At least a photon has to have positive and negative
electric charges inside, otherwise it would not react with
electric charges as it does.<br class="">
<br class="">
If we assume that the photon is e.g. built by 2 other particles
which are similar to electrons, pair production is quite
plausible. On the other hand, the generation of elementary
particles by interaction processes, which should mean in this
context the generation of basic particles, needs some additional
understanding. My model just uses generations like those but has
no explanation yet for them. <br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:560B9C78.10805@a-giese.de" type="cite" class="">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">4) the two-dimensionality of your electron
model. Delta x in the third dimension appears to be zero
and delta Px in the third dimension is also zero. So delta x
delta Px is also zero , a strong violation of the Heisenberg
uncertainty principle. Is that a problem for your model?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
The orbital motion of the 2 sub-particles goes on in a
2-dimensional area, that is true. Problem with Heisenberg's
principle? (I prefer to say: the uncertainty relation, because
nature is not determined by principles, as elementary particles
etc. do not have a mind so that they can understand and follow
principles.) The uncertainty is a "technical" consequence of the
de Broglie wave which surrounds and guides a particle. Such wave
can only be determined with uncertainty, that is the uncertainty
found in measurements. I do not see any uncertainty in particles
themselves as everywhere when we can measure parameters in an
interaction, the conservation laws are fulfilled without an
uncertainty.
<blockquote cite="mid:560B9C78.10805@a-giese.de" type="cite" class="">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">5) the fact that your model’s lateral size
doesn’t decrease as electron speed increases. Since the 2
particles still move at light speed, this would require that
the frequency of their circulation will reduce, rather than
increase as would be expected with the electron's increasing
energy as its speed increases. That also leaves your high
energy relativistic electron model about 100,000 times too
big, compared with high energy electron scattering
experiments. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Irrespective to which direction an electron moves, the orbital
frequency reduces by the factor gamma. This is simple geometry and
the physical cause of dilation in SR. On the other hand, if the
electron moves towards another object to undergo an interaction
there, then the other object experiences an increase of frequency
by the Doppler effect. This Doppler effect over-compensates the
relativistic reduction. - By the way, this consideration was the
starting point for de Broglie when he began to think about
elementary particles, which ended with the Nobel price.
<blockquote cite="mid:560B9C78.10805@a-giese.de" type="cite" class="">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<div class="">To say that electron scattering occurs in your
model with only one of the two rotating point-like particles
and the other is pulled along without inertial resistance
doesn’t work for me and seems very non-physical. <br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
As the "other" sub-particle has no inertial mass, it can follow
any acceleration. This is (also) covered by Newton's law of
inertia. But as both sub-particles are bound to each other by a
field which is subject to the finite speed of light, the "other"
one causes the inertia of the whole configuration by the delay of
field propagation. - It is essential for the understanding of this
model to understand the underlying mechanism of inertia. See
further down.
<blockquote cite="mid:560B9C78.10805@a-giese.de" type="cite" class="">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">6) the fact that the electron’s z-component of
spin 1/2 hbar is not clearly present in your model whose
radius is the reduced Compton wavelength hbar/mc and not the
Dirac amplitude hbar/2mc which easily yields the electron’s
spin 1/2 , zitterbewegung frequency, double-looping in a
resting electron and the Dirac 720 degree rotational
symmetry of the electron. (This is the same problem I see
with John M’s electron model, which also doesn’t have a
clear spin 1/2 hbar since its radius is also hbar/mc and not
hbar/2mc .)</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
The sub-particles in this model are bound to each other by a
multi-pole field of the strong force. This field causes the
inertia of the whole particle and so tries to inhibit any change
of the motion state. As the sub-particles orbit at c and also the
binding field moves at c, the one sub-particle does not receive
the field of the other one from the opposite direction of the
orbital motion, but the force has a component in the direction of
the circumference of the orbit. This inhibits a change of the
orbital motion and causes so an orbital momentum, i.e. a spin.<br class="">
<br class="">
For an approximate calculation: The mass is given by m = h(bar) /
(R*c) . We can reorder this equation: m*R*c = h(bar). The left
side is now the classical definition of the orbital momentum at
speed = c. - This is not numerically applicable here as the model
does not function as a classical gyroscope. But it shows how spin
in principle works.<br class="">
<br class="">
Regarding Dirac: What Dirac has done is algebra, not physics. It
is often very practical to do algebra do solve physical problems,
but we should always be aware of the fact that we have to trace
the algebra back to the physical processes behind the calculation.
And so also his period of 720 degrees is a kind of mathematical
trick helpful for some calculations. But the physical space does
in my understanding not have a periodicity of 720 degrees.
<blockquote cite="mid:560B9C78.10805@a-giese.de" type="cite" class="">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">7) the wave nature of your model is not clear to
me. What in your model produces the electron's quantum wave
nature, and how does your moving electron model generate the
relativistic de Broglie wavelength quantitatively? Does it?
You seem to accept the pilot wave concept of de
Broglie-Bohm. Does your electron model display quantum
non-locality and entanglement as Bohm’s does and which is
also strongly experimentally supported?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
The field which binds both sub-particles propagates into any
direction in space. So it is existent also outside of this
configuration "electron". As the electron circulates, it is an
alternating field which emits waves into the surrounding space.
When the particle moves, it takes the wave-field with it. This
guides the particle as anticipated by de Broglie and, among other
effects, causes the scattering structure at a double slit. <br class="">
<br class="">
Non-locality and entanglement: This was my original motivation to
investigate theoretical physics (originally I am an
experimentalist). But up to now I was not successful to find an
explanation for that. - But that is another topic which has no
direct relation to my model. - It is a new information for me that
Bohm did have an explanation for entanglement.<br class="">
<br class="">
You are asking for the deduction of the de Broglie wavelength. For
presenting a quantitative deduction I have to investigate some
more details, and so I ask you for some patience. I shall come
back to it.<br class="">
<br class="">
Finally I would like to emphasize the fact that this model is the
only one which explains inertia. As it is meanwhile admitted by
mainstream physics, the Higgs model is not able to provide this.
The necessary Higgs field does definitely not exist. <br class="">
<br class="">
The reason for mass is that any extended object has inertia,
independent of "elementary masses" which may exist inside an
object. The reason is the finiteness of the speed of light, by
which binding fields, which must be present in any extended
object, propagate. This is not an idea or a wage possibility, but
it is completely unavoidable. Applied to a particle model, a
particle can only have inertial if it is extended. <br class="">
<br class="">
Question: Does anyone of you all here has another working model of
inertia?<br class="">
<br class="">
Here I should end today. But I will be happy to get further - and
critical - questions.<br class="">
<br class="">
Best regards<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:560B9C78.10805@a-giese.de" type="cite" class="">
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Sep 29, 2015, at 1:48 AM, John Williamson
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" class="">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255); direction: ltr; font-family:
Tahoma; font-size: 10pt;" class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span class="">Dear everyone especially Al, Albrecht and
Richard,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span class="">I have been meaning to weigh-in for some
time, but term has just started and I’m
responsible for hundreds of new students, tens of
PhD’s, there is only one of me and my mind is
working on less than ten percent capacity.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span class="">I think we have to distinguish between
what is know, experimentally, and our precious (to
us) little theoretical models. Please remember
everyone that theory is just theory. It is fun to
play with and that is what we are all doing. The
primary thing is first to understand experiment –
and that is hard as there is a huge amount of
mis-information in our “information” technology
culture.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span class="">You are right, Al, that Martin has not
carried out experiments, directly, himself, on the
electron size in both high energy and at low
energy, but I have.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span class="">I have many papers, published in the most
prestigious journals, on precisely those topics.
They HAVE had much interest (in total more than
ten thousand citations). I have sat up, late at
night, alone, performing experiments<span class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>both
with the largest lepton microscope ever made (The
EMC experiment at CERN) and with my superb (best
in the world at the time) millikelvin Cryostat
looking at precisely the inner structure of single
electrons spread out over sizes much (orders of
magnitude) larger than my experimental resolution.
It is widely said, but simply not true, that “no
experiment resolves the electron size”.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span class=""> </span>This comes, largely, from
simple ignorance of what the experiments show. I
have not only seen inside single electrons, but
then used the observed properties and structure,
professionally and in widely published and cited
work, to design new devices. Have had them made
and measured (in collaboration with others), and
seen them thenwork both as expected, but also to
reveal deeper mysteries again involving the
electron size, its quantum spin, its inner charge
distribution and so on. That work is still going
on, now carried by my old colleagues and by the
rest of the world. Nano – my device was the first
nanosemiconductor device. Spintronics, designed
the first devices used for this. Inner workings of
spin , and the exclusion principle Martin and I
hope to crack that soon! Fun! All welcome!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span class="">Now where Martin is coming from, and
where he, personally, late at night etc … HAS done
lots of professional experiments and has been
widely cited is in playing the same kind of games
with light that I have done with electrons. This
means that, acting together, we really know what
we are talking about in a wide range of physics.
Especially particle scattering, quantum electron
transport, and light. We may be making up the
theories, but we are not making up a wide and deep
understanding of experiment.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span class="">I take your point – and you are so right
-that there are so many things one would like to
read and understand and has not yet got round to.
So much and so little time. Ore papers written per
second than one can read per second. There is,
however, no substitute for actually having been
involved in those very experiments to actually
understand what they mean.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span class="">So what I am about to say is not going to
be “shooting from the hip”, but is perhaps more
like having spent a couple of decades developing a
very large rail gun which has just been loaded for
its one-shot at intergalactic exploration …</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span class="">Now I hope you will not take this badly …<span class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>it
is fun to think about this but here goes</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span class="">Here is what you said (<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">making
you blue</span>):</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana;
color: rgb(31, 73, 125); background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">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.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white; background-position:
initial initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">Not so: I have done the
experiments! Myself. This is exactly why I started
looking into the extant models decades ago, found
them sadly lacking, and hence set out to devise
new ones that did agree with experiment at both
low and high energy. This is the whole point! </span><span style="font-size: 5pt; font-family: Helvetica;
background-color: white; background-position:
initial initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class=""></span></p>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white; background-position:
initial initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class=""> </span><span style="font-size:
5pt; font-family: Helvetica; background-color:
white; background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;" class=""></span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white; background-position:
initial initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">The Sun scatters as a point
only those projectiles that don't get close.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white; background-position:
initial initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">True,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white; background-position:
initial initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class=""><span class=""> </span> So
far, no scattering off elecrtons has gotten close
enough to engage any internal structure, "they"
say (I#ll defer to experts up-to-date).<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white; background-position:
initial initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">Not so. Lots of papers on this.
Some by me. See e.g. Williamson, Timmering,
Harmans, Harris and Foxon Phys Rev 42 p 7675. Also
– I am an expert (up to date) on HEP as well. A
more correct statement is that no high-energy
scattering experiment has RESOLVED any internal
structure in free electrons. If this was all you
knew (and for many HEP guys it seems to be) then
one might interpret this as meaning the electron
was a point down to 10-18m. It is not. It cannot
be. It does not have enough mass to account for
its spin (even if at lightspeed) if it is that
small. Work it out!</span></p>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white; background-position:
initial initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class=""> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white; background-position:
initial initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class=""> <span style="color: rgb(31,
73, 125);" class="">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?</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white; background-position:
initial initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">Because this is no good if one
does not have the forces or the mechanism for
making it “zitter”.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white; background-position:
initial initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">More importantly
-experimentally- because that is not what you see.
If it was just zittering in space one could see
that zitter. What you see (in deep inelastic
lepton scattering, for example), is that there is
no size scale for lepton scattering. That is, that
no structure is resolved right down to 10^-18
metres. This is NOT the same thing as an electron
being a point. That is why one says (if one knows
a bit about what one is talking about) that it is
“point-like” and not “point” scattering. These
qualifiers ALWAYS matter. Point-like – not a
point. Charged photon- not a photon. Localised
photon – not a photon. Vice-Admiral- not an
admiral. Vice-president- more a reason for not
shooting the president!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white; background-position:
initial initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">That structure is not resolved
does NOT mean that the electron is point.<span class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>This
is widely accepted as fact, but just represents a
(far too widespread) superficial level of
understanding. Any inverse-square, spherically
symettric force-field has this property (eg
spherical planets if you do not actually hit
them). The real problem is to understand how it
can appear spherically symettric and inverse
square in scattering while ACTUALLY being much
much larger than this. This is exactly what I
started out working on in 1980 and have been
plugging away at ever since. Exactly that! You
need to explain all of experiment: that is what
this is all about. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana;
color: rgb(31, 73, 125); background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">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.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white; background-position:
initial initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">Yes I know. This is the same
kind of maths as “image charges” used all the time
in modelling the solid state. These are all
models. All models have features. We need to
confront them with experiment. Problem with the
pairs is you don’t see any pairs. If one of the
pair has zero mass-energy it is not there at all.
If there was a pair, bound to each other with some
forces, then one would see something similar to
what one sees in proton scattering (see below),
and you do not. One then has to explain why and
how this process occurs, every time. You always
(and only) see one thing for electrons, muons. You
see a single object for the electron, and an
internal structure for the proton. This is what
your theory has to deal with. Really. Properly. In
detail. At all energies.</span><span style="font-size: 5pt; font-family: Helvetica;
background-color: white; background-position:
initial initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class=""></span></p>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white; background-position:
initial initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class=""> </span><span style="font-size:
5pt; font-family: Helvetica; background-color:
white; background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;" class=""></span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana;
color: rgb(31, 73, 125); background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">I
too havn't read your 97 paper yet, but I bet it's
unlikely that you all took such consideration into
account.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white; background-position:
initial initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">You could not know this, but
his could not be more wrong. We did. You did not
specify the bet. Lets make it a beer. You owe me
(and Martin) a beer! If you have not yet read the
paper by the time we next meet I think you should
buy all the beers! Deal?</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white; background-position:
initial initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">The whole point of the paper my
reason for leaving high energy physics at all, the
seven years of work Martin and I put into it to
that point, was exactly to resolve this mystery –
on the basis of an “electron as a localised
photon”. My subsequent work has been to try to
develop a proper field theory to deal with the
problems inherent I the old model (unknown forces)
and in the Dirac theory (ad hoc lump of mass)
(amongst others). This is the point of the new
theory of light and matter:an attempt to sort all
that out. You should read it too! Do that and I
will buy you a beer!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white; background-position:
initial initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">Now Richard, while I am
disagreeing with everyone I am going to disagree
with you too! You keep saying that the electron
apparent size scales with gamma – and you keep
attributing me with agreeing with you (and Martin
and Viv and Chip). Let me say this once and for
all: I DO NOT agree with this.<span class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>Now
Viv and Chip must speak for themselves, but I’m
pretty sure Martin would (largely – though not
completely) agree me here.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span class=""> </span>I have said this many times to
you – though perhaps not specifically enough.<span class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>It
is not quite wrong – but far too simple. It scales
ON AVERAGE so. I agree that it changes apparent
size- yes, but not with gamma- no. How it actually
scales was discussed in the 1997 paper, and the
mathematics of this is explained (for example) in
my “Light” paper at SPIE (see Eq. 19). Gamma = ½(
x+ 1/x). Also, this is amongst other things, in
Martin’s “Light is Heavy” paper. Really the
apparent size scales BOTH linearly AND inverse
linearly (as x and 1/x then). It is the average of
these that gives gamma. This is how relativity
actually works. You do not put things in, you get
things out. You need to look at this and
understand how gamma is related. Best thing is to
go through the maths yourself, then you will see.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white; background-position:
initial initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">The bottom line is that the
reason one does not resolve the electron size is
that, in a collision, this size scales like light.
It gets smaller with increasing energy. Linearly.
Likewise the scattering exchange photon scales
like light. Linearly. The ratio for head on
collisions remains constant – but the exchange
photon is always about an order of magnitude
bigger that the electron (localised photon). This
is WHY it can be big (10^-13 m)<span class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>and
yet appear small. I said this in my talk, but I
know how hard it is to take everything in.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white; background-position:
initial initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">One does not see internal
structure because of this effect – and the fact
that the electron is a SINGLE object. Not
composite – like a proton (and Albrecht’s model).</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white; background-position:
initial initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">Now what would one see with
lepton scatting on protons? I have dozens of
papers on this (and thousands of citations to
those papers) – so this is not shooting from the
hip. Let me explain as briefly and simply as I
can. Lock and load …</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white; background-position:
initial initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">At low energies (expresses as a
length much less than 10^-15 m or so), one sees
point-like scattering from, what looks like, a
spherically symettric charge distribution. Ok
there are differences between positive projectiles
(which never overlap) and negative, but broad
brush this is so. There is then a transitional
stage where one sees proton structure – some
interesting resonances and an effective “size” of
the proton (though recently this has been shown to
be (spectactularly interestingly) different for
electron and muon scattering! (This means
(obviously) that the electron and muon have a
different effective size on that scale). At much
higher energies one begins to see (almost) that
characteristic point-like scattering again, from
some hard bits in the proton. Rutherford atom all
over again. These inner parts have been called
“partons”. Initially, this was the basis
–incorrect in my view – of making the association
of quarks with partons. Problem nowadays is that
the three valence quarks carry almost none of the
energy-momentum of the proton - - keeps getting
less and less as the energies go up. I think this
whole quark-parton thing is largely bullshit.
Experimentally!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana;
background-image: none; background-attachment:
scroll; background-color: white;
background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat:
repeat repeat;" class="">Now Albrecht you make
some good points. You are absolutely right to
quote the experiments on the relativity of time
with clocks and with muons. You are also right
that one is not much better off with double loops
(or any other kinds of loops) than with two little
hard balls. This is a problem for any model of the
electron as a loop in space (Viv, John M, Chip,
John D – this is why the electron cannot be a
little spatial loop – it is not consistent with
scattering experiments!). Now this is a problem in
space-space but not in more complex spaces as
Martin and I have argued (see SPIE electron paper
for up to date description of this – from my
perspective). It is more proper to say the loops
are in “momentum space” though this is not quite
correct either. They are in the space(s) they are
in – all nine degrees of freedom (dimensions if
you like) of them. None of the nine are “space”.
For me, they are not little loops in space. In
space they are spherical. You are not correct – as
the DESY director said and as I said in the
“panel” discussion- that one would not “see” this.
One would. Only if one of the balls were not there
( I like your get out of saying that!), would one
observe what one observes. In my view, however, if
it is not there it is not there. I’m open to
persuasion if you can give me a mechanism though!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white; background-position:
initial initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">Gotta go ... need to sort out
tutorials ...<br class="">
</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white; background-position:
initial initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">Regards, John W.</span><span style="font-size: 5pt; font-family: Helvetica;
background-color: white; background-position:
initial initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class=""></span></p>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span class=""> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size:
16px;" class="">
<hr tabindex="-1" class="">
<div id="divRpF633381" style="direction: ltr;" class=""><font class="" size="2" face="Tahoma"><b class="">From:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General
[<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
on behalf of Dr. Albrecht Giese [<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a>]<br class="">
<b class="">Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Monday,
September 28, 2015 4:39 PM<br class="">
<b class="">To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Richard
Gauthier; Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion<br class="">
<b class="">Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re:
[General] research papers<br class="">
</font><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
you have asked some questions about my electron
model and I am glad to answer them.<br class="">
<br class="">
Does my model explain the relativistic mass
increase of the electron at motion? Yes it does.
According to my model the mass of an electron is
m=h(bar) / (R<sub class="">el</sub>*c), where R<sub class="">el</sub> is the radius for the
electron (which is equally valid for all
elementary particles). Now, as the binding field
in the electron contracts at motion by gamma (as
initially found by Heaviside in 1888), also the
size of the electron contracts at motion by gamma.
So the mass of the electron increases by gamma and
also of course its dynamical energy. - That is
very simple and elementary. The same
considerations apply for the relativistic momentum
of the electron.<br class="">
<br class="">
(This is all described in my web site<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass">www.ag-physics.org/rmass</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>; you can
also find it via Google by the search string
"origin of mass". There it is within the first two
positions of the list, where the other one is of
Frank Wilczek; since 10 years we both are
struggling to be the number one.)<br class="">
<br class="">
However, the contraction only occurs in the
direction of motion. So the cross section of the
electron is not changed by the motion. And in so
far this contraction is not able to explain the
small size of the electron found in scattering
experiments. - Another point is that this small
size was also found in scattering experiments at
energies smaller than 29 GeV. And, another
determination, in the Penning trap the size of the
electron turns out to be < 10^-22 m.<br class="">
<br class="">
So there must be something in the electron which
is much smaller than the Compton wavelength. The
model of two orbiting sub-particles is an
extremely simple model which also explains a lot
else.<br class="">
<br class="">
Regarding the uncertainty relation of Heisenberg,
I have a very "technical" understanding of it as I
have explained it in our meeting. There is nothing
imprecise within the electron itself, only the
measurement has limited precision. The reason is
simple. Normally an interaction of the electron is
an interaction of its de Broglie wave with another
object. This wave is a wave packet, the size of
which is round about given by the size of the
electron-configuration (Compton wavelength); the
size of a wave packet is not very precisely
defined. And on the other hand, the frequency of a
limited packet is not precisely measurable. The
relation of both limitations is well known by
electric engineers, the rule is sometimes called
"Nyquist theorem". Now, as the frequency is
related to the energy of the particle, the Nyquist
theorem is identical with Heisenberg's uncertainty
relation; only the interpretation of quantum
theorists is less technical. They assume that the
physical situation itself is imprecise, not only
the measurement. Here I do not follow the QM
interpretation.<br class="">
<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 26.09.2015 um
19:57 schrieb Richard Gauthier:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">Albrecht, Al, Martin et al</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> One solution that I think John
W, Martin, Chip (I think), Vivian (as I
remember) and I all agree on (I’m not sure
about John M’s electron model) with our
electron models is that the electron (as a
circulating light-speed entity) decreases in
size with increasing speed of the electron.
Just as a photon’s wavelength (and presumably
also its transverse size or extent) decreases
proportionally as 1/E with a photon’s energy
E=hf, a high energy relativistic electron
(whose de Broglie wavelength is nearly equal
to the wavelength of a high energy photon
having the same total energy as the high
energy electron) should also decrease its
lateral size similarly with its energy. The
lateral size of an electron decreases as
1/gamma according to John and Martin due to
energy considerations. In my model the radius
of the charged photon’s helical trajectory
decreases as 1/gamma^2 but with a more
detailed extended (internally superluminal)
model of the charged photon also decreases as
1/gamma . A 1/gamma decrease is enough to
match the high energy (around 29GeV)
scattering size of an electron found to be
< 10^-18 meters even though the size of the
resting electron (on the order of the Compton
wavelength) is around 10^-12 - 10^-13 m. So
this I think is a solved problem with respect
to our models.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> I don’t know if Albrecht’s
electron model decreases as 1/gamma with
increasing electron speed. I think not. But
Albrecht’s model doesn’t I think take into
account that the electron’s total energy
increases proportionally with gamma and so the
frequency of the 2 circulating mass-less
particles should also increase proportionally
with gamma if the energy of his model is to
correspond to the experimentally measured
moving electron’s energy E= gamma mc^2 . That
should require the radius of the 2-particle
orbit to decrease with his electron model’s
speed if the 2 orbiting particles are to
continue to circulate at light-speed. So
Albrecht's model’s size should also decrease
at least as 1/gamma with its speed,and the
need for the 2 massless particles in his model
is unnecessary to explain the small size of
the electron at high speeds. As far as
conservation of momentum requiring 2
circulating particles, John W.’s model
proposes to solve this with his p-vot which
causes the photon to curve into a double loop
and produce the electron’s rest mass (as I
understand it) and charge. But also the delta
x delta p > hbar/2 requirement of
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle for
detectable variability in position and
velocity means that probably for any Compton
wavelength electron model the amount of
violation of conservation of momentum of a
single light-speed photon-like object looping
around would not be experimentally detectable
(and so allowed since it is not experimentally
detected) as being (like a virtual particle in
QED) under the wire of the Heisenberg
uncertainty principle.</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class=""> Richard</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Sep 26, 2015, at 8:57 AM,
John Duffield <<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com" target="_blank"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com">johnduffield@btconnect.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div class="WordSection1" style="page:
WordSection1; font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<div class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">Albrecht:</span></div>
<div class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);"> </span></div>
<div class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">In case Martin is tied
up, here’s his 1997 paper:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf">http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>co-authored
with John Williamson.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);"> </span></div>
<div class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">As regards electron size,
it’s field is what it is. In<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#Electron_properties" class="" target="_blank" style="color: purple;
text-decoration: underline;">atomic
orbitals</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>electrons
“exist as standing waves”. Standing
wave, standing field. We can
diffract electrons. I think the
electron has size like a seismic
wave has size. A seismic wave might
have an amplitude of 1 metre, and a
wavelength of a kilometre. But when
it travels from A to B it isn’t just
the houses on top of the AB line
that shake. Houses shake a hundred
miles away. And that seismic wave is
still detectable on the other side f
the Earth. It’s not totally
different for an ocean wave, see<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Deep_water_wave.gif" class="" target="_blank" style="color: purple;
text-decoration: underline;">this
gif</a>. The amplitude might be
1m, but that isn’t the size of the
wave, nor is the wavelength. The red
test particles are still circulating
deep below the water.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);"> </span></div>
<div class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">Try to imagine a wave
going round and round, in a double
loop, then make it a tighter loop.
Then have a look at<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_knot_theory" class="" target="_blank" style="color: purple;
text-decoration: underline;">some
knots</a>. Photon momentum is a
measure of resistance to
change-in-motion for a wave
propagating linearly at c. When it’s
a 511keV wave going round and round
at c, we don’t call it a photon any
more. But it still exhibits
resistance to change-in-motion. Only
we don’t call it a momentum any
more. We call it mass. Make sure you
read<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.tardyon.de/mirror/hooft/hooft.htm" class="" target="_blank" style="color: purple;
text-decoration: underline;">this</a>.
It’s not the Nobel ‘t Hooft.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);"> </span></div>
<div class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">Regards</span></div>
<div class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">John Duffield</span></div>
<div class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);"> </span></div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="border-style:
solid none none; border-top-color:
rgb(225, 225, 225);
border-top-width: 1pt; padding: 3pt
0cm 0cm;">
<div class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif;"><b class=""><span class="" style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color:
windowtext;" lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span class="" style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color: windowtext;" lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General
[<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" class="" target="_blank" style="color: purple;
text-decoration: underline;">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class="">On Behalf Of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Dr.
Albrecht Giese<br class="">
<b class="">Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>26
September 2015 15:46<br class="">
<b class="">To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br class="">
<b class="">Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re:
[General] research papers</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif;"> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif;">Hi Martin, Al, and all,<br class="">
<br class="">
thank you all for your contributions.<br class="">
<br class="">
<u class="">Regarding the size of the
electron:</u><br class="">
<br class="">
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.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
Martin: Where do I find your paper of
1997?<br class="">
<br class="">
<u class="">Regarding dilation:</u><br class="">
<br class="">
There is a lot of clear indications
for dilation. Two examples:<br class="">
- The atomic clocks in the GPS
satellites are slowed down which has
to be compensated for<br class="">
- 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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
Best wishes<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
</p>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif;">Am 26.09.2015 um 01:48
schrieb<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</div>
</div>
<blockquote class="" type="cite" style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom:
5pt;">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif;"><span class="" style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif;">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? </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif;"><span class="" style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif;"><span class="" style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif;">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. </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif;"><span class="" style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif;"><span class="" style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif;">Best, Al</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif;"><span class="" style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif;"><span class="" style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif;"><span class="" style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif;"> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div name="quote" class="" style="border-style: none none
none solid; border-left-color:
rgb(195, 217, 229);
border-left-width: 1.5pt;
padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 8pt;
margin: 7.5pt 3.75pt 3.75pt
7.5pt; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div class="" style="margin-bottom:
7.5pt;">
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="" style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif;">Gesendet:</span></b><span class="" style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif;"> Freitag,
25. September 2015 um
19:56 Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Mark,
Martin van der"<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"><martin.van.der.mark@philips.com></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> "Nature
of Light and Particles -
General Discussion"<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] research
papers</span></div>
</div>
<div name="quoted-content" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt; font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">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.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt; font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Regards,
Martin<br class="">
<br class="">
Verstuurd vanaf mijn
iPhone</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt; font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"><br class="">
Op 25 sep. 2015 om
19:16 heeft "<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>>
het volgende
geschreven:<br class="">
</span></div>
</div>
<blockquote class="" type="cite" style="margin-top: 5pt;
margin-bottom: 5pt;">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Dear
Martin,</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Perhaps
it's my Texas
background,
but I think I
sense some
"shoot'n from
the hip."</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">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. </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">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?</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">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.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">I
too havn't
read your 97
paper yet, but
I bet it's
unlikely that
you all took
such
consideration
into account.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Best,
Al </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="" style="border-style:
none none none
solid;
border-left-color:
rgb(195, 217,
229);
border-left-width:
1.5pt;
padding: 0cm
0cm 0cm 8pt;
margin: 7.5pt
3.75pt 3.75pt
7.5pt;">
<div class="" style="margin-bottom:
7.5pt;">
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Gesendet:</span></b><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> Freitag,
25. September
2015 um 18:44
Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Mark,
Martin van
der" <<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a>><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> "Nature
of Light and
Particles -
General
Discussion"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>>,
"<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
research
papers</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">Dear
Al, dear
Albrecht, dear
all,</span></div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
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></div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
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></div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
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></div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
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></div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
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></div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">Regards,
Martin</span></div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,
73, 125);"> </span></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Arial,
sans-serif;
color: navy;">Dr.
Martin B. van
der Mark</span></div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Arial,
sans-serif;
color: navy;">Principal
Scientist,
Minimally
Invasive
Healthcare</span></div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: navy;"> </span></div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Arial,
sans-serif;
color: navy;">Philips
Research
Europe -
Eindhoven</span></div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Arial,
sans-serif;
color: navy;">High
Tech Campus,
Building 34
(WB2.025)</span></div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Arial,
sans-serif;
color: navy;">Prof.
Holstlaan 4</span></div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Arial,
sans-serif;
color: navy;">5656
AE Eindhoven,
The
Netherlands</span></div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Arial,
sans-serif;
color: navy;">Tel:
+31 40 2747548</span></div>
</div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,
73, 125);"> </span></div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="border-style:
solid none
none;
border-top-color:
rgb(181, 196,
223);
border-top-width:
1pt; padding:
3pt 0cm 0cm;">
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Tahoma,
sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Tahoma,
sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General [<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class="">On Behalf Of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br class="">
<b class="">Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>vrijdag 25 september 2015 18:05<br class="">
<b class="">To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" class="" target="_blank" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;">phys@a-giese.de</a>;<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="x-msg://59/UrlBlockedError.aspx" class="" target="_blank" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles -
General
Discussion<br class="">
<b class="">Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] research papers</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"> </div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Gentelmen:</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
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></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Correct
me if I'm
wrong. Best,
Al</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="" style="border-style:
none none none
solid;
border-left-color:
rgb(195, 217,
229);
border-left-width:
1.5pt;
padding: 0cm
0cm 0cm 8pt;
margin: 7.5pt
3.75pt 3.75pt
7.5pt;">
<div class="" style="margin-bottom:
7.5pt;">
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Gesendet:</span></b><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> Freitag,
25. September
2015 um 15:06
Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Dr.
Albrecht
Giese" <<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a>><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> "Richard
Gauthier" <<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>>,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> "Nature
of Light and
Particles -
General
Discussion"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
research
papers</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Hello
Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
All the best
to you<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Am
23.09.2015 um
19:02 schrieb
Richard
Gauthier:</span></div>
</div>
<blockquote class="" type="cite" style="margin-top:
5pt;
margin-bottom:
5pt;">
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Hello
Albrecht,</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
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></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">
all the
best,</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">
Richard</span></div>
</div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="">
<blockquote class="" type="cite" style="margin-top:
5pt;
margin-bottom:
5pt;">
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">On
Sep 22, 2015,
at 11:13 AM,
Dr. Albrecht
Giese <<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a>>
wrote:</span></div>
</div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Dear
Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
thank you for
this reference
to the article
of Frank
Wilczek.<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
Thank you
again and best
wishes<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Am
21.09.2015 um
05:01 schrieb
Richard
Gauthier:</span></div>
</div>
<blockquote class="" type="cite" style="margin-top:
5pt;
margin-bottom:
5pt;">
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">This
2013 Nature
comment “The
enigmatic
electron” by
Frank Wilczek
at <a moz-do-not-send="true" 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"></a><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> 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></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">
Richard</span></div>
</div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="">
<blockquote class="" type="cite" style="margin-top:
5pt;
margin-bottom:
5pt;">
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">On
Sep 16, 2015,
at 12:59 PM,
Wolfgang Baer
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com">wolf@nascentinc.com</a>>
wrote:</span></div>
</div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
background-color:
white;">I
should add you
sent me
Main-2014.pdf
and that may
be the one not
available on
the web sight.</span><br class="">
<span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
background-color:
white;">I was
looking for a
similar one
that included
the other
topics as
well.</span><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;"><br class="">
<span class="" style="background-color:
white;">If you
do not have
it, its OK, I
just like
reading from
paper.</span><br class="">
<br class="">
<span class="" style="background-color:
white;">best
wishes,</span><br class="">
<br class="">
<span class="" style="background-color:
white;">Wolf</span></span><br class="">
<span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; background-color: white;">Dr. Wolfgang Baer</pre>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; background-color: white;">Research Director</pre>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; background-color: white;">Nascent Systems Inc.</pre>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; background-color: white;">tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432</pre>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; background-color: white;">E-mail <span class="" style="color: purple;"><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" class="" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></span></pre>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;">On
9/14/2015
12:45 PM, Dr.
Albrecht Giese
wrote:</span></div>
</div>
<blockquote class="" type="cite" style="margin-top:
5pt;
margin-bottom:
5pt;
word-spacing:
0px;">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;">John,<br class="">
<br class="">
You wrote a
long text, so
I will enter
my answers
within your
text.</span><br class="">
<span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;"> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;">Am
14.09.2015 um
02:54 schrieb
John Macken:</span></div>
</div>
<blockquote class="" type="cite" style="margin-top:
5pt;
margin-bottom:
5pt;">
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">Hello
David and
Albrecht,</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" 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></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">David</span></b><span class="" 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 class="">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/" class="" target="_blank" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;">http://onlyspacetime.com/</a></span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">Albrecht</span></b><span class="" 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></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
<span class="" 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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;"></span></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" 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></div>
</div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" 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 class="">e</i>, it is necessary
to manually
install the
fine structure
constant. <span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
</div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;">How
do you get the
value<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span class="" style="font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;">½<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>ħ</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;"> </span></span><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" 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></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">In
my last post I
have given an
answer about
the factor of
10<sup class="">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 class="">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 class="">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 class="">c,</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i class="">G</i>,<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i class="">ħ</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>and<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i class="">ε<sub class="">o</sub></i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>testify that spacetime is not an
empty void. <span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
</div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;">ε<sub class="">o</sub></span></i><span class="apple-converted-space"><span class="" style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;"> </span></span><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;">is
the field
constant of
the electric
force with a
similar
background.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" 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 class="">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 class="">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 class="">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 class="">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></div>
</div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
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 class="" style="font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;"> </span></span><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;"></span></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">John
M.</span></div>
</div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;">Perhaps
I should read
your book. But
that chould
take a lot of
time, I am
afraid.<br class="">
<br class="">
Albrecht<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="border-style:
solid none
none;
border-top-color:
rgb(225, 225,
225);
border-top-width:
1pt; padding:
3pt 0cm 0cm;">
<div class="">
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span class="apple-converted-space"><span class="" style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></span><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">Dr.
Albrecht Giese
[<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">mailto:genmail@a-giese.de</a>]<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">
<b class="">Sent:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM<br class="">
<b class="">To:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>John Macken<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:john@macken.com"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:john@macken.com"><john@macken.com></a>;
'Nature of
Light and
Particles -
General
Discussion'<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" class="" target="_blank" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br class="">
<b class="">Subject:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] research papers</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">Hello
John,<br class="">
<br class="">
great that you
have looked so
deeply into
the model
which I have
presented.
Thank you.<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
To your
questions in
detail:<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
So John, this
is my
position. Now
I am curious
about your
objections of
further
questions.<br class="">
<br class="">
Best regards<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
</span></p>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">Am
11.09.2015 um
23:51 schrieb
John Macken:</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote class="" type="cite" style="margin-top:
5pt;
margin-bottom:
5pt;">
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">Hello
Albrecht and
All,</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" 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></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">Albrecht:</span></b><span class="" 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></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" 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></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">Albrecht</span></b><span class="" 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></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">John
M.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="border-style:
solid none
none;
border-top-color:
rgb(225, 225,
225);
border-top-width:
1pt; padding:
3pt 0cm 0cm;">
<div class="">
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span class="apple-converted-space"><span class="" style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></span><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">General
[</span><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color:
purple;"><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><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><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">]<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><b class="">On Behalf Of<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Dr.
Albrecht Giese<br class="">
<b class="">Sent:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM<br class="">
<b class="">To:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" class="" target="_blank" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br class="">
<b class="">Subject:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] research papers</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">Dear
John Macken,<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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></div>
</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
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:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="" 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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
You may find
details in the
proceedings of
our San Diego
meeting, but
also on the
following web
sites:<br class="">
<br class="">
</span><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color:
purple;"><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass">www.ag-physics.org/rmass</a></span><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"><br class="">
</span><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color:
purple;"><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ag-physics.org/electron"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ag-physics.org/electron">www.ag-physics.org/electron</a></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></span><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">.<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
If you have
any questions
about it,
please ask me.
I will be
happy about
any
discussion.<br class="">
<br class="">
With best
regards<br class="">
Albrecht Giese</span><br class="">
<br class="">
<span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">Am
04.09.2015 um
18:40 schrieb
John Macken:</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote class="" type="cite" style="margin-top:
5pt;
margin-bottom:
5pt;">
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">Martin,</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" 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></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">John
M.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="border-style:
solid none
none;
border-top-color:
rgb(225, 225,
225);
border-top-width:
1pt; padding:
3pt 0cm 0cm;">
<div class="">
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span class="apple-converted-space"><span class="" style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></span><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">General
[</span><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color:
purple;"><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><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><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">]<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><b class="">On Behalf Of<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Mark,
Martin van der<br class="">
<b class="">Sent:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM<br class="">
<b class="">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" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" class="" target="_blank" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br class="">
<b class="">Subject:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>[General] research papers</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">Dear
all,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
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:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
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" class="" target="_blank" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;"><span class="" style="color:
purple;"></span></a><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications">https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications</a></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">In
particular you
will find the
most recent
work:</span></p>
<ul class="" style="margin-bottom:
0cm;" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">On
the nature of
“stuff” and
the hierarchy
of forces</span><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">Quantum
mechanical
probability
current as
electromagnetic
4-current from
topological EM
fields</span><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"></span></li>
</ul><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">Very
best regards,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">Martin</span></p>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Arial,
sans-serif;
color: navy;">Dr.
Martin B. van
der Mark</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Arial,
sans-serif;
color: navy;">Principal
Scientist,
Minimally
Invasive
Healthcare</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: navy;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Arial,
sans-serif;
color: navy;">Philips
Research
Europe -
Eindhoven</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Arial,
sans-serif;
color: navy;">High
Tech Campus,
Building 34
(WB2.025)</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Arial,
sans-serif;
color: navy;">Prof.
Holstlaan 4</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Arial,
sans-serif;
color: navy;">5656
AE Eindhoven,
The
Netherlands</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Arial,
sans-serif;
color: navy;">Tel:
+31 40 2747548</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;" align="center"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">
<hr class="" align="center" size="3" width="100%"></span></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" 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></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; background-color: white;">_______________________________________________</pre>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; background-color: white;">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <span class="" style="color: purple;"><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" class="" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">phys@a-giese.de</a></span></pre>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; background-color: 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" class="" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;"><span class="" style="color: purple;">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</span></a>></pre>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; background-color: white;">Click here to unsubscribe</pre>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; background-color: white;"></a></pre>
</blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;"><br class="">
<br class="">
<span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;" align="center"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">
<hr class="" style="color:
rgb(144, 144,
144);" align="center" noshade="noshade" size="1" width="99%"></span></div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:
collapse;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td class="" style="padding:
0cm 11.25pt
0cm 6pt;">
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="" target="_blank" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;"><span class="" style="color:
purple;
border: 1pt
solid
windowtext;
padding: 0cm;
text-decoration:
none;"><Mail
Attachment.jpeg></span></a></span></div>
</div>
</td>
<td class="" style="padding:
0.75pt;">
<div style="margin-top:
0px;
margin-bottom:
0px;" class=""><span class="" 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 class="">
</span><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color:
purple;"><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
</blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;"><br class="">
<span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;" align="center"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">
<hr class="" style="color:
rgb(144, 144,
144);" align="center" noshade="noshade" size="1" width="99%"></span></div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:
collapse;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td class="" style="padding:
0cm 11.25pt
0cm 6pt;">
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="" target="_blank" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;"><span class="" style="color:
purple;
border: 1pt
solid
windowtext;
padding: 0cm;
text-decoration:
none;"><Mail
Attachment.jpeg></span></a></span></div>
</div>
</td>
<td class="" style="padding:
0.75pt;">
<div style="margin-top:
0px;
margin-bottom:
0px;" class=""><span class="" 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 class="">
</span><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color:
purple;"><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<br class="">
<span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;"> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;" align="center"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">
<hr class="" style="width:
960.05pt;" align="center" noshade="noshade" size="1" width="1280"></span></div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:
collapse;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td class="" style="padding:
0cm 11.25pt
0cm 6pt;">
<div class=""><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="" target="_blank" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;"><span class="" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
none;"><img moz-do-not-send="true" id="_x0000_i1029" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast
logo" class="" border="0"></span></a></div>
</td>
<td class="" style="padding:
0.75pt;">
<div style="margin-top:
0px;
margin-bottom:
0px;" class=""><span class="" 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 class="">
</span><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color:
purple;"><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;">
<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; background-color: white;">_______________________________________________</pre>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; background-color: white;">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <span class="" style="color: purple;"><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" class="" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a></span></pre>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; background-color: 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" class="" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;"><span class="" style="color: purple;">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</span></a>></pre>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; background-color: white;">Click here to unsubscribe</pre>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; background-color: white;"></a></pre>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
<span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
background-color:
white;">_______________________________________________</span><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;"><br class="">
<span class="" style="background-color:
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 class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a></span><br class="">
<span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
background-color:
white;"><a
href="</span><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"></a><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></span><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
background-color:
white;">"></span><br class="">
<span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
background-color:
white;">Click
here to
unsubscribe</span><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;"><br class="">
<span class="" style="background-color:
white;"></a></span></span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
<br class="">
<span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;" align="center"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">
<hr class="" style="color:
rgb(144, 144,
144);" align="center" noshade="noshade" size="1" width="99%"></span></div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:
collapse;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td class="" style="padding:
0cm 11.25pt
0cm 6pt;">
<div class=""><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="" target="_blank" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;"><span class="" style="text-decoration:
none;"><img moz-do-not-send="true" id="_x0000_i1031" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast
logo" class="" border="0"></span></a></div>
</td>
<td class="" style="padding:
0.75pt;">
<div style="margin-top:
0px;
margin-bottom:
0px;" class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(61,
77, 90);">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft.<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
<br class="">
<span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;" align="center"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">
<hr class="" style="color:
rgb(144, 144,
144);" align="center" noshade="noshade" size="1" width="99%"></span></div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:
collapse;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td class="" style="padding:
0cm 11.25pt
0cm 6pt;">
<div class=""><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="" target="_blank" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;"><span class="" style="text-decoration:
none;"><img moz-do-not-send="true" id="_x0000_i1033" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast
logo" class="" border="0"></span></a></div>
</td>
<td class="" style="padding:
0.75pt;">
<div style="margin-top:
0px;
margin-bottom:
0px;" class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(61,
77, 90);">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft.<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div class=""><br class="">
<span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">_______________________________________________
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><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" class="" target="_blank" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;">Click
here to
unsubscribe<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></a></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">_______________________________________________
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><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" class="" target="_blank" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;">Click
here to
unsubscribe<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></a></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="" type="cite" style="margin-top: 5pt;
margin-bottom: 5pt;">
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt; font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">_______________________________________________<br class="">
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><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a><br class="">
<a href="<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br class="">
Click here to
unsubscribe<br class="">
</a></span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif;">_______________________________________________
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><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" class="" target="_blank" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;">Click
here to unsubscribe<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></a></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif;"><br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
</div>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';">_______________________________________________</pre>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';">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="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" class="" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">phys@a-giese.de</a></pre>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';"><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" class="" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>></pre>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';">Click here to unsubscribe</pre>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';"></a></pre>
</blockquote>
<div class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif;"> </div>
</div>
<span id="cid:3AA3740C-2688-45E3-9EAF-87D59CDC7878@hsd1.ca.comcast.net." class=""><electron.pdf></span><span class="" style="font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);
float: none; display: inline
!important;">_______________________________________________</span><br class="" style="font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<span class="" style="font-family:
Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; line-height: normal; orphans:
auto; text-align: start; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);
float: none; display: inline
!important;">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><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br class="" style="font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<span class="" style="font-family:
Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; line-height: normal; orphans:
auto; text-align: start; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);
float: none; display: inline
!important;"><a href="</span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"></a><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><span class="" style="font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);
float: none; display: inline
!important;">"></span><br class="" style="font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<span class="" style="font-family:
Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; line-height: normal; orphans:
auto; text-align: start; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);
float: none; display: inline
!important;">Click here to unsubscribe</span><br class="" style="font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<span class="" style="font-family:
Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; line-height: normal; orphans:
auto; text-align: start; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);
float: none; display: inline
!important;"></a></span><br class="" style="font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
<br class="">
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<br class="">
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>