<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear Richard,<br>
<br>
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>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:560B9C78.10805@a-giese.de" type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<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>
<br>
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>
<br>
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>
<blockquote cite="mid:560B9C78.10805@a-giese.de" type="cite">
<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>
</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>
<br>
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">
<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>
<br>
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>
<blockquote cite="mid:560B9C78.10805@a-giese.de" type="cite">
<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">
<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">
<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>
</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">
<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>
<br>
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>
<br>
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">
<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>
<br>
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>
<br>
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>
<br>
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>
<br>
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>
<br>
Question: Does anyone of you all here has another working model of
inertia?<br>
<br>
Here I should end today. But I will be happy to get further - and
critical - questions.<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:560B9C78.10805@a-giese.de" type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
<div>
<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"><a 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></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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a></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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass">www.ag-physics.org/rmass</a></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">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 class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf">http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf</a></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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></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 class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"><martin.van.der.mark@philips.com></a></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"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a></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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>"
<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a></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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>>,
"<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a></a>"
<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a></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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a></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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a></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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a></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 class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com">http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com</a></a> is
worth a look.
He states that
due to QM
effects, the
size of the
electron is
about 2.4 x
10^-12 m,
which is
roughly in the
range of some
of our
electron
models.</span></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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com">wolf@nascentinc.com</a></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 class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">mailto:genmail@a-giese.de</a></a>]<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br 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 class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:john@macken.com"><john@macken.com></a></a>;
'Nature of
Light and
Particles -
General
Discussion'<span
class="apple-converted-space"> </span><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 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></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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass">www.ag-physics.org/rmass</a></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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ag-physics.org/electron">www.ag-physics.org/electron</a></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 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></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 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></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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a></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 class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a></a></span><span
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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></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"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a></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 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></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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a></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">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>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>