<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hello Richard,<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"> <br>
Am 02.10.2015 um 07:45 schrieb Richard Gauthier:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:497D6777-EAC0-43B0-9EED-4ED5E6A831EE@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<div class="">Hello Albrecht,</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Thank you for your detailed explanations. Yes,
I will wait for your quantitative derivation of the
relativistic de Broglie wavelength from your electron model.
De Broglie’s original derivation has the internal frequency of
his electron both increasing (due to its energy as gamma mc^2
= hf AND also decreasing due to relativistic time dilation.
He managed to reconcile both of these frequencies by his
ingenious “harmony of phases” relationship. Your electron
model only seems to have a decreasing frequency with
increasing speed, where you say this decreasing frequency is
due to time dilation. Without an increasing internal frequency
proportional to the electron's energy gamma mc^2 I think you
will have difficulty deriving the relativistic de Broglie
wavelength. My model derives the de Broglie wavelength value
h/(gamma mv) easily from the relativistic wavelength h/(gamma
mc) of the circulating charged photon whose frequency is given
by hf=gamma mc^2, without referring to relativistic time
dilation.</div>
</blockquote>
These are two questions or problems. One is the increase of the
internal frequency of a particle at motion despite of dilation.
There is an easy way to see how it in principle works. I said
earlier that the dilation, so the reduction of the internal
frequency, is over-compensated by the Dopplereffect, which is
effective for an observer who receives the particle.
Mathematically: If you divide the Doppler function (the source
moving towards the observer) by the square of the gamma function,
then the result is more than 1. This shows that the Doppler effect
over-compensates the reduction of the frequency by dilation at
least by gamma. The result should however be exactly one. When I
am at home again (presently I am not) I will investigate my
literature to get a precise result.<br>
<br>
Thank you for your note about the "harmony of phases". The idea
takes care of the problem that on the one hand the frequency in an
elementary particle follows E=mc^2=h*frequency, on the other hand
the de Broglie wavelength does not follow this relation. What is
the reason for that? In my present understanding the "harmony of
phases" was an ad hoc attempt of de Broglie to solve this problem
mathematically. I do not have the impression that it is based on a
true understanding of a physical process. I shall come back to
this as soon as I am back at home.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:497D6777-EAC0-43B0-9EED-4ED5E6A831EE@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""> You say at one point: "We can reorder this
equation: m*R*c = h(bar). The left side is now the classical
definition of the orbital momentum at speed = c.” But mc is
not the momentum of a particle with rest mass traveling at c,
i.e. p = mv where v is replaced by c. Could you have
misunderstood p=mc for the relativistic equation for momentum
p = gamma mv for a particle with rest mass m traveling at
velocity v but never able to reach c. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
I have referred to the classical definition of angular momentum to
show that the spin can be visualized for such a type of model
(i.e. my model). Of course the units do not fit with exact
numbers. If we treat the model as a classical gyroscope (what it
definitely not is) then this equation describes the angular
momentum. In that case <i>m </i>is of course the <i>effective </i>mass,
in this case however not applicable in so far as there are no
single "masses" in this model. (Mass is a dynamical process within
the whole.) The speed c is not a problem in so far as the "basic
particles" do not have a relativistic behavior. Relativistic
effects are caused by the elementary particle as a whole as
particularly visible for the phenomenon of dilation. But one point
results very clearly from this view: The resulting angular
momentum (=spin) is independent of other properties of the
particle. That is a physical result here, not a result of some
algebra. And the numerical result is very close to the correct one
which is not a matter of course. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:497D6777-EAC0-43B0-9EED-4ED5E6A831EE@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> However, the momentum quantity mc does appear
in my circulating charged photon model as the invariant
transverse component of the helically circulating charged
photon’s total momentum gamma mc. </div>
</blockquote>
Why is the momentum <i>gamma mc</i>? If the photon is subject to
relativistic effects, on which level of your model is relativity
founded? The increase of <i>m </i>by <i>gamma </i>must have
some reason. Which reason is it? (I do not see Einstein's algebra
as a reason.)<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:497D6777-EAC0-43B0-9EED-4ED5E6A831EE@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="">The longitudinal component of the charged photon’s
circulating momentum is gamma mv, which is the momentum of the
relativistic electron being modeled by the circulating charged
photon. The transverse momentum component mc contributes to
the spin hbar/2 of a slow moving or resting electron composed
of a circulating photon at radius hbar/2mc in this way: Sz =
r x p = hbar/2mc x mc = hbar/2 . My charged photon model is a
generic charged photon model, which needs a more detailed
charged photon model incorporated into it that will give the
charged photon model a spin hbar/2 also at relativistic
velocities, since the electron has spin hbar/2 at all
velocities. I have such a possible charged photon model that
is internally superluminal and has spin hbar/2 at all
energies, which might be incorporated into the generic charged
photon model.</div>
</blockquote>
This is a collection of equations which are listed here but not
deduced or substantiated. I guess that they are (quantitative)
consequences of the foundations of your model. I do not have
details of your model here at hand as I am not at home. Is it
difficult for you to give me just a quick reference? - The
occurrence of superluminal speed is a problem in so far as it
constitutes a new property which is very different from present
understanding of physics. Better if we do not need such
assumptions.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:497D6777-EAC0-43B0-9EED-4ED5E6A831EE@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> You asked if someone besides you has an
explanation of particle inertia. This invariant circulating
transverse momentum component p=mc in my charged photon model
of the electron gives my electron model an invariant rest mass
m and so this circulating momentum component mc may be the
origin of inertia or rest mass of material particles like the
electron.</div>
</blockquote>
In my understanding you put the logic here upside down. You refer
to the momentum <i>p=mc</i>. But here is <i>m </i>the origin of
the momentum. So, if mass is not defined, also this expression is
undefined. - Only after the mass generation has been found, it
makes sense to talk about momentum. No the other way around.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:497D6777-EAC0-43B0-9EED-4ED5E6A831EE@gmail.com"
type="cite"><br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Oct 1, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Dr. Albrecht
Giese <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" class="">genmail@a-giese.de</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8" class="">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""> Dear
Richard,<br class="">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br class="">
thank you for your list of explicit questions. That
makes it easy to answer in a structured way. And I
hope that my answers can also answer some of the other
questions and doubts which came up during the last
days and mails.<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:560B9C78.10805@a-giese.de"
type="cite" class="">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class="">
<div class="">Hello John and Albrecht and all,</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Thanks John, I stand corrected
on the issue of your electron model not falling
off in lateral size as 1/gamma. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Albrecht, I am still not
satisfied with your electron model for a number
of reasons:</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">1) no experimental evidence for
multi-particle structure of the electron even at
high energies.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, this model makes it difficult to show
experimentally this structure of the electron. It is
difficult by the reason that both sub-particles do not
have any mass. So the particle cannot be decomposed by
bombardment, which is the normal way of investigating
a particle structure in high energy physics (like a
proton). On the other hand it should not be a problem
to accept that a particle is big as a whole, but by a
scattering experiment only a sub-particle is detected.
That has a historical analogy in the Rutherford
experiment, where Rutherford wished to measure the
size of an atom but found the size of the nucleus. In
case of the electron the experimenters look for the
size of the electron but find the size of the basic
particle.<br class="">
<br class="">
However there is now indeed an experimental evidence.
As Frank Wilczek wrote in his article in Nature, in a
specific situation (superconductivity in a magnetic
field), half-electrons were detected. In his
understanding it is a complete mystery. In the view of
this particle model not so much a mystery.<br class="">
<br class="">
An important theoretical argument for a pair of
sub-particles is the fact the there is an internal
motion (mag. moment, spin), but the conservation of
momentum must not be violated. This needs at least 2
sub-particles.<br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:560B9C78.10805@a-giese.de"
type="cite" class="">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">2) your light-speed charged,
massless circulating particles carry no resting
inertia — why not just call them circulating
charged photons, and just have one of them
rather than two, based on the lack of
experimental evidence for multi-particle
structure of the electron? <br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Arguments against a photon: A photon at c has inertia.
With this assumption the model cannot work (look for
the mechanism of inertia). And a photon does not have
a single (or half) electric charge. And scattering of
other charged particles (like quarks) at a photon
would not display a size < 10^-18. A photon cannot
be that small.<br class="">
<br class="">
Further the photon has spin of 1 h(bar), the electron
has 1/2 of it. If the electron would be built by 2
photons, the combined spin should be 0 or 2. Or there
must be an additional orbital momentum which is
otherwise not known in particle physics.
<blockquote cite="mid:560B9C78.10805@a-giese.de"
type="cite" class="">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">3) there is no clear model of a
photon in your system (maybe I missed it) and
how electron-positron pair production of your
electron model and positron model would emerge
from a single photon in the vicinity of a
nucleus (a common method of pair production).</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I must admit that I do not have a consistent model for
a photon. I tend to the idea of de Broglie that a
photon is composed by 2 elementary particles. But I do
not assume 2 neutrinos as de Broglie did but maybe of
4 basic particles in a very special configuration. At
least a photon has to have positive and negative
electric charges inside, otherwise it would not react
with electric charges as it does.<br class="">
<br class="">
If we assume that the photon is e.g. built by 2 other
particles which are similar to electrons, pair
production is quite plausible. On the other hand, the
generation of elementary particles by interaction
processes, which should mean in this context the
generation of basic particles, needs some additional
understanding. My model just uses generations like
those but has no explanation yet for them. <br
class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:560B9C78.10805@a-giese.de"
type="cite" class="">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">4) the two-dimensionality of your
electron model. Delta x in the third dimension
appears to be zero and delta Px in the third
dimension is also zero. So delta x delta Px is
also zero , a strong violation of the Heisenberg
uncertainty principle. Is that a problem for
your model?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
The orbital motion of the 2 sub-particles goes on in a
2-dimensional area, that is true. Problem with
Heisenberg's principle? (I prefer to say: the
uncertainty relation, because nature is not determined
by principles, as elementary particles etc. do not
have a mind so that they can understand and follow
principles.) The uncertainty is a "technical"
consequence of the de Broglie wave which surrounds and
guides a particle. Such wave can only be determined
with uncertainty, that is the uncertainty found in
measurements. I do not see any uncertainty in
particles themselves as everywhere when we can measure
parameters in an interaction, the conservation laws
are fulfilled without an uncertainty.
<blockquote cite="mid:560B9C78.10805@a-giese.de"
type="cite" class="">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">5) the fact that your model’s
lateral size doesn’t decrease as electron speed
increases. Since the 2 particles still move at
light speed, this would require that the
frequency of their circulation will reduce,
rather than increase as would be expected with
the electron's increasing energy as its speed
increases. That also leaves your high energy
relativistic electron model about 100,000 times
too big, compared with high energy electron
scattering experiments. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Irrespective to which direction an electron moves, the
orbital frequency reduces by the factor gamma. This is
simple geometry and the physical cause of dilation in
SR. On the other hand, if the electron moves towards
another object to undergo an interaction there, then
the other object experiences an increase of frequency
by the Doppler effect. This Doppler effect
over-compensates the relativistic reduction. - By the
way, this consideration was the starting point for de
Broglie when he began to think about elementary
particles, which ended with the Nobel price.
<blockquote cite="mid:560B9C78.10805@a-giese.de"
type="cite" class="">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<div class="">To say that electron scattering
occurs in your model with only one of the two
rotating point-like particles and the other is
pulled along without inertial resistance doesn’t
work for me and seems very non-physical. <br
class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
As the "other" sub-particle has no inertial mass, it
can follow any acceleration. This is (also) covered by
Newton's law of inertia. But as both sub-particles are
bound to each other by a field which is subject to the
finite speed of light, the "other" one causes the
inertia of the whole configuration by the delay of
field propagation. - It is essential for the
understanding of this model to understand the
underlying mechanism of inertia. See further down.
<blockquote cite="mid:560B9C78.10805@a-giese.de"
type="cite" class="">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">6) the fact that the electron’s
z-component of spin 1/2 hbar is not clearly
present in your model whose radius is the
reduced Compton wavelength hbar/mc and not the
Dirac amplitude hbar/2mc which easily yields the
electron’s spin 1/2 , zitterbewegung frequency,
double-looping in a resting electron and the
Dirac 720 degree rotational symmetry of the
electron. (This is the same problem I see with
John M’s electron model, which also doesn’t have
a clear spin 1/2 hbar since its radius is also
hbar/mc and not hbar/2mc .)</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
The sub-particles in this model are bound to each
other by a multi-pole field of the strong force. This
field causes the inertia of the whole particle and so
tries to inhibit any change of the motion state. As
the sub-particles orbit at c and also the binding
field moves at c, the one sub-particle does not
receive the field of the other one from the opposite
direction of the orbital motion, but the force has a
component in the direction of the circumference of the
orbit. This inhibits a change of the orbital motion
and causes so an orbital momentum, i.e. a spin.<br
class="">
<br class="">
For an approximate calculation: The mass is given by m
= h(bar) / (R*c) . We can reorder this equation: m*R*c
= h(bar). The left side is now the classical
definition of the orbital momentum at speed = c. -
This is not numerically applicable here as the model
does not function as a classical gyroscope. But it
shows how spin in principle works.<br class="">
<br class="">
Regarding Dirac: What Dirac has done is algebra, not
physics. It is often very practical to do algebra do
solve physical problems, but we should always be aware
of the fact that we have to trace the algebra back to
the physical processes behind the calculation. And so
also his period of 720 degrees is a kind of
mathematical trick helpful for some calculations. But
the physical space does in my understanding not have a
periodicity of 720 degrees.
<blockquote cite="mid:560B9C78.10805@a-giese.de"
type="cite" class="">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">7) the wave nature of your model is
not clear to me. What in your model produces the
electron's quantum wave nature, and how does
your moving electron model generate the
relativistic de Broglie wavelength
quantitatively? Does it? You seem to accept the
pilot wave concept of de Broglie-Bohm. Does your
electron model display quantum non-locality and
entanglement as Bohm’s does and which is also
strongly experimentally supported?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
The field which binds both sub-particles propagates
into any direction in space. So it is existent also
outside of this configuration "electron". As the
electron circulates, it is an alternating field which
emits waves into the surrounding space. When the
particle moves, it takes the wave-field with it. This
guides the particle as anticipated by de Broglie and,
among other effects, causes the scattering structure
at a double slit. <br class="">
<br class="">
Non-locality and entanglement: This was my original
motivation to investigate theoretical physics
(originally I am an experimentalist). But up to now I
was not successful to find an explanation for that. -
But that is another topic which has no direct relation
to my model. - It is a new information for me that
Bohm did have an explanation for entanglement.<br
class="">
<br class="">
You are asking for the deduction of the de Broglie
wavelength. For presenting a quantitative deduction I
have to investigate some more details, and so I ask
you for some patience. I shall come back to it.<br
class="">
<br class="">
Finally I would like to emphasize the fact that this
model is the only one which explains inertia. As it is
meanwhile admitted by mainstream physics, the Higgs
model is not able to provide this. The necessary Higgs
field does definitely not exist. <br class="">
<br class="">
The reason for mass is that any extended object has
inertia, independent of "elementary masses" which may
exist inside an object. The reason is the finiteness
of the speed of light, by which binding fields, which
must be present in any extended object, propagate.
This is not an idea or a wage possibility, but it is
completely unavoidable. Applied to a particle model, a
particle can only have inertial if it is extended. <br
class="">
<br class="">
Question: Does anyone of you all here has another
working model of inertia?<br class="">
<br class="">
Here I should end today. But I will be happy to get
further - and critical - questions.<br class="">
<br class="">
Best regards<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:560B9C78.10805@a-giese.de"
type="cite" class="">
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Sep 29, 2015, at 1:48 AM,
John Williamson <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk"
class=""><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a></a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div style="font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height:
normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: auto;
word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);
direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma;
font-size: 10pt;" class="">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="">Dear everyone
especially Al, Albrecht and Richard,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="">I have been
meaning to weigh-in for some time, but
term has just started and I’m
responsible for hundreds of new
students, tens of PhD’s, there is only
one of me and my mind is working on
less than ten percent capacity.<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="">I think we have
to distinguish between what is know,
experimentally, and our precious (to
us) little theoretical models. Please
remember everyone that theory is just
theory. It is fun to play with and
that is what we are all doing. The
primary thing is first to understand
experiment – and that is hard as there
is a huge amount of mis-information in
our “information” technology culture.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="">You are right,
Al, that Martin has not carried out
experiments, directly, himself, on the
electron size in both high energy and
at low energy, but I have.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="">I have many
papers, published in the most
prestigious journals, on precisely
those topics. They HAVE had much
interest (in total more than ten
thousand citations). I have sat up,
late at night, alone, performing
experiments<span class=""> <span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>both
with the largest lepton microscope
ever made (The EMC experiment at CERN)
and with my superb (best in the world
at the time) millikelvin Cryostat
looking at precisely the inner
structure of single electrons spread
out over sizes much (orders of
magnitude) larger than my experimental
resolution. It is widely said, but
simply not true, that “no experiment
resolves the electron size”.<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span
class=""> </span>This comes,
largely, from simple ignorance of what
the experiments show. I have not only
seen inside single electrons, but then
used the observed properties and
structure, professionally and in
widely published and cited work, to
design new devices. Have had them made
and measured (in collaboration with
others), and seen them thenwork both
as expected, but also to reveal deeper
mysteries again involving the electron
size, its quantum spin, its inner
charge distribution and so on. That
work is still going on, now carried by
my old colleagues and by the rest of
the world. Nano – my device was the
first nanosemiconductor device.
Spintronics, designed the first
devices used for this. Inner workings
of spin , and the exclusion principle
Martin and I hope to crack that soon!
Fun! All welcome!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="">Now where
Martin is coming from, and where he,
personally, late at night etc … HAS
done lots of professional experiments
and has been widely cited is in
playing the same kind of games with
light that I have done with electrons.
This means that, acting together, we
really know what we are talking about
in a wide range of physics. Especially
particle scattering, quantum electron
transport, and light. We may be making
up the theories, but we are not making
up a wide and deep understanding of
experiment.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="">I take your
point – and you are so right -that
there are so many things one would
like to read and understand and has
not yet got round to. So much and so
little time. Ore papers written per
second than one can read per second.
There is, however, no substitute for
actually having been involved in those
very experiments to actually
understand what they mean.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="">So what I am
about to say is not going to be
“shooting from the hip”, but is
perhaps more like having spent a
couple of decades developing a very
large rail gun which has just been
loaded for its one-shot at
intergalactic exploration …</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="">Now I hope you
will not take this badly …<span
class=""> <span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>it
is fun to think about this but here
goes</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="">Here is what
you said (<span style="color: rgb(31,
73, 125);" class="">making you blue</span>):</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana; color: rgb(31,
73, 125); background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;"
class="">You have not done an
experiment, but (at best) a
calculation based on some hypothtical
input of your choise. Maybe it's
good, maybe not.<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;"
class="">Not so: I have done the
experiments! Myself. This is exactly
why I started looking into the extant
models decades ago, found them sadly
lacking, and hence set out to devise
new ones that did agree with
experiment at both low and high
energy. This is the whole point! </span><span
style="font-size: 5pt; font-family:
Helvetica; background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;"
class=""></span></p>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"
class=""><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;"
class=""> </span><span
style="font-size: 5pt; font-family:
Helvetica; background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;"
class=""></span><br
class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;"
class="">The Sun scatters as a point
only those projectiles that don't get
close.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;"
class="">True,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;"
class=""><span class=""> </span> So
far, no scattering off elecrtons has
gotten close enough to engage any
internal structure, "they" say (I#ll
defer to experts up-to-date).<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;"
class="">Not so. Lots of papers on
this. Some by me. See e.g. Williamson,
Timmering, Harmans, Harris and Foxon
Phys Rev 42 p 7675. Also – I am an
expert (up to date) on HEP as well. A
more correct statement is that no
high-energy scattering experiment has
RESOLVED any internal structure in
free electrons. If this was all you
knew (and for many HEP guys it seems
to be) then one might interpret this
as meaning the electron was a point
down to 10-18m. It is not. It cannot
be. It does not have enough mass to
account for its spin (even if at
lightspeed) if it is that small. Work
it out!</span></p>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"
class=""><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;"
class=""> </span><br
class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;"
class=""> <span style="color: rgb(31,
73, 125);" class="">Nevertheless,
electrons are in constant motion at
or near the speed of light
(Zitterbewegung) and therefore at
the time scales of the projectiles
buzz around (zittern) in a certain
amout of space, which seems to me
must manifest itself as if there
were spacially exteneded structure
within the scattering cross-section.
Why not?</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;"
class="">Because this is no good if
one does not have the forces or the
mechanism for making it “zitter”.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;"
class="">More importantly
-experimentally- because that is not
what you see. If it was just zittering
in space one could see that zitter.
What you see (in deep inelastic lepton
scattering, for example), is that
there is no size scale for lepton
scattering. That is, that no structure
is resolved right down to 10^-18
metres. This is NOT the same thing as
an electron being a point. That is why
one says (if one knows a bit about
what one is talking about) that it is
“point-like” and not “point”
scattering. These qualifiers ALWAYS
matter. Point-like – not a point.
Charged photon- not a photon.
Localised photon – not a photon.
Vice-Admiral- not an admiral.
Vice-president- more a reason for not
shooting the president!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;"
class="">That structure is not
resolved does NOT mean that the
electron is point.<span class=""> <span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>This
is widely accepted as fact, but just
represents a (far too widespread)
superficial level of understanding.
Any inverse-square, spherically
symettric force-field has this
property (eg spherical planets if you
do not actually hit them). The real
problem is to understand how it can
appear spherically symettric and
inverse square in scattering while
ACTUALLY being much much larger than
this. This is exactly what I started
out working on in 1980 and have been
plugging away at ever since. Exactly
that! You need to explain all of
experiment: that is what this is all
about. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana; color: rgb(31,
73, 125); background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;"
class="">Not to defend Albrecht's
model as he describes it, but many
folks (say Peter Rowlands at
Liverpool, for example) model elemtary
particles in terms of the partiicle
itself interacting with its induced
virtual image (denoted by Peter as the
"rest of the universe"). This
"inducement" is a kind of polarization
effect. Every charge repells all
other like charges and attracts all
other unlike charges resulting in what
can be modeled as a virtual charge of
the opposite gender superimposed on
itself in the static approximation.
But, because the real situation is
fluid, the virtual charge's motion is
delayed as caused by finite light
speed, so that the two chase each
other. Etc. Looks something like
Albrecht's pairs.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;"
class="">Yes I know. This is the same
kind of maths as “image charges” used
all the time in modelling the solid
state. These are all models. All
models have features. We need to
confront them with experiment. Problem
with the pairs is you don’t see any
pairs. If one of the pair has zero
mass-energy it is not there at all. If
there was a pair, bound to each other
with some forces, then one would see
something similar to what one sees in
proton scattering (see below), and you
do not. One then has to explain why
and how this process occurs, every
time. You always (and only) see one
thing for electrons, muons. You see a
single object for the electron, and an
internal structure for the proton.
This is what your theory has to deal
with. Really. Properly. In detail. At
all energies.</span><span
style="font-size: 5pt; font-family:
Helvetica; background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;"
class=""></span></p>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"
class=""><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;"
class=""> </span><span
style="font-size: 5pt; font-family:
Helvetica; background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;"
class=""></span><br
class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana; color: rgb(31,
73, 125); background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;"
class="">I too havn't read your 97
paper yet, but I bet it's unlikely
that you all took such consideration
into account.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;"
class="">You could not know this, but
his could not be more wrong. We did.
You did not specify the bet. Lets make
it a beer. You owe me (and Martin) a
beer! If you have not yet read the
paper by the time we next meet I think
you should buy all the beers! Deal?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;"
class="">The whole point of the paper
my reason for leaving high energy
physics at all, the seven years of
work Martin and I put into it to that
point, was exactly to resolve this
mystery – on the basis of an “electron
as a localised photon”. My subsequent
work has been to try to develop a
proper field theory to deal with the
problems inherent I the old model
(unknown forces) and in the Dirac
theory (ad hoc lump of mass) (amongst
others). This is the point of the new
theory of light and matter:an attempt
to sort all that out. You should read
it too! Do that and I will buy you a
beer!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;"
class="">Now Richard, while I am
disagreeing with everyone I am going
to disagree with you too! You keep
saying that the electron apparent size
scales with gamma – and you keep
attributing me with agreeing with you
(and Martin and Viv and Chip). Let me
say this once and for all: I DO NOT
agree with this.<span class=""> <span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>Now
Viv and Chip must speak for
themselves, but I’m pretty sure Martin
would (largely – though not
completely) agree me here.<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span
class=""> </span>I have said this
many times to you – though perhaps not
specifically enough.<span class=""> <span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>It
is not quite wrong – but far too
simple. It scales ON AVERAGE so. I
agree that it changes apparent size-
yes, but not with gamma- no. How it
actually scales was discussed in the
1997 paper, and the mathematics of
this is explained (for example) in my
“Light” paper at SPIE (see Eq. 19).
Gamma = ½( x+ 1/x). Also, this is
amongst other things, in Martin’s
“Light is Heavy” paper. Really the
apparent size scales BOTH linearly AND
inverse linearly (as x and 1/x then).
It is the average of these that gives
gamma. This is how relativity actually
works. You do not put things in, you
get things out. You need to look at
this and understand how gamma is
related. Best thing is to go through
the maths yourself, then you will see.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;"
class="">The bottom line is that the
reason one does not resolve the
electron size is that, in a collision,
this size scales like light. It gets
smaller with increasing energy.
Linearly. Likewise the scattering
exchange photon scales like light.
Linearly. The ratio for head on
collisions remains constant – but the
exchange photon is always about an
order of magnitude bigger that the
electron (localised photon). This is
WHY it can be big (10^-13 m)<span
class=""> <span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>and
yet appear small. I said this in my
talk, but I know how hard it is to
take everything in.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;"
class="">One does not see internal
structure because of this effect – and
the fact that the electron is a SINGLE
object. Not composite – like a proton
(and Albrecht’s model).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;"
class="">Now what would one see with
lepton scatting on protons? I have
dozens of papers on this (and
thousands of citations to those
papers) – so this is not shooting from
the hip. Let me explain as briefly and
simply as I can. Lock and load …</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;"
class="">At low energies (expresses as
a length much less than 10^-15 m or
so), one sees point-like scattering
from, what looks like, a spherically
symettric charge distribution. Ok
there are differences between positive
projectiles (which never overlap) and
negative, but broad brush this is so.
There is then a transitional stage
where one sees proton structure – some
interesting resonances and an
effective “size” of the proton (though
recently this has been shown to be
(spectactularly interestingly)
different for electron and muon
scattering! (This means (obviously)
that the electron and muon have a
different effective size on that
scale). At much higher energies one
begins to see (almost) that
characteristic point-like scattering
again, from some hard bits in the
proton. Rutherford atom all over
again. These inner parts have been
called “partons”. Initially, this was
the basis –incorrect in my view – of
making the association of quarks with
partons. Problem nowadays is that the
three valence quarks carry almost none
of the energy-momentum of the proton -
- keeps getting less and less as the
energies go up. I think this whole
quark-parton thing is largely
bullshit. Experimentally!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana;
background-image: none;
background-attachment: scroll;
background-color: white;
background-position: 0% 0%;
background-repeat: repeat repeat;"
class="">Now Albrecht you make some
good points. You are absolutely right
to quote the experiments on the
relativity of time with clocks and
with muons. You are also right that
one is not much better off with double
loops (or any other kinds of loops)
than with two little hard balls. This
is a problem for any model of the
electron as a loop in space (Viv, John
M, Chip, John D – this is why the
electron cannot be a little spatial
loop – it is not consistent with
scattering experiments!). Now this is
a problem in space-space but not in
more complex spaces as Martin and I
have argued (see SPIE electron paper
for up to date description of this –
from my perspective). It is more
proper to say the loops are in
“momentum space” though this is not
quite correct either. They are in the
space(s) they are in – all nine
degrees of freedom (dimensions if you
like) of them. None of the nine are
“space”. For me, they are not little
loops in space. In space they are
spherical. You are not correct – as
the DESY director said and as I said
in the “panel” discussion- that one
would not “see” this. One would. Only
if one of the balls were not there ( I
like your get out of saying that!),
would one observe what one observes.
In my view, however, if it is not
there it is not there. I’m open to
persuasion if you can give me a
mechanism though!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;"
class="">Gotta go ... need to sort out
tutorials ...<br class="">
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana;
background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;"
class="">Regards, John W.</span><span
style="font-size: 5pt; font-family:
Helvetica; background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;"
class=""></span></p>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"
class=""><span class=""> </span><br
class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New
Roman'; font-size: 16px;" class="">
<hr tabindex="-1" class="">
<div id="divRpF633381" style="direction:
ltr;" class=""><font class="" size="2"
face="Tahoma"><b class="">From:</b><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
on behalf of Dr. Albrecht Giese [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a 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"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com">johnduffield@btconnect.com</a></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">http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf</a><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>co-authored with John Williamson.<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif;"><span
class=""
style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif;"><span
class=""
style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125);">As
regards electron size,
it’s field is what it
is. In<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#Electron_properties"
class=""
target="_blank"
style="color: purple;
text-decoration:
underline;">atomic
orbitals</a><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>electrons
“exist as standing
waves”. Standing wave,
standing field. We can
diffract electrons. I
think the electron has
size like a seismic wave
has size. A seismic wave
might have an amplitude
of 1 metre, and a
wavelength of a
kilometre. But when it
travels from A to B it
isn’t just the houses on
top of the AB line that
shake. Houses shake a
hundred miles away. And
that seismic wave is
still detectable on the
other side f the Earth.
It’s not totally
different for an ocean
wave, see<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Deep_water_wave.gif"
class=""
target="_blank"
style="color: purple;
text-decoration:
underline;">this gif</a>.
The amplitude might be
1m, but that isn’t the
size of the wave, nor is
the wavelength. The red
test particles are still
circulating deep below
the water.<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif;"><span
class=""
style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif;"><span
class=""
style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125);">Try
to imagine a wave going
round and round, in a
double loop, then make
it a tighter loop. Then
have a look at<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_knot_theory" class=""
target="_blank"
style="color: purple;
text-decoration:
underline;">some knots</a>.
Photon momentum is a
measure of resistance to
change-in-motion for a
wave propagating
linearly at c. When it’s
a 511keV wave going
round and round at c, we
don’t call it a photon
any more. But it still
exhibits resistance to
change-in-motion. Only
we don’t call it a
momentum any more. We
call it mass. Make sure
you read<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.tardyon.de/mirror/hooft/hooft.htm" class=""
target="_blank"
style="color: purple;
text-decoration:
underline;">this</a>.
It’s not the Nobel ‘t
Hooft.<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif;"><span
class=""
style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif;"><span
class=""
style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125);">Regards</span></div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif;"><span
class=""
style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125);">John
Duffield</span></div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif;"><span
class=""
style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="border-style:
solid none none;
border-top-color:
rgb(225, 225, 225);
border-top-width: 1pt;
padding: 3pt 0cm 0cm;">
<div class=""
style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family:
'Times New Roman',
serif;"><b class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
11pt; font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif; color:
windowtext;"
lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
class=""
style="font-size:
11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;
color: windowtext;"
lang="EN-US"><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General
[<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></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">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br
class="">
<b class="">Subject:</b><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] research papers</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif;"> </div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin: 0cm 0cm
12pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif;">Hi Martin,
Al, and all,<br class="">
<br class="">
thank you all for your
contributions.<br class="">
<br class="">
<u class="">Regarding the
size of the electron:</u><br
class="">
<br class="">
As Al argued in his
example of the sun: If the
scattered object is
passing by without
touching, the angular
distribution is
independent of the size of
the object (for the 1/r^2
case). But that changes if
the scattered particle
hits the body of the
"ball". In a last
experiment in 2004 at DESY
there was an experiment
performed in which
electrons were scattered
against quarks (of a
proton). The "common" size
of both particles resulted
in a bit less than 10^-18
m. This limit is given by
the ratio of scattered
events which react
different from the 1/r^2
rule. - In this experiment
it was also found that the
electron is not only
subject to the electric
interaction but also to
the strong interaction. I
think that this is also
important for assessing
electron models.<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br
class="">
<br class="">
This result of the size
seems in clear conflict
with the evaluation of
Schrödinger and Wilczek
using the uncertainty
relation. Schroedinger
made the following
statement to it: "Here I
have got the following
result for the size of the
electron (i.e. the Compton
radius). But we know that
the electron is
point-like. So, I must
have an error in my
evaluation. However, I do
not find this error." So
also for Schrödinger this
was an unsolvable
conflict.<br class="">
<br class="">
I think that if the
electron would be point
like on the one hand but
oscillate far enough so as
to fill the size of the
Compton wavelength, this
would be a violation of
the conservation of
momentum. Very clearly, a
single object cannot
oscillate. That was also
obvious for Schrödinger
and clearly his reason to
call the internal motion
"Zitterbewegung". This is
a word which does not
exist in the German
vocabulary of physical
terms. But Schrödinger
hesitated (by good reason)
to use the German word for
"oscillation".<br class="">
<br class="">
On the other hand, if the
electron is built by two
sub-particles, this solves
the problem. The
sub-particle is point-like
(at least with respect to
its charge), but both
sub-particles orbit each
other, which reserves the
momentum law, and the
orbital radius is the
reduced Compton
wavelength. - The argument
of Martin that a model of
two sub-particles is
"refuted by the
experiment" is often heart
but not applicable to my
model. The usual argument
is that a sufficient
effort has been done to
decompose an electron by a
strong bombardment. This
was also done here at
DESY. But in my model the
sub-particles have no mass
on their own (the mass of
the electron is caused by
the dynamics of the
binding field). And in
such a case one of the
sub-particles may be
accelerated by an
arbitrary amount, the
other one can always
follow without any force
coming up. A decomposition
by bombardment is
therefore never possible.
- I have discussed this
point with the research
director of DESY who was
responsible for such
experiments, and after at
first objecting it, he
admitted, that my model is
not in conflict with these
experiments.<br class="">
<br class="">
Martin: Where do I find
your paper of 1997?<br
class="">
<br class="">
<u class="">Regarding
dilation:</u><br
class="">
<br class="">
There is a lot of clear
indications for dilation.
Two examples:<br class="">
- The atomic clocks in
the GPS satellites are
slowed down which has to
be compensated for<br
class="">
- In the Muon storage
ring at CERN the lifetime
of these Muons was
extended by the great
amount ca. 250, which was
in precise agreement with
special relativity.<br
class="">
<br class="">
Contraction, on the other
hand, is in so far more a
point of interpretation as
it cannot be directly
measured - in contrast to
dilation.<br class="">
<br class="">
Best wishes<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
</p>
<div class="">
<div class=""
style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family:
'Times New Roman',
serif;">Am 26.09.2015 um
01:48 schrieb<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a 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"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br
class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
research
papers</span></div>
</div>
<div
name="quoted-content"
class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Al,
just read what
i wrote. It is
not shooting
from the hip.
I am refering
to actual
experiments,
all cited in
the paper i
refered to.
Further, you
are just
repeating what
i said
already. I can
only bring you
to the water,
i cannot make
you drink. And
then you refer
to other
doubtfull
work, as id it
were better.
Good luck.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Regards,
Martin<br
class="">
<br class="">
Verstuurd
vanaf mijn
iPhone</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span
class=""
style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"><br
class="">
Op 25 sep.
2015 om 19:16
heeft "<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a 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"><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"><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 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"><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
class="" style="font-family:
Helvetica; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal;
orphans: auto; text-align:
start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255); float: none;
display: inline !important;">"></span><br
class="" style="font-family:
Helvetica; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal;
orphans: auto; text-align:
start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);">
<span class=""
style="font-family:
Helvetica; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal;
orphans: auto; text-align:
start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255); float: none;
display: inline !important;">Click
here to unsubscribe</span><br
class="" style="font-family:
Helvetica; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal;
orphans: auto; text-align:
start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);">
<span class=""
style="font-family:
Helvetica; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal;
orphans: auto; text-align:
start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255); float: none;
display: inline !important;"></a></span><br
class="" style="font-family:
Helvetica; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal;
orphans: auto; text-align:
start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
<br class="">
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<br class="">
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>