<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hello Albrecht,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thank you for your further comments and questions.<br class=""><div class=""><br class=""><div class="">De Broglie's “harmony of phases” argument is a little hard to follow or picture. His derivation is given in my article at <a href="https://www.academia.edu/9973842/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_the_de_Broglie_Wavelength_and_a_New_Interpretation_of_Quantum_Mechanics" class="">https://www.academia.edu/9973842/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_the_de_Broglie_Wavelength_and_a_New_Interpretation_of_Quantum_Mechanics</a> on p. 5 in the section “Comparison of the charged-photon derivation to de Broglie’s derivation”<span style="word-spacing: -4px;" class="">.</span> "Harmony of phases" is generally accepted. I’m quite pleased that I was able with simple math to derive the electron's relativistic de Broglie wavelength without it. I also derived the electron’s relativistic matter-wave equation A e^i(kx-wt) for a free relativistic electron from the circulating charged photon model, based on the circulating charged photon emitting a plane wave along the charged photon’s helical trajectory, with the circulating charged photon’s wavelength h/(gamma mc) and frequency f = (gamma mc^2)/h, using the relation cos(theta) = v/c where theta is the forward angle of the charged photon’s helical trajectory. The intersection of this circulating plane wave with the longitudinal axis of the circulating charged photon’s helical trajectory generates the electron’s matter-wave equation with the relativistic de Broglie wavelength and phase velocity c^2/v . </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The momentum of the circulating charged photon is p = gamma mc because the energy E of the circulating charged photon is set equal the total energy E of moving electron E=gamma mc^2 and the energy-momentum relation for a photon is p= E/c: p = E/c = (gamma mc^2) / c = gamma mc for the total momentum of the circulating charged photon along its helical trajectory. This total momentum's longitudinal component along the helical axis is p cos(theta)= gamma mc x v/c = gamma mv which is the relativistic momentum of the electron being modeled by the circulating charged photon. The transverse component of the charged photon's total momentum is mc .</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Since your “basic particles” don’t, as you state, have relativistic behavior, why not just have one circulating light-speed particle instead of two? Insisting on conservation of momentum between two circulating non-physical particles (for which there is no experimental evidence) doesn’t seem logical.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">For your reference, my recent article is at <b class=""><a href="https://www.academia.edu/15686831/Electrons_are_spin_1_2_charged_photons_generating_the_de_Broglie_wavelength" class="">https://www.academia.edu/15686831/Electrons_are_spin_1_2_charged_photons_generating_the_de_Broglie_wavelength</a> .</b></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">No one knows why the electron’s rest mass is m = E(resting electron)/c^2 = 0.511 MeV/c^2 . The Higgs mechanism doesn’t predict m. A photon carrying the energy E of the rest mass m of an electron has energy hf = E=mc^2 and momentum p=mc . So mc is more fundamental than m since this photon is not at rest but has momentum mc. If this photon is then converted into a resting electron, this electron now has internal invariant circulating momentum mc and a corresponding rest mass m which the original photon did not have. So the photon's original momentum mc, which precedes the electron’s formation, is more fundamental than the electron’s rest mass m.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">with best regards,</div><div class=""> Richard</div><div class=""><b class=""><br class=""></b></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Oct 4, 2015, at 2:01 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese <<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" class="">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hello Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
Am 02.10.2015 um 07:45 schrieb Richard Gauthier:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:497D6777-EAC0-43B0-9EED-4ED5E6A831EE@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class="">
<div class="">Hello Albrecht,</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Thank you for your detailed explanations. Yes, I
will wait for your quantitative derivation of the relativistic
de Broglie wavelength from your electron model. De Broglie’s
original derivation has the internal frequency of his electron
both increasing (due to its energy as gamma mc^2 = hf AND also
decreasing due to relativistic time dilation. He managed to
reconcile both of these frequencies by his ingenious “harmony of
phases” relationship. Your electron model only seems to have a
decreasing frequency with increasing speed, where you say this
decreasing frequency is due to time dilation. Without an
increasing internal frequency proportional to the electron's
energy gamma mc^2 I think you will have difficulty deriving the
relativistic de Broglie wavelength. My model derives the de
Broglie wavelength value h/(gamma mv) easily from the
relativistic wavelength h/(gamma mc) of the circulating charged
photon whose frequency is given by hf=gamma mc^2, without
referring to relativistic time dilation.</div>
</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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:497D6777-EAC0-43B0-9EED-4ED5E6A831EE@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<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 class="">
</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 class="">m
</i>is of course the <i class="">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 class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:497D6777-EAC0-43B0-9EED-4ED5E6A831EE@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<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 class="">gamma mc</i>? If the photon is subject to
relativistic effects, on which level of your model is relativity
founded? The increase of <i class="">m </i>by <i class="">gamma </i>must have some
reason. Which reason is it? (I do not see Einstein's algebra as a
reason.)<br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:497D6777-EAC0-43B0-9EED-4ED5E6A831EE@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<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 class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:497D6777-EAC0-43B0-9EED-4ED5E6A831EE@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<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 class="">p=mc</i>. But here is <i class="">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 class="">
<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:497D6777-EAC0-43B0-9EED-4ED5E6A831EE@gmail.com" type="cite" class=""><br class="">
<div class="">
<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="">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div style="font-style: normal; font-variant:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal;
widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);
direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma;
font-size: 10pt;" class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="">Dear everyone
especially Al, Albrecht and Richard,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="">I have been
meaning to weigh-in for some time, but
term has just started and I’m
responsible for hundreds of new
students, tens of PhD’s, there is only
one of me and my mind is working on less
than ten percent capacity.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="">I think we have
to distinguish between what is know,
experimentally, and our precious (to us)
little theoretical models. Please
remember everyone that theory is just
theory. It is fun to play with and that
is what we are all doing. The primary
thing is first to understand experiment
– and that is hard as there is a huge
amount of mis-information in our
“information” technology culture.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="">You are right,
Al, that Martin has not carried out
experiments, directly, himself, on the
electron size in both high energy and at
low energy, but I have.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="">I have many
papers, published in the most
prestigious journals, on precisely those
topics. They HAVE had much interest (in
total more than ten thousand citations).
I have sat up, late at night, alone,
performing experiments<span class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>both
with the largest lepton microscope ever
made (The EMC experiment at CERN) and
with my superb (best in the world at the
time) millikelvin Cryostat looking at
precisely the inner structure of single
electrons spread out over sizes much
(orders of magnitude) larger than my
experimental resolution. It is widely
said, but simply not true, that “no
experiment resolves the electron size”.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span class=""> </span>This comes, largely,
from simple ignorance of what the
experiments show. I have not only seen
inside single electrons, but then used
the observed properties and structure,
professionally and in widely published
and cited work, to design new devices.
Have had them made and measured (in
collaboration with others), and seen
them thenwork both as expected, but also
to reveal deeper mysteries again
involving the electron size, its quantum
spin, its inner charge distribution and
so on. That work is still going on, now
carried by my old colleagues and by the
rest of the world. Nano – my device was
the first nanosemiconductor device.
Spintronics, designed the first devices
used for this. Inner workings of spin ,
and the exclusion principle Martin and I
hope to crack that soon! Fun! All
welcome!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="">Now where Martin
is coming from, and where he,
personally, late at night etc … HAS done
lots of professional experiments and has
been widely cited is in playing the same
kind of games with light that I have
done with electrons. This means that,
acting together, we really know what we
are talking about in a wide range of
physics. Especially particle scattering,
quantum electron transport, and light.
We may be making up the theories, but we
are not making up a wide and deep
understanding of experiment.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="">I take your point
– and you are so right -that there are
so many things one would like to read
and understand and has not yet got round
to. So much and so little time. Ore
papers written per second than one can
read per second. There is, however, no
substitute for actually having been
involved in those very experiments to
actually understand what they mean.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="">So what I am
about to say is not going to be
“shooting from the hip”, but is perhaps
more like having spent a couple of
decades developing a very large rail gun
which has just been loaded for its
one-shot at intergalactic exploration …</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="">Now I hope you
will not take this badly …<span class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>it
is fun to think about this but here goes</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="">Here is what you
said (<span style="color: rgb(31, 73,
125);" class="">making you blue</span>):</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana; color: rgb(31, 73,
125); background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">You have not done an
experiment, but (at best) a calculation
based on some hypothtical input of your
choise. Maybe it's good, maybe not.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana; background-color:
white; background-position: initial
initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">Not so: I have done
the experiments! Myself. This is exactly
why I started looking into the extant
models decades ago, found them sadly
lacking, and hence set out to devise new
ones that did agree with experiment at
both low and high energy. This is the
whole point! </span><span style="font-size: 5pt; font-family:
Helvetica; background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;" class=""></span></p>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family:
Verdana; background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;" class=""> </span><span style="font-size:
5pt; font-family: Helvetica;
background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;" class=""></span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana; background-color:
white; background-position: initial
initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">The Sun scatters as a
point only those projectiles that don't
get close.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana; background-color:
white; background-position: initial
initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">True,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana; background-color:
white; background-position: initial
initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class=""><span class=""> </span>
So far, no scattering off elecrtons has
gotten close enough to engage any
internal structure, "they" say (I#ll
defer to experts up-to-date).<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana; background-color:
white; background-position: initial
initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">Not so. Lots of
papers on this. Some by me. See e.g.
Williamson, Timmering, Harmans, Harris
and Foxon Phys Rev 42 p 7675. Also – I
am an expert (up to date) on HEP as
well. A more correct statement is that
no high-energy scattering experiment has
RESOLVED any internal structure in free
electrons. If this was all you knew (and
for many HEP guys it seems to be) then
one might interpret this as meaning the
electron was a point down to 10-18m. It
is not. It cannot be. It does not have
enough mass to account for its spin
(even if at lightspeed) if it is that
small. Work it out!</span></p>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family:
Verdana; background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;" class=""> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana; background-color:
white; background-position: initial
initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class=""> <span style="color:
rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">Nevertheless,
electrons are in constant motion at or
near the speed of light
(Zitterbewegung) and therefore at the
time scales of the projectiles buzz
around (zittern) in a certain amout of
space, which seems to me must manifest
itself as if there were spacially
exteneded structure within the
scattering cross-section. Why not?</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana; background-color:
white; background-position: initial
initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">Because this is no
good if one does not have the forces or
the mechanism for making it “zitter”.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana; background-color:
white; background-position: initial
initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">More importantly
-experimentally- because that is not
what you see. If it was just zittering
in space one could see that zitter. What
you see (in deep inelastic lepton
scattering, for example), is that there
is no size scale for lepton scattering.
That is, that no structure is resolved
right down to 10^-18 metres. This is NOT
the same thing as an electron being a
point. That is why one says (if one
knows a bit about what one is talking
about) that it is “point-like” and not
“point” scattering. These qualifiers
ALWAYS matter. Point-like – not a point.
Charged photon- not a photon. Localised
photon – not a photon. Vice-Admiral- not
an admiral. Vice-president- more a
reason for not shooting the president!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana; background-color:
white; background-position: initial
initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">That structure is not
resolved does NOT mean that the electron
is point.<span class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>This
is widely accepted as fact, but just
represents a (far too widespread)
superficial level of understanding. Any
inverse-square, spherically symettric
force-field has this property (eg
spherical planets if you do not actually
hit them). The real problem is to
understand how it can appear spherically
symettric and inverse square in
scattering while ACTUALLY being much
much larger than this. This is exactly
what I started out working on in 1980
and have been plugging away at ever
since. Exactly that! You need to explain
all of experiment: that is what this is
all about. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana; color: rgb(31, 73,
125); background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">Not to defend Albrecht's model
as he describes it, but many folks (say
Peter Rowlands at Liverpool, for
example) model elemtary particles in
terms of the partiicle itself
interacting with its induced virtual
image (denoted by Peter as the "rest of
the universe"). This "inducement" is a
kind of polarization effect. Every
charge repells all other like charges
and attracts all other unlike charges
resulting in what can be modeled as a
virtual charge of the opposite gender
superimposed on itself in the static
approximation. But, because the real
situation is fluid, the virtual charge's
motion is delayed as caused by finite
light speed, so that the two chase each
other. Etc. Looks something like
Albrecht's pairs.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana; background-color:
white; background-position: initial
initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">Yes I know. This is
the same kind of maths as “image
charges” used all the time in modelling
the solid state. These are all models.
All models have features. We need to
confront them with experiment. Problem
with the pairs is you don’t see any
pairs. If one of the pair has zero
mass-energy it is not there at all. If
there was a pair, bound to each other
with some forces, then one would see
something similar to what one sees in
proton scattering (see below), and you
do not. One then has to explain why and
how this process occurs, every time. You
always (and only) see one thing for
electrons, muons. You see a single
object for the electron, and an internal
structure for the proton. This is what
your theory has to deal with. Really.
Properly. In detail. At all energies.</span><span style="font-size: 5pt; font-family:
Helvetica; background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;" class=""></span></p>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family:
Verdana; background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;" class=""> </span><span style="font-size:
5pt; font-family: Helvetica;
background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;" class=""></span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana; color: rgb(31, 73,
125); background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">I too havn't read your 97 paper
yet, but I bet it's unlikely that you
all took such consideration into
account.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana; background-color:
white; background-position: initial
initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">You could not know
this, but his could not be more wrong.
We did. You did not specify the bet.
Lets make it a beer. You owe me (and
Martin) a beer! If you have not yet read
the paper by the time we next meet I
think you should buy all the beers!
Deal?</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana; background-color:
white; background-position: initial
initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">The whole point of
the paper my reason for leaving high
energy physics at all, the seven years
of work Martin and I put into it to that
point, was exactly to resolve this
mystery – on the basis of an “electron
as a localised photon”. My subsequent
work has been to try to develop a proper
field theory to deal with the problems
inherent I the old model (unknown
forces) and in the Dirac theory (ad hoc
lump of mass) (amongst others). This is
the point of the new theory of light and
matter:an attempt to sort all that out.
You should read it too! Do that and I
will buy you a beer!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana; background-color:
white; background-position: initial
initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">Now Richard, while I
am disagreeing with everyone I am going
to disagree with you too! You keep
saying that the electron apparent size
scales with gamma – and you keep
attributing me with agreeing with you
(and Martin and Viv and Chip). Let me
say this once and for all: I DO NOT
agree with this.<span class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>Now
Viv and Chip must speak for themselves,
but I’m pretty sure Martin would
(largely – though not completely) agree
me here.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span class=""> </span>I have said this many
times to you – though perhaps not
specifically enough.<span class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>It
is not quite wrong – but far too simple.
It scales ON AVERAGE so. I agree that it
changes apparent size- yes, but not with
gamma- no. How it actually scales was
discussed in the 1997 paper, and the
mathematics of this is explained (for
example) in my “Light” paper at SPIE
(see Eq. 19). Gamma = ½( x+ 1/x). Also,
this is amongst other things, in
Martin’s “Light is Heavy” paper. Really
the apparent size scales BOTH linearly
AND inverse linearly (as x and 1/x
then). It is the average of these that
gives gamma. This is how relativity
actually works. You do not put things
in, you get things out. You need to look
at this and understand how gamma is
related. Best thing is to go through the
maths yourself, then you will see.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana; background-color:
white; background-position: initial
initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">The bottom line is
that the reason one does not resolve the
electron size is that, in a collision,
this size scales like light. It gets
smaller with increasing energy.
Linearly. Likewise the scattering
exchange photon scales like light.
Linearly. The ratio for head on
collisions remains constant – but the
exchange photon is always about an order
of magnitude bigger that the electron
(localised photon). This is WHY it can
be big (10^-13 m)<span class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>and
yet appear small. I said this in my
talk, but I know how hard it is to take
everything in.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana; background-color:
white; background-position: initial
initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">One does not see
internal structure because of this
effect – and the fact that the electron
is a SINGLE object. Not composite – like
a proton (and Albrecht’s model).</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana; background-color:
white; background-position: initial
initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">Now what would one
see with lepton scatting on protons? I
have dozens of papers on this (and
thousands of citations to those papers)
– so this is not shooting from the hip.
Let me explain as briefly and simply as
I can. Lock and load …</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana; background-color:
white; background-position: initial
initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">At low energies
(expresses as a length much less than
10^-15 m or so), one sees point-like
scattering from, what looks like, a
spherically symettric charge
distribution. Ok there are differences
between positive projectiles (which
never overlap) and negative, but broad
brush this is so. There is then a
transitional stage where one sees proton
structure – some interesting resonances
and an effective “size” of the proton
(though recently this has been shown to
be (spectactularly interestingly)
different for electron and muon
scattering! (This means (obviously) that
the electron and muon have a different
effective size on that scale). At much
higher energies one begins to see
(almost) that characteristic point-like
scattering again, from some hard bits in
the proton. Rutherford atom all over
again. These inner parts have been
called “partons”. Initially, this was
the basis –incorrect in my view – of
making the association of quarks with
partons. Problem nowadays is that the
three valence quarks carry almost none
of the energy-momentum of the proton - -
keeps getting less and less as the
energies go up. I think this whole
quark-parton thing is largely bullshit.
Experimentally!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana; background-image:
none; background-attachment: scroll;
background-color: white;
background-position: 0% 0%;
background-repeat: repeat repeat;" class="">Now Albrecht you make some good
points. You are absolutely right to
quote the experiments on the relativity
of time with clocks and with muons. You
are also right that one is not much
better off with double loops (or any
other kinds of loops) than with two
little hard balls. This is a problem for
any model of the electron as a loop in
space (Viv, John M, Chip, John D – this
is why the electron cannot be a little
spatial loop – it is not consistent with
scattering experiments!). Now this is a
problem in space-space but not in more
complex spaces as Martin and I have
argued (see SPIE electron paper for up
to date description of this – from my
perspective). It is more proper to say
the loops are in “momentum space” though
this is not quite correct either. They
are in the space(s) they are in – all
nine degrees of freedom (dimensions if
you like) of them. None of the nine are
“space”. For me, they are not little
loops in space. In space they are
spherical. You are not correct – as the
DESY director said and as I said in the
“panel” discussion- that one would not
“see” this. One would. Only if one of
the balls were not there ( I like your
get out of saying that!), would one
observe what one observes. In my view,
however, if it is not there it is not
there. I’m open to persuasion if you can
give me a mechanism though!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana; background-color:
white; background-position: initial
initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">Gotta go ... need to
sort out tutorials ...<br class="">
</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Cambria;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana; background-color:
white; background-position: initial
initial; background-repeat: initial
initial;" class="">Regards, John W.</span><span style="font-size: 5pt; font-family:
Helvetica; background-color: white;
background-position: initial initial;
background-repeat: initial initial;" class=""></span></p>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span class=""> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';
font-size: 16px;" class="">
<hr tabindex="-1" class="">
<div id="divRpF633381" style="direction:
ltr;" class=""><font class="" size="2" face="Tahoma"><b class="">From:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General
[<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
on behalf of Dr. Albrecht Giese [<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a>]<br class="">
<b class="">Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Monday,
September 28, 2015 4:39 PM<br class="">
<b class="">To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Richard
Gauthier; Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion<br class="">
<b class="">Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re:
[General] research papers<br class="">
</font><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
you have asked some questions about my
electron model and I am glad to answer
them.<br class="">
<br class="">
Does my model explain the relativistic
mass increase of the electron at motion?
Yes it does. According to my model the
mass of an electron is m=h(bar) / (R<sub class="">el</sub>*c), where R<sub class="">el</sub> is the radius for
the electron (which is equally valid for
all elementary particles). Now, as the
binding field in the electron contracts
at motion by gamma (as initially found
by Heaviside in 1888), also the size of
the electron contracts at motion by
gamma. So the mass of the electron
increases by gamma and also of course
its dynamical energy. - That is very
simple and elementary. The same
considerations apply for the
relativistic momentum of the electron.<br class="">
<br class="">
(This is all described in my web site<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass">www.ag-physics.org/rmass</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>;
you can also find it via Google by the
search string "origin of mass". There it
is within the first two positions of the
list, where the other one is of Frank
Wilczek; since 10 years we both are
struggling to be the number one.)<br class="">
<br class="">
However, the contraction only occurs in
the direction of motion. So the cross
section of the electron is not changed
by the motion. And in so far this
contraction is not able to explain the
small size of the electron found in
scattering experiments. - Another point
is that this small size was also found
in scattering experiments at energies
smaller than 29 GeV. And, another
determination, in the Penning trap the
size of the electron turns out to be
< 10^-22 m.<br class="">
<br class="">
So there must be something in the
electron which is much smaller than the
Compton wavelength. The model of two
orbiting sub-particles is an extremely
simple model which also explains a lot
else.<br class="">
<br class="">
Regarding the uncertainty relation of
Heisenberg, I have a very "technical"
understanding of it as I have explained
it in our meeting. There is nothing
imprecise within the electron itself,
only the measurement has limited
precision. The reason is simple.
Normally an interaction of the electron
is an interaction of its de Broglie wave
with another object. This wave is a wave
packet, the size of which is round about
given by the size of the
electron-configuration (Compton
wavelength); the size of a wave packet
is not very precisely defined. And on
the other hand, the frequency of a
limited packet is not precisely
measurable. The relation of both
limitations is well known by electric
engineers, the rule is sometimes called
"Nyquist theorem". Now, as the frequency
is related to the energy of the
particle, the Nyquist theorem is
identical with Heisenberg's uncertainty
relation; only the interpretation of
quantum theorists is less technical.
They assume that the physical situation
itself is imprecise, not only the
measurement. Here I do not follow the QM
interpretation.<br class="">
<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
26.09.2015 um 19:57 schrieb Richard
Gauthier:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">Albrecht, Al, Martin et
al</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> One solution that I
think John W, Martin, Chip (I
think), Vivian (as I remember) and I
all agree on (I’m not sure about
John M’s electron model) with our
electron models is that the electron
(as a circulating light-speed
entity) decreases in size with
increasing speed of the electron.
Just as a photon’s wavelength (and
presumably also its transverse size
or extent) decreases proportionally
as 1/E with a photon’s energy E=hf,
a high energy relativistic electron
(whose de Broglie wavelength is
nearly equal to the wavelength of a
high energy photon having the same
total energy as the high energy
electron) should also decrease its
lateral size similarly with its
energy. The lateral size of an
electron decreases as 1/gamma
according to John and Martin due to
energy considerations. In my model
the radius of the charged photon’s
helical trajectory decreases as
1/gamma^2 but with a more detailed
extended (internally superluminal)
model of the charged photon also
decreases as 1/gamma . A 1/gamma
decrease is enough to match the high
energy (around 29GeV) scattering
size of an electron found to be <
10^-18 meters even though the size
of the resting electron (on the
order of the Compton wavelength) is
around 10^-12 - 10^-13 m. So this I
think is a solved problem with
respect to our models.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> I don’t know if
Albrecht’s electron model decreases
as 1/gamma with increasing electron
speed. I think not. But Albrecht’s
model doesn’t I think take into
account that the electron’s total
energy increases proportionally with
gamma and so the frequency of the 2
circulating mass-less particles
should also increase proportionally
with gamma if the energy of his
model is to correspond to the
experimentally measured moving
electron’s energy E= gamma mc^2 .
That should require the radius of
the 2-particle orbit to decrease
with his electron model’s speed if
the 2 orbiting particles are to
continue to circulate at
light-speed. So Albrecht's model’s
size should also decrease at least
as 1/gamma with its speed,and the
need for the 2 massless particles in
his model is unnecessary to explain
the small size of the electron at
high speeds. As far as conservation
of momentum requiring 2 circulating
particles, John W.’s model proposes
to solve this with his p-vot which
causes the photon to curve into a
double loop and produce the
electron’s rest mass (as I
understand it) and charge. But also
the delta x delta p > hbar/2
requirement of Heisenberg’s
uncertainty principle for detectable
variability in position and velocity
means that probably for any Compton
wavelength electron model the amount
of violation of conservation of
momentum of a single light-speed
photon-like object looping around
would not be experimentally
detectable (and so allowed since it
is not experimentally detected) as
being (like a virtual particle in
QED) under the wire of the
Heisenberg uncertainty principle.</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class=""> Richard</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Sep 26, 2015, at
8:57 AM, John Duffield <<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com">johnduffield@btconnect.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1;
font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans:
auto; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Albrecht:</span></div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">In
case Martin is tied up,
here’s his 1997 paper:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf">http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>co-authored with John Williamson.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">As
regards electron size,
it’s field is what it is.
In<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#Electron_properties" class="" target="_blank" style="color: purple;
text-decoration:
underline;">atomic
orbitals</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>electrons
“exist as standing waves”.
Standing wave, standing
field. We can diffract
electrons. I think the
electron has size like a
seismic wave has size. A
seismic wave might have an
amplitude of 1 metre, and
a wavelength of a
kilometre. But when it
travels from A to B it
isn’t just the houses on
top of the AB line that
shake. Houses shake a
hundred miles away. And
that seismic wave is still
detectable on the other
side f the Earth. It’s not
totally different for an
ocean wave, see<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Deep_water_wave.gif" class="" target="_blank" style="color: purple;
text-decoration:
underline;">this gif</a>.
The amplitude might be 1m,
but that isn’t the size of
the wave, nor is the
wavelength. The red test
particles are still
circulating deep below the
water.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Try
to imagine a wave going
round and round, in a
double loop, then make it
a tighter loop. Then have
a look at<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_knot_theory" class="" target="_blank" style="color: purple;
text-decoration:
underline;">some knots</a>.
Photon momentum is a
measure of resistance to
change-in-motion for a
wave propagating linearly
at c. When it’s a 511keV
wave going round and round
at c, we don’t call it a
photon any more. But it
still exhibits resistance
to change-in-motion. Only
we don’t call it a
momentum any more. We call
it mass. Make sure you
read<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.tardyon.de/mirror/hooft/hooft.htm" class="" target="_blank" style="color: purple;
text-decoration:
underline;">this</a>.
It’s not the Nobel ‘t
Hooft.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Regards</span></div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">John
Duffield</span></div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="border-style: solid
none none;
border-top-color: rgb(225,
225, 225);
border-top-width: 1pt;
padding: 3pt 0cm 0cm;">
<div class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm
0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family:
'Times New Roman',
serif;"><b class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;
color: windowtext;" lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;
color: windowtext;" lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General
[<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" class="" target="_blank" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;"></a><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>]<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><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</div>
</div>
<blockquote class="" type="cite" style="margin-top: 5pt;
margin-bottom: 5pt;">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt; font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Well!
The water I was
trying to offer
was: might it not
be a good idea to
distinguish
clearly and
specifically
between the size
of a point and the
size of the volumn
in which this
point is
insessently moving
about. If your 97
paper does that,
my appologies.
Does it? Forgive
me, I have over a
couple hundred
papers I'd like to
have read and
digested laying
about, I do my
best but still
can't get to them
all. The chances
are better,
however, if a
paper attracts
lots of attention
because it
predicted
something new to
be observed
empirically. Did
it? </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt; font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt; font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">BTW,
I did not imply
that the work I
refered to is
better. But, it
(in Rowland's
avantar) is
certainly as
extensive as
yours. In any
case, it
potentially
undermines your
"shot-from-the-hip"
criticism of
Albrecht's program
by introducing a
feature to which
neither you nor
John refered to,
in my best memory,
at San Diego. My
comment was not
intended ad
hominum, but made
on the presumtion
that you too have
hundreds of unread
papers available.
</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt; font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt; font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Best,
Al</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt; font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt; font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin: 0cm
0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt; font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div name="quote" class="" style="border-style:
none none none
solid;
border-left-color:
rgb(195, 217, 229);
border-left-width:
1.5pt; padding: 0cm
0cm 0cm 8pt; margin:
7.5pt 3.75pt 3.75pt
7.5pt; word-wrap:
break-word;">
<div class="" style="margin-bottom:
7.5pt;">
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Gesendet:</span></b><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> Freitag,
25. September
2015 um 19:56
Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Mark,
Martin van
der"<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"><martin.van.der.mark@philips.com></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> "Nature
of Light and
Particles -
General
Discussion"<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
research
papers</span></div>
</div>
<div name="quoted-content" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Al,
just read what
i wrote. It is
not shooting
from the hip.
I am refering
to actual
experiments,
all cited in
the paper i
refered to.
Further, you
are just
repeating what
i said
already. I can
only bring you
to the water,
i cannot make
you drink. And
then you refer
to other
doubtfull
work, as id it
were better.
Good luck.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Regards,
Martin<br class="">
<br class="">
Verstuurd
vanaf mijn
iPhone</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"><br class="">
Op 25 sep.
2015 om 19:16
heeft "<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>>
het volgende
geschreven:<br class="">
</span></div>
</div>
<blockquote class="" type="cite" style="margin-top:
5pt;
margin-bottom:
5pt;">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Dear
Martin,</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Perhaps
it's my Texas
background,
but I think I
sense some
"shoot'n from
the hip."</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">You
have not done
an experiment,
but (at best)
a calculation
based on some
hypothtical
input of your
choise. Maybe
it's good,
maybe not. </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">The
Sun scatters
as a point
only those
projectiles
that don't get
close. So
far, no
scattering off
electons has
gotten close
enough to
engage any
internal
structure,
"they" say
(I#ll defer to
experts
up-to-date).
Nevertheless,
electrons are
in constant
motion at or
near the speed
of light
(Zitterbewegung)
and therefore
at the time
scales of the
projectiles
buzz around
(zittern) in a
certain amout
of space,
which seems to
me must
manifest
itself as if
there were
spacially
exteneded
structure
within the
scattering
cross-section.
Why not?</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Not
to defend
Albrecht's
model as he
describes it,
but many folks
(say Peter
Rowlands at
Liverpool, for
example) model
elemtary
particles in
terms of the
partiicle
itself
interacting
with its
induced
virtual image
(denoted by
Peter as the
"rest of the
universe").
This
"inducement"
is a kind of
polarization
effect. Every
charge repells
all other like
charges and
attracts all
other unlike
charges
resulting in
what can be
modeled as a
virtual charge
of the
opposite
gender
superimposed
on itself in
the static
approximation.
But, because
the real
situation is
fluid, the
virtual
charge's
motion is
delayed as
caused by
finite light
speed, so that
the two chase
each other.
Etc. Looks
something like
Albrecht's
pairs.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">I
too havn't
read your 97
paper yet, but
I bet it's
unlikely that
you all took
such
consideration
into account.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Best,
Al </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="" style="border-style:
none none none
solid;
border-left-color:
rgb(195, 217,
229);
border-left-width:
1.5pt;
padding: 0cm
0cm 0cm 8pt;
margin: 7.5pt
3.75pt 3.75pt
7.5pt;">
<div class="" style="margin-bottom:
7.5pt;">
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Gesendet:</span></b><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> Freitag,
25. September
2015 um 18:44
Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Mark,
Martin van
der" <<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a>><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> "Nature
of Light and
Particles -
General
Discussion"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>>,
"<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
research
papers</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">Dear
Al, dear
Albrecht, dear
all,</span></div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">In
the paper John
W and I
published in
1997, the
situation is
explained
briefly but
adequately.</span></div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">Clearly
Albrecht has
not read it
or, perhaps he
did but does
not want to
understand it
because it
really
destroys his
work. This is
a double pity,
of course, but
we are talking
science, not
sentiment, and
I do not want
to take away
anything from
the person you
are Albrecht.</span></div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">The
electron has a
finite size,
of the oder of
the Compton
wavelength,
but the
Coulomb
interaction is
perfectly
matched in ANY
experiment,
which means
there are no
internal bits
to the
electron and
that it
behaves as a
point-LIKE
scatterer, not
a to be
mistaken by a
POINT as is
done most of
the time. Note
that even the
sun has
point-like
scattering for
all comets
that go round
it, its
gravitational
field seems to
come from the
centre of the
sun. Until you
hit other
bits. There
are no other
bits for the
electron, but
at very high
energy the
4-momentum
exchange
combined with
the resolving
power at that
high energy
make that a
Compton-size
object CANNOT
be resolved in
principle, if
and only if it
is of
electromagnetic
origin.</span></div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">The
electron is a
single thing,
of
electromagnetic
origin only,
there is NO
OTHER WAY to
fit the
experimental
results.</span></div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">Well,
maybe there is
another way,
but I cannot
see it.
Certainly it
is not two
parts rotating
about each
other, because
that is
refuted by
experiment,
all those
models can go
in the bin and
are a waste of
time and
energy.</span></div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">Regards,
Martin</span></div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,
73, 125);"> </span></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Arial,
sans-serif;
color: navy;">Dr.
Martin B. van
der Mark</span></div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Arial,
sans-serif;
color: navy;">Principal
Scientist,
Minimally
Invasive
Healthcare</span></div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: navy;"> </span></div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Arial,
sans-serif;
color: navy;">Philips
Research
Europe -
Eindhoven</span></div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Arial,
sans-serif;
color: navy;">High
Tech Campus,
Building 34
(WB2.025)</span></div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Arial,
sans-serif;
color: navy;">Prof.
Holstlaan 4</span></div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Arial,
sans-serif;
color: navy;">5656
AE Eindhoven,
The
Netherlands</span></div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Arial,
sans-serif;
color: navy;">Tel:
+31 40 2747548</span></div>
</div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,
73, 125);"> </span></div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="border-style:
solid none
none;
border-top-color:
rgb(181, 196,
223);
border-top-width:
1pt; padding:
3pt 0cm 0cm;">
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Tahoma,
sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Tahoma,
sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General [<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class="">On Behalf Of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br class="">
<b class="">Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>vrijdag 25 september 2015 18:05<br class="">
<b class="">To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" class="" target="_blank" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;">phys@a-giese.de</a>;<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="x-msg://59/UrlBlockedError.aspx" class="" target="_blank" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles -
General
Discussion<br class="">
<b class="">Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] research papers</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"> </div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Gentelmen:</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Shouldn't
a clear and
explicit
distinction
between the
"size" of the
electron and
the "extent"
of its
Zitterbewegung
be made. My
best info,
perhaps not
up-to-date, is
that although
scattering
experiments
put an upper
limit on the
size
(10^-19m),
there exists
in fact no
evidence that
the electron
has any finite
size
whatsoever.
This is in
contrast to
the space it
consumes with
its
Zitter-motion,
which is what
would be
calculated
using QM
(Heisenberg
uncertanty
mostly).
Seems to me
that most of
what folks
theorize about
is the latter,
without saying
so, and
perhaps often
without even
recognizing
it. However,
since the
Zitter volumn
will cause
electrons to
be moving
targets, it
must also have
some effect on
its scatering
cross-section
too. I don't
know how this
is sorted out
in scattering
calculations---if
at all.
(Albrectht?)</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Correct
me if I'm
wrong. Best,
Al</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
'Times New
Roman',
serif;"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="" style="border-style:
none none none
solid;
border-left-color:
rgb(195, 217,
229);
border-left-width:
1.5pt;
padding: 0cm
0cm 0cm 8pt;
margin: 7.5pt
3.75pt 3.75pt
7.5pt;">
<div class="" style="margin-bottom:
7.5pt;">
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Gesendet:</span></b><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> Freitag,
25. September
2015 um 15:06
Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Dr.
Albrecht
Giese" <<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a>><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> "Richard
Gauthier" <<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>>,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> "Nature
of Light and
Particles -
General
Discussion"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
research
papers</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Hello
Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
according to
present
mainstream
physics the
size of the
electron is
not more than
10^-19 m. This
is concluded
from
scattering
experiments
where the size
of the
electric
charge is the
quantity of
influence.<br class="">
<br class="">
As present
mainstream
physics
(including the
QED of
Feynman)
assume that
the electron
has no
internal
structure and
that the
electric force
is the only
one effective,
this size is
identified
with the size
of the whole
electron. This
is in severe
conflict with
the
calculations
of Schrödinger
and of Wilczek
based on QM.<br class="">
<br class="">
I have the
impression
that several
of us
(including me)
have models of
the electron
which assume
some extension
roughly
compatible
with the QM
calculations.<br class="">
<br class="">
Some details
of my model
related to
this question:
Here the
electron is
built by 2
sub-particles
("basic
particles")
which orbit
each other at
c. The
electric force
is not the
only force
inside. The
radius
following from
the magnetic
moment is the
reduced
Compton
wavelength,
and the mass
of the
electron
follows with
high precision
from this
radius. At
motion the
size decreases
by the
relativistic
factor gamma,
and so the
mass increases
by this
factor. -
However there
was always a
point of a
certain
weakness in my
model: I could
not prove that
the electron
is built by
just 2
sub-particles
carrying 1/2
elementary
charge each.
Now Wilczek
writes in his
article that
in certain
circumstances
-
superconductivity
in the
presence of a
magnetic field
- the electron
is decomposed
into two
halves. This
is the result
of
measurements.
How can this
happen with a
point-like
particle? This
is a mystery
for Wilczek.
But in the
view of my
model it is no
mystery but
quite
plausible. It
only needs now
a quantitative
calculation of
this process
which I
presently do
not have.<br class="">
<br class="">
All the best
to you<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Am
23.09.2015 um
19:02 schrieb
Richard
Gauthier:</span></div>
</div>
<blockquote class="" type="cite" style="margin-top:
5pt;
margin-bottom:
5pt;">
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Hello
Albrecht,</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">
Yes, all of
our electron
models here
have a radius
related to the
Compton
wavelength.
Dirac’s
zitterbewegung
amplitude is
1/2 of the
reduced
Compton
wavelength, or
hbar/2mc ,
which is the
radius of the
generic
circulating
charged
photon’s
trajectory in
my circulating
spin 1/2
charged photon
model for a
resting
electron. That
radius
decreases by a
factor of
gamma^2 in a
moving
electron. Does
yours?
Incorporating
a more
detailed spin
1/2 charged
photon model
with the
generic model
could bring
the model's
radius up to
the reduced
Compton
wavelength
hbar/mc.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">
all the
best,</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">
Richard</span></div>
</div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="">
<blockquote class="" type="cite" style="margin-top:
5pt;
margin-bottom:
5pt;">
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">On
Sep 22, 2015,
at 11:13 AM,
Dr. Albrecht
Giese <<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a>>
wrote:</span></div>
</div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Dear
Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
thank you for
this reference
to the article
of Frank
Wilczek.<br class="">
<br class="">
He has a
quantum
mechanical
argument to
determine a
size for the
electron. It
is the
application of
the
uncertainty
relation to
the magnetic
moment of the
electron. The
result is as
you write: 2.4
x 10^-12 m,
which is the
Compton
wavelength of
the electron.<br class="">
This is a bit
similar to the
way as Erwin
Schrödinger
has determined
the size of
the electron
using the
Dirac function
in 1930. There
Schrödinger
determined the
"amplitude of
the
zitterbewegung"
also applying
the
uncertainty
relation to
the rest
energy of the
electron. It
was "roughly"
10^-13 m,
which also
meant in his
words the
Compton
wavelength of
the electron.<br class="">
<br class="">
In my electron
model its
radius is 3.86
x 10^-13 m,
which is
exactly the
"reduced"
Compton
wavelength.
But here it is
not an
expectation
value as in
the cases of
Wilczek and
Schrödinger
but the exact
radius of the
orbits of the
basic
particles.<br class="">
<br class="">
Thank you
again and best
wishes<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">Am
21.09.2015 um
05:01 schrieb
Richard
Gauthier:</span></div>
</div>
<blockquote class="" type="cite" style="margin-top:
5pt;
margin-bottom:
5pt;">
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">This
2013 Nature
comment “The
enigmatic
electron” by
Frank Wilczek
at <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com">http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com</a> is
worth a look.
He states that
due to QM
effects, the
size of the
electron is
about 2.4 x
10^-12 m,
which is
roughly in the
range of some
of our
electron
models.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">
Richard</span></div>
</div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="">
<blockquote class="" type="cite" style="margin-top:
5pt;
margin-bottom:
5pt;">
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">On
Sep 16, 2015,
at 12:59 PM,
Wolfgang Baer
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com">wolf@nascentinc.com</a>>
wrote:</span></div>
</div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
background-color:
white;">I
should add you
sent me
Main-2014.pdf
and that may
be the one not
available on
the web sight.</span><br class="">
<span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
background-color:
white;">I was
looking for a
similar one
that included
the other
topics as
well.</span><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;"><br class="">
<span class="" style="background-color:
white;">If you
do not have
it, its OK, I
just like
reading from
paper.</span><br class="">
<br class="">
<span class="" style="background-color:
white;">best
wishes,</span><br class="">
<br class="">
<span class="" style="background-color:
white;">Wolf</span></span><br class="">
<span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; background-color: white;">Dr. Wolfgang Baer</pre>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; background-color: white;">Research Director</pre>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; background-color: white;">Nascent Systems Inc.</pre>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; background-color: white;">tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432</pre>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; background-color: white;">E-mail <span class="" style="color: purple;"><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" class="" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></span></pre>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;">On
9/14/2015
12:45 PM, Dr.
Albrecht Giese
wrote:</span></div>
</div>
<blockquote class="" type="cite" style="margin-top:
5pt;
margin-bottom:
5pt;
word-spacing:
0px;">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;">John,<br class="">
<br class="">
You wrote a
long text, so
I will enter
my answers
within your
text.</span><br class="">
<span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;"> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;">Am
14.09.2015 um
02:54 schrieb
John Macken:</span></div>
</div>
<blockquote class="" type="cite" style="margin-top:
5pt;
margin-bottom:
5pt;">
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">Hello
David and
Albrecht,</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">It
was through
the contact
with this
group that I
was finally
able to
understand the
disconnect
that existed
between my
idea of vacuum
energy and the
picture that
others were
obtaining from
my use of the
term
“energy”.
Many of the
mysteries of
quantum
mechanics and
general
relativity can
be traced to
the fact that
fields exist
and yet we do
not have a
clear idea of
what they
are. My
answer is that
we live within
a sea of
vacuum
activity which
is the
physical basis
of the
mysterious
fields. I
combine all
fields into a
single
“spacetime
field” which
is the basis
of all
particles,
fields and
forces.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">David</span></b><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">,
you asked
about the
words<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>quantum,
quantifying
and
quantizing. I
did a word
search and I
did not use
the word
“quantizing”
in either the
email or the
attachment to
my last post.
However, the
paper<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i class="">Energetic
Spacetime: The
New Aether</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>submitted to SPIE as part of the
conference
presentation,
used and
defines the
word
“quantization”.
This paper was
attached to
previous
posts, and is
available at
my website: <span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://onlyspacetime.com/" class="" target="_blank" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;">http://onlyspacetime.com/</a></span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">Albrecht</span></b><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">:
I can combine
my answer to
you with the
clarification
for David of
the word
“quantify” and
its
derivatives.
I claim that
my model of
the universe
“quantifies”
particles and
fields. I
will start my
explanation of
this concept
by giving
examples of
models which
do not
“quantify”
particles and
fields. There
have been
numerous
particle
models from
this group and
others which
show an
electron model
as two balls
orbiting
around a
center of
mass. Most of
the group
identifies
these balls as
photons but
Albrecht names
the two balls
“charges of
the strong
force”. Both
photons and
charges of
strong force
are just
words. To be
quantifiable,
it is
necessary to
describe the
model of the
universe which
gives the
strong force
or the
electromagnetic
force. What
exactly are
these? How
much energy
and energy
density does
one charge of
strong force
have? Can a
photon occupy
a volume
smaller than a
reduced
Compton
wavelength in
radius? Does a
muon have the
same basic
strong force
charge but
just rotate
faster? Are
the charges of
strong force
or photons
made of any
other more
basic
component?</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
<span class="" style="font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;">Regarding
charge: This
is a basic
entity in my
model. At some
point a
physical
theory has to
start. My
model starts
with the
assumption
that a charge
is an "atomic"
entity, so
possibly
point-like,
which emits
exchange
particles (in
this point I
follow the
general
understanding
of QM). There
are two types
of charges:
the electric
ones which we
are very
familiar with,
having two
signs, and the
strong ones,
which are not
so obvious in
everyday
physics; they
also have two
signs. In the
physical
nature we find
the charges of
the strong
force only in
configurations
made of those
different
signs, never
isolated. This
is in contrast
to the
electric
charges.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">
<br class="">
The basic
particles are
composed of a
collection of
charges of the
strong force
so that both
basic
particles are
bound to each
other in a way
that they keep
a certain
distance. This
distance
characterizes
an elementary
particle. In
several (or
most) cases
there is
additionally
an electric
charge in the
basic
particle.<br class="">
<br class="">
The two
parameters I
have to set -
or to find -
are the shape
of the strong
field in the
elementary
particle. Here
I have defined
an equation
describing a
minimum
multi-pole
field to make
the elementary
particle
stable. The
other setting
is the
strength of
this field.
This strength
can be found
e.g. using the
electron
because the
electron is
well known and
precisely
measured. This
field is then
applicable for
all leptons as
well as for
all quarks. It
is also
applicable for
the photon
with the
restriction
that there may
be a
correction
factor caused
by the fact
that the
photon is not
fundamental in
the sense of
this model but
composed of
(maybe) two
other
particles.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">
<br class="">
The size of
the photon is
(at least
roughly)
described by
its
wavelength.
This follows
from the mass
formula
resulting from
my model, as
with this
assumption the
(dynamic) mass
of the photon
is the correct
result.<br class="">
<br class="">
As I wrote,
the results of
this model are
very precise,
the prove is
in practice
only limited
by limitations
of the
measurement
processes.</span><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;"></span></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">I
could go on
with more
questions
until it is
possible to
calculate the
properties of
an electron
from the
answers. So
far both
models lack
any
quantifiable
details except
perhaps a
connection to
the particle’s
Compton
frequency. I
am not
demanding
anything more
than I have
already done.
For example, I
cannot
calculate the
electron’s
Compton
frequency or
the fine
structure
constant.
However, once
I install
these into the
model that I
create, and
combine this
with the
properties of
the spacetime
field, then I
get an
electron.
Installing a
muon’s Compton
frequency
generates a
muon with the
correct
electric
field,
electrostatic
force,
curvature of
spacetime,
gravitational
force and de
Broglie
waves. I am
able to
quantify the
distortion of
spacetime
produced by a
charged
particle, an
electric field
and a photon.
I am able to
test these
models and
show that they
generate both
the correct
energy density
and generate a
black hole
when we reach
the distortion
limits of the
spacetime
field.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
</div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;">In
my model the
Compton
frequency of
the electron
(and of the
other leptons)
follows
directly from
the size of
the particle
and the fact
that the basic
particle move
with c. The
fine structure
constant tells
us the
relation of
the electric
force to the
strong force.
This
explanation
follows very
directly from
this model,
however was
also found by
other
theorists
using algebra
of particle
physics.<br class="">
<br class="">
Another result
of the model
is that
Planck's
constant -
multiplied by
c - is the
field constant
of the strong
force. Also
this is the
result of
other models
(however not
of mainstream
physics).<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">My
model starts
with a
quantifiable
description of
the properties
of spacetime.
The spacetime
model has a
specific
impedance
which
describes the
properties of
waves that can
exist in
spacetime.
Then the
amplitude and
frequency of
the waves in
spacetime is
quantified.
This
combination
allows the
energy density
of spacetime
to be
calculated and
this agrees
with the
energy density
of zero point
energy. The
particle
models are
then defined
as ½<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>ħ<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>units of quantized angular
momentum
existing in
the spacetime
field. This
model is
quantifiable
as to size,
structure,
energy, etc.
Also the fact
that the rate
of time and
proper volume
is being
modulated, it
is possible to
calculate the
effect that
such a
structure
would have on
the
surrounding
volume of
spacetime. It
is possible to
calculate the
effect if the
spacetime-based
particle model
would have if
the coupling
constant was
equal to 1
(Planck
charge), To
get charge<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i class="">e</i>, it is necessary
to manually
install the
fine structure
constant. <span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
</div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;">How
do you get the
value<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span class="" style="font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;">½<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>ħ</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;"> </span></span><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;">for
the angular
momentum? What
is the
calculation
behind it? - I
understand
that in your
model the
electric
charge is a
parameter
deduced from
other facts.
Which ones?
From alpha?
How do you
then get
alpha?<br class="">
<br class="">
I personally
have in so far
a problem with
all
considerations
using
spacetime as I
have quite
thoroughly
investigated
how Einstein
came to the
idea of this
4-dimentional
construct. His
main
motivation was
that he wanted
in any case to
avoid an
ether. And in
his
discussions
with Ernst
Mach he had to
realize that
he was running
into a lot of
problems with
this
assumption. He
could solve
these problems
in general by
his "curved
spacetime".
But this
concept still
causes logical
conflicts
which are
eagerly
neglected by
the followers
of Einstein's
relativity
(and which do
not exist in
the Lorentzian
way of
relativity).<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">The
quantifiable
properties of
spacetime
imply that
there should
be boundary
conditions
which imply
that the waves
in spacetime
should be
nonlinear.
When the
nonlinear
component is
calculated and
treated as
separate
waves, the
characteristics
of the
particle’s
gravitational
field are
obtained
(correct:
curvature,
effect on the
rate of time,
force and
energy
density).</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">In
my last post I
have given an
answer about
the factor of
10<sup class="">120</sup><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>difference between the observable
energy density
of the
universe and
the
non-observable
energy of the
universe.
This
non-observable
energy density
is absolutely
necessary for
QED
calculations,
zero point
energy, the
uncertainty
principle,
Lamb shift,
spontaneous
emission and
quantum
mechanics in
general. This
non-observable
energy density
is responsible
for the
tremendously
large
impedance of
spacetime c<sup class="">3</sup>/G.
Since I can
also show how
this
non-observable
energy density
is obtainable
from
gravitational
wave
equations, it
is necessary
for<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><b class="">you</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>to show how all these effects can
be achieved
without
spacetime
being a single
field with
this
non-observable
energy
density. In
fact, the name
non-observable
only applied
to direct
observation.
The indirect
evidence is
everywhere.
It forms the
basis of the
universe and
therefore is
the
“background
noise” of the
universe. For
this reason it
is not
directly
observable
because we can
only detect
differences in
energy. The
constants<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i class="">c,</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i class="">G</i>,<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i class="">ħ</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>and<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i class="">ε<sub class="">o</sub></i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>testify that spacetime is not an
empty void. <span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
</div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;">Up
to now I did
not find any
necessity for
zero-point
energy. And I
find it a
dangerous way
to assume
physical facts
which cannot
be observed.
The greatest
argument in
favour of this
energy is its
use in Feynman
diagrams. But
is there
really no
other way? I
have a lecture
of Feynman
here where he
states that
his formalism
has good
results. But
that he has no
physical
understanding
why it is
successful. In
my
understanding
of the
development of
physics this
is a weak
point.<br class="">
<br class="">
The
discrepancy of
10^120 between
assumed and
observed
energy is
taken as a
great and
unresolved
problem by
present main
stream
physics. Those
representatives
would have all
reason to find
a solution to
keep present
QM clean. But
they are not
able to. This
causes me some
concern.<br class="">
<br class="">
The constants
you have
listed: c is
the speed of
light what
ever the
reason for it
is. (I have a
model, but it
is a bit
speculative.)
But it has
nothing to do
with energy. G
is the
gravitational
constant which
is as little
understood as
gravity
itself.
Planck's
constant I
have
explained, it
is (with c)
the field
constant of
the strong
force (any
force has to
be described
by a field
constant); and<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><i class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;">ε<sub class="">o</sub></span></i><span class="apple-converted-space"><span class="" style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;"> </span></span><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;">is
the field
constant of
the electric
force with a
similar
background.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">If
spacetime was
an empty void,
why should
particles have
a speed limit
of<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i class="">c</i>?
For a thought
experiment,
suppose that
two spaceships
leave earth
going opposite
directions and
accelerate
until they
reach a speed
of 0.75<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i class="">c</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>relative to the earth. The earth
bound observer
sees them
separating at
1.5<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i class="">c</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>but the rules of relativistic
addition of
velocity has a
spaceship
observer
seeing the
other
spaceship
moving away at
only 0.96<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i class="">c</i>. How is this
possible if
spacetime is
an empty
void. My
model of the
universe
answers this
because all
particles,
fields and
forces are
also made of
the spacetime
field and they
combine to
achieve
Lorentz
transformations
which affects
ruler length
and clocks.
None of this
can happen
unless
spacetime is
filled with
dipole waves
in spacetime
and everything
is made of the
single
component.
The universe
is only
spacetime.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
</div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;">If
two spaceships
move at 0.75 c
in opposite
direction, the
observer at
rest may add
these speeds
and may get
1.5 c as a
result. Why
not? If an
observer in
one of the
spaceships
measures the
relative speed
of the other
spaceship, the
result will be
less then c
(as you write
it). The
reason is the
well known
fact that the
measurement
tools
accessible for
the observer
in the ship
are changed
and run
differently at
this high
speed. The
reason for
these changes
is for time
dilation the
internal speed
c in
elementary
particles. For
contraction it
is the
contraction of
fields at
motion which
is a fact
independent of
relativity
(and which was
already known
before
Einstein). In
addition when
the speed of
another object
is to be
measured
several clocks
are to be used
positioned
along the
measurement
section. These
clocks are
de-synchronized
in relation to
the clocks of
the observer
at rest. These
phenomena
together cause
the
measurement
result < c.
You find these
considerations
in papers and
books about
the Lorentzian
interpretation
of relativity.
So, following
Lorentz, there
is no reason
to assume
Einstein's
spacetime.</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span class="" style="font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;"> </span></span><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;"></span></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">John
M.</span></div>
</div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;">Perhaps
I should read
your book. But
that chould
take a lot of
time, I am
afraid.<br class="">
<br class="">
Albrecht<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="border-style:
solid none
none;
border-top-color:
rgb(225, 225,
225);
border-top-width:
1pt; padding:
3pt 0cm 0cm;">
<div class="">
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span class="apple-converted-space"><span class="" style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></span><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">Dr.
Albrecht Giese
[<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">mailto:genmail@a-giese.de</a>]<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">
<b class="">Sent:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM<br class="">
<b class="">To:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>John Macken<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:john@macken.com"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:john@macken.com"><john@macken.com></a>;
'Nature of
Light and
Particles -
General
Discussion'<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" class="" target="_blank" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br class="">
<b class="">Subject:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] research papers</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">Hello
John,<br class="">
<br class="">
great that you
have looked so
deeply into
the model
which I have
presented.
Thank you.<br class="">
<br class="">
There are some
questions
which I can
answer quite
easily. I
think that
this model in
fact explains
several points
just in
contrast to
main stream
physics. In
standard
physics the
electron (just
as an example)
is a
point-like
object without
any internal
structure. So,
how can a
magnetic
moment be
explained? How
can the spin
be explained?
How can the
mass be
explained? The
position of
main stream
physics is:
That cannot be
explained but
is subject to
quantum
mechanics. And
the fact that
it cannot be
explained
shows how
necessary QM
is.<br class="">
<br class="">
In contrast,
if the
electron is
assumed to
have a
structure like
in the model
presented,
these
parameters can
be explained
in a classical
way, and this
explanation is
not merely a
qualitative
one but has
precise
quantitative
results.<br class="">
<br class="">
To your
questions in
detail:<br class="">
The fact of
two basic
particles is
necessary to
explain the
fact of an
oscillation
and to fulfil
the
conservation
of momentum. A
single object
(as
point-like)
cannot
oscillate. The
basic
particles are
composed of
charges of the
strong force.
In this model
the strong
force is
assumed to be
the universal
force in our
world
effective on
all particles.
A charge is a
fundamental
object in the
scope of this
model. There
are two kinds
of charges
according to
the two kinds
of forces in
our world, the
strong one and
the electric
one. The weak
force is in
fact the
strong force
but has a
smaller
coupling
constant
caused by
geometric
circumstances.
And gravity is
not a force at
all but a
refraction
process, which
is so a side
effect of the
other forces.
And, by the
way, gravity
is not curved
spacetime.
This is not
necessary, and
besides of
this,
Einstein's
spacetime
leads to
logical
conflicts.<br class="">
<br class="">
The forces
(i.e. strong
force) inside
an elementary
particle are
configured in
a way that at
a certain
distance there
is a potential
minimum and in
this way the
distance
between the
basic
particles is
enforced. So,
this field has
attracting and
repulsive
components.
Outside the
elementary
particle the
attracting
forces
dominate to
make the
particle a
stable one.
And those
field parts
outside have
an opposite
sign. Now, as
the basic
particles are
orbiting each
other, the
outside field
is an
alternating
field (of the
strong forth).
If this field
propagates, it
is builds a
wave. This
wave is
described by
the
Schrödinger
equation and
fulfils the
assumptions of
de Broglie.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">
<br class="">
With the
assumption of
two basic
particles
orbiting at c
and subject to
strong force,
the parameters
mass, magnetic
moment, spin
result from it
numerically
correctly
without
further
assumptions.<br class="">
<br class="">
This model
does not need
any vacuum
energy or
virtual
particles.
Those are
simply not
necessary and
they are
anyway very
speculative
because not
directly
observable.
And in the
case of the
vacuum energy
of the
universe we
are confronted
with the
discrepancy of
10^120 which
you also
mention in
your paper
attached to
your mail.<br class="">
<br class="">
The Coulomb
law can be
easily
explained by
the assumption
(standard at
quantum
mechanics)
that a force
is realized by
exchange
particles. The
density of
exchange
particles and
so the
strength of
the field
diminishes by
1/r^2, which
is simple
geometry.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">
<br class="">
So John, this
is my
position. Now
I am curious
about your
objections of
further
questions.<br class="">
<br class="">
Best regards<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
</span></p>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">Am
11.09.2015 um
23:51 schrieb
John Macken:</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote class="" type="cite" style="margin-top:
5pt;
margin-bottom:
5pt;">
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">Hello
Albrecht and
All,</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">I
have attached
a one page
addition that
I will make to
my book. It is
a preliminary
explanation of
my model of
the spacetime
field. It has
been very
helpful to me
to interact
with this
group because
I now
understand
better the key
stumbling
block for some
scientists to
accept my
thesis.
Therefore I
have written
the attached
introduction
to ease the
reader of my
book into my
model. <span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">Albrecht:</span></b><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> <span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>I appreciate your email. We agree
on several
points which
include the
size of the
electron and
there is a
similarity in
the
explanation of
gravity. The
key points of
disagreement
are the same
as I have with
the rest of
the group.
Your
explanation of
a fundamental
particle is
not really an
explanation.
You substitute
a fundamental
particle such
as an electron
with two
“basic
particles”.
Have we made
any progress
or did we just
double the
problem? What
is your basic
particles made
of? What is
the physics
behind the
force of
attraction
between the
particles?
What is the
physics behind
an electric
field? How
does your
model create
de Broglie
waves? How
does your
model create a
gravitational
field (curved
spacetime)?
Can you derive
the Coulomb
law and
Newtonian
gravitational
equation from
your model? <span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">These
might seem
like unfair
questions, but
my model does
all of these
things. All it
requires is
the reader
accept the
fact that the
vacuum
possesses
activity which
can be
characterized
as a type of
energy density
that is not
observable (no
rest mass or
momentum).
This is no
different that
accepting that
QED
calculations
should be
believed when
they assume
vacuum energy
or that zero
point energy
really
exists. <span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">Albrecht</span></b><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">,
perhaps I have
come on too
strong, but I
have decided
to take a
firmer stand.
You just
happen to be
the first
person that I
contrast to my
model. I am
actually happy
to discuss the
scientific
details in a
less
confrontational
way. I just
wanted to make
an initial
point.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">John
M.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="border-style:
solid none
none;
border-top-color:
rgb(225, 225,
225);
border-top-width:
1pt; padding:
3pt 0cm 0cm;">
<div class="">
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span class="apple-converted-space"><span class="" style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></span><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">General
[</span><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color:
purple;"><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></span><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">]<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><b class="">On Behalf Of<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Dr.
Albrecht Giese<br class="">
<b class="">Sent:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM<br class="">
<b class="">To:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" class="" target="_blank" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br class="">
<b class="">Subject:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] research papers</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">Dear
John Macken,<br class="">
<br class="">
I would like
to answer a
specific topic
in your mail
below. You
write "...
would have
particular
relevance to
the concept
that the Higgs
field is
needed to give
inertia to
fermions".<br class="">
<br class="">
We should not
overlook that
even
mainstream
physicists
working on
elementary
particles
admit that the
Higgs theory
is not able to
explain
inertia. I
give you as a
reference:<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">>Steven
D. Brass, The
cosmological
constant
puzzle,
Journal of
Physics G,
Nuclear and
Particle
Physics 38,
4(2011)
43201< ,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">which
has the result
that the Higgs
field, which
causes inertia
according to
the theory, is
by at least 56
orders of
magnitude too
small to
explain the
mass of the
elementary
particles.
(Another
weakness is
the fact that
the Higgs
theory does
not tell us
the mass of
any elementary
particle even
if all other
parameters are
known.)<br class="">
<br class="">
As you may
remember, in
our meeting I
have presented
a model
explaining
inertia which
does not only
work as a
general idea
but provides
very precise
results for
the mass of
leptons. The
mass is
classically
deduced from
the size of a
particle. It
also explains
the mass of
quarks, but
here the
verification
is more
difficult, due
to the lack of
measurements.
In addition I
have shown
that the model
also explains
the (dynamic)
mass of
photons, if
the size of a
photon is
related to its
wavelength.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">
<br class="">
You may find
details in the
proceedings of
our San Diego
meeting, but
also on the
following web
sites:<br class="">
<br class="">
</span><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color:
purple;"><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass">www.ag-physics.org/rmass</a></span><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"><br class="">
</span><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color:
purple;"><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ag-physics.org/electron"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ag-physics.org/electron">www.ag-physics.org/electron</a></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></span><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">.<br class="">
<br class="">
You may also
find the sites
by Google
search
entering the
string "origin
of mass". You
will find it
on position 1
or 2 of the
list, where it
has constantly
been during
the past 12
years.<br class="">
<br class="">
If you have
any questions
about it,
please ask me.
I will be
happy about
any
discussion.<br class="">
<br class="">
With best
regards<br class="">
Albrecht Giese</span><br class="">
<br class="">
<span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">Am
04.09.2015 um
18:40 schrieb
John Macken:</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote class="" type="cite" style="margin-top:
5pt;
margin-bottom:
5pt;">
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">Martin,</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">I
wanted to
remind you
that I think
that you
should update
your article
“Light Is
Heavy” to
include the
mathematical
proof that
confined light
has exactly
the same
inertia as
particles with
equal energy.
Accelerating a
reflecting box
causes
different
photon
pressure which
results in a
net inertial
force. I
already
reference your
Light Is Heavy
article in my
book, but
expanding the
article would
be even
better. An
expanded
article would
have
particular
relevance to
the concept
that the Higgs
field is
needed to give
inertia to
fermions. The
Higgs field is
not needed to
give inertia
to confined
light.
Furthermore,
confined light
exerts exactly
the correct
inertia and
kinetic
energy, even
at
relativistic
conditions. I
have not seen
a proof that
the Higgs
field gives
exactly the
correct amount
of inertia or
kinetic energy
to fermions.
Any particle
model that
includes
either a
confined
photon or
confined waves
in spacetime
propagating at
the speed of
light gets
inertia and
kinetic energy
from the same
principles as
confined light
in a
reflecting
box.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">John
M.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="border-style:
solid none
none;
border-top-color:
rgb(225, 225,
225);
border-top-width:
1pt; padding:
3pt 0cm 0cm;">
<div class="">
<div class=""><b class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span class="apple-converted-space"><span class="" style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></span><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">General
[</span><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color:
purple;"><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></span><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">]<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><b class="">On Behalf Of<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Mark,
Martin van der<br class="">
<b class="">Sent:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM<br class="">
<b class="">To:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles -
General
Discussion<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" class="" target="_blank" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br class="">
<b class="">Subject:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>[General] research papers</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">Dear
all,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">My
recent (and
old) work can
be found on
Researchgate:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,
73, 125);"><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications" class="" target="_blank" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;"><span class="" style="color:
purple;"></span></a><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications">https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications</a></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">In
particular you
will find the
most recent
work:</span></p>
<ul class="" style="margin-bottom:
0cm;" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">On
the nature of
“stuff” and
the hierarchy
of forces</span><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;">Quantum
mechanical
probability
current as
electromagnetic
4-current from
topological EM
fields</span><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"></span></li>
</ul><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">Very
best regards,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;"><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">Martin</span></p>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Arial,
sans-serif;
color: navy;">Dr.
Martin B. van
der Mark</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Arial,
sans-serif;
color: navy;">Principal
Scientist,
Minimally
Invasive
Healthcare</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: navy;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Arial,
sans-serif;
color: navy;">Philips
Research
Europe -
Eindhoven</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Arial,
sans-serif;
color: navy;">High
Tech Campus,
Building 34
(WB2.025)</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Arial,
sans-serif;
color: navy;">Prof.
Holstlaan 4</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Arial,
sans-serif;
color: navy;">5656
AE Eindhoven,
The
Netherlands</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
10pt;
font-family:
Arial,
sans-serif;
color: navy;">Tel:
+31 40 2747548</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;" align="center"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">
<hr class="" align="center" size="3" width="100%"></span></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
7.5pt;
font-family:
Arial,
sans-serif;
color: gray;">The
information
contained in
this message
may be
confidential
and legally
protected
under
applicable
law. The
message is
intended
solely for the
addressee(s).
If you are not
the intended
recipient, you
are hereby
notified that
any use,
forwarding,
dissemination,
or
reproduction
of this
message is
strictly
prohibited and
may be
unlawful. If
you are not
the intended
recipient,
please contact
the sender by
return e-mail
and destroy
all copies of
the original
message.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; background-color: white;">_______________________________________________</pre>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; background-color: white;">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <span class="" style="color: purple;"><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" class="" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">phys@a-giese.de</a></span></pre>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; background-color: white;"><a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" class="" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;"><span class="" style="color: purple;">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</span></a>></pre>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; background-color: white;">Click here to unsubscribe</pre>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; background-color: white;"></a></pre>
</blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;"><br class="">
<br class="">
<span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;" align="center"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">
<hr class="" style="color:
rgb(144, 144,
144);" align="center" noshade="noshade" size="1" width="99%"></span></div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:
collapse;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td class="" style="padding:
0cm 11.25pt
0cm 6pt;">
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="" target="_blank" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;"><span class="" style="color:
purple;
border: 1pt
solid
windowtext;
padding: 0cm;
text-decoration:
none;"><Mail
Attachment.jpeg></span></a></span></div>
</div>
</td>
<td class="" style="padding:
0.75pt;">
<div style="margin-top:
0px;
margin-bottom:
0px;" class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(61,
77, 90);">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">
</span><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color:
purple;"><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
</blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;"><br class="">
<span class="" style="font-size:
11pt;
font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;" align="center"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">
<hr class="" style="color:
rgb(144, 144,
144);" align="center" noshade="noshade" size="1" width="99%"></span></div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:
collapse;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td class="" style="padding:
0cm 11.25pt
0cm 6pt;">
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="" target="_blank" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;"><span class="" style="color:
purple;
border: 1pt
solid
windowtext;
padding: 0cm;
text-decoration:
none;"><Mail
Attachment.jpeg></span></a></span></div>
</div>
</td>
<td class="" style="padding:
0.75pt;">
<div style="margin-top:
0px;
margin-bottom:
0px;" class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(61,
77, 90);">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">
</span><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color:
purple;"><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<br class="">
<span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;"> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;" align="center"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">
<hr class="" style="width:
960.05pt;" align="center" noshade="noshade" size="1" width="1280"></span></div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:
collapse;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td class="" style="padding:
0cm 11.25pt
0cm 6pt;">
<div class=""><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="" target="_blank" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;"><span class="" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
none;"><img moz-do-not-send="true" id="_x0000_i1029" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast
logo" class="" border="0"></span></a></div>
</td>
<td class="" style="padding:
0.75pt;">
<div style="margin-top:
0px;
margin-bottom:
0px;" class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(61,
77, 90);">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">
</span><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color:
purple;"><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;">
<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; background-color: white;">_______________________________________________</pre>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; background-color: white;">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <span class="" style="color: purple;"><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" class="" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a></span></pre>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; background-color: white;"><a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" class="" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;"><span class="" style="color: purple;">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</span></a>></pre>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; background-color: white;">Click here to unsubscribe</pre>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; background-color: white;"></a></pre>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
<span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
background-color:
white;">_______________________________________________</span><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;"><br class="">
<span class="" style="background-color:
white;">If you
no longer wish
to receive
communication
from the
Nature of
Light and
Particles
General
Discussion
List at<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a></span><br class="">
<span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
background-color:
white;"><a
href="</span><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a></span><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
background-color:
white;">"></span><br class="">
<span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
background-color:
white;">Click
here to
unsubscribe</span><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Helvetica,
sans-serif;"><br class="">
<span class="" style="background-color:
white;"></a></span></span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
<br class="">
<span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;" align="center"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">
<hr class="" style="color:
rgb(144, 144,
144);" align="center" noshade="noshade" size="1" width="99%"></span></div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:
collapse;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td class="" style="padding:
0cm 11.25pt
0cm 6pt;">
<div class=""><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="" target="_blank" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;"><span class="" style="text-decoration:
none;"><img moz-do-not-send="true" id="_x0000_i1031" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast
logo" class="" border="0"></span></a></div>
</td>
<td class="" style="padding:
0.75pt;">
<div style="margin-top:
0px;
margin-bottom:
0px;" class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(61,
77, 90);">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft.<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
<br class="">
<span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;"> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 10pt;
font-size:
12pt;
font-family:
Cambria;" align="center"><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">
<hr class="" style="color:
rgb(144, 144,
144);" align="center" noshade="noshade" size="1" width="99%"></span></div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:
collapse;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td class="" style="padding:
0cm 11.25pt
0cm 6pt;">
<div class=""><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="" target="_blank" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;"><span class="" style="text-decoration:
none;"><img moz-do-not-send="true" id="_x0000_i1033" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast
logo" class="" border="0"></span></a></div>
</td>
<td class="" style="padding:
0.75pt;">
<div style="margin-top:
0px;
margin-bottom:
0px;" class=""><span class="" style="font-family:
Calibri,
sans-serif;
color: rgb(61,
77, 90);">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft.<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div class=""><br class="">
<span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">_______________________________________________
If you no
longer wish to
receive
communication
from the
Nature of
Light and
Particles
General
Discussion
List at<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" class="" target="_blank" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;">Click
here to
unsubscribe<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></a></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">_______________________________________________
If you no
longer wish to
receive
communication
from the
Nature of
Light and
Particles
General
Discussion
List at<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" class="" target="_blank" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;">Click
here to
unsubscribe<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></a></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="" type="cite" style="margin-top:
5pt;
margin-bottom:
5pt;">
<div class="">
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">_______________________________________________<br class="">
If you no
longer wish to
receive
communication
from the
Nature of
Light and
Particles
General
Discussion
List at<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a><br class="">
<a href="<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br class="">
Click here to
unsubscribe<br class="">
</a></span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><span class="" style="font-size:
9pt;
font-family:
Verdana,
sans-serif;">_______________________________________________
If you no
longer wish to
receive
communication
from the
Nature of
Light and
Particles
General
Discussion
List at<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" class="" target="_blank" style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;">Click
here to
unsubscribe<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></a></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'Times New
Roman', serif;"><br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
</div>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';">_______________________________________________</pre>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" class="" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">phys@a-giese.de</a></pre>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';"><a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" class="" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>></pre>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';">Click here to unsubscribe</pre>
<pre class="" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';"></a></pre>
</blockquote>
<div class="" style="margin:
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times
New Roman', serif;"> </div>
</div>
<span id="cid:3AA3740C-2688-45E3-9EAF-87D59CDC7878@hsd1.ca.comcast.net." class=""><electron.pdf></span><span class="" style="font-family:
Helvetica; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans:
auto; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255); float: none;
display: inline !important;">_______________________________________________</span><br class="" style="font-family:
Helvetica; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans:
auto; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);">
<span class="" style="font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans:
auto; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255); float: none;
display: inline !important;">If
you no longer wish to receive
communication from the Nature
of Light and Particles General
Discussion List at<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br class="" style="font-family:
Helvetica; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans:
auto; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);">
<span class="" style="font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans:
auto; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255); float: none;
display: inline !important;"><a
href="</span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a><span class="" style="font-family:
Helvetica; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans:
auto; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255); float: none;
display: inline !important;">"></span><br class="" style="font-family:
Helvetica; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans:
auto; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);">
<span class="" style="font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans:
auto; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255); float: none;
display: inline !important;">Click
here to unsubscribe</span><br class="" style="font-family:
Helvetica; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans:
auto; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);">
<span class="" style="font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans:
auto; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255); float: none;
display: inline !important;"></a></span><br class="" style="font-family:
Helvetica; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans:
auto; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows:
auto; word-spacing: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
<br class="">
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<br class="">
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
</div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></div></body></html>