<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hello All,<br>
<br>
in the last contributions there was the question raised how
fundamental the notions of <u>time</u> and <u>space</u> are. Here
some thoughts about it from my side.<br>
<br>
Looking to history, I think we can see that time and space are <u>concepts
of the human brain</u> rather than fundamental physical facts.
When once people started to think about their surrounding nature and
to act consciously, they experienced the obvious sequence of day and
night which they could use to organise their life and to
communicate. And when they went for hunting or for finding food in
nature, the distance they have to pass was another topic. So, it was
quite natural that time and space (as distance) where the
fundamental units in their mind.<br>
<br>
When we these days look at time (as we encounter it in physics), our
practise has not changed very much. When we measure time, we in fact
count periodic events. When we compare time, we compare those
counts. I think that anything beyond this is more of a philosophical
nature. <br>
<br>
Not that simple but similar about space. When we measure space then
we use certain objects as reference, "rulers", and we build a
sequence from those objects to name a distance, and so space. What
determines the length of rulers? That are the fields which bind the
atoms / molecules in a ruler at a certain distance. So the distance
in space is something defined by the gradient of a field, it is a
field property. <br>
<br>
From this we could say that the physical equivalent to 'time and
space' are 'periodic events and the gradient of fields'. I think
that these are the fundamental facts, and when we talk about the
basic units in physics (particularly with respect to relativity), we
should talk about periods and fields rather than about time and
space.<br>
<br>
Well, we may refer to a basic understanding of time and space
insofar as: We can decide in the case of two events, which one was
earlier, which later. And there must be something like space so that
we can move. But as soon as we look for a quantitative theory, we
should refer to oscillations and to fields.<br>
<br>
Also frequently mentioned in the discussion was the notion of <i>spacetime</i>.
Well known since Einstein. Here we can ask the question: Why did
Einstein come to <i>spacetime</i>? Yes, it is from relativity. Now,
if we look into the history of relativity, Einstein's reason for
that was quite simple and clear. Einstein (by certain reasons to be
discussed at a different occasion) did not want to have a fixed
system of reference (ether) in his theory. So, for Special
Relativity, he had to solve the equation c + v = c for any v ≠<o:p></o:p>
0. With Euclidean geometry this is impossible, so he had to invent
something new. That was <i>spacetime</i>, and that did the job. But
necessary? If we follow Hendrik Lorentz, we can continue with the
conventional summation: c + v = c + v , but take into account that
our measurement tools for time and distance change during our own
motion, with the result that the <i>measurement </i>result, not
the <i>physical</i> result, is c rather than c + v. If we build SR
following this, it is much simpler than the approach of Einstein but
describes physics equally correctly. <br>
<br>
This effect is more dramatic in the case of General Relativity. If
we accept here that we in fact need a reference frame to describe
acceleration, then also the "curved" 4-dimensional spacetime<i> </i>becomes
obsolete and relativity extremely simple (compared to what we have).<br>
<br>
For those of you who want more details I refer to my web site
"Relativity without Einstein" or <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ag-physics.org">www.ag-physics.org</a> . <br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 10.10.2015 um 12:24 schrieb Mark,
Martin van der:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:9FE856EB-781F-4221-8E45-BD8908BC22A8@philips.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div>John W,</div>
<div>Thank you for that nice and long email. Is it, or is it not
amazing that I agree completely, I am wondering...<br>
Very best,</div>
<div>Martin<br>
<br>
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone</div>
<div><br>
Op 10 okt. 2015 om 01:39 heeft John Williamson <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a></a>>
het volgende geschreven:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"MS ??";
mso-font-charset:78;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS ??";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
mso-themecolor:hyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
mso-themecolor:followedhyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS ??";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:36.0pt;
mso-footer-margin:36.0pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Hello
Al,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">I
think it is fundamentally correct that, eventually,
everything should be brought back to such things as
space and time, if only for the fact that the word we
construct in our heads (in the second world of Popper)
is of this form.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">I
agree as well that Field is a construct – and a poorly
understood one at that – of things that have a more
fundamental underlying nature. I think you are quite
wrong, however, to dismiss energy and momentum as being
always derivative of x(t) and to state that all
measurement is primarily of x(t).<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>There are certainly a class of experiments which
measure position to some reasonable accuracy for
practical purposes, and from which energy and momentum
may be derived. It is certainly very interesting,
philosophically, to take spatial position as a function
of time as the primary starting point and to see how far
that gets you. I would be delighted to spend a week (or
more!) allowing only that premise and getting deeply
into all the ramifications. I do not, presently, think
that goes nearly far enough in describing all of
reality.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">There
are, however, other measurements where it is energy
and/or momentum that are measured more precisely (in the
sense of the uncertainty principle) and it is precisely
position and time that are uncertain. It happens that it
is this class of experiment (at CERN or in what is now
called nanoelectronics) in which I have been involved in
my professional career. You need not feel this weds me
to this standpoint, however, I am very happy
(delighted!) to look at things from many different
perspectives. It remains, however, simply not correct to
state that all experiment boils down to measurements of
x(t) and that everything we know is derived from this.
Many experiments are ignorant of position, not only
because it was not measured (though this may often be
the case), nor even because of the diktat of the
uncertainty relation, but simply because when you look
at “particles” in the nano regime (as I have done
personally in many experiments) they are simply fuzzy at
a scale much larger than your resolution. They look
really much more like what one would expect from quantum
mechanics (in its wave-mechanics guise). </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Now
one may ascribe this, at a deeper level, to the
zitterbewegung at some frequency high compared with the
temporal resolution of the experiment(why not indeed!).<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>And think that one may “really” be able to get
x(t) anyway. Well the “why not” comes from the
derivation of the zitterbewegung itself (see Dirac’s
textbook, where he performs the direct integration). It
is indeed straightforwards to get this, but if you look
at how it comes in there it comes in as a mass. That is
mass is described as a high frequency vibration. That
vibration is related to the frequency from this
mass-as-energy (in fact it is twice this – famously).
What this means is that, firstly, inverse time is taken
in that context as more fundamental than time (See, e.g.
Jan Hilgevoord on the uncertainty principle). Also, this
inverse time is derived from that thing we call energy
(rest energy as mass here). One sees that one is already
two steps away here from a consideration of time as
fundamental. Energy gives inverse time. The proper
mechanism for inversion must then be considered in
describing “time” from this.<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>Also, experiment itself does not support this
(simple) position. If the momentum were indeed
oscillating at lightspeed, as the Dirac Solution
suggests, sticking a Duffield bargepole in there should
result in it being walloped by the full electron mass at
lightspeed from time to time. Never happens! All this
momentum is perfectly masked. One actually observes the
electron as being spread perfectly smoothly, according
to the wave-function envelope of non-relativistic
quantum mechanics. Intriguing isn’t it?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">In
my view a proper theory needs to address the fundaments
of both space and time AND energy and momentum (as well
as a few other things besides). Also, as an aside, in my
view, inverse time IS more fundamental then time – but a
proper discussion of that is not amenable to a few
emails. So - x(1/t) then rather than x(t). Even then –
that would only be the start of the discussion of what
the true fundamentals are…
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Coming
to the muon decay experiments and time dilation. Yes I
can help – a little at least. The cosmic ray muons were
suggestive of relativistically extended muon lifetimes.
I looked at muons, with tens of metres between the beam
momentum station and the main detector but not with a
view to measuring muon decay. The muon lifetime is a
couple of microseconds – but that is nearly a kilometre
at lightspeed. Better have been muon storage ring
experiments. Muons do live longer – much longer –
perfectly consistently with relativity (Bailey at al
1977).
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">What
I HAVE looked at are the<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>(much shorter lived) charged particles such as
pions. These have a lifetime of a 26 nanoseconds or so –
that’s about 26 feet at lightspeed – giving a
probability of free flight decay to muons. Again – one
hundred percent consistent with relativity and the
slowing of clocks. There is a HUGE literature on this. <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>What one observes is that the straighter paths
in bubble chambers go a lot further on average) than the
very slightly curved ones. Perfectly consistently with
the time dilation in relativity.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Good
start is (the references from)
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles</a>.
This does not mean, of course, that this is the only way
to explain this – but it is certainly a well-established
experimental measurement that any proper theory must be
consistent with. One cannot brush it away as never
having been measured.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Now
coming to fields and test particles. You keep saying
that fields are defined with respect to (infinitesimally
charged) test particles. No they are not. This is just a
textbook analogy. As the Irishman (standing on the dry
ground by the bog) said to the upper-class twit in the
slowly sinking SUV, If you want to get to (your
destination) you do not want to start from here.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Fields
are what they are –like it or not – understand it or
not. They exist whether or not one measures them, either
with a real or an imaginary test instrument. I think
there is a BIG problem in the definition and
understanding of fields, but that this is just not it.
The putative and non-existent “test” particle is just
what? A “source” of field. One is trying to define field
by imagining an infinitesimal mass with field coming out
of it. Get real! This is not just a circular argument –
it is a random wavy line with ill-defined ends (or only
one end!) argument. It does not get to the point. More
precisely it attempts to define- absurdly – the point
origin of a non-existent thing. It is as bad as taking a
Duffield bargepole (carefully neutral except for the
“test charge” stuck on its end) – sticking this into an
exploding whirlpool, detecting the force and torque on
the other end and ascribing the radial to one mysterious
vector field and the transverse to another.
<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>I remember
meeting the test charge analogy for the first time, at
secondary school, and, even then, thinking “pardon?” (in
between playing Stuart Smith at chess at the back of the
class – wonder what happened to him?).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">A
“test particle” is just a thought construct. <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Not only is there no
test particle, there is no instrument to measure the
supposed force that the field would exert on such a
mythical object. You are absolutely right that this idea
is far too floppy and ill-defined to be considered
fundamental if that is what you are trying to say. For
me it is not, has never been and will never be the way I
think about fields. I was nerdy enough to look at fields
in terms of exploding capacitors before meeting them at
school – and lucky enough to have a dad (ref: Grahame
Williamson: private communication) who could explain
something of the “why” (and why not!) fairly early on.
Exploding capacitors need no test particle! Fields are,
in my present view, more things that are OF space and
time (and energy) rather than IN space and time. I
really ought to try to write a paper about this (oh – I
have – what was the reference again – SPIE 2015, FFP14,
MENDEL12, CYBCOM08…).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">There
is no such thing as a test particle except as concept in
(elementary) books. I think the idea that there may
exist a thing – the vector electric field Exyz (x,y,z,t)
defined microscopically at each point in space and time
and with a distinct direction xyz misses the point of
their proper origin and nature so completely that it is
(pretty much) completely absurd. Such a notion is both
far too complex (seven components) and far too simple
(minded). The fact that the notion (or gross
over-simplifications of it) is pretty much universal in
starting textbooks notwithstanding. <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Really,
a proper definition of the x component of Electric
field, both in the proper maths and in the understanding
of the underlying physics this represents, must come
from understanding the physical meaning of the division
of the time component of the 4-vector-potential wave by
a little bit of space in the x direction. Two base
components for a stationary charge (four if one includes
the division of space by time as separate – only
non-zero in conventional electromagnetism for a moving
charge though), not seven! The result, really, a
directed areal component, not a mere vector!<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Understanding this
is hard. Very hard. Conceptually, mind-blowingly hard.
Famously, Feynmann himself did not get it. Not even a
bit! That other clever people did not get it does not
mean it is not worth thinking about! It begs (at
least-depending how you count them) two questions
immediately of course. Firstly, what is a 4-vector
potential (or at least- what is charge?). Secondly: what
are space and time? That is getting down to
fundamentals. That is what we need to do – not mystify
ourselves and block our own thought processes by
starting from somewhere silly. In this you are
absolutely, completely, one hundred percent (minus
delta!) correct! Good point!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Regards,
John.</span></p>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF172445"><font
size="2" color="#000000" face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b>
General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 A. F. Kracklauer [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 07, 2015 8:09 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] nature of light
particles & theories<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div>Hi John:<br>
<br>
Business before pleasure: regarding a visit here, that
is of course possible, although I don't now know when we
might be spending time in Karlsruhe where our son lives
with family. And, Weimar is inconveniently far from
Brussels, etc. (ca. 5-6 hours on the Autobahn or train
(waiting time included) etc. to be undertaken by busy
folks with more on their plate than socializing.
<br>
<br>
Professionally useful opportunities in this area that
I'm aware of include Klaus Gürlebeck here in
Weimar---deep into the math extending Clifford Algebras,
etc. and the Uni in Jena. Unfortunately, after the
incorporation of that uni into the West German system,
they have become hyper conscious of their vulnerability
to association with "quacks" who question orthodoxy,
etc. I.e., my contacts there a null in spite of the
convenience (ca. 20 KM). Moreover, I'm unaware that any
high energy work goes on there, mostly optics and
related areas (Zeitz' optics for Soviet spy satellites
were made in Jena 30 years ago). However, Leipzig is
not far, if you have any interest in what might be
there.
<br>
<br>
In response to points made below: that fields are
defined in terms of their effect on nonexistent
entities, to my mind, doubles the reason to regard them
as fictitious.
<br>
<br>
Energy and momentum cannot be directly measured. In
stead x(t) (in one form or another) is measured and E
and m calculated therefrom. Write-ups notwithstanding,
sometimes the calculation is done by the measuring
device manufacturer and the units on the dial are in
terms of E or whatever, but when considered seriously,
it always reduces to x(t).<br>
<br>
"Photons" are (parts of) quantized fields. Again, this
doubles the troubles of using them for the primative
elements of a theory. Might still be workable, but at a
minimum new words and ideas are needed to avoid a castle
in the sky for which dimensional still unfolds without
inconsistency. Your 98 paper was a fun and clear read,
but still I couldn't jump on that band wagon for the
reasons I mentioned.<br>
<br>
Regarding other possible collaboration, about all I can
imagine that I could contribute to your line of work
might be some philosophical stuff in introductions.
There is one issue, however, where you might be in
position to really help me with a project I'm preparing
for. It is this: all the text book presentations of the
muon decay proof of time dilation seem to consider that
all the pi's to muons are generated at high altitude.
However, ray cosmic rays, H+, He+ and higher reach the
surface of the earth too. Thus, some survive into lower
altitudes where they also would initiate the
pi->muon->electron cascade exploited in the
experiments. That is, there is good reason to expect
evidence of muons all the way to the ground utterly
without time dilation. I'm ginning up to do a
calculation based on reasonable assumptions about the
nuclear chemistry in the atmosphere (where I would
profit from knowledgeable friends) BTW, I regard both
Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction and time dilation as
perspective effects: no actual modification of
extensions or intervals actually occurs, rather the
projection onto an observers "eyes" is modified just as
in classical optics.
<br>
<br>
So, in the mean time, best regards, Al<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 30.09.2015 06:48, John
Williamson wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math"}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline}
span.EmailStyle18
{font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D}
.MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt}
@page WordSection1
{margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt}
-->
</style>
<div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma;
color:#000000; font-size:10pt">
<style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria}
.MsoChpDefault
{font-family:Cambria}
.MsoPapDefault
{margin-bottom:10.0pt}
@page WordSection1
{margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt}
-->
BODY {direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;}</style>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="">Hello Al,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style=""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="">Thanks for
your well-considered reply.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style=""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="">This picks
up on an unfinished conversation in San Diego,
in the early hours in the bar at Hotel Solamar,
between you and me and a few others on the
ontological basis of reality. You were saying
some very interesting things, but we had
distraction from others, ran out of time and we
were both, by then, a little the worse for wear.
My feeling is that you went pretty deep – but
not yet quite deep enough. You and me both!
Perhaps we can help one another.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style=""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="">I take your
point about the hypothetical “charged test
particle” beloved of text books. Unfortunately,
no such particle exists with which to probe
stuff. The lightest stable particle we have is
the electron, the smallest the proton. Muons are
useful in that they are far smaller than the
electron, long lived enough to be useful and far
simpler than the proton. It was fun playing with
200 GeV muons in my youth – but that does not
give all the answers either as one remains a
monkey – essentially banging the rocks together
and going OOOH! at whatever comes out.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style=""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="">I like your
argument about the ontological basis being of
(as I understood it late that night<span
style="">
</span>– though forgive me if this is far too
simple) trajectories in space through time and I
think one can, indeed, get a long way thinking
from this basis. Unfortunately, in experiment,
it is usually energy and momentum that one
measures directly and not (the conjugate
variables) space and time. One knows the energy
(and momentum) of a photon fairly precisely, but
have correspondingly far less information about
its time (and position). Yo – that photon hit me
– it was blue and it came from that direction.
Likewise, in a high energy scattering
experiment, one gets the energy and momentum of
all the particles pretty precisely, that the
interaction was point-like down to 10-18m, but
one (even with the best photographic emulsions)
only gets the position to within a micron or so.
This is 36 orders of magnitude of uncertainty in
a volume!. Not good for fixing a trajectory!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style=""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="">Coming back
to theory. I could not agree more with - “why
fix the roof if the foundation is crumbling?”.
This is exactly the point. Indeed, the
discussion in our 1997 paper does not go nearly
far enough. This work is, however, nearly two
decades ago. We have moved on a long way since
then. I am still proud of it, but it is
certainly not the whole story.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style=""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="">In that work
the basis was not fields as you suggest,
however, but rather, starting from our best view
then of the “photon”, the “what if” of
considering the electron as a (self) localised
photon. <span style=""> </span>Fields are far
more complex than space and time themselves and
famously hard to understand. No wonder: who
really understands even just space and time?
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style=""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="">The 1997
paper even if “correct” in principle within its
starting framework, immediately begs the
question of “what is a photon?. A question
Chandra, you and all of you have been discussing
for a decade or more in this series. Of course
it works: electron-positron pairs do annihilate
experimentally into photons and the numbers must
match up even if the theories are incapable of
describing the continuous transformation
properties of one into the other. The challenge
is to a) realise that light and matter are
fundamentally the same thing and b)<span
style="">
</span>get to an over-arching theory describing
both properly.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style=""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style=""><span
style=""> </span>Even if we do get the photon,
for example, in terms of the fields, this will
still leave the question of “what are the
fields?”, as you so correctly point out. It is,
perhaps, the reason that our earlier paper has
“only” 39 citations (on Google scholar), as
opposed to more than thousands in my most cited
papers in the other two fields in which I have
worked professionally. Too many loose ends. It
just does not go far enough into the basis. I
think that, fundamentally, as you, Chip and Viv
have argued (amongst others – myself and Martin
included) it will need to be understood in terms
of (at least projections onto) the four
dimensions of space and time. The question then
comes down to us, creatures imbedded in that
space and time, to try to understand the
framework in which we exist. This is well-known
to be problematical philosophically
(Witgensteion, Godel etc..) but what can you do?
We are stuck where we are and must make the best
of it! </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style=""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="">My<a
moz-do-not-send="true" name="_GoBack"></a>
SPIE papers try to address this by proposing (as
is conventional) that the fields are derivatives
of some aspect of space with respect to time
(and vice versa). This is at a level more
fundamental then even space and time by
themselves: it leaves the question of what the
derivatives in the mathematics represent in
reality. These are, as expressed in the
mathematics, a division of a little bit of a
quantity in space by a little bit of a quantity
of time (or vice-versa). Note carefully the “in”
and the “of” in the last sentence. For example
the electric field E = dA/dt, where A is the
vector potential. So then: what is the vector
potential?<span style="">
</span>Now I have (not very good) papers on the
measurement of the physical effect of the vector
potential (Loosdrecht first author if you want
to look them up – but there are better papers
out there) but what is the vector potential,
really, physically? For Maxwell, it was the same
physical thing as the (continuous) current, in
the same way that the Electric field and
Electric displacement are representations of the
same thing in free space (see his textbook,
whose original version predates the discovery of
the electron). A better representation these
days would be the 4-vector potential and the
4-current density (charge and 3-current
density). Even if these are equated and
understood as continuous underlying quantities
the problem is then: why is charge (or A0)
quantised in physical “particles” such as the
electron. For me, the answer to this is sketched
in the two papers to SPIE to be read together
with Martin and my 1997 paper. Briefly: light is
quantised because otherwise it does not
propagate. Charge is then quantised because it
is then (self) localised circulating light plus
mass – and one can then (with proper modelling)
calculate the charge. I’m not going to attempt
to repeat these arguments here as they are far
better explained in those three papers.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style=""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="">This is all
very well but there remain (at least) two
problems. Firstly, what does it mean physically
to divide one part of a four-vector by another
part of the same four-vector (as in the
mathematical definition of “field”). Secondly,
what is “division” in this context anyway? Every
(human) monkey thinks they know what “division”
is – but most monkeys do not go beyond a proper
understanding of the division of mere numbers.
This is what I would call “arithmetic”. One
needs to understand the electr-on the prot-on
and the divisi-on. All are hard!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style=""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="">Now Martin
and wrote a paper initially entitled “On
division and the algebra of reality” about a
decade ago. We made two or three attempts to get
it published – but it was rejected on such
grounds as “there is no conceivable application
in physics”. By the time this was over we had
moved on to other things, though the paper has a
few citations (don’t know how – it is not out
there!). This may be a topic, if we do not get
it anywhere else, for SPIE in two years time.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style=""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="">Coming back
to following science. I have, like you for me,
not delved as deeply into your papers as they
should merit. The papers of yours I have read,
however, I have thoroughly enjoyed. I think it
would be good to continue this conversation and
see where it gets us. For that we need some
proper time. In the second half of November and
the first two thirds of December I can travel. I
would like to spend some of this visiting Martin
for one of our sessions, and Tony Booth (who is
based in Brussels). During this it would be good
to arrange talks in the vicinity at some of the
Dutch, Belgian and German Universities. Any
chance I can spend a few days with you, or in
the vicinity?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style=""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="">Gotta go –
get ready to get to work …</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style=""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="">Cheers for
now,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style=""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="">John W.</span></p>
<div style="font-family:Times New Roman;
color:#000000; font-size:16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRpF657324" style="direction:ltr"><font
size="2" color="#000000" face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b>
General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_blank">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
on behalf of John Williamson [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a></a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 30, 2015
2:02 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] nature of light
particles & theories<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma;
color:#000000; font-size:10pt">Haha .. good
analogy John. I am having a very good laugh
here! May I use this one?<br>
<br>
Regards, John.<br>
<div style="font-family:Times New Roman;
color:#000000; font-size:16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRpF509836" style="direction:ltr"><font
size="2" color="#000000" face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b>
General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_blank">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
on behalf of John Duffield [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com">johnduffield@btconnect.com</a></a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, September 29, 2015
7:52 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] nature of
light particles & theories<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D">Al:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D">I recommend you read
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/68152826/On-Vortex-Particles-Fiasco-Press-Journal-of-Swarm-Scholarship#scribd"
target="_blank">
On Vortex Particles</a> by David
St John. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D">IMHO those electron
size experiments are something like
hanging out of a helicopter, probing
a whirlpool with a bargepole, and
then saying
<i>I can’t feel the billiard ball,
it must be really small. </i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D">Regards</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D">John D</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;
border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;
padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> General [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>]<b>On
Behalf Of </b><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> 29 September 2015
17:51<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_blank">
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [General] nature
of light particles &
theories</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Hi
John:</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Only
my "non expertise" in HEP
mathches your espertise. In
my professional progression I
have been captured by the
"building block" principle:
why fix the roof if the
foundation is crumbling? This
has constrained me to focusing
on QM and SR. Anyway, I'm
frequently surprised by how
far what I have learned there
takes me even in HEP (now and
then).</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">It
turns out that someone posted
the 97 paper Mark cited; too
convenient to pass up, I took
a look. Turns out I
recognized it, I had read at
it perhaps 10 years ago.
Then, as again now, I found
the idea of building the
electron out of fields (a
beloved idea for Einstein)
flawed (in my view) the way
certain concepts current in QM
are. In short: fields are
defined in terms of their
inferred effect on
infinitesimal "test charges."
Without them, and the source
charges, the current and
charge in Maxwell's eqs. are
zero and so then the fields
too. Thus, one is
straightaway in a circular ...
This is at least a serious
lexicographical
problem---minimally we need a
new word, "E&B-fields"
wont do. </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Doesn't
the term a "charged" photon
(itself, un- or precharged, an
inconsistently defined
entity!) gets us even deeper
into a linguistic black hole?
Spin too, is another troubled
notion; there is absolutely no
evidence that any entity is
(or has) spinning outside of a
magnetic field. Point charges
can't spin but they can
gyrate; so if they do, as they
must (per classical E&M),
in a B/H field ... </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">So
why does it (your 97 electron
model) work so well? I don't
know, and can't take the time
to figure it out without
cutting into my current
projects, but one has to
recognize the possiblity that
it is the inevitable
consequence of a fortuotous
choice of inputs, then, by the
sort of logic exploited by
dimensional analysis, every
thing else just follows.
Another factor perhaps in
play here is a sort of dualism
between particless and fields,
much like that between lines
and planes in projective
geometry. If sheaths of
particle trajecotiries are
dual to particle motion, then
fields (i.e., eviserated orbit
patterns) capture the motion
of the true ontological
primative elements: particles.
This sort of concept at least
breaks out of the "circle". </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Regarding
scattering, the issue
motivating my injection to
begin with; clearly a static
point charge will look like a
point charge. But, what bugs
me, is that if the point
target is moving
uncontrollably and unknowably,
but confined (basically) to a
certain region,is it not
possible, enevitable actually,
that the scattering
(statistically over many
repeats) will evidence
something of the "internal
structure" of the
uncontrolable motion, thus,
for example, preventing the
"resolution" of impuned
internal structure. This
would seem to me to lead to
much confusion or mushy talk.
Not so? Some of the
liguistic dressing to various
fundamental theories in
physics these days, seems to
me to actually be compatible
with the imagery I'm
suggesting, but never quite
gat around to saying it
clearly and
explicitly---another large
part of my motivation for
responding to Mark's shot at
Albrecht's doublets.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Zitter
forces: One fact,
experimentally established as
well as anything in physics,
is that a charge is, as
described by Gauss's Law, in
interaction with every other
charge in the universe, and,
insofar as Gauss's Law has no
"pause button," has been so
since the big bang (modulao
ntis) and will remain so until
the big crunch. While many
exterior charges are far away
and reduced by 1/r^2, etc.
they add up and there are
quite a number of them! Thus,
no electron, per John Dunn, is
an island. In consequence, it
zitters! Like the rest of us.
Further, how would one "see"
this scale of motion as such
in a scattering experiment?
Maybe it is beinng seen, it's
the foggy structure preventing
resolution of the imagined
internals.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Maybe
we are well advised not to
write off Albrecht's duals,
even if he himself has little
to say regarding their origin.
Obviously, breaking up a
single charge via
scattering-type experiments
cannot eject a virtual
particle. It wouldn't
acutally exist, it would be a
stand-in for the effect of
polarization of the remaing
universe, moreover, as it all
zitters to and fro. So far,
I see no objection here
expcept that this notion is
not kosher sociologically!
Fatal in career terms, but
not logically.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Enough
for the moment, Best regards,
Al</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
</span></p>
<div name="quote"
style="margin-left:7.5pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Gesendet:</span></strong><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> Dienstag,
29. September 2015 um
10:52 Uhr<br>
<strong><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Von:</span></strong> "John
Williamson" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a></a>><br>
<strong><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">An:</span></strong> "<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a></a>"
<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a></a>>,
"Nature of Light and
Particles - General
Discussion" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>>,
"Richard Gauthier" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a></a>><br>
<strong><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Cc:</span></strong> "Joakim
Pettersson" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:joakimbits@gmail.com"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:joakimbits@gmail.com">joakimbits@gmail.com</a></a>>,
"Ariane Mandray" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr">ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr</a></a>>,
"Anthony Booth" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:abooth@ieee.org"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:abooth@ieee.org">abooth@ieee.org</a></a>><br>
<strong><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Betreff:</span></strong> Re:
[General] research papers</span></p>
</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Dear everyone especially Al,
Albrecht and Richard,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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 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”. 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>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Now I hope you will not take
this badly … it is
fun to think about
this but here goes</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Here is what you said
(making you blue):</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">The Sun scatters as a point
only those projectiles
that don't get close.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">True,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> 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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> 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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Because this is no good if
one does not have the
forces or the
mechanism for making
it “zitter”.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">That structure is not
resolved does NOT mean
that the electron is
point. 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>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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. Now Viv and
Chip must speak for
themselves, but I’m
pretty sure Martin
would (largely –
though not completely)
agree me here. I have
said this many times
to you – though
perhaps not
specifically
enough. 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>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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) and
yet appear small. I
said this in my talk,
but I know how hard it
is to take everything
in.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Regards, John W.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader" target="_blank"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
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" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>
<a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a></span><br>
<span><a href="<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"></span><br>
<span>Click here to unsubscribe</span><br>
<span></a></span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<hr>
<font size="1" color="Gray" face="Arial">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.<br>
</font>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
<tr>
<td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">
<img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" />
</a>
</td>
<td>
<p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
<br><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>