<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hi Al,<br>
<br>
about time dilation.<br>
<br>
The problem is that time dilation looks inconsistent at the first
glance. But it is not. I shall try to explain. It has to do with
clock synchronization. (I try to do it without graphics, which would
be easier, but a problem in an email.)<br>
<br>
Assume that there are two inertial systems, I call them A and B.
Both move in relation to each other at some speed v. Now assume that
there are clocks distributed equally over both systems. And of
course in both systems the clocks are synchronized. Now there comes
a relativistic effect. If the observer in A looks to the clocks in
B, he finds them desynchronized. The clocks which are in front with
respect to the direction of motion are retarded, the ones in the
rear advanced. Similar in the other system. If an observer in B
looks to the clocks in A, he finds them also desynchronized in the
way that the clocks in the front are retarded and the clocks in the
rear advanced. Shall I explain why this happens? If you want, I can
do it. But next time to keep it short here.<br>
<br>
Now, what is dilation in this case?<br>
<br>
If the observer in A takes one of the clocks in B and compares it to
those clocks in his own system, which is just opposite in sequence,
then the clock in B looks slowed down. But if he takes one clock in
his own system, A, and compares it to the clocks in B which are
opposite in sequence, the clocks in B look accelerated. <br>
<br>
Now it looks in a similar way for the observer in B. If the observer
in B does the equivalent to the observer in A just described, he
will make just the same experience. No contradiction!<br>
<br>
In the case of the muons: The muon which will decay is in the
position of a clock in the muon-system, and this clock is slowed
down as seen from the observer at rest as described above, and this
is no violation of symmetry between the systems. If an observer, who
moves with the muon, looks to the clocks of the system at rest, he
will find those clocks accelerated. No contradiction. Correct?<br>
<br>
Albrecht <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 11.10.2015 um 18:30 schrieb
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-e2ae7eb9-f56e-439d-86e1-fb6e9a2bbfea-1444581000394@3capp-webde-bs35"
type="cite">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi John:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If you have apportioned some of the "half understanding"
to the orthodox clique, then we are "on the same page."</div>
<div>
<div> </div>
<div>If not, perhaps you owe us an explantion: Per standard
SR, the muon's clock is seen as running slow by
experimenter/observers, but not his. Also, per standard
SR, the muon sees the experimenter's clock as running
slow, but again not his own. Good trick! Usually called
a contradiction!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Now, if one says that this is a perspective effect
affecting virual images only, then there is no
contradictions in language, physics or intuition. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>This explantion doesn't seem to work for muon decay,
however, which appears to be an internal matter for the
muon only. If, however, there are more, unaccounted
heretofore, muons generated along the path to the earth,
once again, all's clear! Rough estimations seem to
confirm this, but my familiarity with the minutia of these
experiements is limited. Without precise description of
the beam characteristics, and the gemoetry of the
observation instruments, a similar explantion for the CERN
results is out of reach. But, also not yet dismissable
out-of-hand. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>BTW, Clocks-around-the-world has been criticsed by A.
G. Kelly (along with their inventor, Louis Essen) in that
the stability of atomic clocks then (and now - delta) was
insufficient for the measurments. Others pointed out that
the authors cheery-picked the resulting data, throwing out
what conflicted with expectations, etc. GPS makes
adjustments with up to 30 terms, some larger than the SR
effects. In the end, this proves that engineers will do
what works!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>BTextraW: sometimes GIGO == gold in, gold out!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>ciao, Al</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px; padding:
10px 0 10px 10px; border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Sonntag,
11. Oktober 2015 um 12:32 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "John Williamson"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk"><John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk></a><br>
<b>An:</b> "Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> "Joakim Pettersson"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:joakimbits@gmail.com"><joakimbits@gmail.com></a>, "Nick Bailey"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nick@bailey-family.org.uk"><nick@bailey-family.org.uk></a>, "Anthony Booth"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:abooth@ieee.org"><abooth@ieee.org></a>, "Ariane Mandray"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr"><ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] nature of light particles
& theories</div>
<div name="quoted-content"><!--P {
margin-top: 0;
margin-bottom: 0;
}
-->
<div>
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
rgb(0,0,0);font-size: 10.0pt;">Hello everyone ..
forgot the Selleri extract (page ten from the 180
pages or so of his "Weak Relativity")<br>
<br>
It shows how useful experiment is in making people
think more precisely. The fact that non-perturbative
theories (QCD, Strings, branes and so on) are immune
to experimental disproof (essential because they do
not predict anything anyway!) makes such things all
the more insidious.<br>
<br>
... here it is in red, with discussion afterwards...<br>
<div class="page" title="Page 10">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<p><font color="FF0000"><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:
TimesNewRomanPSMT;">Herbert Dingle,
professor of History and Philosophy of
Science in London, in the fifties and
early sixties fought a battle against
some features of the relativity theory,
in particular against the asymmetrical
ageing present in the clock paradox
argument. He believed that the slowing
down of moving clocks was pure fantasy.
This idea has of course been demolished
by direct experimental evidence,
collected after his time. Nevertheless,
his work has left posterity a rare
jewel: the syllogism bearing his name.
Given that syllogism is a technical
model of perfect deduction, its
consequences are absolutely necessary
for any person accepting rational
thinking in science. Dingle’s syllogism
is the following [2-6]: </span></font></p>
<p><font color="FF0000"><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:
TimesNewRomanPSMT;">1. (Main premise)
According to the postulate of
relativity, if two bodies (for example
two identical clocks) separate and
reunite, there is no observable
phenomenon that will show in an absolute
sense that one rather than the other has
moved.<br>
2. (Minor premise) If upon reunion, one
clock were retarded by a quantity
depending on its relative motion, and
the other not, that phenomenon would
show that the first clock had moved (in
an observer independent “absolute”
sense) and not the second. </span></font></p>
<p><font color="FF0000"><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:
TimesNewRomanPSMT;">3. (Conclusion)
Hence, if the postulate of relativity is
true, the clocks must be retarded
equally or not at all: in either case,
their readings will concord upon reunion
if they agreed at separation. If a
difference between the two readings were
to show up, the postulate of relativity
cannot be true. </span></font></p>
<p><font color="FF0000"><span
style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:
TimesNewRomanPSMT;">Today it can be said
that the asymmetrical behaviour of the
two clocks is empirically certain (muons
in cosmic rays, experiment with the CERN
muon storage ring, experiments with
linear beams of unstable particles,
Hafele and Keating experiment).
Therefore, as a consequence of point 3.
above, the postulate of relativity must
somehow be negated. Actually, in recent
times there are some authors who think
that “theory of relativity” is just a
name, not to be taken too literally. The
total relativism which the theory could
seem to embody is now perceived to be
only an illusion. One can conclude that
not all is relative in relativity,
because this theory contains also some
features that are observer independent,
then features which are absolute! As
Dingle wrote: “It should be obvious that
if there is an absolute effect which is
a function of velocity, then the
velocity must be absolute. No
manipulation of formulae or devising of
ingenious experiments can alter that
simple fact.” [2-7] </span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
Sounds good doesn't it. Problem is, as usual, in the
starting premise. It is kind of true - but shows
weak thinking. Conclusion then drawn from this sound
logical - but reveal more about the authors
understanding of the theory than they provide a test
of it.<br>
<br>
What is said is so in the particular case envisaged,
but not in any more general cases. <br>
<br>
Consider three clocks .. one stay at home, one clock
off to the left (the left clock) the other to the
right (the right clock). Imagine mister left and
miss right have strict instructions of how much and
when (on their own clocks) to accelerate and
decelerate. Same instructions for both. Later both
clocks are brought back to the third clock (the home
clock). Indeed if one takes the left clock left then
reverses it to go right, then brings it home and
stops it it will show a time shorter than the home
clock. Similarly if one takes the right clock right
then reverses it to go left and brings it home it
will also show a time shorter than the home clock.
Checking the right clock to the left clock will
reveal, indeed, that they still agree, precisely,
with one another, provided only the acceleration
history was symmetrical for both. The difference
with the home clock - is that the acceleration has
put both moving clocks into successively different
inertial frames (this is the same problems that some
commentators have with their (lack of understanding
of) the Sagnac effect). Everything following from
the initial lack of understanding, is, while
perfectly logically consistent, simply further
bullshit. It negates only that version of relativity
present in the heads of the thinkers.<br>
<br>
This is not to say at all that either Dingle or
Selleri were full of shit - on the contrary this
gets to the precise point and distinction to be made
- it just illustrates how half-understanding can be
a dangerous thing.<br>
<br>
As always - GIGO.<br>
<br>
Regards, John W.
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman;color:
rgb(0,0,0);font-size: 16.0px;">
<hr>
<div id="divRpF527729" style="direction: ltr;"><font
size="2" color="#000000" face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b>
John Williamson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, October 11, 2015 10:54 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Joakim Pettersson; Anthony Booth;
Ariane Mandray; Nick Bailey<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [General] nature of light
particles & theories</font><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family:
Tahoma;color: rgb(0,0,0);font-size: 10.0pt;">Hello
Al and everyone ... Me too ... I'll go blue
...
<div style="font-family: Times New
Roman;color: rgb(0,0,0);font-size: 16.0px;">
<hr>
<div id="divRpF683784" style="direction:
ltr;"><font size="2" color="#000000"
face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b> General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
on behalf of <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, October 11, 2015
8:33 AM<br>
<b>To:</b>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Nature of Light and Particles
- General Discussion; Joakim Pettersson;
Anthony Booth; Ariane Mandray; Nick
Bailey<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] nature of
light particles & theories</font><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi John:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Some initial reactions
interspersed below.</div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 10.0px 5.0px
5.0px 10.0px;padding: 10.0px 0
10.0px 10.0px;border-left: 2.0px
solid rgb(195,217,229);">
<div style="margin: 0 0 10.0px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Samstag,
10. Oktober 2015 um 12:24 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Mark, Martin van
der"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"><martin.van.der.mark@philips.com></a><br>
<b>An:</b> "Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> "Joakim Pettersson"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:joakimbits@gmail.com"><joakimbits@gmail.com></a>,
"Nick Bailey"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nick@bailey-family.org.uk"><nick@bailey-family.org.uk></a>,
"Anthony Booth"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:abooth@ieee.org"><abooth@ieee.org></a>, "Ariane
Mandray"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr"><ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General]
nature of light particles &
theories</div>
<div>
<div>
<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"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a></a>>
het volgende geschreven:<br>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div style="direction:
ltr;color:
rgb(0,0,0);font-size:
10.0pt;">
<style type="text/css"><!--p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {
margin: 0.0cm;
font-size: 12.0pt;
font-family: Cambria;
}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {
color: blue;
text-decoration: underline;
}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
color: purple;
text-decoration: underline;
}
*.MsoChpDefault {
font-family: Cambria;
}
--></style>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;">Hello Al,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;">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="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;">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> </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-color:
white;"><font
face="Times">AK: I
take it (with
resurvation to
change my mind)
that, only those
things have
ontological essence
for which there is
the need of a unit
(space, time, mass,
charge, whatever).
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background-color:
white;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background-color:
white;"><font
face="Times"><font
color="0000FF">Things
with units are
also a human
invention and also
conventional ..
next step is to
merge space and
time. Measure
length units in
light-nanoseconds
....</font></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background-color:
white;"><font
face="Times">All the
rest are deduced.
Sometimes they are
deduced by
comparison with an
already elsewhere
deduced entity from
valid measurements
of unit-entites.
This leads to false
impression that they
are directly
measeasred.</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background-color:
white;"><font
color="0000FF"
face="Times">Indeed!</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background-color:
white;"><font
face="Times"> In
fact, one should
have dug deeper.</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;">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="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;">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> </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> </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="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;">AK: Among
humans, certain
imaginary entities
have been discussed
so long and often,
that they are taken
for real. Religion
provides copious
examples. Getting
beyond the imaginary
world takes a
special discipline.
In my view,
momentum and energy
are right up there
with angels, devils,
saints and spirits
of many versions.
Useful, but just
conceptually so. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;"><font
color="0000FF">Could
not agree more. It
is fun to take on
differ<font
color="0000FF">en</font>t
base starting
points and look at
the possibilities.
We need to start
from multiple sets
of these
possibilities -
including that
space and time
themselves are
merely derived
from, for example,
inter-actions
which are (at
base) momentum
transfers. Why
not?</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;">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="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;">AK:
Consitency is not
just a matter of
reconciliation in
your (or mine or
whoever's) mind but
also with all the
other tradition
including
lexicographical,
scientific-cultural
and plane
historical. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><font
color="0000FF"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;">Oh no it
isn't. It is
simple to set up
many internally
self-consistent
systems. Most of
the historical
ones (including
much of the
presumptions on
different bits of
the internet), are
just plain silly.
The ultimate
question is, which
of these, if any
solves Hilbert's
sixth. </span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;">The term
"field" in physics
has a deep and
pervasive connection
with Maxwell and
.... So, finally,
we are locked in to
positions that
cannot be
reinterpreted
without jumping
outside the box of
meaningful
communication. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;"><font
color="0000FF">Agreed
that this is hard.
We are, however,
pretty smart. It
should not be
beyond us.</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;">In my view
(in the humble
sense) "fields"
cannot be taken as
material entities,
rather only as
imaginary constructs
or stand in's for
something else,
which to me should
be the totality of
Gaussian
"interaction" with
other charges.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;">Let's try
then, for the sake
of communication, an
agreed ansatz
between you and I.
Fields are,
precisely, not
material. They are
everything that
"material" is not.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;">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="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;">AK: I too know
the conventional
INTERPRETATION of muon
decay experiements.
So far so good, IF
all the inputs into
that interpretation
(especially the covert
or implicit ones) are
correct. In view of
the rather abvious
contradictions in the
description of the
theoretical explantion
of these effects,
including the fact
that you and I and all
others are, relative
to the various cosmic
rays passing us by the
billions per
nanoscond,
Lorentz-FitzGearld
contracted to multiple
extents in every
dimention by presumed
relativistic
consequences on
molecular forces, etc.
etc.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><font
color="0000FF">No -
they do not
physically contract
us - and more than
we contract them. It
is only the <font
color="0000FF">fuidity
of space and time
required for the
linearity of field
and energy</font>.
The measurement of
space and time that
is affected. Nothing
material. One mans
space is another
mans time - and vice
versa. Has to be.
Other<font
color="0000FF">w</font>ise
fundamental currents
are not conserved
(most importantly
-energy!).</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"> After all
that squeezing,
wouldn't we be dried
up? There's a better
explantion---we just
have to find it!</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><font
color="0000FF">Indeed
- but the one you
sketch above is not
the conventional
explanation.</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"> In
accelerator
experiments, could it
be that an incorrect
assumpton on the
location of the
generation of the
precursor pi's is in
play? Can one
expclude the
possiblitiy that the
beam is making more
muons as it moves
along? This is what I
think is happening in
the atomosphere, at
least. (Here I don't
know if the
professional,
origional literature
correcty, or at all,
considers the
generation of muons at
lower altitudes---I do
know that the
discussions in texts
on SR don't even
mention the
possiblity.)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><font
color="0000FF">No
Al, this CAN be
excluded. In bubble
chamber experiments
one sees both the
genesis and decay of
individual
particles. T<font
color="0000FF">h</font>e
whole life from
start to finish. No
room for any magic
appearance of extra
particles in
between. Forget
about it!</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"> BTW, the
maths for the
alternative
explanations could be
identical to that from
SR if exponentials,
i.e., effects
proportional to the
1st derivative, are in
play. BTW(2), this
would offer another
good explantion for
the lack of evidence
for LF contraction.
It happens only to
VIRTUAL images of
things.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><font
color="0000FF">As I
said above, this is
indeed closer to the
conventional, as I
understand it, view.</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;">What I HAVE
looked at are the<span>
</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> </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="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;">Good start
is (the references
from) <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles"
target="_blank">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles</a></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="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;">AK: It is
possible that the
measurements are
defectiive too, but
without doubt the
explantion of the
effect is AT LEAST
lexocographcally
nonsense.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;">I think
there is some truth
in this. I have been
looking at some of
the explanations on
the internet for
such things as the
Sagnac effect
(perfectly
consistent with SR -
though often argued
otherwise), the
Dingle syllogism
(reproduced below -
but way of the
point) and so on ...</span></p>
The problem is that many
writers on relativity
simple do not get it
themselves, yet try to
"educate" others.
Selleri, talking about
Dingle - completely
misses the point of the
effect of acceleration
on the change of
reference frames.
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;">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="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;">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> </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="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;">AK: John, if
a "test particle" is
to see a field at
all, then it must
carry (be-?) a
charge. Check any
history of the
E&M. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><font
color="0000FF"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;">I know -
this is what I'm
saying. There may
be a history about
it - but there are
"histories" about
dragons too. Both
mythical. So what?</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;">Thus, if it
carries a charge,
them Maxwell's
equations say it
emits E&M
fields. In view of
the fact that
"infinitesimal" test
charges are
obviously imaginary
constructs to bridge
the gap between
extent situations
and pure fields, one
has here an
infinitesimal
contradtion! </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><font
color="0000FF"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;">True!</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;">Better
analyze a toy
universe of two (2!)
point charges. If
one seeks a closed
set of equations of
motion for this
universe, one gets a
set of equations in
which the E&M
fields have been
eliminated for
mathematical
redundancy (logical)
reasons. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;"><font
color="0000FF">See
what you mean but
do not agree. One
needs at least
enough degrees of
freedom to
describe the
retarded
potentials and
special
relativity. Fields
are an efficient
(though not the
only) way of doing
this.</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;"> This tells
those of us who at
least try to make
everything fit
together without
contradiction, that
fields as such are
superfluous. It
does not seem likely
that if now one adds
a third charge to
the toy universe,
and then a 4th, etc.
that the situation
will somehow result
in magnificent
verification of
current physics
folklore! </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;"><font
color="0000FF">Absolutely.
This is all silly.
Lets agree on that
and stop doing it!</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;">A “test
particle” is just a
thought construct. <span> </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="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;">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> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;">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>
</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="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;">AK: Seems to
me that you are "in
the weeds" of some
fascinating
mathmatical
structure here (been
there, done
(something like)
that, too).
Instinct tells us,
that no amount of
rearranging of the
inappropriate inputs
gets out of the
"do-loop." After
much waisted effort,
I now take it that,
the primative
elements cannot be
explained
logically---or by
mortals at all. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><font
color="0000FF"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;">This may
be true - but I'm
still going to
have some fun
trying!</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;">Space, time,
charge (or
equivalent, as yet
unidentified,
alternatives) are
likely optimum
choices. The goal
of science then is
to find the
structure these
entities permit; by
formal logic, this
could be possible.
However, it is to my
best info, not
established that
this possiblity is
finite!</span><span
style="font-family:
Times;font-size:
10.0pt;line-height:
1.6em;"> Gödel
seems to say it
isn't! But he had
his troubles too!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-family:
Times;font-size:
10.0pt;line-height:
1.6em;"><font
color="0000FF">Godel
was derivative of
Wittgenstein.
Wittgenstien later
changed his mind.
I think there is
ultimate truth in
that <font
color="0000FF">the
very basics may
remain
un-encompassed.
The best one can
do is to fortly
get to the basi<font
color="0000FF">cs, </font>
then invent <font
color="0000FF">from
these </font>something
that describes
all of reality -
just and no
more. It is easy
to prove that
there is only
one such system
(if it exists at
all). That will
then solve
Hilbert<font
color="0000FF">'s
sixth and be
good enough <font
color="0000FF">for
me to die
happy.</font></font></font></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;">AK: BTW(3)
None of my critical
stances are unique
or original to me.
There is an
extensive literature
on each of them too.
However, this
liteature does not
include resolutions.
Rather it
illustrates the
functioning of
group-think, the
main weapon of which
is to just ignore
the "misguided,
unwashed critic",
punctuated by a few
fires at some stake.
Fortunately, I
don't now have to
earn a living at
this. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;"><font
color="0000FF">Hihi.
My current
position at least
has no historical
position of which
I am aware.
Whether this is a
step beyond or
beside the point
of progress
remains to be
seen. </font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:
Tahoma;background-color:
white;"><font
color="0000FF"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times;background:
white;">Regards,
John.</span></font></p>
<div style="font-family:
"Times New
Roman";color:
rgb(0,0,0);font-size:
16.0px;">
<hr>
<div id="divRpF172445"
style="direction:
ltr;"><font size="2"
color="#000000"
face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b>
General [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>]
on behalf of A. F.
Kracklauer [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"><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</font><br>
</div>
<div> </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>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">On
30.09.2015 06:48,
John Williamson
wrote:</div>
<blockquote>
<style type="text/css"><!--p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {
margin: 0.0cm;
font-size: 12.0pt;
font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;
}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {
color: rgb(5,99,193);
text-decoration: underline;
}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
color: rgb(149,79,114);
text-decoration: underline;
}
span.EmailStyle18 {
font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;
color: rgb(31,73,125);
}
*.MsoChpDefault {
font-size: 10.0pt;
}
--></style>
<div
style="direction:
ltr;font-family:
Tahoma;color:
rgb(0,0,0);font-size:
10.0pt;">
<style type="text/css"><!--p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {
margin-top: 0.0cm;
margin-right: 0.0cm;
margin-bottom: 10.0pt;
margin-left: 0.0cm;
font-size: 12.0pt;
font-family: Cambria;
}
*.MsoChpDefault {
font-family: Cambria;
}
*.MsoPapDefault {
margin-bottom: 10.0pt;
}
body {
direction: ltr;
font-family: Tahoma;
color: rgb(0,0,0);
font-size: 10.0pt;
}
body {
direction: ltr;
font-family: Tahoma;
color: rgb(0,0,0);
font-size: 10.0pt;
}
p {
margin-top: 0;
margin-bottom: 0;
}
body {
}
body {
}
body {
}
body {
}
body {
}
body {
}
body {
}
body {
}
BODY {
direction: ltr;
font-family: Tahoma;
color: rgb(0,0,0);
font-size: 10.0pt;
}
BODY {
}
BODY {
}
BODY {
}
BODY {
}
BODY {
}
--></style>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
0.0cm;"><span>Hello
Al,</span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
0.0cm;"><span> </span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
0.0cm;"><span>Thanks
for your
well-considered
reply.</span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
0.0cm;"><span> </span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
0.0cm;"><span>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:
0.0cm;"><span> </span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
0.0cm;"><span>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:
0.0cm;"><span> </span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
0.0cm;"><span>I
like your
argument about
the
ontological
basis being of
(as I
understood it
late that
night<span> </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:
0.0cm;"><span> </span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
0.0cm;"><span>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:
0.0cm;"><span> </span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
0.0cm;"><span>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> </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:
0.0cm;"><span> </span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
0.0cm;"><span>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>
</span>get to
an
over-arching
theory
describing
both properly.</span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
0.0cm;"><span> </span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
0.0cm;"><span><span> </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:
0.0cm;"><span> </span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
0.0cm;"><span>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>
</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:
0.0cm;"><span> </span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
0.0cm;"><span>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:
0.0cm;"><span> </span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
0.0cm;"><span>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:
0.0cm;"><span> </span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
0.0cm;"><span>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:
0.0cm;"><span> </span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
0.0cm;"><span>Gotta
go – get ready
to get to work
…</span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
0.0cm;"><span> </span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
0.0cm;"><span>Cheers
for now,</span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
0.0cm;"><span> </span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
0.0cm;"><span>John
W.</span></p>
<div
style="font-family:
Times New
Roman;color:
rgb(0,0,0);font-size:
16.0px;">
<hr>
<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"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>]
on behalf of
John
Williamson [<a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"><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</font><br>
</div>
<div>
<div
style="direction:
ltr;font-family:
Tahoma;color:
rgb(0,0,0);font-size:
10.0pt;">Haha
.. good
analogy John.
I am having a
very good
laugh here!
May I use this
one?<br>
<br>
Regards, John.
<div
style="font-family:
Times New
Roman;color:
rgb(0,0,0);font-size:
16.0px;">
<hr>
<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"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>]
on behalf of
John Duffield
[<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"><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</font><br>
</div>
<div>
<div
class="WordSection1">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;color:
rgb(31,73,125);">Al:</span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;color:
rgb(31,73,125);"> </span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;color:
rgb(31,73,125);">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:
rgb(31,73,125);"> </span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;color:
rgb(31,73,125);">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:
rgb(31,73,125);"> </span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;color:
rgb(31,73,125);">Regards</span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;color:
rgb(31,73,125);">John D</span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;color:
rgb(31,73,125);"> </span></p>
<div>
<div
style="border:
none;border-top:
solid
rgb(225,225,225)
1.0pt;padding:
3.0pt 0.0cm
0.0cm 0.0cm;">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;">
General [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"><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"><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">
<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
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"><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"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a></a>" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"><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"><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"><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"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:joakimbits@gmail.com">joakimbits@gmail.com</a></a>>,
"Ariane
Mandray" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"><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"><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>
<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>
<fieldset
class="mimeAttachmentHeader"> </fieldset>
<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">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>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<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"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a></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"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a></a>"></span><br>
<span>Click here to
unsubscribe</span><br>
<span></a></span></div>
</blockquote>
<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.</font><br>
_______________________________________________
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:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank"> Click here
to unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________ 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:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank"> Click here to unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<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>
</body>
</html>