<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css"></style>
</head>
<body ocsi="0" fpstyle="1">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;"><style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"MS ??";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:128;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:fixed;
mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-1593833729 1073750107 16 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-520082689 -1073717157 41 0 66047 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS ??";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS ??";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:35.4pt;
mso-footer-margin:35.4pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">Hi Al,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">This discussion is finally starting to go somewhere useful.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">I’m going to go green this time…</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">Hi John:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">My responces in <b>Bold.</b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Gesendet:</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> Montag,
16. November 2015 um 05:11 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "John Williamson" <John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk><br>
<b>An:</b> "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br>
<b>Cc:</b> "pete@leathergoth.com" <pete@leathergoth.com>, "Nick Bailey" <nick@bailey-family.org.uk>, "David Williamson" <david.williamson@ed.ac.uk>, "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark@philips.com><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] SU(2) equation set</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:black;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">Replies ....</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%">
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">
General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of af.kracklauer@web.de [af.kracklauer@web.de]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, November 15, 2015 4:25 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<br>
<b>Cc:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] SU(2) equation set</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:black;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">Hi Chip:</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:black;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:black;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">In my view, both photons and waves are imaginary constructs to assist thinking
about E&M interactions, which in the final analysis is described by the sum of all Gaussian 1/r˛ interactions (with delay, i.e., the Lenard-Wichert potentials, etc.). The Gaussian comes closest to what the interaction actually IS (as onta, not virtual or
represntational or ....). The idea that light is quantized comes from the fact that it is observed exclusively with one or another version of the photoelectric effect made up of countable electrons. Fields,
<i>per se</i>, are never seen, just the resulting photo current</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:blue;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">You keep saying this Al, but I think it is just not true. Currents can produce
field and (changing) field a current. It is not one or the other, but both. Sure one can describe a lot as a mere potential, with delay- but it is severely limited description The "delay" is not magic, but a function of the field propagation rate (the speed
of light - the propagation rate of pure fields).</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:blue;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">It can also be said that, chrges exist and interact via Gaussian (1/r˛_delay).
The field concept is superfluous. The delay is (in one sense) magic, all of it is! Where did it come from? The ideas I'm propounding lead to the simplest, self-consistent mathematical description of how this magic seems to work.</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:blue;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:green;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Yes, it could be, but one has no explanation for the charges unless one goes
deeper.</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:green;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:green;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><br>
</span><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><br>
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:blue;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">Take two magnets. Feel the force. . photocurrents? One is talking properly about small modifications
of a quantum solution -no single emitted electrons!</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">The induced currents in this case are in the material
of the magnets. Manybody effects. In the end B/H fields are a means of taking the delay into account. In well chosen units Maxwell's eqs. go to electrostatics (Gaussian interaction describable with just E/D fields) when c-->inf. . </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:green;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Saying “manybody effects” is a serious copout. Which
“manybody effects” obeying juyst which differential equations in what theory?</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:green;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><br>
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:blue;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">Sit on the chair: field chair v field pants. Photocurrents?
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">No measurment is being made. But obviously the electrons
in the outer layer of pants repel those in the chair ....</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:green;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Nope – one has matter on matter – no chair collapse
due to field interference – as in my explanation of the underlying reason for the exclusion principle.</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:green;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:blue;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:blue;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">Set up a standing wave EM cavity. One can measure the fields – obviously. Just
with a magnet or the hairs on the back of your hand. Photocurrents?</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Silly; obviously if no currents anywhere were engendered,
there would be no effect! </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:green;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">One need have no current at all to feel the force –
there are no currents in electrostatics! </span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:green;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:blue;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:blue;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">Ok I agree one can look at the “current” interaction. But that presumes one knows
what a “current” is. Not a good onta!</span><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:blue;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">As long as I'v been in the business, a "current" has been a flow of multiple
electrons. Stick your finger in a socket and then tell me there was no "onta" there.</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:blue;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:green;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Wrong:<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>This is just too simple minded : there are (at least) three distinct kinds of current: flow of actual charges – displacement current (a changing electro-magnetic field – no charges anywhere in sight) and a QM current given by integral of Phi grad phistar
– phistar grad phi. I have conducted experiments with single elctrons, where the charge is distributed and flows (or is distributed in a stationary state) according to the latter (E.g Phys rev 1990 Williamson et al.). There is an a.c current flowing across
a capacitor – a continuous current – carried by a electromagnetic field in both the conductors and across the gap. Read Feynmann! He argues all the current in a wire is OUTSIDE the wire! Now I would not go quite that far – but he has a point.
<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Also let me give you a coil and invite you to go close to a transformer! No electrical connection – no charge transfer – are you on?</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:green;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><br>
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:blue;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"> </span><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:black;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"> Spin (angular momentum) for light is no problem, it is a multibody effect from the timing of
various oscillations in the transverse direction. [I think spin in a photon is actually never seen for a single photo electron detection, but is deduced statistically from multiple measurements of multibody processes. If anybody thinks they know better,
please quote me chapter and verse regarding the experimental observation method.]</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:black;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:blue;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">Ok – single photon emission from atoms – any chemistry textbook – strongest lines
– one unit of angular momentum. Likewise absorption spectroscopy – one photon at a time.</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Balony! A spectral line from a single electron transition
would never be visible. Tell me about absorbtion spectroscopy at the single photon (i.e. single photo electron) level!</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:black;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"> Al, you are just not keeping up with the literature . This is not so</span><b><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">
– Robert Hadfield (on this thread – is engineering single photon detectors! One photon – one transition.) You are just trying to deny experiment.</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Fact is, it's damn hard to register a single photo
electron, mostly it's done by counting the cascades it is presumed to initiate. Fact is, a single photo electron reveals nothing about the spin (really the polarization of the grand sum of signals). All of that kind of info comes from obvious multibody experiments.
What is a "single photon spcetral line"?</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:blue;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:blue;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">Also positronium decay. Two photons short, three photons long. Explanation. Spin
1 photons and QED. Any HEP textbook. Please explain how “multibody effects” achieve this this. Chapter and verse.</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">I'v read the text books too. I know what the orthodox
explantion for certain results is. I also know that, that explantion in the end employs a long long line of inferences from the earlier chapters in those tests that are based on all kinds of mystical BS, or just the "Standard Model" with its 66 free paramenters!
If you'r happy with that, go with it! My researches are aimed at the nonsense in the early chapters. </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:green;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Yes. Mine too – and you are making me waste my time
arguing about bloody conventional physics we all both know everthing about!</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:green;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:black;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:black;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">Wave ideas come from Fourier analysis. Each so-called wave is actually just one
Fourier component---often the largest one, the others being considered noise, etc. </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:black;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:blue;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">Nope, one can have perfectly good waves with more than one fourier component. For
example that of a pure note on a flute (two). Fourier analysis is an interesting human concept, but not the fundamental basis of wave motion. … Sorry – as you say below as well…</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">This is evidence that you'r not reading what I wrote!
I repeadly stressed that the only real (ontic) interaction is the SUM of ALL Fouier components. Any single compnent is only at best an approximation (often not so bad becasue it is by far the largest term---if the special functions chosen correspond to the
geometry of the sender/receiver complex. Also, note that Fourier analysis is possible with the soltins of any so-called Sturm-
</span></b><b><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:green;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">I know all this – and you are not readin what I wrote as well.
See the last line in blue above!</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Liouville equ. (hyperbolic diffeq). </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:black;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">The real sginal is, again, the sum of the Gaussian interactions for all charges
in the sending device (antenna) with all charges in the receiving device (antenna). All Fourier componets are unreal, just aids for calculation. This is an old, historical debate brougt up as criticism of Fourier. Namely, the components of a short time
pulse extend from -inf. to +inf, and it was arguend that, if real, they would telegraph today tomorrows news! But not just tomorrow, for all time!! Eventually it was concluded that, only the sum is real, all components are fictitous.</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:black;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:blue;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">It may,indeed, be described as such at some level- but the quantum-mechanics of
the process is simply not encompassed by the formalism. For me better onta than charges, magic delays and 4-potentials are space and time and root-energy. These lead, for me to the (4) potentials AND the fields – both from a deeper level. I do not think one
is ever going to “get” fields properly by presuming they are really just arising from point charges. Perhaps I am wrong, but that is a personal choice.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:black;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"> <b>Fine! "You pays your ticket, and you gets your laundry." Long ago I noted
that, there does not exist a manifestly covariant, self-consistent set of wave equations for interaction entities. </b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:green;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Yes and you were right – till 2014. Because that is exactly what eqs. 9-13
are. Manifestly covariant. Like the Dirac equations. Unlike the Dirac equation, however, the solutions eq 21 is also manifestly covariant.
</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:green;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:green;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Better than that, you are (and always were, from your thesis) right about the
problems with conventional relativity and all the clock synchronisation. Such arguments always imply a round trip. Eqs 18-19 DERIVE the starting point of relativity – without any clock synchronisation nonsense. Look at them!</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">This represents a symptom of a serious incompletion of even just the QM formalism
(not to mention interpretation).</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:green;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Agreed: what the hell do you think I am doing!!?? I am not playing any silly
games here, going down avenues which many others have exhausted. This is NEW … covariant equations AND covariant solutions.
</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:green;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:green;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Think – even if you are right and one
can do everything with point particles, their Gaussian potentials and the Lienard-Wiechert potential (which I first solved in my early 20’s at grad school) – one is still left with unphysical point particles needing to explain what the vector potential is
and is anyway no further than mid 20<sup>th</sup> century physics. One is left with a handful of nothing and a mouthful of teeth. Nothing to show and nothing to say. This route is ABSOLUTELY NOT FOR ME– though that is what I seem to be reduced to arguing about!</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span> Investigations revealed that the obstacles
to formulating such an equation were the features of mainline physics leading to the twin paradox and entanglement.
</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:green;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:green;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">True. Dead end though. This is why I am not bothering with any of that. These
folk are already lost (and have been for some time).</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> I have taken my shots at these issues. Over the years, +/- 75 mainline big
names have promissed me that as soon as they have time, they would produce devistating criticisms. So far, none have found the time! </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:green;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:green;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Yes. They are lost in the same fog.</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:green;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:black;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">Counter arguments welcome. I will be delighted if I hear a new one!</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:blue;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:blue;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">I cannot imagine my arguments above were new to you!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:blue;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:green;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">Glad to find that was true, but some of those in green ARE new. We may finally
be getting somewhere!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Right! Mainline texts are known to me. What I find
in the first chapters (if anything, really) is not satisfying. Mostly egregious errors in logic or math pop out the first few pages! In your papers, for example, you'r, at best, misusing the term "field." </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:green;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Al. Once more, and for the last time. I AM NOT STARTING
FROM “FIELD”.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Chip – One can understand much from the starting point of field – but it is still not good enough for the fundamentals needed to solve Hilbert’s sixth. Field by itself is not good enough. Vector potential
is not good enough. Point particles are certainly not good enough (even if ubiquitous in Leinart-Weicrat – and the rest of the “standard model”). You can all play with them if you like – or argue they are everything, but this is not a game for me.</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Your use will invest circularitiy, which will be "not
even inconsistent" in the end. "Space" and "time" are capacitites---empty boxes. That's what THESE words mean. Seems to me that, if you want to chage their meaning and attribute more than their usual meaning by virtue of other properties, it would be well
advised to coin a new word. </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:green;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Yes – but no. David taught me this.
<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>I should have paid more attention to my children’s books – Seuss was right: the new alphabet begins where the old one ends. One, indeed, needs to get back to the root and the new word is “vot”. Space and time are empty
boxes only if empty (which they are in most of time and space). In “particles” however they are not. There, space, time and their products and quotients are filled with vot. This is the new physics of the 21<sup>st</sup> century. I have not given space and
time any new properties at all in “absolute relativity” – just come to the realisation of what they mean, properly. The proper properties of space and time have then been enforced – rigourously. It is the rigourous enforcement which has led to the new results
of the covariant, holomorphic, photon wavefunction, the underlying nature of light and material particles, the underlying nature of charge and the proper nature of quantum spin. If you are not interested – ok. As I said in a previous post though – do not say
where other people are wrong, or quote other eminences who say this is impossible. Look at my stuff and TELL ME WHERE I AM WRONG. Like Viv, I will not accept (the dubious authority of) another theory – only experiment.
</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:green;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:green;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Now, It is about 1.30 am, and I am about an hour into
my early morning research session on Tuesday the 17<sup>th</sup> of November 2015. I have, just, invented new words for space and time as well – because I think they are related to each other as well at a deeper level. Have just written these down in my logbook
– date and time of this email (roughly). That, however, is for a later discussion and a later paper. TBD (to be discussed). Doctor!</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:green;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:green;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Some clues: the one and the three<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>(the four then) are what one needs for a balance. I think it is likely nothing else works in the multiple three’s (the spaces of the observable universe) (with the possible exception of the seven (also works but skips by twos- leaving, again, just four).
For those of you into Tolkien… Nine is bollocks! You need a twelve and a four! If you want to know what all that bullshit was about – you will just have to read my papers and understand them properly!</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:green;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:black;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:black;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">Best regards, Al</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:black;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:blue;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">Cheers, John.</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Likewise, Al
</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:green;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">I remain, yours<a name="_GoBack"></a> truly, John (W)</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">. </span></b><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000; font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF861584"><font face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"><b>From:</b> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of af.kracklauer@web.de [af.kracklauer@web.de]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 16, 2015 2:52 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; pete@leathergoth.com; Mark, Martin van der; David Williamson; Nick Bailey<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] SU(2) equation set<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div style="font-family:Verdana; font-size:12.0px">
<div> </div>
<div>Hi John:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>My responces in <strong>Bold.</strong></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">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0"><b>Gesendet:</b> Montag, 16. November 2015 um 05:11 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "John Williamson" <John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk><br>
<b>An:</b> "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br>
<b>Cc:</b> "pete@leathergoth.com" <pete@leathergoth.com>, "Nick Bailey" <nick@bailey-family.org.uk>, "David Williamson" <david.williamson@ed.ac.uk>, "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark@philips.com><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] SU(2) equation set</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div>
<div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma; color:rgb(0,0,0); font-size:10.0pt">
<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:0.0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria}
*.MsoChpDefault
{font-family:Cambria}
-->
BODY {direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;}P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Times">Replies ....</span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black"> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
on behalf of af.kracklauer@web.de [af.kracklauer@web.de]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, November 15, 2015 4:25 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<br>
<b>Cc:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] SU(2) equation set</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:black">Hi Chip:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:black">In my view, both photons and waves are imaginary constructs to assist thinking about E&M interactions, which in the final analysis is described by the sum of all Gaussian 1/r˛
interactions (with delay, i.e., the Lenard-Wichert potentials, etc.). The Gaussian comes closest to what the interaction actually IS (as onta, not virtual or represntational or ....). The idea that light is quantized comes from the fact that it is observed
exclusively with one or another version of the photoelectric effect made up of countable electrons. Fields,
<i>per se</i>, are never seen, just the resulting photo current</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:blue">You keep saying this Al, but I think it is just not true. Currents can produce field and (changing) field a current. It is not one or the other, but both. Sure one can describe
a lot as a mere potential, with delay- but it is severely limited description The "delay" is not magic, but a function of the field propagation rate (the speed of light - the propagation rate of pure fields).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:blue"><strong>It can also be said that, chrges exist and interact via Gaussian (1/r˛_delay). The field concept is superfluous. The delay is (in one sense) magic, all of it is! Where
did it come from? The ideas I'm propounding lead to the simplest, self-consistent mathematical description of how this magic seems to work.</strong></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:blue">Take two magnets. Feel the force. . photocurrents? One is talking properly about small modifications of a quantum solution -no single emitted electrons!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong>The induced currents in this case are in the material of the magnets. Manybody effects. In the end B/H fields are a means of taking the delay into account. In well chosen units Maxwell's eqs. go to electrostatics (Gaussian interaction
describable with just E/D fields) when c-->inf. . </strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:blue">Sit on the chair: field chair v field pants. Photocurrents?
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong>No measurment is being made. But obviously the electrons in the outer layer of pants repel those in the chair ....</strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:blue"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:blue">Set up a standing wave EM cavity. One can measure the fields – obviously. Just with a magnet or the hairs on the back of your hand. Photocurrents?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Silly; obviously if no currents anywhere were engendered, there would be no effect! </b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:blue"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:blue">Ok I agree one can look at the “current” interaction. But that presumes one knows what a “current” is. Not a good onta!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:blue"><strong>As long as I'v been in the business, a "current" has been a flow of multiple electrons. Stick your finger in a socket and then tell me there was no "onta" there.</strong></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:blue"><span> </span></span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:black"> Spin (angular momentum) for light is no problem, it is a multibody effect from the timing of various oscillations in the transverse direction. [I think spin in a photon is actually never seen
for a single photo electron detection, but is deduced statistically from multiple measurements of multibody processes. If anybody thinks they know better, please quote me chapter and verse regarding the experimental observation method.]</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:blue">Ok – single photon emission from atoms – any chemistry textbook – strongest lines – one unit of angular momentum. Likewise absorption spectroscopy – one photon at a time.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Balony! A spectral line from a single electron transition would never be visible. Tell me about absorbtion spectroscopy at the single photon (i.e. single photo electron) level!</strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Fact is, it's damn hard to register a single photo electron, mostly it's done by counting the cascades it is presumed to initiate. Fact is, a single photo electron reveals nothing about the spin (really the polarization of the
grand sum of signals). All of that kind of info comes from obvious multibody experiments. What is a "single photon spcetral line"?</strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:blue"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:blue">Also positronium decay. Two photons short, three photons long. Explanation. Spin 1 photons and QED. Any HEP textbook. Please explain how “multibody effects” achieve this this.
Chapter and verse.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong>I'v read the text books too. I know what the orthodox explantion for certain results is. I also know that, that explantion in the end employs a long long line of inferences from the earlier chapters in those tests that are based
on all kinds of mystical BS, or just the "Standard Model" with its 66 free paramenters! If you'r happy with that, go with it! My researches are aimed at the nonsense in the early chapters. </strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:black">Wave ideas come from Fourier analysis. Each so-called wave is actually just one Fourier component---often the largest one, the others being considered noise, etc. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:blue">Nope, one can have perfectly good waves with more than one fourier component. For example that of a pure note on a flute (two). Fourier analysis is an interesting human concept,
but not the fundamental basis of wave motion. … Sorry – as you say below as well…</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong>This is evidence that you'r not reading what I wrote! I repeadly stressed that the only real (ontic) interaction is the SUM of ALL Fouier components. Any single compnent is only at best an approximation (often not so bad becasue
it is by far the largest term---if the special functions chosen correspond to the geometry of the sender/receiver complex. Also, note that Fourier analysis is possible with the soltins of any so-called Sturm-Liouville equ. (hyperbolic diffeq). </strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:black">The real sginal is, again, the sum of the Gaussian interactions for all charges in the sending device (antenna) with all charges in the receiving device (antenna). All Fourier
componets are unreal, just aids for calculation. This is an old, historical debate brougt up as criticism of Fourier. Namely, the components of a short time pulse extend from -inf. to +inf, and it was arguend that, if real, they would telegraph today tomorrows
news! But not just tomorrow, for all time!! Eventually it was concluded that, only the sum is real, all components are fictitous.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:blue">It may,indeed, be described as such at some level- but the quantum-mechanics of the process is simply not encompassed by the formalism. For me better onta than charges, magic
delays and 4-potentials are space and time and root-energy. These lead, for me to the (4) potentials AND the fields – both from a deeper level. I do not think one is ever going to “get” fields properly by presuming they are really just arising from point charges.
Perhaps I am wrong, but<a name="_GoBack"></a> that is a personal choice.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:black"> <strong>Fine! "You pays your ticket, and you gets your laundry." Long ago I noted that, there does not exist a manifestly covariant, self-consistent set of wave equations
for interaction entities. This represents a symptom of a serious incompletion of even just the QM formalism (not to mention interpretation). Investigations revealed that the obstacles to formulating such an equation were the features of mainline physics
leading to the twin paradox and entanglement. I have taken my shots at these issues. Over the years, +/- 75 mainline big names have promissed me that as soon as they have time, they would produce devistating criticisms. So far, none have found the time!
</strong></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:black">Counter arguments welcome. I will be delighted if I hear a new one!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:blue"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:blue">I cannot imagine my arguments above were new to you!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Right! Mainline texts are known to me. What I find in the first chapters (if anything, really) is not satisfying. Mostly egregious errors in logic or math pop out the first few pages! In your papers, for example, you'r, at
best, misusing the term "field." Your use will invest circularitiy, which will be "not even inconsistent" in the end. "Space" and "time" are capacitites---empty boxes. That's what THESE words mean. Seems to me that, if you want to chage their meaning and
attribute more than their usual meaning by virtue of other properties, it would be well advised to coin a new word. </strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:black">Best regards, Al</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:blue">Cheers, John.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:black">Likewise, Al </span></strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Times"> </span></p>
<div style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:rgb(0,0,0); font-size:16.0px">
<div>
<div style="font-family:Verdana; font-size:12.0px">
<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> Sonntag, 15. November 2015 um 13:22 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Chip Akins" <chipakins@gmail.com><br>
<b>An:</b> "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'" <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] SU(2) equation set</div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Hi Al</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">This idea of modeling the electron from a photon when we know so little about light and whether photons are real, or just illusions caused by the quantization of matter, has troubled me too.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">When we model the electron in this manner, it winds up (eventually) defining a thing called a photon. This seems to always happen because the quantization we observe in the energy of the electron “spills over”
into our understanding of what the nature of propagating energy (light) must be. Spin angular momentum, it seems, MUST also be due to a form of confinement. The same set of balanced forces which cause spin angular momentum would have to also cause a form of
quantization and “localization”. And when we create equations, much as John W has done, to describe a condition in which this spin angular momentum is created for the electron, it means that the rules we suggest to describe the observed properties of the
electron also have an impact on the way light behaves.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">For some time I had been of the opinion that it is possible that light is simply continuous radiation. In some ways I would be delighted if we found that is the case. However it now seems to me that there simply
has to be a form of quantization in order for light to display any spin angular momentum. So in my personal view I am back to considering the “photon” to actually be a quantized energy form (no matter how distasteful that is to me).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Thoughts?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Chip</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none; border-top:solid rgb(225,225,225) 1.0pt; padding:3.0pt 0.0in 0.0in 0.0in">
<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 [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>af.kracklauer@web.de<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, November 15, 2015 2:29 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; pete@leathergoth.com; david williamson <david.williamson@ed.ac.uk>; Nicholas Bailey <Nicholas.Bailey@glasgow.ac.uk>; Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark@philips.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] SU(2) equation set</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<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">Some mothers are more erudite than others. But, erudite mothers matter too!</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">Much of what I see in your papers tickles memories of things I once knew rather well regarding differential manifolds, diffential forms, Clifford algebras, etc. dF=0, for example,
written as d˛A=0 says that A is an exact form, which gives it lots of nice propeties---and so on and so forth. This is all very nice, but your terminology appears to me to be distinct from that in math/phys lit on the matter. </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">Do you have a paper somewhere that makes the comparison? Can you start your story in the histrocially conventional notation and then carefully introduce your specaializations
so that the known maths consequences of what you'r about can just be looked up rather than rediscovered? </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">Likewise, there are giant software packages for Clifford algebra applications in existence. While not at all easy to jump in and use them, it is still much easier than redoing
the whole thing.</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">BTW, as one who holds that photons do not exist (just photo electrons) I have grave indigestion over the idea of modeling the electron on the photon! Seems it ought be the
other way around; there is credible empirical evidence for the existence of electrons, where as there is none for photons (distinguished from photo electons!).</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">ciao, Al</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana ,sans-serif">
</span></p>
<div style="border:none; border-left:solid rgb(195,217,229) 1.5pt; padding:0.0in 0.0in 0.0in 8.0pt; margin-left:7.5pt; margin-top:7.5pt; margin-right:3.75pt; margin-bottom:3.75pt">
<div style="margin-bottom:7.5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana ,sans-serif">Gesendet:</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana ,sans-serif"> Sonntag, 15. November 2015 um 05:20 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "John Williamson" <<a>John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>><br>
<b>An:</b> "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <<a>general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>>, "david williamson" <<a>david.williamson@ed.ac.uk</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> "<a>pete@leathergoth.com</a>" <<a>pete@leathergoth.com</a>>, "Mark, Martin van der" <<a>martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a>>, "Nicholas Bailey" <<a>Nicholas.Bailey@glasgow.ac.uk</a>><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] SU(2) equation set</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Hello everyone,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Yes Al – I could not agree more. We can do better though, as I have said before. I always say to others that, if one truly understands anything, one should be able to explain it at any level. Mums are important!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Verdana ,sans-serif">to
unsubscribe</span></a></span></p>
</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 af.kracklauer@web.de
<a 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>
_______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer@web.de
<a 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>
</body>
</html>