<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<small>John,<br>
<br>
Wilczek has written about several aspects of the electron. Some of
them sound to my like the usual QM mystifications. Among them also
aspects of collective states. But at the end his remark about <i>half-electrons
</i>is another view<font size="-2">:</font></small><small><span
class="current-selection"><font size="-2"> "</font>By co</span><span
class="_ _0"></span><span class="current-selection">mb</span><span
class="_ _0"></span><span class="current-selection">ining
fragmen</span><span class="_ _0"></span><span
class="current-selection">tatio</span><span class="_ _0"></span><span
class="current-selection">n with su</span><span class="_ _0"></span><span
class="current-selection">per</span><span class="ls0 ws0
current-selection">-</span></small><small><span
class="current-selection">con</span><span class="_ _0"></span><span
class="current-selection">ductivity</span><span class="_ _3"></span><span
class="current-selection">, w</span><span class="_ _0"></span><span
class="current-selection">e can get half-electro</span><span
class="_ _0"></span><span class="current-selection">ns tha</span><span
class="_ _0"></span><span class="current-selection">t </span></small>
<small><span class="current-selection">ar</span><span class="_ _0"></span><span
class="current-selection">e their o</span><span class="_ _0"></span><span
class="current-selection">wn an</span><span class="_ _0"></span><span
class=""><span class=""><span class="current-selection">tiparticles."</span></span></span></small><small><br>
</small><small><small><font size="-2"><small><span class=""><span
class=""><span class="current-selection"></span></span></span></small></font></small>This
is a clear statement in my understanding. </small><br>
<small><br>
And else, his whole article is a fight with the usual logical
paradoxes, if one tries to understand the electron on the basis of
present main stream physics. This is also obvious in his last
paragraph: "</small><small><span class="current-selection">S</span><span
class="_ _1"></span><span class="current-selection">o</span><span
class="_ _0"></span><span class="current-selection">, wha</span><span
class="_ _0"></span><span class="current-selection">t is a</span><span
class="_ _0"></span><span class="current-selection">n elect</span><span
class="_ _1"></span><span class="current-selection">r</span><span
class="_ _0"></span><span class="current-selection">on? An e</span><span
class="_ _0"></span><span class="current-selection">lec</span><span
class="_ _1"></span><span class="current-selection">tro</span><span
class="_ _0"></span><span class="current-selection">n is a</span></small><small><span
class="current-selection"> particle and a wa</span><span
class="_ _0"></span><span class="current-selection">v</span><span
class="_ _0"></span><span class="current-selection">e; it is
ideally sim</span><span class="_ _0"></span><span
class="current-selection">ple a</span><span class="_ _0"></span><span
class="current-selection">nd </span></small><small><span
class="current-selection">unimagina</span><span class="_ _0"></span><span
class="current-selection">bly co</span><span class="_ _0"></span><span
class="current-selection">m</span><span class="_ _0"></span><span
class="current-selection">plex .." Do we not have a better
understanding today? At least I have it, if I look to my model.
There may be open questions left but no mystery.<br>
<br>
But apart of this: I found it a funny incident to see this
article in view of our discussion about my 2-particle-model. But
this reference is of course not my serious argument. The most
powerful argument is that this assumption of a 2-particle
extended model explains inertia. And it yields not just an idea
what inertia could be, but precise mathematical results. In
contrast to all what is available these days about this topic in
particle physics.</span></small><small><br>
<br>
Regards<br>
Albrecht<br>
</small><br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 17.11.2015 um 07:13 schrieb John
Williamson:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C914721425@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css"></style>
<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:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS ??";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS ??";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:36.0pt;
mso-footer-margin:36.0pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Sorry Albrecht, but you
are not really getting what Frank is talking about in his
article at all.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">He is, as Al is
alluding to, discussing collective systems – the Fractional
quantum Hall effect and superconductors – and (theoretical)
attempts that are being made to understand them. In those
attempts people are coming up with models like yours – with
multiple components – three for the fractional quantum Hall
effect – two for superconductors. These are COMPOSITE
systems of light and matter. Simple-minded attempts to
understand them without getting what the electron is or what
the photon is (the current situation) is bound to prove
challenging. In superconductors you have, practically, a
di-electron system – but it is also extended to include an
overlap over a whole crystal – extra protons in the system
then. One is looking a whole, collective, state of matter –
with pairs of spin-opposite, electrons<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>extended for many centimetres (whatever the size of
the superconductor is). Ok there are TWO paired, opposite
spin electrons in any “Cooper pair” and , at some level, one
is going to observe this and the symmetries inherent in
this. Antiparticles they are only the sense you know they
have opposite spin. Everything else, in the experiments, is
spin – if you will pardon the pun. One is blindly thrashing
about in the mist further.</span></p>
<span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:"
ＭＳ 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA"><br>
Regards, John</span>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF530990"><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 Dr. Albrecht Giese [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 16, 2015 9:16 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Chip Akins; 'Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what
a model…<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Hi Chip,<br>
<br>
thanks for your proposals. I have inserted some comments
into the text.<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">Am 14.11.2015 um 17:13 schrieb Chip Akins:</font><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math"}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline}
p
{margin-right:0in;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black}
span.EmailStyle20
{color:black}
.MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt}
@page WordSection1
{margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in}
-->
BODY {direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;}P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}</style>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Albrecht</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What if, for purposes of
conjecture, we replace your two “particles” in the
electron, with an EM wave which has a wavelength of
twice the circumference?
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">How can you bind
a wave to something? That sounds very strange to me. In
the vicinity of a charge we can feel a force. It is an
abstraction to call this situation a field. And if this
field changes with time and propagates into the space, we
call it a wave. You cannot bind a wave to something, so as
you cannot bind the wind to a tree.<br>
<br>
What we can bind is the charge which is the cause of the
field and of a wave. And a wave cannot build a spin. As a
comparison, a squirl in the air or in the water can build
an angular momentum. But that has to do with the air or
the water. The squirl without air or water, which is a
pure abstraction, cannot cause any binding forces. Similar
to an electric wave apart from a charge.<br>
<br>
An EM wave is an electric field which is modulated and
which propagates. The magnetic part of it is, as discussed
here before, nothing than an impression which we have of
the electric field. A relativistic side effect. Similar to
the Coriolis force which is as well an impression (i.e.
also a seeming side effect, but in this case not
relativistic).<br>
<br>
So we should talk about real things and that are charges
in my understanding.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">And now let us consider that the
“binding force” which holds this wave in a circular
confinement is the same “force” which causes spin
angular momentum in light. The EM “wave” would have
the negative portion always away from the center for
the electron, and the confinement of the wave causes a
curvature in (divergence of) the E field which in turn
would be the cause for the appearance of the
elementary charge.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It seems that such a model would 1)
conserve momentum, 2) cause inertial mass
<i>(because of confined momentum and the speed of
light velocity limit)</i>, and 3) radiate when
accelerated under most circumstances
<i>(except gravitational acceleration, if gravity is
simply the diffraction of waves.)</i></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">How do you think
to accelerate an abstract wave?
<br>
<br>
If you understand this wave as a cause of inertial mass,
can you present a quantitative calculation of the mass
which is the result of this effect? - I can do it for my
model with high precision (see below).<br>
<br>
If gravity is a case of diffraction, or better of
refraction, then there is an object refracted or a moving
charge, but not a wave.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If we do this, we have an electron
model which consists of <i>
just one item</i> and explains (it seems) the same
things that your model explains, but without the need
for two entities within this elementary particle.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">As a wave cannot
have a momentum it will not violate the conservation of
momentum, true, but it cannot build anything than
mathematical equations.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The reason for posing this question
is that there is no experimental evidence that the
electron is comprised of two particles. However there
is much evidence that it is a single thing comprised
of energy.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">I say it again:
There is evidence for two sub-particles. And I refer again
to the experiment described by Frank Wilczek where two
halves of an electron have been observed:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com"
target="_blank">http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com</a><br>
<br>
And there is NO evidence of a "single thing" if
investigated in relation to my model (having mass-less
constituents).<br>
<br>
And another evidence (an indirect one): Only an object
built by two constituents (as a minimum) can have inertia.
We all know that the Higgs model does not work for
inertia. And my model using 2 sub-particles yields the
mass of e.g. the electron with an accuracy of 1 : 500'000.
Do you know any model which yields results of this
accuracy? - <br>
I do not know any else model for this, and am presenting
this model since 15 years on conferences all over the
world, and there have been no objections.
<br>
<br>
Best<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div style="border:none; border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt; padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext"> General [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Dr. Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, November 14, 2015 7:52 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_blank">
af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_blank">
general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments
from what a model…</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
Why do we need a background? If I assume only local
forces (strong and electric) for my model, the
calculation conforms to the measurement (e.g. between
mass and magnetic moment) with a precision of 2 :
1'000'000. This is no incident. Not possible, if a
poorly defined and stable background has a measurable
influence. - And if there should be such background
and it has such little effect, which mistake do we
make if we ignore that?<br>
<br>
For the competition of the 1/r<sup>2</sup> law for
range of charges and the r<sup>2</sup> law for the
quantity of charges we have a popular example when we
look at the sky at night. The sky is dark and that
shows that the r<sup>2</sup> case (number of shining
stars) does in no way compensates for the 1/r<sup>2</sup>
case (light flow density from the stars).<br>
<br>
Why is a 2 particle model necessary?<br>
<br>
1.) for the conservation of momentum<br>
2.) for a cause of the inertial mass<br>
3.) for the radiation at acceleration which occurs
most time, but does not occur in specific situations.
Not explained elsewhere.<br>
<br>
Ciao, Albrecht<br>
<br>
</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 13.11.2015 um 20:31 schrieb <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">
</a><a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;
margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Hi
Albrecht:</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">Your
proposed experiment is hampered by reality!
If you do the measurement with a gaget bought
in a store that has knobes and a display, then
the measurement is for certain for signals
under a couple hundred GHz and based on some
phenomena for which the sensitivity of
man-made devices is limited. And, if limited
to the electric field, then there is a good
chance it is missing altogether oscillating
signals by virtue of its limited reaction time
of reset time, etc. etc. The vast majority of
the background will be much higher, the
phenomena most attuned to detecting might be
in fact the quantum effects otherwise
explained with mystical hokus-pokus! Also to
be noted is that, the processes invovled in
your model, if they pertain to elementray
entities, will have to be at very small size
and if at the velocity (c) will be very high
energy, etc. so that once again, it is quite
reasonable to suppose that the universe is
anything but irrelavant! </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">Of
course, there is then the issue of the
divergence of the this SED background.
Ameliorated to some extent with the
realization that there is no energy at a point
in empty space until a charged entity is put
there, whereupon the energy of interaction
with the rest of the universe (not just by
itself being there and ignoring the
universe---as QM theorists, and yourself, are
wont to do) is given by the sum of
interactions over all particles not by the
integral over all space, including empty
space. Looks at first blush to be finite. </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">Why
fight it? Where the hell else will you find a
credible 2nd particle? </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 name="quote" style="border:none;
border-left:solid #C3D9E5 1.5pt; padding:0in 0in
0in 8.0pt; margin-left:7.5pt; margin-top:7.5pt;
margin-right:3.75pt; margin-bottom:3.75pt;
word-wrap:break-word">
<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"> Freitag,
13. November 2015 um 12:11 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"
target="_blank">
</a><a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"
target="_blank"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Reply of
comments from what a model…</span></p>
</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Hi
Al,<br>
<br>
if we look to charges you mention the
law 1/r<sup>2</sup>. Now we can perform
a simple physical experiment having an
electrically charged object and using it
to measure the electric field around us.
I say: it is very weak. Now look to the
distance of the two half-charges within
the particle having a distance of 4*10<sup>-13</sup>
m. This means an increase of force of
about 25 orders of magnitude compared to
what we do in a lab. And the difference
is much greater if we refer to charges
acting from the universe. So I think we
do not make a big mistake assuming that
there is nothing outside the particle.<br>
<br>
Regarding my model, the logic of
deduction was very simple for me:<br>
<br>
1.) We have dilation, so there must be a
permanent motion with c<br>
2.) There must be 2 sub-particles
otherwise the momentum law is violated;
3 are not possible as in conflict with
experiments.<br>
3.) The sub-particles must be mass-less,
otherwise c is not possible<br>
4.) The whole particle has mass even
though the sub-particles are mass-less.
So there must be a mechanism to cause
inertia. It was immediately clear for me
that inertia is a consequence of
extension. Another reason to assume a
particle which is composed of parts.
(There is no other working mechanism of
inertia known until today.)<br>
5.) I had to find the binding field for
the sub-particles. I have taken the
simplest one which I could find which
has a potential minimum at some
distance. And my first attempt worked.<br>
<br>
That is all, and I do not see any
possibility to change one of the points
1.) thru 5.) without getting in conflict
with fundamental physical rules. And I
do not invent new facts or rules beyond
those already known in physics.<br>
<br>
So, where do you see any kind of
arbitrariness or missing justification?<br>
<br>
Tschüß!<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
</span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Am
12.11.2015 um 17:51 schrieb
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;
margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Hi
Albrect:</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">We
are making some progress. </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">To
your remark that Swinger &
Feynman introduced virtual
charges, I note that they used
the same term: "virtual
charge/particle," in spite of
the much older meaning in accord
with the charge and mirror
example. In the finest of
quantum traditions, they too
ignored the rest of the universe
and instead tried to vest its
effect in the "vacuum." This
idea was suitably mystical to
allow them to introduce the
associated plaver into the folk
lore of QM, given the sociology
of the day. Even in spite of
this BS, the idea still has
merit. Your objection on the
basis of the 1/r² fall-off is
true but not conclusive. This
fall-off is matched by a r²
increase in muber of charges, so
the integrated total interaction
can be expected to have at least
some effect, no matter what.
Think of the universe to 1st
order as a neutral, low-density
plasma. I (and some others) hold
that this interaction is
responcible for all quantum
effects. In any case, no
particle is a universe unto
itself, the rest have the
poulation and time to take a
toll! </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">BTW,
this is history repeating
itself. Once upon a time there
was theory of Brownian motion
that posited an internal cause
known as "elan vital" to dust
specks observed hopping about
like Mexican jumping beans.
Ultimately this nonsense was
displaced by the observation
that the dust spots were not
alone in their immediate
universe but imbededded in a
slurry of other particles, also
in motion, to which they were
reacting. Nowadays atoms are
analysed in QM text books as if
they were the only object in the
universe---all others being too
far away (so it is argued,
anyway). </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Your
model, as it stands, can be free
of contradiction and still
unstatisfying because the inputs
seem to be just what is needed
to make the conclusions you aim
to make. Fine, but what most
critics will expect is that
these inputs have to have some
kind of justification or
motivation. This is what the
second particle lacks. Where is
it when one really looks for it?
It has no empirical motivation.
Thus, this theory then has
about the same ultimate
structure, and pursuasiveness,
as saying: 'don't worry about
it, God did it; go home, open a
beer, pop your feet up, and
forget about it---a theory which
explains absolutely everything!</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Tschuß,
Al</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;
border-left:solid #C3D9E5 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 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"
style="background:white"><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"> Donnerstag,
12. November 2015 um 16:18
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"
target="_blank">
</a><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="UrlBlockedError.aspx"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="UrlBlockedError.aspx"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] Reply of comments
from what a model…</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Hi
Al,<br>
<br>
I have gotten a different
understanding of what a
virtual particle or a
virtual charge is. This
phenomenon was invented by
Julian Schwinger and
Richard Feynman. They
thought to need it in
order to explain certain
reactions in particle
physics. In the case of
Schwinger it was the Landé
factor, where I have shown
that this assumption is
not necessary.<br>
<br>
If there is a charge then
of course this charge is
subject to interactions
with all other charges in
the universe. That is
correct. But because of
the normal distribution of
these other charges in the
universe, which cause a
good compensation of the
effects, and because of
the distance law we can
think about models without
reference to those. And
also there is the problem
with virtual particles and
vacuum polarization (which
is equivalent), in that we
have this huge problem
that the integrated energy
of it over the universe is
by a factor of 10^120
higher than the energy
measured. I think this is
a really big argument
against virtual effects.<br>
<br>
Your example of the
virtual image of a charge
in a conducting surface is
a different case. It is,
as you write, the
rearrangement of charges
in the conducting surface.
So the partner of the
charge is physically the
mirror, not the picture
behind it. But which
mirror can cause the
second particle in a model
if the second particle is
not assumed to be real?<br>
<br>
And what in general is the
problem with a two
particle model? It fulfils
the momentum law. And it
does not cause further
conflicts. It also
explains why an
accelerated electron
sometimes radiates,
sometimes not. For an
experimental evidence I
refer again to the article
of Frank Wilczek in
"Nature" which was
mentioned here earlier:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com"
target="_blank">http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com</a>:
</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
</span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
class="current-selection"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">He
writes: "By combining
fragmentation with
super</span></span><span
class="ls0"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">-</span></span><span
class="current-selection"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">conductivity, we can get
half-electrons that
are their own
antiparticles." </span></span><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">For
Wilczek this is a
mysterious result, in view
of my model it is not, on
the contrary it is kind of
a proof.<br>
<br>
Grüße<br>
Albrecht</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
</span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Am 12.11.2015 um 03:06
schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;
margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Hi Albrecht:</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Virtual particles are proxys
for an ensemble of
real particles.
There is nothing
folly-lolly about
them! They simply
summarize the
total effect of
particles that
cannot be ignored.
To ignore the
remainder of the
universe becasue
it is inconvenient
for theory
formulation is for
certain leading to
error. "No man is
an island," and
no single particle
is a universe!
Thus, it can be
argued that, to
reject the concept
of virtual
particles is to
reject a facit of
reality that must
be essential for
an explantion of
the material
world.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">For example, if a positive
charge is placed
near a conducting
surface, the
charges in that
surface will
respond to the
positive charge by
rearranging
themselves so as
to give a total
field on the
surface of zero
strength as if
there were a
negative charge
(virtual) behind
the mirror.
Without the real
charges on the
mirror surface,
the concept of
"virtual" negative
charge would not
be necessary or
even useful. </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">The concept of virtual
charge as the
second particle in
your model seems
to me to be not
just a wild
supposition, but
an absolute
necessity. Every
charge is, without
choice, in
constant
interaction with
every other charge
in the universe,
has been so since
the big bang (if
such were) and
will remain so
till the big
crunch (if such is
to be)! The
universe cannot be
ignored. If you
reject including
the universe by
means of virtual
charges, them you
have a lot more
work to do to make
your theory
reasonable some
how else. In
particular in view
of the fact that
the second
particles in your
model have never
ever been seen or
even suspected in
the various
experiments
resulting in the
disasssmbly of
whatever targert
was used. </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">MfG, Al</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
</span></p>
<div
style="border:none;
border-left:solid
#C3D9E5 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 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"
style="background:white"><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"> Mittwoch, 11. November 2015
um 22:37 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr.
Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank">
</a><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>,
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
Reply of
comments from
what a model…</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Hi
Al,<br>
<br>
if we think in
categories of
a virtual
image, then we
are in my
understanding
fully on the
path of
present main
stream QM. I
have
understood
that we all
want to do
something
better than
that.<br>
<br>
Regarding
virtual
phenomena I
would like to
remind you
again of the
history of
such ideas. In
the 1940ies
Julian
Schwinger has
introduced
vacuum
polarization
(which is
equivalent to
virtual
particles
according to
Feynman) to
determine the
Landé factor
for refining
the Bohr
magneton. This
was the birth
of it.<br>
<br>
On the other
hand I have
shown that I
can deduce the
Bohr magneton
as well as the
Landé factor
in a classical
way if I use
my particle
model. And
that is
possible and
was done on a
pure classical
way. For me
this is a good
example that
we can do
things better
than by QM. In
particular I
try to have
correct
results
without using
any virtual
objects.<br>
<br>
Back to your
question: If
we build a
particle model
on a classical
basis then
there is no
place for a
virtual image,
and so I see
the need for
two
sub-particles.<br>
<br>
Ciao, Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
</span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Am
11.11.2015 um
17:27 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</span></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;
margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
</span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
</span></p>
<div
style="border:none;
border-left:solid
#C3D9E5 1.5pt;
padding:0in
0in 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"
style="background:white"><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"> Mittwoch, 11. November 2015
um 11:54 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr.
Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank">
</a><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
Reply of
comments from
what a model…</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Hi
Albrecht:</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:#006600">You
said: A model
with only one
particle is in
my view also
not possible
as it violates
the
conservation
of momentum. A
single object
can never
oscillate.</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:#006600">I
ask: Why
can't a single
particle
oscillate
against, or in
consort with,
its own
virtual image.
(Presuming
there is
charge complex
around---mirror
in 2d,
negative
sphere (I
think) in
3d)? </span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:#006600">ciao,
Al</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"></span></p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
</span></p>
<div
class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center;
background:white" align="center">
<span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
<hr
style="color:#909090"
noshade="noshade" size="1" width="99%" align="center">
</span></div>
<table
class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:collapse" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="padding:0in
11.25pt 0in
6.0pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
id="_x0000_i1026"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast
logo"
border="0"></span></a></p>
</td>
<td
style="padding:.75pt
.75pt .75pt
.75pt">
<p><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#3D4D5A">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft.<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
_______________________________________________
If you no
longer wish to
receive
communication
from the
Nature of
Light and
Particles
General
Discussion
List at
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></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></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
</span></p>
<div
class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center;
background:white" align="center">
<span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
<hr
style="color:#909090"
noshade="noshade" size="1" width="99%" align="center">
</span></div>
<table
class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:collapse" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="padding:0in
11.25pt 0in
6.0pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
id="_x0000_i1028"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast
logo"
border="0"></span></a></p>
</td>
<td
style="padding:.75pt
.75pt .75pt
.75pt">
<p><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#3D4D5A">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft.<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
</span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center;
background:white"
align="center">
<span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
<hr style="color:#909090"
noshade="noshade"
size="1" width="99%"
align="center">
</span></div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:collapse" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in
11.25pt 0in 6.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
id="_x0000_i1030"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast
logo"
border="0"></span></a></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt
.75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#3D4D5A">Diese
E-Mail wurde von
Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren geprüft.<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
</span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center;
background:white" align="center">
<span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
<hr style="color:#909090"
noshade="noshade" size="1" width="99%"
align="center">
</span></div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:collapse"
border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 11.25pt 0in
6.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
id="_x0000_i1032"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
alt="Avast logo" border="0"></span></a></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt
.75pt">
<p><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#3D4D5A">Diese E-Mail
wurde von Avast
Antivirus-Software auf Viren
geprüft.<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank">www.avast.com</a></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
</p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center">
<hr style="color:#909090" noshade="noshade" size="1"
width="99%" align="center">
</div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:collapse" border="0"
cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 11.25pt 0in 6.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img
moz-do-not-send="true" id="_x0000_i1034"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast
logo" border="0"></span></a></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#3D4D5A">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast
Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank">www.avast.com</a> </span>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<hr style="border:none; color:#909090;
background-color:#B0B0B0; height:1px; width:99%">
<table style="border-collapse:collapse; border:none">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border:none; padding:0px 15px 0px 8px"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
alt="Avast logo" border="0">
</a></td>
<td>
<p style="color:#3d4d5a;
font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica";
font-size:12pt">
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software
auf Viren geprüft. <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank">www.avast.com</a> </p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
<tr>
<td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">
<img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" />
</a>
</td>
<td>
<p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
<br><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>