<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Hello Albrecht,</div><div class=""> You say "I assume a similar kind of bind between the basic particles in an elementary particle.” You assume a lot in you electron model that has no experimental justification, starting with the two ‘basic particles’ in your electron model. Then you assume that strong nuclear forces hold them together. You can of course assume all you like in your model, but this will not convince anyone of its correctness.</div><div class=""> with best regards,</div><div class=""> Richard</div><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 19, 2015, at 7:55 AM, Albrecht Giese <<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" class="">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
Hello Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
thank you for your investigation. - Here some text from the article
at Wikipedia, which you mention:<br class="">
<br class="">
"A quantitative description of the nuclear force relies on partially
empirical equations that model the internucleon potential energies,
or potentials. ... The constants for the equations are
phenomenological, that is, determined by fitting the equations to
experimental data."<br class="">
<br class="">
I think that this sentence shows quite illustrative what the present
situation is. There is not much understanding in detail, and present
particle physics still seems to follow the advice of Werner
Heisenberg that it is useless to think about structures of
elementary particles, as our human brain is anyway not able to
understand it (permanent example for this is the particle-wave
paradox.) The parameters of this field are, as said at Wikipedia,
empirical data, so there is no theory behind it. <br class="">
<br class="">
The Wikipedia article mentions as an analogy the van der Waals
forces between atoms to build molecules. These are forces of
electrical multipoles which are built by the positive and negative
charges in the atom, which are a bit displaced by the electrical
charges of the neighbour atom. So a field is built that has a
potential minimum at some distance, which binds the atoms on the one
hand and keeps them at a distance on the other hand. <br class="">
<br class="">
I assume a similar kind of bind between the basic particles in an
elementary particle. However, that cannot be the electrical charges
as their forces are too weak by a factor of several hundred. <br class="">
<br class="">
You mention the distances between nucleons. These depend on the
specific situation in the nucleon. In the specific situation of an
electron they are of course different, so as the distances between
atoms in a molecule in the case of the electrical forces are also
different. This distance is specific for any different lepton and
for any different quark. <br class="">
<br class="">
The colour charges are another observation made for the constituents
of a nucleus, the quarks. There is no further explanation for it,
just the observation which is then noted as "colour". Also this
shows the level of understanding of present main stream physics. I
have not incorporated colour charges into my model. In nuclear
physics this was concluded from the fact that the Pauli principle
applicable for fermions is sometimes effective, sometimes not. - So,
to take account for that, I would have to find a reason for the
Pauli principle on the basis of my model. But I am not so far with
it.<br class="">
<br class="">
Best regards<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 18.11.2015 um 07:39 schrieb Richard
Gauthier:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:EBC51435-7429-4C60-9496-8D97574E9F6A@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252" class="">
Hello Albrecht,
<div class=""> I looked up "nuclear force" (the force that holds
nucleons together in a nucleus) on Wikipedia at <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_force" class=""></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_force">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_force</a> .
There is no indication there that the strong force is caused by
+ and - electric charges. What is the source of your
understanding that this is the case? There are some graphs in
this Wikipedia article that look like the potential well graph
you use for your 2-particles electron model, but these Wikipedia
graphs show a minimum potential energy for 2 nucleons, and the
distances indicated are femtometers = 10^-15 meters. I am
obviously no expert on strong forces, but I don’t see any
justification in this article for your claim that the strong
force is active at a distance of 3.83 x 10^-13 meters. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Then I looked up "strong interaction" at <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction" class=""></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction</a> .
It is described as the mechanism responsible for the strong
force (or strong nuclear force). Here are two quotes from this
article:</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family:
sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">The strong
interaction is observable in two areas: on a larger scale
(about 1 to 3 </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femtometer" title="Femtometer" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration:
none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none;
font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;">femtometers</a><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif;
font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);" class=""> (fm)), it is the force that binds </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton" title="Proton" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128);
background-image: none; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:
14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">protons</a><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif;
font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);" class=""> and </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron" title="Neutron" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128);
background-image: none; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:
14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">neutrons</a><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif;
font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);" class=""> (nucleons) together to form the </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_nucleus" title="Atomic nucleus" style="text-decoration: none; color:
rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; font-family:
sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">nucleus</a><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif;
font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);" class=""> of an </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom" title="Atom" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128);
background-image: none; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:
14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">atom</a><span style="color:
rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;
line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">. On the smaller scale (less than about 0.8 fm, the
radius of a nucleon), it is the force (carried by </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon" title="Gluon" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128);
background-image: none; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:
14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">gluons</a><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif;
font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);" class="">) that holds </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark" title="Quark" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128);
background-image: none; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:
14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">quarks</a><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif;
font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);" class=""> together to form protons, neutrons, and
other </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadron" title="Hadron" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128);
background-image: none; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:
14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">hadron</a><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif;
font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);" class=""> particles. </span></div>
<div class=""><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family:
sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><br class="">
</span></div>
<div class=""><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family:
sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">The strong
interaction is thought to be mediated by massless particles
called gluons, that are exchanged between quarks, </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle" title="Antiparticle" style="text-decoration: none; color:
rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; font-family:
sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">antiquarks</a><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif;
font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);" class="">, and other gluons. Gluons, in turn, are
thought to interact with quarks and gluons as all carry a type
of charge called </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_charge" title="Color
charge" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128);
background-image: none; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:
14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">color charge</a><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif;
font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);" class="">. Color charge is analogous to
electromagnetic charge, but it comes in three types rather
than one (+/- red, +/- green, +/- blue) that results in a
different type of force, with different rules of behavior. </span></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Could it be that you are mixing up electric charge
in electrons and color charge in gluons and quarks? They are not
at all the same thing.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Richard</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Nov 16, 2015, at 6:51 AM, Dr. Albrecht
Giese <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" class="">genmail@a-giese.de</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class=""> Hello
Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
now as a private discussion ....<br class="">
<br class="">
See my comments.<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 14.11.2015 um 16:11
schrieb Richard Gauthier:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:B01812B3-90A3-451E-80D1-50FBDD730330@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252" class="">
<div class="">Hello Albrecht,</div>
<div class=""> No I don’t think the physics
community will be shocked by your hypothesis that
the electron is composed of two charged gluons
circling each other at a radius of the Compton
wavelength divided by 2pi or hbar/mc = 3.83 x 10^-13
m. I think that they will merely point out that the
range of the nuclear force is only about 10-^15
meters and so the strong nuclear force cannot
possibly be the force that holds two circling gluons
in a circular orbit of 3.83 x 10^-13 m. <br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
Regarding the strong force: In my understanding the
strong force is also caused by charges (+ and -) like
the electric force. In my 2-particle model these charges
are necessarily composed in a way that there is a
potential minimum at this distance of 3.83 x 10^-13 m in
the case of the electron. And this configuration means
that the field decreases continuously outside this
range. So the impression that the strong force has such
a limited range.<br class="">
<br class="">
This is even stronger for a particle like a quark, which
is based on the same model as the electron. There the
distance to the potential minimum is necessarily around
10^-18 m. And outside this range not much of a field is
left. This causes the statement about the short range of
the strong force in text books.<br class="">
<br class="">
Also the Yukawa potential, which is flat in a certain
range and falls off very rapidly outside this range, can
be sufficiently explained by this model.<br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:B01812B3-90A3-451E-80D1-50FBDD730330@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<div class=""> However, your claim that the
hypothesis of an electron that is composed of a
single circling particle such as a photon would
violate conservation of momentum deserves serious
consideration, and this has been given so far by Al
and myself in this group. I hope that John W or
Martin will also weigh in on this question since
their 1997 electron model and John’s current
electron model are also possibly affected by the
conservation of momentum claim. De Broglie was the
first to point out this problem for the
zitterbewegung motion of the the electron in
“L’Electron Magnetique”, Hermann et Cie, Paris,
1934, p 294-295, as I pointed out in my article
(footnote 17) at <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.academia.edu/4429810/Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron" class="">https://www.academia.edu/4429810/Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron</a> ,
But it apparently has not been an insurmountable
problem since a number of electron modelers since
then have a single particle in circular or helical
motion.</div>
<div class=""> with best regards,</div>
<div class=""> Richard</div>
</blockquote>
Thank you for the reference to the article of de
Broglie. But I do not know where to find the book which
has the two pages. Can you help me please? (And is it in
English?)<br class="">
<br class="">
Best regards<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:B01812B3-90A3-451E-80D1-50FBDD730330@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<div class="ff122" style="box-sizing: border-box;
white-space: nowrap; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;
border: none; line-height: 1; font-family: 'Open
Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif; font-size:
41px;"><span class="a" style="box-sizing:
border-box; position: absolute; border: none;
left: 3929px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; height:
1px; line-height: 1; font-family: ff122, 'Times
New Roman', Times, serif; top: 4855px;">ie</span></div>
<div class="ff122" style="box-sizing: border-box;
white-space: nowrap; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;
border: none; line-height: 1; font-family: 'Open
Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif; font-size:
60px;"><span class="a" style="box-sizing:
border-box; position: absolute; border: none;
left: 3961px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; height:
1px; line-height: 1; font-family: ff122, 'Times
New Roman', Times, serif; top: 4870px;">,</span><span class="a" style="box-sizing: border-box; position:
absolute; border: none; left: 2420px; padding:
0px; margin: 0px; height: 1px; line-height: 1;
font-family: ff122, 'Times New Roman', Times,
serif; top: 4951px; word-spacing: 2px;">Paris,
France, 1934, pp. 294-295</span></div>
<div class="ff122" style="box-sizing: border-box;
white-space: nowrap; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;
border: none; line-height: 1; font-family: 'Open
Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif; font-size:
60px;"><span class="a" style="box-sizing:
border-box; position: absolute; border: none;
left: 3474px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; height:
1px; line-height: 1; font-family: ff122, 'Times
New Roman', Times, serif; top: 4870px;
word-spacing: 18px;">, Hermann et C</span></div>
<div class="ff122" style="box-sizing: border-box;
white-space: nowrap; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;
border: none; line-height: 1; font-family: 'Open
Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif; font-size:
41px;"><span class="a" style="box-sizing:
border-box; position: absolute; border: none;
left: 3929px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; height:
1px; line-height: 1; font-family: ff122, 'Times
New Roman', Times, serif; top: 4855px;">ie</span></div>
<div class="ff122" style="box-sizing: border-box;
white-space: nowrap; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;
border: none; line-height: 1; font-family: 'Open
Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif; font-size:
60px;"><span class="a" style="box-sizing:
border-box; position: absolute; border: none;
left: 3961px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; height:
1px; line-height: 1; font-family: ff122, 'Times
New Roman', Times, serif; top: 4870px;">,</span><span class="a" style="box-sizing: border-box; position:
absolute; border: none; left: 2420px; padding:
0px; margin: 0px; height: 1px; line-height: 1;
font-family: ff122, 'Times New Roman', Times,
serif; top: 4951px; word-spacing: 2px;">Paris,
France, 1934, pp. 294-295</span></div>
<div class="ff468" style="box-sizing: border-box;
white-space: nowrap; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;
border: none; line-height: 1; font-family: 'Open
Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif; font-size:
60px;"><span class="a" style="box-sizing:
border-box; position: absolute; border: none;
left: 2837px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; height:
1px; line-height: 1; font-family: ff468, 'Times
New Roman', Times, serif; font-style: italic; top:
4870px;"> L’Electron Magnetique</span></div>
<div class="ff122" style="box-sizing: border-box;
white-space: nowrap; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;
border: none; line-height: 1; font-family: 'Open
Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif; font-size:
60px;"><span class="a" style="box-sizing:
border-box; position: absolute; border: none;
left: 3474px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; height:
1px; line-height: 1; font-family: ff122, 'Times
New Roman', Times, serif; top: 4870px;
word-spacing: 18px;">, Hermann et C</span></div>
<div class="ff122" style="box-sizing: border-box;
white-space: nowrap; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;
border: none; line-height: 1; font-family: 'Open
Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif; font-size:
41px;"><span class="a" style="box-sizing:
border-box; position: absolute; border: none;
left: 3929px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; height:
1px; line-height: 1; font-family: ff122, 'Times
New Roman', Times, serif; top: 4855px;">ie</span></div>
<div class="ff122" style="box-sizing: border-box;
white-space: nowrap; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;
border: none; line-height: 1; font-family: 'Open
Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif; font-size:
60px;"><span class="a" style="box-sizing:
border-box; position: absolute; border: none;
left: 3961px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; height:
1px; line-height: 1; font-family: ff122, 'Times
New Roman', Times, serif; top: 4870px;">,</span><span class="a" style="box-sizing: border-box; position:
absolute; border: none; left: 2420px; padding:
0px; margin: 0px; height: 1px; line-height: 1;
font-family: ff122, 'Times New Roman', Times,
serif; top: 4951px; word-spacing: 2px;">Paris,
France, 1934, pp. 294-295</span></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Nov 13, 2015, at 9:04 AM, Dr.
Albrecht Giese <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" class="">genmail@a-giese.de</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
Hello Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
the following sounds interesting. But of
course I have comments.<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 13.11.2015 um
14:54 schrieb Richard Gauthier:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:F8DBBF2F-032C-44B5-A014-EE3D2CBEC172@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<div class="">Hello Albrecht,</div>
<div class=""> Of your 5 listed points
that you said form the basis of your
2-circling-massless-particles electron
model, 4 can be covered by a model (I am
not proposing this as a viable model but
there are a few doubts about your model
also) of two circling charged photons,
each with energy E = 1/2 mc^2 where m is
the electron’s rest mass, and each has
electric charge -1/2 e . They could get
their charge by circling each other.</div>
</blockquote>
Questions: 1.) How do you explain the energy
of the photon? Where does the equation come
from? 2.) How can a charge be generated by
motion? How is motion defined in this case,
motion with respect to what?<br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:F8DBBF2F-032C-44B5-A014-EE3D2CBEC172@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<div class="">1) There is permanent motion
with c since both photons move at c.</div>
</blockquote>
ok.<br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:F8DBBF2F-032C-44B5-A014-EE3D2CBEC172@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<div class="">2) There are 2 sub-particles
(though experiment so far rules this out
as with your model) since the
sub-particles are two circling photons.</div>
</blockquote>
2 sub-particles are NOT ruled out. All those
experiments have assumed that constituents of
an electron, if any, have an individual mass.
That is in fact falsified. But with mass-less
constituents no problem. Was confirmed by the
research director of DESY.<br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:F8DBBF2F-032C-44B5-A014-EE3D2CBEC172@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<div class="">3) Each photon is massless
since a single photon having energy E =
1/2 mc^2 = hf normally has no rest mass
(as commonly understood).</div>
</blockquote>
This is commonly understood, true, but never
deduced. (My model BTW deduces it.)<br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:F8DBBF2F-032C-44B5-A014-EE3D2CBEC172@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<div class="">4) The 2-photon system has
rest mass m even though the sub particles
are massless. This is because the two
photons together, each of energy E = 1/2
mc^2 and moving in opposite directions,
have zero total momentum, (i.e. p total =
0) so by the relativistic energy-momentum
equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 this
means m = Etotal/c^2 so the system of 2
photons has a total rest mass and inertia
m .</div>
</blockquote>
If the photon has energy it also has mass.
That is in fact the general understanding. But
why follows mass from energy? I know that
Einstein has stated it and I have no doubts
that it is correct in the general case. But it
was never deduced up to now. Physical
understanding means that everything can be
deduced except some very fundamental facts. I
do not see this as a very fundamental fact, as
can be deduced. I have shown how this can be
done. <br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:F8DBBF2F-032C-44B5-A014-EE3D2CBEC172@gmail.com" type="cite" class=""><br class="">
<div class="">5) There is no clear binding
force for the two circling charged
photons. You invoke the strong nuclear
force for binding your two particles into
an electron, but there is no experimental
evidence that the strong force acts on
electrons. </div>
</blockquote>
There IS experimental evidence, which was
discussed here earlier. In the 1990ies it was
found at DESY that the electron reacts to the
strong force. - I go a step further and assume
that the strong force is the universal one,
also acting on photons.<br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:F8DBBF2F-032C-44B5-A014-EE3D2CBEC172@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<div class="">But you could also invoke the
strong nuclear force to hold these two
circling charged photons together. Perhaps
they are not circling charged photons but
circling charged gluons (which are also
light-speed particles) and so your point 5
will also be covered in this model!. So I
think that this
two-looping-charged-photons-or-charged-gluons
model of the electron is just as good a
model as your electron model, or even
better since photons and gluons are known
particles while your two circling
particles are purely hypothetical. You’re
welcome.</div>
</blockquote>
I also think that gluons and my basic particle
are the same. But we may shock the community
by saying that gluons are in the electron. -
How can the photons circle in opposite
directions without causing problems
(collisions etc)?<br class="">
<br class="">
Yes, we are getting closer. <br class="">
<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:F8DBBF2F-032C-44B5-A014-EE3D2CBEC172@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<div class=""> Richard</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Nov 13, 2015, at 3:35
AM, John Williamson <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" class=""></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div style="font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: auto; word-spacing:
0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255); direction: ltr; font-family:
Tahoma; font-size: 10pt;" class="">Dear
Albrecht,<br class="">
<br class="">
You asked, so I will answer. I think
you are managing to fool yourself.
You have had to, to keep your
initial postulate, invent several
rules not found in other physics.
Comments below.<br class="">
<div style="font-family: 'Times New
Roman'; font-size: 16px;" class="">
<hr tabindex="-1" class="">
<div id="divRpF73710" style="direction: ltr;" class=""><font class="" size="2" face="Tahoma"><b class="">From:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General [<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
on behalf of Dr. Albrecht
Giese [<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a>]<br class="">
<b class="">Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Friday,
November 13, 2015 11:11 AM<br class="">
<b class="">To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br class="">
<b class="">Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Reply of comments
from what a model…<br class="">
</font><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Hi Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
if we look to charges you
mention the law 1/r<sup class="">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 class="">-13</sup><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>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 class="">
<br class="">
Regarding my model, the logic of
deduction was very simple for
me:<br class="">
<br class="">
1.) We have dilation, so there
must be a permanent motion with
c<br class="">
<br class="">
<font class="" color="0000FF">ok</font><br class="">
<br class="">
2.) There must be 2
sub-particles otherwise the
momentum law is violated; 3 are
not possible as in conflict with
experiments.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">
<br class="">
<font class="" color="0000FF">Not
so .. there must be at least
two elements for a wave,
indeed, but it does not need
to be two "particles". In
ordinary textbook EM for
example,there are six field
components. Six is enough!<br class="">
<br class="">
Also 2 particles are just as
much in conflict with
experiment as are 3! As I have
said before.</font><br class="">
<br class="">
3.) The sub-particles must be
mass-less, otherwise c is not
possible<br class="">
<br class="">
<font class="" color="0000FF">Mass-less
means they must be made of
something other than
"particles". No? What then?<br class="">
</font><br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
<font class="" color="0000FF">This
is absolutely right. So you
can either invent a mechanism
to give inertia (outside of
physics) - or reject the
initial hypothesis that there
are two particles.</font><br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
<font class="" color="0000FF">You
need a force, indeed, to
confine your postulate of two
particles. So you can either
invent a<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><font class="" color="0000FF">new<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><font class="" color="0000FF">force</font></font><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>(outside of physics) - or reject
the initial hypothesis that
there are two particles.</font><br class="">
<br class="">
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.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">
<br class="">
So, where do you see any kind of
arbitrariness or missing
justification?<br class="">
<br class="">
<font class="" color="0000FF">The
point you go into the mist is
the initial step of demanding
the only way to conserve
momentum is to have two
objects (true) and that the
only kind of object allowed is
a particle (not true in my
view). I think even if it were
true one is still just left
with the problem of explaining
just what the (<font class="" color="0000FF">now two)
particles a<font class="" color="0000FF">re.</font></font><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">
</font><br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
Tschüß!<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<font class="" color="0000FF">Regards,
John.</font><br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
12.11.2015 um 17:51 schrieb<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div style="font-family:
Verdana; font-size: 12px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi Albrect:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">We are
making some progress. </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">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. <span class="">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></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><span style="font-family:
Verdana, sans-serif,
Arial, 'Trebuchet MS';
font-size: 13px;
line-height: 1.6em;" class="">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></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><span style="font-family:
Verdana, sans-serif,
Arial, 'Trebuchet MS';
font-size: 13px;
line-height: 1.6em;" class="">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></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><span style="font-family:
Verdana, sans-serif,
Arial, 'Trebuchet MS';
font-size: 13px;
line-height: 1.6em;" class="">Tschuß, Al</span></div>
<div class="">
<div name="quote" style="margin: 10px
5px 5px 10px; padding:
10px 0px 10px 10px;
border-left-width:
2px;
border-left-style:
solid;
border-left-color:
rgb(195, 217, 229);
word-wrap:
break-word;" class="">
<div style="margin:
0px 0px 10px;" class=""><b class="">Gesendet:</b> Donnerstag,
12. November 2015 um
16:18 Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Dr.
Albrecht Giese"<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] Reply of
comments from what a
model…</div>
<div name="quoted-content" class="">
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255, 255,
255);" class=""><font class="" size="-1">Hi Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
<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"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com">http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com</a>:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></font><br class="">
<div class=" m88 ls3 h2 y37
fc0
ff1 x28 t ws2
sc0 fs1"><small class=""><span class=""><span class="current-selection">He writes: "By co</span></span><span class="current-selection">mb</span><span class="current-selection">ining fragmen</span><span class="current-selection">tatio</span><span class="current-selection">n with su</span><span class="current-selection">per</span><span class=" ws0
ls0 current-selection
">-</span><span class="current-selection">con</span><span class="current-selection">ductivity</span><span class="current-selection">, w</span><span class="current-selection">e
can get
half-electro</span><span class="current-selection">ns tha</span><span class="current-selection">t<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></small><small class=""><span class="current-selection">ar</span><span class="current-selection">e
their o</span><span class="current-selection">wn an</span><span class=""><span class="current-selection">tiparticles."<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><br class="">
</span></small></div>
<font class="" size="-1">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 class="">
<br class="">
Grüße<br class="">
Albrecht</font><br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font class="" size="-1">Am
12.11.2015 um
03:06 schrieb<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</font></div>
<blockquote class="">
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;
font-size:
12px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">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.</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">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. </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">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. </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">MfG,
Al</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin:
10px 5px 5px
10px; padding:
10px 0px 10px
10px;
border-left-width:
2px;
border-left-style:
solid;
border-left-color:
rgb(195, 217,
229);" class="">
<div style="margin:
0px 0px 10px;" class=""><b class="">Gesendet:</b> Mittwoch,
11. November
2015 um 22:37
Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Dr.
Albrecht
Giese"<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="x-msg://116/UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
Reply of
comments from
what a model…</div>
<div class="">
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255, 255,
255);" class="">Hi
Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
Ciao, Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
11.11.2015 um
17:27 schrieb<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</div>
<blockquote class="">
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;
font-size:
12px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div style="margin:
10px 5px 5px
10px; padding:
10px 0px 10px
10px;
border-left-width:
2px;
border-left-style:
solid;
border-left-color:
rgb(195, 217,
229);" class="">
<div style="margin:
0px 0px 10px;" class=""><b class="">Gesendet:</b> Mittwoch,
11. November
2015 um 11:54
Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Dr.
Albrecht
Giese"<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
Reply of
comments from
what a model…</div>
<div class="">
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255, 255,
255);" class="">
<div class="">Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><font class="" 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.</font></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><font class="" color="#006600">I
ask:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></font><span style="color:
rgb(0, 102,
0);
font-family:
Verdana;
font-size:
12px;
line-height:
19.2px;" class=""> 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></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><span style="color:
rgb(0, 102,
0);
font-family:
Verdana;
font-size:
12px;
line-height:
19.2px;" class="">ciao,
Al</span></div>
<br class="">
<table style="border-collapse:
collapse;
border: none;" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td style="border:
none; padding:
0px 15px 0px
8px;" class=""><br class="">
</td>
<td class=""><br class="">
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br class="">
_______________________________________________
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"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank" class="">Click here to unsubscribe<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<span style="font-family:
Helvetica;
font-size:
12px;
font-style:
normal;
font-variant:
normal;
font-weight:
normal;
letter-spacing:
normal;
line-height:
normal;
orphans: auto;
text-align:
start;
text-indent:
0px;
text-transform:
none;
white-space:
normal;
widows: auto;
word-spacing:
0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px;
background-color:
rgb(255, 255,
255); float:
none; display:
inline
!important;" class=""></span><br style="font-family:
Helvetica;
font-size:
12px;
font-style:
normal;
font-variant:
normal;
font-weight:
normal;
letter-spacing:
normal;
line-height:
normal;
orphans: auto;
text-align:
start;
text-indent:
0px;
text-transform:
none;
white-space:
normal;
widows: auto;
word-spacing:
0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px;
background-color:
rgb(255, 255,
255);" class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: auto; word-spacing:
0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255); float: none; display: inline
!important;" class="">If you no
longer wish to receive communication
from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br style="font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: auto; word-spacing:
0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);" class="">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: auto; word-spacing:
0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255); float: none; display: inline
!important;" class=""><a href="</span><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a><span style="font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: auto; word-spacing:
0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255); float: none; display: inline
!important;" class="">"></span><br style="font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: auto; word-spacing:
0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);" class="">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: auto; word-spacing:
0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255); float: none; display: inline
!important;" class="">Click here to
unsubscribe</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: auto; word-spacing:
0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);" class="">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: auto; word-spacing:
0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255); float: none; display: inline
!important;" class=""></a></span><br style="font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: auto; word-spacing:
0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);" class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<br class="">
<hr style="border:none; color:#909090;
background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px;
width: 99%;" class="">
<table style="border-collapse:collapse;border:none;" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td style="border:none;padding:0px 15px
0px 8px" class=""> <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class=""> <img moz-do-not-send="true" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" class="" border="0"> </a> </td>
<td class=""><p style="color:#3d4d5a;
font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica";
font-size:12pt;" class=""> Diese
E-Mail wurde von Avast
Antivirus-Software auf Viren
geprüft. <br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="">www.avast.com</a> </p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<hr style="border:none; color:#909090;
background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;" class="">
<table style="border-collapse:collapse;border:none;" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td style="border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px" class=""> <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class=""> <img moz-do-not-send="true" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" class="" border="0"> </a>
</td>
<td class=""><p style="color:#3d4d5a;
font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica";
font-size:12pt;" class=""> Diese E-Mail wurde
von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren
geprüft. <br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="">www.avast.com</a> </p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<br class=""><br class="">
<hr style="border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;" class="">
<table style="border-collapse:collapse;border:none;" class="">
<tbody class=""><tr class="">
<td style="border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px" class="">
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="">
<img border="0" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" class="">
</a>
</td>
<td class=""><p style="color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;" class="">
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
<br class=""><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br class="">
</div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>