<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<big><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><small><small>Hi
Chip,</small> <br>
<br>
abstractions are indeed an interesting matter.</small></font></big><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><small><big> However I see
some criteria to judge about the degree of abstraction of
something we talk about. I shall try to explain my view in your
text.</big><br>
<br>
</small></font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><small>Am 17.11.2015 um 15:10 schrieb Chip Akins:</small></font><br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:02e301d12141$c8973a80$59c5af80$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
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
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
span.current-selection
{mso-style-name:current-selection;}
span.ls0
{mso-style-name:ls0;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you for your comments.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In all our work there are many things which
could be called abstractions. I think it is a matter of our
individual perceptions which causes us to believe certain
things are abstract while other similar things are not
abstract to us.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The concept of energy for example. For me
this is a very abstract thing. Energy seems to me to be the
motion (propagation) of a disturbance of a specific magnitude
through the medium of space. The properties (tension, moduli)
of space cause such a disturbance to be pushed away
(rejected), from one position in space as that position
renormalizes and the disturbance is passed on… etc. This
action is what we have seen in other media to be wave action.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">May I start with a simple
example, of how I see the different degrees of abstraction?<br>
<br>
Assume a stone. That is more an object, not an abstraction in my
understanding. I can touch the stone, I can put it into a box, or
take it out and put it into another box. Or I can use an adhesive
to glue it to the ground. The stone has properties like a colour,
a weight, a temperature. Those are real abstractions in my view.
We cannot glue the temperature to the ground or glue the colour
onto the ground, or the weight. <br>
<br>
And it can have energy. That is also an abstraction which cannot
be taken in the hand or thrown off. <br>
</font>
<blockquote cite="mid:02e301d12141$c8973a80$59c5af80$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Because matter is made of energy, E=mc<sup>2</sup>,
and we can see that energy propagates linearly through space
at the speed of light, many physicists have imagined, in
various ways, that matter also is made of energy propagating
at the speed of light.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Here I would like to
object. You cannot transport energy in my understanding. You can
transport an object which has energy.</font><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:02e301d12141$c8973a80$59c5af80$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If that is actually what matter is
physically, then it is not an abstract but a physical process
we are discussing. The binding force(s) which would hold
matter together, in such a physical (not abstract) system,
would be a bit difficult to isolate and verify, because we can
see from nature that there are only two stable configurations
for that(those) force(s), the electron and the proton. And
those particles are so small that this force would be a bit
difficult to study.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">For matter I do presently
not have an idea whether it is abstract. I think that his word has
so many meanings that it is difficult to assign it. Forces are
abstract, we cannot put a force into a box. Which type of thing is
an electron or a proton? Here I would also say that it is an
object as again: I can put an electron into a box, a proton as
well (which may in practise be difficult as those objects are very
small). But this view may change if we have a better understanding
of what it is.</font><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:02e301d12141$c8973a80$59c5af80$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think that is where we are. And if that
is the case then yes you can bind that energy (which manifests
itself to us as a wave) to something. Waves are not
abstract. Waves are real. <i>Waves have momentum</i>. The
relationship is often stated as L = E/c for light. And we can
see that waves traveling through space cause the “abstract
thing” we call fields. But the actions of fields are real,
the physical consequences are real.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">For energy I have already
said that in my view this is abstract. I can transport an object
having energy, but not the energy itself. And a wave? In my view
also an abstract. A wave is a property of something different. A
property of a field if the field changes. But even the field is
more an abstraction than an object.</font><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:02e301d12141$c8973a80$59c5af80$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Space is a medium through which energy can
travel. It is likely that energy propagates through space in
a manner which causes stresses in space so that the energy can
be propagated as a wave. It is also possible (and I feel it is
likely) that those stresses and flows of space as energy
passes are the cause of the fields we sense. It is not
difficult to imagine then that energy may move through space
linearly as light, or in a “vortex” or soliton wave which is
circular. We can see physical analogies for such motion in
wind and water. So I would say that it is not unreasonable to
consider that energy in space could, under the right
circumstances, move in a circle with the “forces” perfectly
balanced. This would involve momentum of the energy against a
“twist” force.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">What is space? I think
that space is a very complicated thing. The original understanding
(in history) was that space is nothing than the emptiness which
gives objects the possibility to move. Nothing to touch. Space
does not move. It was Einstein's "merit" to give space properties
like contraction or curvature. But if we look what Einstein did in
detail, then we see that Einstein has used space properties as a
mathematical tool to solve the equation c + v = c, which is not
solvable by normal mathematics. If the physicists would have
followed the relativity of Hendrik Lorentz (which I find much
better by a lot of reasons), then no physicist these days would
assume specific properties of "space".</font><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:02e301d12141$c8973a80$59c5af80$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If we use this approach it seems we can
understand what a particle is. My quest is to understand what
“particles” are and why they behave exactly as they do. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Therefore your two envisioned particle
model just does not get me any closer to my goal. That is not
to say your model is without merit. I have learned quite a
bit studying your model. I have understood while studying
your model how to calculate the inertial mass a particle using
my model would exhibit. And then by applying that to the
electron and integrating, it is precisely the value required
to accelerate the electron. Exactly the inertial mass of the
electron. <br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Why not assume that a
particle, an electron, is a configuration of charges? That of
course emphasizes that a charge is not an abstraction. The latter
is not really for sure. We could follow two approaches: 1.) we can
assume that charge is the property of something; then charge is an
abstraction; or 2.) we can assume that if an object does not have
any other properties than charge, we understand charge as an
object. <br>
<br>
I find both reasonable approaches. And the one or the other is the
basis of my model. And to come back to my statement at the start:
I can take a charge - or a charged object - and put in into one
box or move it from one box into the other one. Many years ago I
have given lessons to young boys and girls who wanted to learn
electronics. I have shown them a little experiment where I have
demonstrated how a charge can be moved. From this view, it is not
an abstract. <br>
</font>
<blockquote cite="mid:02e301d12141$c8973a80$59c5af80$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"> <font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><o:p></o:p></font></p>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> </font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><o:p> </o:p></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you for communicating your vision.
It has been inspiring.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Thank you for your
interest and your initiative for this little discussion.<br>
<br>
Albrecht</font><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:02e301d12141$c8973a80$59c5af80$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></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">
Dr. Albrecht Giese [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">mailto:genmail@a-giese.de</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 16, 2015 3:16 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Chip Akins <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"><chipakins@gmail.com></a>;
'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from
what a model…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Hi Chip,<br>
<br>
thanks for your proposals. I have inserted some comments into
the text.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 14.11.2015 um 17:13 schrieb Chip
Akins:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></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? <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">As a wave cannot have a momentum it will
not violate the conservation of momentum, true, but it cannot
build anything than mathematical equations.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">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"
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><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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></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 [</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Dr. Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, November 14, 2015 7:52 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">af.kracklauer@web.de</span></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><br>
<b>Cc:</b> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from
what a model…</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 13.11.2015 um 20:31 schrieb <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:<o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">ciao,
Al</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
</span><o:p></o:p></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;word-wrap:
break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode:
space;-webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
name="quote">
<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" </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"></span></a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<b>An:</b> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">af.kracklauer@web.de</span></a><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<b>Cc:</b> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments
from what a model…</span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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 </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"></span></a><a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">:</span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Tschuß,
Al</span><o:p></o:p></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" </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"></span></a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<b>An:</b> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_parent"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"></span></a><a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<b>Cc:</b> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_parent"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"></span></a><a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General]
Reply of comments from what a
model…</span><o:p></o:p></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>
</span><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"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com</span></a><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">: </span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
</span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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 </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"></span></a><a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">:</span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">MfG,
Al</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></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" </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"></span></a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<b>An:</b> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"></span></a><a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">, </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"></span></a><a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] Reply of
comments from what a
model…</span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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 </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"></span></a><a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">:</span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
</span><o:p></o:p></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" </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"></span></a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<b>An:</b> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"></span></a><a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
Reply of
comments from
what a model…</span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
</span><o:p></o:p></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="border:solid
windowtext
1.0pt;padding:0in;text-decoration:none"><img
id="Picture_x0020_2" src="cid:part36.01060904.01060206@a-giese.de"
alt="Image
removed by
sender. Avast
logo"
height="100"
width="100"
border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></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>
</span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avast.com"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"></span></a><a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a><o:p></o:p></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 </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"></span></a><a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </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"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Click
here to
unsubscribe </span></a><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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="border:solid
windowtext
1.0pt;padding:0in;text-decoration:none"><img
id="Picture_x0020_4" src="cid:part36.01060904.01060206@a-giese.de"
alt="Image
removed by
sender. Avast
logo"
height="100"
width="100"
border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></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>
</span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avast.com"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"></span></a><a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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="border:solid
windowtext
1.0pt;padding:0in;text-decoration:none"><img
id="Picture_x0020_6"
src="cid:part36.01060904.01060206@a-giese.de" alt="Image removed by
sender. Avast logo"
height="100"
width="100"
border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></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>
</span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"></span></a><a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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="border:solid windowtext
1.0pt;padding:0in;text-decoration:none"><img
id="Picture_x0020_8"
src="cid:part36.01060904.01060206@a-giese.de"
alt="Image removed by sender.
Avast logo" height="100"
width="100" border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></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>
</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">www.avast.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></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"><span
style="border:solid windowtext
1.0pt;padding:0in;text-decoration:none"><img
id="Picture_x0020_10"
src="cid:part36.01060904.01060206@a-giese.de"
alt="Image removed by sender. Avast logo"
height="100" width="100" border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></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>
</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">www.avast.com</span></a><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#3D4D5A"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></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"><span
style="border:solid windowtext
1.0pt;padding:0in;text-decoration:none"><img
id="Picture_x0020_16"
src="cid:part36.01060904.01060206@a-giese.de"
alt="Image removed by sender. Avast logo"
height="100" width="100" border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></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>
</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">www.avast.com</span></a><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#3D4D5A"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></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;'>
<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>