<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css"></style>
</head>
<body ocsi="0" fpstyle="1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;">Dear Albrecht,<br>
<br>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000; font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF965491"><font face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"><b>From:</b> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Albrecht Giese [genmail@a-giese.de]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, November 19, 2015 9:36 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Chip Akins<br>
<b>Cc:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div><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 type="cite"><style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math"}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline}
p
{margin-right:0in;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black}
span.EmailStyle20
{color:black}
span.EmailStyle21
{color:black}
.MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt}
@page WordSection1
{margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in}
-->
BODY {direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;}P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}</style>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Albrecht</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you for your comments.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">Ok</font><br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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.<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">Sorry - I just do not think this is true. If you heat one bit of your stone, the energy will transport itself around the stone - witho<font color="0000FF">u</font>t actual stone particles moving. Are you serious about your understanding
of energy?</font><br>
<br>
You can transport an object which has energy.<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">This is a very very simple and restricted view of the available possibilities - in my view.</font><br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">For matter I do presently not have an idea whether it is abstract.
<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">For me, it is not enough to <font color="0000FF">profess simple blindness</font> here. If you wi<font color="0000FF">s</font>h to be blind that is ok. I would like to try to see.</font><br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<font color="0000FF"><br>
Dear Albrecht, everything human is abstract, words are abstract. So what? Force is what you feel. Reality is maybe not real - maybe we are just atavars in some computer program<font color="0000FF"> - trying to understand that program from within.
<font color="0000FF">So what? we need anyway to base our understanding on the properties we perceive - and that
<font color="0000FF">IS such things as force<font color="0000FF"> - the base<font color="0000FF">, elementary rules of t<font color="0000FF">he</font> allowed processes available to us. One does not further
<font color="0000FF">understanding</font> by making stuff up not perc<font color="0000FF">ei</font>ved and
<font color="0000FF">not measured, such as un-observed paired <font color="0000FF">
"particles"<font color="0000FF">, <font color="0000FF">and presumed (but un-observed) extra forces</font></font>. T<font color="0000FF">his IS mystification!</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">I have made single electron "boxes". Experimented on the single electrons in those boxes. Bel<font color="0000FF">ie</font>ve me, they do not look a bit like small stones! They do not look like small<font color="0000FF">, point charges
eit<font color="0000FF">her.</font></font> Sorry! <font color="0000FF">You can think this if you like - but it is simply not so.</font><br>
</font><br>
<font color="0000FF">Look - if you want to have a theory of stones made from smaller stones - ad infinitum - that is fine and seems a popular method in many theories. At the end of the day, however - one is always left with having to explain just what the
small stones are made of. The answer "smaller stones" just does not really solve the problem. Ever. If you want to do that it is fine by me - but please count me out because I think it is a bit futile and
<font color="0000FF">a complete waste of time and energy</font>.</font><br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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.
<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">Albrecht you can keep saying this again and again, but saying it does not make it true!
</font><br>
<br>
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 type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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.<br>
<font color="0000FF"><br>
Obviously.</font><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">Albrecht, Einstein did not use "abnormal" mathematics. It is only quadratic for heavens sake. How far back do you want to go?</font><br>
<br>
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".<br>
<br>
<font color="0000FF">On the contrary, Lorentz proposed precisely that the contraction was with respect to absolute space - or am I wrong?</font><br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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>
<font color="0000FF">If you start with charge - you will never understand it. Your approach means you are accepting that you will understand neither charges, nor the "particles" you put in a-priori - nor the forces you need to stick them together. This is fine,
of course, if that is what you want - but it is not for me.</font><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 color="0000FF"><br>
If you want to move charges - just rub a balloon on a cat!</font><br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"></font></p>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"></font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> </font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you for communicating your vision. It has been inspiring.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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 type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div style="border:none; border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt; padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext"> Dr. Albrecht Giese [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">
<chipakins@gmail.com></a>; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">
</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Hi Chip,<br>
<br>
thanks for your proposals. I have inserted some comments into the text.</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 14.11.2015 um 17:13 schrieb Chip Akins:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt; margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Albrecht</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What if, for purposes of conjecture, we replace your two “particles” in the electron, with an EM wave which has a wavelength of twice the circumference?
</p>
</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>
</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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It seems that such a model would 1) conserve momentum, 2) cause inertial mass
<i>(because of confined momentum and the speed of light velocity limit)</i>, and 3) radiate when accelerated under most circumstances
<i>(except gravitational acceleration, if gravity is simply the diffraction of waves.)</i></p>
</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>
</p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt; margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If we do this, we have an electron model which consists of <i>
just one item</i> and explains (it seems) the same things that your model explains, but without the need for two entities within this elementary particle.</p>
</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>
</p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt; margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The reason for posing this question is that there is no experimental evidence that the electron is comprised of two particles. However there is much evidence that it is a single thing comprised of energy.</p>
</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 href="http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com" target="_blank">http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com</a><br>
<br>
And there is NO evidence of a "single thing" if investigated in relation to my model (having mass-less constituents).<br>
<br>
And another evidence (an indirect one): Only an object built by two constituents (as a minimum) can have inertia. We all know that the Higgs model does not work for inertia. And my model using 2 sub-particles yields the mass of e.g. the electron with an accuracy
of 1 : 500'000. Do you know any model which yields results of this accuracy? - <br>
I do not know any else model for this, and am presenting this model since 15 years on conferences all over the world, and there have been no objections.
<br>
<br>
Best<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt; margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div style="border:none; border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt; padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext"> General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><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 href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank"><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 href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><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></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
Why do we need a background? If I assume only local forces (strong and electric) for my model, the calculation conforms to the measurement (e.g. between mass and magnetic moment) with a precision of 2 : 1'000'000. This is no incident. Not possible, if a poorly
defined and stable background has a measurable influence. - And if there should be such background and it has such little effect, which mistake do we make if we ignore that?<br>
<br>
For the competition of the 1/r<sup>2</sup> law for range of charges and the r<sup>2</sup> law for the quantity of charges we have a popular example when we look at the sky at night. The sky is dark and that shows that the r<sup>2</sup> case (number of shining
stars) does in no way compensates for the 1/r<sup>2</sup> case (light flow density from the stars).<br>
<br>
Why is a 2 particle model necessary?<br>
<br>
1.) for the conservation of momentum<br>
2.) for a cause of the inertial mass<br>
3.) for the radiation at acceleration which occurs most time, but does not occur in specific situations. Not explained elsewhere.<br>
<br>
Ciao, Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
</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" target="_blank">
</a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt; margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Hi Albrecht:</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Your proposed experiment is hampered by reality! If you do the measurement with a gaget bought in a store that has knobes and a display, then the measurement is for certain
for signals under a couple hundred GHz and based on some phenomena for which the sensitivity of man-made devices is limited. And, if limited to the electric field, then there is a good chance it is missing altogether oscillating signals by virtue of its limited
reaction time of reset time, etc. etc. The vast majority of the background will be much higher, the phenomena most attuned to detecting might be in fact the quantum effects otherwise explained with mystical hokus-pokus! Also to be noted is that, the processes
invovled in your model, if they pertain to elementray entities, will have to be at very small size and if at the velocity (c) will be very high energy, etc. so that once again, it is quite reasonable to suppose that the universe is anything but irrelavant! </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Of course, there is then the issue of the divergence of the this SED background. Ameliorated to some extent with the realization that there is no energy at a point in empty
space until a charged entity is put there, whereupon the energy of interaction with the rest of the universe (not just by itself being there and ignoring the universe---as QM theorists, and yourself, are wont to do) is given by the sum of interactions over
all particles not by the integral over all space, including empty space. Looks at first blush to be finite. </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Why fight it? Where the hell else will you find a credible 2nd particle? </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">ciao, Al</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
</span></p>
<div name="quote" style="border:none; border-left:solid #C3D9E5
1.5pt; padding:0in 0in 0in
8.0pt; margin-left:7.5pt; margin-top:7.5pt; margin-right:3.75pt; margin-bottom:3.75pt; word-wrap:break-word">
<div style="margin-bottom:7.5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Gesendet:</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> Freitag, 13. November 2015 um 12:11 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese" </span><a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank"><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" target="_blank"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<b>An:</b> </span><a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank"><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 href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><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></p>
</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
if we look to charges you mention the law 1/r<sup>2</sup>. Now we can perform a simple physical experiment having an electrically charged object and using it to measure the electric field around us. I say: it is very weak. Now look to the distance of the two
half-charges within the particle having a distance of 4*10<sup>-13</sup> m. This means an increase of force of about 25 orders of magnitude compared to what we do in a lab. And the difference is much greater if we refer to charges acting from the universe.
So I think we do not make a big mistake assuming that there is nothing outside the particle.<br>
<br>
Regarding my model, the logic of deduction was very simple for me:<br>
<br>
1.) We have dilation, so there must be a permanent motion with c<br>
2.) There must be 2 sub-particles otherwise the momentum law is violated; 3 are not possible as in conflict with experiments.<br>
3.) The sub-particles must be mass-less, otherwise c is not possible<br>
4.) The whole particle has mass even though the sub-particles are mass-less. So there must be a mechanism to cause inertia. It was immediately clear for me that inertia is a consequence of extension. Another reason to assume a particle which is composed of
parts. (There is no other working mechanism of inertia known until today.)<br>
5.) I had to find the binding field for the sub-particles. I have taken the simplest one which I could find which has a potential minimum at some distance. And my first attempt worked.<br>
<br>
That is all, and I do not see any possibility to change one of the points 1.) thru 5.) without getting in conflict with fundamental physical rules. And I do not invent new facts or rules beyond those already known in physics.<br>
<br>
So, where do you see any kind of arbitrariness or missing justification?<br>
<br>
Tschüß!<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
</span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Am 12.11.2015 um 17:51 schrieb
</span><a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank"><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" target="_blank"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">:</span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt; margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Hi Albrect:</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">We are making some progress. </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">To your remark that Swinger & Feynman introduced virtual charges, I note that they used the same term: "virtual charge/particle," in spite of the much
older meaning in accord with the charge and mirror example. In the finest of quantum traditions, they too ignored the rest of the universe and instead tried to vest its effect in the "vacuum." This idea was suitably mystical to allow them to introduce the
associated plaver into the folk lore of QM, given the sociology of the day. Even in spite of this BS, the idea still has merit. Your objection on the basis of the 1/r² fall-off is true but not conclusive. This fall-off is matched by a r² increase in muber
of charges, so the integrated total interaction can be expected to have at least some effect, no matter what. Think of the universe to 1st order as a neutral, low-density plasma. I (and some others) hold that this interaction is responcible for all quantum
effects. In any case, no particle is a universe unto itself, the rest have the poulation and time to take a toll! </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">BTW, this is history repeating itself. Once upon a time there was theory of Brownian motion that posited an internal cause known as "elan vital" to
dust specks observed hopping about like Mexican jumping beans. Ultimately this nonsense was displaced by the observation that the dust spots were not alone in their immediate universe but imbededded in a slurry of other particles, also in motion, to which
they were reacting. Nowadays atoms are analysed in QM text books as if they were the only object in the universe---all others being too far away (so it is argued, anyway). </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Your model, as it stands, can be free of contradiction and still unstatisfying because the inputs seem to be just what is needed to make the conclusions
you aim to make. Fine, but what most critics will expect is that these inputs have to have some kind of justification or motivation. This is what the second particle lacks. Where is it when one really looks for it? It has no empirical motivation. Thus,
this theory then has about the same ultimate structure, and pursuasiveness, as saying: 'don't worry about it, God did it; go home, open a beer, pop your feet up, and forget about it---a theory which explains absolutely everything!</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Tschuß, Al</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div style="border:none; border-left:solid
#C3D9E5 1.5pt; padding:0in 0in 0in
8.0pt; margin-left:7.5pt; margin-top:7.5pt; margin-right:3.75pt; margin-bottom:3.75pt">
<div style="margin-bottom:7.5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Gesendet:</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> Donnerstag, 12. November 2015 um 16:18 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese" </span><a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank"><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" target="_blank"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<b>An:</b> </span><a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank"><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" target="_blank"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<b>Cc:</b> </span><a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank"><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" target="_blank"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</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></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 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></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></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">For Wilczek this is a mysterious result, in view of my model it is not, on the contrary it is kind of a proof.<br>
<br>
Grüße<br>
Albrecht</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
</span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Am 12.11.2015 um 03:06 schrieb
</span><a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank"><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" target="_blank"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">:</span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt; margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Hi Albrecht:</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Virtual particles are proxys for an ensemble of real particles. There is nothing folly-lolly about them! They simply summarize the total effect of
particles that cannot be ignored. To ignore the remainder of the universe becasue it is inconvenient for theory formulation is for certain leading to error. "No man is an island," and no single particle is a universe! Thus, it can be argued that, to reject
the concept of virtual particles is to reject a facit of reality that must be essential for an explantion of the material world.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">For example, if a positive charge is placed near a conducting surface, the charges in that surface will respond to the positive charge by rearranging
themselves so as to give a total field on the surface of zero strength as if there were a negative charge (virtual) behind the mirror. Without the real charges on the mirror surface, the concept of "virtual" negative charge would not be necessary or even
useful. </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">The concept of virtual charge as the second particle in your model seems to me to be not just a wild supposition, but an absolute necessity. Every
charge is, without choice, in constant interaction with every other charge in the universe, has been so since the big bang (if such were) and will remain so till the big crunch (if such is to be)! The universe cannot be ignored. If you reject including the
universe by means of virtual charges, them you have a lot more work to do to make your theory reasonable some how else. In particular in view of the fact that the second particles in your model have never ever been seen or even suspected in the various experiments
resulting in the disasssmbly of whatever targert was used. </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">MfG, Al</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
</span></p>
<div style="border:none; border-left:solid
#C3D9E5 1.5pt; padding:0in
0in 0in
8.0pt; margin-left:7.5pt; margin-top:7.5pt; margin-right:3.75pt; margin-bottom:3.75pt">
<div style="margin-bottom:7.5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Gesendet:</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> Mittwoch, 11. November 2015 um 22:37 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese" </span><a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank"><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" target="_blank"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<b>An:</b> </span><a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank"><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" target="_blank"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">,
</span><a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><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" target="_blank"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</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></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
if we think in categories of a virtual image, then we are in my understanding fully on the path of present main stream QM. I have understood that we all want to do something better than that.<br>
<br>
Regarding virtual phenomena I would like to remind you again of the history of such ideas. In the 1940ies Julian Schwinger has introduced vacuum polarization (which is equivalent to virtual particles according to Feynman) to determine the Landé factor for refining
the Bohr magneton. This was the birth of it.<br>
<br>
On the other hand I have shown that I can deduce the Bohr magneton as well as the Landé factor in a classical way if I use my particle model. And that is possible and was done on a pure classical way. For me this is a good example that we can do things better
than by QM. In particular I try to have correct results without using any virtual objects.<br>
<br>
Back to your question: If we build a particle model on a classical basis then there is no place for a virtual image, and so I see the need for two sub-particles.<br>
<br>
Ciao, Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
</span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Am 11.11.2015 um 17:27 schrieb
</span><a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank"><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" target="_blank"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">:</span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt; margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
</span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
</span></p>
<div style="border:none; border-left:solid
#C3D9E5
1.5pt; padding:0in
0in 0in
8.0pt; margin-left:7.5pt; margin-top:7.5pt; margin-right:3.75pt; margin-bottom:3.75pt">
<div style="margin-bottom:7.5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Gesendet:</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> Mittwoch, 11. November 2015 um 11:54 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese" </span><a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank"><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" target="_blank"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<b>An:</b> </span><a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><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" target="_blank"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</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></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Hi Albrecht:</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif; color:#006600">You said: A model with only one particle is in my view also not possible as it violates the conservation of momentum. A single object
can never oscillate.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif; color:#006600">I ask: Why can't a single particle oscillate against, or in consort with, its own virtual image. (Presuming there is charge complex
around---mirror in 2d, negative sphere (I think) in 3d)? </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif; color:#006600">ciao, Al</span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
</span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center; background:white" align="center">
<span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
<hr style="color:#909090" align="center" noshade="noshade" size="1" width="99%">
</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 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" border="0" width="100"></span></a></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt
.75pt .75pt
.75pt">
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:#3D4D5A">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.<br>
</span><a href="http://www.avast.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"></span></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com" target="_blank"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a></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 href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank"><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" target="_blank"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Click here to unsubscribe
</span></a></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
</span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center; background:white" align="center">
<span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
<hr style="color:#909090" align="center" noshade="noshade" size="1" width="99%">
</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 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" border="0" width="100"></span></a></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt
.75pt .75pt
.75pt">
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:#3D4D5A">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.<br>
</span><a href="http://www.avast.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"></span></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com" target="_blank"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
</span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center; background:white" align="center">
<span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
<hr style="color:#909090" align="center" noshade="noshade" size="1" width="99%">
</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 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" border="0" width="100"></span></a></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt
.75pt .75pt">
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:#3D4D5A">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.<br>
</span><a 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" target="_blank"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
</span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center; background:white" align="center">
<span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
<hr style="color:#909090" align="center" noshade="noshade" size="1" width="99%">
</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 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" border="0" width="100"></span></a></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:#3D4D5A">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.<br>
</span><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">www.avast.com</span></a></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center">
<hr style="color:#909090" align="center" noshade="noshade" size="1" width="99%">
</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 href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank"><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" border="0" width="100"></span></a></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:#3D4D5A">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
<br>
</span><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">www.avast.com</span></a><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:#3D4D5A">
</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
</p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center">
<hr style="color:#909090" align="center" noshade="noshade" size="1" width="99%">
</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 href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank"><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" border="0" width="100"></span></a></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:#3D4D5A">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
<br>
</span><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">www.avast.com</span></a><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:#3D4D5A">
</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<hr style="border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height:1px; width:99%">
<table style="border-collapse:collapse; border:none">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border:none; padding:0px 15px 0px 8px"><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank"><img src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" border="0">
</a></td>
<td>
<p style="color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt">
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft. <br>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a> </p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>