<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hello Albrecht,<div class=""><br class=""><div class=""> I admire your persistence in trying to save your doomed (in my opinion) 2-particle electron model. Do you understand how unreasonable and irrational it appears for you to write: "Then I had to determine the field constant S which is normally provided by experiments. But quantum mechanics is so unprecise regarding the numeric value of the strong force that there is no number available in the data tables. Here I found that I could use the Bohr magneton to determine the constant. (Which turned out to be S = hbar*c, merely a constant).” ? How could the number S that you could not find in “unprecise” tables about the strong force possibly be the same number that can be found precisely from the electron’s Bohr magneton ehbar/2m and which you claim is S = hbar*c ? This is an unbelievable, desperate stretch of imagination and "grasping at straws", in my opinion. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Here is the meaning of “grasping at straws” from <a href="http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasp+at+straws" class="">http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasp+at+straws</a> :</div><h2 style="box-sizing: inherit; font-size: 1.8rem; line-height: 1.8rem; display: inline-block; margin: 0px 0.2rem 6px 0px; color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;" class="">grasp at straws</h2><div class=""><span class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;">Also,</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><b style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;" class=""><span class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">clutch</span> at <span class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">straws</span></b><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class="">.</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;">Make</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class="">a</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;">desperate</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;">attempt</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class="">at</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;">saving</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;">oneself.</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;">For</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;">example,</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><i style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;" class="">He <span class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">had </span><span class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">lost</span> <span class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">the</span> <span class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">argument,</span> <span class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">but</span> he <span class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">kept</span> <span class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">grasping</span> at <span class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">straws,</span> <span class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">naming</span> <span class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">numerous</span> <span class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">previous</span> <span class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">cases</span> <span class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">that </span><span class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">had</span> <span class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">little</span> to do <span class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">with</span> <span class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">this</span> <span class="hvr" style="box-sizing: inherit;">one</span></i><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class="">.</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;">This</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;">metaphoric</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;">expression</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;">alludes</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class="">to</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class="">a</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;">drowning</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;">person </span><span class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;">trying</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class="">to</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;">save</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;">himself</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class="">by</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;">grabbing</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class="">at</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;">flimsy</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;">reeds.</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;">First</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;">recorded</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class="">in</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;">1534,</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;">the</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;">term</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;">was </span><span class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;">used</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;">figuratively</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class="">by</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;">the</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;">late</span><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;" class=""> </span><span class="hvr" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; box-sizing: inherit;">1600s.</span> </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I am not at all opposed to using desperate measures to find or save a hypothesis that is very important to you. Max Planck described his efforts to fit the black body radiation equation using quantized energies of hypothetical oscillators as an "act of desperation”. So you are of course free to keep desperately trying to save your 2-particle electron hypothesis. I personally think that your many talents in physics could be better spent in other ways, for example in revising your electron model to make it more consistent with experimental facts.</div><div class=""> </div><div class=""> By the way, van der Waals forces do not "bind atoms to form a molecule". They are attractive or repulsive forces between molecules or between parts of a molecule. According to Wikipedia:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">" <span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">the </span><b style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">van der Waals forces</b><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""> (or </span><b style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">van der Waals' interaction</b><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">), named after </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands" title="Netherlands" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">Dutch</a><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""> </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist" title="Scientist" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">scientist</a><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""> </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Diderik_van_der_Waals" title="Johannes Diderik van der Waals" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">Johannes Diderik van der Waals</a><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">, is the sum of the attractive or repulsive forces between </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecule" title="Molecule" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">molecules</a><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""> (or between parts of the same molecule) other than those due to </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond" title="Covalent bond" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">covalent bonds</a><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">, or the </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_interaction" title="Electrostatic interaction" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;">electrostatic interaction</a><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""> of </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion" title="Ion" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;" class="">ions</a><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""> with one another, with neutral molecules, or with charged molecules.</span><sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate; font-size: 11px; color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-1" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; white-space: nowrap; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">[1]</a></sup><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""> The resulting van der Waals forces can be attractive or repulsive.</span><sup id="cite_ref-Van_OssAbsolom1980_2-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate; font-size: 11px; color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-Van_OssAbsolom1980-2" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; white-space: nowrap; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">[2]</a></sup></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">with best regards,</div><div class=""> Richard</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 21, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Albrecht Giese <<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" class="">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
Hello Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
I am a bit confused how badly my attempted explanations have reached
you.<br class="">
<br class="">
I have NOT used the Bohr magneton to determine the radius R of an
electron. I deduced the radius directly from the measured magnetic
moment using the classical equation for the magnetic moment.<br class="">
<br class="">
For the binding force of the sub-particles I needed a multipole
field which has a potential minimum at a distance R<sub class="">0</sub>. The
simplest shape of such a field which I could find was for the force
F:<br class="">
F = S * (R<sub class="">0</sub> - R) /R<sup class="">3</sup>. Here R<sub class="">0</sub> is of
course the equilibrium distance and S the field constant. I wanted
to refer to an existing field of a proper strength, and that could
only be the strong force. Then I had to determine the field constant
S which is normally provided by experiments. But quantum mechanics
is so unprecise regarding the numeric value of the strong force that
there is no number available in the data tables. Here I found that I
could use the Bohr magneton to determine the constant. (Which turned
out to be S = hbar*c, merely a constant).<br class="">
<br class="">
From the equation for F given above the inertial mass of the
particle follows from a deduction which is given on my website:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass">www.ag-physics.org/rmass</a> . Too long to present it here, but
straight and inevitable. Here the result again: m = S / (R * c<sup class="">2</sup>) .<br class="">
<br class="">
If you are unsatisfied by my deduction of this field, what is about
the van der Waals forces which bind atoms to build a molecule? Did
van der Waals have had a better way of deduction in that case? I
think that the fact that the von der Waals forces act so as
observed, is enough for the physical community to accept them. <br class="">
<br class="">
And you ask for an independent calculation of S which I should
present in your opinion. Now, Is there anyone in physics or in
astronomy who can present an independent calculation of the
gravitational constant G? No, nobody can calculate G from basic
assumptions. Why asking for more in my case? I think that this
demand is not realistic and not common understanding in physics.<br class="">
<br class="">
And again: where is circular reasoning?<br class="">
<br class="">
Best regards<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 20.11.2015 um 23:02 schrieb Richard
Gauthier:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:7154B3DD-B1D7-48CA-AA3C-8BAEE7085526@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class="">
<div class="">Hello Albrecht,</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Thanks for your detailed response. I think the
key problem is in your determination of your “field constant” S
which you say describes the "binding field" for your two
particles. This definition of S is too general and empty of
specific content as I understand that it applies to any "binding
field” at any nuclear or atomic or molecular level. With your
2-particle electron model you then calculate the radius
R=hbar/mc from the Bohr Magneton e*hbar/2m, assuming the values
of m, e, h and c. . Then you calculate S from the Bohr magneton
and find it to be S=c*hbar. You then calculate m from the
equation m=S/(R*c^2). How can a binding field S be described by
such a universal term hbar * c ? That’s why I think that your
derivation is circular. You use the Bohr magneton e*hbar/2m to
calculate R and S, (using the Bohr magneton) and then you use R
and S to calculate m. You have no independent calculation of S
except from the Bohr magneton. That’s the problem resulting in
circularity. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> with best regards,</div>
<div class=""> Richard</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Nov 20, 2015, at 1:09 PM, Albrecht Giese <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" class=""></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class=""> Hallo
Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
I find it great that we have made similar calculations and
came at some points to similar conclusions. That is not a
matter of course, as you find in all textbooks that it is
impossible to get these results in a classical way, but
that in the contrary it needs QM to come to these results.
<br class="">
<br class="">
Here now again the logical way which I have gone: I assume
the circular motion of the elementary electric charge (2*
1/2 * e<sub class="">0</sub>) with speed c. Then with the
formula (which you give here again) M = i*A one can
conclude A from the measured magnetic moment. And so we
know the radius to be R = 3.86 x 10<sup class="">-13</sup>
m for the electron. No constants and no further theory are
necessary for this result. I have then calculated the
inertial mass of a particle which turns out to be m = S /
(R * c<sup class="">2</sup>) where the parameter S
describes the binding field. I did initially have no
knowledge about the quantity of this field. But from the
mass formula there follows for the magnetic moment: M=
(1/2)*(S/c)*(e /m). To this point I have not used any
knowledge except the known relation for the magnetic
moment. Now I look to the Bohr magneton in order to find
the quantity of my field constant S: M= (1/2)*hbar*(e
/m). Because the Planck constant has to be measured in
some way. For doing it myself I would need a big machine.
But why? Basic constants never follow from a theory but
have to be measured. I can use such a measurement, and
that tells me for my field constant S = c*hbar (from Bohr
magneton). So, where do you see circular reasoning? <br class="">
<br class="">
Now I have no theory, why specific elementary particles
exist. Maybe later I find a way, not now. But now I can
use the (measurable) magnetic moment for any particle to
determine the radius, and then I know the mass from my
formula. This works for all charged leptons and for all
quarks. Not good enough?<br class="">
<br class="">
And yes, the Landé factor. Not too difficult. In my
deduction of the mass I have used only the (initially
unknown) constant S for the field. Which I assume to be
the strong field as with the electric field the result is
too small (by a factor of several hundred). The only
stronger alternative to the electrical force is the strong
force, already known. Is this a far-fetched idea? But I
have in this initial deduction ignored that the two basic
particles have an electrical charge of e/2 each, which
cause a repelling force which increases the radius R a
bit. With this increase I correct the result for e.g. the
magnetic moment, and the correction is quite precisely the
Landé factor (with a deviation of ca. 10<sup class="">-6</sup>).<br class="">
<br class="">
So, what did I invent specially for my model, and which
parameters do I use from others? I have assumed the shape
of the binding field as this field has to cause the bind
at a distance. And I have used the measurement of the
Planck constant h which other colleagues have performed.
Nothing else. I do not have do derive the quantity e as
this is not the task of a particle model. If e could be
derived (what nobody today is able to do), then this would
follow from a much deeper insight into our physical basics
as anyone can have today. <br class="">
<br class="">
The fact of two constituents is a necessary precondition
to obey the conservation of momentum and to support the
mechanism of inertia. I do not know any other mechanism
which works.<br class="">
<br class="">
Where do I practice circular reasoning?<br class="">
<br class="">
Best regards<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 18.11.2015 um 15:42
schrieb Richard Gauthier:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:B7ECF22D-1D1C-4DA3-90AC-A65A2CD57FF6@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8" class="">
<div class="">Hello Albrecht,</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Let’s look at your listed assumptions
of your electron model in relation to the electron’s
magnetic moment. It is known that the magnitude of the
electron’s experimental magnetic moment is slightly
more than the Bohr magneton which is Mb = ehbar/2m =
9.274 J/T in SI units. Your 2-particle model aims to
generate a magnetic moment to match this Bohr magneton
value (which was predicted for the electron by the
Dirac equation) rather than the experimental value of
the electron’s magnetic moment which is slightly
larger. The standard equation for calculating the
magnetic moment M of a plane current loop is M = IA
for loop area A and current I. If the area A is a
circle and the current is a circular current loop I
around this area, whose value I is calculated from a
total electric charge e moving circularly at light
speed c (as in your 2-particle electron model) with a
radius R, a short calculation will show that if the
radius of this circle is R = hbar/mc = 3.86 x 10-13 m
(the reduced Compton wavelength corresponding to a
circle of circumference one Compton wavelength h/mc),
then this radius R for the current loop gives a
magnetic moment M = IA = Bohr magneton ehbar/2m . I
have done this calculation many times in my electron
modeling work and know that this is the case. The
values of h and also e and m of the electron have to
be known accurately to calculate the Bohr magneton
ehbar/2m . When the radius of the circular loop is
R=hbar/mc, the frequency f of the charge e circling
the loop is easily found to be f=c/(2pi R)= mc^2/h ,
which is the frequency of light having the Compton
wavelength h/mc. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">So the current loop radius R=hbar/mc that
is required in your 2-particle model to derive the
Bohr magneton ehbar/2m using M=IA obviously cannot
also be used to derive either of the values h or m
since these values were used to calculate the Bohr
magneton ehbar/2m in the first place. So your model
cannot be used to derive any of the values of e, h or
m, and seems to be an exercise in circular reasoning.
Please let me know how I may be mistaken in this
conclusion.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">with best regards,</div>
<div class=""> Richard</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Nov 18, 2015, at 2:03 AM, Dr.
Albrecht Giese <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" class="">genmail@a-giese.de</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class=""> <small class="">Hi Al,<br class="">
<font class="" color="#006600"><br class="">
I completely disagree with your conclusions
about the motivation towards my model
because my intention was not to develop a
particle model. My intention was to develop
a better understanding of time in
relativity. My present model was an
unexpected consequence of this work. I show
you my arguments again and ask you to
indicate the point where you do not follow.</font><br class="">
<br class="">
</small>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><small class="">Am
17.11.2015 um 19:18 schrieb <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</small><br class="">
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:trinity-16c90c3b-1bd5-4b73-a99e-8573ed871e42-1447784310841@3capp-webde-bap52" type="cite" class="">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi Albrect:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Comments² <strong class="">IN
BOLD</strong></div>
<div class="">
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px
5px 10px; padding: 10px 0 10px 10px;
border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space;" class="">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;" class=""><b class="">Gesendet:</b> Dienstag,
17. November 2015 um 18:41 Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht
Giese" <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] Reply of comments from
what a model…</div>
<div name="quoted-content" class="">
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class=""><small class="">Hi Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
again some responses.</small><br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><small class="">Am 14.11.2015 um
18:24 schrieb <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</small></div>
<blockquote class="">
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Answers to
your questions:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">1) The SED
background explains the
Planck BB distribution
without quantization. It
explans why an atom
doesn't collapse: in
equilibrium with
background, In fact, just
about every effect
described by 2nd
quantization has an SED
parallel explantion
without additional
considerations. With the
additional input of the
SED origin of deBroglie
waves, it provides a
direct derivation of the
Schröedinger eq. thereby
explainiong all of 1st
Quantization.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><small class="">Maybe
you achieve something when
using SED background. I do not
really understand this
background, but I do not see a
stringent necessity for it.
But SED as an origin to the de
Broglie waves is of interest
for me. I am presently working
on de Broglie waves to find a
solution, which does not have
the logical conflicts which we
have discussed here.</small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><strong class="">See
No. 11 (or 1) @ <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com/"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com/">www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com</a>
for suggetions and some
previous work along this line.</strong></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font class="" color="#006600"><small class=""><strong class="">Thank you, will have a look.</strong></small></font>
<br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:trinity-16c90c3b-1bd5-4b73-a99e-8573ed871e42-1447784310841@3capp-webde-bap52" type="cite" class="">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px
5px 10px; padding: 10px 0 10px 10px;
border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space;" class="">
<div name="quoted-content" class="">
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">
<blockquote class="">
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">2) Olber's
logic is in conflict with
Mach's Principle, so is
obviously just valid for
visible light. Given a
little intergalacitc
plasma (1 H/m³), not to
mention atmossphere and
interplanatary plama,
visible light disappears
to Earthbound observers at
visitble freqs to reappear
at other, perhaps at 2.7°
even, or at any other long
or hyper short wave
length. 'The universe
matters'---which is even
politically correct
nowadays!</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><small class="">Olber's
logic is simple in so far, as
it shows that the universe
cannot be infinite. I have
assumed the same for all
background effects. Or are
they infinite?</small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><small class=""><strong class="">The fly in the
ointment is absorbtion. An
inf. universe with
absorbtion in the visible
part of the spectrum will
still have a largely dark
sky. </strong><br class="">
</small></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font class="" color="#006600"><small class=""><strong class="">And the other way around: Even if
there is no absorption, the sky will be
dark. And the general opinion is that,
even if there is a lot of radiation
absorbed, this absorbing material will
heat up by the time and radiate as well.
So an absorption should not change too
much.</strong></small></font><br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:trinity-16c90c3b-1bd5-4b73-a99e-8573ed871e42-1447784310841@3capp-webde-bap52" type="cite" class="">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px
5px 10px; padding: 10px 0 10px 10px;
border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space;" class="">
<div name="quoted-content" class="">
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">
<div class=""><small class=""> <br class="">
What is the conflict with
Mach's principle?</small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><strong class="">Mach
says: the gravitational
"background radiation" is the
cause of inertia. This effect
is parallel to the SED
bacground causing QM effects.
Conflict: if Olber is right,
then Mach is probably wrong
(too weak).</strong></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font class="" color="#006600"><small class=""><strong class="">In my understanding, what Mach
means is completely different. Mach's
intention was to find a reference system
which is absolute with respect to
acceleration. He assumed that this is
caused by the stars in our vicinity. He
did not have a certain idea how this
happens, he only needed the fact.
(Einstein replaced this necessity by his
equivalence of gravity and acceleration -
which however is clearly falsified as
mentioned several times.)</strong></small></font>
<br class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:trinity-16c90c3b-1bd5-4b73-a99e-8573ed871e42-1447784310841@3capp-webde-bap52" type="cite" class="">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px
5px 10px; padding: 10px 0 10px 10px;
border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space;" class="">
<div name="quoted-content" class="">
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">
<blockquote class="">
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">3) The (wide
spread) criticism of 2
particles is that there is
neither an <em class="">a-priori</em>
intuative reason, nor
empirical evidence that
they exist. Maybe they do
anyway. But then, maybe
Zeus does too, and he is
just arranging appearances
so that we amuse
ourselves. (Try to prove
that wrong!) </div>
<div class=""> </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><small class="">I
have explained how I came to
the conclusion of 2
sub-particles. Again:<br class="">
<br class="">
1) There is motion with c in
an elementary particle to
explain dilation<br class="">
2) With only on particle such
process is mechanically not
possible, and it violates the
conservation of momentum<br class="">
3) In this way it is the only
working model theses days to
explain inertia. And this
model explains inertia with
high precision. What more is
needed?</small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><small class=""><strong class="">These assumtions
are "teleological," i.e.,
tuned to give the desired
results. As logic, although
often done, this manuver is
not legit in the formal
presentation of a theory.
For a physics theory,
ideally, all the input
assuptios have empirical
justification or motivation.
Your 2nd partical (modulo
virtual images) has no such
motivatin, in fact, just the
opposite. </strong><br class="">
</small></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font class="" color="#006600"><small class=""><strong class="">My logical way is just the other
way around. I had the plan to work on
relativity (the aspects of time), not on
particle physics. The particle model was
an unplanned spin-off. I shall try to
explain the logical path again: <br class="">
<br class="">
<u class="">1st step:</u> I have
calculated the 4-dimensional speed of an
object using the temporal part of the
Lorentz transformation. The surprising
fact was that this 4-dim. speed is always
the speed of light. I have then assumed
that this constant shows a permanent
motion with c in a particle. I have
accepted this as a probable solution, but
I have never assumed this, before I had
this result. It was in no way a desired
result. My idea was to describe time by a
vector of 3 of 4 dimensions. - I have then
</strong></small></font><font class="" color="#006600"><small class=""><strong class="">no further </strong></small></font><font class="" color="#006600"><small class=""><strong class="">followed this idea.<br class="">
<u class="">2nd step:</u> If there is some
motion in the particle, it cannot be
caused by one constituent. This is
logically not possible as it violates the
conservation of momentum. Also this was
not a desired result but logically
inevitable. <br class="">
<u class="">3rd step:</u> If the
constituents move with c, then they cannot
have any mass. Also this was not a result
which I wished to achieve, but here I
followed my understanding of relativity.<br class="">
</strong></small></font><strong class=""><small class=""><font class="" color="#006600"><u class=""><strong class="">4th </strong></u><u class="">step:</u> The size must be such
that the resulting frequency in the view
of c yields the magnetic moment which is
known by measurements. <br class="">
<u class="">5th step:</u> I had to find a
reason for the mass of the electron in
spite of the fact that the constituents do
not have any mass. After some thinking I
found out the fact that any extended
object has necessarily inertia. I have
applied this insight to this particle
model, and the result was the actual mass
of the electron, if I assumed that the
force is the strong force. It could not be
the electric force (as it was assumed by
others at earlier times) because the
result is too weak.<br class="">
<br class="">
None of the results from step 1 thru step
5 was desired. Every step was inevitable,
because our standard physical
understanding (which I did not change at
any point) does not allow for any
alternative. - <u class="">Or at which
step could I hav</u><u class="">e had an
alternative in your opinion?<br class="">
<br class="">
</u>And btw: which is the stringent
argument for only one constituent? As I
mentioned before, the experiment is not an
argument. I have discussed my model with
the former research director of DESY who
was responsible for this type of electron
experiments, and he admitted that there is
no conflict with the assumption of 2
constituents.</font><u class=""><br class="">
</u></small></strong>
<blockquote cite="mid:trinity-16c90c3b-1bd5-4b73-a99e-8573ed871e42-1447784310841@3capp-webde-bap52" type="cite" class="">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px
5px 10px; padding: 10px 0 10px 10px;
border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space;" class="">
<div name="quoted-content" class="">
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">
<div class=""><small class=""> <br class="">
I know from several
discussions with particle
physicists that there is a lot
of resistance against this
assumption of 2 constituents.
The reason is that everyone
learn at university like with
mother's milk that the
electron is point-like,
extremely small and does not
have any internal structure.
This has the effect like a
religion. (Same with the
relativity of Hendrik Lorentz.
Everyone learns with the same
fundamental attitude that
Lorentz was nothing better
than a senile old man how was
not able to understand modern
physics.) - Not a really
good way, all this.</small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><small class=""><strong class="">Mystical thinking
is indeed a major problem
even in Physics! But, some
of the objectiors to a 2nd
particle are not basing
their objection of devine
revelation or political
correctness. </strong></small></div>
<blockquote class="">
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">4) It is
ascientific to consider
that the desired result is
justification for a
hypothetical input. OK,
one can say about such
reasoning, it is validated
<em class="">a posteriori</em>,
that at least makes it
sound substantial. So
much has been granted to
your "story" but has not
granted your story status
as a "physics theory." It
has some appeal, which in
my mind would be enhansed
had a rationalization for
the 2nd particle been
provided. That's all I'm
trying to do. When you or
whoever comes up with a
better one, I'll drop
pushing the virtual
particle engendered by the
background. Maybe, it
fixes too many other
things.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><small class="">My
history was following another
way and another motivation. I
intended to explain relativity
on the basis of physical
facts. This was my only
intention for this model. All
further properties of the
model were logical
consequences where I did not
see alternatives. I did not
want to explain inertia. It
just was a result by itself.<br class="">
So, what is the problem? I
have a model which explains
several properties of
elementary particles very
precisely. It is in no
conflict with any experimental
experience. And as a new
observation there is even some
experimental evidence. - What
else can physics expect from a
theory? - The argument that
the second particle is not
visible is funny. Who has ever
seen a quark? Who has ever
seen the internal structure of
the sun? I think you have a
demand here which was never
fulfilled in science.</small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><small class=""><strong class="">The problem,
obviously, is that the
existence of the 2nd
particle, as you have
presented it, is not a fact,
but a Wunschansatz. [BTW:
"See" in this context is
not meant occularly, but
figuratively for
experimental verification
through any length of
inferance chain.] So, my
question is: what problem do
you have with a virtual mate
for the particle? In fact,
it will be there whether you
use it or not.</strong><br class="">
<br class="">
And see again Frank Wilczek. </small><small class=""><span class=""><span class="current-selection">He
writes: "By co</span></span><span class="current-selection">mb</span><span class="current-selection">ining
fragmen</span><span class="current-selection">tatio</span><span class="current-selection">n
with su</span><span class="current-selection">per</span><span class=" current-selection ls0 ws0
">-</span><span class="current-selection">con</span><span class="current-selection">ductivity</span><span class="current-selection">,
w</span><span class="current-selection">e
can get half-electro</span><span class="current-selection">ns
tha</span><span class="current-selection">t
</span></small><small class=""><span class="current-selection">ar</span><span class="current-selection">e
their o</span><span class="current-selection">wn
an</span><span class=""><span class="current-selection">tiparticles."
</span></span></small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><small class=""><span class=""><span class="current-selection"><strong class="">A "straw in the
wind" but sure seems far
fetched!
Superconductivity is
already a manybody
phenomenon, It's theory
probably involves some
"virtual" notions to
capture the essence of
the average effect even
if the virtual actors do
not really exist. </strong></span></span></small></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<small class=""><strong class=""><font class="" color="#006600">This was a nice
confirmation in my understanding. So as
the whole article of Wilczek. The electron
is in fact enigmatic if one follows main
stream. It looses a lot of this property
if my model is used. - But even without
this experimental hint I do not see any
alternative to my model without severely
violating known physics.<br class="">
<br class="">
Ciao<br class="">
Albrecht</font><br class="">
<br class="">
</strong></small>
<blockquote cite="mid:trinity-16c90c3b-1bd5-4b73-a99e-8573ed871e42-1447784310841@3capp-webde-bap52" type="cite" class="">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px
5px 10px; padding: 10px 0 10px 10px;
border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space;" class="">
<div name="quoted-content" class="">
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">
<div class=""><small class=""><span class=""><span class="current-selection"><strong class=""> </strong></span></span></small><br class="">
<br class="">
<small class="">Guten Abend<br class="">
Albrecht</small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><small class=""><strong class="">Gleichfalls, Al</strong></small></div>
<blockquote class="">
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Have a good
one! Al</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 10.0px
5.0px 5.0px
10.0px;padding: 10.0px 0
10.0px
10.0px;border-left:
2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);" class="">
<div style="margin: 0 0
10.0px 0;" class=""><b class="">Gesendet:</b> Samstag,
14. November 2015 um
14:51 Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Dr.
Albrecht Giese" <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] Reply of
comments from what a
model…</div>
<div class="">
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">Hi Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
For the competition
of the 1/r<sup class="">2</sup>
law for range of
charges and the r<sup class="">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 class="">2</sup>
case (number of
shining stars) does
in no way
compensates for the
1/r<sup class="">2</sup>
case (light flow
density from the
stars).<br class="">
<br class="">
Why is a 2 particle
model necessary?<br class="">
<br class="">
1.) for the
conservation of
momentum<br class="">
2.) for a cause of
the inertial mass<br class="">
3.) for the
radiation at
acceleration which
occurs most time,
but does not occur
in specific
situations. Not
explained elsewhere.<br class="">
<br class="">
Ciao, Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
13.11.2015 um
20:31 schrieb <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</div>
<blockquote class="">
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">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! </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">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. </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Why
fight it?
Where the
hell else will
you find a
credible 2nd
particle? </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">ciao,
Al</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin:
10.0px 5.0px
5.0px
10.0px;padding:
10.0px 0
10.0px
10.0px;border-left:
2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);" class="">
<div style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;" class=""><b class="">Gesendet:</b> Freitag,
13. November
2015 um 12:11
Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Dr.
Albrecht
Giese" <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
Reply of
comments from
what a model…</div>
<div class="">
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">Hi Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
if we look to
charges you
mention the
law 1/r<sup class="">2</sup>.
Now we can
perform a
simple
physical
experiment
having an
electrically
charged object
and using it
to measure the
electric field
around us. I
say: it is
very weak. Now
look to the
distance of
the two
half-charges
within the
particle
having a
distance of
4*10<sup class="">-13</sup>
m. This means
an increase of
force of about
25 orders of
magnitude
compared to
what we do in
a lab. And the
difference is
much greater
if we refer to
charges acting
from the
universe. So I
think we do
not make a big
mistake
assuming that
there is
nothing
outside the
particle.<br class="">
<br class="">
Regarding my
model, the
logic of
deduction was
very simple
for me:<br class="">
<br class="">
1.) We have
dilation, so
there must be
a permanent
motion with c<br class="">
2.) There must
be 2
sub-particles
otherwise the
momentum law
is violated; 3
are not
possible as in
conflict with
experiments.<br class="">
3.) The
sub-particles
must be
mass-less,
otherwise c is
not possible<br class="">
4.) The whole
particle has
mass even
though the
sub-particles
are mass-less.
So there must
be a mechanism
to cause
inertia. It
was
immediately
clear for me
that inertia
is a
consequence of
extension.
Another reason
to assume a
particle which
is composed of
parts. (There
is no other
working
mechanism of
inertia known
until today.)<br class="">
5.) I had to
find the
binding field
for the
sub-particles.
I have taken
the simplest
one which I
could find
which has a
potential
minimum at
some distance.
And my first
attempt
worked.<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
So, where do
you see any
kind of
arbitrariness
or missing
justification?<br class="">
<br class="">
Tschüß!<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
12.11.2015 um
17:51 schrieb
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</div>
<blockquote class="">
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi
Albrect:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">We
are making
some progress.
</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">To
your remark
that Swinger
& Feynman
introduced
virtual
charges, I
note that they
used the same
term: "virtual
charge/particle,"
in spite of
the much older
meaning in
accord with
the charge and
mirror
example. In
the finest of
quantum
traditions,
they too
ignored the
rest of the
universe and
instead tried
to vest its
effect in the
"vacuum."
This idea was
suitably
mystical to
allow them to
introduce the
associated
plaver into
the folk lore
of QM, given
the sociology
of the day.
Even in spite
of this BS,
the idea still
has merit.
Your objection
on the basis
of the 1/r²
fall-off is
true but not
conclusive.
This fall-off
is matched by
a r² increase
in muber of
charges, so
the integrated
total
interaction
can be
expected to
have at least
some effect,
no matter
what. Think
of the
universe to
1st order as a
neutral,
low-density
plasma. <span class="">I
(and some
others) hold
that this
interaction is
responcible
for all
quantum
effects. In
any case, no
particle is a
universe unto
itself, the
rest have the
poulation and
time to take a
toll! </span></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><span class="">BTW,
this is
history
repeating
itself. Once
upon a time
there was
theory of
Brownian
motion that
posited an
internal cause
known as "elan
vital" to dust
specks
observed
hopping about
like Mexican
jumping beans.
Ultimately
this nonsense
was displaced
by the
observation
that the dust
spots were not
alone in their
immediate
universe but
imbededded in
a slurry of
other
particles,
also in
motion, to
which they
were reacting.
Nowadays
atoms are
analysed in QM
text books as
if they were
the only
object in the
universe---all
others being
too far away
(so it is
argued,
anyway). </span></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><span class="">Your
model, as it
stands, can be
free of
contradiction
and still
unstatisfying
because the
inputs seem to
be just what
is needed to
make the
conclusions
you aim to
make. Fine,
but what most
critics will
expect is that
these inputs
have to have
some kind of
justification
or motivation.
This is what
the second
particle
lacks. Where
is it when one
really looks
for it? It
has no
empirical
motivation.
Thus, this
theory then
has about the
same ultimate
structure, and
pursuasiveness,
as saying:
'don't worry
about it, God
did it; go
home, open a
beer, pop your
feet up, and
forget about
it---a theory
which explains
absolutely
everything!</span></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><span class="">Tschuß,
Al</span></div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin:
10.0px 5.0px
5.0px
10.0px;padding:
10.0px 0
10.0px
10.0px;border-left:
2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);" class="">
<div style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;" class=""><b class="">Gesendet:</b> Donnerstag,
12. November
2015 um 16:18
Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Dr.
Albrecht
Giese" <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
Reply of
comments from
what a model…</div>
<div class="">
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class=""><font class="" size="-1">Hi Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
I have gotten
a different
understanding
of what a
virtual
particle or a
virtual charge
is. This
phenomenon was
invented by
Julian
Schwinger and
Richard
Feynman. They
thought to
need it in
order to
explain
certain
reactions in
particle
physics. In
the case of
Schwinger it
was the Landé
factor, where
I have shown
that this
assumption is
not necessary.<br class="">
<br class="">
If there is a
charge then of
course this
charge is
subject to
interactions
with all other
charges in the
universe. That
is correct.
But because of
the normal
distribution
of these other
charges in the
universe,
which cause a
good
compensation
of the
effects, and
because of the
distance law
we can think
about models
without
reference to
those. And
also there is
the problem
with virtual
particles and
vacuum
polarization
(which is
equivalent),
in that we
have this huge
problem that
the integrated
energy of it
over the
universe is by
a factor of
10^120 higher
than the
energy
measured. I
think this is
a really big
argument
against
virtual
effects.<br class="">
<br class="">
Your example
of the virtual
image of a
charge in a
conducting
surface is a
different
case. It is,
as you write,
the
rearrangement
of charges in
the conducting
surface. So
the partner of
the charge is
physically the
mirror, not
the picture
behind it. But
which mirror
can cause the
second
particle in a
model if the
second
particle is
not assumed to
be real?<br class="">
<br class="">
And what in
general is the
problem with a
two particle
model? It
fulfils the
momentum law.
And it does
not cause
further
conflicts. It
also explains
why an
accelerated
electron
sometimes
radiates,
sometimes not.
For an
experimental
evidence I
refer again to
the article of
Frank Wilczek
in "Nature"
which was
mentioned here
earlier:<br class="">
<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com">http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com</a>:
</font><br class="">
<div class=" y37 t
m88 ls3 h2
fc0 x28 ws2 sc0 fs1 ff1
"><small class=""><span class=""><span class="current-selection">He writes: "By co</span></span><span class="current-selection">mb</span><span class="current-selection">ining fragmen</span><span class="current-selection">tatio</span><span class="current-selection">n with su</span><span class="current-selection">per</span><span class="ls0 ws0
current-selection">-</span><span class="current-selection">con</span><span class="current-selection">ductivity</span><span class="current-selection">,
w</span><span class="current-selection">e can get half-electro</span><span class="current-selection">ns
tha</span><span class="current-selection">t </span></small><small class=""><span class="current-selection">ar</span><span class="current-selection">e their o</span><span class="current-selection">wn
an</span><span class=""><span class="current-selection">tiparticles." </span><br class="">
</span></small></div>
<font class="" size="-1">For
Wilczek this
is a
mysterious
result, in
view of my
model it is
not, on the
contrary it is
kind of a
proof.<br class="">
<br class="">
Grüße<br class="">
Albrecht</font><br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font class="" size="-1">Am
12.11.2015 um
03:06 schrieb
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</font></div>
<blockquote class="">
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Virtual
particles are
proxys for an
ensemble of
real
particles.
There is
nothing
folly-lolly
about them!
They simply
summarize the
total effect
of particles
that cannot be
ignored. To
ignore the
remainder of
the universe
becasue it is
inconvenient
for theory
formulation is
for certain
leading to
error. "No
man is an
island," and
no single
particle is a
universe!
Thus, it can
be argued
that, to
reject the
concept of
virtual
particles is
to reject a
facit of
reality that
must be
essential for
an explantion
of the
material
world.</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">For
example, if a
positive
charge is
placed near a
conducting
surface, the
charges in
that surface
will respond
to the
positive
charge by
rearranging
themselves so
as to give a
total field on
the surface of
zero strength
as if there
were a
negative
charge
(virtual)
behind the
mirror.
Without the
real charges
on the mirror
surface, the
concept of
"virtual"
negative
charge would
not be
necessary or
even useful. </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">The
concept of
virtual charge
as the second
particle in
your model
seems to me to
be not just a
wild
supposition,
but an
absolute
necessity.
Every charge
is, without
choice, in
constant
interaction
with every
other charge
in the
universe, has
been so since
the big bang
(if such were)
and will
remain so till
the big crunch
(if such is to
be)! The
universe
cannot be
ignored. If
you reject
including the
universe by
means of
virtual
charges, them
you have a lot
more work to
do to make
your theory
reasonable
some how else.
In particular
in view of the
fact that the
second
particles in
your model
have never
ever been seen
or even
suspected in
the various
experiments
resulting in
the
disasssmbly of
whatever
targert was
used. </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">MfG,
Al</div>
<div class=""> </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<br class="">
<hr style="border: none;color:
rgb(144,144,144);background-color:
rgb(176,176,176);height:
1.0px;width: 99.0%;" class="">
<table style="border-collapse:
collapse;border: none;" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td style="border:
none;padding: 0.0px 15.0px
0.0px 8.0px;" class=""><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank" class=""><img moz-do-not-send="true" alt="Avast logo" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" class="" border="0"> </a></td>
<td class=""><p style="color:
rgb(61,77,90);font-family:
Calibri , Verdana ,
Arial ,
Helvetica;font-size:
12.0pt;" class="">Diese
E-Mail wurde von Avast
Antivirus-Software auf
Viren geprüft.<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank" class=""></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<hr style="border:none; color:#909090;
background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width:
99%;" class="">
<table style="border-collapse:collapse;border:none;" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td style="border:none;padding:0px 15px
0px 8px" class=""> <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class=""> <img moz-do-not-send="true" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast
logo" class="" border="0"> </a> </td>
<td class=""><p style="color:#3d4d5a;
font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica";
font-size:12pt;" class=""> Diese
E-Mail wurde von Avast
Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="">www.avast.com</a> </p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br class="">
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">
If you no longer wish to receive communication
from the Nature of Light and Particles General
Discussion List at <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br class="">
<a href="<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" class="">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br class="">
Click here to unsubscribe<br class="">
</a><br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<hr style="border:none; color:#909090;
background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;" class="">
<table style="border-collapse:collapse;border:none;" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td style="border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px" class=""> <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="">
<img moz-do-not-send="true" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" class="" border="0"> </a> </td>
<td class=""><p style="color:#3d4d5a;
font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica";
font-size:12pt;" class=""> Diese E-Mail wurde
von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="">www.avast.com</a> </p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<br class=""><br class="">
<hr style="border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;" class="">
<table style="border-collapse:collapse;border:none;" class="">
<tbody class=""><tr class="">
<td style="border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px" class="">
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="">
<img border="0" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" class="">
</a>
</td>
<td class=""><p style="color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;" class="">
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
<br class=""><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br class="">
</div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></div></body></html>