<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Dear John,<br>
<br>
<font color="#336666">now in green:</font><br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 20.11.2015 um 08:24 schrieb John
Williamson:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9147238A5@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css"></style>
<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 size="2"
color="#000000" face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b> General [<a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>]
on behalf of Albrecht Giese [<a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a></a>]<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><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">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>
</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<b><font color="#336666"><big><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">No, the energy does not move even in this case. In
the hot part the molecules of the stone are oscillating.</font></big></font></b><b>
<font color="#336666">By the contact between the molecules this
motion, which is identical to the energy, is transferred to the
other molecules. This way the energy is transported. The energy
itself is no object. <br>
</font></b>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9147238A5@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
font-size: 16px">
<div><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
color="#336666"><b> </b></font><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">If that is actually what matter is
physically, then it is not an abstract but a physical
process we are discussing. The binding force(s) which
would hold matter together, in such a physical (not
abstract) system, would be a bit difficult to isolate
and verify, because we can see from nature that there
are only two stable configurations for that(those)
force(s), the electron and the proton. And those
particles are so small that this force would be a bit
difficult to study.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">For matter I do
presently not have an idea whether it is abstract. <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>
</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<b><font color="#336666"><big><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">I did not want to fix physical facts by linguistic
arguments. In my view, matter is a collection of objects.</font></big></font></b><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9147238A5@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
font-size: 16px">
<div><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> <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>
</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#336666"><big><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><b>Of course one can relativise everything. But does
this help us? A stone is more an object than a force. We
cannot see a force, we see or measure certain effects and we
assign them to a force. That can be very reasonable. But it
does not change th</b><b>e fact that a force is abstract
(not an object).</b><br>
<br>
<b>What do we observe directly? No one has ever seen a
Up-quark. But nobody these days questions their existence as
the calculatio</b><b>ns using these quarks have good
results. Similar with the second particle. </b><br>
</font></big></font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9147238A5@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
font-size: 16px">
<div><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> <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></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<b><font color="#336666"><big><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">You can transport an electrical charge from one object
to the other one. And then the charge resides there. You
cannot do this with a force or a field.</font></big></font></b><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9147238A5@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
font-size: 16px">
<div><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font
color="0000FF"> </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></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<b><font color="#336666"><big><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">What you describe (and refuse) is exactly the so
called reductionist's view of the world. And in my
understanding this way of going on is the common sense of
present science. The alternative (i.e. holism) is generally
not understood to be science. </font><br>
</big></font></b>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9147238A5@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
font-size: 16px">
<div><b><font color="#336666"><big><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif"> </font> </big></font></b>
<blockquote type="cite"><b><font color="#336666"><big> </big></font></b>
<div class="WordSection1"><b><font color="#336666"><big> </big></font></b>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><font color="#336666"><big> </big></font></b></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>
</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<b><font color="#336666"><big><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">See the example of the stone. Was a good one to
explain it.</font></big></font></b><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9147238A5@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
font-size: 16px">
<div><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> <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">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>
</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<b><font color="#336666"><big><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">I should have said "geometry". With Euclidean
geometry the equation above cannot be solved. So Einstein
invented a different one, which is more complicated. But in
no way necessary. </font></big></font></b><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9147238A5@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
font-size: 16px">
<div><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> <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></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<b><font color="#336666"><big><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">No, not wrong at this point. Lorentz always assumed
an absolute space. And the advantage of it is that we can
maintain with Euclid. Contraction in his view was the
contraction of fields. Oliver Heaviside found in 1888 that
(electrical) fields contract at motion against the absolute
space. FizGerald and Lorentz concluded that objects contract
at motion. That was contraction for them, and Special
Relativity based on this (and on the internal motion with c)
results in an SRT which is much simpler to understand and
much more physical than the one of Einstein. - And this is
dramatically more the case for GRT.</font></big></font></b><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9147238A5@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
font-size: 16px">
<div><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<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>
</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#336666"><big><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">S<b>o, what is more fundamental than a charge? ...
Sounds to me like the world of Ptolemy: The complic</b><b>ated
facts are the basic ones</b><b>.</b></font></big></font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9147238A5@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
font-size: 16px">
<div><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> <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></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#336666"><big><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><b>As I wrote, I hav</b><b>e demonst</b><b>rated this
in a lesson for fundamentals of electronics. </b><b>And you
move a field f</b><b>rom one box to the other one</b><b>?
Without moving a charge? Right? </b><b>Plea</b><b>se de</b><b>monstrate!</b><b><br>
</b><b><br>
</b><b>Albrecht<br>
<br>
</b></font></big></font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9147238A5@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
font-size: 16px">
<div><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> </font>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<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>
<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"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">mailto:genmail@a-giese.de</a></a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 16, 2015 3:16 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Chip Akins <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"
target="_blank"> <chipakins@gmail.com></a>;
'Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion' <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_blank"> </a><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments
from what a model…</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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com"
target="_blank">http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com</a><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
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_blank"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"></span></a><a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext">] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Dr.
Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, November 14, 2015 7:52
AM<br>
<b>To:</b> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_blank"> </a><a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;
margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Hi
Albrecht:</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Your
proposed experiment is hampered by reality!
If you do the measurement with a gaget
bought in a store that has knobes and a
display, then the measurement is for certain
for signals under a couple hundred GHz and
based on some phenomena for which the
sensitivity of man-made devices is limited.
And, if limited to the electric field, then
there is a good chance it is missing
altogether oscillating signals by virtue of
its limited reaction time of reset time,
etc. etc. The vast majority of the
background will be much higher, the
phenomena most attuned to detecting might be
in fact the quantum effects otherwise
explained with mystical hokus-pokus! Also
to be noted is that, the processes invovled
in your model, if they pertain to elementray
entities, will have to be at very small size
and if at the velocity (c) will be very high
energy, etc. so that once again, it is quite
reasonable to suppose that the universe is
anything but irrelavant! </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Of
course, there is then the issue of the
divergence of the this SED background.
Ameliorated to some extent with the
realization that there is no energy at a
point in empty space until a charged entity
is put there, whereupon the energy of
interaction with the rest of the universe
(not just by itself being there and ignoring
the universe---as QM theorists, and
yourself, are wont to do) is given by the
sum of interactions over all particles not
by the integral over all space, including
empty space. Looks at first blush to be
finite. </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Why
fight it? Where the hell else will you find
a credible 2nd particle? </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">ciao,
Al</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
</span></p>
<div name="quote" style="border:none;
border-left:solid #C3D9E5 1.5pt; padding:0in
0in 0in 8.0pt; margin-left:7.5pt;
margin-top:7.5pt; margin-right:3.75pt;
margin-bottom:3.75pt; word-wrap:break-word">
<div style="margin-bottom:7.5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Gesendet:</span></b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> Freitag,
13. November 2015 um 12:11 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese" </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<b>An:</b> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"
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"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<b>Cc:</b> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="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"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Reply of
comments from what a model…</span></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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">:</span></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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<b>An:</b> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="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"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<b>Cc:</b> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="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"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] Reply of
comments from what a
model…</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
I have gotten a
different understanding
of what a virtual
particle or a virtual
charge is. This
phenomenon was invented
by Julian Schwinger and
Richard Feynman. They
thought to need it in
order to explain certain
reactions in particle
physics. In the case of
Schwinger it was the
Landé factor, where I
have shown that this
assumption is not
necessary.<br>
<br>
If there is a charge
then of course this
charge is subject to
interactions with all
other charges in the
universe. That is
correct. But because of
the normal distribution
of these other charges
in the universe, which
cause a good
compensation of the
effects, and because of
the distance law we can
think about models
without reference to
those. And also there is
the problem with virtual
particles and vacuum
polarization (which is
equivalent), in that we
have this huge problem
that the integrated
energy of it over the
universe is by a factor
of 10^120 higher than
the energy measured. I
think this is a really
big argument against
virtual effects.<br>
<br>
Your example of the
virtual image of a
charge in a conducting
surface is a different
case. It is, as you
write, the rearrangement
of charges in the
conducting surface. So
the partner of the
charge is physically the
mirror, not the picture
behind it. But which
mirror can cause the
second particle in a
model if the second
particle is not assumed
to be real?<br>
<br>
And what in general is
the problem with a two
particle model? It
fulfils the momentum
law. And it does not
cause further conflicts.
It also explains why an
accelerated electron
sometimes radiates,
sometimes not. For an
experimental evidence I
refer again to the
article of Frank Wilczek
in "Nature" which was
mentioned here earlier:<br>
<br>
</span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com"
target="_blank"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"></span></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"><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></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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">:</span></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
moz-do-not-send="true" 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"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<b>An:</b> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"
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"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">, </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
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"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
Reply of
comments from
what a model…</span></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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">:</span></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
moz-do-not-send="true" 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"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<b>An:</b> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
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"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General]
Reply of
comments from
what a model…</span></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"
noshade="noshade" size="1" width="99%" align="center"> </span></div>
<table
class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:collapse" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="padding:0in
11.25pt 0in
6.0pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><span
style="border:solid
windowtext
1.0pt;
padding:0in;
text-decoration:none"><img
id="Picture_x0020_2" src="cid:part44.09010209.02050205@a-giese.de"
alt="Image
removed by
sender. Avast
logo"
height="100"
width="100"
border="0"></span></a></p>
</td>
<td
style="padding:.75pt
.75pt .75pt
.75pt">
<p><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#3D4D5A">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft.<br>
</span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></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
moz-do-not-send="true" 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"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Click
here to
unsubscribe </span></a></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
</span></p>
<div
class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center;
background:white" align="center"> <span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
<hr
style="color:#909090"
noshade="noshade" size="1" width="99%" align="center"> </span></div>
<table
class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:collapse" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="padding:0in
11.25pt 0in
6.0pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><span
style="border:solid
windowtext
1.0pt;
padding:0in;
text-decoration:none"><img
id="Picture_x0020_4" src="cid:part44.09010209.02050205@a-giese.de"
alt="Image
removed by
sender. Avast
logo"
height="100"
width="100"
border="0"></span></a></p>
</td>
<td
style="padding:.75pt
.75pt .75pt
.75pt">
<p><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#3D4D5A">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft.<br>
</span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></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"
noshade="noshade"
size="1" width="99%"
align="center"> </span></div>
<table
class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:collapse"
border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in
11.25pt 0in 6.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><span
style="border:solid
windowtext
1.0pt;
padding:0in;
text-decoration:none"><img
id="Picture_x0020_6" src="cid:part44.09010209.02050205@a-giese.de"
alt="Image
removed by
sender. Avast
logo"
height="100"
width="100"
border="0"></span></a></p>
</td>
<td
style="padding:.75pt
.75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#3D4D5A">Diese
E-Mail wurde von
Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft.<br>
</span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"></span></a><a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
</span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center;
background:white" align="center"> <span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
<hr style="color:#909090"
noshade="noshade" size="1"
width="99%" align="center"> </span></div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:collapse"
border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 11.25pt 0in
6.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><span
style="border:solid
windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in;
text-decoration:none"><img
id="Picture_x0020_8"
src="cid:part44.09010209.02050205@a-giese.de"
alt="Image removed by
sender. Avast logo"
height="100" width="100"
border="0"></span></a></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt
.75pt">
<p><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#3D4D5A">Diese E-Mail
wurde von Avast
Antivirus-Software auf Viren
geprüft.<br>
</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">www.avast.com</span></a></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" noshade="noshade" size="1"
width="99%" align="center"> </div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:collapse" border="0"
cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 11.25pt 0in 6.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><span style="border:solid
windowtext 1.0pt; padding:0in;
text-decoration:none"><img
id="Picture_x0020_10"
src="cid:part44.09010209.02050205@a-giese.de"
alt="Image removed by sender. Avast
logo" height="100" width="100"
border="0"></span></a></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#3D4D5A">Diese E-Mail wurde von
Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren
geprüft. <br>
</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">www.avast.com</span></a><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" noshade="noshade" size="1"
width="99%" align="center"> </div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:collapse" border="0"
cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 11.25pt 0in 6.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><span style="border:solid
windowtext 1.0pt; padding:0in;
text-decoration:none"><img
id="Picture_x0020_16"
src="cid:part44.09010209.02050205@a-giese.de"
alt="Image removed by sender. Avast
logo" height="100" width="100"
border="0"></span></a></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#3D4D5A">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast
Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft. <br>
</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">www.avast.com</span></a><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
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
alt="Avast logo" border="0"> </a></td>
<td>
<p style="color:#3d4d5a;
font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica";
font-size:12pt"> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast
Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft. <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank">www.avast.com</a> </p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
<tr>
<td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">
<img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" />
</a>
</td>
<td>
<p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
<br><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>