<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
h2
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 2 Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:18.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.Heading2Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 2 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 2";
font-family:"Calibri Light","sans-serif";
color:#2E74B5;}
span.hvr
{mso-style-name:hvr;}
span.current-selection
{mso-style-name:current-selection;}
span.ls0
{mso-style-name:ls0;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">Albrecht: May be you are finally finding the limitation behind using SR as the foundation of Physics.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">No stars or galaxies are stationary. All are moving with respect to each other. So, there are no INERTIAL Frame of Reference anywhere in this universe. Yet, line-centers of the emitted spectral
lines are identical whether the light is collected from a distant star; or from a discharge tube on earth. And even the Doppler line broadening are precisely given by the local ambient temperatures.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">The LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE SAME IN ALL STARS (not in all inertial frames; which does not exist). So, we need the postulate of the stationary CTF.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">The universe is manifest as various kinds of excitations of the STATIOINARY Complex Tension Field (CTF). EM waves are linear excitations and hence move perpetually with the same velocity determined
the dielectric and magnetic tensions of CTF. Particles are “wavicles”, localized in-phase self-looped propagation of waves of the CTF - doughnut-like (hence resonant and the origin of quantum-ness). These self-looped waves are like EM waves; but they are not
quantized photons; they are quantized “wavicles”. Because finite EM wave packets (no Fourier modes exist) and particles (“wavicles”) are some-what similar propagating excitations (un-looped and self-looped) of the same CTF; they are eminently inter-convertible
when the energy contents allow this through conservation of energy. The root cause behind the observable universal energy conservation is due to the fact that CTF, by itself, cannot dissipate the excitation energy in its own body; one excitation must be converted
into another set of excitations. Forces in this CTF model are due to the various secondary potential gradients generated around the “wavicles” in the body of CTF.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">I understand that my CTF model for particles and waves; and the current model of particle theory with the forces as quantized exchange particles, are incompatible!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">Chandra. <o:p>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">==================================================<o:p></o:p></span></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 [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, November 22, 2015 9:43 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Richard Gauthier<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Hello Richard,<br>
<br>
I never have persistently tried to develop a 2-particle model. What I have persistently tried was to find a good explanation for relativistic dilation. And there I found a solution which has satisfied me. All the rest including the 2 particles in my model where
logical consequences where I did not see alternatives. If there should be a model which is an alternative in one or the other aspect, I will be happy to see it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 22.11.2015 um 00:13 schrieb Richard Gauthier:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello Albrecht, <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> I admire your persistence in trying to save your doomed (in my opinion) 2-particle electron model.
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Why 2 particles in the model? I say it again:<br>
<br>
1) to maintain the conservation of momentum in the view of oscillations<br>
2) to have a mechanism for inertia (which has very precise results, otherwise non-existent in present physics)<br>
<br>
I will be happy to see alternatives for both points. Up to now I have not seen any.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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).” ?
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have once asked one of the leading theorists at DESY for a better quantitative explanation or determination of the strong force. His answer: Sorry, the strong force is not good enough understood so that I cannot give you better information.
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">When I have realized that my model deduces the Bohr magneton, I have used the measurements available in that context to determine my field constant. (I could also go the other way: I can use the Planck / Einstein relation E = h * f and
the Einstein-relation E = m*c<sup>2</sup> to determine the constant S from the internal frequency in my model. Same result. But I like the other way better. BTW: Do you know any other model which deduces these relations rather than using them as given?)<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Here is the meaning of “grasping at straws” from <a href="http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasp+at+straws">http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasp+at+straws</a> :<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<h2 style="box-sizing: inherit;font-size:1.8rem;line-height:1.8rem;display:inline-block;margin:0.2rem 6px 0px">
<span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040">grasp at straws<o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="hvr"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040">Also,</span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span class="hvr"><b>clutch</b></span><b> at <span class="hvr">straws</span></b>.</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </span><span class="hvr"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040">Make</span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> a</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </span><span class="hvr"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040">desperate</span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span class="hvr">attempt</span> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">at</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span class="hvr">saving</span> <span class="hvr">oneself.</span> <span class="hvr">For</span> <span class="hvr">example,</span> <i>He <span class="hvr">had lost</span> <span class="hvr">the</span> <span class="hvr">argument,</span> <span class="hvr">but</span> he <span class="hvr">kept</span> <span class="hvr">grasping</span> at <span class="hvr">straws,</span> <span class="hvr">naming</span> <span class="hvr">numerous</span> <span class="hvr">previous</span> <span class="hvr">cases</span> <span class="hvr">that had</span> <span class="hvr">little</span> to do <span class="hvr">with</span> <span class="hvr">this</span> <span class="hvr">one</span></i>.</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </span><span class="hvr"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040">This</span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span class="hvr">metaphoric</span> <span class="hvr">expression</span> <span class="hvr">alludes</span> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">to</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">a</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span class="hvr">drowning</span> <span class="hvr">person trying</span> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">to</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span class="hvr">save</span> <span class="hvr">himself</span> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">by</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span class="hvr">grabbing</span> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">at</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span class="hvr">flimsy</span> <span class="hvr">reeds.</span> <span class="hvr">First</span> <span class="hvr">recorded</span> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">in</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span class="hvr">1534,</span> <span class="hvr">the</span> <span class="hvr">term</span> <span class="hvr">was used</span> <span class="hvr">figuratively</span> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">by</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span class="hvr">the</span> <span class="hvr">late</span> <span class="hvr">1600s.</span></span> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Do you know any other electron model which is so much consistent with experimental facts (e.g. size and mass) as this one (without needing the usual mystifications of quantum mechanics)?<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> 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:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">" <span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white">the </span><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525">van der Waals forces</span></b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> (or </span><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525">van
der Waals' interaction</span></b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white">), named after </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands" title="Netherlands"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">Dutch</span></a><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist" title="Scientist"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">scientist</span></a><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Diderik_van_der_Waals" title="Johannes Diderik van der Waals"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">Johannes
Diderik van der Waals</span></a><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white">, is the sum of the attractive or repulsive forces between </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecule" title="Molecule"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">molecules</span></a><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> (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"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">covalent bonds</span></a><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white">,
or the </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_interaction" title="Electrostatic interaction"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">electrostatic interaction</span></a><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> of </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion" title="Ion"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">ions</span></a><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> with
one another, with neutral molecules, or with charged molecules.</span><sup id="cite_ref-1"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-1"><span style="color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">[1]</span></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> The
resulting van der Waals forces can be attractive or repulsive.</span><sup id="cite_ref-Van_OssAbsolom1980_2-0"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-Van_OssAbsolom1980-2"><span style="color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">[2]</span></a></span></sup><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes, my arrangement of charges of the strong force causes as well a combination of attractive and repulsive forces and is doing the same like in the van der Waals case. That was my reason to refer to them.<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">with best regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Richard<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Nov 21, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Albrecht Giese <<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Hello Richard,<br>
<br>
I am a bit confused how badly my attempted explanations have reached you.<br>
<br>
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>
<br>
For the binding force of the sub-particles I needed a multipole field which has a potential minimum at a distance R<sub>0</sub>. The simplest shape of such a field which I could find was for the force F:<br>
F = S * (R<sub>0</sub> - R) /R<sup>3</sup>. Here R<sub>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>
<br>
From the equation for F given above the inertial mass of the particle follows from a deduction which is given on my website:
<a 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>2</sup>) .<br>
<br>
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>
<br>
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>
<br>
And again: where is circular reasoning?<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 20.11.2015 um 23:02 schrieb Richard Gauthier:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello Albrecht,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> 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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> with best regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Richard<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Nov 20, 2015, at 1:09 PM, Albrecht Giese <<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Hallo Richard,<br>
<br>
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>
<br>
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>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>-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>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>
<br>
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>
<br>
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>-6</sup>).<br>
<br>
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>
<br>
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>
<br>
Where do I practice circular reasoning?<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 18.11.2015 um 15:42 schrieb Richard Gauthier:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello Albrecht,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> 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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">with best regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Richard<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Nov 18, 2015, at 2:03 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese <<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Hi Al,<br>
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#006600"><br>
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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Am 17.11.2015 um 19:18 schrieb
<a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Hi Albrect:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Comments² <strong><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">IN BOLD</span></strong><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">
<o:p></o:p></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;word-wrap:
break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode:
space;-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space" name="quote">
<div style="margin-bottom:7.5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Gesendet:</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> Dienstag, 17. November 2015 um 18:41 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
again some responses.</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Am 14.11.2015 um 18:24 schrieb
<a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></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:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Answers to your questions:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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.</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><strong><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">See No. 11 (or 1) @
<a href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com">www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com</a> for suggetions and some previous work along this line.</span></strong><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#006600">Thank you, will have a look.</span></strong>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<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;word-wrap:
break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode:
space;-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space" name="quote">
<div name="quoted-content">
<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"">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!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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?</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><strong><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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. </span></strong><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#006600">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.</span></strong><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<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;word-wrap:
break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode:
space;-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space" name="quote">
<div name="quoted-content">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><br>
What is the conflict with Mach's principle?</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><strong><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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).</span></strong><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#006600">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.)</span></strong>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<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;word-wrap:
break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode:
space;-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space" name="quote">
<div name="quoted-content">
<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"">3) The (wide spread) criticism of 2 particles is that there is neither an
<em><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">a-priori</span></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!) <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">I have explained how I came to the conclusion of 2 sub-particles. Again:<br>
<br>
1) There is motion with c in an elementary particle to explain dilation<br>
2) With only on particle such process is mechanically not possible, and it violates the conservation of momentum<br>
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?</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><strong><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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.
</span></strong><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#006600">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: </span></strong><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#006600"><br>
<br>
<strong><u>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 no
further followed this idea.</strong><br>
<strong><u>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.
</strong><br>
<strong><u>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.</strong><br>
<strong><u>4th 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.
</strong><br>
<strong><u>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.</strong><br>
<br>
<strong>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>Or at which step could I have had an alternative in your opinion?</u></strong><u><br>
<br>
</u><strong>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.</strong></span></b><b><u><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><br>
<br>
</span></u></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<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;word-wrap:
break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode:
space;-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space" name="quote">
<div name="quoted-content">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><br>
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.</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><strong><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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. </span></strong><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></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"">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><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">a posteriori</span></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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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>
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.</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><strong><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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.</span></strong><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><br>
<br>
And see again Frank Wilczek. <span class="current-selection">He writes: "By combining fragmentation with super</span>-<span class="current-selection">conductivity, we can get half-electrons that are their own antiparticles."
</span></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><strong><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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.
</span></strong><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size:10.0pt;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.</span></strong><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#006600"><br>
<br>
<strong>Ciao</strong><br>
<strong>Albrecht</strong></span></b><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><br>
<br>
<br>
</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<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;word-wrap:
break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode:
space;-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space" name="quote">
<div name="quoted-content">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><strong><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> </span></strong><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Guten Abend<br>
Albrecht</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><strong><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Gleichfalls, Al</span></strong><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></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""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Have a good one! Al<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">
<o:p></o:p></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""> Samstag, 14. November 2015 um 14:51 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…<o:p></o:p></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>
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>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Am 13.11.2015 um 20:31 schrieb
<a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:<o:p></o:p></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"">Hi Albrecht:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><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! <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><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? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">ciao, Al<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">
<o:p></o:p></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""> Freitag, 13. November 2015 um 12:11 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…<o:p></o:p></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 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>
<o:p></o:p></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
<a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:<o:p></o:p></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:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></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! <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></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). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></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!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Tschuß, Al<o:p></o:p></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" <a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…<o:p></o:p></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>
<a href="http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com">http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com</a>:
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><br>
<o:p></o:p></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><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></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>
<o:p></o:p></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
<a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></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:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">MfG, Al<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</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>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;background:white">
<span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">
<hr size="2" width="99%" noshade="" style="color:#909090" align="center">
</span></div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 11.25pt 0in 6.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration:none"><img border="0" id="_x0000_i1026" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast
logo"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#3D4D5A">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.<br>
<a href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="99%" noshade="" style="color:#909090" align="center">
</div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 11.25pt 0in 6.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"><span style="text-decoration:none"><img border="0" id="_x0000_i1028" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast
logo"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#3D4D5A">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
<br>
<a href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br>
<a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="99%" noshade="" style="color:#909090" align="center">
</div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 11.25pt 0in 6.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"><span style="text-decoration:none"><img border="0" id="_x0000_i1030" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#3D4D5A">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
<br>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="99%" noshade="" style="color:#909090" align="center">
</div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 11.25pt 0in 6.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"><span style="text-decoration:none"><img border="0" id="_x0000_i1032" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#3D4D5A">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
<br>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>