<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
I know him a bit. We had some discussions some time ago and I have
read his books. I follow his positions in some points, in others
not. Particularly I am much more critical about Einstein.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 24.11.2015 um 20:16 schrieb John
Duffield:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:000b01d126ec$90cdaa70$b268ff50$@btconnect.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<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:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.msochpdefault, li.msochpdefault, div.msochpdefault
{mso-style-name:msochpdefault;
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.emailstyle20
{mso-style-name:emailstyle20;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle200
{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:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">All:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Anybody
know <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.alexander-unzicker.de/">Alexander
Unzicker</a>?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I
know him a bit, and I think he’s got some very interesting
things to say. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">JohnD<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">PS:
By the way, this dates from 1920:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><img
id="Picture_x0020_1"
src="cid:part2.01030703.04050407@a-giese.de" height="366"
width="677" border="0"></span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"
lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt" lang="EN-US"> General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>John Williamson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 24 November 2015 06:15<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com">pete@leathergoth.com</a>; Nick Bailey
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nick@bailey-family.org.uk"><nick@bailey-family.org.uk></a>; Ariane Mandray
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr"><ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr></a>; Mark, Martin van der
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"><martin.van.der.mark@philips.com></a>; David
Williamson <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:david.williamson@ed.ac.uk"><david.williamson@ed.ac.uk></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [General] Nature of charge<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:black">Hello Chip and Richard,</span><span
style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:black">I had been meaning to add
to this post for some time, but did not find a free moment
till now.</span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:black">Will comment below, first
on Chip’s post, then on Richard’s. This is also relevant
to John Hodge's recent post on the nature of charge.</span><span
style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:black">Feel like going in red this
morning ….</span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">
of comments from what a model…</span><span
style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black">Hi
Richard</span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black">Correct
me if I am wrong here. It seems that there is not a
requirement that the electron actually be a sphere, but
only that its scattering characteristics are the same as
that of a sphere. Do you think this statement is correct?</span><span
style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red">Yes
and no. What is known is that the scattering is
sphere-like – in that there is no “structure function” for
the electron. This means, as I have said many times
before, that the scattering is consistent with it being a
SINGLE particle, with a spherical – inverse square law of
scattering. </span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red">Saying
the electron must “be a sphere” anyway begs the question –
what kind of sphere? Is it a 3-sphere in 3-space? A
four-sphere in 4D space? A sphere in the three components
of the electric field (a bivector space)? Something more
complicated than any of these?</span><span
style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red">I’m
afraid, ladies and gentlemen, that the answer is the
latter, though of the three specific static cases I think
the third case comes closest. The electron, however, is
certainly not static – it is very very dynamic.</span><span
style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black">Chip</span><span
style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> General [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Richard Gauthier<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, November 19, 2015 7:46 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Nick Bailey <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nick@bailey-family.org.uk">nick@bailey-family.org.uk</a>>;
David Williamson <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:david.williamson@ed.ac.uk">david.williamson@ed.ac.uk</a>>;
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com">pete@leathergoth.com</a>;
Mark, Martin van der <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what
a model…</span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black">Hello
John D and Albrecht,</span><span style="color:black"
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black">
We’re not quite there by merely replacing Albrecht’s two
circulating massless particles by a double-looping photon.
By doing this the radius of the circle drops from hbar/mc
to hbar/2mc because the total loop length is still one
Compton wavelength. A double loop of length 1 Compton
wavelength h/mc has half the radius of a single loop and
therefore (if the circulating photon carries charge -e
moving at light speed) half the calculated magnetic moment
of Albrecht’s model, i.e. 1/2 Bohr magneton. The loss in
magnetic moment from Albrecht’s 2-particle model has to be
made up in some other way. But this double-looping photon
model of the electron has spin 1/2 hbar while Albrecht's
two-particle model has spin 1 hbar. No argument about
retarded light-speed forces between his 2 light-speed
circling massless particles will bring the total spin of
the two-particle system down to exactly 1/2 hbar while
keeping its magnetic moment at 1 Bohr magneton. That would
be like pulling a magical rabbit out of a hat which so far
only Dirac with his equation has been able to do
successfully (he wasn’t called a magician for nothing.)
The Williamson - van der Mark 1997 electron model comes
close with its proposed centrally located static electric
charge -e inferred from their twisting double-looping
uncharged photon’s inward pointing electric fields at the
model’s equator. </span><span style="color:black"
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red">The
WvdM model does get the magic rabbit right. Not only that
it gets the QED first order correction to the magic rabbit
right (about 1 part in a thousand bigger) – which the
Dirac model does not do.</span><span style="color:black"
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black">(But
what happened to their double-looping photon's electric
field at and near the model’s two poles?) . </span><span
style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red">Richard,
you are still thinking about a little photon bullet
whizzing around in 3-space only. This is not good enough.
You need to do what you were accusing Einstein of not
doing! Intuition, insight and imagination! </span><span
style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red">The
original 1997 paper already explained the transport
around the torus was not in space but in space-time. The
rotations are not just in 3-space but in a
higher-dimensional space. In three space one cannot have,
simultaneously the two axes of “rotation” that are needed
for the WvdM model. In 4-space one can. This is the
“quantum bicycle” I keep trying to explain to you. A
4-spatial rotation is still (in my present view) too
simple, but illustrates (one of the) salient points.
Imagine a space x y z w. Now allow a rotation in the xy
plane, with a simultaneous rotation in the zw plane. Now
let the path traced by a point (x y z w) fill 4-space. Let
the length of this path (x squared plus y squared plus z
squared plus w squared) oscillate in phase with
“rotations”. This is the program I implemented in the
little java applet I circulated a few months ago. What
does one observe when one projects this “motion” onto
3-space? You can find lots of these projections on the web
if you look. It is kind of difficult to do it in your head
– but dead easy to implement it in a computer . Anyway, in
one kind of projection one observes a sphere, in another a
torus. For such flows, it is perfectly possible (even
necessary) to have a spherical projection for the electric
field, while having a toroidal form in a projection onto
other spaces. Thinking in just 3D space severely limits
ones imagination!</span><span style="color:black"
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red">Now
the motion I’m envisioning nowadays is more complicated
than merely 4-dimesional, as there are far more “planes”
than just the six in 4-D space. The electron rotation has
three rotation planes (at least!) Looking at the photon
solution (eq 21) one rotation is a normal spatial plane
(xy), the other in the “plane” formed from the scalar and
the pseudoscalar. This latter pair are isomorphic to
complex numbers. This means the photon “twist” is already
in a 4-component space, just not that of x y z t, but that
of scalar, pseudocalar, electric and magnetic field
“space”. Now to get the electron solution, one takes that
already “4-dimensional” motion and lets it loop again
“rotating” it in yet another plane in the even subset (of
eight!) dimensions. The resulting object is rotating in
(at least) nine “dimensions” (eight modulated by “time”).
What one observes is a projection of this. What is
required by experiment is that the interaction part (the
electric field part) is spherical, at least if one does
not come within touching distance when direct field
interference kicks in. At these distances the Pauli
exclusion principle kicks in, as described in my 2012
paper at MENDEL.</span><span style="color:black"
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black">This
model can’t convincingly explain how a sphere enclosing a
double-looping uncharged photon can have a non-zero
divergence of its electric field (indicating a non-zero
enclosed electric charge) without violating Gauss’ law
(the first Maxwell equation). </span><span
style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red">This
is only true if you take the electron to be constituted a
massless photon (as you do). Let me try, once again, to
convince you.</span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red">Look
at Gauss’s law in the full set of equations in my paper.
This is equation 6. There is another term, as well as the
electric field divergence (which is the DEFINITION of
“charge”) corresponding to root-mass exchange. This is
the nature of charge in QED. The electric field
divergence, in the new equations, is non zero if there is
mass-energy exchange. That is (part of) the root of
charge. It is not the whole story – as photon exchange
needs ALL eight (well at least seven) of the even terms to
explain it properly. It does mean that Gauss’s law needs
to be extended by allowing for mass-energy exchange
though. This is anyway the case, if you think about it, in
both QED and the inhomogenous Maxwell equations (where,in
both, you put in the “charge by hand!).</span><span
style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red">Given
the state- of play of Martin and my model in 2015 there
are now two ways to calculate the charge in the resulting
model. The first is to use the curvature, and the
calculated electric field, to get the charge in terms of
Plancks’ constant (or vice versa). This is what Martin and
I did in out 1997 paper. The other way is to integrate the
cross-section of charge-charge interactions over the
universe – which requires a knowledge of the number of
charges in the universe and their distribution. This is
harder. Both give values for the elementary charge within
the right ballpark, however.</span><span
style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black">I
think that in order to retain a viable double-looping
photon model of the electron, one may have to bite the
bullet and accept that the circulating double-looping
photon is itself electrically charged and also has a rest
mass of 0.511 MeV/c^2 and a spin of 1/2 hbar.</span><span
style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red">Absolutely
not! You cannot claim to get charge out if you put it in!
Also – I have said this before and will not change my mind
– you cannot put it in and stay with a massless photon.
You just can’t Do the maths! Integrate the mass-energy in
any one frame due to the charge alone and you will get a
non-zero mass. This mass will be minimal where the field
is radial – and will increase for any other frame. End of
story. You can SAY you have a “charged massless photon”–
but this does not make it consistent with reality! Sorry!<a
moz-do-not-send="true" name="_GoBack"></a> </span><span
style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red">You
can say (and be right) that you have a charged electron
with rest mass (if this is what you mean) – but this is
just what we have all been saying all along – so what is
the difference?</span><span style="color:black"
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black">
By the way, Albrecht’s two circulating particles may each
have no rest mass as he describes, but they certainly each
carry 1/2 of 0.511 MeV of a resting electron's total
energy. This strongly implies that they are two
circulating photons (or gluons?) each having energy 1/2 x
0.511 MeV. This also gives his electron model a spin of 1
hbar.</span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black">
with best regards,</span><span style="color:black"
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black">
Richard</span><span style="color:black"
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red">Regards,
from John.</span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</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>