<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
</head>
<body ocsi="0" fpstyle="1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;">Hello Albrecht,<br>
<br>
So the strong force has been observed to act on electrons at DESY? Very interesting. Do you have a reference for that?<br>
<br>
Regards, John.<br>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000; font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF304961"><font face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"><b>From:</b> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Albrecht Giese [genmail@a-giese.de]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, November 26, 2015 4:53 PM<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…<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>Hallo Richard,<br>
<br>
thank you for your alternative proposal. Unfortunately there are some points of misunderstanding with respect to my model. And also some other physical arguments I like to point to - in your text.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 23.11.2015 um 19:43 schrieb Richard Gauthier:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">Hello Albrecht,
<div class=""><br class="">
<div class=""> I’m glad that you say that developing a 2-particle model of the electron was not your main interest. I think it will be useful to see what parts of your model may be saved, and what parts may have to go, to get a working model in progress
for the electron which most of us here might agree on. First, since there is no generally accepted evidence of a nuclear strong force relation to electrons, let’s drop that proposal for holding your 2 circulating charged massless particles in orbit, at least
for now. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Here I object. 1) The strong force in the electron was seen at DESY experiments in the 1990s. 2) Without referring to the strong force, the calculation of the mass of the electron has incorrect results by a factor of several hundred. This was found out by physicists
in the 1940s, e.g. by Helmut Hönl. (I can send you his paper if you are interested, however in German.)<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="">
<div class="">Second, since there’s no evidence for a two-particle structure of the electron from any scattering or other experiments, let’s also consider dropping that proposal for now. Your insistence that a 2-particle model is required for conservation of
momentum at the sub-electron level does not seem sufficient to accept this part of your 2-particle model. We don’t even know experimentally that conservation of momentum exists at the sub-electron level, do we? Just an article of faith?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
This may be a point of personal judgement, but in my view the conservation if momentum is a fundamental law in physics, maybe the most fundamental law. It follows logically from the symmetry of space (refer to Emmy Noether, who has set some logical basics for
QM).<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> So what is left of your model? You claim that your two particles are massless and travel at light speed. But you don’t say that they are also without energy, do you? If there are two massless particles, they will still each have to have 0.511/2
MeV of energy if the electron’s total resting energy 0.511 MeV is divided equally between them.
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I have explained this in a former comment. The two "basic" particles do not have any energy by themselves. The energy is caused by the motion of the basic particles in the situation of a bind. Mass is anyway a dynamic property of matter as it is even seen by
present main stream physics.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="">
<div class="">One kind of particle that has no rest mass but has energy and travels at light speed is a photon.
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
This assumption is not true as explained above. <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="">
<div class="">(Let’s forget about gluons here for now since there is no accepted evidence for a strong nuclear force on electrons). So each of your two particles (if there are still two for some other reason besides conservation of momentum, and a need for
an attractive force between them to overcome their electric repulsion) could be a charged photon (circulating charge is necessary to get a magnetic moment for the model) with energy 0.511/2 MeV, which has energy but no rest mass. OK.
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Not true!<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="">
<div class="">But each of these two charged photons, each of energy 0.511/2 MeV = mc^2/2 will have a wavelength of 2 Compton wavelengths = 2 h/mc . If 1 wavelength of each photon is turned into a single closed loop, the each loop would have a radius 2hbar/mc,
which is twice the radius hbar/mc of your proposed electron model. To make each of these photons move circularly in a way that each of their wavelengths gives a radius of hbar/mc as in your model, each photon would have to move in a double loop. So there will
be two photons each of energy 0.511/2 moving in a double loop in this model. This is getting complicated.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
The Compton wavelength has a different origin. It comes from scattering of photons at an electron (example). The Compton wavelength is then the maximum change of the wavelength of the photon in such process. - This wavelength is in this way not any geometrical
extension of the electron. Yes, we find this value in some calculations, but we should be cautious to use it for the determination of dimension.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Let’s drop one of the two photons for simplicity (Occam’s razor put to good use) so that the other photon will have the full electron energy 0.511 MeV .
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
What is the origin of this energy in the photon? And which mechanism causes actually the energy of this photon? A photon can in general have any energy, doesn't it?<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="">
<div class="">This photon will now have a wavelength 1 Compton wavelength. If this 1 Compton wavelength charged photon moves in a single loop it will create an electron with magnetic moment 1 Bohr magneton and a spin of 1 hbar. That’s good for the experimental
magnetic moment of the electron (slightly more than 1 Bohr magneton) but bad for its experimental spin (which you tried to reduce to 1/2 hbar in your model by a delayed force argument). If the photon moves in a double loop it will be good for the spin (which
now is exactly 1/2 hbar) but bad for the magnetic moment (now 1/2 Bohr magneton).
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Why does the double loop reduce the spin? Why the Bohr magneton? The magnetic moment depends on the area in the loop. How large is this area in this case?<br>
<br>
The magnetic moment is larger than the Bohr magneton. In my model this is the contribution of the (small) electrical charges in view of the (large) strong charges.<br>
<br>
And which mechanism causes the double loop? It cannot come from itself. A circuit is a simple structure which does not need many influences. A double loop is more and needs a cause.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="">
<div class="">So there’s still a problem with the model’s magnetic moment. But this double-looping charged photon model now has gained the zitterbewegung frequency of the Dirac electron which is desirable for an electron model which hopes to model the Dirac
electron. And it also has 720 degree symmetry which the Dirac electron has (while your original 2-particle model has a rotational symmetry of 180 degrees, since each particle would take the place of the other after a half-circle rotation).</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
In my model the zitterbewegung frequency is the circulation frequency of the basic particles. The rotational symmetry is not 180 but 360 degrees as the strong field of the basic particles is not equal, but one basic particle changes the other one by electrical
influence. This works analogue to the case of the van der Waals force. <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> What do you think of this new model so far?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Did I explain it sufficiently?<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Richard</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Nov 22, 2015, at 9:43 AM, Albrecht Giese <<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" class="" target="_blank">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">Hello Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
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.<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 22.11.2015 um 00:13 schrieb Richard Gauthier:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">Hello Albrecht,
<div class=""><br class="">
<div class=""> I admire your persistence in trying to save your doomed (in my opinion) 2-particle electron model.
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Why 2 particles in the model? I say it again:<br class="">
<br class="">
1) to maintain the conservation of momentum in the view of oscillations<br class="">
2) to have a mechanism for inertia (which has very precise results, otherwise non-existent in present physics)<br class="">
<br class="">
I will be happy to see alternatives for both points. Up to now I have not seen any.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">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).” ?
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
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 class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">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. <br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
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 class="">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 class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Here is the meaning of “grasping at straws” from <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasp+at+straws" target="_blank">http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasp+at+straws</a> :</div>
<h2 class="" style="font-size:1.8rem; line-height:1.8rem; display:inline-block; margin:0px 0.2rem 6px 0px; color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">
grasp at straws</h2>
<div class=""><span class="hvr" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">Also,</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><b class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"><span class="hvr" style="">clutch</span> at <span class="hvr" style="">straws</span></b><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">.</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="hvr" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">Make</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">a</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="hvr" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">desperate</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="hvr" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">attempt</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">at</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="hvr" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">saving</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="hvr" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">oneself.</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="hvr" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">For</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="hvr" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">example,</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><i class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">He <span class="hvr" style="">had </span><span class="hvr" style="">lost</span> <span class="hvr" style="">the</span> <span class="hvr" style="">argument,</span> <span class="hvr" style="">but</span> he <span class="hvr" style="">kept</span> <span class="hvr" style="">grasping</span> at <span class="hvr" style="">straws,</span> <span class="hvr" style="">naming</span> <span class="hvr" style="">numerous</span> <span class="hvr" style="">previous</span> <span class="hvr" style="">cases</span> <span class="hvr" style="">that </span><span class="hvr" style="">had</span> <span class="hvr" style="">little</span> to do <span class="hvr" style="">with</span> <span class="hvr" style="">this</span> <span class="hvr" style="">one</span></i><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">.</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="hvr" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">This</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="hvr" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">metaphoric</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="hvr" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">expression</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="hvr" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">alludes</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">to</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">a</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="hvr" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">drowning</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="hvr" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">person </span><span class="hvr" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">trying</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">to</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="hvr" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">save</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="hvr" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">himself</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">by</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="hvr" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">grabbing</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">at</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="hvr" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">flimsy</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="hvr" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">reeds.</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="hvr" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">First</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="hvr" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">recorded</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">in</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="hvr" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">1534,</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="hvr" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">the</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="hvr" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">term</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="hvr" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">was </span><span class="hvr" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">used</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="hvr" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">figuratively</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">by</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="hvr" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">the</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="hvr" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">late</span><span class="" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px"> </span><span class="hvr" style="color:rgb(64,64,64); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:13px; line-height:19.5px">1600s.</span> </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I am not at all opposed to using desperate measures to find or save a hypothesis that is very important to you. Max Planck described his efforts to fit the black body radiation equation using quantized energies of hypothetical oscillators as an
"act of desperation”. So you are of course free to keep desperately trying to save your 2-particle electron hypothesis. I personally think that your many talents in physics could be better spent in other ways, for example in revising your electron model to
make it more consistent with experimental facts.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
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 class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""> By the way, van der Waals forces do not "bind atoms to form a molecule". They are attractive or repulsive forces between molecules or between parts of a molecule. According to Wikipedia:</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">" <span class="" style="color:rgb(37,37,37); font-family:sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:22px; background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">the </span><b class="" style="color:rgb(37,37,37); font-family:sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:22px">van
der Waals forces</b><span class="" style="color:rgb(37,37,37); font-family:sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:22px; background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> (or </span><b class="" style="color:rgb(37,37,37); font-family:sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:22px">van
der Waals' interaction</b><span class="" style="color:rgb(37,37,37); font-family:sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:22px; background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">), named after </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands" title="Netherlands" class="" style="text-decoration:none; color:rgb(11,0,128); font-family:sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:22px" target="_blank">Dutch</a><span class="" style="color:rgb(37,37,37); font-family:sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:22px; background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist" title="Scientist" class="" style="text-decoration:none; color:rgb(11,0,128); font-family:sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:22px" target="_blank">scientist</a><span class="" style="color:rgb(37,37,37); font-family:sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:22px; background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Diderik_van_der_Waals" title="Johannes Diderik van der Waals" class="" style="text-decoration:none; color:rgb(11,0,128); font-family:sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:22px" target="_blank">Johannes
Diderik van der Waals</a><span class="" style="color:rgb(37,37,37); font-family:sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:22px; background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">, is the sum of the attractive or repulsive forces between </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecule" title="Molecule" class="" style="text-decoration:none; color:rgb(11,0,128); font-family:sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:22px" target="_blank">molecules</a><span class="" style="color:rgb(37,37,37); font-family:sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:22px; background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> (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" class="" style="text-decoration:none; color:rgb(11,0,128); font-family:sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:22px" target="_blank">covalent
bonds</a><span class="" style="color:rgb(37,37,37); font-family:sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:22px; background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">, or the </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_interaction" title="Electrostatic interaction" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration:none; color:rgb(11,0,128); font-family:sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:22px" target="_blank">electrostatic
interaction</a><span class="" style="color:rgb(37,37,37); font-family:sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:22px; background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> of </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion" title="Ion" class="" style="text-decoration:none; color:rgb(11,0,128); font-family:sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:22px" target="_blank">ions</a><span class="" style="color:rgb(37,37,37); font-family:sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:22px; background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> with
one another, with neutral molecules, or with charged molecules.</span><sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference" style="line-height:1; font-size:11px; color:rgb(37,37,37); font-family:sans-serif"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-1" class="" style="text-decoration:none; color:rgb(11,0,128); white-space:nowrap" target="_blank">[1]</a></sup><span class="" style="color:rgb(37,37,37); font-family:sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:22px; background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> The
resulting van der Waals forces can be attractive or repulsive.</span><sup id="cite_ref-Van_OssAbsolom1980_2-0" class="reference" style="line-height:1; font-size:11px; color:rgb(37,37,37); font-family:sans-serif"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-Van_OssAbsolom1980-2" class="" style="text-decoration:none; color:rgb(11,0,128); white-space:nowrap" target="_blank">[2]</a></sup></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
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 class="">
<br class="">
Best regards<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">with best regards,</div>
<div class=""> Richard</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Nov 21, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Albrecht Giese <<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" class="" target="_blank"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">Hello Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
I am a bit confused how badly my attempted explanations have reached you.<br class="">
<br class="">
I have NOT used the Bohr magneton to determine the radius R of an electron. I deduced the radius directly from the measured magnetic moment using the classical equation for the magnetic moment.<br class="">
<br class="">
For the binding force of the sub-particles I needed a multipole field which has a potential minimum at a distance R<sub class="">0</sub>. The simplest shape of such a field which I could find was for the force F:<br class="">
F = S * (R<sub class="">0</sub> - R) /R<sup class="">3</sup>. Here R<sub class="">0</sub> is of course the equilibrium distance and S the field constant. I wanted to refer to an existing field of a proper strength, and that could only be the strong force. Then
I had to determine the field constant S which is normally provided by experiments. But quantum mechanics is so unprecise regarding the numeric value of the strong force that there is no number available in the data tables. Here I found that I could use the
Bohr magneton to determine the constant. (Which turned out to be S = hbar*c, merely a constant).<br class="">
<br class="">
>From the equation for F given above the inertial mass of the particle follows from a deduction which is given on my website:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass" target="_blank">
</a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass" target="_blank">www.ag-physics.org/rmass</a> . Too long to present it here, but straight and inevitable. Here the result again: m = S / (R * c<sup class="">2</sup>) .<br class="">
<br class="">
If you are unsatisfied by my deduction of this field, what is about the van der Waals forces which bind atoms to build a molecule? Did van der Waals have had a better way of deduction in that case? I think that the fact that the von der Waals forces act so
as observed, is enough for the physical community to accept them. <br class="">
<br class="">
And you ask for an independent calculation of S which I should present in your opinion. Now, Is there anyone in physics or in astronomy who can present an independent calculation of the gravitational constant G? No, nobody can calculate G from basic assumptions.
Why asking for more in my case? I think that this demand is not realistic and not common understanding in physics.<br class="">
<br class="">
And again: where is circular reasoning?<br class="">
<br class="">
Best regards<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 20.11.2015 um 23:02 schrieb Richard Gauthier:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">Hello Albrecht,</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Thanks for your detailed response. I think the key problem is in your determination of your “field constant” S which you say describes the "binding field" for your two particles. This definition of S is too general and empty of specific content
as I understand that it applies to any "binding field” at any nuclear or atomic or molecular level. With your 2-particle electron model you then calculate the radius R=hbar/mc from the Bohr Magneton e*hbar/2m, assuming the values of m, e, h and c. . Then
you calculate S from the Bohr magneton and find it to be S=c*hbar. You then calculate m from the equation m=S/(R*c^2). How can a binding field S be described by such a universal term hbar * c ? That’s why I think that your derivation is circular. You use
the Bohr magneton e*hbar/2m to calculate R and S, (using the Bohr magneton) and then you use R and S to calculate m. You have no independent calculation of S except from the Bohr magneton. That’s the problem resulting in circularity. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> with best regards,</div>
<div class=""> Richard</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Nov 20, 2015, at 1:09 PM, Albrecht Giese <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">Hallo Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
I find it great that we have made similar calculations and came at some points to similar conclusions. That is not a matter of course, as you find in all textbooks that it is impossible to get these results in a classical way, but that in the contrary it needs
QM to come to these results. <br class="">
<br class="">
Here now again the logical way which I have gone: I assume the circular motion of the elementary electric charge (2* 1/2 * e<sub class="">0</sub>) with speed c. Then with the formula (which you give here again) M = i*A one can conclude A from the measured
magnetic moment. And so we know the radius to be R = 3.86 x 10<sup class="">-13</sup> m for the electron. No constants and no further theory are necessary for this result. I have then calculated the inertial mass of a particle which turns out to be m = S /
(R * c<sup class="">2</sup>) where the parameter S describes the binding field. I did initially have no knowledge about the quantity of this field. But from the mass formula there follows for the magnetic moment: M= (1/2)*(S/c)*(e /m). To this point I have
not used any knowledge except the known relation for the magnetic moment. Now I look to the Bohr magneton in order to find the quantity of my field constant S: M= (1/2)*hbar*(e /m). Because the Planck constant has to be measured in some way. For doing it
myself I would need a big machine. But why? Basic constants never follow from a theory but have to be measured. I can use such a measurement, and that tells me for my field constant S = c*hbar (from Bohr magneton). So, where do you see circular reasoning?
<br class="">
<br class="">
Now I have no theory, why specific elementary particles exist. Maybe later I find a way, not now. But now I can use the (measurable) magnetic moment for any particle to determine the radius, and then I know the mass from my formula. This works for all charged
leptons and for all quarks. Not good enough?<br class="">
<br class="">
And yes, the Landé factor. Not too difficult. In my deduction of the mass I have used only the (initially unknown) constant S for the field. Which I assume to be the strong field as with the electric field the result is too small (by a factor of several hundred).
The only stronger alternative to the electrical force is the strong force, already known. Is this a far-fetched idea? But I have in this initial deduction ignored that the two basic particles have an electrical charge of e/2 each, which cause a repelling force
which increases the radius R a bit. With this increase I correct the result for e.g. the magnetic moment, and the correction is quite precisely the Landé factor (with a deviation of ca. 10<sup class="">-6</sup>).<br class="">
<br class="">
So, what did I invent specially for my model, and which parameters do I use from others? I have assumed the shape of the binding field as this field has to cause the bind at a distance. And I have used the measurement of the Planck constant h which other colleagues
have performed. Nothing else. I do not have do derive the quantity e as this is not the task of a particle model. If e could be derived (what nobody today is able to do), then this would follow from a much deeper insight into our physical basics as anyone
can have today. <br class="">
<br class="">
The fact of two constituents is a necessary precondition to obey the conservation of momentum and to support the mechanism of inertia. I do not know any other mechanism which works.<br class="">
<br class="">
Where do I practice circular reasoning?<br class="">
<br class="">
Best regards<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 18.11.2015 um 15:42 schrieb Richard Gauthier:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">Hello Albrecht,</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> Let’s look at your listed assumptions of your electron model in relation to the electron’s magnetic moment. It is known that the magnitude of the electron’s experimental magnetic moment is slightly more than the Bohr magneton which is Mb =
ehbar/2m = 9.274 J/T in SI units. Your 2-particle model aims to generate a magnetic moment to match this Bohr magneton value (which was predicted for the electron by the Dirac equation) rather than the experimental value of the electron’s magnetic moment which
is slightly larger. The standard equation for calculating the magnetic moment M of a plane current loop is M = IA for loop area A and current I. If the area A is a circle and the current is a circular current loop I around this area, whose value I is calculated
from a total electric charge e moving circularly at light speed c (as in your 2-particle electron model) with a radius R, a short calculation will show that if the radius of this circle is R = hbar/mc = 3.86 x 10-13 m (the reduced Compton wavelength corresponding
to a circle of circumference one Compton wavelength h/mc), then this radius R for the current loop gives a magnetic moment M = IA = Bohr magneton ehbar/2m . I have done this calculation many times in my electron modeling work and know that this is the case.
The values of h and also e and m of the electron have to be known accurately to calculate the Bohr magneton ehbar/2m . When the radius of the circular loop is R=hbar/mc, the frequency f of the charge e circling the loop is easily found to be f=c/(2pi R)=
mc^2/h , which is the frequency of light having the Compton wavelength h/mc. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">So the current loop radius R=hbar/mc that is required in your 2-particle model to derive the Bohr magneton ehbar/2m using M=IA obviously cannot also be used to derive either of the values h or m since these values were used to calculate the Bohr
magneton ehbar/2m in the first place. So your model cannot be used to derive any of the values of e, h or m, and seems to be an exercise in circular reasoning. Please let me know how I may be mistaken in this conclusion.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">with best regards,</div>
<div class=""> Richard</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Nov 18, 2015, at 2:03 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank">genmail@a-giese.de</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class=""><small class="">Hi Al,<br class="">
<font class="" color="#006600"><br class="">
I completely disagree with your conclusions about the motivation towards my model because my intention was not to develop a particle model. My intention was to develop a better understanding of time in relativity. My present model was an unexpected consequence
of this work. I show you my arguments again and ask you to indicate the point where you do not follow.</font><br class="">
<br class="">
</small>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><small class="">Am 17.11.2015 um 19:18 schrieb <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">
</a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</small><br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="" style="font-family:Verdana; font-size:12.0px">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi Albrect:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Comments² <strong class="">IN BOLD</strong></div>
<div class="">
<div name="quote" class="" style="margin:10px
5px 5px 10px; padding:10px
0 10px 10px; border-left:2px
solid #C3D9E5; word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="" style="margin:0
0 10px 0">
<b class="">Gesendet:</b> Dienstag, 17. November 2015 um 18:41 Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank">
</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…</div>
<div name="quoted-content" class="">
<div class="" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><small class="">Hi Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
again some responses.</small><br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><small class="">Am 14.11.2015 um 18:24 schrieb <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">
</a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</small></div>
<blockquote class="">
<div class="" style="font-family:Verdana; font-size:12.0px">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Answers to your questions:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">1) The SED background explains the Planck BB distribution without quantization. It explans why an atom doesn't collapse: in equilibrium with background, In fact, just about every effect described by 2nd quantization has an SED parallel explantion
without additional considerations. With the additional input of the SED origin of deBroglie waves, it provides a direct derivation of the Schröedinger eq. thereby explainiong all of 1st Quantization.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><small class="">Maybe you achieve something when using SED background. I do not really understand this background, but I do not see a stringent necessity for it. But SED as an origin to the de Broglie waves is of interest for me. I am presently
working on de Broglie waves to find a solution, which does not have the logical conflicts which we have discussed here.</small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><strong class="">See No. 11 (or 1) @ <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com/" target="_blank">
</a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com" target="_blank">www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com</a> for suggetions and some previous work along this line.</strong></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font class="" color="#006600"><small class=""><strong class="">Thank you, will have a look.</strong></small></font>
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="" style="font-family:Verdana; font-size:12.0px">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div name="quote" class="" style="margin:10px
5px 5px 10px; padding:10px
0 10px 10px; border-left:2px
solid #C3D9E5; word-wrap:break-word">
<div name="quoted-content" class="">
<div class="" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<blockquote class="">
<div class="" style="font-family:Verdana; font-size:12.0px">
<div class="">
<div class="">2) Olber's logic is in conflict with Mach's Principle, so is obviously just valid for visible light. Given a little intergalacitc plasma (1 H/m³), not to mention atmossphere and interplanatary plama, visible light disappears to Earthbound observers
at visitble freqs to reappear at other, perhaps at 2.7° even, or at any other long or hyper short wave length. 'The universe matters'---which is even politically correct nowadays!</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><small class="">Olber's logic is simple in so far, as it shows that the universe cannot be infinite. I have assumed the same for all background effects. Or are they infinite?</small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><small class=""><strong class="">The fly in the ointment is absorbtion. An inf. universe with absorbtion in the visible part of the spectrum will still have a largely dark sky.
</strong><br class="">
</small></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font class="" color="#006600"><small class=""><strong class="">And the other way around: Even if there is no absorption, the sky will be dark. And the general opinion is that, even if there is a lot of radiation absorbed, this absorbing material will heat
up by the time and radiate as well. So an absorption should not change too much.</strong></small></font><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="" style="font-family:Verdana; font-size:12.0px">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div name="quote" class="" style="margin:10px
5px 5px 10px; padding:10px
0 10px 10px; border-left:2px
solid #C3D9E5; word-wrap:break-word">
<div name="quoted-content" class="">
<div class="" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<div class=""><small class=""><br class="">
What is the conflict with Mach's principle?</small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><strong class="">Mach says: the gravitational "background radiation" is the cause of inertia. This effect is parallel to the SED bacground causing QM effects. Conflict: if Olber is right, then Mach is probably wrong (too weak).</strong></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font class="" color="#006600"><small class=""><strong class="">In my understanding, what Mach means is completely different. Mach's intention was to find a reference system which is absolute with respect to acceleration. He assumed that this is caused by the
stars in our vicinity. He did not have a certain idea how this happens, he only needed the fact. (Einstein replaced this necessity by his equivalence of gravity and acceleration - which however is clearly falsified as mentioned several times.)</strong></small></font>
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="" style="font-family:Verdana; font-size:12.0px">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div name="quote" class="" style="margin:10px
5px 5px 10px; padding:10px
0 10px 10px; border-left:2px
solid #C3D9E5; word-wrap:break-word">
<div name="quoted-content" class="">
<div class="" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<blockquote class="">
<div class="" style="font-family:Verdana; font-size:12.0px">
<div class="">
<div class="">3) The (wide spread) criticism of 2 particles is that there is neither an
<em class="">a-priori</em> intuative reason, nor empirical evidence that they exist. Maybe they do anyway. But then, maybe Zeus does too, and he is just arranging appearances so that we amuse ourselves. (Try to prove that wrong!) </div>
<div class=""> </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><small class="">I have explained how I came to the conclusion of 2 sub-particles. Again:<br class="">
<br class="">
1) There is motion with c in an elementary particle to explain dilation<br class="">
2) With only on particle such process is mechanically not possible, and it violates the conservation of momentum<br class="">
3) In this way it is the only working model theses days to explain inertia. And this model explains inertia with high precision. What more is needed?</small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><small class=""><strong class="">These assumtions are "teleological," i.e., tuned to give the desired results. As logic, although often done, this manuver is not legit in the formal presentation of a theory. For a physics theory, ideally, all
the input assuptios have empirical justification or motivation. Your 2nd partical (modulo virtual images) has no such motivatin, in fact, just the opposite.
</strong><br class="">
</small></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font class="" color="#006600"><small class=""><strong class="">My logical way is just the other way around. I had the plan to work on relativity (the aspects of time), not on particle physics. The particle model was an unplanned spin-off. I shall try to
explain the logical path again: <br class="">
<br class="">
<u class="">1st step:</u> I have calculated the 4-dimensional speed of an object using the temporal part of the Lorentz transformation. The surprising fact was that this 4-dim. speed is always the speed of light. I have then assumed that this constant shows
a permanent motion with c in a particle. I have accepted this as a probable solution, but I have never assumed this, before I had this result. It was in no way a desired result. My idea was to describe time by a vector of 3 of 4 dimensions. - I have then
</strong></small></font><font class="" color="#006600"><small class=""><strong class="">no further
</strong></small></font><font class="" color="#006600"><small class=""><strong class="">followed this idea.<br class="">
<u class="">2nd step:</u> If there is some motion in the particle, it cannot be caused by one constituent. This is logically not possible as it violates the conservation of momentum. Also this was not a desired result but logically inevitable.
<br class="">
<u class="">3rd step:</u> If the constituents move with c, then they cannot have any mass. Also this was not a result which I wished to achieve, but here I followed my understanding of relativity.<br class="">
</strong></small></font><strong class=""><small class=""><font class="" color="#006600"><u class=""><strong class="">4th
</strong></u><u class="">step:</u> The size must be such that the resulting frequency in the view of c yields the magnetic moment which is known by measurements.
<br class="">
<u class="">5th step:</u> I had to find a reason for the mass of the electron in spite of the fact that the constituents do not have any mass. After some thinking I found out the fact that any extended object has necessarily inertia. I have applied this insight
to this particle model, and the result was the actual mass of the electron, if I assumed that the force is the strong force. It could not be the electric force (as it was assumed by others at earlier times) because the result is too weak.<br class="">
<br class="">
None of the results from step 1 thru step 5 was desired. Every step was inevitable, because our standard physical understanding (which I did not change at any point) does not allow for any alternative. -
<u class="">Or at which step could I hav</u><u class="">e had an alternative in your opinion?<br class="">
<br class="">
</u>And btw: which is the stringent argument for only one constituent? As I mentioned before, the experiment is not an argument. I have discussed my model with the former research director of DESY who was responsible for this type of electron experiments, and
he admitted that there is no conflict with the assumption of 2 constituents.</font><u class=""><br class="">
</u></small></strong>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="" style="font-family:Verdana; font-size:12.0px">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div name="quote" class="" style="margin:10px
5px 5px 10px; padding:10px
0 10px 10px; border-left:2px
solid #C3D9E5; word-wrap:break-word">
<div name="quoted-content" class="">
<div class="" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<div class=""><small class=""><br class="">
I know from several discussions with particle physicists that there is a lot of resistance against this assumption of 2 constituents. The reason is that everyone learn at university like with mother's milk that the electron is point-like, extremely small and
does not have any internal structure. This has the effect like a religion. (Same with the relativity of Hendrik Lorentz. Everyone learns with the same fundamental attitude that Lorentz was nothing better than a senile old man how was not able to understand
modern physics.) - Not a really good way, all this.</small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><small class=""><strong class="">Mystical thinking is indeed a major problem even in Physics! But, some of the objectiors to a 2nd particle are not basing their objection of devine revelation or political correctness. </strong></small></div>
<blockquote class="">
<div class="" style="font-family:Verdana; font-size:12.0px">
<div class="">
<div class="">4) It is ascientific to consider that the desired result is justification for a hypothetical input. OK, one can say about such reasoning, it is validated
<em class="">a posteriori</em>, that at least makes it sound substantial. So much has been granted to your "story" but has not granted your story status as a "physics theory." It has some appeal, which in my mind would be enhansed had a rationalization for
the 2nd particle been provided. That's all I'm trying to do. When you or whoever comes up with a better one, I'll drop pushing the virtual particle engendered by the background. Maybe, it fixes too many other things.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><small class="">My history was following another way and another motivation. I intended to explain relativity on the basis of physical facts. This was my only intention for this model. All further properties of the model were logical consequences
where I did not see alternatives. I did not want to explain inertia. It just was a result by itself.<br class="">
So, what is the problem? I have a model which explains several properties of elementary particles very precisely. It is in no conflict with any experimental experience. And as a new observation there is even some experimental evidence. - What else can physics
expect from a theory? - The argument that the second particle is not visible is funny. Who has ever seen a quark? Who has ever seen the internal structure of the sun? I think you have a demand here which was never fulfilled in science.</small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><small class=""><strong class="">The problem, obviously, is that the existence of the 2nd particle, as you have presented it, is not a fact, but a Wunschansatz. [BTW: "See" in this context is not meant occularly, but figuratively for experimental
verification through any length of inferance chain.] So, my question is: what problem do you have with a virtual mate for the particle? In fact, it will be there whether you use it or not.</strong><br class="">
<br class="">
And see again Frank Wilczek. </small><small class=""><span class=""><span class="current-selection">He writes: "By co</span></span><span class="current-selection">mb</span><span class="current-selection">ining fragmen</span><span class="current-selection">tatio</span><span class="current-selection">n
with su</span><span class="current-selection">per</span><span class=" ws0
ls0
current-selection
">-</span><span class="current-selection">con</span><span class="current-selection">ductivity</span><span class="current-selection">,
w</span><span class="current-selection">e can get half-electro</span><span class="current-selection">ns tha</span><span class="current-selection">t
</span></small><small class=""><span class="current-selection">ar</span><span class="current-selection">e their o</span><span class="current-selection">wn an</span><span class=""><span class="current-selection">tiparticles."
</span></span></small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><small class=""><span class=""><span class="current-selection"><strong class="">A "straw in the wind" but sure seems far fetched! Superconductivity is already a manybody phenomenon, It's theory probably involves some "virtual" notions to capture
the essence of the average effect even if the virtual actors do not really exist.
</strong></span></span></small></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<small class=""><strong class=""><font class="" color="#006600">This was a nice confirmation in my understanding. So as the whole article of Wilczek. The electron is in fact enigmatic if one follows main stream. It looses a lot of this property if my model
is used. - But even without this experimental hint I do not see any alternative to my model without severely violating known physics.<br class="">
<br class="">
Ciao<br class="">
Albrecht</font><br class="">
<br class="">
</strong></small>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="" style="font-family:Verdana; font-size:12.0px">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div name="quote" class="" style="margin:10px
5px 5px 10px; padding:10px
0 10px 10px; border-left:2px
solid #C3D9E5; word-wrap:break-word">
<div name="quoted-content" class="">
<div class="" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<div class=""><small class=""><span class=""><span class="current-selection"><strong class=""> </strong></span></span></small><br class="">
<br class="">
<small class="">Guten Abend<br class="">
Albrecht</small></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><small class=""><strong class="">Gleichfalls, Al</strong></small></div>
<blockquote class="">
<div class="" style="font-family:Verdana; font-size:12.0px">
<div class="">
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Have a good one! Al</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:10.0px 5.0px
5.0px
10.0px; padding:10.0px 0
10.0px
10.0px; border-left:2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229)">
<div class="" style="margin:0 0 10.0px 0"><b class="">Gesendet:</b> Samstag, 14. November 2015 um 14:51 Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank">
</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Hi Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
Why do we need a background? If I assume only local forces (strong and electric) for my model, the calculation conforms to the measurement (e.g. between mass and magnetic moment) with a precision of 2 : 1'000'000. This is no incident. Not possible, if a poorly
defined and stable background has a measurable influence. - And if there should be such background and it has such little effect, which mistake do we make if we ignore that?<br class="">
<br class="">
For the competition of the 1/r<sup class="">2</sup> law for range of charges and the r<sup class="">2</sup> law for the quantity of charges we have a popular example when we look at the sky at night. The sky is dark and that shows that the r<sup class="">2</sup>
case (number of shining stars) does in no way compensates for the 1/r<sup class="">2</sup> case (light flow density from the stars).<br class="">
<br class="">
Why is a 2 particle model necessary?<br class="">
<br class="">
1.) for the conservation of momentum<br class="">
2.) for a cause of the inertial mass<br class="">
3.) for the radiation at acceleration which occurs most time, but does not occur in specific situations. Not explained elsewhere.<br class="">
<br class="">
Ciao, Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 13.11.2015 um 20:31 schrieb <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">
</a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</div>
<blockquote class="">
<div class="" style="font-family:Verdana; font-size:12.0px">
<div class="">Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Your proposed experiment is hampered by reality! If you do the measurement with a gaget bought in a store that has knobes and a display, then the measurement is for certain for signals under a couple hundred GHz and based on some phenomena for
which the sensitivity of man-made devices is limited. And, if limited to the electric field, then there is a good chance it is missing altogether oscillating signals by virtue of its limited reaction time of reset time, etc. etc. The vast majority of the
background will be much higher, the phenomena most attuned to detecting might be in fact the quantum effects otherwise explained with mystical hokus-pokus! Also to be noted is that, the processes invovled in your model, if they pertain to elementray entities,
will have to be at very small size and if at the velocity (c) will be very high energy, etc. so that once again, it is quite reasonable to suppose that the universe is anything but irrelavant! </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Of course, there is then the issue of the divergence of the this SED background. Ameliorated to some extent with the realization that there is no energy at a point in empty space until a charged entity is put there, whereupon the energy of interaction
with the rest of the universe (not just by itself being there and ignoring the universe---as QM theorists, and yourself, are wont to do) is given by the sum of interactions over all particles not by the integral over all space, including empty space. Looks
at first blush to be finite. </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Why fight it? Where the hell else will you find a credible 2nd particle? </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">ciao, Al</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:10.0px 5.0px
5.0px
10.0px; padding:10.0px 0
10.0px
10.0px; border-left:2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229)">
<div class="" style="margin:0 0 10.0px 0"><b class="">Gesendet:</b> Freitag, 13. November 2015 um 12:11 Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank">
</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Hi Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
if we look to charges you mention the law 1/r<sup class="">2</sup>. Now we can perform a simple physical experiment having an electrically charged object and using it to measure the electric field around us. I say: it is very weak. Now look to the distance
of the two half-charges within the particle having a distance of 4*10<sup class="">-13</sup> m. This means an increase of force of about 25 orders of magnitude compared to what we do in a lab. And the difference is much greater if we refer to charges acting
from the universe. So I think we do not make a big mistake assuming that there is nothing outside the particle.<br class="">
<br class="">
Regarding my model, the logic of deduction was very simple for me:<br class="">
<br class="">
1.) We have dilation, so there must be a permanent motion with c<br class="">
2.) There must be 2 sub-particles otherwise the momentum law is violated; 3 are not possible as in conflict with experiments.<br class="">
3.) The sub-particles must be mass-less, otherwise c is not possible<br class="">
4.) The whole particle has mass even though the sub-particles are mass-less. So there must be a mechanism to cause inertia. It was immediately clear for me that inertia is a consequence of extension. Another reason to assume a particle which is composed of
parts. (There is no other working mechanism of inertia known until today.)<br class="">
5.) I had to find the binding field for the sub-particles. I have taken the simplest one which I could find which has a potential minimum at some distance. And my first attempt worked.<br class="">
<br class="">
That is all, and I do not see any possibility to change one of the points 1.) thru 5.) without getting in conflict with fundamental physical rules. And I do not invent new facts or rules beyond those already known in physics.<br class="">
<br class="">
So, where do you see any kind of arbitrariness or missing justification?<br class="">
<br class="">
Tschüß!<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 12.11.2015 um 17:51 schrieb <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">
</a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</div>
<blockquote class="">
<div class="" style="font-family:Verdana; font-size:12.0px">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi Albrect:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">We are making some progress. </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">To your remark that Swinger & Feynman introduced virtual charges, I note that they used the same term: "virtual charge/particle," in spite of the much older meaning in accord with the charge and mirror example. In the finest of quantum traditions,
they too ignored the rest of the universe and instead tried to vest its effect in the "vacuum." This idea was suitably mystical to allow them to introduce the associated plaver into the folk lore of QM, given the sociology of the day. Even in spite of this
BS, the idea still has merit. Your objection on the basis of the 1/r² fall-off is true but not conclusive. This fall-off is matched by a r² increase in muber of charges, so the integrated total interaction can be expected to have at least some effect, no
matter what. Think of the universe to 1st order as a neutral, low-density plasma. <span class="">I (and some others) hold that this interaction is responcible for all quantum effects. In any case, no particle is a universe unto itself, the rest have the
poulation and time to take a toll! </span></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><span class="">BTW, this is history repeating itself. Once upon a time there was theory of Brownian motion that posited an internal cause known as "elan vital" to dust specks observed hopping about like Mexican jumping beans. Ultimately this
nonsense was displaced by the observation that the dust spots were not alone in their immediate universe but imbededded in a slurry of other particles, also in motion, to which they were reacting. Nowadays atoms are analysed in QM text books as if they were
the only object in the universe---all others being too far away (so it is argued, anyway). </span></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><span class="">Your model, as it stands, can be free of contradiction and still unstatisfying because the inputs seem to be just what is needed to make the conclusions you aim to make. Fine, but what most critics will expect is that these inputs
have to have some kind of justification or motivation. This is what the second particle lacks. Where is it when one really looks for it? It has no empirical motivation. Thus, this theory then has about the same ultimate structure, and pursuasiveness,
as saying: 'don't worry about it, God did it; go home, open a beer, pop your feet up, and forget about it---a theory which explains absolutely everything!</span></div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class=""><span class="">Tschuß, Al</span></div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="margin:10.0px 5.0px
5.0px
10.0px; padding:10.0px 0
10.0px
10.0px; border-left:2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229)">
<div class="" style="margin:0 0 10.0px 0"><b class="">Gesendet:</b> Donnerstag, 12. November 2015 um 16:18 Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank">
</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…</div>
<div class="">
<div class="" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font class="" size="-1">Hi Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
I have gotten a different understanding of what a virtual particle or a virtual charge is. This phenomenon was invented by Julian Schwinger and Richard Feynman. They thought to need it in order to explain certain reactions in particle physics. In the case of
Schwinger it was the Landé factor, where I have shown that this assumption is not necessary.<br class="">
<br class="">
If there is a charge then of course this charge is subject to interactions with all other charges in the universe. That is correct. But because of the normal distribution of these other charges in the universe, which cause a good compensation of the effects,
and because of the distance law we can think about models without reference to those. And also there is the problem with virtual particles and vacuum polarization (which is equivalent), in that we have this huge problem that the integrated energy of it over
the universe is by a factor of 10^120 higher than the energy measured. I think this is a really big argument against virtual effects.<br class="">
<br class="">
Your example of the virtual image of a charge in a conducting surface is a different case. It is, as you write, the rearrangement of charges in the conducting surface. So the partner of the charge is physically the mirror, not the picture behind it. But which
mirror can cause the second particle in a model if the second particle is not assumed to be real?<br class="">
<br class="">
And what in general is the problem with a two particle model? It fulfils the momentum law. And it does not cause further conflicts. It also explains why an accelerated electron sometimes radiates, sometimes not. For an experimental evidence I refer again to
the article of Frank Wilczek in "Nature" which was mentioned here earlier:<br class="">
<br class="">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com" target="_blank"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com" target="_blank">http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com</a>:
</font><br class="">
<div class="
ws2 y37 m88 h2
ls3 fc0 x28 t
sc0 fs1 ff1
">
<small class=""><span class=""><span class="current-selection">He writes: "By co</span></span><span class="current-selection">mb</span><span class="current-selection">ining fragmen</span><span class="current-selection">tatio</span><span class="current-selection">n
with su</span><span class="current-selection">per</span><span class="ls0 ws0
current-selection">-</span><span class="current-selection">con</span><span class="current-selection">ductivity</span><span class="current-selection">, w</span><span class="current-selection">e
can get half-electro</span><span class="current-selection">ns tha</span><span class="current-selection">t
</span></small><small class=""><span class="current-selection">ar</span><span class="current-selection">e their o</span><span class="current-selection">wn an</span><span class=""><span class="current-selection">tiparticles."
</span><br class="">
</span></small></div>
<font class="" size="-1">For Wilczek this is a mysterious result, in view of my model it is not, on the contrary it is kind of a proof.<br class="">
<br class="">
Grüße<br class="">
Albrecht</font><br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font class="" size="-1">Am 12.11.2015 um 03:06 schrieb
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">
</a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</font></div>
<blockquote class="">
<div class="" style="font-family:Verdana; font-size:12.0px">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Virtual particles are proxys for an ensemble of real particles. There is nothing folly-lolly about them! They simply summarize the total effect of particles that cannot be ignored. To ignore the remainder of the universe becasue it is inconvenient
for theory formulation is for certain leading to error. "No man is an island," and no single particle is a universe! Thus, it can be argued that, to reject the concept of virtual particles is to reject a facit of reality that must be essential for an explantion
of the material world.</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">For example, if a positive charge is placed near a conducting surface, the charges in that surface will respond to the positive charge by rearranging themselves so as to give a total field on the surface of zero strength as if there were a negative
charge (virtual) behind the mirror. Without the real charges on the mirror surface, the concept of "virtual" negative charge would not be necessary or even useful. </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">The concept of virtual charge as the second particle in your model seems to me to be not just a wild supposition, but an absolute necessity. Every charge is, without choice, in constant interaction with every other charge in the universe, has
been so since the big bang (if such were) and will remain so till the big crunch (if such is to be)! The universe cannot be ignored. If you reject including the universe by means of virtual charges, them you have a lot more work to do to make your theory
reasonable some how else. In particular in view of the fact that the second particles in your model have never ever been seen or even suspected in the various experiments resulting in the disasssmbly of whatever targert was used. </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">MfG, Al</div>
<div class=""> </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<br class="">
<hr class="" style="border:none; color:rgb(144,144,144); background-color:rgb(176,176,176); height:1.0px; width:99.0%">
<table class="" style="border-collapse:collapse; border:none">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td class="" style="border:none; padding:0.0px 15.0px
0.0px 8.0px">
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="" target="_blank"><img alt="Avast
logo" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" class="" border="0">
</a></td>
<td class="">
<p class="" style="color:rgb(61,77,90); font-family:Calibri ,Verdana ,Arial ,Helvetica; font-size:12.0pt">
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.<br class="">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/" target="_blank"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<hr class="" style="border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height:1px; width:99%">
<table class="" style="border-collapse:collapse; border:none">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td class="" style="border:none; padding:0px
15px 0px 8px">
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="" target="_blank"><img src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast
logo" class="" border="0">
</a></td>
<td class="">
<p class="" style="color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt">
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft. <br class="">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/" target="_blank"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br class="">
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank">
</a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br class="">
<a href="<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br class="">
Click here to unsubscribe<br class="">
</a><br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<hr class="" style="border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height:1px; width:99%">
<table class="" style="border-collapse:collapse; border:none">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td class="" style="border:none; padding:0px
15px 0px 8px">
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="" target="_blank"><img src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast
logo" class="" border="0">
</a></td>
<td class="">
<p class="" style="color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt">
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft. <br class="">
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="" target="_blank"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<hr class="" style="border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height:1px; width:99%">
<table class="" style="border-collapse:collapse; border:none">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td class="" style="border:none; padding:0px
15px 0px 8px">
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="" target="_blank"><img src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" class="" border="0">
</a></td>
<td class="">
<p class="" style="color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt">
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft. <br class="">
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>