<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=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:Vrinda;
panose-1:2 11 5 2 4 2 4 2 2 3;}
@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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
h2
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 2 Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:18.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.Heading2Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 2 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 2";
font-family:"Calibri Light","sans-serif";
color:#2E74B5;}
span.hvr
{mso-style-name:hvr;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/jedidah_isler_the_untapped_genius_that_could_change_science_for_the_better">http://www.ted.com/talks/jedidah_isler_the_untapped_genius_that_could_change_science_for_the_better</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Dear Friends: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">The above talk by a young black Astrophysicist appeared to me staggeringly wise. The talk has succeeded in generalizing the fact that all new innovations and/or evolutionary steps, whether happening in the
galactic platform or in the human socio-cultural platform (including sciences and religions), are happening at the “intersection” of conflicting forces or concepts.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Thus, attempts to utilize (learning from) diversity of opinions (beliefs) are necessary positive tools to find break-through out of our stagnant physics.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Just trying to be an inspiring facilitator!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Richard Gauthier<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, December 12, 2015 5:50 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Albrecht Giese; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br>
<b>Cc:</b> pete@leathergoth.com; David Williamson; Mark, Martin van der; Nick Bailey<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">John, Albrecht and all,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> I just did a simple calculation of how much central force F= dp/dt = w p would be required to keep a circulating photon of momentum mc (as in some of our resting electron models) moving at the zitterbewegung angular frequency w=2mc^2/hbar
. It comes out F= 2 m^2 c^3 / hbar = 0.425 N which is quite substantial. Then using Coulomb’s law I calculated the strength of the effective charge +Q that would be required at the center of this circular trajectory to produce the electric attractive force
that would keep an electrically charged photon of charge -e circling in the orbit of radius Ro=hbar/2mc (as in some of our electron models) and it comes out Q = + 1/(2alpha) e or Q = +68.5 e . I’m not sure what to make of these results (since there is
obviously no actual positive charge at the center of the circular trajectory), but they are intriguing.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Richard<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Dec 11, 2015, at 9:50 AM, Albrecht Giese <<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";background:white">Hi John,</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><br>
<br>
<span style="background:white">you think that he (the former research director of DESY) was joking? No, I have worked for 6 years in one of his teams and I have never experienced that he was kidding someone. We had a lot of discussions at that time and later
on. He helped me to develop my model by giving me necessary informations, even though he did not follow all of my ideas.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><br>
<br>
<span style="background:white">In the meantime he is over 85 years old and as far as I know, he is private now in the sense that he has finished discussions with others about physical problems. Anyway, I can try to contact him again.</span><br>
<br>
<span style="background:white">But I think, we do not depend on him. If you or anyone else assume conflicts of my model with any experiments, this could be a good place to discuss it.</span><br>
<br>
<span style="background:white">Albrecht</span><br>
<br style="orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">Am 10.12.2015 um 21:42 schrieb John Williamson:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">Dear Albrecht,<br>
<br>
He was just joking with you! Who is this guy anyway? perhaps I should talk with him.<br>
<br>
Regards, John W.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;background:white">
<hr size="3" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
<div id="divRpF157388">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> </span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">John
Williamson<br>
<b>Sent:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Thursday, December 10, 2015 7:40 AM<br>
<b>To:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Albrecht Giese; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br>
<b>Cc:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Mark, Martin van der; Nick Bailey; David Williamson;<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com">pete@leathergoth.com</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>RE: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">Hi Albrecht,<br>
<br>
Yes, did he not say that it would only be in agreement if there was no 4-momentum in them? That they have zero energy-momentum is just the same as saying that they are, effectively, not there at all.<br>
<br>
Cheers, John.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;background:white">
<hr size="3" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
<div id="divRpF781567">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> </span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">Albrecht
Giese [<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Wednesday, December 09, 2015 9:41 PM<br>
<b>To:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>John Williamson; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br>
<b>Cc:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Mark, Martin van der; Nick Bailey; David Williamson;<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com">pete@leathergoth.com</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white">Dear John,<br>
<br>
<span style="color:#003300">thank you, and some comments from my part below in the text.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">Am 07.12.2015 um 09:32 schrieb John Williamson:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">Dear Albrecht,<br>
<br>
Let me help a little: this is off the top of my head - but will give the right ballpark.<br>
<br>
The strong interaction (for nucleons) has a coupling constant about a hundred times bigger than EM. Interaction probabilities need 2 particles so this is about ten thousand times (coupling constant squared) bigger than EM.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<br>
This is not a "small effect". Believe me - if they were there for leptons DESY would have noticed. Even more so we at the EMC (European Muon Collaboration) would have noticed if they were there for muons. They are not. You can believe this if you like, but
you are wrong.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#003300">The strong force binds the nuclei in the atom and binds the quarks in a nucleus. They have to be bound in a way that they do not touch each other. This is like the atoms in a molecule
which are also bound to each other in a way that they do not touch. This is, as we know, achieved by a multipole field. In the molecule it is the van der Waals field based on the electric force. In the nucleus it must be also a multipole field, but based on
the strong force. (In nuclear physics this is normally not explained in such a detail but only the result given; this is the typical way in QM).<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<br>
Such multipole field has a minimum of the potential at a certain distance. This distance defines the distance of the participants. But outside this range the field is still existent; at distance it could decrease by the 1/r^2 law. At least I assume this for
my particle model and I see it confirmed by the fact that the Landé factor of the electron has the correct value if I make this assumption.<br>
<br>
If now two objects are bound to each other in this way, then the combined field seen from outside has a steeper decrease with r, in the example of my model with 1/r^4 at greater distances. So, if there is an electrical charge in addition, the fall-off at some
distance will cause that outside the strong force is in effect weaker than the electrical one.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><br>
Once again - if there were two bits inside the electron, held together by whatever forces, we would have seen this. We did not, so there are not. End of story. The electron, whatever it is, acts as one thing - at least up to energies up to 400 000 times its
mass-energy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#003300">This is clearly not correct. I have discussed this case with a former research director of DESY. He has spent his entire scientific life with electron scattering experiments and was known
for his excellent knowledge of electron experiments all over the world. I could not convince him of my model of a composed and extended electron. But he admitted that there is no experimental evidence which is in conflict with my model. I have explained the
reasons in detail here before, so I do not repeat it this time again.</span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><br>
There IS something holding the electron charge together though. These have been, for the last century, designated the "Poincare stresses". Feynmann talks about these in his lectures. As far as I know, except for the description in my new papers (the interaction
between electric field and p-vot) and the forces Martin and I have been calculating with and talking about over the last two decades, these remain otherwise mysterious. A mystery that endured for most of a century. In my theory everything is smooth and the
whole object is a single self-confining wave. Just one thing.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#003300">My impression regarding my electron model (which covers also all leptons and all quarks) is a simple and stable model which covers everything understood today and some facts in addition.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><br>
Sorry if I gave the impression my talk at Mendel was on the proton size. It was not. I did talk about my model for quarks and the strong force though, though that is not in the proceedings paper (attached) which was on a possible reason for the exclusion principle
for fermions.<br>
<br>
There is something on this on the internet in the talk I gave at CYBCOM, for which Nick Green provided a link earlier.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#003300">Thanks!</span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><br>
Regards, John W.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:#003300">Regards<br>
Albrecht</span><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;background:white">
<hr size="3" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
<div id="divRpF849082">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> </span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">Albrecht
Giese [<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" target="_blank">genmail@a-giese.de</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Sunday, December 06, 2015 9:29 PM<br>
<b>To:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>John Williamson; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br>
<b>Cc:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Mark, Martin van der; Nick Bailey; David Williamson;<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com">pete@leathergoth.com</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">Hello John,<br>
<br>
there seems indeed something not understood about the reaction between nucleons (i.e. quarks) and leptons. I have heard about the differently measured size of a proton depending on whether it is in contact with electrons or muons. Thanks that you have reminded
me of this.<br>
<br>
The case of a muon in the atomic orbit, from which a smaller size of the proton follows, can be at least qualitatively deduced from the assumption of a strong force in leptons as given in my model. I should calculate this quantitatively but need some extra
time to do it. Have it on schedule.<br>
<br>
There is another influence of the assumption of strong force in electrons in my model. I have shown in my talk in San Diego that the simultaneous influence of the electrical force and the strong force explains classically the Landé factor.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<br>
You write about a talk which you have given about the topic of the proton's size at MEDEL2012 and about proceedings of it. Could you do me the favor and give me a link or some other connection to your contribution?<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
Am 01.12.2015 um 01:35 schrieb John Williamson:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">Hello Albrecht,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><br>
Good for you. I knew about this (peripherally) - but would have been worried if there had been a direct measurement of leptons feeling the "strong force" - which this is not.<br>
<br>
There are a set of these "anomalies". The most important (and oldest to my knowledge) is that measured in spin-spin scattering at the ZGS (O'Fallon et al 1977). There is another (the EMC effect) with my own name on the papers (I am not central to this work
and am one of dozens of "authors" on the papers: my role was just to write some of the code for electromagnetic (QED) shower simulation and for parts of a "QCD" monte-carlo used in some of the analysis).<br>
<br>
There are more recent experiments where the proton "size" differs (its cross-section - that is the inter-action rate) depending on which lepton you observe it with.<br>
<br>
These are all, in my view, down to a lack of understanding as to what the "strong" force is. There are no actual calculations for this because the only theory we have (QCD) is non-perturbative. I will translate (for mothers) "non perturbative" is shorthand
for - one cannot calculate anything with it using any known techniques. Yes - that bad.<br>
<br>
The underlying anomlies all come fron the proper nature of the strong force. THis was part of my invited (keynote) talk at MENDEL2012 and there is something on this in the proceedings.<br>
<br>
Regards, John.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;background:white">
<hr size="3" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
<div id="divRpF506109">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> </span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">Albrecht
Giese [<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Monday, November 30, 2015 8:19 PM<br>
<b>To:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>John Williamson; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white">Hello John,<br>
<br>
it took me some time to find references, sorry. And I could not find the original paper of DESY about it, but a magazine.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<br>
The indication of the strong force to leptons is a more indirect conclusion. In 1997 two teams at the HERA storage ring at DESY found an unexpected excess of events in quark-positron interactions. These events were unexpected as the Standard Model excludes
an interaction of quarks with leptons on the basis of the strong force. It was then made the ad hoc assumption that an unknown particle may exist with name leptoquark. Such particle is not excluded by the Standard Model, and it is assumed to react with leptons
and with quarks. The following search for leptoquarks at DESY and at other labs was without success. So the direct interaction between quarks and leptons by the strong force will remain as a solution.<br>
<br>
I can give the following references for this:<br>
1.) Scientific American, March 24, 1997 about the detection of additional events<br>
2.) <span style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span>"Search for contact interactions, large extra dimensions and finite quark radius in<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>ep<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></i>collisions at HERA", ZEUS Collaboration,
Physics Letters B 591 (2004) 23-41 as an example for the search for leptoquarks.<br>
<br>
But I would like to emphasize again that the assumption for the strong force in e.g. the electron makes it possible to deduce the inertial mass of this particle (as also of others). I do not know any other approach which provides an origin of inertia deduced
from basics.<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">Am 27.11.2015 um 03:46 schrieb John Williamson:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;background:white">
<hr size="3" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
<div id="divRpF304961">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> </span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">General
[<a href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] on behalf of Albrecht Giese [<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Thursday, November 26, 2015 4:53 PM<br>
<b>To:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Richard Gauthier<br>
<b>Cc:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">Am 23.11.2015 um 19:43 schrieb Richard Gauthier:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">Hello Albrecht,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"> <span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>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.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">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?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"> <span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>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.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">One kind of particle that has no rest mass but has energy and travels at light speed is a photon.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">This assumption is not true as explained above.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">(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.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">Not true!<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">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.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"> 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 .<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">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).<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">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).<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">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.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"> <span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>What do you think of this new model so far?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">Did I explain it sufficiently?<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"> <span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Richard<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">Albrecht<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">On Nov 22, 2015, at 9:43 AM, Albrecht Giese <<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white">Hello Richard,<br>
<br>
I never have persistently tried to develop a 2-particle model. What I have persistently tried was to find a good explanation for relativistic dilation. And there I found a solution which has satisfied me. All the rest including the 2 particles in my model where
logical consequences where I did not see alternatives. If there should be a model which is an alternative in one or the other aspect, I will be happy to see it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">Am 22.11.2015 um 00:13 schrieb Richard Gauthier:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">Hello Albrecht,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"> <span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>I admire your persistence in trying to save your doomed (in my opinion) 2-particle electron model.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">Why 2 particles in the model? I say it again:<br>
<br>
1) to maintain the conservation of momentum in the view of oscillations<br>
2) to have a mechanism for inertia (which has very precise results, otherwise non-existent in present physics)<br>
<br>
I will be happy to see alternatives for both points. Up to now I have not seen any.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">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).” ? <span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">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.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">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.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">When I have realized that my model deduces the Bohr magneton, I have used the measurements available in that context to determine my field constant. (I could also go the other way: I can use the Planck / Einstein
relation E = h * f and the Einstein-relation E = m*c<sup>2</sup><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>to determine the constant S from the internal frequency in my model. Same result. But I like the other way better. BTW: Do you know any other model
which deduces these relations rather than using them as given?)<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">Here is the meaning of “grasping at straws” from <a href="http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasp+at+straws">http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasp+at+straws</a> :<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<h2 style="background:white;font-size:1.8rem;line-height:1.8rem;display:inline-block;margin:0.2rem 6px 0px">
<span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040">grasp at straws<o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span class="hvr"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040">Also,</span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span class="hvr"><b>clutch</b></span><b> at <span class="hvr">straws</span></b>. <span class="hvr">Make</span> a <span class="hvr">desperate</span> <span class="hvr">attempt</span> at <span class="hvr">saving</span> <span class="hvr">oneself.</span> <span class="hvr">For</span> <span class="hvr">example,</span> <i>He <span class="hvr">had lost</span> <span class="hvr">the</span> <span class="hvr">argument,</span> <span class="hvr">but</span> he <span class="hvr">kept</span> <span class="hvr">grasping</span> at <span class="hvr">straws,</span> <span class="hvr">naming</span> <span class="hvr">numerous</span> <span class="hvr">previous</span> <span class="hvr">cases</span> <span class="hvr">that had</span> <span class="hvr">little</span> to do <span class="hvr">with</span> <span class="hvr">this</span> <span class="hvr">one</span></i>. <span class="hvr">This</span> <span class="hvr">metaphoric</span> <span class="hvr">expression</span> <span class="hvr">alludes</span> to a <span class="hvr">drowning</span> <span class="hvr">person trying</span> to <span class="hvr">save</span> <span class="hvr">himself</span> by <span class="hvr">grabbing</span> at <span class="hvr">flimsy</span> <span class="hvr">reeds.</span> <span class="hvr">First</span> <span class="hvr">recorded</span> in <span class="hvr">1534,</span> <span class="hvr">the</span> <span class="hvr">term</span> <span class="hvr">was used</span> <span class="hvr">figuratively</span> by <span class="hvr">the</span> <span class="hvr">late</span> <span class="hvr">1600s.</span></span> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">I am not at all opposed to using desperate measures to find or save a hypothesis that is very important to you. Max Planck described his efforts to fit the black body radiation equation using quantized energies
of hypothetical oscillators as an "act of desperation”. So you are of course free to keep desperately trying to save your 2-particle electron hypothesis. I personally think that your many talents in physics could be better spent in other ways, for example
in revising your electron model to make it more consistent with experimental facts.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">Do you know any other electron model which is so much consistent with experimental facts (e.g. size and mass) as this one (without needing the usual mystifications of quantum mechanics)?<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"> By the way, van der Waals forces do not "bind atoms to form a molecule". They are attractive or repulsive forces between molecules or between parts of a molecule. According to Wikipedia:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">" <span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white">the </span><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525">van der Waals forces</span></b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> (or </span><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525">van
der Waals' interaction</span></b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white">), named after </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands" target="_blank" title="Netherlands"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">Dutch</span></a><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist" target="_blank" title="Scientist"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">scientist</span></a><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Diderik_van_der_Waals" target="_blank" title="Johannes
Diderik van
der Waals"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">Johannes
Diderik van der Waals</span></a><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white">, is the sum of the attractive or repulsive forces between </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecule" target="_blank" title="Molecule"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">molecules</span></a><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> (or
between parts of the same molecule) other than those due to </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond" target="_blank" title="Covalent
bond"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">covalent
bonds</span></a><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white">, or the </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_interaction" target="_blank" title="Electrostatic
interaction"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">electrostatic
interaction</span></a><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> of </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion" target="_blank" title="Ion"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">ions</span></a><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> with
one another, with neutral molecules, or with charged molecules.</span><sup id="cite_ref-1"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-1" target="_blank"><span style="color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">[1]</span></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> The
resulting van der Waals forces can be attractive or repulsive.</span><sup id="cite_ref-Van_OssAbsolom1980_2-0"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-Van_OssAbsolom1980-2" target="_blank"><span style="color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">[2]</span></a></span></sup><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">Yes, my arrangement of charges of the strong force causes as well a combination of attractive and repulsive forces and is doing the same like in the van der Waals case. That was my reason to refer to them.<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">with best regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"> <span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Richard<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;background:white">
<hr size="2" width="1241" style="width:620.7pt" noshade="" style="color:#909090" align="center">
</div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 11.25pt 0in 6.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration:none"><img border="0" id="_x0000_i1031" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast
logo"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#3D4D5A">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><br>
<br style="orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="1256" style="width:628.15pt" noshade="" style="color:#909090" align="center">
</div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="background:white;border-collapse:collapse;orphans: auto;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 11.25pt 0in 6.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"><span style="text-decoration:none"><img border="0" id="_x0000_i1033" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo"></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#3D4D5A">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><br>
<span style="background:white">_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span style="background:white">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";background:white">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><br>
<span style="background:white"><a href="</span></span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";background:white">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";background:white">"></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><br>
<span style="background:white">Click here to unsubscribe</span><br>
<span style="background:white"></a></span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>