<html><head></head><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3687"><span id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3689">John and Chandra</span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3687"><span><br></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3687"><span>Quick notes...</span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3687"><span><br></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3687" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size: 15px;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_4377" class="">Having done extensive planting of trees and shrubs this summer and fall, I like root-energy, preferably square root energy or sqr-energy (sqr-E). </span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3687" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size: 15px;" class=""><br></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3687" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size: 15px;" class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_6215">That permits </span><span style="font-size: 15px;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_5647" class="">sqr-E/rho or </span><span style="font-size: 15px;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_6104" class="">sqr-E/</span>đ which is a useful term in energy and propulsion formulas.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3687" dir="ltr" class=""><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3687" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size: 15px;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3691" class="">As an acronym, square-root-energy-density == SqRED or SqREeD...SQREED...not sure </span><span><br></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3687" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size: 15px;" class=""><br></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3687" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size: 15px;" class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_6868">For spread sheets or programming, SQRT(E</span>đ) or some close variant may be useful. <span class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_6868" style="font-size: 15px;">(E/vol</span>)^2 is yet another possibility.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3687" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3687" dir="ltr">David</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3687" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3687" dir="ltr"><br></div> <blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-left: 5px;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3505"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3504"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3503"> <div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3686"> <font size="2" face="Arial" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3685"> <hr size="1" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_4075"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> "Roychoudhuri, Chandra" <chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> <br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Tuesday, December 15, 2015 2:28 PM<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [General] {SPAM?} Re: Reply of comments from what a modelâŚ<br> </font> </div> <div class="y_msg_container" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3502"><br><div id="yiv8494205974"><style>#yiv8494205974 #yiv8494205974 --
_filtered #yiv8494205974 {font-family:Cambria;panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
_filtered #yiv8494205974 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
_filtered #yiv8494205974 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
_filtered #yiv8494205974 {font-family:Verdana;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
#yiv8494205974
#yiv8494205974 p.yiv8494205974MsoNormal, #yiv8494205974 li.yiv8494205974MsoNormal, #yiv8494205974 div.yiv8494205974MsoNormal
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}
#yiv8494205974 h2
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:18.0pt;font-weight:bold;}
#yiv8494205974 a:link, #yiv8494205974 span.yiv8494205974MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}
#yiv8494205974 a:visited, #yiv8494205974 span.yiv8494205974MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}
#yiv8494205974 p
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}
#yiv8494205974 p.yiv8494205974MsoAcetate, #yiv8494205974 li.yiv8494205974MsoAcetate, #yiv8494205974 div.yiv8494205974MsoAcetate
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;}
#yiv8494205974 span.yiv8494205974Heading2Char
{color:#4F81BD;font-weight:bold;}
#yiv8494205974 span.yiv8494205974BalloonTextChar
{}
#yiv8494205974 p.yiv8494205974msochpdefault, #yiv8494205974 li.yiv8494205974msochpdefault, #yiv8494205974 div.yiv8494205974msochpdefault
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;}
#yiv8494205974 span.yiv8494205974heading2char0
{color:#4F81BD;font-weight:bold;}
#yiv8494205974 span.yiv8494205974balloontextchar0
{}
#yiv8494205974 span.yiv8494205974emailstyle23
{color:#1F497D;}
#yiv8494205974 span.yiv8494205974emailstyle24
{color:black;}
#yiv8494205974 span.yiv8494205974emailstyle27
{color:windowtext;}
#yiv8494205974 span.yiv8494205974hvr
{}
#yiv8494205974 span.yiv8494205974current-selection
{}
#yiv8494205974 span.yiv8494205974ls0
{}
#yiv8494205974 span.yiv8494205974EmailStyle32
{color:#1F497D;}
#yiv8494205974 .yiv8494205974MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt;}
_filtered #yiv8494205974 {margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
#yiv8494205974 div.yiv8494205974WordSection1
{}
#yiv8494205974 </style><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3501">
<div class="yiv8494205974WordSection1" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3500">
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3684"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3683">Hello Friends: The attached paper is relevant to our debating platform and the SPIE conference.</span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3499"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3627"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3626">Dear John W.: Good to read your âconfessionâ for âforgivenessâ!! Physics will advance through iterative imaginative modeling; including, challenging any and all the postulates
behind all the âworkingâ theories!</span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3629"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3628">Instead of âvotâ, you could use âsredâ (square-root-energy-density), or simply âroot-energyâ; so people can appreciate what you mean in any paper.</span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3672"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" name="_MailEndCompose" href=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;"> </span></a></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3660"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">Chandra.</span></div>
<div class="qtdSeparateBR" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_3682"><br><br></div><div class="yiv8494205974yqt3455295942" id="yiv8494205974yqt13381"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_5743">
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1450238005655_5742">
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"> General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>John Williamson<br clear="none">
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, December 15, 2015 3:27 PM<br clear="none">
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br clear="none">
<b>Cc:</b> Anthony Booth; Richard De La Rue; Mark, Martin van der<br clear="none">
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] {SPAM?} Re: Reply of comments from what a modelâŚ</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"> </div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Dear Puzzled,<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Indeed, Richard starts from a charged photon. Everyone starts from somewhere. I do not share his starting point at all. This is a good thing: great minds do not âthink alikeâ. Great minds think differently.</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Maxwell starts from fields. Dirac, starts from a linear equation over a 4-dimensional relativistic space-time. Solving that equation proves to require a set of spinors. The basis of these are electron, positron,
and spin up-spin down. 4-distinct "spinors" in all. Further, to couple electromagnetism, he uses the "minimal coupling ansatz" and sticks in a vector potential. This is good stuff! If you want to know about it I suggest you reads Dirac's own book, as many
later authours seem themselves to have a bit of trouble with the conceptual basis - but there you go. I think the conceptual basis for my stuff is a lot simpler â but that may be because I have been using it for a quarter of a century.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
As I have stated I use a similar basis as Dirac for space and time - but start from a concept of root-energy and use a slightly simpler (non-complex) basis. On advice from the group I have started calling square-root-energy-density "vot". Inventing new words
is, according to Richards post, one sign of a "crank". I'm beginning to have second thoughts here. What does everyone think? Does this make me more cranky or things more clear?</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
Anyway back to what I actually put in. Square-root-energy-density and the same 4-vector differential that Dirac uses. That is relativistic 4-space and square-root-energy-density. In addition there is a form of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division.
Now everyone assumes these properties in some form. I make my definitions a little more restrictive than anyone else, but only a little. So I just have a mathematical framework, square-root-energy-density and relativistic space and time. That is all.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
That is the onta, for me, are square-root-energy-density and (inverse) space and (inverse) time. Ordinary space and ordinary time are obtained by division.</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Note that this is the particular starting point for my new theory as presented at FFP in 2014 and SPIE in 2015 â not for earlier versions such as that at MENDEL2012 or CYBCOM 2008.
</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Theory is just stuff you make up. I make lots of stuff up and then see how well it works. Iâm still making things up now. I know this sounds a bit weird to folk who work within other existing frameworks â but this
is what I do. Try to make up new stuff which still contains or derives all the stuff that has gone before. What I am struggling with at the moment is just how many onta I need, and what the basic handedness of space should be (left or right) and what the sign
of space should be with respect to time (which one is âimaginaryâ then.</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">In any event, in my current thinking one does not need both time and energy. Both can be derived from âfrequencyâ. That would leave only four. I am debating as to whether or not to put it in as this in the new
paper. As Al says there is already so much in it that is new, that any normal referee is going to be very puzzled. I can confirm this. The many referee comments I have so far on the papers we have submitted read a bit like a comedy book. It is astonishing
how many things I though were just common knowledge that many folk seem simply to not get.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Anyway to have a hope of doing this properly a careful definition of what division is, and what division is not. There is a paper by Martin and myself (Martin first author) which we have written and submitted twice to top journals. We hope to have another go
at this over Christmas, time permitting. We use this all the time in our own thinking â but it is not yet available to others. This is a very bad thing.</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">It is worth pointing out that my starting point is not the starting point for Martinâs SPIE paper, which does start from fields, Batemanâs method, and advances this using some really cool maths.
</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Our starting point for the 1997 paper was different again. There we started with our concept of the âphotonâ. We started from its fields and assumed its quantisation. Though the double looped configuration LOOKS
the same as in the new paper â it is (as I clearly state) in a different space (not space-space). That they are nearly the same tells me we were already onto something big back then.</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">At the present moment, it is not a single theory that Martin and I are inventing, but many related ones. We are looking amongst them for the consequences â to see which one best fits nature as it is observed to
be. To establish which reduces to or derives the existing backbone of physics. The new paper I am writing (and intending to try at phys rev) is a (slight) development of the thinking at SPIE15 and FFP14 â partly due to discussions with you, and partly discussions
with other groups.</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
To be crystal clear. I do not put fields in: they come out. I do not put Maxwells equations in: they come out. I do not put the Dirac equation in, it does not come out precisely. What comes out instead is a set of equations in masses and fields - not in weird
maths objects. The solutions of the new equation are - either a set that LOOK just like physical spinors, but are composed of underlying mass and field. If one puts no mass in, the solutions look like angular momentum quantised electromagnetic waves. This
is what the two papers you all have are about.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Once again I am not even really bothering to calculate any numbers. There is an argument to be made that some numbers (such as the speed of light) are irrelevant as, if you scale them everything scales and you would not even notice. Clocks would go scale- rulers
would scale â everything would scale, relatively. </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Al is right, there is a lot of numerology crap out there. There is no dimensional analysis in my stuff without net content. I do not put any constants in a-priori beyond those appropriate for square-root-energy-density
- and just derive a set of equations for this from the first principles of merely k-space, frequency and root-energy. Five starting points (plus the maths). Of course, when I do put some numbers in all sorts of things do come out - values for the elementary
charge or the constant of Planck (put one in, get two out). </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Now I have already made the argument that there are only four in this forum previously. There is another one to be made that there is only one (I'm still thinking about this one). Watch this space before space
itself no longer appears fundamental.</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Thatâs all for now ⌠gotta go .</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Regards from John Williamson.</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" name="_GoBack" href=""><span style="color:black;"></span></a></div>
<div>
<div align="center" class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="text-align:center;"><span style="">
</span><hr align="center" size="3" width="100%">
</div>
<div id="yiv8494205974divRpF930715">
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins@gmail.com]<br clear="none">
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, December 15, 2015 8:14 PM<br clear="none">
<b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br clear="none">
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] {SPAM?} Re: Reply of comments from what a modelâŚ</span><span style=""></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Hi Al</span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">I understand the objection to using the term âcharged photonâ because in my view when this âthingâ acquires charge it no longer fits the definition of a âphotonâ. Bit as W/vdM have pointed out,
</span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">and the relationships </span><span style=""><img id="yiv8494205974_x0000_i1026" width="98" height="63" src="cid:8l3TpiemidvTFSpZOuxX" data-id="24df7435-dbae-8393-b7b8-10fff15aa68f"></span><span style="color:black;">and
</span><span style=""><img id="yiv8494205974_x0000_i1027" width="146" height="52" src="cid:0IZO5LMAfp2bMRR8Sq2G" data-id="5be6aa36-3962-d5a9-b1f9-7e5a718abcd4"></span><span style="color:black;">clearly suggest, charge is the divergence of the E field. Linearly propagating
transverse waves (photons) do not display this divergence, but confined soliton solutions can display exactly the topology which would satisfy the above relationships. The confinement for such a soliton solution is in the order of magnitude Richard, John
W. and I have calculated, simply if the âphotonâ has the momentum p=E/c, indicated by a significant amount of empirical evidence and research.</span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Being an engineer who has designed and built many complex âclosed control loop systemsâ, I cannot accept the argument that we are guilty of circular reasoning, simply if we close our solutions. In fact closing
our solutions provides a double check on at least a portion of their validity. Yes there are still many given inputs, like physical âconstantsâ we use in our work, and it seems that what John W is proposing will help us reduce the number of given inputs (constants
without an understanding of the mechanism of their derivation) even further.</span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">For me, understanding why also means understanding the relationships involved. Many of those relationships are so interdependent that they can only have full solutions which would apparently be classified by some
as âcircularâ. But to imply that this makes them somehow invalid or useless seems quite misguided to me.</span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Chip</span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;">
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black;"> General [</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black;">]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Roychoudhuri, Chandra<br clear="none">
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, December 15, 2015 1:36 PM<br clear="none">
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black;">><br clear="none">
<b>Cc:</b> Mark, Martin van der <</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black;">><br clear="none">
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] {SPAM?} Re: Reply of comments from what a modelâŚ</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">Excellent LOGICAL challenge to any self-consistent (or, self-looped) logics, Al!<br clear="none">
Thanks.</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">Chandra.</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;">
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"> General [</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">]
<b>On Behalf Of </b></span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">af.kracklauer@web.de</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"><br clear="none">
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, December 15, 2015 11:56 AM<br clear="none">
<b>To:</b> </span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"><br clear="none">
<b>Cc:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Mark, Martin van der<br clear="none">
<b>Subject:</b> {SPAM?} Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a modelâŚ<br clear="none">
<b>Importance:</b> Low</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">Hi All:</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">There is another aspect that so far has not gotten its due: What Richard has presented has all the heft and feel of a demonstartion of the selfconsistency of
the units on classical formulas---an exercise in dimensional analysis. In other words, it can't be credited with anything new; just another round of the circle dance. Formal logic teaches that ANY and ALL logicial structures must have some <em><span style="">a
priori </span></em>givens, or inputs that the structure does not explain. What are they, actually? The problem with a charged photon is: empirically, it is backwards, or worse: inconsistent. Historically, first came Gauss with charges that interact. Then
came fields (Maxwell) as a model of the interaction. Finally, came quantization of the fields, i.e., photons. Now, if one seeks to reverse this progression, then what is the empirical evidence for photons (as such) and what do thay need a charge for? What
does it (they) do for the photon (other than provide a circular dance to close the loop on the units/dimensions)?</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">Puzzeled, Al</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">
</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid #C3D9E5 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt;word-wrap:break-word;">
<div style="margin-bottom:7.5pt;">
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">Gesendet:</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> Dienstag, 15. Dezember 2015 um 08:03 Uhr<br clear="none">
<b>Von:</b> "John Williamson" <</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank" href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">><br clear="none">
<b>An:</b> "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">><br clear="none">
<b>Cc:</b> "Mark, Martin van der" <</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">><br clear="none">
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a modelâŚ</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Dear All,<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Yes, of course WvdM have thought about it. It was one of the starting points of my thinking well before I met Martin (and his before me). This has been the argument from many folk, even before relativity. It has been part of the calculation of the energy in
many of the classical electron models of the early twentieth century. My goodness â look at it. Apart from taking a standpoint of a (somehow) localized photon, Richardâs argument is based primarily based on Newtonâs laws. He is completely right â but the only
person who needs convincing of this, as far as I can see, is Albrecht. </span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Albrecht, however, has a good point â one does need something to set against to account for the local forces. He proposes two particles to account for this. I think this is progress in the wrong direction. Before
one had just one particle to explain, now one has two. Negative progress. Twice as bad as before. Further, the resulting picture is flat contradicted by loads of experiment. Not good. His point, however, remains.
</span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Al is also correct. The interaction with the ârest of the universeâ must be considered. Martin and I did some calculations about this â partly in discussion with Casimir more than a couple of decades ago. Chip
has calculated the effective forces as well. They are huge! Order of a Newton acting on the surface of the electron. Think about the pressure! So how can it be that Richard, Albrecht and Al all have valid points and yet are all arguing. Diferent parts of the
elephant gentlemen. Each seeing problems in the others standpoint, but not the whole picture. To get the whole picture you need a theory which encompasses the fields, the co-ordinates, the masses â the charge â the spins âthe forces â the interactions- the
whole lot. Now you can try using Dirac. Many have. You can try using nineteenth century Maxwell (this is already very very good â no spins or charge though). You could head down the road to doing QED. Welcome! They are all good theories. All are, as Al has
put it, âwell ploughedâ. Good luck!</span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Alternatively you could pile on board with helping with a new theory which, pretty much, encompasses the lot of them and yet opens up new ground. New solutions, new experiments, new science. Your choice.</span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"><br clear="none">
Regards, John. </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div>
<div align="center" class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="text-align:center;"><span style="">
</span><hr align="center" size="3" width="100%">
</div>
<div id="yiv8494205974divRpF968199">
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins@gmail.com]<br clear="none">
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, December 14, 2015 7:06 PM<br clear="none">
<b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br clear="none">
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a modelâŚ</span><span style=""><br clear="none">
</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Hi Richard</span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Very well done. I have run the same scenario and come to the same conclusion. And then extended the math to relativistic acceleration of the electron, finding it becomes an exact solution. Did W/vdM do this also?</span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Nice. I think it would be a good paper.</span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Chip</span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;">
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black;"> General [</span><span style="color:black;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black;">]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Richard Gauthier<br clear="none">
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, December 14, 2015 11:26 AM<br clear="none">
<b>To:</b> Albrecht Giese <</span><span style="color:black;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" target="_blank" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">phys@a-giese.de</span></a></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black;">><br clear="none">
<b>Cc:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <</span><span style="color:black;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black;">><br clear="none">
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a modelâŚ</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Hello Albrecht and others,</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> Iâve just found a short derivation for the inertia or rest mass m of a resting electron from the momentum mc of a circulating charged photon modeling the electron. Iâve written up a short note at <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="https://www.academia.edu/19652036/The_Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia">https://www.academia.edu/19652036/The_Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia</a> .</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Hereâs the abstract:</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> "The inertia or rest mass m of an electron, modeled as a circulating charged photon, is simply derived from Newtonâs second law F=ma , the time rate of change of the vector momentum mc of the circulating charged
photon having the energy mc^2 of the electron, and the centripetal acceleration of the circulating charged photon.â</span></div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Basically the proof is</span></div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">M= F/a = (dp/dt)/(c^2/r) = (wp)/(w^2 r) = p/wr = (mc)/c = m</span></div>
</div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Richard</span></div>
</div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">On Dec 10, 2015, at 11:49 AM, Albrecht Giese <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</span></div>
</div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;"><span style="color:black;">Hello Richard,<br clear="none">
</span><span style="color:#003300;">my comments again in your text:</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Am 09.12.2015 um 07:19 schrieb Richard Gauthier:</span></div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Hello Albrecht,</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> Let us for the sake of argument assume that your statement â </span><span style="color:#003300;background:white;"> So an extended electron has necessarily inertia. But not only as a qualitative result but quantitatively
with high precision! And this is not only true for the electron but also for all fermions (leptons and quarks). </span><span style="color:black;"> â is correct. But since there is no experimental evidence for an extended electron, your argument falls apart
right from the start. This is the case no matter how many people attend your talks.</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:#003300;">Again the following arguments for an extended electron (as well for the other leptons, for all quarks)<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
1.) The extension is a precondition of relativistic dilation<br clear="none">
2.) The extension is the cause of inertial mass (I do not know any other cause)<br clear="none">
3.) The extension is a precondition of the magnetic moment at a charged particle (is otherwise not possible)<br clear="none">
4.) The extension is a precondition of the spin (is as well otherwise not explained).<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
I know very few cases in the history of physics where the evidence was so great!</span><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Then you write:</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:#003300;">If you derive inertia from an occurrence of momentum, then this is circular reasoning. As momentum without inertial is not possible.</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Inertia is the quantitative measure equal to the rest mass of an object and nothing else. Otherwise "Inertia" is just a vague word.</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:#003300;">Inertia is the resistance against a change of the state of motion. It is very well defined (once by Newton).</span><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">An unconfined photon traveling linearly carries momentum but has no rest mass and therefore has no inertia.</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:#003300;">If you want to change the motion state of a photon, which means in the case of the photon a change or its direction, you need a force. That means inertia by definition.</span><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Light must be confined or self-confined to have rest-mass/inertia A charged photon traveling helically and modeling an electron DOES have rest mass (as calculated from the electron's relativistic energy-momentum
equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 ) and therefore by definition has inertia.</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:#003300;">The famous relation E = m*c^2 (as part of your equation above) describes a relation between mass and energy. Originally (as derived by Einstein) in the differential form: dE = dm * c^2. That means that a change
in energy causes a change of mass. This has no explaining power for the mechanism itself which causes inertia. If a photon has inertia then we have to explain this mechanism within the photon which causes the photon to be inertial.
</span><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">The helical trajectory of the charged photon model may be the origin of inertia, not a two-ghost-particle electron model. One can claim that there is no evidence for the charged photon. But first something has
to be conceived before evidence for its existence can be found. Objects exist first mentally as a conception or hypothesis. Then support for the conception is sought experimentally. This is how science works and progresses.</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:#003300;">Science means at least as a final result that we have to find the mechanism of a phenomenon, here of inertia. I do not see a connection between a possible charge in a photon and the fact that a photon has inertial
behaviour. You have written in the beginning: "Otherwise "Inertia" is just a vague word." There are all words here vague words as long as not a mechanism or process is given. And exactly that I find missing in most of the discussion here about inertia.</span><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> Richard</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:#003300;">Albrecht</span><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">On Dec 8, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Albrecht Giese <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</span></div>
</div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;"><span style="color:black;">Hello Richard,<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
</span><span style="color:#003300;">I fell a little bit like Sisyphos. No progress.
</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Am 07.12.2015 um 06:20 schrieb Richard Gauthier:</span></div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Hello Albrecht,</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> The nature of scientific exploration is that âanything goesâ if it ethically produces new scientific discoveries. So your idea of an indirect strong force on electrons to explain your two-particle model of the
electron COULD be correct despite the current lack of any accepted evidence for your model. The law of conservation of momentum is NOT evidence for your specific electron model.</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:#003300;">No, as I wrote earlier: The conservation of momentum follows from the symmetry of space. And that is very fundamental. Is used by my model and by the whole rest of the physical world. Formally introduced by the
mathematician Emmy Noether in 1918.</span><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">The unexplained results at DESY do not provide support for any hypothesis, including yours.</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:#003300;">They have to be explained. I have an explanation which you may not like. Your alternative??</span><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Your electron hypothesis could be wrong, and is very like to be wrong as I think you will admit. So far your hypothesis hasnât produced any good scientific results that I know of. I for one am not convinced that
your electron hypothesis explains inertia quantitatively (by deriving the electronâs mass from the Bohr magneton ehbar/2m , which already contains the electronâs mass).</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:#003300;">NO! NO! NO! I have explained it several times now. Inertia is caused by the fact that
<b>any extended object has necessarily inertial behaviour</b>. It is the consequence of the finiteness of the speed by which the binding forces propagate. Very fundamental physics. So an extended electron has necessarily inertia. But not only as a qualitative
result but quantitatively with high precision! And this is not only true for the electron but also for all fermions (leptons and quarks).
</span><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
</span><span style="color:#003300;">Any theory or model needs at least on parameter which is measured. This is in case of my model Planck's constant. I use the Bohr magneton to connect Planck's constant to my model. I could as well have used the relation E =
h * frequency. But I found the other way more elegant. </span><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
</span><span style="color:#003300;">I do not know any other working model for inertia. The Higgs theory does not work as we know. On the other hand my website about "origin of mass" is the number one in the internet since 13 years., And when I give talks about
it on conferences in Germany, the lecture hall is normally overcrowded. An indication of weakness?</span><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">I donât accept that your electron hypothesis is the only hypothesis that can explain inertia, as you claim. Inertia could be explained by the âhidden momentumâ component mc in my charged-photon electron model.</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:#003300;">If you derive inertia from an occurrence of momentum, then this is circular reasoning. As momentum without inertial is not possible.</span><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">My charged-photon electron model, and John Wâs and John Mâs and Vivianâs and Chipâs electron models could also all be wrong. But I think that we are collectively making progress. Eliminating deadwood and dead-ends
is also part of progress. I donât see any progress in your model, despite all the energy you put into defending its many weaknesses. You still have not explained how your electron model can have a positive total energy based on its strong nuclear force's negative
binding energy. Maybe this will not be possible without radically changing your electron model of two circulating particles that individually have no mass and no energy, but are bound together by the strong nuclear force.</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:#003300;">No reason for a change as anything works with very good precision. And from the scratch.
</span><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> I donât know of any awards for electron models. De Broglie and Dirac both got Nobel prizes for their electron equations without having electron models. Heisenberg and Schrodinger also didnât have electron models
when they won their Nobel prizes for discovering quantum mechanics. Perhaps we could start a competition for the best electron model. That could possibly speed up the progress in getting a really good one. But the best electron model will be the one that has
the best potential to lead to the best new scientific results.</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:#003300;">What de Broglie, SchrĂśdinger, and Dirac did was more algebra than physics. That is their common weakness. And as we have found out in our discussion here is that de Broglie has a logical error in his derivation.
And SchrĂśdinger and Dirac based on his result. How proper can that be?</span><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> I didnât have any position on quarks when they were first introduced. My introductory physics professor in 1963 at MIT Henry Kendall was one of the high energy experimental physicists that later experimentally
discovered the first quark. The other five quarks were also discovered by the methods of experimental high energy physics. I think the general positive trend of modern physics is to overturn traditional dogmatic materialism and to open up new ways of understanding
the relationships among matter, energy and mind. Physicists should not replace old dogmas by new dogmas. Getting new ideas and concepts accepted in physics is not easy, nor should it be. Thereâs a lot of junk out there.</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:#003300;">Just to remind you: The Up-quark and the Down-quark have never been discovered. They have been assumed to exist as this has eased the formal treatment of nucleons. Nothing better.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
With best regards</span><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
Albrecht<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> With best regards,</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> Richard</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">On Dec 6, 2015, at 7:28 AM, Albrecht Giese <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</span></div>
</div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Richard,<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
what do you expect from science? Do your claims describe the way as science works?<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
If you look into the history of physics, discoveries have happened in a different way than following your demands here. I shall give two examples.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
What is about the quarks, the Up-quark and the Down-quark? No one has ever seen them, no lab was able to isolate them. Nevertheless no one in main stream physics questions that these two quarks exist. The advantage of this assumption is that interactions with
nucleons can be mathematically handled in a better way. That is by common view sufficient since more than 40 years.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
I was a student when the quark was introduced. Many established physicists in research laughed about this idea. And the quark was not visible, is not visible until today. But those who introduced it received the Nobel price. - What was your position to quarks
at that time? Or what is it now?<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
And as I wrote in my last answer: The strong force was believed to exist for 40 years before detailed proofs could be given (by the existence of gluons).
<i>If this is the only choice, then it is the answer (at least temporary). That is the rule in physics.
</i><br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
The same is true for the strong force in the electron. It is the only way (at present) to deduce inertia. And there is no counter-proof. The direct positive proof is difficult in so far as the coupling between quarks and electrons is very weak caused by the
very different size of both particles.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Regarding the excess of certain events in the DESY experiment: Do you have a solution? Or a better solution? Perhaps then
<i>you </i>can win an award ...<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Albrecht<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Am 05.12.2015 um 19:10 schrieb Richard Gauthier:</span></div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Albrecht,</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> You wrote</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">The conclusion now of a direct interaction of the strong force between the quark and the electron is a more indirect proof, but the only one left at present - in my view.</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> If you are the only one in the world to come to this conclusion, and DESY did not come to this conclusion (which would have probably won them a Nobel prize if correct), then I am not willing to accept it and
I doubt that any logical and independent scientist will either.</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">you then write </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">further that a lot of other problems can be resolved with the assumption that the strong force is the universal force in the world, then this is in my view an even better argument than the one in the 1930s for
the strong force.</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> You say that a lot of problems could be solved if the strong force affects the electron. This is not a good or logical reason to accept that the strong force affects the electron. If rivers flowed with milk,
a lot of world hunger problems would be solved, but this is not a reason to accept that rivers flow with milk.</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> Richard</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">On Dec 5, 2015, at 7:36 AM, Albrecht Giese <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</span></div>
</div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Hello Richard,<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
my answers in the text:<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:00:23 -0800 schrieb Richard Gauthier :</span></div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Hello Albrecht,</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> In physics no one can validly claim that the strong force nuclear acting on electrons was âseenâ at DESY if such an important and unexpected result was never confirmed by any other qualified laboratory in all
the years afterward. So please let go of your claim about the strong nuclear force acting on electrons at least until it is confirmed by another laboratory. I am not saying that conventional wisdom is always right (obviously it isnât). But in experimental
physics one needs to play by the statistical ârulesâ (which are in any case designed to guard against âfalse positivesâ like the DESY experiment might have been) if one wants to have credibility among other knowledgeable physicists. (We are not talking about
credibility by the general public here.)</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">There were two teams at DESY who have seen an excess of triggers in electron-quark interactions, which could not be explained by leptonic interactions based on the electrical force. The attempt to postulate a new
"leptoquark", which could mediate between the electron and the strong force, failed. The conclusion now of a direct interaction of the strong force between the quark and the electron is a more indirect proof, but the only one left at present - in my view.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
But what was the evidence of the strong force when it came up? See below.<br clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> And without confirmation of the DESY results (or their logical interpretation), your 2-particle electron model goes nowhere fast. As you wrote, â Without referring to the strong force, the calculation of the
mass of the electron has incorrect results by a factor of several hundred. â So everything else in your model hinges on an unconfirmed result from one physics laboratory. As theoretical physicists say (or should say) when their predictions are not confirmed
by experiments: âWell, back to the drawing board.â</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">The strong force was postulated in the 1930s when it became clear that there are >1 protons in the nucleus which are bound to each other despite of the repulsive force of the electric charges. The stable bind was
the only reason at that time to assume a "strong force". It was not earlier than in the year 1978, so ca. 40 years later, that gluons have been identified at DESY and so the strong force has become more than an assumption.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
If I say that the strong force in the electron is the only cause of inertia, which is presently available, further that a lot of other problems can be resolved with the assumption that the strong force is the universal force in the world, then this is in my
view an even better argument than the one in the 1930s for the strong force.<br clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> with best wishes,</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> Richard</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Best wishes back<br clear="none">
Albrecht<br clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">On Nov 26, 2015, at 8:53 AM, Albrecht Giese <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</span></div>
</div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;"><span style="color:black;">Hallo Richard,<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
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.</span></div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Am 23.11.2015 um 19:43 schrieb Richard Gauthier:</span></div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Hello Albrecht,</span></div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> Iâm 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, letâs drop that proposal for holding your 2 circulating charged massless
particles in orbit, at least for now.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">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 HĂśnl. (I can send you his paper if you are interested, however in German.)<br clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Second, since thereâs no evidence for a two-particle structure of the electron from any scattering or other experiments, letâs 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 donât even know experimentally that conservation of momentum exists at the sub-electron level, do we? Just an article
of faith?</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">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 clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> So what is left of your model? You claim that your two particles are massless and travel at light speed. But you donât 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 electronâs total resting energy 0.511 MeV is divided equally between them.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">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 clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">One kind of particle that has no rest mass but has energy and travels at light speed is a photon.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">This assumption is not true as explained above.<br clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">(Letâs 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></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Not true!<br clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">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.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">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 clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> Letâs drop one of the two photons for simplicity (Occamâs razor put to good use) so that the other photon will have the full electron energy 0.511 MeV .</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">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 clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">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.
Thatâs 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).</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">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 clear="none">
<br clear="none">
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 clear="none">
<br clear="none">
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 clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">So thereâs still a problem with the modelâs 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).</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">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 clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> What do you think of this new model so far?</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Did I explain it sufficiently?<br clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> Richard</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Albrecht<br clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">On Nov 22, 2015, at 9:43 AM, Albrecht Giese <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</span></div>
</div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;"><span style="color:black;">Hello Richard,<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
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.</span></div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Am 22.11.2015 um 00:13 schrieb Richard Gauthier:</span></div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Hello Albrecht,</span></div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> I admire your persistence in trying to save your doomed (in my opinion) 2-particle electron model.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Why 2 particles in the model? I say it again:<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
1) to maintain the conservation of momentum in the view of oscillations<br clear="none">
2) to have a mechanism for inertia (which has very precise results, otherwise non-existent in present physics)<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
I will be happy to see alternatives for both points. Up to now I have not seen any.<br clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">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).â ? </span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">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 clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">How could the number S that you could not find in âunpreciseâ tables about the strong force possibly be the same number that can be found precisely from the electronâs 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></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">When I have realized that my model deduces the Bohr magneton, I have used the measurements available in that context to determine my field constant. (I could also go the other way: I can use the Planck / Einstein
relation E = h * f and the Einstein-relation E = m*c<sup>2</sup> to determine the constant S from the internal frequency in my model. Same result. But I like the other way better. BTW: Do you know any other model which deduces these relations rather than using
them as given?)<br clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Here is the meaning of âgrasping at strawsâ from <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasp+at+straws">http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasp+at+straws</a> :</span></div>
</div>
<h2 style="display:inline-block;"><span style="">grasp at straws</span><span style="color:black;"></span></h2>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span class="yiv8494205974hvr"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">Also,</span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"> <span class="yiv8494205974hvr"><b>clutch</b></span><b> at <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">straws</span></b>. <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">Make</span> a <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">desperate</span> <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">attempt</span> at <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">saving</span> <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">oneself.</span> <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">For</span> <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">example,</span> <i>He <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">had lost</span> <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">the</span> <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">argument,</span> <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">but</span> he <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">kept</span> <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">grasping</span> at <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">straws,</span> <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">naming</span> <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">numerous</span> <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">previous</span> <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">cases</span> <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">that had</span> <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">little</span> to do <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">with</span> <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">this</span> <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">one</span></i>. <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">This</span> <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">metaphoric</span> <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">expression</span> <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">alludes</span> to a <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">drowning</span> <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">person trying</span> to <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">save</span> <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">himself</span> by <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">grabbing</span> at <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">flimsy</span> <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">reeds.</span> <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">First</span> <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">recorded</span> in <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">1534,</span> <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">the</span> <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">term</span> <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">was used</span> <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">figuratively</span> by <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">the</span> <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">late</span> <span class="yiv8494205974hvr">1600s.</span></span><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">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 desperationâ. 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.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">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 clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> 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:</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">" </span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;">the <b>van der Waals forces</b> (or <b>van der Waals' interaction</b>), named after </span><span style="color:black;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands" title="Netherlands"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;">Dutch</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;"> </span><span style="color:black;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist" title="Scientist"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;">scientist</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;"> </span><span style="color:black;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Diderik_van_der_Waals" title="Johannes Diderik van der Waals"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;">Johannes
Diderik van der Waals</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;">, is the sum of the attractive or repulsive forces between </span><span style="color:black;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecule" title="Molecule"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;">molecules</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;"> (or
between parts of the same molecule) other than those due to </span><span style="color:black;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond" title="Covalent bond"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;">covalent
bonds</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;">, or the </span><span style="color:black;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_interaction" title="Electrostatic interaction"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;">electrostatic
interaction</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;"> of </span><span style="color:black;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion" title="Ion"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;">ions</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;"> with
one another, with neutral molecules, or with charged molecules.</span><span style="color:black;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-1"><sup><span style="font-size:8.5pt;">[1]</span></sup></a></span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;"> The
resulting van der Waals forces can be attractive or repulsive.</span><span style="color:black;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-Van_OssAbsolom1980-2"><sup><span style="font-size:8.5pt;">[2]</span></sup></a></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">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 clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Best regards<br clear="none">
Albrecht<br clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">with best regards,</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> Richard</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">On Nov 21, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Albrecht Giese <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</span></div>
</div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;"><span style="color:black;">Hello Richard,<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
I am a bit confused how badly my attempted explanations have reached you.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
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 clear="none">
<br clear="none">
For the binding force of the sub-particles I needed a multipole field which has a potential minimum at a distance R<sub>0</sub>. The simplest shape of such a field which I could find was for the force F:<br clear="none">
F = S * (R<sub>0</sub> - R) /R<sup>3</sup>. Here R<sub>0</sub> is of course the equilibrium distance and S the field constant. I wanted to refer to an existing field of a proper strength, and that could only be the strong force. Then I had to determine the
field constant S which is normally provided by experiments. But quantum mechanics is so unprecise regarding the numeric value of the strong force that there is no number available in the data tables. Here I found that I could use the Bohr magneton to determine
the constant. (Which turned out to be S = hbar*c, merely a constant).<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
>From the equation for F given above the inertial mass of the particle follows from a deduction which is given on my website:
<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass">www.ag-physics.org/rmass</a> . Too long to present it here, but straight and inevitable. Here the result again: m = S / (R * c<sup>2</sup>) .<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
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 clear="none">
<br clear="none">
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 clear="none">
<br clear="none">
And again: where is circular reasoning?<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Best regards<br clear="none">
Albrecht<br clear="none">
</span></div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Am 20.11.2015 um 23:02 schrieb Richard Gauthier:</span></div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Hello Albrecht,</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> Thanks for your detailed response. I think the key problem is in your determination of your âfield constantâ 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 fieldâ 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 ? Thatâs 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. Thatâs the problem resulting
in circularity. </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> with best regards,</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> Richard</span></div>
</div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">On Nov 20, 2015, at 1:09 PM, Albrecht Giese <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</span></div>
</div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;"><span style="color:black;">Hallo Richard,<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
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 clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Here now again the logical way which I have gone: I assume the circular motion of the elementary electric charge (2* 1/2 * e<sub>0</sub>) with speed c. Then with the formula (which you give here again) M = i*A one can conclude A from the measured magnetic
moment. And so we know the radius to be R = 3.86 x 10<sup>-13</sup> m for the electron. No constants and no further theory are necessary for this result. I have then calculated the inertial mass of a particle which turns out to be m = S / (R * c<sup>2</sup>)
where the parameter S describes the binding field. I did initially have no knowledge about the quantity of this field. But from the mass formula there follows for the magnetic moment: M= (1/2)*(S/c)*(e /m). To this point I have not used any knowledge except
the known relation for the magnetic moment. Now I look to the Bohr magneton in order to find the quantity of my field constant S: M= (1/2)*hbar*(e /m). Because the Planck constant has to be measured in some way. For doing it myself I would need a big machine.
But why? Basic constants never follow from a theory but have to be measured. I can use such a measurement, and that tells me for my field constant S = c*hbar (from Bohr magneton). So, where do you see circular reasoning?<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
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 clear="none">
<br clear="none">
And yes, the LandĂŠ 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 LandĂŠ factor (with a deviation of ca. 10<sup>-6</sup>).<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
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 clear="none">
<br clear="none">
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 clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Where do I practice circular reasoning?<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Best regards<br clear="none">
Albrecht<br clear="none">
</span></div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Am 18.11.2015 um 15:42 schrieb Richard Gauthier:</span></div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Hello Albrecht,</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> Letâs look at your listed assumptions of your electron model in relation to the electronâs magnetic moment. It is known that the magnitude of the electronâs 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 electronâs 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. </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">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.</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">with best regards,</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> Richard</span></div>
</div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">On Nov 18, 2015, at 2:03 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</span></div>
</div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black;">Hi Al,<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#006600;">I completely disagree with your conclusions about the motivation towards my model because my intention was not to develop a particle model. My intention was to develop a better understanding of time in relativity.
My present model was an unexpected consequence of this work. I show you my arguments again and ask you to indicate the point where you do not follow.</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black;">Am 17.11.2015 um 19:18 schrieb
</span><span style="color:black;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">af.kracklauer@web.de</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black;">:</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">Hi Albrect:</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">Comments² <strong><span style="">IN BOLD</span></strong></span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">
</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid #C3D9E5 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt;">
<div style="margin-bottom:7.5pt;">
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">Gesendet:</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> Dienstag, 17. November 2015 um 18:41 Uhr<br clear="none">
<b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese" </span><span style="color:black;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href=""><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"><genmail@a-giese.de></span></a></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"><br clear="none">
<b>An:</b> </span><span style="color:black;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href=""><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">af.kracklauer@web.de</span></a></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"><br clear="none">
<b>Cc:</b> </span><span style="color:black;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href=""><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"><br clear="none">
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a modelâŚ</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;">Hi Al,<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
again some responses.</span><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">
</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;">Am 14.11.2015 um 18:24 schrieb
</span><span style="color:black;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href=""><span style="font-size:7.5pt;">af.kracklauer@web.de</span></a></span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;">:</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">Hi Albrecht:</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">Answers to your questions:</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">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 SchrĂśedinger
eq. thereby explainiong all of 1st Quantization.</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;">Maybe you achieve something when using SED background. I do not really understand this background, but I do not see a stringent necessity
for it. But SED as an origin to the de Broglie waves is of interest for me. I am presently working on de Broglie waves to find a solution, which does not have the logical conflicts which we have discussed here.</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><strong><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">See No. 11 (or 1) @
</span></strong><span style="color:black;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com/"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com</span></b></a></span><strong><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">
for suggetions and some previous work along this line.</span></strong><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">Thank you, will have a look.</span></strong><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid #C3D9E5 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt;">
<div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">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!</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;">Olber's logic is simple in so far, as it shows that the universe cannot be infinite. I have assumed the same for all background effects.
Or are they infinite?</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><strong><span style="font-size:7.5pt;">The fly in the ointment is absorbtion. An inf. universe with absorbtion in the visible part of the spectrum will still have a
largely dark sky. </span></strong><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">And the other way around: Even if there is no absorption, the sky will be dark. And the general opinion is that, even if there is a lot of radiation absorbed,
this absorbing material will heat up by the time and radiate as well. So an absorption should not change too much.</span></strong><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid #C3D9E5 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
</span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;">What is the conflict with Mach's principle?</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><strong><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">Mach says: the gravitational "background radiation" is the cause of inertia. This effect is parallel to the SED bacground causing
QM effects. Conflict: if Olber is right, then Mach is probably wrong (too weak).</span></strong><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">In my understanding, what Mach means is completely different. Mach's intention was to find a reference system which is absolute with respect to acceleration.
He assumed that this is caused by the stars in our vicinity. He did not have a certain idea how this happens, he only needed the fact. (Einstein replaced this necessity by his equivalence of gravity and acceleration - which however is clearly falsified as
mentioned several times.)</span></strong><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid #C3D9E5 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt;">
<div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">3) The (wide spread) criticism of 2 particles is that there is neither an
<em><span style="">a-priori</span></em> intuative reason, nor empirical evidence that they exist. Maybe they do anyway. But then, maybe Zeus does too, and he is just arranging appearances so that we amuse ourselves. (Try
to prove that wrong!) </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;">I have explained how I came to the conclusion of 2 sub-particles. Again:<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
1) There is motion with c in an elementary particle to explain dilation<br clear="none">
2) With only on particle such process is mechanically not possible, and it violates the conservation of momentum<br clear="none">
3) In this way it is the only working model theses days to explain inertia. And this model explains inertia with high precision. What more is needed?</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><strong><span style="font-size:7.5pt;">These assumtions are "teleological," i.e., tuned to give the desired results. As logic, although often done, this manuver is
not legit in the formal presentation of a theory. For a physics theory, ideally, all the input assuptios have empirical justification or motivation. Your 2nd partical (modulo virtual images) has no such motivatin, in fact, just the opposite.
</span></strong><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">My logical way is just the other way around. I had the plan to work on relativity (the aspects of time), not on particle physics. The particle model was
an unplanned spin-off. I shall try to explain the logical path again: </span></strong><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
</span><strong><u><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">1st step:</span></u></strong><strong><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"> I have calculated the 4-dimensional speed of an object
using the temporal part of the Lorentz transformation. The surprising fact was that this 4-dim. speed is always the speed of light. I have then assumed that this constant shows a permanent motion with c in a particle. I have accepted this as a probable solution,
but I have never assumed this, before I had this result. It was in no way a desired result. My idea was to describe time by a vector of 3 of 4 dimensions. - I have then no further followed this idea.</span></strong><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#006600;"><br clear="none">
</span></b><strong><u><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">2nd step:</span></u></strong><strong><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"> 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.
</span></strong><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#006600;"><br clear="none">
</span></b><strong><u><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">3rd step:</span></u></strong><strong><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"> 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.</span></strong><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#006600;"><br clear="none">
</span></b><strong><u><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">4th step:</span></u></strong><strong><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"> The size must be such that the resulting frequency
in the view of c yields the magnetic moment which is known by measurements. </span>
</strong><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#006600;"><br clear="none">
</span></b><strong><u><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">5th step:</span></u></strong><strong><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"> 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.</span></strong><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#006600;"><br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
</span></b><strong><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">None of the results from step 1 thru step 5 was desired. Every step was inevitable, because our standard physical understanding (which I did not change at any point)
does not allow for any alternative. - <u>Or at which step could I have had an alternative in your opinion?</u></span></strong><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#006600;"><br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
</span></b><strong><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">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.</span></strong><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid #C3D9E5 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
</span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;">I know from several discussions with particle physicists that there is a lot of resistance against this assumption of 2 constituents. The reason is that everyone learn at university
like with mother's milk that the electron is point-like, extremely small and does not have any internal structure. This has the effect like a religion. (Same with the relativity of Hendrik Lorentz. Everyone learns with the same fundamental attitude that Lorentz
was nothing better than a senile old man how was not able to understand modern physics.) - Not a really good way, all this.</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><strong><span style="font-size:7.5pt;">Mystical thinking is indeed a major problem even in Physics! But, some of the objectiors to a 2nd particle are not basing their
objection of devine revelation or political correctness. </span></strong><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">4) It is ascientific to consider that the desired result is justification for a hypothetical input. OK, one can say about such reasoning,
it is validated <em><span style="">a posteriori</span></em>, that at least makes it sound substantial. So much has been granted to your "story" but has not granted your story status as a "physics theory." It has some appeal,
which in my mind would be enhansed had a rationalization for the 2nd particle been provided. That's all I'm trying to do. When you or whoever comes up with a better one, I'll drop pushing the virtual particle engendered by the background. Maybe, it fixes
too many other things.</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;">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 clear="none">
So, what is the problem? I have a model which explains several properties of elementary particles very precisely. It is in no conflict with any experimental experience. And as a new observation there is even some experimental evidence. - What else can physics
expect from a theory? - The argument that the second particle is not visible is funny. Who has ever seen a quark? Who has ever seen the internal structure of the sun? I think you have a demand here which was never fulfilled in science.</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><strong><span style="font-size:7.5pt;">The problem, obviously, is that the existence of the 2nd particle, as you have presented it, is not a fact, but a Wunschansatz.
[BTW: "See" in this context is not meant occularly, but figuratively for experimental verification through any length of inferance chain.] So, my question is: what problem do you have with a virtual mate for the particle? In fact, it will be there whether
you use it or not.</span></strong><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
</span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;">And see again Frank Wilczek.
<span class="yiv8494205974current-selection">He writes: "By combining fragmentation with super</span>-<span class="yiv8494205974current-selection">conductivity, we can get half-electrons that are their own antiparticles."
</span></span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><strong><span style="font-size:7.5pt;">A "straw in the wind" but sure seems far fetched! Superconductivity is already a manybody phenomenon, It's theory probably involves
some "virtual" notions to capture the essence of the average effect even if the virtual actors do not really exist.
</span></strong><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">This was a nice confirmation in my understanding. So as the whole article of Wilczek. The electron is in fact enigmatic if one follows main stream. It looses
a lot of this property if my model is used. - But even without this experimental hint I do not see any alternative to my model without severely violating known physics.</span></strong><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
</span><strong><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">Ciao</span></strong><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#006600;"><br clear="none">
</span></b><strong><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">Albrecht</span></strong><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid #C3D9E5 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><strong><span style="font-size:7.5pt;"> </span></strong><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
</span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;">Guten Abend<br clear="none">
Albrecht</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><strong><span style="font-size:7.5pt;">Gleichfalls, Al</span></strong><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">Have a good one! Al</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">
</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid #C3D9E5 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt;">
<div style="margin-bottom:7.5pt;">
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">Gesendet:</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> Samstag, 14. November 2015 um 14:51
Uhr<br clear="none">
<b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese" </span><span style="color:black;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href=""><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"><genmail@a-giese.de></span></a></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"><br clear="none">
<b>An:</b> </span><span style="color:black;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href=""><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">af.kracklauer@web.de</span></a></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"><br clear="none">
<b>Cc:</b> </span><span style="color:black;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href=""><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"><br clear="none">
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a modelâŚ</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">Hi Al,<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
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 clear="none">
<br clear="none">
For the competition of the 1/r<sup>2</sup> law for range of charges and the r<sup>2</sup> law for the quantity of charges we have a popular example when we look at the sky at night. The sky is dark and that shows that the r<sup>2</sup> case (number of shining
stars) does in no way compensates for the 1/r<sup>2</sup> case (light flow density from the stars).<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Why is a 2 particle model necessary?<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
1.) for the conservation of momentum<br clear="none">
2.) for a cause of the inertial mass<br clear="none">
3.) for the radiation at acceleration which occurs most time, but does not occur in specific situations. Not explained elsewhere.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Ciao, Albrecht<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">Am 13.11.2015 um 20:31 schrieb
</span><span style="color:black;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href=""><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">af.kracklauer@web.de</span></a></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">:</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">Hi Albrecht:</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">Your proposed experiment is hampered by reality! If you do the measurement with a gaget bought in a store that has knobes and a display,
then the measurement is for certain for signals under a couple hundred GHz and based on some phenomena for which the sensitivity of man-made devices is limited. And, if limited to the electric field, then there is a good chance it is missing altogether oscillating
signals by virtue of its limited reaction time of reset time, etc. etc. The vast majority of the background will be much higher, the phenomena most attuned to detecting might be in fact the quantum effects otherwise explained with mystical hokus-pokus! Also
to be noted is that, the processes invovled in your model, if they pertain to elementray entities, will have to be at very small size and if at the velocity (c) will be very high energy, etc. so that once again, it is quite reasonable to suppose that the universe
is anything but irrelavant! </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">Of course, there is then the issue of the divergence of the this SED background. Ameliorated to some extent with the realization that
there is no energy at a point in empty space until a charged entity is put there, whereupon the energy of interaction with the rest of the universe (not just by itself being there and ignoring the universe---as QM theorists, and yourself, are wont to do) is
given by the sum of interactions over all particles not by the integral over all space, including empty space. Looks at first blush to be finite. </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">Why fight it? Where the hell else will you find a credible 2nd particle? </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">ciao, Al</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">
</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid #C3D9E5 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt;">
<div style="margin-bottom:7.5pt;">
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">Gesendet:</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> Freitag, 13. November 2015 um 12:11
Uhr<br clear="none">
<b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese" </span><span style="color:black;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href=""><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"><genmail@a-giese.de></span></a></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"><br clear="none">
<b>An:</b> </span><span style="color:black;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href=""><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">af.kracklauer@web.de</span></a></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"><br clear="none">
<b>Cc:</b> </span><span style="color:black;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href=""><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"><br clear="none">
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a modelâŚ</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">Hi Al,<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
if we look to charges you mention the law 1/r<sup>2</sup>. Now we can perform a simple physical experiment having an electrically charged object and using it to measure the electric field around us. I say: it is very weak. Now look to the distance of the two
half-charges within the particle having a distance of 4*10<sup>-13</sup> m. This means an increase of force of about 25 orders of magnitude compared to what we do in a lab. And the difference is much greater if we refer to charges acting from the universe.
So I think we do not make a big mistake assuming that there is nothing outside the particle.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Regarding my model, the logic of deduction was very simple for me:<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
1.) We have dilation, so there must be a permanent motion with c<br clear="none">
2.) There must be 2 sub-particles otherwise the momentum law is violated; 3 are not possible as in conflict with experiments.<br clear="none">
3.) The sub-particles must be mass-less, otherwise c is not possible<br clear="none">
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 clear="none">
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 clear="none">
<br clear="none">
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 clear="none">
<br clear="none">
So, where do you see any kind of arbitrariness or missing justification?<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
TschĂźĂ!<br clear="none">
Albrecht<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">Am 12.11.2015 um 17:51 schrieb
</span><span style="color:black;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href=""><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">af.kracklauer@web.de</span></a></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">:</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">Hi Albrect:</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">We are making some progress. </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">To your remark that Swinger & Feynman introduced virtual charges, I note that they used the same term: "virtual charge/particle," in spite
of the much older meaning in accord with the charge and mirror example. In the finest of quantum traditions, they too ignored the rest of the universe and instead tried to vest its effect in the "vacuum." This idea was suitably mystical to allow them to
introduce the associated plaver into the folk lore of QM, given the sociology of the day. Even in spite of this BS, the idea still has merit. Your objection on the basis of the 1/r² fall-off is true but not conclusive. This fall-off is matched by a r² increase
in muber of charges, so the integrated total interaction can be expected to have at least some effect, no matter what. Think of the universe to 1st order as a neutral, low-density plasma. I (and some others) hold that this interaction is responcible for all
quantum effects. In any case, no particle is a universe unto itself, the rest have the poulation and time to take a toll! </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">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><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">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><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">TschuĂ, Al</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid #C3D9E5 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt;">
<div style="margin-bottom:7.5pt;">
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">Gesendet:</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> Donnerstag, 12. November 2015 um
16:18 Uhr<br clear="none">
<b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese" </span><span style="color:black;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href=""><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"><genmail@a-giese.de></span></a></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"><br clear="none">
<b>An:</b> </span><span style="color:black;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href=""><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">af.kracklauer@web.de</span></a></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"><br clear="none">
<b>Cc:</b> </span><span style="color:black;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href=""><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"><br clear="none">
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a modelâŚ</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">Hi Al,<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
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 LandĂŠ factor, where I have shown that this assumption is not necessary.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
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 clear="none">
<br clear="none">
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 clear="none">
<br clear="none">
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 clear="none">
<br clear="none">
</span><span style="color:black;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">http://www.nature.com/articles/498031a.epdf?referrer_access_token=ben9To-3oo1NBniBt2zIw9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Mr0WZkh3ZGwaOU__QIZA8EEsfyjmdvPM68ya-MFh194zghek6jh7WqtGYeYWmES35o2U71x2DQVk0PFLoHQk5V5M-cak670GmcqKy2iZm7PPrWZKcv_J3SBA-hRXn4VJI1r9NxMvgmKog-topZaM03&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">:
</span><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">
</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span class="yiv8494205974current-selection"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;">He writes: "By combining fragmentation with super</span></span><span class="yiv8494205974ls0"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;">-</span></span><span class="yiv8494205974current-selection"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;">conductivity,
we can get half-electrons that are their own antiparticles." </span></span><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
</span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">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 clear="none">
<br clear="none">
GrĂźĂe<br clear="none">
Albrecht</span><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">
</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">Am 12.11.2015 um 03:06 schrieb
</span><span style="color:black;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href=""><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">af.kracklauer@web.de</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">:</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">Hi Albrecht:</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">Virtual particles are proxys for an ensemble of real particles. There is nothing folly-lolly about them! They simply summarize the total
effect of particles that cannot be ignored. To ignore the remainder of the universe becasue it is inconvenient for theory formulation is for certain leading to error. "No man is an island," and no single particle is a universe! Thus, it can be argued that,
to reject the concept of virtual particles is to reject a facit of reality that must be essential for an explantion of the material world.</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">For example, if a positive charge is placed near a conducting surface, the charges in that surface will respond to the positive charge
by rearranging themselves so as to give a total field on the surface of zero strength as if there were a negative charge (virtual) behind the mirror. Without the real charges on the mirror surface, the concept of "virtual" negative charge would not be necessary
or even useful. </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">The concept of virtual charge as the second particle in your model seems to me to be not just a wild supposition, but an absolute necessity.
Every charge is, without choice, in constant interaction with every other charge in the universe, has been so since the big bang (if such were) and will remain so till the big crunch (if such is to be)! The universe cannot be ignored. If you reject including
the universe by means of virtual charges, them you have a lot more work to do to make your theory reasonable some how else. In particular in view of the fact that the second particles in your model have never ever been seen or even suspected in the various
experiments resulting in the disasssmbly of whatever targert was used. </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">MfG, Al</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;"> </span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">
</span><span style="color:black;"></span></div>
<div align="center" class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="text-align:center;background:white;">
<span style="color:black;">
</span><hr align="center" noshade="size="1"" width="99%" style="color:#909090;">
</div>
<table class="yiv8494205974MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;"><tbody><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="padding:0in 11.25pt 0in 6.0pt;">
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"><span style="text-decoration:none;"><img id="yiv8494205974_x0000_i1030" border="0" width="32" height="32" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" data-id="53f6b4a1-ce82-310e-4364-9204ea499d5c"></span></a></div>
</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt;">
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:#3D4D5A;">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprĂźft.<br clear="none">
</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a></div>
</td></tr></tbody></table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;"><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
</span></div>
<div align="center" class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="text-align:center;"><span style="color:black;">
</span><hr align="center" noshade="size="1"" width="99%" style="color:#909090;">
</div>
<table class="yiv8494205974MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;"><tbody><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="padding:0in 11.25pt 0in 6.0pt;">
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"><span style="text-decoration:none;"><img id="yiv8494205974_x0000_i1032" border="0" width="32" height="32" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" data-id="d5f23d25-224c-c33c-01b2-b5a16d445401"></span></a></div>
</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt;">
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:#3D4D5A;">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprĂźft.<br clear="none">
</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a><span style="color:#3D4D5A;">
</span></div>
</td></tr></tbody></table>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br clear="none">
<a href="<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br clear="none">
Click here to unsubscribe<br clear="none">
</a></span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;"><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
</span></div>
<div align="center" class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="text-align:center;"><span style="color:black;">
</span><hr align="center" noshade="size="1"" width="99%" style="color:#909090;">
</div>
<table class="yiv8494205974MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;"><tbody><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="padding:0in 11.25pt 0in 6.0pt;">
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"><span style="text-decoration:none;"><img id="yiv8494205974_x0000_i1034" border="0" width="32" height="32" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" data-id="9ea859b6-5023-4a1a-2339-6806f25d9508"></span></a></div>
</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt;">
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:#3D4D5A;">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprĂźft.<br clear="none">
</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a><span style="color:#3D4D5A;">
</span></div>
</td></tr></tbody></table>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;"><span style="color:black;"><br clear="none">
</span></div>
<div align="center" class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="text-align:center;"><span style="color:black;">
</span><hr align="center" noshade="size="1"" width="99%" style="color:#909090;">
</div>
<table class="yiv8494205974MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;"><tbody><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="padding:0in 11.25pt 0in 6.0pt;">
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"><span style="text-decoration:none;"><img id="yiv8494205974_x0000_i1036" border="0" width="32" height="32" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" data-id="d037050e-6be0-94f0-d63d-c76edd010631"></span></a></div>
</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt;">
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:#3D4D5A;">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprĂźft.<br clear="none">
</span><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a><span style="color:#3D4D5A;">
</span></div>
</td></tr></tbody></table>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"> </span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="yiv8494205974MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">_______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
af.kracklauer@web.de </span><span style="color:black;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;">Click
here to unsubscribe </span></a></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div>
</div>
</div></div><br><div class="yqt3455295942" id="yqt78394">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com" href="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com">davidmathes8@yahoo.com</a><br clear="none"><a href="<a shape="rect" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br clear="none">Click here to unsubscribe<br clear="none"></a><br clear="none"></div><br><br></div> </div> </div> </blockquote></div></body></html>