<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hi Wolf,<br>
<br>
my answers in the text.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 12.02.2016 um 21:28 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BE4050.3060001@nascentinc.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Albrecht <br>
<br>
What do you think of the gravity wave detection announcement?<br>
</blockquote>
I would be happier with this discovery if some other lab would have
seen it as well. They say that the significance is better than 5
sigma. That is in fact a lot. However we still have to believe it.
The chirp did have a length of 200 ms. Such "chirp" signals are in
some way similar. During 100 days there are approx. 50 million
windows of 200 ms. So, a coincidence may happen. Of course one has
to assume that this was taken into account by the team. But I would
feel better to see details. <br>
<br>
Another uncomfortable feeling is that it has taken only 200 ms to
merge two black holes with masses of approx. 50 suns. Can this
happen that quickly? We know from Einstein's theory that any
temporal process in the vicinity of the event horizon slows down
until no motion. I see this as a strong argument against such short
time. I have asked this question in the forum of the German version
of Nature. My question was not published. - Very funny!<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BE4050.3060001@nascentinc.com" type="cite">
<br>
thank you for your answers, and I appreciate your time
constraints, we are all busy so answer when you can. <br>
<br>
There are a few comments<br>
a) so your two particles are two oppositely charged charges?</blockquote>
They have assemblies of charges to build a multi-pole field which
has a minimum of potential at some distance. That is similar to the
situation in a molecule where atoms are bound to each other. But the
force here is stronger.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BE4050.3060001@nascentinc.com" type="cite">
b) Calibration is an after the fact fitting that is not a bad
technique but cannot be considered first principle derivation.<br>
In addition the force you define has an attraction, repulsion and
a minimum that keeps the particles in a fixed orbit when not
disturbed.<br>
How is this minimum established out of rotating electric charges?
Are we talking a kind of strong force or something new? What about
magnetic forces between two moving charges. <br>
</blockquote>
From my model it follows that the force between the sub-particles is
ca. 300 - 500 times the electrical force. To have a better precision
I have used the measurements to determine Planck's constant or
equivalently the measurements to determine the magnetic moment. From
comparison with measurements it follows that my constant is S = h*c.
In my understanding this is the square of the field constant of the
strong force . - This is however not the position of Main Stream. On
the other hand, Chip Akins has just yesterday presented ideas which
conform to this result.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BE4050.3060001@nascentinc.com" type="cite">
<br>
c) "Origin of Mass" in Figure 6.1 shows the drawing of a retarded
interaction which I think is used to explain the 1/2 factor in
spin.<br>
However the effective radius is now smaller and thus if your
potential curve fig 2.1 is accurate the particles would be
repelled along the retarded potential line. Would you not have to
show a radial and tangential component?<br>
</blockquote>
It would be at the end better to show a radial and a tangential
component. But independent of this, the effective distance between
the charges is less than twice the radius. But this is covered by a
fixed correction factor which is implicitly taken into account by
the calibration. This calibration would mean nothing if it would be
used only for the electron. But the result is then valid for all
leptons and for all quarks (in a limited way also for the photon.)<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BE4050.3060001@nascentinc.com" type="cite">
<br>
e) should an outside force impulse when the particles are aligned
along the force vector effecting one particle first and then the
other producing your inertia result. However when the particle
separation is perpendicular both particles would see the same
force. If its an electric impulse on plus and negative charge it
would introduce a rotation. This introduces an asymmetry. <br>
Is this eliminated by averaging ? If so your derivation is an
instantaneous approximation and if a smeared out calculation is
made would much of your result not cancel or show oscillations?<br>
</blockquote>
The electrical charges on the sub-particles have the same sign in
all cases, 2x 1/2 elementary charge in case of the electron. So, an
external electrical force does not impose an angular momentum or an
asymmetry. The force needed for acceleration depends on the
direction. It has to be integrated over all directions. This is
normally however not necessary as this is also covered by the
calibration. Only in the moment when I take into account the general
influence of the electric charges to calculate the Landé factor, the
directions have to be taken into account more individually. I my
according calculation I do it and the result is the correct factor.<br>
<br>
Best, Albrecht<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BE4050.3060001@nascentinc.com" type="cite">
<br>
best,<br>
Wolf<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/12/2016 6:28 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BDEC26.4030906@a-giese.de" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Wolf,<br>
<br>
I apologize if I have not answered questions which you have
asked. I am preparing for a conference where I will give 7
contributions and that keeps me quite busy.<br>
<br>
I think that I have already answered some of the questions which
you are asking in this mail. But no problem, I shall do it
again.<br>
<br>
You have looked at my web site "the Origin of Gravity". My model
of gravity uses (and needs) this particle model, at least
certain properties of it. But otherwise the fact of inertia has
nothing to do with gravity. <br>
<br>
To start with your questions regarding inertial mass: The basic
point is that any extended object necessarily has inertia. Just
for this fact - without details of parameters - there are no
preconditions needed except the assumption that there are forces
which cause the object to exist and to have an extension, and
that these forces propagate at speed of light c. <br>
I have explained details earlier. It is also explained as a step
by step process on my web site "The Origin of Mass". So I do not
repeat the basic explanation again here. But I can do so if you
(ore someone else) will ask for it. - But this is the
fundamental and essential fact.<br>
<br>
Next answers in the text below.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 10.02.2016 um 20:28 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB8F4F.9080506@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Albrecht;<br>
Sorry to mistake your feelings it sounded like you were
getting frustrated at not being understood.<br>
<br>
However I'm getting frustrated since I've read much of your
work and have asked questions which have not been answered.
Perhaps they have not been clear or gotten lost, so here they
are again. <br>
Ref: Albrecht;<br>
Sorry to mistake your feelings it sounded like you were
getting frustrated at not being understood.<br>
<br>
However I'm getting frustrated since I've read much of your
work and have asked questions which perhaps have not been
clear or gotten lost, so here they are again ref: The Origin
of Gravity Figure 3.1: Basic Particle Model<br>
It looks like you are presenting a new explanation of inertial
mass with a theory which has a large number of assumptions:<br>
a) a new set of orbiting particles that are made of What?<br>
</blockquote>
The minimum assumptions for my model is that an elementary
particle has an extension; as said above in the beginning. To
further detail it, I assume that the sub-particles have charges
which cause a binding field. This field has also to achieve a
distance between the sub-particles. (Such a field structure is
known in physics in the binding of atoms to molecules; but there
it is caused by a different type of charge.) In the case of
electrically charged elementary particles there are also
electrical charges in the sub-particles. The sub-particles may
have further properties, but those are not essential for this
model.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB8F4F.9080506@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"> b) a force between those particles you made up to
fit your desired result, where does this force come from?<br>
why is the minimum not a combination of two forces
like a coulomb attraction and centrifugal repulsion</blockquote>
I have only assumed that there are charges in it, positive and
negative ones (to cause attraction and repulsion). The strength
of the force is determines later by the calibration.<br>
Centrifugal repulsion is of course not possible as it would need
that the sub-particles have inertial mass each. I do not assume
an inertial mass as a precondition as this would subvert my goal
to explain mass fundamentally. (This also conforms to the
position of present main stream physics.)<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB8F4F.9080506@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"> <br>
c) assume this force also propagates at light speed "c" and
Why does rapid rotation not change the interaction energy
curve?<br>
I always have trouble understanding the stability of
particles rotating at or near the speed of light when the
force signals<br>
are also moving at this speed. <br>
</blockquote>
With this respect my model is presented a bit simplified in most
of my drawings. If one assumes that the sub-particles move at c
and also the field (maybe represented by exchange particles)
moves at c, then the force coming from one particle does not
reach the other sub-particle when it is opposite in the circuit
but at a different position. This changes the calculation by a
certain, fixed factor. But this effect is compensated by the
calibration. - You find a drawing showing this on my site
"Origin of Mass" in Figure 6.1 . <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB8F4F.9080506@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"> d) a media or space of propagation between those
particles that is flat<br>
</blockquote>
I find it practical to assume that the forces are realized by
exchange particles (also moving at c). In a space without
gravity they move undisturbed. If there is gravity then the
speed of light is reduced which changes the forces a little,
little bit.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB8F4F.9080506@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"> e) a force on one of the particles from an
outside agent that does not effect the other particle<br>
so you can calculate the reaction force. Would the outside
force not introduce asymmetries depending on the angle of
incidence?<br>
</blockquote>
If there is a force from the outside (like an electrical one) it
will touch both sub-particles. There might be a very small time
delay reaching both. And it will be in practice a very, very
small influence in relation to the forces within the particle.
The fact that <i>both </i>sub-particles are affected will not
change the process of inertia as these forces are always very
weak in relation to the forces inside.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB8F4F.9080506@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"> <br>
My question is not that your calculations are wrong but given
the above hidden assumptions<br>
1) why would I not simply say inertial mass is an intrinsic
property of matter?<br>
</blockquote>
This "intrinsic mass" was the old understanding in physics.
Since several decades also Main Stream has changed its opinion
to it (otherwise there would not have been a search for the
Higgs). And with this assumption of an intrinsic a-priory-mass
we would not have an explanation for the further properties of a
particle (like spin and magnetic moment). Particularly no
explanation for the relativistic behaviour like relativistic
mass increase and the relation E = mc^2. These relations are
results of this model. (Einstein and QM have given us these
relations, but a physical cause was never given by both).<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB8F4F.9080506@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"> 2) What advantage or new phenomena are you
predicting?<br>
</blockquote>
The advantage of my model is similar like with Copernicus: We
have physical explanations for facts which we already knew, but
up to now without an explanation. So a better understanding of
physics in general. To be able to predict something is always
the greatest situation. Up to now I do not have any in mind.
(Also Copernicus did not have any, even though he has in fact
caused a great step forward.)<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB8F4F.9080506@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"> 3) It looks like you are throwing out Mach's
Principle since the existence of distant masses<br>
has no effect on your calculations since inertia
is now still intrinsic to your orbiting particles rather than
a point mass<br>
</blockquote>
A point mass does not exist in my understanding. Regarding
Mach's Principle: I assume like Mach that there is a fundamental
frame in this world. Maybe caused by distant masses, I think it
is better to relate it to the Big Bang. That means for my model
that the speed of light effective in the particle is related to
a specific fixed frame. - This is in contrast to Einstein but in
accordance to the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB8F4F.9080506@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"> <br>
That said I agree with most of your criticism of current
interpretations, the most interesting for me is the simplicity
introduced by the use of a variable speed of light and a
refraction model to explain light bending.</blockquote>
Thank you! (The latter point has to do with gravity, not with
inertia.)<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB8F4F.9080506@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"> <br>
Best,<br>
Wolf<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
If you have further question or concerns, please ask again. I
appreciate very much that you have worked through my model<br>
<br>
Best<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB8F4F.9080506@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/10/2016 5:13 AM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BB3790.2040700@a-giese.de" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Hi Wolf,<br>
<br>
why do you think that I am frustrated? Why should I? Since I
found 17 years ago the mechanism of inertia, which functions
so straight and logical with precise results, I am
continuously happy. And the appreciation by interested
physicists is great. Since 14 years my site about mass in
internationally #1 in the internet. Only sometimes the mass
site of Nobel Prize winner Frank Wilzcek is one step higher.
But that is good companionship.<br>
<br>
True that it is a problem with Main Stream. They do not
object but just do not care. They love the Higgs model even
though it is proven not to work. - It just need patience. I
still have it.<br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<big> </big>Yes, quantum numbers work fine, but they are
physically little or not founded. It is similar to the known
Pauli Principle. That also works, but nobody knows why. And
the bad thing is that nobody from Main Stream concerned
about this non-understanding. That is the biggest weakness
in today's physics in my view.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 09.02.2016 um 20:35 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BA3F8C.7000106@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
I can feel your frustration, Albrecht, <br>
The oldies are probably all wrong, but it's important to
remember that right or wrong they give us the platform
from which to see farther.<br>
"standing on the shoulders of others", and right or wrong
they give us something tangible to argue about<br>
and what quantum numbers have done for us to organize
chemistry is amazing.<br>
<br>
wolf<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/9/2016 10:18 AM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56BA2D87.5090908@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Hi Al,<br>
<br>
the choice of de Broglie is not suboptimal, it is
clearly wrong. Badly wrong. The wave he has introduced
does not exist, and if it would exist its behaviour
would cause a physical behaviour which is in conflict
with measurements (if those are comprehensively done).<br>
<br>
I agree with you that the main object now is to move
forward. But we will not move successfully forward if we
carry millstones with us. De Broglie's wave is a
millstone. I just had a look into a new textbook about
QM, which was highly recommended by our university. It
makes full use of de Broglie's relation between momentum
and wavelength, so this is unfortunately not just
history. <br>
<br>
But looking into the history: Bohr, Sommerfeld and
others have used the result of de Broglie to explain
quantum numbers. Particularly the quantisation of the
angular momentum on atomic shells is explained by
"standing waves" where the wavelength is the one defined
by dB. This obviously hides the true reason of this
quantisation, but as anyone believes that the Ansatz
using de Broglie is right, nobody is looking for the
correct cause. - This is one of the reasons for our
sticking physics.<br>
<br>
Tschüss back<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 09.02.2016 um 14:57
schrieb <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-72537819-ce78-41a7-b82e-b4d7545f4651-1455026275771@3capp-webde-bs59"
type="cite">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As you fully know, the very same idea can be
expressed in various languages. This is true of
physics also. The very same structure can be
attached to variuos words and images. I do not
defend deBroglie's choice of words and images. I
too find his choice suboptimal and somewhat
contrdictory. So what? He was playing his hand
at that time with the hand he was delt at that
time. Since then, other ideas have been found
in the deck, as it were. I find that, without
changing any of his math, one can tell a story
that is vastly less etherial and mysterious and,
depending on the reader's depth of analysis,
less self-contradictory. I think my story is
the one DeBrogle would have told if he had been
inspired by some facits of SED. And, some
people have a greater affinty and interest in
abstract structures, in particular when their
mathematical redintion seems to work, that for
the stories told for their explication. This is
particularly true of all things QM. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Anyway, the main object now (2016) is to move
forward, not critique historical personalitites.
So, I'm trying to contribute to this discussion
by adding what I know now, and what I have found
to be useful. We are "doing" physics, not
history. Let's make new errors, not just grind
away on the old ones!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>BTW, to my info, both Dirac and Schrödinger
would agree that deBroglie proposed some not too
cogent arguments regarding the nature of QM-wave
functions. Still, the best there at that time.
All the same, they too went to their graves
without having found a satisfactory
interpretation. SED throws some new ingredients
into the mix. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Tschuss, Al </div>
<div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px
10px; padding: 10px 0 10px 10px;
border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5; word-wrap:
break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Dienstag,
09. Februar 2016 um 13:41 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>,
"Richard Gauthier" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] De Broglie
Wave</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
I have the impression that you have a
solution for particle scattering which is
in some way related to the idea of de
Broglie. (I also have of course a
solution). But was this the goal of our
discussion and of my original
contribution? It was not! My objection was
de Broglie's original idea as stated in
his thesis and as taken over by
Schrödinger and Dirac.<br>
<br>
You have a lot of elements in your
argumentation which I do not find in the
thesis of de Broglie. (There is e.g.
nothing at dB about SED ore background.)<br>
<br>
The essential point of our discussion is
the meaning of his wave - and his
wavelength. I think it is very obvious
from his thesis (which you clearly know)
that his "fictitious wave" accompanies a
particle like the electron<i> all of the
time</i>. There is no interaction
mentioned except that there is an observer
at rest who measures the frequency of the
particle. But without influencing the
particle.<br>
<br>
Now it is normal knowledge that a
frequency and as well a wavelength appears
changed for an observer who is in motion.
This is caused by the Doppler effect. But
the Doppler effect will never cause that a
finite wavelength changes to Infinite if
an observer moves at some speed unequal to
c. But just that happens to the wave
invented by de Broglie. It follows the
equation<br>
<br>
lambda = h/(m*v) where v is the speed
difference between the particle and the
observer (to say it this time this way).
And this is in conflict to any physics we
know.<br>
<br>
Best, Albrecht<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 08.02.2016
um 17:20 schrieb <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Your challenge is easy! In
fact my last responce covered it.
The RELEVANT velocity is the
relative velocity between the
particle and the slit; not that
between the observer-particle or
observer-slit. An observer will
see all kinds of distortions of
the events, starting with simple
persepctive due to being at some
distance from the slit and its
registration screen. In additon
this observer will see those deB
waves affecting the particle (NOT
from the particle, nor from the
slit, but from the universal
background there before either the
particle or slit came into being)
as perspectively-relativistically
distorted (twin-clock type
distortion). BUT, the observer
will still see the same over-all
background because the totality of
background signals (not just those
to which this particle is tuned),
i.e., its spectral energy density,
is itself Lorentz invariant. That
is, the observer's motion does
not enable it to empirically
distinguish between the background
in the various frames, nor does
the background engender friction
forces.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You have got to get your head
around the idea that deB waves are
independant of particles whatever
their frame.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Schrördinger did toy with some
aspects that deBroglie used, but
never did succeed in rationalizing
his eq. in those or any other
terms. For him, when died, wave
functions were ontologically
completely mysterious. From SED
proponents, I'm told, my thoughts
in #7 on <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com">www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com</a></a>,
are unique in formulating S's eq.
in terms of deB concepts. Try it,
maybe you'll like it. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>There are other SED-type
stories too, but as they are based
on diffusion (parabolic, not
hyperbolic) precesses, I find them
self contradictory.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>ciao, Al</div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 10.0px 5.0px
5.0px 10.0px;padding: 10.0px 0
10.0px 10.0px;border-left: 2.0px
solid rgb(195,217,229);">
<div style="margin: 0 0 10.0px
0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Montag,
08. Februar 2016 um 141 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>,
"Richard Gauthier" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General]
De Broglie Wave</div>
<div>
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
if you follow de Broglie,
you should have an
explanation for the
following experiment (here
again):<br>
<br>
Electrons move at 0.1 c
towards the double slit.
Behind the double slit there
is an interference pattern
generated, which in the
frame of the slit follows
the rule of de Broglie. But
now there is an observer
also moving at 0.1 c
parallel to the beam of
electrons. In his frame the
electrons have momentum=0
and so wavelength=infinite.
That means: No interference
pattern. But there is in
fact a pattern which does
not disappear just because
there is another observer.
And the moving observer will
see the pattern. - This is a
falsification of de
Broglie's rule. What else?<br>
<br>
The understanding that the
de Broglie wave is a
property of the particle
(even though depending on
their speed, but not on an
interaction) was not my idea
but the one of Schrödinger
and Dirac and many others.
Also by de Broglie himself.<br>
<br>
Ciao Albrecht<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
08.02.2016 um 03:30
schrieb <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>BUT, the laws of
Physics for "being"
in a frame are not
the laws for
interacting between
frames! The deB.
wave is not a
feature of a
particle in its own
frame, but a feature
of the interaction
of such a particle
with at least one
other particle in
another frame. When
the two frames are
moving with respect
to each other, then
the features of the
interaction cannot
be Lorentz
invariants. When
one particle is
interacting with
another particle (or
ensemble---slit say)
the relevant physics
is determined by the
deB wave in that
sitation, whatever
it looks like to an
observer in a third
frame with yet
different relative
velocities. It is a
perspective effect:
a tree is the same
ontological size in
fact no matter how
small it appears to
distant observers.
Observed diminished
size(s) cannot be
"invriant."
Appearances =/=
,,so sein''.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You have gotten
your head stuck on
the idea that deB.
waves are
characteristics
intrinsic to
particles in an of
themselves.
Recalibrate! DeB
waves are
charactteristics of
the mutual
interaction of
particles.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best, Al</div>
<div>
<div style="margin:
10.0px 5.0px 5.0px
10.0px;padding:
10.0px 0 10.0px
10.0px;border-left:
2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div
style="margin: 0
0 10.0px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Sonntag,
07. Februar 2016
um 22:10 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>,
"Richard
Gauthier" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div>
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
at one of your
points I
really
disagree. The
physical laws
have to be
fulfilled in
every frame.
That means
that all
physical
processes have
to obey the
same laws in
all frames. So
also the
process at the
double slit.
But the rule
given by de
Broglie looks
correct in
only one
frame, that is
the frame
where the
double slit is
at rest. For
an observer in
motion the
diffraction
pattern looks
very similar
as for the
observer at
rest, but for
the observer
in motion the
results
according to
de Broglie are
completely
different,
because the
momentum of
the particle
is different
in a wide
range in the
frame of a
moving
observer and
so is the
wavelength
assigned to
the particle.<br>
<br>
The specific
case: At
electron
scattering,
the observer
co-moving with
the electron
will see a
similar
pattern as the
observer at
rest, but de
Broglie says
that for this
observer there
does not exist
any pattern.
That is
strongly
incorrect.<br>
<br>
The
Schrödinger
equation and
also the Dirac
function
should have
correct
results in
different
frames, at
least at
non-relativistic
speeds. This
requirement is
clearly
violated
through their
use of de
Broglie's
rule.<br>
<br>
Grüße<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
PS: Your
article refers
to "Stochastic
Electrodynamics".
That is in my
knowledge not
standard
physics and so
a new
assumption.<br>
<br>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
07.02.2016 um
19:03 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In my
view the story
in my paper
has no new
assunptions,
rather new
words for old
assumptions.
As I, along
with most
others, see
it, there is
no conflict
with
experiment,
but a less
than fully
transparent
explantion for
experimental
observations
(particle beam
diffrction)
otherwise
unexplained.
At the time
of writing,
and nowadays
too (although
I'd to think
that my paper
rationalizes
DeB's story)
it was the
most widely
accepted story
for this
phenomna. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The only
entities that
logically need
to be Lorentz
invariant are
the particle.
I the deB
wave is not a
'Bestandteil'
of the
particle, but
of its
relations with
its
envionment,
then
invariance is
not defined
nor useful.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>M.f.G.
Al</div>
<div>
<div
style="margin:
10.0px 5.0px
5.0px
10.0px;padding:
10.0px 0
10.0px
10.0px;border-left:
2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div
style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Sonntag,
07. Februar
2016 um 14:39
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>,
"Richard
Gauthier" <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div>
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
thank you for
your
reference.
Your paper has
a lot of
intelligent
thoughts but
also a lot of
additional
assumptions.
With reference
to the de
Broglie wave,
I think, is
the situation
much simpler
on the level
of
conservative
knowledge. De
Broglie has
misunderstood
relativity
(particularly
dilation) and
so seen a
conflict which
does in fact
not exist. He
has solved the
conflict by
inventing an
additional
"fictitious"
wave which has
no other
foundation in
physics, and
also his
"theorem of
harmonic
phases" which
as well is an
invention
without need.
And his result
is in conflict
with the
experiment if
we ask for
Lorentz
invariance or
even for
Galilean
invariance. -
If we follow
the basic idea
of de Broglie
by, however,
avoiding his
logical error
about
relativity, we
come easily to
a description
of matter
waves without
logical
conflicts.
This does not
need new
philosophy or
other effort
at this level.<br>
<br>
Best, Albrecht<br>
<br>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
06.02.2016 um
03:15 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>DeBroglie's
verbage is
indeed quite
rococo!
Nonetheless,
his
machinations,
although
verbalized, in
the true
tradtion of
quantum
mechanics,
mysteriously,
can be
reinterpreted
(i.e.,
alternate
verbage found
without
changing any
of the math)
so as to tell
a fully, if
(somewhat)
hetrodoxical,
story. See
#11 on <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.Nonloco-Physics.0catch.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.Nonloco-Physics.0catch.com">www.Nonloco-Physics.0catch.com</a></a>.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>cc:
Waves are
never a
characteristic
of a single,
point-like
entity, but
colletive
motion of a
medium. IF
they exist at
all. My view
is that
E&M waves
are a fiction
wrought by
Fourier
analysis. The
only real
physical part
is an
"interaction",
which mnight
as well be
thought of an
absract string
between
charges.
Also,
neutrons have
electric
multipole
moments; i.e.,
they are
totally
neutral but
not
charge-free. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best,
Al </div>
<div>
<div
style="margin:
10.0px 5.0px
5.0px
10.0px;padding:
10.0px 0
10.0px
10.0px;border-left:
2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div
style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Freitag,
05. Februar
2016 um 21:43
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>,
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> "Richard
Gauthier" <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div>
<div
style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
true, in the
frame of the
particle the
dB wavelength
is infinite.
Because in its
own frame the
momentum of
the particle
is 0. The
particle
oscillates
with the
frequency of
the particle's
Zitterbewegung
(which
background
fields do you
have in mind?
De Brogie does
not mention
them). This
oscillation is
in no
contradiction
with this
wavelength as
the phase
speed is also
infinite. For
the
imagination,
the latter
means that all
points of that
wave oscillate
with the same
phase at any
point.<br>
<br>
Which
background
waves do you
have in mind?
What is the
CNONOICAL
momentum? And
what about
E&M
interactions?
De Broglie has
not related
his wave to a
specific
field. An
E&M field
would anyway
have no effect
in the case of
neutron
scattering for
which the same
de Broglie
formalism is
used. And into
which frame do
you see the
wave
Lorentz-transformed?<br>
<br>
So, an
electron in
his frame has
an infinite
wavelength and
in his frame
has the double
slit moving
towards the
particle. How
can an
interference
at the slits
occur? No
interference
can happen
under these
conditions.
But, as I have
explained in
the paper, the
normal wave
which
accompanies
the electron
by normal
rules (i.e.
phase speed =
c) will have
an
interference
with its own
reflection,
which has then
a wavelength
which fits to
the
expectation of
de Broglie.
But that is a
very local
event (in a
range of
approx. 10^-12
m for the
electron) and
it is not at
all a property
of the
electron as de
Broglie has
thought.<br>
<br>
To say it
again: The de
Broglie
wavelength
cannot be a
steady
property of
the particle.
But
Schrödinger
and Dirac have
incorporated
it into their
QM equations
with this
understanding.<br>
<br>
If I should
have
misunderstood
you, please
show the
mathematical
calculations
which you
mean.<br>
<br>
Ciao, Albrecht<br>
<br>
<div
class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
05.02.2016 um
19:20 schrieb
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a>:</div>
<blockquote>
<div
style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Hi:
Albrecht:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Your
arguments
don't resonate
with me. The
deB' wave
length is
infinite in
the particles
frame: it is
the standing
wave formed by
the inpinging
background
waves having a
freq. = the
particle's
Zitterbewegung.
If these TWO
waves are each
Lorentz
x-formed to
another frame
and added
there, they
exhibit
exactly the
DeB'
modulation
wavelength
proportional
to the
particle's
momentum. The
only
mysterious
feature then
is that the
proportionality
is to the
CNONICAL
momentum,
i.e.,
including the
vector
potential of
whatever
exterior
E&M
interactions
are in-coming.
Nevertheless,
everything
works our
without
contradiction.
A particle
oscillates in
place at its
Zitter freq.
while the
Zitter signals
are modulated
by the DeB'
wavelength as
they move
through slits,
say.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>ciao, L</div>
<div>
<div
style="margin:
10.0px 5.0px
5.0px
10.0px;padding:
10.0px 0
10.0px
10.0px;border-left:
2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div
style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Freitag,
05. Februar
2016 um 12:28
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> "Richard
Gauthier" <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a></a>,
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div>Hi
Richard and
Al, hi All,<br>
<br>
recently we
had a
discussion
here about two
topics:<br>
<br>
1. The
functionality
of the de
Broglie wave,
particularly
its wavelength<br>
if seen from a
different
inertial
system. Such
cases lead to
illogical<br>
situations.<br>
2. The problem
of the
apparent
asymmetry at
relativistic
dilation.<br>
<br>
I have
investigated
these cases
and found that
they are in
some way<br>
connected.
Relativistic
dilation is
not as simple
as it is
normally<br>
taken. It
looks
asymmetric if
it is
incorrectly
treated. An
asymmetry<br>
would falsify
Special
Relativity.
But it is in
fact
symmetrical if<br>
properly
handled and
understood.<br>
<br>
It is funny
that both
problems are
connected to
each other
through the<br>
fact that de
Broglie
himself has
misinterpreted
dilation. From
this<br>
incorrect
understanding
he did not
find another
way out than
to invent<br>
his "theorem
of phase
harmony"; with
all logical
conflicts
resulting<br>
from this
approach.<br>
<br>
If relativity
is properly
understood,
the problem
seen by de
Broglie<br>
does not
exist.
Equations
regarding
matter waves
can be derived
which<br>
work properly,
i.e. conform
to the
experiments
but avoid the
logical<br>
conflicts.<br>
<br>
As announced,
I have
composed a
paper about
this. It can
be found at:<br>
<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.academia.edu/21564534/The_Conflict_with_the_De_Broglie_Wavelength"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.academia.edu/21564534/The_Conflict_with_the_De_Broglie_Wavelength">https://www.academia.edu/21564534/The_Conflict_with_the_De_Broglie_Wavelength</a></a><br>
.<br>
<br>
I thank
Richard
Gauthier for
the discussion
which we had
about this<br>
topic. It
caused me to
investigate
the problem
and to find a
solution.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
---<br>
Diese E-Mail
wurde von
Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft.<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a></a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
If you no
longer wish to
receive
communication
from the
Nature of
Light and
Particles
General
Discussion
List at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a></a><br>
<a href=<a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a></a>><br>
Click here to
unsubscribe<br>
</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<table
style="border-top:
1.0px solid
rgb(170,171,182);">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="width:
470.0px;padding-top:
20.0px;color:
rgb(65,66,78);font-size:
13.0px;font-family:
Arial ,
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;line-height:
18.0px;">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von einem
virenfreien
Computer
gesendet, der
von Avast
geschützt
wird.<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<table
style="border-top:
1.0px solid
rgb(170,171,182);">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="width:
470.0px;padding-top:
20.0px;color:
rgb(65,66,78);font-size:
13.0px;font-family:
Arial ,
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;line-height:
18.0px;">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von einem
virenfreien
Computer
gesendet, der
von Avast
geschützt
wird.<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<table
style="border-top:
1.0px solid
rgb(170,171,182);">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="width:
470.0px;padding-top:
20.0px;color:
rgb(65,66,78);font-size:
13.0px;font-family:
Arial ,
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;line-height:
18.0px;">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von einem
virenfreien
Computer
gesendet, der
von Avast
geschützt
wird.<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<table style="border-top:
1.0px solid
rgb(170,171,182);">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:
470.0px;padding-top:
20.0px;color:
rgb(65,66,78);font-size:
13.0px;font-family:
Arial , Helvetica ,
sans-serif;line-height:
18.0px;">Diese
E-Mail wurde von
einem virenfreien
Computer gesendet,
der von Avast
geschützt wird.<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<table style="border-top: 1.0px solid
rgb(170,171,182);">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:
470.0px;padding-top: 20.0px;color:
rgb(65,66,78);font-size:
13.0px;font-family: Arial ,
Helvetica ,
sans-serif;line-height: 18.0px;">Diese
E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien
Computer gesendet, der von Avast
geschützt wird.<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email"
style="color: rgb(68,83,234);"
target="_blank">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #aaabb6;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 20px; color:
#41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Diese
E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer
gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird. <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email"
target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #aaabb6;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 20px; color:
#41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Diese
E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer
gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird. <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email"
target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #aaabb6;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 20px; color:
#41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Diese E-Mail wurde von
einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von Avast
geschützt wird. <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email" target="_blank"
style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br />
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #aaabb6;">
<tr>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 20px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird. <br /><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email" target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</table>
</body>
</html>