<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Hello Albrecht,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> Is the 1/r^3 repulsive force that you mention a universal law of nature? Are you claiming that Newton’s 3 laws of motion require the existence of such a law of repulsive force (or even a law of attraction of 1/r^2 for that matter?) I found a reference to a 1/r^3 force in a discussion of Yukawa’s work at <a href="http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/NuclearForces.htm" class="">http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/NuclearForces.htm</a> . </div><div class="">but the 1/r^3 force postulated by Yukawa was an ATTRACTIVE force, while he postulated a 1/r^4 REPULSIVE force ! :</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class="">"In 1935 a scientist by the name of Hideki Yukawa hypothesised that there exists a force that could bind nucleons (protons and neutrons) together. He called this the ‘strong nuclear force’ because it had to be stronger than the electrical force that would otherwise push protons apart.</span><br style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class=""><br style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class=""><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class="">The strong nuclear force (SNF) was a curious contrivance that required some unusual properties:</span><br style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class=""><br style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class=""><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class="">1. The force, while stronger than the electrical force, needed to operate only within a short range. Otherwise it would attract protons at any distance.</span><br style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class=""><br style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class=""><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class="">2. The force needed to become neutral at even shorter distances. Otherwise protons would be forced together, possibly extinguishing themselves as an electron and positron are said to do.</span><br style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class=""><br style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class=""><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class="">3. The force also needed to work on neutrons which have neutral electric charge. Thus the possibility exists that the force should probably affect all subatomic particles and also cause electrons to cling together.</span><br style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class=""><br style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class=""><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class="">To overcome the first problem it was proposed that the SNF’s strength might vary with the inverse cube of the distance, i.e. 1/</span><strong style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class="">r</strong><sup style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;" class="">3</sup><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class="">. To overcome the second it was proposed that a repulsive SNF also exists. This would need to be even stronger than the first and work at an even shorter range, for example as the inverse forth power of the distance, i.e. 1/</span><strong style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class="">r</strong><sup style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;" class="">4</sup><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class="">.</span><br style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class=""><br style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class=""><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class="">With such an unusual range of forces, the SNF was shaping up to be somewhat bizarre. Normally in three-dimensional space we would expect a force function to vary with the inverse square of distance. Yet here were cubed and forth powers. What have we now: 4D and 5D space?" </span></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> But Yukawa’s hypothesis of such forces has anyway been superseded by quantum chromodynamics, quarks and gluons, hasn’t it?</div><div class=""> By the way, what do you think of the work of Vernon Brown, who mentions you in his website <a href="http://photontheory.com" class="">photontheory.com</a></div><div class=""> Richard</div><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Feb 26, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Albrecht Giese <<a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" class="">genmail@a-giese.de</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
Hello Richard,<br class="">
<br class="">
in <u class="">no way </u>I <i class="">assume </i>inertia in my derivation. <br class="">
<br class="">
My derivation goes logically in two steps:<br class="">
<br class="">
Step 1: It is inevitable that an extended object has inertia. This
works for any shape of a field as long as it has a potential minimum
which defines the distance between the partners.<br class="">
Step 2: To reproduce Newton's law of motion, it is necessary to
assume a certain shape (some call it reverse engineering). <br class="">
In my case I was lucky in so far as I have initially looked for the
simplest shape which I could find in order to make a numerical
deduction. I took the 1/r^2 law for attraction and the 1/r^3 law for
repulsion. And with this assumption the result was Newton's law. <br class="">
<br class="">
But again: Logically the steps have to be done in sequence.<br class="">
<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 25.02.2016 um 05:58 schrieb Richard
Gauthier:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:33DBD353-74D5-4C0C-90A8-47DC4313E346@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252" class="">
<div class="">Hello Albrecht,</div>
<div class=""> You wrote </div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56CB7675.1020905@nascentinc.com" type="cite" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">
<blockquote cite="mid:trinity-2c83b610-0b3e-4cd4-8028-e6315d7792c2-1455930903868@3capp-webde-bs13" type="cite" class="">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;" class="">
<div name="quote" style="margin: 10px 5px 5px 10px; padding:
10px 0px 10px 10px; border-left-width: 2px;
border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(195, 217,
229); word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
<div name="quoted-content" class="">
<blockquote class="">I have assumed a certain shape of
that field which leads to Newton's law of inertia.</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
How can you claim that you are deriving inertia for an extended
body when you are assuming that inertia exists in your derivation?
<div class=""> Richard</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Feb 23, 2016, at 6:26 AM, Albrecht Giese
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de" class="">genmail@a-giese.de</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class=""> Hi Wolf,<br class="">
<br class="">
who is the addressee of your mail? Where do you see a
specific difficulty?<br class="">
<br class="">
With respect to my first step of explaining inertia
caused by extension: Was that explanation
understandable? I would appreciate to have a feedback.<br class="">
<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 22.02.2016 um 21:58
schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56CB7675.1020905@nascentinc.com" type="cite" class="">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
Yes I think Al has described things well.<br class="">
My only additional comment is not to feel rejected and
disappointed.<br class="">
It is very difficult to write from the perspective of
a new reader when one has been involved in ones own
ideas for a long time.<br class="">
It is already a major break through in communication
when people have enough interest to point out what
they do not understand about your work. <br class="">
<br class="">
wolf<br class="">
<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 2/19/2016 5:15 PM, <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>
wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:trinity-2c83b610-0b3e-4cd4-8028-e6315d7792c2-1455930903868@3capp-webde-bs13" type="cite" class="">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi Albrecht & all:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Let me formulate Wolfgang's point
in my prefered style. In telling your story,
for my taste, you do not follow a structure in
accord with formal logic. That is, you do not
FIRST list all of your hypothetical inputs,
which are things (mysteries) that you do not
intend to prove or explain. Then with
something like sylogisims prove or deduce new
outputs, i.e., the benefits of the story. In
stead, you tell a chapter or so of your story,
at which point further development requires a
so far unused hypothtical new input, and
then, zipp!, in she goes, without mostly,
proper introduction. In the end, the reader
or consumer of your story is unsure that the
number of benefits is actually larger than the
number of inputs, thereby making the effort to
ingest and digest the complexitites of the
story worth the effort. It's like reading a
poorly composed Russian novel: the reader
loses all coherance with respect to characters
coming and going and has the feeling of being
swept along as if in a megacity's rush hour
subway throng!</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">Also, some of your points are
manifestly dimentional analysis---they prove
nothing new, they just reshuffel the building
blocks. Some see this a proof of internal
consistency, but without recognizing that the
consistency thereby proved, if any, is within
the inputs taken from previous work (often
tautological definitions of terms), most often
somebody else's. Such consistency is not to
the credit of the results of the supposed new
structure/story.</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">For what it's worth, Al</div>
<div class="">
<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;" class="">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;" class=""><b class="">Gesendet:</b> Freitag, 19.
Februar 2016 um 21:14 Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Wolfgang Baer" <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"><wolf@nascentinc.com></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> "Albrecht Giese" <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"><phys@a-giese.de></a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> "'Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion'" <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re: [General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div name="quoted-content" class="">
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">Albrecht:<br class="">
<br class="">
Thank you for , yes more of an
explanation than I was expecting.<br class="">
And I certainly agree with your motives
and your examples from high energy
physics.<br class="">
You are being motivated by all the
applications to simplify physics and see
this reward immediately in front of you.<br class="">
<br class="">
I and it looks like Kracklauer are in a
different position. We first see a model
we cannot understand that eliminates
inertial mass and the centrifugal force
which is largely responsible for holding
things apart in he old concepts. We must
understand your model first before we
can appreciate the benefits.<br class="">
<br class="">
>From my point of view you have not
described the nature of the two
particles or the nature of the force
that holds them in their orbits.<br class="">
<br class="">
If they are charges, how do charges
perhaps "assemblies of charges build
multi-pole field" that maintains
incredible stability of a minimum energy
at a specific distance when moving in a
circle at the speed of light?<br class="">
What is the nature of the external force
that acts on one charge and not the
other to generate the internal
resistance you identify as inertia?<br class="">
<br class="">
You must answer these simple technical
questions first even if the answers are
not simple.<br class="">
<br class="">
best wishes,<br class="">
wolf
<pre class="moz-signature">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="x-msg://12/wolf@NascentInc.com" target="_parent">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On
2/18/2016 7:35 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:</div>
<blockquote class="">Wolf,<br class="">
<br class="">
do I explain one mystery by another
one? I think that the situation should
be envisioned in a different way.<br class="">
<br class="">
Our physical understanding and our
ongoing follows the reductionism. That
means that we explain physical
phenomena on a specific level by use
of facts, which are taken as facts on
a more fundamental level. And later
the more fundamental level has to be
explained. Example from astronomy:
Kepler's law was at first stated as a
formula, then it could be explained by
Newton's laws of motion and of
gravity. Next step now in reductionism
is to explain, how the law of gravity
and the law of motion is caused.<br class="">
<br class="">
I am using the fact that there are
forces in physics which bind objects
to each other and at the same time
cause a distance between these
objects. This fact is universal in
physics. If elementary particles or
atoms or molecules would not keep
distances then our whole universe
could be but into a ball of, say, 10
meters diameter. - In few cases the
distance can be explained by a
planetary model, in most cases (in
particle physics) this is not the
solution. The bind of atoms in a
molecule is an example. And quarks are
bound to build a proton or neutron,
and this is not caused by a planetary
process. The size of the nucleon is by
a factor of >1000 greater than the
one of a quark. Who causes the
distance? As it is not a planetary
system then there must be a force
between the quarks which just causes
this distance even though it binds
them. - I do not think that the bind
of atoms in a molecule are a mystery.
To my knowledge the (two) types of
bind are well understood.<br class="">
<br class="">
I assume the same for the
sub-particles in my model. And a fact
is that a distance causes inertia
without the need of further
assumptions (except the finiteness of
c).<br class="">
<br class="">
I have assumed a certain shape of that
field which leads to Newton's law of
inertia. - Now one can ask how this
field is built. I have assumed that it
is caused by a collection of charges.
This is my attempt to have an
explanation on the next more
fundamental level. Perhaps I should
not publish such thoughts. Necessary
is only the field as it is. And if I
stick at this level now, I am not
weaker than Main Stream physics, as
they also assume distances without any
explanation for it. (Yes, they talk
about "principles", but that does not
mean explanations.)<br class="">
<br class="">
I use this configuration it explain
inertia. It is a fundamental
explanation that any extended object
must have inertia. An extended object
cannot exist without having inertia. -
Another fundamental explanation of
inertia is the Higgs model (if one
likes QM as explanation). But Higgs is
lacking by the fact that measurements
deny the Higgs field. And the theory
is very incomplete as it does not give
us a result for particles for which
everything is known except the mass. -
The other models of inertia discussed
here are not fundamental in so far as
they refer to momentum, which is
physically identical to inertia.<br class="">
<br class="">
Why does a charge not radiate when
orbiting? In my view it is a
fundamental error in present physics
that an accelerated electrical charge
radiates. This is concluded from the
Maxwell equations. But Maxwell has
given us a formal mathematical system
which in the daily work of a
technician works fine, but it does not
tell us the physics behind. So he has
postulated a symmetry between
electricity and magnetism. Completely
wrong as we understand it meanwhile.
Magnetism is a relativistic side
effect of the electrical field. Very
well explained by a video clip of
veritasium:<br class="">
<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0</a><br class="">
<br class="">
An electric charge does not "know"
what acceleration is. It only "knows"
what an electrical field is. And if
this field changes then the charge
will radiate. That is the reason that
an electron normally radiates at
acceleration. Because during
acceleration the electron is
relativistically distorted. This
causes that one sub-particle senses a
changing field from the other partner.<br class="">
<br class="">
What is strong force? What is
electrical force? I have no
explanation for that (reductionistic)
level where charges are caused. Why do
I say that the force in my model is
the strong force? The reconstruction
of the force from a known mass shows
that this force is at least by a
factor of 300 stronger than the
electrical one. And the only force
with this strength which I know is the
strong one. - Perhaps I should keep
this open.<br class="">
<br class="">
Is this more like an explanation which
you are expecting?<br class="">
<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
18.02.2016 um 05:46 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:</div>
<blockquote class="">Albrecht:<br class="">
I tend to be skeptical as well about
the gravity wave announcement.<br class="">
But then I generally discount a lot
of high energy work since without
extremely detailed knowledge it is
hard to trust anything as complex
and deeply imbedded in statistics.<br class="">
<br class="">
Regarding your model I basically
have the same problem as Kracklauer,
is your particle model not simply a
substitution of one mystery with
another? <br class="">
<br class="">
otherwise I'll just follow up on one
question. You said<br class="">
"They( the two charges) have
assemblies of charges to build a
multi-pole field which has a minimum
of potential at some distance."<br class="">
<br class="">
So does this mean that the two
particle drawings you publish are
approximations to assemblies of
charges?<br class="">
I and probably anyone would need a
clear derivation of the force curve<br class="">
<br class="">
Although molecular forces gives an
analogy such an analogy assumes all
the things you are trying to explain<br class="">
(mass, inertia, etc.) and even that
makes the whole question of how
atoms are held together a pandora's
box of mystery.<br class="">
why no radiation from a bound
accelerating electron, why the
exclusion principle in the first
place. Principles principles
everywhere.<br class="">
<br class="">
Wolf<br class="">
<br class="">
<pre class="moz-signature">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="x-msg://12/wolf@NascentInc.com" target="_parent">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On
2/14/2016 12:43 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:</div>
<blockquote class="">Hi Wolf,<br class="">
<br class="">
my answers in the text.<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
12.02.2016 um 21:28 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:</div>
<blockquote class="">Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
What do you think of the gravity
wave detection announcement?</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 class="">
<br class="">
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!
<blockquote class=""><br class="">
thank you for your answers, and
I appreciate your time
constraints, we are all busy so
answer when you can.<br class="">
<br class="">
There are a few comments<br class="">
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.
<blockquote class="">b)
Calibration is an after the fact
fitting that is not a bad
technique but cannot be
considered first principle
derivation.<br class="">
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 class="">
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.</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.
<blockquote class=""><br class="">
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 class="">
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?</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.)
<blockquote class=""><br class="">
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 class="">
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?</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 class="">
<br class="">
Best, Albrecht<br class="">
<blockquote class=""><br class="">
best,<br class="">
Wolf
<pre class="moz-signature">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="x-msg://12/wolf@NascentInc.com" target="_parent">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On
2/12/2016 6:28 AM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:</div>
<blockquote class="">Wolf,<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
Next answers in the text
below.<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
10.02.2016 um 20:28 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:</div>
<blockquote class="">Albrecht;<br class="">
Sorry to mistake your
feelings it sounded like you
were getting frustrated at
not being understood.<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
Ref: Albrecht;<br class="">
Sorry to mistake your
feelings it sounded like you
were getting frustrated at
not being understood.<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
It looks like you are
presenting a new explanation
of inertial mass with a
theory which has a large
number of assumptions:<br class="">
a) a new set of orbiting
particles that are made of
What?</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.
<blockquote class="">b) a
force between those
particles you made up to fit
your desired result, where
does this force come from?<br class="">
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 class="">
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.)
<blockquote class=""><br class="">
c) assume this force also
propagates at light speed
"c" and Why does rapid
rotation not change the
interaction energy curve?<br class="">
I always have
trouble understanding the
stability of particles
rotating at or near the
speed of light when the
force signals<br class="">
are also moving at
this speed.</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 .
<blockquote class="">d) a
media or space of
propagation between those
particles that is flat</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.
<blockquote class="">e) a
force on one of the
particles from an outside
agent that does not effect
the other particle<br class="">
so you can calculate the
reaction force. Would the
outside force not introduce
asymmetries depending on the
angle of incidence?</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 class="">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.
<blockquote class=""><br class="">
My question is not that your
calculations are wrong but
given the above hidden
assumptions<br class="">
1) why would I not simply
say inertial mass is an
intrinsic property of
matter?</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).
<blockquote class="">2) What
advantage or new phenomena
are you predicting?</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.)
<blockquote class="">3) It
looks like you are throwing
out Mach's Principle since
the existence of distant
masses<br class="">
has no effect on
your calculations since
inertia is now still
intrinsic to your orbiting
particles rather than a
point mass</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.
<blockquote class=""><br class="">
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.)
<blockquote class=""><br class="">
Best,<br class="">
Wolf</blockquote>
<br class="">
If you have further question
or concerns, please ask again.
I appreciate very much that
you have worked through my
model<br class="">
<br class="">
Best<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote class="">
<pre class="moz-signature">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="x-msg://12/wolf@NascentInc.com" target="_parent">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On
2/10/2016 5:13 AM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:</div>
<blockquote class="">Hi
Wolf,<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am
09.02.2016 um 20:35
schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</div>
<blockquote class="">I can
feel your frustration,
Albrecht,<br class="">
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 class="">
"standing on the
shoulders of others",
and right or wrong they
give us something
tangible to argue about<br class="">
and what quantum numbers
have done for us to
organize chemistry is
amazing.<br class="">
<br class="">
wolf<br class="">
<pre class="moz-signature">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="x-msg://12/wolf@NascentInc.com" target="_parent">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On
2/9/2016 10:18 AM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:</div>
<blockquote class="">Hi
Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
Tschüss back<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<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"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</div>
<blockquote class="">
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class="">Tschuss,
Al </div>
<div class="">
<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);" class="">
<div style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;" class=""><b class="">Gesendet:</b> Dienstag,
09. Februar
2016 um 13:41
Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><a 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><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div class="">
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">Hi Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class=""> 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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
Best, Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<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><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</div>
<blockquote class="">
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class="">You
have got to
get your head
around the
idea that deB
waves are
independant of
particles
whatever their
frame.</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">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><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com/">www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com</a>,
are unique in
formulating
S's eq. in
terms of deB
concepts. Try
it, maybe
you'll like
it. </div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class="">ciao,
Al</div>
<div class="">
<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);" class="">
<div style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;" class=""><b class="">Gesendet:</b> Montag,
08. Februar
2016 um 141
Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><a 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><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div class="">
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">Hi Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
if you follow
de Broglie,
you should
have an
explanation
for the
following
experiment
(here again):<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
Ciao Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<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><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</div>
<blockquote class="">
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class="">Best,
Al</div>
<div class="">
<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);" class="">
<div style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;" class=""><b class="">Gesendet:</b> Sonntag,
07. Februar
2016 um 22:10
Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><a 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><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div class="">
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">Hi Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
Grüße<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
PS: Your
article refers
to "Stochastic
Electrodynamics".
That is in my
knowledge not
standard
physics and so
a new
assumption.<br class="">
<br class="">
<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><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</div>
<blockquote class="">
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class="">M.f.G.
Al</div>
<div class="">
<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);" class="">
<div style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;" class=""><b class="">Gesendet:</b> Sonntag,
07. Februar
2016 um 14:39
Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><a 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><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div class="">
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">Hi Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
Best, Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<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><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</div>
<blockquote class="">
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi
Albrecht:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">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><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com/">www.Nonloco-Physics.0catch.com</a>.</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class="">Best,
Al </div>
<div class="">
<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);" class="">
<div style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;" class=""><b class="">Gesendet:</b> Freitag,
05. Februar
2016 um 21:43
Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>,
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br class="">
<b class="">Cc:</b> "Richard
Gauthier" <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div class="">
<div style="background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);" class="">Hi Al,<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
If I should
have
misunderstood
you, please
show the
mathematical
calculations
which you
mean.<br class="">
<br class="">
Ciao, Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<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><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</div>
<blockquote class="">
<div style="font-family:
Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi:
Albrecht:</div>
<div class=""> </div>
<div class="">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 class=""> </div>
<div class="">ciao,
L</div>
<div class="">
<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);" class="">
<div style="margin:
0 0 10.0px 0;" class=""><b class="">Gesendet:</b> Freitag,
05. Februar
2016 um 12:28
Uhr<br class="">
<b class="">Von:</b> "Albrecht
Giese" <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a><br class="">
<b class="">An:</b> "Richard
Gauthier" <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a>,
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br class="">
<b class="">Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] De
Broglie Wave</div>
<div class="">Hi
Richard and
Al, hi All,<br class="">
<br class="">
recently we
had a
discussion
here about two
topics:<br class="">
<br class="">
1. The
functionality
of the de
Broglie wave,
particularly
its wavelength<br class="">
if seen from a
different
inertial
system. Such
cases lead to
illogical<br class="">
situations.<br class="">
2. The problem
of the
apparent
asymmetry at
relativistic
dilation.<br class="">
<br class="">
I have
investigated
these cases
and found that
they are in
some way<br class="">
connected.
Relativistic
dilation is
not as simple
as it is
normally<br class="">
taken. It
looks
asymmetric if
it is
incorrectly
treated. An
asymmetry<br class="">
would falsify
Special
Relativity.
But it is in
fact
symmetrical if<br class="">
properly
handled and
understood.<br class="">
<br class="">
It is funny
that both
problems are
connected to
each other
through the<br class="">
fact that de
Broglie
himself has
misinterpreted
dilation. From
this<br class="">
incorrect
understanding
he did not
find another
way out than
to invent<br class="">
his "theorem
of phase
harmony"; with
all logical
conflicts
resulting<br class="">
from this
approach.<br class="">
<br class="">
If relativity
is properly
understood,
the problem
seen by de
Broglie<br class="">
does not
exist.
Equations
regarding
matter waves
can be derived
which<br class="">
work properly,
i.e. conform
to the
experiments
but avoid the
logical<br class="">
conflicts.<br class="">
<br class="">
As announced,
I have
composed a
paper about
this. It can
be found at:<br class="">
<br class="">
<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><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><br class="">
.<br class="">
<br class="">
I thank
Richard
Gauthier for
the discussion
which we had
about this<br class="">
topic. It
caused me to
investigate
the problem
and to find a
solution.<br class="">
<br class="">
Albrecht<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
---<br class="">
Diese E-Mail
wurde von
Avast
Antivirus-Software
auf Viren
geprüft.<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br class="">
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
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><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br class="">
<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><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>><br class="">
Click here to
unsubscribe<br class="">
</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<table style="border-top:
1.0px solid
rgb(170,171,182);" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<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;" class="">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von einem
virenfreien
Computer
gesendet, der
von Avast
geschützt
wird.<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<table style="border-top:
1.0px solid
rgb(170,171,182);" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<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;" class="">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von einem
virenfreien
Computer
gesendet, der
von Avast
geschützt
wird.<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<table style="border-top:
1.0px solid
rgb(170,171,182);" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<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;" class="">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von einem
virenfreien
Computer
gesendet, der
von Avast
geschützt
wird.<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<table style="border-top:
1.0px solid
rgb(170,171,182);" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<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;" class="">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von einem
virenfreien
Computer
gesendet, der
von Avast
geschützt
wird.<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<table style="border-top:
1.0px solid
rgb(170,171,182);" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<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;" class="">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von einem
virenfreien
Computer
gesendet, der
von Avast
geschützt
wird.<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<table style="border-top:
1.0px solid
rgb(170,171,182);" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<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;" class="">Diese
E-Mail wurde
von einem
virenfreien
Computer
gesendet, der
von Avast
geschützt
wird.<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email" style="color: rgb(68,83,234);" target="_blank" class=""></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"> </fieldset>
<pre class="">_______________________________________________
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="x-msg://12/Wolf@nascentinc.com" target="_parent">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" target="_blank">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"> </fieldset>
<pre class="">_______________________________________________
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="x-msg://12/phys@a-giese.de" target="_parent">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" target="_blank">"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>
<table style="border-top:
1.0px solid
rgb(170,171,182);" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<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;" class="">Diese
E-Mail wurde von
einem virenfreien
Computer gesendet,
der von Avast
geschützt wird.<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email" style="color: rgb(68,83,234);" target="_blank" class=""></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<table style="border-top:
1.0px solid
rgb(170,171,182);" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<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;" class="">Diese
E-Mail wurde von einem
virenfreien Computer
gesendet, der von
Avast geschützt wird.<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email" style="color: rgb(68,83,234);" target="_blank" class=""></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<table style="border-top: 1.0px
solid rgb(170,171,182);" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<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;" class="">Diese
E-Mail wurde von einem
virenfreien Computer
gesendet, der von Avast
geschützt wird.<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email" style="color: rgb(68,83,234);" target="_blank" class="">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<table style="border-top: 1.0px solid
rgb(170,171,182);" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<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;" class="">Diese E-Mail
wurde von einem virenfreien
Computer gesendet, der von
Avast geschützt wird.<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email" style="color:
rgb(68,83,234);" target="_blank" class="">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
_______________________________________________
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">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank" class=""> Click here
to unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br class="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br class="">
<pre class="" 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 class="">
<br class="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br class="">
<pre class="" 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 class="">
<br class="">
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #aaabb6;" class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 20px; color:
#41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;" class="">Diese E-Mail wurde von einem
virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von Avast
geschützt wird. <br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email" target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;" class="">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">
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" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" class=""></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br class="">
<a href="<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" class="">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br class="">
Click here to unsubscribe<br class="">
</a><br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
</div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>