<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><i>Chandra</i>,</p>
<p>you have again made some statements about SRT. And I feel that I
should comment that.</p>
<p>I fully agree with you regarding what you say about the "running
time". Also about "space-time" and about the necessity of a kind
of an inertial frame. But in the other hand one cannot deny that
for instance clocks are running more slowly when in motion. So,
what about SRT in general?<br>
</p>
<p>In my view there is a solution for this which reflects your
concern. We have first to understand (and it is written in every
text book about relativity) that Einstein's relativity is pure
geometry, it is not physics. But the relativistic phenomena can in
fact be based on physics. That was done for instance by Lorentz
prior to Einstein's first publication. Oliver Heaviside in 1888
derived from Maxwell's theory that fields contract at motion. And
also Lorentz and Larmor found out - before Einstein's paper - that
there must be a permanent motion in elementary particles to
explain dilation. All this is real physics, not geometry. Further
Einstein's famous relation E = mc<sup>2</sup> was found by others
before Einstein and before Einstein declared relativity. For
instance by Thomson and Wien (where the result was a bit different
but the connection of both notions was seen).<br>
</p>
<p>Perhaps you remember it (or you have missed it): In all my talks
in Mexico and in San Diego I have recommended to use Lorentz'
relativity rather than the one of Einstein. And I have also
undertaken to develop General Relativity following the concept of
Lorentz in order to understand it at a task in physics, not in
geometry. That explains gravity without any space-time curvature;
it is in that view a weak side effect of the strong force. It is
much simpler than the view of Einstein, because no need for
four-dimensionality and Riemannian geometry. It explains dark
matter quantitatively (for an example which I have calculated),
and it has no need for dark energy.</p>
<p>The other point: Your idea to maintain the discussion forum may
be a usable replacement of the meeting, also the use of the forum
of Physics Essays. But it may have the risk that this discussion
will slowly come to an end. A meeting is a higher challenge for
all who contribute and who attend, so it keeps all active. But if
meetings are not possible any more, this will be better than to
give up.</p>
<p><i>Richard</i>: <br>
</p>
<p>You know my opinion regarding your way of explaining inertia. In
my view that explanations are tautological statements, as you
explain the mass of an electron by the mass of its constituents.
Or you explain the mass of an object by its momentum, where
momentum is essentially the same as inertia, just in a different
context. - In contrast to that the mechanism that two objects
bound to each other at a distance have inevitably inertia does not
need any other assumptions or preconditions than the existence of
a binding field and the existence of c.</p>
<p>Sincerely<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 26.12.2016 um 22:24 schrieb
Roychoudhuri, Chandra:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BN6PR05MB3234F7AC24901445EE42008F93960@BN6PR05MB3234.namprd05.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1470896414;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1110792360 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Good
thinking, Richard!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> I like
your approach, especially that the derivation does not need
SR.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I have
expressed in many of my earlier publications, my book,
“Causal Physics” and many comments in this forum that SR
does not represent good Physics.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> To me,
the first criterion of a good physics theory is that it must
guide us to understand and visualize the invisible
interaction processes going on nature. In theorizing such
interaction processes, the “primary” parameters must relate
to the inherent behavior-representing property of the object
whose interaction process is being modeled. The interaction
process is guided by nature’s rule (logic) that allows the
entity to exist and/or interact with other cosmic entities
(large or small). Our perceptible and observable universe is
elusive but is not an illusion. This is because we can never
measure (acquire) complete information about anything with
all the necessary details. We are always “information
starved”. So, we must not also describe the universe as “It
from bit”. Interaction between “bits” generate data; which
human minds interprets as information. Subjective
interpretations of data by human minds as information,
cannot be the ontological foundation of the universe. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> The
running time “t” is not a parameter of any object in this
universe. Everything in this universe is oscillatory from
very short to very long periods. We measure the frequency of
an oscillator (primary parameter) and then invert it to
generate a new secondary parameter, “Delta-t”. While we do
need the running time “t” as a mathematical parameter; it is
not a physical parameter and hence the assertion that
“space-time” is the new physical order of the universe, will
only divert us away from fathoming nature’s ontological
reality.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> There
are many other reasons that SR is not a physical theory. For
example, there are no physical inertial frame in this
universe that can be used to validate SR postulates. All
planetary platforms are undergoing accelerated motion in
closed loop orbits! <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> However,
I have postulated that the space itself is the stationary
inertial frame of reference filled with Complex Tension
Field (CTF), which allows ITS linear excitation to
perpetually propagate as EM waves; and ITS phase-resonant
self-looped high-energy oscillations are the particles we
experience. Their inertial properties have been modeled by
us as “Mass”. But there are no “Mass” in this universe in
the Newtonian sense of “matter”. Only energy exists in
motion (as EM waves and particles) or in quiescent form (as
the prime CTF). And 100% of the energy is contained by the
CTF. No need to postulate separate Dark Energy and Dark
Matter. There are no exchange particles to facilitate
various forces. “Forces” are the physically extended
potential gradients generated in the CTF due to the complex
physical motions of the CTF, which represent various
particles. To develop a unified field theory, we need a
single field that is capable of generating everything. The
necessary postulates for unified field theory cannot be
generated while accepting the primacy of the existing but
self-contradictory, postulates behind the existing “working”
theories.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Happy New
Year!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I am sorry
that I failed to re-instate our out-of-box SPIE San Diego
Conference, in spite of a lot of quiet appeals.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">1.<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt">This Forum:</span></i></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"> We will maintain this discussion
forum.</span>
<span style="font-size:11.0pt">Although, in future, I am
thinking of splitting it up into several parallel
discussions on well-identified problem. I am open to
suggestions from all of you. [As before, the discussion
forums do not need to be based upon the unified field, CTF
only.]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">2.<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt">Physics Essays:</span></i></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt"> You could also utilize the forum
of Physics Essays. This out-of-box concept-promoting journal
has been running for over 25 years. It has page charge. But,
then you can re-post it anywhere in the web after
publication. The page-charge is much less than attending the
conference. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b>On
Behalf Of </b>Richard Gauthier<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, December 26, 2016 3:05 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a>;
Mark, Martin van der
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"><martin.van.der.mark@philips.com></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] nature of light particles
& theories<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello all,<br>
Yes, happy holidays and happy new year to all.<br>
<br>
Here's what I just added to a discussion on Inertia and
Momentum at <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/momentum-vs-inertia.854092/page-2">https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/momentum-vs-inertia.854092/page-2</a> .
It is I think relevant to all who have
circling-photon-like-object models of the electron and other
particles.<br>
<br>
What if a fundamental particle like a resting electron is
composed of a circling photon-like object with energy Eo and
vector momentum p = Eo/c where c is the speed of light? If we
start with Newton's second law of motion F = dp/dt = MA where
dp/dt is the time rate of change of the circling vector
momentum p = Eo/c, M is the inertial mass of the circling
photon-like object, and A is the centripetal acceleration
c^2/R of the circling photon-like object (where R is the
radius of its circle), we find with very easy math (and using
the circling vector relation dp/dt = pc/R) that the inertial
mass M = (dp/dt)/A = (pc/R)/(c^2/R) = p/c = (Eo/c)/c = Eo/c^2.
That is, the inertial mass M of an electron (if it is composed
of a circling photon-like object) is derived from the circling
photon-like object's energy Eo and its circling vector
momentum Eo/c to be M = Eo/c^2 or Eo = Mc^2 , which is
Einstein's equation for the energy content Eo of a resting
electron of inertial mass M. <br>
<br>
This result is published at <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.academia.edu/29799123/Inertia_Explained">https://www.academia.edu/29799123/Inertia_Explained</a> .
This derivation of the relation of the energy content of a
resting fundamental particle to its inertial mass is done
without using Einstein's special theory of relativity. Note:
Einstein's 1905 article in which he first derived m = E/c^2
or E = mc^2 for a resting object by using his special theory
of relativity is titled "Does the inertia of a body depend on
its energy-content?”<br>
<br>
Richard<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Dec 15, 2016, at 2:07 AM,
Burinskii A.Ya. <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bur@ibrae.ac.ru">bur@ibrae.ac.ru</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear John,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Thank you very much for very good explanations and
reference to good review.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I wish also to you and all colleagues Merry Christmas
and Happy New Year,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Alex<br>
<br>
________________________________<br>
От: Dr Grahame Blackwell [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">grahame@starweave.com</a>]<br>
Отправлено: 14 декабря 2016 г. 12:48<br>
Кому: Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion<br>
Копия: Stephen Leary; Vera Biryukova; Darren
Eggenschwiler; Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Pete
Delaney; Innes Morrison; Alexander Afriat; Phil
Butler; Michael Wright; Ariane Mandray; Solomon Freer;
Manohar .; Mike Mobley; Niels Gresnigt; Mark, Martin
van der; AmancioHasty<br>
Тема: Re: [General] nature of light particles &
theories<br>
<br>
Hi John,<br>
<br>
Many thanks indeed for this very thorough round-up of
the 'evidence' on quarks.<br>
Very much appreciated.<br>
<br>
Wishing all colleagues a great Christmas and an
excellent New Year.<br>
Grahame<br>
----- Original Message -----<br>
From: John Williamson<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk">mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>><br>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>
Cc: Stephen Leary<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:sleary@vavi.co.uk">mailto:sleary@vavi.co.uk</a>>
; Darren Eggenschwiler<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:darren@makemeafilm.com">mailto:darren@makemeafilm.com</a>>
; Nick Bailey<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nick@bailey-family.org.uk">mailto:nick@bailey-family.org.uk</a>>
; Anthony Booth<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:abooth@ieee.org">mailto:abooth@ieee.org</a>>
; Pete Delaney<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:piet.delaney.2@gmail.com">mailto:piet.delaney.2@gmail.com</a>>
; Innes Morrison<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:innes.morrison@cocoon.life">mailto:innes.morrison@cocoon.life</a>>
; Alexander Afriat<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:afriat@gmail.com">mailto:afriat@gmail.com</a>>
; Phil Butler<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:phil.butler@canterbury.ac.nz">mailto:phil.butler@canterbury.ac.nz</a>>
; Michael Wright<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mpbw1879@yahoo.co.uk">mailto:mpbw1879@yahoo.co.uk</a>>
; Ariane Mandray<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr">mailto:ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr</a>>
; Solomon Freer<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:slf@unsw.edu.au">mailto:slf@unsw.edu.au</a>>
; Manohar .<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:manohar_berlin@hotmail.com">mailto:manohar_berlin@hotmail.com</a>>
; Vera Biryukova<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:biriukovavera@gmail.com">mailto:biriukovavera@gmail.com</a>>
; Mike Mobley<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Mike.Mobley@gcu.edu">mailto:Mike.Mobley@gcu.edu</a>>
; Niels Gresnigt<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Niels.Gresnigt@xjtlu.edu.cn">mailto:Niels.Gresnigt@xjtlu.edu.cn</a>>
; Mark,Martin van der<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a>>
; AmancioHasty<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ahasty@gmail.com">mailto:ahasty@gmail.com</a>><br>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2016 4:13 AM<br>
Subject: Re: [General] nature of light particles &
theories<br>
<br>
Hi everyone,<br>
<br>
Have been meaning to explain a bit more about the
proton internal structure for some time in answer to
an earlier question from John D about the evidence for
quarks inside the proton. I did reference the
literature, but this is hard to understand if you are
not in the field and the field anyway tries to hide
the pure truth with a lot of dense and
well-established undergrowth. I had not got round to
this earlier due to two things: pressure of other work
and the fact that I forgot to note the source for a
useful chapter I found on the internet. Just tracked
it down and it is at:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys741/xji/chapter4.pdf">https://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys741/xji/chapter4.pdf</a><br>
<br>
Did not want to send you my copy of it without
crediting the source.<br>
<br>
Anyway,the main thing I wanted to do was cut the
through some of the jargon and help explain what the
proton structure functions (in fig 4.6 in the above)
mean. This is the essence of what is known
experimentally about the internal structure of the
proton – and contains the main evidence for the
quark-parton model. The quark-parton model is the
association of hard bits in the proton, the partons,
with the pattern of existing particles explained by
Gell-Mann’s quark model. This also helps to explain
some things about Richard’s question in the recent
email – hence the choice to spend time on this in the
early hours of this morning.<br>
<br>
Now I’m not going to explain this in detail – the
chapter referenced above does a better job of this –
but I want to cut the experiment a bit free from the
embedded story of the QCD quark-gluon etc etc model
(and it is just a model remember) and explain what the
EXPERIMENT tells you.<br>
<br>
The experiment gives the structure functions in terms
of two variables Qsquared and x. Briefly, Qsquared is
the measured 4-momentum transfer squared of the
interaction in GeV squared. How hard you hit it
(squared). To give you an idea of the scale of the hit
– 100GeV squared is roughly ten times the mass-energy
of the proton itself. And so the data extends out to
about a 100 protons worth of “hit”. That is hard!<br>
<br>
Now x is a more interesting variable. It is the
measured fraction of the proton’s 4-momentum carried
by whatever you hit. Thinking of the proton in its
rest-frame – this is just its rest mass. So x tells
you how much of the proton mass was carried by
whatever you hit. x is 1 and you got the whole proton.
This is what you would always measure if you hit a
simple object like the electron. The electron is a
single object and it carries all of its mass localized
to the electron. This is how you know. The proton is
not like that. At the quark-parton models simplest,
with no forces and no confinement one thinks of it as
three quarks. If each of these carried a third of the
proton mass one would have data at only x = 0.33. Note
that there is not even any structure there.<br>
<br>
What one actually sees is completely different to
this, or to any three-hard-bits-in-a-bag model. In the
vast majority of collisions the effective “mass” of
whatever you hit was very very low. Look at the scale
for F2. It goes over 12 orders of magnitude. One is
hundreds of millions times more likely to hit a
“quark-parton” with a practically zero x of 0.000063
than one with a (simple model) x of 0.3 ish. Now
precisely zero x would be hitting a rest-massless
(photon-like) object, one third x would be simple
rest-massive quarks in a massless bag with binding
energy (gluons if you like) of the same order as the
mass. A sixth x would be 3 equal mass quarks with some
confinement at the same kind of energy as the quark
mass-energy. You get nothing like this. What you get
is gloop. There is almost no discernable structure at
all.<br>
<br>
So why do people think there are hard bits in the
proton. The evidence for this comes from scaling – a
flat distribution with Q squared then. This IS
evidenced by the curves in the middle of the figure.
At x = 0.08 it is pretty flat. Think about it. If the
proton contained hard billiard-ball like bits, how
likely you were to hit them with another flung
billiard ball does not depend on how hard you fling
it, but on the “impact parameter”. This is what is
characteristic of single-hard-object scattering.<br>
<br>
Note that this simple scaling does not apply at low x,
where the data shows that it becomes rapidly more
likely to find a photon-like object as one hits it
harder, and at high x where it becomes rapidly less
likely to hit a high-mass constituent. Explain that in
a model of a bag of bits. You should resolve the hard
bits better, instead it seems they break. Not very
hard then. Ok, you are walloping them with a
4-momentum squared many times their mass squared, but
one is doing this at lower x as well. The other thing
is that, if you integrate over all the bits you hit in
deep inelastic proton scattering, you only get about
half the proton mass. The rest is something else,
something unhittable with charges and photons. This is
the meaning of equation 4.77. This is interpreted as
arising from the binding. Could well be, but whatever
they are binding is mostly, experimentally, a whole
pile of really low mass bits (if bits indeed) – more
and more of it as one looks harder and harder.
Remember, to make up the proton mass there must be (at
least) hundreds of millions of them. Hundreds of
millions is not 3. One talks about “valence quarks and
sea quarks, but this is mostly bullshit. One sees what
one sees, not what one would like to see. Also the
number in eq. 4.77 is so near 50 percent I favour
something much more radical and far simpler. That will
eventually become another paper. Quarks, why there are
three and what they really are is what comes next.<br>
<br>
If you want to see how bad it gets for the standard
model (and why I left particle physics) the bullshit
about the standard model picture gets (much!) worse in
the next section about the “proton spin crisis” so
read on if you dare …<br>
<br>
I’m not quite up to speed with who is or is not on the
general maiing list, so some of you may get this twice
– apologies!<br>
<br>
Thats it for now.<br>
<br>
Cheers, John.<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"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br>
<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">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a 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 /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
<tr>
<td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">
<img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" />
</a>
</td>
<td>
<p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
<br><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>