<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font size="+1" face="Times New Roman">Chandra,</font></p>
<p><font size="+1" face="Times New Roman">do you really see a
structural difference of photons (or of EM waves) depending on
their frequency/energy? You surely know that this does not
conform to the general understanding of present physics? And now
in your view: at which frequency/energy does the structure change?
Because at some point there must be a break, doesn't it?</font></p>
<p><font size="+1" face="Times New Roman">Why do you think that
photons (Gamma wave packets) do not have inertial mass? They
have energy, no doubt. And energy is related to inertial mass,
agree? Photons / Gamma wave packets - also low energy wave packets
- have a momentum and cause a radiation pressure. We know - and
can measure - the radiation pressure of the sun. Spaceships
react on it. To my knowledge, no one has never met a photons
which no mass. The assumption of no-mass is the result of a
model, nothing more. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="+1" face="Times New Roman">The conversion of
particles is an unresolved question of present physics. QM is
giving descriptions - they have generation operators - </font><font
size="+1" face="Times New Roman">but </font><font size="+1"
face="Times New Roman">as usual no physical explanation. - I
find it funny that photons can be generated in large numbers
when an electric charge experiences a changing field, supposed
the necessary energy is present. The other reaction, the
conversion of a photon into an electron-positron pair is in the
view of my particle model not surprising. You may remember that
in my model a lepton and a quark is built by a pair of massless
"Basic" particles (which have electric charge). I find it
possible that also a photon is built in this way, but as the
photon has twice the spin of a lepton/quark it may be built by
two pairs of basic particles rather than one, which have in this
case positive and negative electric charges. And if now the
photon interacts with another object so that momentum can be
exchanged, it may break off into two halves, so into an electron
and a positron as all necessary constituents are already there.
<br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="+1" face="Times New Roman">Why does a photon cause
scattering, interference, and so on? Because in this model it
has positive and negative electric charges in it. And as these
charges a orbiting (with c of course) they cause an alternating
electric field in the vicinity, and so there is a classical wave
causing this wave-related behaviour. I find this simple, and it
fits to de Broglie's idea, and in addition it solves the
particle-wave question very classically. And this works
independent of the energy (=frequency) of the photon.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="+1" face="Times New Roman">You have the idea of your
Complex Tension Field. Now doubt that this is an intelligent
idea. My goal, however, is to find a model for all this, which
is as simple and as classical as possible (avoiding phenomena
like excitations), and at present I believe that my model is
closer to this goal.</font></p>
<p><font size="+1" face="Times New Roman">I think that this is the
difference between our models.</font></p>
<p><font size="+1" face="Times New Roman">Albrecht<br>
</font></p>
<font size="+1" face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="+1" face="Times New Roman">Am
01.08.2017 um 23:55 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:</font><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN6PR05MB32340C040805E32DD32AAEF393B30@BN6PR05MB3234.namprd05.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 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;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
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;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-style-priority:99;
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;
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">Albrecht: <o:p>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">Your “photon” is
of Gamma frequency, whose behavior is dramatically different
from those of frequencies of X-rays and all the lower ones
to radio. Yes, I agree that the behavior of Gamma wave
packet is remarkably similar to particles; <b><i>but they
are not inertial particles</i></b>. They are still
non-diffracting EM
<b><i>wave packets</i></b>, always traveling with the same
velocity “c” in vacuum and within materials, except while
directly head-on encountering heavy nucleons. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">I have written
many times before that the Huygens-Fresnel diffraction
integral correctly predicts that the propensity of
diffractive spreading of EM waves is inversely proportional
to the frequency. Based upon experimental observations in
multitudes of experiments, it is clear that EM waves of
Gamma frequency do not diffractively spread; they remain
localized.
<b><i>Buried in this transitional behavior of EM waves lies
deeper unexplored physics. I do not understand that.</i></b>
But, that is why I have been, in general, pushing for
incorporating Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology
(IPM-E), over and above the prevailing Measurable Data
Modeling Epistemology (MDM-E).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">Current particle
physics only predicts and validates that Gamma-energy,
through interactions with heavy nucleons, can become a pair
of electron and positron pair. Similarly, an electron can
break up into a pair of Gamma wave packets. Their velocity
always remain “c”, within materials (except nucleons), or in
vacuum!! They are profoundly different from inertial
particles.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">This is why, I
have also postulated that the 100% of the energy of the
universe is in the form of a very tense and physically
stationary Complex Tension Field (CTF). This CTF is also the
universal inertial reference frame. Elementary particles
that project inertial mass-like property through
interactions, are self-looped resonant oscillation of the
same CTF. This internal velocity is the same c as it is for
EM waves. However, their The linear excitations of the CTF,
triggered by diverse dipoles, EM waves are perpetually
pushed by the CTF to regain its state of unexcited
equilibrium state. This is the origin of perpetual velocity
of EM wave packets. For self-looped oscillations, f, at the
same velocity c, the CTF “assumes” that it is perpetually
pushing away the perturbation at the highest velocity it
can. Unfortunately, it remains locally micro-stationary
(self-looped). The corresponding inertial property becomes
our measured (rest mass = hf-internal). When we are able to
bring other particles nearby, thereby introducing effective
perceptible potential gradient to the first particle, it
“falls” into this potential gradient, acquiring extra
kinetic energy of (1/2)mv-squared = hf-kinetic. This
f-kinetic is a secondary oscillatory frequency that
facilitates the physical movement of the particle through
the CTF. This f-kinetic frequency replaces de Broglie pilot
wave and removes the unnecessary postulate of wave-particle
duality. [See the attached Ch.11 of my book.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">Most likely, you
would not be happy with my response because, (i) we model
nature very differently, and (ii) I do not understand the
physical processes behind the transformations: Gamma to
Electron+Positron, or Electron to Gamm-Pair.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">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;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
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>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, August 01, 2017 4:30 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper
path to introspection<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Chandra,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">I now feel a bit helpless. I
though<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">t that I
have writt</font>en clearly enough that the Compton Effect
is NOT the aspect I wanted to present and to discuss here.
True that this was the original purpose of the experiment,
but the aspect of the experiment used for my question was
different. But now you write: </span>
<span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">"</span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#990000">So, I assume that you
are asking me to explain physical process behind Compton
Effect by classical approach.</span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">"
</span><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> What can I do that you
do not turn around my intention? Write in capital letters?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">So once again the following
process: An electron of a certain energy is converted into
something called traditionally a "photon". Then after a
flight of about 10 meters through air this photon is
re-converted into an electron-position pair. The energy of
this pair is exactly the energy of the originating electron.
And again my question: How can one explain this process if
it is not assumed that this "photon" carried exactly this
amount of energy? And what is wrong with the assumption that
this "photon" was - at least in this application - some type
of a particle?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">You have attached several
papers about photons. I have looked through most of them (as
much as it was possible in a limited time). I have found
almost nothing there which has to do with my question above.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">The first paper is about the
Compton Effect. So, not at all my topic here.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">The second paper is a
combination of several sub-papers. In the third of these
sub-papers the author (Rodney Loudon) has presented
different occurrences of a photon with respect to different
experiments. And in his view the photon can exhibit a
behaviour as it appeared in my experiment. In the others I
did not find something similar. (Perhaps I have overlooked
the corresponding portions and you can help me with a
reference.)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">The third paper (of W.E. Lamp)
denies the occurrence of a photon like in my experiment
completely. How should I make use of this paper?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Or what did I overlook?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">In general I see good chances
to explain many physical phenomena classically which are
according to main stream only treatable (however mostly not
"understandable") by quantum mechanics. This is a master
goal of my work. But the papers which you have sent me are
all following main stream in using quantum mechanics. So,
also the mystification of physics done by QM/Copenhagen. I
thought that also you have been looking for something
alternative and new.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Albrecht</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 31.07.2017 um 21:45 schrieb
Roychoudhuri, Chandra:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">Albrecht:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#C00000"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#C00000">“How do you explain
<b><i>the process going on in my experiment</i></b>
without assuming the photon as a particle? (Details again
below.)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#C00000">“And I have (also)
repeatedly referred to my
<b><i>PhD experiment, which was Compton scattering at
protons.</i></b>”… Albrecht</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#C00000"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">I picked up the
above quotations from below. So, I assume that you are
asking me to explain physical process behind Compton
Effect by classical approach.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">I am attaching
two papers in support of semi-classical approach. Dodd
directly goes to explain Compton Effect by semi-classical
model. Nobeliate Lamb puts down the very “photon” concept
generically. I knew Lamb through many interactions. Myself
and another colleague had edited a special issue in his
honor (see attached) dedicated on his 90<sup>th</sup>
birthday.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">Chandra.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">PS: </span>
</i></b><b><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#7030A0">Regarding
Philosophy:</span></i></b><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#7030A0">
</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">In my
viewpoint, the <b><i>gravest mistake</i></b> of the
physics community for several hundred years has been to
consider self-introspection of our individual thinking
logic as unnecessary philosophy. Erroneous assumption
behind that is to think that our neural network is a
perfectly objective organ; rather than a generic
“hallucinating” organ to assure our successful biological
evolution. It is high time that physicists, as a
community, start appreciating this limiting modes of
thinking logic have been holding us back. This is why I
have become a “broken record” to repeatedly keep on
“playing” the same ancient story of five collaborating
blind men modeling an elephant. Their diverse “objective”
observations do not automatically blend in to a logically
self-consistent living animal. Only when they impose the
over-arching condition that it is a living animal, their
iterative attempts to bring SOME conceptual continuity
between the diverse “objective” observations; their model
starts to appear as “elephant-like”! The Cosmic Elephant,
that we are trying to model, is a lot more complex system.
We are not yet in a position to declare a<b><i>ny of our
component theories
</i></b>as a final theory! Fortunately, reproducible
experimental validations of many mathematical theories
imply that the laws of nature function causally. Sadly,
Copenhagen Interpretation insists on telling nature that
she ought to behave non-causally at the microscopic level.
As if, a macro <b><i>causal universe</i></b> can emerge
out of
<b><i>non-causal micro universe</i></b>!</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">==================================================</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 7/29/2017 1:19 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Chandra,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">my intention this time was
to avoid a too philosophical discussion, interesting as
it may be, and to avoid the risk to extend it towards
infinity. So, this time I only intended to discuss a
specific point.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Therefore the main point
of my mail: How do you explain
</span><b><i><span style="font-size:13.5pt;color:#7030A0">the
process going on in my experiment</span></i></b><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;color:#7030A0">
</span><span style="font-size:13.5pt">without assuming the
photon as a particle? (Details again below.)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Albrecht</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 29.07.2017 um 00:28 schrieb
Roychoudhuri, Chandra:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">Albrecht: </span>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">Thanks for your
critical questions. I will try to answer to the extent
I am capable of. They are within your email text
below.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369"> However, I
am of the general opinion that Physics has advanced
enough to give us the confidence that generally
speaking, we have been heading in the right direction
– the laws of natural evolution are universally causal
in action and are independent of the existence or
non-existence of any particular species, including
human species.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369"> History
has also demonstrated (Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific
revolutions) that all working theories eventually
yield to newer theories based upon constructing better
fundamental postulates using better and broad-based
precision data. So, this century is destined to
enhance all the foundational postulates behind most
working theories and integrate them into a better
theory with much less “hotchpotch” postulates like
“wave particle-duality”, “entanglement”, “action at a
distance”, etc., etc. Our community should agree and
stop the time-wasting philosophical debates like,
“Whether the moon EXISTS when I am not looking for
it!” Would you waste your time writing a counter poem,
if I write, “The moon is a dusty ball of Swiss
cheese”? </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">In summary,
leveraging the evolutionary power of
self-introspection, human observers will have to
learn to CONSCIOUSLY direct further evolution of
their own mind out of its current trap of
biologically evolved neural logics towards pure
logic of dispassionate observers who do not
influence the outcome of experimental
observations!</span></i></b><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369"> Let us not
waste any more of our valuable time reading and
re-reading the inconclusive Bohr-Einstein debates. We
are not smarter than them; but we have a lot more
observational data to structure our logical thinking
than they had access to during their life time. So,
lets respectfully jump up on the concept-shoulders of
these giants, a la Newton, and try to increase our
Knowledge Horizon. Bowing down our head at their feet
will only reduce our Knowledge Horizon.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">Chandra.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></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;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General [<a
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b>On
Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, July 28, 2017 11:55 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Role of observer, a
deeper path to introspection</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Chandra,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>you have written here a lot of good and true
considerations; with most of them I can agree. However
two comments from my view:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>1.) The speed of light: <br>
The speed of light when <i>measured in vacuum </i>shows
always a constant value. Einstein has taken this result
as a fact in so far that the real speed of light is
constant.
<span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">[Sorry
there are no perfect vacuum in space, or on earth.
Even a few atoms per 100-Lamda-cubed volume defines an
effective refractive index for light in that volume.
The outer space is a bit more rarer.]
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">I forgot
to say: Measurement of c outside a gravitational field.
- Of course this and the vacuum is nowhere perfectly
available, but we come so close to it that we have
sufficiently
</span>good <span style="font-size:13.5pt">results. In
the gravitational field on the earth the speed of light
is reduced by round about a portion of about 10<sup>-6</sup>
. And in the DESY synchrotron there was a vacuum good
enough so that c was only reduced by a portion of about
10<sup>-15</sup>. I think that this comes close enough
to the ideal conditions so that we can draw conclusions
from it. And the equations describing this can be proven
by a sufficient precision.<br>
<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>However if we follow the Lorentzian interpretation of
relativity then only the
<i>measured </i>c is constant. It looks constant
because, if the measurement equipment is in motion, the
instruments change their indications so that the result
shows the known constant value. - I personally follow
the Lorentzian relativity because in this version the
relativistic phenomena can be deduced from known
physical behaviour<span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">.[I am more
comfortable with Lorentzian logics than Einsteinian.
However, I do not consider this thinking will remain
intact as our understanding evolves further. </span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">]</span><span
style="color:windowtext">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Which
kind of changes do you expect?</span><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:windowtext">So, it is true physics</span><span
style="color:#6B2369">.</span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">[Sorry, I do
not believe that we will ever have access to a final
(“true”) physics theory! We will always have to keep
on iterating the postulates and the corresponding
theories to make them evolve as our mind evolves out
of biological-survival-logics towards
impartial-observer-logics.]</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Perhaps
it was bad wording from my side. - Whereas I understand
Einstein's relativity as a mathematical system, the
Lorentzian is intended to describe physics. That was
meant.</span><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>There is a different understanding of what Wolf thinks.
He has in the preceding discussion here given an
equation, according to which the speed of light can go
up to infinity. This is to my knowledge in conflict with
any measurement.<span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369"> [I agree with
you. All equations for propagating wave tell us that
the speed is determined by the intrinsic physical
tension properties of the corresponding mother
“field”. I have not found acceptable logic to support
infinite speed for propagating waves.]</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>2) The quantisation of light:<br>
This was also discussed repeatedly here in these mails.
<span style="color:#C00000">
And I have (also) repeatedly referred to my <b><i>PhD
experiment, which was Compton scattering at
protons.</i></b></span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#C00000">[</span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">There are
number of papers that explain Compton Effect using
semi classical theory, using X-rays as classical wave
packets. De Broglie got his Nobel based on his short
PhD thesis proposing “Pilot Wave” for electron
diffraction phenomenon along with “Lambda= “h/p”. I
happened to have proposed particles as localized
harmonic oscillators with characteristic “Kinetic
Frequency”, rather than wavelength (See Ch.11 of my
“Causal Physics” book). This explains particle
diffraction without the need of “wave particle
duality”. I have separately published paper modeling,
using spectrometric data, that QM predicted photon is
a transient photon at the moment of emission with
energy “hv”. Then it quickly evolves into a
quasi-exponential wave packet with a carrier frequency
“v”. This bridges the gap between the QM predictions
and all the successes of the classical HF integral. ]</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">I am
sorry that I mentioned that this experiment was intended
to check a specific property of the Compton effect.
Because this fact is of no relevance for our discussion
here. The relevant point is that an electron of a
defined energy was converted into something which we
call a "photon". And after about 10 meters flight
through the air with a negligible deflection it was
reconverted into an electron-positron pair, which then
represented the energy of the original electron. And
this was done for different energies of this original
electron. - My question is how this process can be
explained without the assumption that the photon did
have a quantized amount of energy, which means it to be
a particle.<br>
<br>
Regarding the particle wave question I have presented
every time at our SPIE meeting in San Diego a particle
model which is in fact a specific realization of de
Broglie's pilot wave idea. I did not develop the model
for this purpose but to explain SRT, gravity and the
fact of inertial mass. The result was then that is also
fulfils the idea of de Broglie. It explains the process
of diffraction and the relation between frequency and
energy. - And last time in San Diego I have also
explained that it explains - with some restrictions -
the photon.<br>
<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#7030A0"> </span>
An electron of defined energy was converted into a
photon. The photon was scattered at a proton at extreme
small angles (so almost no influence) and then
re-converted into an electron-positron pair. This pair
was measured and it reproduced quite exactly (by better
than 2 percent) the energy of the originals electron.
This was repeated for electrons of different energies. -
I do not see any explanation for this process without
the assumption that there was a photon (i.e. a quantum)
of a well defined energy, not a light wave. <span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">
[Albrecht, with my limited brain-time, I do not
understand , nor can I dare to explain away
everything. But, remember, that literally, millions of
optical engineers for two centuries, have been using
Huygens-Fresnel’s classical diffraction integral to
explain many dozens of optical phenomena and to design
and construct innumerable optical instruments
(spectroscopes, microscopes, telescopes (including
grazing angle X-ray telescope), etc. QM has never
succeeded in giving us any simple integral equivalent
to HF-integral. That is why all these millions of
optical scientists and engineers give only “lip
service” to the photon concept and happily and
successfully keep on using the HF integral! My
prediction is that this will remain so for quite a
while into the future.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">I again
refer to my particle model as said above. It explains
all the known optical phenomena.
</span><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">Let us
recall that neither Newtonian, nor Einsteinian
Gravity can predict the measured distribution of
velocities of stars against the radial distance in
hundreds of galaxies; even though they are excellent
within our solar system. However, Huygens postulate
(Newton’s contemporary) of wave propagation model of
leveraging some tension field still lives-on
remarkably well. This significance should be noted by
particle physicists!].</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">I do not
see what in detail is not postulated regarding the stars
observed. My model also explains phenomena like Dark
Matter and Dark Energy if you mean this. And my model of
gravity (which is an extension of the Lorentzian
relativity to GRT) is since 13 years in the internet,
and since 12 years it is uninterruptedly the no. one
regarding the explanation of gravitation (if looking for
"The Origin of Gravity" by Google). Maybe worth to read
it.
</span><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>How does this fit into your understanding?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Best wishes<br>
Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>PS: Can I find your book "Causal Physics" online?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 26.07.2017 um 18:52 schrieb
Roychoudhuri, Chandra:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Wolf: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">You have said it well:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>“Concentrating on finding the
mechanisms of connection between the Hallucination
and the reality is my approach. I think the constant
speed of light assumption is one of the first
pillars that must fall. If there is such a constant
it should in my opinion be interpreted as the speed
of Now…”. </i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes, “constant c” is a
fundamentally flawed postulate by the theoretician
Einstein, so fond of “Gedanken Experiments”.
Unfortunately, one can cook up wide varieties of
logically self-consistent mathematical theories and
then match them up with “Gedanken” experiments! We
know that in the real world, we know that the velocity
of light is dictated by both the medium and the
velocity of the medium. Apparently, Einstein’s
“Gedanken Experiment” of riding the crest of a light
wave inspired him to construct SRT and sold all the
mathematical physicists that nature if 4-diemsional.
Out of the “Messiah Complex”, we now believe that the
universe could be 5, or, 7, or 11, or, 13, ….
dimensional system where many of the dimensions are
“folded in” !!!! By the way, running time is not a
measurable physical parameter. We can contract or
dilate frequency of diverse oscillators, using proper
physical influence, not the running time. Frequency of
oscillators help us measure a period (or time
interval).
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Wise human thinkers have recognized
this “Hallucination” problem from ancient times, which
are obvious (i) from Asian perspective of how five
blinds can collaborate to construct a reasonable model
of the Cosmic Elephant and then keep on iterating the
model ad infinitum, or (ii) Western perspective of
“shadows of external objects projected inside a cave
wall”. Unfortunately, we become “groupies” of our
contemporary “messiahs” to survive economically and
feel “belonging to the sociaety”. The result is the
current sad state of moribund physics thinking.
Fortunately, many people have started challenging this
moribund status quo with papers, books, and web
forums.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, I see well-recognizable
renaissance in physics coming within a few decades!
Yes, it will take time. Einstein’s “indivisible
quanta” of 1905 still dominates our vocabulary; even
though no optical engineer ever try to propagate an
“indivisible quanta”; they always propagate light
waves. Unfortunately, they propagate Fourier
monochromatic modes that neither exits in nature; nor
is a causal signal. [I have been trying to correct
this fundamental confusion through my book, “Causal
Physics”.]<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Coming back to our methodology of
thinking, I have defined an iterative approach in the
Ch.12 of the above book. I have now generalized the
approach by anchoring our sustainable evolution to
remain anchored with the reality of nature! “Urgency
of Evolution Process Congruent Thinking” [see
attached].<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">However, one can immediately bring
a challenge. If all our interpretations are cooked up
by our neural network for survival; then who has the
authority to define objective reality? Everybody, but
collaboratively, like modeling the “Cosmic Elephant”.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Let us realize the fact that the
seeing “color” is an interpretation by the brain. It
is a complete figment of our neuro-genetic
interpretation! That is why none of us will succeed in
quantitatively defining the subtlety of color
variation of any magnificent color painting without a
quantitative spectrometer. The “color” is not an
objective parameter; but the frequency is (not
wavelength, though!). One can now recognize the subtle
difference, from seeing “color”, to
<b><i>quantifying energy content per frequency
interval.</i></b> This is “objective” science
determined by instruments without a “mind”, which is
reproducible outside of human interpretations.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And, we have already mastered this
technology quite a bit. The biosphere exists. It has
been nurturing biological lives for over 3.5 billion
years without the intervention of humans. We are a
very late product of this evolution. This is an
objective recognition on our part! Our, successful
evolution needed “instantaneous color” recognition to
survive for our day-to-day living in our earlier
stage. We have now overcome our survival mode as a
species. And we now have become a pest in the
biosphere, instead of becoming the caretaker of it for
our own long-term future. <b><i>This is the sad break
in our wisdom.</i></b> This is why I am promoting
the concept, “Urgency of Evolution Process Congruent
Thinking”. This approach helps generate a common, but
perpetually evolving thinking platform for all
thinkers, whether working to understand Nature’s
Engineering (Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc.) or, to
carry out our Social Engineering (Economics, Politics,
Religions, etc.).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></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;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General [<a
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b>On
Behalf Of </b>Wolfgang Baer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 26, 2017 12:40 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Role of observer,
a deeper path to introspection</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Chandra:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Unfortunately the TED talk does not work on my
machine but the transcript is available and Anl Seth
states what many people studying the human psyche as
well as eastern philosophy have said for centuries ,
Yes we are Hallucinating reality and our physics is
built upon that hallucination, but it works so well,
or does it? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>However as Don Hoffmancognitive scientist UC Irvine
contends <a
href="https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as_it_is"
moz-do-not-send="true">
https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as_it_is</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>What we see is like the icons on a computer screen, a
file icon may only be a symbol of what is real on the
disk, but these icons as well as the "hallucinations"
are connected to some reality and we must take them
seriously. Deleting the icon also deletes the disk
which may have disastrous consequences.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>For our discussion group it means we can take
Albrechts route and try to understand the universe and
photons first based upon the idea that it is
independently real and then solve the human
consciousness problem or we can take the opposite
approach and rebuild a physics without the
independent physical reality assumption and see if we
cannot build out a truly macroscopic quantum theory.
Concentrating on finding the mechanisms of connection
between the Hallucination and the reality is my
approach. I think the constant speed of light
assumption is one of the first pillars that must fall.
If there is such a constant it should in my opinion be
interpreted as the speed of Now , a property we
individually apply to all our observations.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>best<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Wolf<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Research Director<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 7/23/2017 2:44 PM,
Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Dear
colleagues:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Lately
there has been continuing discussion on the role
of observer and the reality. I view that to be
healthy.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">We
must guide ourselves to understand and model the
universe without human mind shaping the cosmic
system and its working rules. This suggestion
comes from the fact that our own logic puts the
universe to be at least 13 billion years old,
while we, in the human form, have started evolving
barely 5 million years ago (give or take).
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">However,
we are not smart enough to determine a
well-defined and decisive path, as yet. Our search
must accommodate perpetual iteration of thinking
strategy as we keep on advancing. This is well
justified in the following TED-talk. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Enjoy:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><a
href="https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2017-07-22&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=talk_of_the_week_image"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2017-07-22&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=talk_of_the_week_image</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D">Chandra.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2">
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border:none;border-top:solid #D3D4DE 1.0pt"
cellspacing="3" cellpadding="0" border="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="width:41.25pt;border:none;padding:13.5pt
.75pt .75pt .75pt" width="57">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img
style="width:.4791in;height:.3055in"
id="_x0000_i1025"
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
moz-do-not-send="true" height="29"
width="46" border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td
style="width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:12.75pt
.75pt .75pt .75pt" width="415">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:13.5pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#41424E">Virenfrei.
<a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">
<span style="color:#4453EA">www.avast.com</span></a>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</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>
</body>
</html>