<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Dear Chip,</p>
<p>thank you for your response. - I think I have to give some more
comments about my model.</p>
<p>I am using the concept of exchange particles (the only idea I
have borrowed from QM) which is not to be confused with virtual
particles. I also believe that virtual particles do not exist. One
well known problem with them is the cosmological "vacuum
catastrophe", which means the difference between the theoretical
energy of all virtual particles summed up and the real energy in
the universe, which means a conflicting factor of 120 orders of
magnitude. This assumption, also called "vacuum polarization", was
invented to explain the Landé factor of the electron. In my model
this Landé factor can be classically explained.</p>
<p>Exchange particles on the other hand are assumed to mediate
forces. In case of the electric force the photon is assumed to be
the exchange particle, which is (in this case) not a virtual
particle. <br>
</p>
<p>How do you unify gravity and the electric force? This was
attempted by many, also by Einstein who did not succeed with this
idea. A general counterargument is the fact that gravity is so
different from the other "three" forces that I think it is a
completely different phenomenon, not even a force. <br>
</p>
<p>My approach to gravity is so a completely different one. We know
from measurements (and also from Einstein's thoughts) that the
speed of light is reduced in a gravitational field. (A formula for
it follows from Einstein's GRT, but can also be deduced
classically, what my model does.) If accordingly a light-like
particle moves in a gravitational field, then its path is
classically refracted towards the gravitational source. This -
applied to the internal oscillations of a particle - causes the
particle to move towards the gravitational source by a constant
acceleration. This process fully explains gravitation, the
classical one (as of Newton) as well as the relativistic one (as
of Einstein).</p>
<p>Regarding space as pure emptiness, you ask the question: "<font
color="#660000">If we assume space is completely empty then it
does become quite difficult to explain the cause for
relationships between space and time, and the cause for a fixed
velocity of light.</font>" In my understanding this is not a
problem. Because if we follow the relativity of Lorentz rather
Einstein, there does not exist a special relationship between
space and time. And the good thing about the Lorentzian relativity
is that it is mathematically much simpler than Einstein's, more
related to physics, and even though has fundamentally the same
results as with Einstein. Space is then fully described by
Euclidean geometry. <br>
</p>
<p>And regarding the speed of light we can change the statement
"nothing can move faster than c" to a more radical one: "all
objects at the lowest level, i.e. basic particles and exchange
particles, <i>only move at c</i>; there is no other speed". Any
objects moving at a different speed than c are not particles but
configurations of particles, which of course can move at any
speed. And why is this speed c constant? Because if mass-less
objects moving at c interact, it is on the lowest level always an
elastic interaction. Such interaction will change the direction of
a motion, but never the speed of a motion. So if we now assume
that during the Big Bang, in this very dense situation, all
objects have taken the same speed, this speed has normally no
reason to change any more later. <br>
</p>
<p>I think that one of the strongest reasons that physics did not
progress during the last century is the assumption that space has
certain properties rather than being empty. Particularly
Einstein's assumptions about space and time have hampered progress
in physics. It seems to me like a religion as it makes the
understanding more complex without any necessity. Any comparison
of the relativity of Einstein with the approach of Lorentz shows
this very clearly.</p>
<p>Best regards<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 06.08.2017 um 20:43 schrieb Chip
Akins:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:00df01d30ee3$dfd85c60$9f891520$@gmail.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;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
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.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;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle26
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle27
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle28
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
.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">Dear Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I really appreciate your response. You
give detailed yet concise explanations and is very helpful.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is quite amazing to me that our two
completely different approaches and perceptions resolves to
mathematics which agree with such accuracy and consistency.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have read much of your work, and find it
mentally stimulating.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">However, with the approach I have used, I
am able to do all the things you have mentioned as well. But
I am also able to demonstrate quantized electric charge
without resorting to “virtual particles” to do so. In fact I
do not think such particles exist. I have also been able,
recently, to unify the force of electric charge with gravity,
and to show specific cause for inertial and gravitational mass
equivalence. We have both found that the strong force exists
in all particles, and that force is unified with the other
forces as well. Using this approach there is no reason to try
to explain how light mysteriously only propagates forward at
c. It is not a mystery using this approach. If we assume space
is completely empty then it does become quite difficult to
explain the cause for relationships between space and time,
and the cause for a fixed velocity of light.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So in my view, particles are not the most
fundamental, but rather space and energy are fundamental.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There are problems with conventional QM
which can be removed using such an approach. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For a time in our recent scientific history
many physicists felt that space was empty. This of course
occurred after the introduction of Special Relativity. But
later Einstein himself reversed his view on this topic, and
stated that with General Relativity space is warped by
gravity. One cannot warp what does not exist. But by the time
General Relativity was introduced, the logical damage had
already been done to the then developing QM theories. So we
are stuck with mysterious “virtual particles” to explain force
at a distance, when space itself is actually the most
theoretically economical explanation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, I agree, that if you are going to start
with the assumption that space is nothing, empty, then your
approach is about the best one can do. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But it is not requisite that we constrain
our thinking just because many others have a particular
concept. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I feel one of the obstacles which has
prevented our further progress, and caused physics to become
more stagnant in the last century, is this concept that space
is empty. For using that approach, leads to the unexplainable,
or to “magical” explanations, instead of sound logical cause
and effect.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Warmest Regards<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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 class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, August 06, 2017 10:16 AM<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>Dear Chip,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>thank you for your detailed information. My approach is
indeed a bit different and I would like to explain where and
why.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>You refer a lot of the phenomena to properties of space. That
is something I do not. I have just finished reading a book
which explains, in which way Einstein during his whole life
has attempted to explain physical phenomena as properties of
the space. He even tried to develop a universal field theory
(a GTE) in this way. He did not have success. - I try to do
the opposite, so to develop physical models under the
assumption that space is nothing than emptiness. One specific
physical property which is normally related to space, the
speed of light, is in my view the speed of all (massless)
exchange particles which permanently move at the speed of
light. Why are they doing it? I have a quite simple model for
this, but even then it is too extensive to present it now at
this place.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Most of the facts which you have addressed in the following
are explained by my (2-particle) model.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>At first the unresolved question why an electron (which is
assumed to be smaller than 10<sup>-18</sup> m) can have a
magnetic moment and a spin having the known values: QM says
merely that this cannot be explained by visualisation, as it
is a QM topic. So, not explained. My model explains it
quantitatively.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Further points:<br>
<br>
o particle-wave: the particle has an alternating field
around, which fulfils the requirements in this question<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>o the mass of any lepton and any quark is correctly given by
the size of the particle. There is only one parameter free for
the corresponding formula, which is h*c (so nothing new)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>o the magnetic moment and the spin of all leptons and all
quarks is also quantitatively explained by this model, no
further free parameters needed<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>o the relation <i>E=hv </i> follows from this model for
leptons, for quarks, and surprisingly also for photons. So it
is according to my model not a property of the space but of
the model. This can be another indication that the photon is a
particle<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>o the relativistic dilation follows immediately from this
model, no further free parameters needed<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>o the relativistic increase of mass at motion follows
directly from this model, no further free parameters needed<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>o the relativistic equation <i>E=mc<sup>2</sup> </i>
follows from the model, no further free parameters needed<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>o the dynamical mass of the photon follows from the model
even though not all properties of the photon are explained by
the model. But also the relation <i>E=hv</i> follows
formally also for the photon.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>o energy conservation is in my view not a general property
of the physical world (as it is violated in the case of
exchange particles) but also this is a consequence of the set
up of a particle as described by this model. So the saying
that something is a "consequence of energy in space" is not
reflected by the physical reality<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I think that it is a reasonable requirement to judge physical
models by asking for <u>quantitative</u> results of a model.
During my time working on models and participating in the
according conferences I have seen so many elegant looking
models that I did not find a better criterion for looking
deeper into a model than looking for results, which can be
compared to measurements.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>As an introduction I refer again to my web site <a
href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.ag-physics.org/rmass</a> .<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>This was hopefully not too confusing (?)!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Albrecht<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 04.08.2017 um 17:47 schrieb Chip
Akins:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Albrecht and Chandra<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If you don’t mind I would like to join
this discussion on the nature of light.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This has been an area of study for me,
also for decades, as Chandra has mentioned.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But still, it is not so easy to resolve
this issue.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In this discussion group, many have made
good points on both sides of this discussion.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The best analysis I have been able to
make of the experimental data so far, seems to indicate that
light often acts like particles when reacting with
particles, and acts like waves when propagating through
space.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As Chandra has pointed out, it is
possible that light is a wave and the quantization we notice
is induced by the particles (dipoles made of charges from
particles).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The underlying cause for action is what I
feel we have to look for. If energy behaves in a specific
manner when confined within a particle, it is due to the
properties of space. Which is to say that the rules which
govern the quantization of energy in particles are rules
imposed by the properties of space. So if those rules exist
in space in order to cause particles of mass, it would
follow that some of the same rules (since these rules are
part of space) might govern the way energy behaves in light.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As we analyze the available data <i>E=hv
</i>becomes evident. This is a set of boundary conditions
imposed on the behavior of energy in space. But <i>E=hv </i>applies
to the energy in light. The energy in particles is better
characterized by <i>E=hv/2</i>. And the frequency <i>v</i>
in particles of mass is <i>2v</i> the frequency in light.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It occurs to me that the NIW property
which Chandra has rediscovered could be due to the simple
preservation of momentum, or it could be due to the
point-like localization of the “energy” at the origin of
what we call a photon.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, I am still trying to sort all this
out. But given the information which is known, it currently
feels to me that we should consider that space imposes a set
of rules on the behavior of energy in space.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If we follow the concept that space is a
tension field, then we must also realize that in that model,
energy must PULL on space, in order for us to sense that <i>E=hv</i>.
This is specifically why we would see that more energetic
particles are <b>smaller particles</b>. And following that
premise to a logical conclusion, light would almost have to
be a quantized wave packet.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have found remarkable agreement between
Albrecht’s math and my research, but I have come to these
equations using a totally different approach, and I do not
think the two massless particle explanation for the electron
is the most instructive way to envision this particle.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My view is more similar to Chandra’s view
that space is a tension field, and particles are made of
energy (which is pulling on this tension field, causing
displacements,) which propagate at the speed of light. But
that premise seems to me to require that the reaction of
space to energy sets up oscillatory boundary conditions,
making more energetic particles smaller, and quantizing all
transverse propagation of energy in space. This means that
I currently feel that photons exist. But I am willing to
entertain alternate suggestions.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <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+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Roychoudhuri, Chandra<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, August 03, 2017 5:09 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion <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><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Albrecht: Let me start by
quoting your concluding statement:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><i><span style="font-size:13.5pt">“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.”</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">The implied meaning to me is
that I have proposed a model that is totally
irreconcilable to your model of the universe. My book,
“Causal Physics: Photon by Non-Interaction of Waves” CRC,
2014) has given better explanations for most of the
optical phenomena based upon this re-discovered
NIW-property of all waves; which I have also summarized
many times in this forum. See the last paragraph to
appreciate why my mental logic was forced to accept</span>
the “<span style="font-size:13.5pt">Complex Tension Field”
holds 100% of the cosmic energy. I understand that it is a
radical departure from the prevailing “successful”
theories. However, it makes a lot of mutually congruent
sense even for some cosmological phenomena.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Differences in our opinions
are OK. That is the purpose of this forum. Further, I
would not dare to claim that my model of the universe is
THE correct one; or even the best one for the present! I
am open to enriching my thinking by learning from other
models. This is the key reason why I have been investing
decades of my time to re-energize the enquiring minds of
many through (i) organizing special publications, (ii)
special conferences and this (iii) web-based open forum.
Because, I, alone, simply cannot solve the culturally and
historically imposed tendency of believing what appears to
be currently working knowledge, as the final knowledge.
Presently, this is happening in all spheres of human
theories (knowledge), whether meant for Nature Engineering
(physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) and Social Engineering
(politics, economics, religions, etc.). </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">I also believe that we are
all “blind people”, modeling the Cosmic Elephant based on
our individual perceptions and self-congruent logical
intelligence. We now need to keep working to develop some
“logical connectivity” to bring out some form of
“conceptual continuity” between our different and imagined
descriptions of the Cosmic Elephant. Finding working
logics behind persistent, but logical evolution, in nature
cannot be resolved by democratic consensus. Further, we
are in a position to declare our current understanding as
the final laws of nature. The working rules in nature has
been set many billions of years before our modern Gurus
started defining the creator of the universe as various
forms of gods. None of our major messiahs have ever
alerted us that we must develop the technology to travel
to planets in distant stars before the earth is vaporized
due to the eventual arrival of Solar Warming due to its
evolution into a Red Giant! Fortunately, some of our
foresighted engineers have already started to develop the
early experimental steps towards that vision.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">However much you may dislike
“philosophy” (methodology of thinking, or epistemology);<b><i>
it is the key platform where we can mingle our ideas
to keep generating something better and better and
better. </i></b>That has been the entire history of
human evolution. Except, human species have now become too
self-centered and too arrogant to care for the biosphere.
We are now virtually a pest in the biosphere. Scientific
epistemology that is totally disconnected from our
sustainability would be, eventually, a path to our own
extinction. Our epistemology must be grounded to
sustainability for our own collective wellbeing. All the
accomplishments, from the ancient times, then from
Galileo, Newton, then from Einstein, Heisenberg, and then,
all the way to recent times, would not mean an iota to our
grand-grand-grand kids if the Global warming takes a
decisive irreversible slide! None other than Einstein
pronounced in 1947:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><i><span style="font-size:13.5pt">“Science without
epistemology is — insofar as it is thinkable at all — </span></i><b><i><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;color:#C00000">primitive and
muddled.</span></i></b><i><span
style="font-size:13.5pt"> ”</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">This is why I have started
promoting the overarching concept, “The Urgency of
Evolution <b><i>Process </i></b>Congruent Thinking”. The
“Process” is connected to engineering (practical)
thinking. It is not some grandiose and complex approach
like mathematics behind the “String Theory”, which only a
limited number of people with mathematically inclined
brains can understand and participate after dedicating at
least a decade of their professional lives.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">The recognition of the
importance of “Evolution Process Congruent Thinking” is
trivially simple. What has been the basic urge common to
all species, from bacteria to humans? (i) Keep striving to
do better than our current best and (ii) live forever
pragmatically through our progenies. For knowledgeable
humans, it means to assure the sustainability of our
biosphere that collectively nurtures mutually dependent
all lives. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Finally, I need to
underscore the origin of my concept of Complex Tension
Field (CTF). This was necessary to accommodate (i)
constant velocity of light in every part of the universe
and (ii) Optical Doppler Shifted spectra from atoms in any
star in any galaxy, including our Sun. All atoms, whether
in earth lab or in a distant star corona, are experiencing
the same stationary CTF. But, the trigger point to
conceive CTF came from my re-discovery of the
Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW); which is already built
into our current math. However, the inertia of our
cultural tendency is to continue believing in non-causal
postulate of wave-particle duality from the erroneous
assumption that Superposition Principle is an observable
phenomenon. It is not. The observable phenomenon is the
causal and measurable Superposition Effect reported
through physical transformation in detectors. My book,
“Causal Physics: Photon Model by Non-Interaction of
Waves”, is the result of some 50 years of wide variety of
optical experiments. By my own philosophy, it is
definitely not infallible. However, it would be hard to
neglect, at least in the field of optical sciences.
Please, go to the web site to down load my recent Summer
School course summarizing my book. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt"><a
href="http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">It summarizes the breadth of
my book as applied to optical sciences. [Indian paperback
is already published. I am now working on a Chinese
edition and then convert to Senior level optics text.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Sorry, Albrecht, for such a
long reply.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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>
<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> Thursday, August 03, 2017 2:30 PM<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><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Chandra,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">The conversion of particles
is an unresolved question of present physics. QM is giving
descriptions - they have generation operators - but 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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">I think that this is the
difference between our models.</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"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Am
01.08.2017 um 23:55 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:</span><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: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. </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 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).</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">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.</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">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.</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">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.</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: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> Tuesday, August 01, 2017 4:30 PM<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><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 thought that I have written 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" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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>
<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" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">Which kind of changes do
you expect?</span><br>
<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" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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>
<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" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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>
<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" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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>
<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" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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>
<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" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<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" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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: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="59">
<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
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="474">
<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" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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>
<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>