<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font size="-1">Dear Chip,</font></p>
<p><font size="-1">I think that we are coming to a point where we
have to argue / decide the permanent question which theory is
the easiest one and needs the smallest number of assumptions. I
shall try to apply this to our discussion points in the
following.</font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">Am 10.08.2017 um 22:17 schrieb Chip Akins:</font><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:015c01d31215$abb27990$03176cb0$@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;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle29
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle30
{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">Thank you once again for some thought
provoking comments.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I will also reply in the body of the text
below.<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 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> Thursday, August 10, 2017 1:59 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:10.0pt">Dear Chip,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt">thank you for careful reading.
But your objections are in my view the result of specific
preconditions in your view which are not necessary. I shall
respond within your text.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Am
08.08.2017 um 19:53 schrieb Chip Akins:</span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you for your thoughtful response.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A few items occur to me while reading
your message.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Exchange particles are a difficult
concept, especially if space is empty. For if space is
empty then there is no causal mechanism which can tell a
charged particle that another charge is in its vicinity.
Therefore how do they know to “exchange photons” if space is
completely empty? We know that a charged particle at rest
is NOT continually radiating photons. We could imagine that
it is continually radiating and absorbing photons to
maintain its energy level, but then we would be able to
detect such radiation, and we do not detect any such
radiation from a charged particle at rest.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">The concept
of exchange particles which I know (and so far have borrowed
from QM) assumes that a charge is permanently radiating
exchange particles to all directions. As they are understood
to be particles they can fly through empty space without any
problem. And you are right that the radiation of exchange
particles is a permanent violation of the conservation of
energy. So, I think that conservation of energy is not a
basic law of nature but a consequence of the set up of
particles. For example, my particle model is built in a way
that it conserves energy, But that is, as I said, a
consequence of the configuration, not at all a general law.
And further, as a consequence there cannot be energy by
itself somewhere in space but energy is a property of an
object. There must be objects so that we have energy.</span>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext">This conservation of energy issue
is not a concern, and energy is conserved, if we view
space as a tension medium instead of empty. With that one
simple premise, we then have conservation of energy, and a
causal explanation of specifically how particles possess
energy, and how fields possess energy. I feel the
conservation of energy is crucial and is probably a law of
physics. It seems that to ignore such a concept violates
cause and effect and then becomes “not physics” as you
have stated regarding other topics. I think therefore
there must be energy so that we can have objects.</span></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font size="-1">Historically
the understanding that energy is conserved is quite young. It
was found in the middle of the 19th century by the observation
that mechanical energy is converted into heat energy so that a
conservation could be assumed. This seems important to me
because if <i>logic </i>would demand this conservation, then I
think that it would have been detected much earlier.<br>
<br>
Anyway if we see it as an advantage of a theory that as few as
possible laws are taken as fundamental and as many as possible
laws as deducible, then I conclude that a theory that deduces
this conservation of energy should be superior. I understand
this as an argument in favour of my model.<br>
<br>
And one advantage for my assumption that the conservation of
energy is a property of the configuration within particles is
that with this assumption I do not see any arguments in
disfavour of exchange particles (which is of course a model, not
necessarily final understanding).</font><br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:015c01d31215$abb27990$03176cb0$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Another problem with “exchange
particles”, specifically photons as exchange particles for
electric charge, is the phase continuity problem. The idea,
as I understand it, is that the frequency and phase of the
exchange photon determines whether it pushes or pulls on the
affected particle. But charge is constant and very
predictable at any given distance, while phase would change
with distance. We simply do not see the kind of behavior in
electric charge we would see if it were mediated by photons.
I have tried to simulate how it is that photons could
provide the force we sense as electric charge, at any
distance, without anomaly, and there just does not seem to
be any way that can work without invoking some magical and
unseen, anti-causal, mechanism.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">You address
an important problem here: the exchange particle emitted by
a positive charge must be different from an exchange
particle emitted by a negative charge. I have asked several
theoreticians of main stream physics just this question. The
result was a bit funny. Some of them were confused and did
not know how to answer, some said that there is never only
one exchange particle but always a collection of them and
the configuration within this collection tell the other
charge whether they come form a positive or a negative one.
- I for myself do not think that this is a workable
mechanism. But I like better the idea that these so called
photons are not the same ones as the normal photons carrying
energy, but they are another kind of particle. - I agree
that main stream is propagating an inconsistent model here.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext">Due to these problems with
exchange particles, I began a few decades ago, looking for
some logical alternate explanation. This is what led me
to explore the possibility that we had gotten it wrong,
and that space might not be empty. That study has been
more fruitful than I could have imagined. The approach I
have been suggesting makes things much simpler to model
and understand. While that in itself does not mean this
approach is the right approach, there are many other
supporting clues and evidence which become apparent as
this avenue is explored. One reason I currently prefer
this approach is the fortunate effect such an approach has
in removing the host of “magical” explanations we have
become so accustomed to accepting without supporting cause
or proofs.</span></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font size="-1">To see
this I need more knowledge about your approach. Particularly the
property of a non-empty space. What is in it? There have been
many ideas in the past to have a theory of an ether, but those
all have caused great problems to my knowledge. So please give
details.<br>
<br>
Of course we all do not want "magical" explanations. But that is
a matter of judgement, not of facts. </font><br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:015c01d31215$abb27990$03176cb0$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is also quite interesting to me that
you hold Lorentzian relativity to be more correct than
Special relativity, but reject the foundation upon which
Lorentz formulated his relativity. His concept, as best I
can determine from historical accounts, was that space was a
medium, and that the Pythagorean relationships he formulated
were due to the fixed speed of light and energy propagation
in the medium. I also believe that Lorentzian relativity is
more accurate than Special relativity, but I believe that it
is more accurate due to a clear cause and effect, which is
only present if space is a medium.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Lorentz did
not understand space as a medium. There was an interesting
and detailed discussion between Einstein and Lorentz about
the necessity of an ether. Einstein did not want an ether as
we know, but Lorentz found it necessary to explain
acceleration and rotation (which is GRT). And in this
discussion it became very clear that Lorentz did not want
anything more than an absolute frame of reference.
Einstein's argument was that the equivalence of gravity and
acceleration makes this unnecessary; which I find difficult
logic. - The basic difference between the concept of
Einstein and the one of Lorentz regarding SRT are two
points: Einstein says that space contracts at motion,
Lorentz says that fields contract at motion. The measurable
consequences of both are the same. For dilation Einstein
says that time slows down whereas Lorentz says that
oscillations slow down; again there is no difference
regarding measurements. - I like the Lorentzian way because
it means physics whereas Einstein's way means mathematical
abstractions. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext">That is interesting, My reading
of all I could get of Lorentz’s work, has left me with
the impression that he actually preferred a fixed frame
in a medium of space.</span></span><br>
</p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Can you please
give a reference for a text which gave you this impression about
the ether of Lorentz? If you look at the logic of his deduction of
relativity, he only seems to need the assumption that the speed of
light is defined with respect to some fixed reference frame,
nothing more. - I can give as a reference a book:<br>
[Ludwik_Kostro]_Einstein_and_the_ether(BookFi.org.pdf</font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font size="-1" face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">) . <br>
</font><font size="-1">Ludwik Kostro is a Polish professor for
theoretical physics who has worked many years about the topic of
ether. In this book he shows in detail the discussions of
Einstein also with Lorentz about ether, and that shows quite
clearly the position of Lorentz about it.</font><br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:015c01d31215$abb27990$03176cb0$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes. Gravity is different than the other
forces. And it is a warping of the fabric of space as
Einstein imagined with General Relativity. The force of
gravity is not generated by the gravitational “field”, for
the gravitational “field” is simply a gradient in space
which causes refraction of energy propagating through the
gradient. The force we feel from that refraction is actually
created by the momentum of the energy circulating within
fermionic particles. So the force is related to the energy
content (mass) of the object which is in the refracting
field. In this way, the momentum of the energy circulating
within the particle causes both inertial mass and
gravitational mass. So there is a causal mechanism, which
makes gravitational and inertial mass appear equivalent, in
a specific manner.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">What is a
"gradient of space"? Space is something which we cannot
measure physically, so it is merely a mathematical concept.
The reduction of c in a gravitational field, so in the
vicinity of an object, is clearly measurable (even though
not explained by saying this). But if we assume that forces
are mediated by exchange particles, it is easily
understandable that the interaction of any kind of exchange
particles disturbs the path of a light-like particle and so
reduces its speed. More is not necessary. - You say: "The
momentum of the energy circulation within the particle
causes both inertial mass and gravitational mass". To my
understanding momentum does not cause inertial mass but is
identical to inertial mass, just understood in a different
context. And what is gravitational mass? Which mechanism
causes a mass to be attracted by another mass? I have never
heart an argument why this should be. The reduction of c by
exchange particles is a possible mechanism and so serves as
an argument.<br>
<br>
And the good point in my view of gravity is that this
concept is extremely easier to handle. I have as a
demonstration listed (from a textbook) the deduction of the
Schwarzschild solution via Einstein. It is a sequence of
> 80 equations which need Riemannian geometry (i.e. a
curved 4-dim. space) whereas the reduction of the
Schwarzschild solution by the relativity of Lorentz and the
use of refraction needs about a dozen equations of school
mathematics (so Euclidean geometry) and it yields the same
result. Isn't this a good argument?</span> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext">A gradient of space is a gradient
in the tension field of space caused by the displacement
of space which is in turn caused by energy of particles.
Much as displacement caused a gradient in an elastic
solid. Refraction of propagating transverse displacements
in a medium is quite naturally caused by such a gradient,
and we have many examples of such refraction.</span></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font size="-1">To
understand this I need more information about what this tension
field is. Up to now I am afraid that it could be very
complicated, which would not be good.<br>
<br>
You also say at the end that gravitation is caused by the energy
of particles (one could also say: by the mass of particles). In
my view this is not the case but every elementary particles
contributes equally to the gravitational field. This is
unfamiliar, but I do not know any experiment which is in
conflict with this assumption. On the contrary, there are two
points which could be in favour of it: One is the fact that
every object has the same gravitational acceleration independent
of its mass. This fact was never understood and is said to be
one of the great mysteries of present physics. The other benefit
is that this assumption explains the rotation curves of rotating
galaxies. They are, as you surely know, presently "explained" by
the assumption of some mysterious Dark Matter, for which the
experimenters look since some time without any indication that
there is something like that. But with my assumption the photons
serve as this Dark Matter, and this is not only an idea but it
works quantitatively for precisely observed and measured
galaxies.</font><br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:015c01d31215$abb27990$03176cb0$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><span
style="color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><span
style="color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext">You say that exchange particles
explain gravity and that “more is not necessary” but
exchange particles themselves are unexplainable by any of
our existing physics, so I think more is necessary my
friend.</span></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Why are
exchange particles unexplainable? Their existence is kind of a
model as there are many, and this model does not need many
assumptions. Only the asumption that charges of any kind emit and
receive these particles and each interaction with an exchange
particle transfers a certain momentum - attracting or repelling -
in the direction where the e.p. comes. They are mass-less and move
always at c. And at emission they move uniformly into all
directions. Which explains the 1/r<sup>2</sup> law of forces in a
simple and geometric way. For which there is to my knowledge no
other explanation available. - So, what is complicated or
unexplainable with this assumption?</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:015c01d31215$abb27990$03176cb0$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext">Regarding momentum, the force Fc
that you and I have discussed, plays a role in the
creation of momentum for the energy circulating within
particles. I can provide a fairly complete hypothesis for
this creation of momentum if you are interested, but it is
also based on the concept that space is a tension medium
and the energy causes a displacement of space by pulling
on space. </span></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Any details
available?</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:015c01d31215$abb27990$03176cb0$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext">Once we can see how it is that
momentum is created by this force, we can then see why it
is that confined circulating momentum causes inertial mass
in fermions, but is just evident as momentum in photons.
Richard Gauthier has written a paper on how confined
momentum creates inertial mass. I have a slightly
different derivation but they are principally the same.</span></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">I know the
concept of Richard Gauthier as we have discussed this some time
ago. My objection is that momentum and mass have a common cause,
and that is inertia. One cannot explain inertia by momentum as
inertia is the cause of momentum. If there would be no inertia in
the world there would also be no momentum of the kind known. And I
do not know any explanation in physics for inertia except the
Higgs concept (which does not work as the Higgs field does not
exist) and my model which refers it to the finite propagation
speed of forces and which has precise quantitative results.</font><font
size="-1"><br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:015c01d31215$abb27990$03176cb0$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="-1"><span
style="color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="-1"><span
style="color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext">I am finishing up a paper on
gravity and will soon share this if you are interested in
looking at such a different approach for you own.</span></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font size="-1">I will be
curious to see your paper</font>.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:015c01d31215$abb27990$03176cb0$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Albrecht, thank you for your thoughtful
and intelligent discussion. While we do not agree on
certain aspects, the exchanges are definitely quite helpful
to me. I appreciate that.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">It is nice
to have this discussion with you. Thanks<br>
Albrecht<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext">Nice discussion!!!<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext">Chip</span></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Still exciting!<br>
Albrecht</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:015c01d31215$abb27990$03176cb0$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, August 07, 2017 2:15 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>Dear Chip,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>thank you for your response. - I think I have to give some
more comments about my model.<o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></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).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Regarding space as pure emptiness, you ask the question: "<span
style="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.</span>" 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. <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Best regards<br>
Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 06.08.2017 um 20:43 schrieb Chip
Akins:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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
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>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, August 06, 2017 10:16 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>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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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"> <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>
<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"> <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>