<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Bell is right, so is Albrecht</p>
<p>but the preferred reference frame is your own- its so obvious -
you see empty space as another observable made up inside your
greater self you are in the center of your own space , eastern
philosophers have said this for years , centuries <br>
</p>
<p>The only real challenge is to build an engineering level theory
that incorporates a proper accounting of our own and final
measuring instrument, the self deception is called Maya , the
average consensus reality Man simply lives under and cannnot see
alternative explanations that are simpler and more encompassing.<br>
</p>
<p>I have the lead article in the Aug Issue of the Journal of
Consciousness Studies , most prodigious Journal on the topic. "
Rose tinted Glasses Effect" discusses exactly the problem sir a.
Eddington warned us about - the more we dig into nature the more
we find the construction rules of our own processes of
investigation.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/16/2017 12:30 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5f35161a-8080-6d33-6fd0-f7c4090cb6b1@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Dear Chip:</p>
<p>my remarks in your text below.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 14.08.2017 um 17:05 schrieb Chip
Akins:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:00a001d3150e$cdc2d6a0$694883e0$@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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
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.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;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle28
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle29
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle30
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle31
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle32
{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;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:458190535;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1515968936 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is such an interesting discussion.
Thank you for explaining your views in a compelling manner,
and for supporting your views with logical arguments. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We grope around, kind of in the dark,
looking for logic and reason, so we can make sense of the
amazing puzzle of the universe.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In that quest, let me share with you some
of the thoughts I have had, some of the reasoning behind my
view of these puzzles.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To begin, the concept that particles are
made of energy is very interesting to me. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Short interrupt: How is
energy defined? -> Energy is the ability to do work. So, if
there is energy somewhere, there must be a mechanism to transfer
this energy to some object to give this object energy. Now my
question: how can energy exist by itself as an abstract
phenomenon so that some object can pick up this energy? There
should be a mechanism, and with your position you should
describe this mechanism.<br>
<br>
On the other hand, if energy is always connected to an object,
i.e. it is a property of an object, it can easily be transferred
to another object by the application of forces. That is
understandable to me, so I prefer this approach.</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:00a001d3150e$cdc2d6a0$694883e0$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><br>
</o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My thoughts are that the simple,
elementary particles, like the electron, which displays no
internal structure of other particles in any experiment we
have been able to conduct, is then probably a direct
manifestation, of how energy forms particles. I have been
finally able to put together a model of the electron which
displays all the properties of the electron, and is
comprised of displacements of space (the result of energy
pulling on space) which propagate in a confined transverse
manner, to constitute the principally spherical electron.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">For me an interesting
question is how something abstract - like energy - can form
something real - like a particle. (Perhaps I need more details
to understand it.)<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:00a001d3150e$cdc2d6a0$694883e0$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><o:p></o:p></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><o:p> </o:p></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The reason I mention this model, is that
it yields the properties of the electron. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">1.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]-->½
hbar spin when measured from any direction, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">2.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]-->the
exact electric charge of the electron, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">3.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]-->the
magnetic moment of the electron, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">4.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]-->including
the magnetic moment anomaly (accurate to 10 (or more)
decimal places), <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">5.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]-->the
rest mass of the electron, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">6.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]-->the
inertial and gravitational mass of the electron, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">7.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]-->a
gravity field (as do photons in the same sort of model), <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">8.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]-->Point-like
appearance in many types of experiments<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">9.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]-->The
zitter frequency of the electron,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">10.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]--> de
Broglie’s waves are generated by this model,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">11.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]-->The
model produces a “pilot wave” (for photons also),<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">12.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]-->The
ability to simply derive E=mc^2 from the model.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">13.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]-->Energy
must be added to move the electron (which causes an internal
mass increase)</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">This is an impressive
list of facts and properties. But to judge it, it is of course
necessary to have your model as a <i>quantitative </i>one, so
that the single points can be checked. So, go ahead! - My
model anyway does all this - and quantitatively by only assuming
c and h as constants - as I have described it on my site "The
origin of mass" and the sites </font><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">referenced there</font><font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:00a001d3150e$cdc2d6a0$694883e0$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">While some of the listed properties are
not of direct relevance to our discussion so far, the number
of properties which agree with experiment may indicate that
the model is getting closer to a model of the real electron.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am sure you can see now, why it is that
I am of a different view than you, with regards to some of
the fundamentals. Like any invested scientist, you and I
have been able to find some answers by pursuing different
perspectives of the same puzzles, and we each treasure what
we have gained, so yes I am a bit psychologically and
philosophically invested, as I am sure you are.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">If I look at your list
above, my model also yields all what you claim. So, why do you
say that it shows that we have different results?</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:00a001d3150e$cdc2d6a0$694883e0$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now to address some of your comments:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">You commented:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“<i>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.”<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><o:p> </o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">While it is quite true that the momentum
of massive objects can be related to (and attributed to)
inertia, it is not likely accurate to say that, from this
alone, we can logically conclude that momentum cannot also
cause inertia. <b>We see many examples in physics of
reciprocal relationships between causes and effects.</b>
Momentum and Inertia may also be reciprocal. One can cause
the other. We have no evidence which excludes this.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">What we can say at
least is that there is a strict correlation between inertia and
momentum. The rest is a question of the model we are using -
But I go a step further saying that inertia and momentum are
notions for a physically identical fact, we just use the
different notions for practical reasons depending on the
application.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:00a001d3150e$cdc2d6a0$694883e0$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif"><o:p></o:p></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Momentum is a type of force which tends
to keep an object in motion. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Inertia is also such a force which tends
to keep an object in motion. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In some ways they are names for the same
effect. The difference arises when we introduce the concept
of mass. If there is a mechanism, for example, which gives
a photon momentum, do we then say that the photon has mass?
Some have done this, but it is not strictly the same as the
mass of an object, for we cannot bring a photon to rest, nor
can we accelerate it. Without getting into semantics
arguments, I would suggest that we call this property of a
photon “momentum”, instead of “inertia”, because the photon
does not behave like a massive particle or object.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If you agree with this line of reasoning,
then we could also agree that the photon is an example of
momentum without mass.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Even if you disagree, bear with me for a
moment, while we discuss the implications of a photon having
momentum without mass. If the photon, a massless, light
speed particle, has momentum, then we have an example of
momentum which may indicate that momentum is more
fundamental than mass, and could actually be a cause for
mass. Even if you disagree with this concept please keep it
in mind, for it may prove useful in the future.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
But perhaps semantics at this moment. How is inertia defined?
-> Inertia is the resistance against a change of the speed of
an object. Now this is not necessarily restricted to the amount of
speed, but can also mean the direction of the speed vector. And
then: the speed vector of a photon can be changed and this change
needs a force, and in the general case the force transfers energy.
In this respect the situation is not different from other
particles. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:00a001d3150e$cdc2d6a0$694883e0$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>But given the previous few
paragraphs, I must disagree with you about inertia and
momentum. I feel that there is no proof that momentum cannot
cause mass or inertia, in fact I find significant evidence
that momentum does in fact cause both mass and therefore
inertia.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
Then there must be a mechanism causing momentum. Which is this
mechanism? If you have this opinion you should be able do describe
it. - For inertia I have a basic mechanism which only needs the
finiteness of c and the existence of binding forces, nothing more.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:00a001d3150e$cdc2d6a0$694883e0$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(In the paper I mentioned on Gravity, it
was requisite to also include a discussion of the creation
of fundamental momentum as a natural consequence of the
propagation of transverse displacements in the tension
medium of space. I will share a copy when that is paper is
ready.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This issue regarding gravity is another
significant reason that I feel that momentum is fundamental,
and is created by the propagation mechanism of transverse
displacements. This is because, with momentum created in
this manner, which in turn creates mass when those
propagations are suitably confined, the <b>force</b> of
gravity comes from the energy (mass) within the particle.
Gravity is then a refraction of the propagation of the
displacements within the particle. All particles have the
same refraction (acceleration) in a gravitational field, all
objects would fall at the same rate, but a more massive
object (an object which contains more of this propagating
energy) would generate a greater force in the gravity field.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
You say:"... with momentum created in this manner ...". So,
please, in which manner is momentum created? And earlier you say:
" ... I feel that momentum is fundamental ...". Isn't this a
logical conflict? Either "fundamental" or "created" ...<br>
<br>
And "momentum creates mass" and from "this mass comes force"?
Which physics is going on there?<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:00a001d3150e$cdc2d6a0$694883e0$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So there are many solutions, which become
easy and evident using such an approach, too many for me to
reject the concept that momentum may be more fundamental
than mass or inertia. There are too many clues, too much
supporting evidence, that this is the correct premise, for
me to conclude otherwise.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
Form the preceding I do not see how it works. And particularly:
how does it work <i>quantitatively</i>? Where are the equations
for it?
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:00a001d3150e$cdc2d6a0$694883e0$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p>Regarding conservation of
energy: I understand that you must reject the fundamental
conservation of energy in order for your model to remain
viable. And then reconstruct a higher level cause for it,
at the particle level, so that it can remain intact in the
macro, observable world. But I think this is an area for
some careful consideration. Do we change (reinterpret) the
evidence so that it fits our models? We may do that, but it
seems we have to be very careful, because the objective is
to model the real universe.<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
My logic is the other way around. I can see from my model why
energy is conserved - on the level of an elementary particle or
above that. And following this consequence, I do not have a
problem with exchange particles.<br>
<br>
And, BTW, quantum mechanics are using exchange particles, they
have introduced it. And they have the position that energy
conservation is fundamental. So, they do not see a conflict here.
It is just me to suspect this conflict. Which, however, does not
exist in my model.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:00a001d3150e$cdc2d6a0$694883e0$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">You Commented:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“<i>There have been many ideas in the
past to have a theory of an ether, but those all have
caused great problems…”<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On the contrary, the “great problems” you
mention above don’t seem to exist.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>John Stewart Bell said</b>.”<i> I
would say that the cheapest resolution is something like
going back to relativity as it was before Einstein, when
people like Lorentz and Poincar´e thought that there was
an aether – a preferred frame of reference – but that our
measuring instruments were distorted by motion in such a
way that we could not detect motion through the aether.
Now, in that way you can imagine that there is a preferred
frame of reference, and in this preferred frame of
reference (some) things do go faster than light”…” Behind
the apparent Lorentz invariance of the phenomena, there is
a deeper level which is not Lorentz invariant, a
pre-Einstein position of Lorentz and Poincar´e, Larmor and
Fitzgerald, was perfectly coherent, and is not
inconsistent with relativity theory. The idea that there
is an aether, and these Fitzgerald contractions and Larmor
dilations occur, and that as a result the instruments do
not detect motion through the aether – that is a perfectly
coherent point of view.</i>”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have found the same things which Bell
expressed. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A perfectly coherent model. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
What John Bell says here is exactly what my position is. In my
last mail I have said that I believe the existence of an ether of
the kind that there is an absolute frame of reference. I do not
see here that Bell assumes space to be filled with something, a
property or a material. - (Where did you find this text of Bell?)<br>
<br>
My remark that "ether" has caused problems in the history is
directed to an ether model which assumes that space is filled with
something, whatever it may be.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:00a001d3150e$cdc2d6a0$694883e0$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A model in which the contractions and
dilations, Lorentz Transformation, MUST occur due to the
nature of matter, and of energy. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I this model, the correct value of the
force of electric charge is easily calculated. Gravity is
easily understood, including the equivalence mechanism for
gravitational and inertial mass.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
In the Lorentzian relativity (i.e. SRT) there are two mechanisms
fundamental. One is the fact that fields contract at motion. This
has nothing to do with energy or other influences. (And it can be
explained best if exchange particles are assumed.) The other one
is the fact that there is a permanent motion at c in elementary
particles, which causes dilation. This motion is what Schrödinger
has called "Zitterbewegung". He found that the Dirac function can
only work on the basis of this assumption.<br>
<br>
How do you calculate the force of the electric charge
quantitatively? <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:00a001d3150e$cdc2d6a0$694883e0$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, yes, I will continue to refrain from
accepting exchange particles for the creation of charge, or
the Higgs mechanism for the creation of mass. It seem much
more fully understandable, much more elegant and simple, to
take this other specific view of the causes for what we
observe. That view is that space is a fairly simple tension
medium, and fundamental energy pulls on space to displace
space. This does not address what it is that comprises
space itself, only that there must be at least two
components which constitute space. This does mean that space
has a set of properties which are universal. Identifying and
quantifying those properties are part of my current work.
As to what space is made of, unknown at this time. But we
have to take this discovery like peeling an onion, one layer
at a time.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
I am very curious about your quantitative description of the
tension field which as you say fills the space. - But one
correction: exchange particles are not assumed to create charge.
They are emitted from charges and mediate the force between
charges. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:00a001d3150e$cdc2d6a0$694883e0$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you again for this stimulating
discussion.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
I think we are not so different as it looks like. So, let's go on!<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:00a001d3150e$cdc2d6a0$694883e0$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
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 14, 2017 3:10 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
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<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">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 10.08.2017 um 22:17 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">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 [</span><a
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, August 10, 2017 1:59 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> </span><a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><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: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>
<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">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><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">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).</span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#2F5597">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><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">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. </span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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">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><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">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</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif">) . <br>
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt">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.</span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<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">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><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">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.</span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#2F5597"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#2F5597">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><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">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?</span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#2F5597"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#2F5597">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><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Any
details available?</span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#2F5597"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#2F5597">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><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">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.<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#2F5597"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#2F5597">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><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">I will be
curious to see your paper</span>.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#2F5597">Nice
discussion!!!</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#2F5597"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#2F5597">Chip</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Still
exciting!<br>
Albrecht</span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<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 [</span><a
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, August 07, 2017 2:15 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> </span><a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><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 [</span><a
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, August 06, 2017 10:16 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> </span><a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><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>
<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 [</span><a
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">]
<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 </span><a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></span></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><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><a href="http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/</span></a><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 [</span><a
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, August 03, 2017 2:30 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> </span><a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><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 [</span><a
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">]<b>On
Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, August 01, 2017 4:30
PM<br>
<b>To:</b> </span><a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><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 [</span><a
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">]<b>On
Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, July 28, 2017
11:55 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> </span><a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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 [</span><a
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">]<b>On
Behalf Of </b>Wolfgang Baer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 26,
2017 12:40 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> </span><a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><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"><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"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt">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</span></a><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>
<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>
<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"
alt="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.
</span><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="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#4453EA">www.avast.com</span></a><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#41424E">
</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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<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:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>