<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<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">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">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">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>