<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>As you know by now I think the "fixed frame" is always the frame
defined by the observer , which is always the 1st person you, you
cannot get out of yourself and in that sense makes this frame a
fixed frame. Each of us lives in our own space and refers all our
experiences and experimental results back to that space<br>
</p>
<p>WE must discuss my contention that we are always looking through
the coordinate frame which is the Hilbert space defined by our
detector arrays - the error in SR pictures is that they show the
observer riding along with a coordinate frame and than assume the
observer can see what is out there including clock dials and rod
lengths as though he were god outside the material looking in.
But the observer must be restricted to look at a TV monitor inside
the coordinate frame that displays the result of detector
interactions<br>
</p>
<p>Another issue regarding the elimination of the magnetic field. If
there are more than two charges moving in say three independent
directions I think there is no Lorenz transform that eliminates
the magnetic field for all the particles , Am I right on this? <br>
</p>
<p>wolf</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/5/2018 1:51 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:834802e2-75f7-df92-bd37-42953c4f2566@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Hi Chip,<br>
</p>
<p>Einstein used indeed later in his life the word "ether", but in
a different sense. He did not change his mind in the way that he
permanently and finally refused the understanding that there
exists a fixed frame in the world.</p>
<p>But in his view space has properties. One property is the known
assumption that space and space-time are curved. And Einstein
tried for the rest of his life to find and to define more
properties of the space in the expectation that the existence of
fields can be deduced from those properties. Up to the end of
his life he tried to find in this way a / the "Theory of
Everything". He was, as we know, not successful with it.</p>
<p>But he never gave up his denial of the possibility that there
is a fixed frame. (I refer here particularly to the book of
Ludwik Kostro, "Einstein and the Ether", where Kostro has
thoroughly investigated everything what Einstein has said and
published up to the end of his life.) <br>
</p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 05.03.2018 um 21:55 schrieb Chip
Akins:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:07a801d3b4c4$4acf84e0$e06e8ea0$@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:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
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:210265128;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1952207248 397949086 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-text:"\(%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:.75in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1027" />
</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">Gentlemen<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Later in Einstein’s career he <b>reversed
his opinion</b> about the “ether”.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As Einstein pointed out, “<i>There Is an
Important argument In favor of the hypothesis of the
ether. To deny the existence of the ether means, in the
last analysis, denying all physical properties to empty
space</i>”… and he said, “<i>the ether remains still
absolute because its influence on the inertia of bodies
and on the propagation of light is conceived as
independent of every kind of physical influence.</i>” <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But the physics community was already so
attached to the idea that space was empty that Einstein’s
later comments on the subject have been principally ignored.<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>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, March 05, 2018 2:32 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Wolfgang Baer <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><wolf@nascentinc.com></a>;
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>;
Roychoudhuri, Chandra <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu"
moz-do-not-send="true"><chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Foundational questions
Tension field stable particles<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>Wolf:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 02.03.2018 um 04:05 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>I see no conflict between our understanding of magnetism
and coriolis forces and both are interpretation that can
be created or not by the way we look at phenomena.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>WE start to disagree what I because we agree want to look
at the physics of the observer as an integral and
necessary part of how phenomena are perceived. And this is
where we should be focusing our discussion. What
assumptions are valid and what physics would we develop if
we change our assumptions?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>more comments added<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">... and some comments back.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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 3/1/2018 6:52 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>Wolf:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>my answers again in your text.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 01.03.2018 um 04:59 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>Albrecht:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>The Coriolis force as a surrogate for the Magnetic
force is a good example that shows we are talking
about ttwo different things. I was taught exactly what
you repeated below in Mr. Bray's physics class and did
not believe it then because when I take a ride on a
Merry-go-Round I feel a force that is real. Period.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">That is indeed correct. It is a real
force. If we have a hurricane on earth it is a result of
the Coriolis force and that is a real force. The point
is, however, that it is not a NEW force but the well
known Newtonian inertial force; just interpreted in a
different way.<br>
<br>
The same with magnetism. Also magnetism shows a real
force. And that force is the electric force, but also in
this case interpreted in a different way.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>OK</b><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>I do not care what you call it You can look at me
from many different angles and in many different ways
but the force I feel is real, <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes, it is real, but interpreted in a
different way.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>OK</b><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>What I am arguing and what I want you to be aware of
is that in the sentence "The Coriolis force is a
non-existent force." it is the name of the force that
may be the wrong name for the force I experience, but
the force is real.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">You are right, better wording would
be "it does not exist as a NEW force".<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>All the examples I've give and let me add the Lorenz
Force F= E*q + B xV , where V my velocity.You think
I am arguing but I am not arguing that by moving at
some velocity you can make B disappear in your
equation and by moving at another velocity you can
make V equal to zero in your equation. I am arguing
that you cannot make the phenomena disappear. No
matter how many theories you invent and how many
different names you invent. The phenomena, the force
I feel does not depend on your theory. I and the
situation I am in is an independent reality. All you
can do with Lorenz transformations is shift the name
of the force from magnatic to and additional Coulonb
component. Exactly the same way moving from
astationary observer at the center of the
Merry-go-Round shifts the name ov the force from
acceleration to Coreolis. Its the same force!<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">True, there is a force. But only
interpreted as something new or additional, which is not
the case.<br>
<br>
"To make magnetism disappear" does not mean that every
force disappears. It means that you can explain all what
you observe as Coulomb force.<br>
<br>
And one should be cautious in the practical case. In
daily physical practise we measure magnetism by use of a
magnetic dipole. But that is not the correct way.
Correct is to use an electric charge, measure the force
and compare it to the Coulomb force as visible from the
actual state of motion.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>OK</b><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
I recommend again at the "Veritasium" video. It shows
the situation in a good and correct way.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>Unless (and here is where I am trying to get us to
go) one begins to believe and evoke the principles of
quantum theory or its marcro-scopic extension which I
am trying to develop.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">All this has nothing to do with
quantum theory. It is one of the sources of QM that
physicists misinterpret classical physical processes,
lack an explanation and then divert to QM seeking for an
explanation, which is in those cases not needed. But
misleading.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>So we agree until we get to this
point</b><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>In those extensions the Newtonian, and Maxwellian
phenomena are true in the coordinate frame of the
observer BECAUSE the coordinate frame supplies the
space , now called Hilbert space in which those
phenomena are displayed to the observer. The observer
IS the coordinate frame and his observable phenomena
occur within the space defined by that coordinate
frame. Everything you see is seen in a space you
create within the material from which you are built. <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">I personally do not see the space as
being created by anything. I keep my naive view that
space is nothing than emptiness and has no extra
properties, Euclidean geometry applies and is
sufficient.<br>
<br>
Should I ever encounter an argument that this is not
sufficient, I am prepared to change my mind. But up to
now it was not necessary.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Does the fact that you simply are
not recognizing that it is your first person perspective
in which "empty" space appears that is your fundamental
experience and any assumption that such experience is
due to a real space is Theory. Do you not ask how is it
that I am able to create the sensations I have. Are you
and your experiences not part of the reality and
therefore must be explained as part of your if you are
to have a comprehensive theory. AND there is no
explanation in classic or relativistic physics for the
consciousness of the observer. One must begin to think
in Quantum terms</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">We know that our brain gives us wrong or
biased information about this world. Because our brains have
developed to help us to survive, not to have insights. But
as a guide to help us to survive it can only function if our
understanding of the world is not too far away from the way
as the world in fact is. <br>
<br>
As far as I can see, as long as people try to understand
this world they (at least the scientists) know the problem
that our brain and our senses are misleading us. So this
general problem of understanding is in the mind of the
people and was in their mind at least since the time of
ancient Greece. The only question is how to start with an
according investigation. One way to cope with this problem
is and was to build measurement tools which give us results
independent of our mood. These tools are continuously
developed. And we are of course not at the end of this
development. But we can only develop and correct our tools
if there are results and hints which give us informations on
errors. Without those informations we are playing with dice,
and these dice do not have 6 numbers but many thousand
numbers. Does this playing make any sense for us?<br>
<br>
Quantum theory has in my view nothing to do with the fact
that our understanding is related to our brain. This
assumption that a physical process depends on the
consciousness of the observer has a different origin.
Heisenberg found himself completely unable and helpless to
understand the particle-wave phenomenon. So he once said
that we have to go back to Plato and so he threw away all
that progress which Newton has brought into our physical
understanding. And on the other hand he neglected the
proposal of Louis de Broglie about the particle-wave
question because at that time he was already so much related
to a mysterious view that he was no more able to leave that.
- At this point I agree to Einstein and de Broglie that a
mystification of physics will not give us progress.<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">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>All the physics before Einstein was developed with
the assumption that there is an independent objective
3D reality space ( and it should be a stationary
ether) in which all these objects appear. Einstein
almost got it right. There is no independent ether and
it all depends upon the coordinate frame. He did not
take the next step. We observers are the coordinate
frame each of us supplies the ether. <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Here my position is completely
opposite. We do have an independent ether as Lorentz has
assumed it. And it is an ether in the sense that the
speed of light is related to a fixed frame, and this
does not cause any logical conflicts in my
understanding.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>OK so you make the assumption that
we do have an independent ether. That is the old "naive
reality" assumption and classic mechanics and EM theory
is built on this assumption. But quantum theory is no
longer built on this assumption.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ether is not compatible with Einstein's
understanding of relativity. But also QM is not compatible
with Einstein's relativity. So I do not see any specific
connection of QM to the absence of an ether. QM simple does
not to care.<br>
<br>
Einstein said that an ether is not necessary and not
helpful. Lorentz told him situations which by Lorentz view
are not understandable without ether. Einstein repeated his
denial of an ether but he could not answer the questions of
Lorentz. <br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><br>
So is the ether related to the fixed frame ? What ether
is attached to my fixed frame? Are they different
ethers? Or is there one ether, and we are all material
objects moving in that ether who just happen to be able
to interpret some configurations of material as space
with objects moving in them. why should our mental
display of our experience be anything but one possible
way of building a mental display along a very very long
path of evolution. Do you really believe you are the
pinnacle or end of that process?</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">The ether of Lorentz does not mean
anything more than the existence of a fixed frame. And in
the view of Ludwik Kostro and particularly my view, the
photons of our light are giving us this reference. All
photons move with the same - absolute - speed c, and this
speed is related to something. I guess to the position and
motion state of the Big Bang. If we look at the CMB we see a
different red shift depending on the direction. And we can
quite easily calculate which motion with respect to our
earth we must have so that this red shift becomes isotropic.
This tells us what the reference of the ether most probably
is.<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">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>Please read may Vigier X Paper again but ignore the
first part where I'm trying to show why SR is wrong -
you argued a lot with that. The real reason SR is
wrong is because Einstein developed it without
recognizing that his imagination supplied the
background ether and his rail car and .embankment
observer where "RIDING ALONG" with their coordinate
frames observing Einsteins imaginary space. They were
not IN their own space.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Can you please copy this essential
part of your paper here? I do not have it at hand in
this moment.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>SEE ATTACHED</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you.<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">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>This is where we should return to our SR discussion
and properly add the observer to physics<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Special relativity gives us in my
view not any reason to turn to an observer dependent
physics. For Einstein's view it is correct, but for the
Lorentzian it is not necessary.<br>
<br>
Ludwik Kostro, who participated in Vigier X, has written
a book about "Einstein and the ether". And he has -
among other sources - reprinted a letter exchange
between Einstein and Lorentz about the necessity of an
ether. Lorentz described a (Gedanken) experiment which
in his view is not explainable without ether. Einstein
refused to except an ether, but he did not present any
arguments how this experiment can be understood without
it.<br>
<br>
I still think that Einstein's relativity has mislead the
physical world in a tremendous way. There are in fact
relativistic phenomena, but Einstein's way to treat them
was really bad.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>I agree and this agreement is what
gave us a common goal of finding a better explanation.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hopefully<br>
Albrecht<b><br>
<br>
</b><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">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">CHANDRA- there may be an abstract
independent CTF but my suggestion is that it may be
the ether each of us is made of and therefor may be
thought to be stationary.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>best wishes<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>wolf<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best wishes <br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><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 2/27/2018 10:28 AM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>Wolf:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I think that there is a simple answer to your
concern regarding magnetism. If you accept that
magnetism is not a real physical entity but a
seeming effect then there should not exist the
logical conflicts which you see.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I think that the Coriolis force is a good example
to understand the situation: Assume that you are
sitting in a cabin without a view to the outside.
Now assume that this cabin is rotating very silently
so that you do not notice the rotation. You are
sitting in a chair in the middle on the rotational
axis. Now you throw a ball from your position away
from you. You will expect that the ball flies on a
straight path off. But you will observe that the
ball flies on a curved path. And what will be your
explanation? You will think that there must be a
force which moves the ball to the side. - This is
the Coriolis force.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>But this force does not in fact exist. If there is
an observer on top of the cabin and can look into
the cabin, in his view the ball moves on a straight
line. And there is no reason for a force. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>The Coriolis force is a non-existent force.
Similarly the magnetic field is a non-existent
field.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 27.02.2018 um 04:46 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Albrecht:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">I
have a tremendous aversion to believing that the
observer (unless we are talking quantum effects
where measurement interferes with the object
measured ) can have any effect on the independent
“whatever it is” out there. But physicists often
confuse measurement results with physical
realities. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Regarding
“<b>The relative velocity between charges does NOT
determine the magnetic field.”</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Jaxon
Classical Electrodynamics p 136 states the force
between two current segments is oin differential
form<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">
d<b>F12</b> = - I1*I2 (<b>dl1</b> ● <b>dl2</b>)*<b>X12</b>
/(c<sup>2</sup> * |<b>X12</b>|<sup>3</sup><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">now
the current is charge q1*<b>v1 = </b>I1*<b>dl1 </b>and
q2*<b>v2 = </b>I1*<b>dl1 </b>substituting means
the magnetic force between the two charges is
dependent on the dot product between the two
velocities (<b>v1</b> ● <b>v2</b>). <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Furthermore
Goldstien Classical Mechanics talks about velocity
dependent potentials p19<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">And
we all know the magnetic force is F =~ v1 x B12
while the magnetic field is dependent on v! , so
the force is dependent on two velocities.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Now
your statement ‘<b>But the magnetic field depends
on the relative velocity between the observer
and the one charge and the observer and the
other charge. Where "observer" means the
measuring tool.” </b>Is certainly true because
one can always define one coordinate frame that
moves with velocity of the first charge and a
second coordinate frame that moves with the
velocity of the second charge. So in these two
coordinate frames each one would say there is no B
field.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">However
I see both charges in <b>one coordinate frame</b>
and that is how the experiments leading to the
force equations were conducted. So I question
whether your assumption that there are two
coordinate frames and I assume you would like to
connected by the Lorenz transforms reflects
physical reality. <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have asked you in the previous
mail NOT to argue with coordinate frames because we
should discuss physics and not mathematics. Now you
cite me with statements about coordinate frames. How
can I understand that?<br>
<br>
However if you really insist to talk about frames:
The saying that two charges are in different
coordinate frames means that these charges are <u>at
rest</u> in different coordinate frames. They can
of course be investigated by an observer (or a tool)
which resides in <u>one </u>frame.<br>
<br>
The equation from Jackson which you have cited above
is essentially the same as the one that I gave you
in the previous mail. And it says also that the
magnetic field depends on the <u>product </u>of
both charges involved, not on their difference.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">I
reiterate the concept of fields even the coulomb
field is passed upon the measured force between
a test charge Qt and another charge Qn. So that
the total force on the test charge is<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">
F =~ SUM over all n ( Qt * Qn / Rtn<sup>2</sup>)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">And
it is possible to introduce a field <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">
E = SUM over all n ( Qn / Rtn<sup>2</sup>)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">As
that F= Qt * E<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Perfectly
good mathematically. But to assume that physically
E is a property of space rather than simply the
sum of charge to charge interactions that would
happen if a test charge were at that space is a
counter factual. And not consistent with the
quantum photon theory.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Why do you assume that a field is
a property of space? If you assume that space is
nothing else than emptiness then you will have all
necessary results. Why making things unnecessarily
complicated?<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Which
by the way I think is also wrong. Photons are
false interpretations of charge to charge
interactions. <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">I do not remember that we talk
here about quantum theory. For this discussion at
least it is not needed. And regarding photons, I
have explained very detailed that photons - as I
have measured them in my thesis work - are particles
with specific properties; but clearly particles. You
did not object to my arguments but you repeat your
statement that a photon as a particle is a false
interpretation. It would be good to hear argument
than only statements.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">that
is for another discussion<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Which else discussion? <br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">best
wishes<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">wolf<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best wishes<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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 2/26/2018 3:27 AM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>Wolf,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>my comments and explanations in the text below.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt">Am 25.02.2018 um
05:26 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Albrecht:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think I understand your
arguments since this is what is generally
taught, however I have always been
uncomfortable with the statements involving
“observer”.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So I question your
statement “<span style="font-size:13.5pt">The
different amount seen by the observer can be
calculated by the use of the force-related
Lorentz transformation - from the frame of
the electrons to the frame of the observer.”</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now ancient experiments
discovered that there are two reciprocal
forces between charges. The relative distance
R gives the Coulomb force F<sub>E</sub> and
the relative velocity gives the Magnetic force
F<sub>B </sub><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><img id="_x0000_i1025"
src="cid:part8.98972BAA.076B1FC1@nascentinc.com"
class="" width="208" height="95" border="0"> <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>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now if these are
independent entities whose existence does not
depend upon any observation made by the
observer (until we get to quantum
measurements) . <i>This means the physics is
fixed </i>and so are the parameters. Any
measurement made by any coordinate frame when
properly processed for its own distortions
will result in the same parameters, so R,V, F<sub>B</sub>,
F<sub>E</sub><sup> </sup>and yes the speed of
light must be constant. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> If the
measurement results differ either we do not
have objective measurement independent reality
or else there is an unaccounted artifact in
the measurement process.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt">There is an error in
your above arguments. The relative velocity
between charges does NOT determine the
magnetic field. But the magnetic field depends
on the relative velocity between the observer
and the one charge and the observer and the
other charge. Where "observer" means the
measuring tool.<br>
<br>
The entities are not independent in so far as
any observer will see them in a different way.
That is not a consequence of quantum mechanics
but very simply the consequence of the fact
that in a moving system the tools change (like
rulers contract and clocks are slowed down)
and so their measurement results differ from a
tool measuring while being at rest. This is
the reason that we need a Lorentz
transformation to compare physical entities in
one moving frame to entities in another moving
frame.<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I and QM claims there is no
objective measurement independent reality. <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt">That may be the case
but has nothing to do with our discussion
here. </span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Lorenz assumed the
coordinate frame dilates and shrinks so that
when raw measurements are made and no
correction is applied we may not observe a
magnetic field but instead a different Coulomb
field so that the actual result on the object
measured remains the same only the names of
the causes have been changed. <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt">You are permanently
referring to coordinate frames. But we are
treating here physical facts and not
mathematical ones. So coordinates should be
omitted as an argument as I have proposed it
earlier. </span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now consider looking at the
same two charges from an arbitrary coordinate
frame. then in that frame the two charges will
have wo velocities V1 and V2 but there will
always be a difference V <o:p></o:p></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" cellspacing="0"
cellpadding="0" align="left" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr style="height:12.0pt">
<td style="width:66.75pt;padding:0in 0in
0in 0in;height:12.0pt" width="89"><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in"><br>
</td>
<td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-element:frame;mso-element-frame-hspace:2.25pt;mso-element-wrap:around;mso-element-anchor-vertical:paragraph;mso-element-anchor-horizontal:column;mso-height-rule:exactly"><img
id="_x0000_i1026"
src="cid:part9.9C457B01.FCC8C0F9@nascentinc.com"
class="" width="258" height="115"
border="0"><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><sup> </sup><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><sup> </sup><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><sup> </sup><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><sup> </sup><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><sup> </sup><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I contend that it does not
matter what frame you chose cannot get rid of
the relative velocity. The only way you can
get rid of the magnetic field is if there was
no relative velocity in the first palace. And
there never was a magnetic field in the
physics. <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt">As soon as the
observer moves in the same frame, i.e. with
the same speed vector as one of the charges,
he does not see a magnetic field. In the
deduction of the magnetic field which I have
attached (from a talk at a conference last
year) the magnetic force is defined by the
equation:</span><br>
<img id="_x0000_i1027"
src="cid:part10.2B69939C.394D4290@nascentinc.com"
class="" width="272" height="55" border="0"><br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt">where v and u are
the speeds of two charges, q1 and q2, , with
respect to the observer. y is the distance and
gamma the Lorentz factor in the set up shown.</span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Therefore your further
conclusion “<span style="font-size:13.5pt">As
soon as an observer moves with one charge,
i.e. he is at rest with respect to the frame
of one of the charges, then there is no
magnetic field for him.” </span>Is only
true if there was no magnetic field in the
first place, a very special case.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We must be very careful not
to confuse the actual physics in a situation
with the way we look at it. <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt">I guess that you know
the Coriolis force. This force is somewhat
similar to magnetism. It is in effect for one
observer but not for another one depending on
the observer's motion. And there is nothing
mysterious about it, and also quantum
mechanics is not needed for an explanation.<br>
<br>
In your logic you would have to say: If there
is no Coriolis force then there is no inertial
mass. But that is clearly not the case.</span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If we apply the same
analysis to the Michelson Morley experiment I
think we will also find that there never was a
fringe shift in the physics. The physics
states charges interact with other charges,
basta. Introducing fields and then attributing
what has always been a summation of many
charge effects on one test charge onto a
property of empty space is simply a convenient
mathematical trick that hides the physical
reality.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt">The MM experiment is
easily explained by the fact that there is
contraction in the direction of motion.
Nothing more is needed to explain the
null-result. In the view of Einstein space
contracts and in the view of Lorentz the
apparatus contracts as the internal fields
contract. And the latter is a known phenomenon
in physics.<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I further submit this as an
argument that mass and charge are fundamental
physics and if there is to be a CTF it is the
tension that holds mass and charge together
when electro-magentic forces operating on
charge densities and gravito-inertial forces
operating on mass densities are not balanced
and pulls mass and charge apart. I further
submit the the resulting fluctuations in the
mass-charge densities leads to CTF propagating
patterns that are an ontologically defensible
interpretation of Schroedingers Wave function.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt">An indication that
mass is not fundamental is the fact that mass
can be converted into energy. On the other
hand charge cannot be converted into energy;
this can be taken as an argument that it is
fundamental.<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"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt">Anything still
controversial? Then please explain.<br>
Albrecht</span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Tell me why I’m wrong<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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 2/23/2018 6:51 AM,
Albrecht Giese wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<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">If two
electrons move side by side, the main
force between them is of course the
electrostatic one. But there is an
additional contribution to the force which
is measured in the frame of an observer at
rest (like the one of Millikan). In the
frame of the moving electrons (maybe they
belong to the same frame) there is only
the electrostatic force, true. The
different amount seen by the observer can
be calculated by the use of the
force-related Lorentz transformation -
from the frame of the electrons to the
frame of the observer.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">If the
oil-drop chamber is in steady motion this
has primarily no influence. Important is
the motion state of the observer. If the
observer is at rest with respect to the
moving oil-drops (and so of the
electrons), he will notice a contribution
of magnetism. Any motion of the chamber
does not matter for this fact.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">In general
magnetism is visible for an observer who
is in motion with respect to both charges
under consideration. As soon as an
observer moves with one charge, i.e. he is
at rest with respect to the frame of one
of the charges, then there is no magnetic
field for him. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Your example
of two compass needles is a more complex
one even if it does not look so. To treat
this case correctly we have to take into
account the cause of the magnetism of the
needle, that means of the circling charges
in the atoms (in Fe). If we would do this
then - seen from our own frame - both
groups of charges are moving, the charges
in the conductor and also the charges in
the needle's atoms. So as both are moving
with respect to the observer, this is the
cause for a magnetic field between both
objects. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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 22.02.2018 um 21:02
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:#0A2A92">Albrecht:
Your point is well taken. Not being
expert in magnetism, I need to spend
more time on this issue. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92">However,
let me pose a question to think.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92">If
two electrons are trapped in two side by
side but separate Millikan oil drops,
the two electrons feel each other’s
static E-field, but no magnetic field.
If the oil-drop chamber was given a
steady velocity, could Millikan have
measured the presence of a magnetic
field due to the moving electrons
(“current”), which would have been dying
out as the chamber moved further away?
This experiment can be conceived in many
different ways and can be executed.
Hence, this is not a pure “Gedanken”
experiment. I am sure, some equivalent
experiment has been done by somebody.
Send me the reference, if you can find
one. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92">Are
two parallel current carrying conductors
deflecting magnetic needles
(undergraduate experiment) different
from two independent electrons moving
parallel to each other?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92">I
have just re-phrased Einstein’s example
that you have given below.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92">Sincerely,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#0A2A92">Chandra.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid
#E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General [<a
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b>On
Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 22,
2018 2:26 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General]
Foundational questions Tension field
stable particles</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 like
very much what you have written here.
Particularly what you say about "time"
which physically means oscillations.
That is what one should keep in mind
when thinking about relativity.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">However in
one point I have to object. That is your
judgement of the parameter</span> <span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">µ</span>. <span
style="font-size:13.5pt">I think that it
is a result from the historical fact
that magnetism was detected long time
earlier than electricity. So magnetism
plays a great role in our view of
physics which does not reflect its role
there. We know since about 100 years
that magnetism is not a primary
phenomenon but an apparent effect, a
side effect of the electric field which
is caused by the finiteness of c. If c
would be infinite there would not be any
magnetism. This is given by the equation
</span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">c<sup>2</sup>
= (1/ϵµ)</span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt"> which you have
mentioned. This equation should be
better written as </span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">µ
= (1/c<sup>2</sup>ϵ) </span><span
style="font-size:13.5pt"> to reflect
this physical fact, the dependency of
the magnetism on c. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">The
symmetry between electricity and
magnetism is suggested by Maxwell's
equation. These equations are
mathematically very elegant and well
usable in practice. But they do not
reflect the physical reality. Easiest
visible is the fact that we have
electrical monopoles but no magnetic
monopoles. Einstein has described this
fact by saying: Whenever an observer is
in a magnetic field, he can find a
motion state so that the magnetic field
disappears. - This is as we know not
possible for an electric field.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">I think
that we have discussed this earlier. Do
you remember?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">Albrecht</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 21.02.2018 um
00:00 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>“We nee</i><i><span
style="font-size:14.0pt">d a
geometry in which both space and
time are curved back on themselves
to provide a donut in which the
forces Fem, Fgi, Fcm,Fmc are self
contained eigen states at each
action quanta. </span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span
style="font-size:14.0pt">Does any of
this suggest a tension field you
might be thinking about??”</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">Yes,
Wolf, we need to model mathematically
the “twists and turns” of different
intrinsic potential gradients embedded
in CTF (Complex Tension Field) to
create stationary self-looped
oscillations (<b><i>field-particles</i></b>).
Maxwell achieved that for the
propagating linear excitations using
his brilliant observations of using
the double differentiation – giving us
the EM wave equation. We need to find
non-propagating (stationary – Newton’s
first law) self-looped oscillations –
the in-phase ones will be stable,
others will “break apart” with
different life-times depending upon
how far they are from the in-phase
closed-loop conditions. The successes
of the mathematical oscillatory
dynamic model could be judged by the
number of predicted properties the
theory can find for the <b><i>field-particles,</i></b>
which we have measured so far. The
physical CTF must remain stationary
holding 100% of the cosmic energy. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"> However,
I would not attempt to keep the
primacy of Relativity by trying to
keep the Space-Time 4-D concept
intact. If we want to capture the
ontological reality; we must imagine
and visualize the potential <b><i>foundational</i></b>
physical process and represent that
with a set of algebraic symbols and
call them the primary parameters of
“different grades”. During
constructing mathematical theories, it
is of prime importance to introduce
consciously this concept of “primary”,
vs. “secondary”, vs. “tertiary”, etc.,
physical parameters related to any
observable physical phenomenon. The
physical parameter that dictates the
core existence of an entity in nature
should be considered as primary.
However, it is not going to be easy
because of the complexities in the
different interaction processes –
different parameters take key role in
transferring the energy in different
interactions. Besides, our ignorance
is still significantly broad compared
to the “validated” knowledge we have
gathered about our universe. Here is a
glaring example. νλ = c = (1/ϵµ). If I
am doing atomic physics, ν is of
primary importance because of the
quantum resonance with ν and the QM
energy exchange rule is “hν”. “λ”
changes from medium to medium. If I am
doing Astrophysics, ϵ and µ for free
space, are of primary significance;
even though people tend to use “c”,
while missing out the fundamental
roles of ϵ and µ as some of the core
building blocks of the universe. Funny
thing is that the ϵ and µ of free
space were recognized well before
Maxwell synthesized Electromagnetism.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">
With this background, I want
underscore that the “running time, “t”
is of critical importance in our
formulation of the dynamic universe.
And, yet “t’ is not a directly
measurable physical parameter of any
object in this universe. What we
measure is really the frequency, or
its inverse, the oscillation periods
of different physical oscillators in
this universe. So, frequency can be
dilated or contracted by controlling
the ambient physical parameter of the
environment that surrounds and
INFLUENCES the oscillator. The running
time cannot be dilated or contracted;
even though Minkowsky introduced this
“dilation” concept. This is the reason
why I have been pushing for the
introduction in physics thinking the
Interaction Process Mapping
Epistemology (IPM-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">Chandra.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid
#E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in
0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General [<a
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b>On
Behalf Of </b>Wolfgang Baer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, February 19,
2018 10:56 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General]
Foundational questions Tension
field stable particles</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Candra:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-indent:.5in"> Let’s consider
your tension filed is a medium
underlying the experience of space
composed of charge and mass density
spread out in the cross-section of a
time loop.. Coordinate frame cells of <i>small
enough</i> sizes can be described by
constant enough mass and charge
densities in each cell. For small enough
cells the mass and charge values
concentrated at their centers may be
used in stead of the densities. The
resulting field of center values can
take any pattern that satisfies the
extended dAlambert principle. Besides
the classic electro-magnetic Fem and
gravito-inertial force Fgi I postulate
forces tat hold charge and mass together
Fcm, Fmc. This condition assures mass
charge centers in each cell appear at
locations of balanced forces. Each
pattern which satisfies this condition
represents a static state of the loop in
which the patterns are fixed for the
lifetime of the loop.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b> </b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>The Charge-Mass
Separation Vector and Equilibrium
States</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-indent:.5in">The physical
size of the space is its volume. The
volume (Vol) of space is the sum of the
infinitesimal volumes dVol of each of
the cells composing that space “Vol = ∫<sub>all
space</sub> dVol”. These infinitesimal
volumes are calculated from the
mass-charge density extensions in each
cell when viewed externally as shown in
figure 4.3-3a . The physical volume
depends upon the mass charge separation
pattern of the equilibrium state the
system being modeled exists in. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> In CAT
the extension of a cell can be
calculated as follows. In each cell the
distance between the center of charge
and mass is a vector d<b>ζ.</b> The
projection of this vector onto the
degrees of freedom directions available
for the charge and mass to move in the
generalized coordinate space allows us
to expansion this vector as, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq.
4.3-1 <b>dζ =</b>
dζ<sub>t</sub><b>∙u<sub>t</sub></b> + dζ<sub>x</sub><b>∙u<sub>x</sub>
</b>+ dζ<sub>y</sub><b>∙u<sub>y</sub> </b>+
dζ<sub>z</sub><b>∙u<sub>z</sub> +…</b>
dζ<sub>f</sub><b>∙u<sub>f</sub> +…,</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b> </b>where
the <b>u<sub>f</sub></b>’s are the unit
vectors. A space limited to Cartesian
3-space is characterized by three x,y,z
directions, but CAT models a generalized
space that encompasses all sensor
modalities not only the optical ones. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> The
volume of a cell calculated from the
diagonal expansion vector “<b>dζ”</b> by
multiplying all non zero coefficients,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eq.
4.3-2 dVol = dζ<sub>t</sub><b>∙</b>dζ<sub>x</sub><b>∙</b>dζ<sub>y</sub><b>∙</b>dζ<sub>z</sub><b>∙…∙</b>dζ<sub>f</sub><b>∙…
.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> The shape
of this volume is determined by the
direction of the expansion vector which
in turn is determined by the direction
and strength of forces pulling the
charge and mass apart. The direction of
pull depends upon the number of
dimensions available in the generalized
coordinates of the media. The forces
must be in equilibrium but exact
equilibrium pattern depends upon which
global loop equilibrium state “Ζ” the
event being modeled is in. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> In the
simplest equilibrium state the masses
and charges are collocated. This implies
the internal forward propagating in time
forces F<sub>cm</sub>,F<sub>mc</sub>,
and backward propagating in time force F<sub>mc</sub>*,F<sub>cm</sub>*
are zero, and if there are no internal
force pulling the charges and masses
together then sum of the remaining
exterior gravito-electric forces pulling
the charge and mass apart must
separately be zero precisely at the
collocation point. A trivial condition
that satisfies these equations is when
all forces are zero. In this case there
is no action in the media and no action
for expanding the coordinate frame
defining a volume of space. We are back
to a formless blob of zero volume, where
all charges and masses are at the same
point. This is the absolute ground state
of material, one level of something
above nothing. The big bang before the
energy of action flow is added. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-indent:.5in"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter" />
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0" />
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0" />
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1" />
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2" />
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth" />
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight" />
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1" />
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2" />
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth" />
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0" />
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight" />
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0" />
</v:formulas>
<v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect" />
<o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t" />
</v:shapetype><v:shape id="_x0000_s1026" type="#_x0000_t75" alt="" style='position:absolute;left:0;text-align:left;margin-left:0;margin-top:0;width:190.5pt;height:187.5pt;z-index:-251658240;mso-wrap-distance-left:0;mso-wrap-distance-top:0;mso-wrap-distance-right:0;mso-wrap-distance-bottom:0;mso-position-horizontal:left;mso-position-horizontal-relative:text;mso-position-vertical-relative:line' o:allowoverlap="f">
<v:imagedata src="mailbox:///C:/Users/AL/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/lthhzma2.default/Mail/pop3.strato-12.de/Inbox?number=6117&header=quotebody&part=1.1.5&filename=image004.gif" o:title="part12.1C7DC3E8.CB9C6F2E@a-giese" />
<w:wrap type="square"/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><img
src="cid:part16.7688B98B.49388762@nascentinc.com"
v:shapes="_x0000_s1026" class=""
align="left" width="254" height="1"><!--[endif]-->To
exemplify the methods we consider an
equilibrium state of a single isolated
cell whose only degree of freedom is the
time direction. This means the volume in
all space directions are infinitesimally
small and the volume can be considered a
single line of extension “ΔVol = ΔT<sub>w</sub>
= ∫dζ<sub><span style="font-size:14.0pt">t</span></sub><span
style="font-size:14.0pt"> “ </span>along
the time direction as shown in the god’s
eye perspective of figure 4.3-6. In this
situation we can consider charges and
masses to be point particles. Forces as
well as action can only propagate along
the material length of the line time
line represented in space as “Qw”. We
now list the sequence of changes that
can propagate through around the
equilibrium positions indicated by
numbers in parenthesis.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.75in;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]-->The
upper charge is pushed from its
equilibrium position (filled icon)
forward along the time line<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.75in;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]-->It
exerts a force “Fem” on the left charge
pushing it forward while feeling a
reaction force “Fem*” that retards it
back to its equilibrium position<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.75in;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]-->While
the left charge is moved from
equilibrium it exerts an internal “Fcm”
force on the bottom mass while feeling a
reaction force “Fcm*” which returns it
to equilibrium.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.75in;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]-->While
the bottom mass is moved from
equilibrium it exerts a force “Fgi” on
the right mass while feeling a reaction
force “Fgi*” which returns it to
equilibrium.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.75in;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]-->While
the right mass is moved from equilibrium
it exerts a force “Fmc” on the upper
charge while feeling a reaction force
“Fmc*” which returns it to equilibrium.
We are now back to (1).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-indent:.5in">If the system
is isolated there is no dissipation into
other degrees of freedom and the
oscillation continues to move as a
compression wave around the “Qw” time
line circumference forever. The graph
however is static and shows a fixed
amount of action indicated by the shaded
arrows around the time line. Motion in
“block” models is produced by the
velocity of the observer or model
operator as he moves around the time
line. From our god’s eye perspective an
action density is permanently painted on
the clock dial and thereby describes an
total event. The last degree of freedom
events are rather trivial <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> We need a
geometry in which both space and time
are curved back on themselves to provide
a donut in which the forces Fem, Fgi,
Fcm,Fmc are self contained eigen states
at each action quanta. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Does any of this
suggest a tension field you might be
thinking about??<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <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 1/24/2018 7:20
PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">1. Yes, I have
submitted an essay. FQXi has not sent
the approval link yet. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2. Replacement of
our SPIE conf. Without a supporting
infrastructure to replace SPIE-like
support, it is very difficult to
manage. I will try NSF during the
last week of May. Do you want to
start negotiating with some
out-of-box European groups? <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">3. Re-starting
afresh from the bottom up is the
only way to start re-building a
unified field theory. It is futile
to force-fit whole bunch of
different theories that were
structured differently at different
states of human cultural epoch.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal">Sent from my
iPhone<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
On Jan 24, 2018, at 6:08 PM,
Wolfgang Baer <<a
href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@nascentinc.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p>Chandra:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Just rereading your 2015 paper
"Urgency of evolution..."<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I love the sentiment " This is
a good time to start iteratively
re-evaluating and restructuring
all the foundational postulates
behind all the working theories"<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Did you write a paper for FQXi?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I sent one in <a
href="https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3043"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3043</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<pre><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Is there any chance to get a replacement for the SPIE conference, one that would expand the questions </span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:13.5pt">beyond the nature of light?</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Wolf</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>-- <o:p></o:p></pre>
<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>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive
communication from the Nature of
Light and Particles General
Discussion List at <a
href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu"
moz-do-not-send="true">chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu</a><br>
<a href="<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<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"><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>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>