[General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request
Richard Gauthier
richgauthier at gmail.com
Sun Apr 5 07:44:25 PDT 2015
Chip,
I understand your reluctance to consider energy quanta as more fundamental than fields, and to appeal to Occam’s razor to stay with fields as fundamental unless convinced otherwise, and to consider fields as reactions of energy with space. But consider, do we really know what energy is? And what space is? John D. thinks that energy and space “cannot be distinguished” at a fundamental level, which is probably true, but it depends on how fundamental one goes — to the level that all is one (or not?) I think that these more and more fundamental levels can be approached in stages, in which space and energy can be differentiated to various degrees, and at one of these levels energy can react with space to create distortions which can be called fields.
Consider some of the aspects of the energy quantum (and the charged photon model of the electron which can be modeled by the energy quantum) in possible support of the energy quantum’s more fundamental nature than fields.
1. The relation of energy to frequency is built into the energy quantum as E=hf.
2. The speed of light c is built into the energy quantum as the longitudinal speed of the helically moving energy quantum (in the photon and electron models.) The energy quantum may itself travel faster or slower than c along its helical trajectory — see "FTL quantum models of the photon and the electron”.
3. Wavelength (and therefore space) is built into the motion of the energy quantum as lambda = c/f. The charged photon model of the electron (which can be modeled by the energy quantum model) generates the photon's wavelength and the electron’s de Broglie wavelength respectively.
4. Electric charge can be generated by, or associated with, the motion of the energy quantum. Electric charge is not necessarily pointlike, nor is the energy quantum itself.
5. The spin 1 hbar of the photon and spin 1/2 hbar of the electron can be generated by energy quantum models of the photon and the electron respectively. spin right and spin left of a photon and spin up and spin down of an electron and can be generated by the different motions of the uncharged photon and the charged photon (i.e. the electron), modeled by the energy quantum.
6. There is a close relationship of the energy quantum’a motion to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle (see my article on transluminal energy quantum models of the electron and the photon.
7. There is a close relationship of the charged photon model of the electron (which can be based on the energy quantum) to the non-relativistic Schrodinger equation — see my article on this. Quantum matter-waves of an electron can be reinterpreted as charged photon waves in the longitudinal direction of motion of a charged photon (i.e. electron). Atoms may be populated by charged photons (i.e. electrons) with various total energies or energy levels (energy eigenvalues).
8. There is a close relationship of the charged photon model of the electron to the relativistic Dirac equation, including the electron’s low energy radius hbar/2mc , the electron’s zitterbewegung frequency 2mc^2/h, the electron’s unobserved speed of light motion described by Dirac, and the electron’s sub-speed-of-light motion (observed).
9. The small size of the electron in very high energy electron scattering experiments can be partly explained by the charged photon model of the electron, whose radius reduces as 1/(gamma^2) combined with the energy quantum model of the charged photon, whose radius is proportional to 1/gamma.
10. Matter and antimatter can be related to the two helicities or chiralities of the energy quantum’s helical motion.
11. The electron’s magnetic moment can be partly explained by the motion of a charged energy quantum in the energy quantum model of the electron.
12. It should be easier to derive Maxwell’s equations from energy quantum models of the photon and the electron than to derive the energy quantum models from Maxwell’s equations (this needs to be demonstrated, but consider an alternative: John W.’s introduction of a pivot into EM theory to explain how the electron can be formed from a photon.)
13. The energy quantum model might be extended to other physical particles, such as modeling quarks as a charged gluons, or modeling neutrinos as circulating uncharged photons with low rest mass, or modeling a primordial cosmological particle and dark matter particles as closed uncharged photons — for the last, see my article on the transluminal energy quantum model of the cosmic quantum.
My articles related to energy quanta and the charged photon model of the electron are available at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Gauthier2 <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Gauthier2> and https://santarosa.academia.edu/RichardGauthier <http://academia.edu/> .
Richard
In QED, each particle has its own field, and a particle is considered to be a
> On Apr 4, 2015, at 10:07 AM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com> wrote:
>
> Chip:
>
> Re my current view is that energy reacts with space, causing distortions, which are fields.
>
> Think of space as a ghostly elastic jelly. Then imagine you insert a hypodermic and inject more jelly. This results in a distortion of the surrounding jelly, and a gravitational field. You effectively added energy, but the jelly is space. Ergo at the fundamental level, space and energy cannot be distinguished.
>
> All:
>
> There’s been some interesting emails, apologies that I’ve been busy and have not chipped in much. But if I can say this in brief:
>
> IMHO if you grab hold of this ghostly elastic jelly with your right hand and twist, then reach round the side with your left hand and twist, the distortion you now have is an electromagnetic field. Only this analogy is somewhat back to front in that the tension needs to be replaced by pressure. A sinusoidal field variation going round and round a twisted double loop just right looks like a standing field. Experiment with sine-wave paper strips to grasp it. Electrons and positrons move linearly and rotationally like cyclones and anticyclones because they’re “dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space”. They aren’t spitting photons at one another. Hydrogen atoms do not twinkle, magnets don’t shine. However they exchange field in that the short-lived positronium atom doesn’t have much in the way of a field. The opposite twists tend to cancel, leaving only a pressure gradient. We call it a gravitational field.
>
> Regards
> John D
>
>
> From: Chip Akins <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
> Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 3:12 PM
> To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request
>
> Hi Richard
>
> An energy quantum as a foundation for particles is quite an interesting concept.
> My current feeling, however is that there is a more direct solution which does not require this sub particle. The energy quantum may actually be the solution, but it seems to me that a simple, more complete solution emerges from the concept of fields being fundamental. Or in John Macken’s way of stating it, space is fundamental. My current view is that energy reacts with space, causing distortions, which are fields, and these fields cause forces which in turn interact with the fields, causing, quantization, confinement, and therefore oscillation.
>
> Of course I am not ruling out your concept of an energy quantum, just pursuing another possible solution which currently seems more plausible. The fields only approach, has been quite fruitful, so I am becoming more convinced. The nice thing about such an approach is the ability of that approach to define charge topologically, and perhaps explain everything form the same topological framework. Part of my motivation in pursuing the fields only approach is emotional as well. I want to know the underlying reasons for how everything works. Introducing an energy quantum into the solutions just moves the problem for me to something even smaller and causes another level of definition to be required. So until something forces me to think otherwise I am want to pursue the Occam’s razor guided argument that fields are fundamental and are simply the interaction of energy with space.
>
> I have noticed however that in almost every field based model, it is possible to insert an “energy quantum” as a generator of the field and still have principally the same model. But I still find it more comfortable to assume that fields are generated simply by the reaction of energy with space.
>
> Chip
>
> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
> Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 2:00 AM
> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request
>
> Chip,
> Since we are rightly looking for causes, I would say that neither charge nor field topology is fundamental, but that both are the effects of something more fundamental than either. An uncharged photon has topology but not charge. A charged photon has a different topology along with its charge, and has rest mass as well. But rest mass is confined energy and a cause must also be sought for this relative confinement of energy compared to that of an uncharged photon. I think an energy quantum (which comes in different varieties depending on the fundamental physical particle) is the cause of field topology, charge and rest mass, as well as other particle properties.
> Richard
>
>> On Apr 3, 2015, at 4:08 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi John Macken
>>
>> It has been very interesting reading some of your work. It seems that each member of this discussion group brings a new perspective and therefore additional insight to the group.
>>
>> One of the background experimental artifacts addressed in models of the electron comprised of a “photon” is of course the annihilation reaction where an electron and positron release two gamma ray photons. The notion that the photon and the electron are both oscillations of spacetime is consistent with that as well. In the confined photon electron models which display topological charge, the photon is changed in the spin trajectory and orientation of its fields, so calling it a photon still, is taking some creative license which we all recognize. Your way of stating the electron structure may be more accurate. Several of us have described various aspects of the fields in the electron and how they differ from the fields in the photon. However, not only is space oscillating in these particles, those oscillations, the reaction of energy and space, create fields, as you have also addressed. I want to spend a significant bit more time studying your work. Thank you.
>>
>> Regarding the photon spin, orbital angular momentum, and polarization: Do you have an idea of the photon’s internal field topology which can explain both spin and orbital angular momentum?
>>
>> Hi Richard
>>
>> As far as I can tell, one significant difference in your electron model and the models which display a charge due to the field topology of the confined photon, is the assumption that charge is elemental, versus the assumption that charge is topologically generated, otherwise the models a fairly similar. I like the topologically generated view, because it not only yields a viable electron model, but it also posits a cause for charge. But until we can find a way to prove that concept with experiment it seems it remains a matter of personal preference? Do you have any thoughts about an experiment which might be able to prove or disprove the topological origin of charge?
>>
>> Chip
>>
>> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
>> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 5:35 PM
>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>> Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request
>>
>> Martin,
>> A charged photon would not be a massless object, so you would be right. A charged photon would have mass as an electron, a muon or a tau. But a charged photon would have spin 1/2 hbar and would be a fermion (since it is an electron.)
>> Richard
>>
>>> On Apr 3, 2015, at 10:05 AM, Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Richard,
>>> It just struck me that if you want to hold on to a charged photon as a concept, it should actually be a W-boson, another very illusive thing to describe. What I am saying is, that in case I would be right that there cannot be such a thing as a charged photon as a massless object, indeed there is a massive object that is a spin 1 boson with charge. It may not have some double loop though…
>>> Well, just a thought to see if we can keep as much on board as possible…
>>> Best, Martin
>>>
>>> Dr. Martin B. van der Mark
>>> Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare
>>>
>>> Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven
>>> High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)
>>> Prof. Holstlaan 4
>>> 5656 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands
>>> Tel: +31 40 2747548
>>>
>>> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
>>> Sent: vrijdag 3 april 2015 18:48
>>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>>> Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request
>>>
>>> John,
>>> I very much appreciate your welcoming and open approach to ideas that you may not agree with. You were very kind to include me in a group e-mail discussion last year about your recent article on the electron. This inspired me to study your and Martin’s 1997 electron model in more detail, and to review Vivian’s article as well as take a deeper look at Hestenes’ and Rivas' models of the electron as a helically moving light-speed electric charge, which came from their Dirac equation analyses. Then, in combination with rediscovering Dirac’s Nobel lecture quote about the electron moving at the speed of light but only being observable moving at less than the speed of light due to its small amplitude and high frequency motion, various ideas and results kind of synthesized and the relativistic charged photon model of the electron emerged. That would not have happened so soon (if at all) without my having had the opportunity to openly exchange views with you, Martin and Vivian and several of your other colleagues, which I am very grateful for. Chip’s work has also been very inspiring to me. I feel that we all may have found different pieces of, or at least clues to, the electron-photon puzzle.
>>> Richard
>>>
>>>> On Apr 2, 2015, at 8:41 PM, John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My dear Chip,
>>>>
>>>> There is absolutely nothing to apologise about. I should apologise as well, if it comes to that, for singling that thing out (when there is much more in the general discussion we have all been having). It is only through discussion, and seeing what others make of an exposition, that one can find the flaws in ones own presentations. Provided the questioner is serious and thoughtful, and of good will, it is pretty much, for me, the most valuable thing there is!
>>>>
>>>> So thank you for getting the wrong end of the stick there. This particular one (together with Richard going the same way) - has been very valuable to me. The fault lies, if any, in our poor explanation of just what we are talking about - a fault I will try to rectify in future work.
>>>>
>>>> Regards, John.
>>>> From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 11:26 PM
>>>> To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
>>>> Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request
>>>>
>>>> Hi John W and Martin
>>>>
>>>> I would like to apologize for referring to your model form the 1997 paper as based on a “charge ribbon”.
>>>> That was clearly an erroneous oversimplification. Will change the wording in my discussions and papers to try to avoid misrepresenting.
>>>>
>>>> Your work has been a tremendous inspiration and I do not want to misrepresent it in any way.
>>>>
>>>> Warmest Regards
>>>>
>>>> Chip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of John Duffield
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 9:51 AM
>>>> To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
>>>> Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request
>>>>
>>>> Chip:
>>>>
>>>> It is interesting, isn’t it? Here’s another one:
>>>>
>>>> With a small correction factor Δ related to binding energy, we can say this:
>>>>
>>>> <image001.gif> = 1.60218 × 10-19 Coulombs
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ε0 = 8.854187817 x 10-12
>>>>
>>>> 4π = 12.56637061
>>>>
>>>> c3 = 26.94400241 x 1024
>>>>
>>>> With no correction for binding energy we can calculate electron charge as:
>>>>
>>>> √(ε0/4πc3) = √(8.854187817 × 10-12 / 338.5883200×1024) = √(2.6150304 × 10-38) = 1.61710 × 10-19
>>>>
>>>> This is within 1% of the measured value of 1.60218 × 10-19 Coulombs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> John D
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Chip Akins <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 2:56 PM
>>>> To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request
>>>>
>>>> Hi John D
>>>>
>>>> Interesting stuff about Planck’s constant.
>>>>
>>>> 2.42631 × 10-12 m is the physical wavelength of the confined photon in my electron model.
>>>>
>>>> Chip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of John Duffield
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 3:43 AM
>>>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>>>> Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request
>>>>
>>>> John:
>>>>
>>>> The paper looks interesting. If you wish I’ll get back to you on it properly at a later date. Meanwhile take a look athttp://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9610066 <http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9610066> and at http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/19084/ <http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/19084/> by a medical doctor called Andrew Worsley. He talks about “harmonic quintessence”, and stuff like this:
>>>>
>>>> Planck units are based on the properties of space. The Planck length is 1.616199×10−35 metres. It’s defined using the speed of light, Planck’s constant of action h, and the gravitational constant G. It can be written (using the reduced Planck’s constant) as ℓP=√(ћG/c³). We can replace √(ћG) with 4πn where n is a suitable value with appropriate dimensionality. The expression 4πn/√c³ still yields the Planck length. But if we now set n to the value 1 whilst retaining its dimensionality, then with a very small correction factor δ related to binding energy, the result is a different length. It is however familiar:
>>>>
>>>> <image002.gif>= 2.42631 × 10-12 metres
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> John D
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Vivian Robinson <mailto:viv at etpsemra.com.au>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 2:49 AM
>>>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request
>>>>
>>>> John,
>>>>
>>>> You are in. I look forward to receiving your contributions to the structure of photons and electrons.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Vivian Robinson
>>>>
>>>> On 01/04/2015, at 9:26 AM, "chandra" <chandra at phys.uconn.edu <mailto:chandra at phys.uconn.edu>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Welcome, John M.!
>>>>> I am glad to see that you are “on board” finally!
>>>>> Please, feel free to read up the “archived” discussions and present your views using brief quotations to remind the readers the connection to the earlier discussions.
>>>>> Chandra.
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael: Please, send out the instructions as to how to access the archived discussions.
>>>>> <>
>>>>> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of John Macken
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 12:25 PM
>>>>> To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>>> Subject: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - Request
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to join the Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion Group. I am John Macken and I presented a paper titled “Spacetime-based model of EM radiation” at the Nature of Light V conference in 2013. I have also submitted an abstract to make another presentation at the 2015 conference.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am very interested models of the internal structure of an electron and other particles. I have a paper that will be published next month which deals with particles, fields and forces. A preprint is available at:
>>>>> http://onlyspacetime.com/QM-Foundation.pdf <http://onlyspacetime.com/QM-Foundation.pdf>
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe that I can make significant contributions to your discussion group.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> John Macken
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at viv at etpsemra.com.au <mailto:viv at etpsemra.com.au>
>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>">
>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>> </a>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atjohnduffield at btconnect.com <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>
>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>">
>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>> </a>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atjohnduffield at btconnect.com <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>
>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>">
>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>> </a>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>">
>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>> </a>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>">
>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>> </a>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at johnduffield at btconnect.com <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150405/bf36fe59/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list