[General] position

[David Mathes]

Richard,
Extending the model of the electron-as-a-photon model to a photon-based Standard Model has proven challenging. While the electron model may be extended to the muon and tau, it is the other particles which require attention including the neutrino family, quarks, and bosons, none which have not been modeled successfully. 
The general approach is to use a parametric equation set for the topological description. However, this cannot be done in isolation from other known constants and conditions. 
Overall, in the Standard Model caution is advised. Spin, mass and charge can be directly measured. Spin is a fundamental, direct measurement unlike other particles characteristics of the Standard Model particles which are calculated. Currently, there are no known spin 2 particles, and there is no known graviton of spin 0,1 or 2. Gravity is the major disconnect with the Standard Model. Some gravity theories suggest using  the relativistic gradients of current density while others simply look at the Poynting vector where S = E X B or E X H.
The question of the relationship between spin 1/2 and spin 1 particles suggests that there is a transition process from carriers to charge particles in both directions, and for their antiparticles as well. The transition process is not clearly understood. 
The partial charge of quarks provide some linkage to the leptons. However, quarks are bound by one of eight gluons. Of the eight gluons, six have two colors. one has four colors and one has six colors. So modeling the gluon looks challenging. So far, efforts to model the gluons have not been successful.
Furthermore, like the photon, the gluon has no mass and no charge. So there is a nice relationship to work from. 

Quarks may prove to be electrically charged gluons. Currently, there is no evidence to support this conjecture and no model. One would expect to begin with the six gluons that have two colors. The other two gluons with four and six colors are just plain odd.
The remaining bosons. W+, Z0 and W- are unified with the photon under U(1)XSU(2). Some research suggests that conditioning the photon under SU(N) may result in the other known and unknown bosons.
Part of the research into extending to the full Standard Model any electron-as-a-photon model is the need to be consistent with and correlated to known Feynman diagrams. To that end, standards are noted in the Postscript.
Best
David
PS The following sets of standards are use in my models. Any vetting would need to be reduced to a particular CODATA set (2010) and a particular date for the Standard Model.
A. For Fundamental Physical  Constants, NIST (US) recommends CODATA 2010. 
B. In the Standard Model,  the Particle Data Group defines the criteria and acceptable results to be included. 
Sixty-one (61) particles in The Standard Model are:
1. Six leptons, no flavors        a. 6 leptons        b. 6 antileptons
2. Six quarks at three flavors        a. 18 particles        b. 18 antiparticles
3. Eight gluons - strong nuclear force (QCD)
4. One Photon - electric .and. magnetic force, and charge, and as a result of charge, mass. (QED)         Part of electroweak group; see #5         a. Only 1 particle           b. No known antiparticle other than self (one might argue polarization)
5. Three particles W+, W- and Z0 bosons carry the weak nuclear force         a. 3 weak force particles          b. No known antiparticle other than self 
6. Higgs - 1 particle


 
   

   From: Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
 Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 9:09 PM
 Subject: Re: [General] position
   
Hi Chip, 
   I meant computer graphics 3D models, but physical models of the electron would also be very interesting and showable, particularly for a resting electron in  two proposed models - one composed of a spin 1 uncharged photon and the other a spin 1/2 charged photon, each tracing a closed helix on the surface of its respective torus. I’m working on this with a basic 3-D graphics program, and will continue, but your computer graphics programs are much more powerful (not to mention your facility with them). Computer graphics would be best to show relativistic electron models with their changing size with velocity. I can offer some advice if needed.
   The way our (the royal “our”?) views of electron models are developing, I think it may be time to consider redefining
A)  a boson as an uncharged photon (or similar uncharged light-speed particle like a gluon, or a charged or uncharged particle W+, W- or Zo with spin 1 (i.e. whole number spin, composed of a photon or similar light-speed object. Bosons may or may not have mass or charge.
B) a fermion as either a spin 1/2 charged photon like an electron, mu or tau, or an uncharged neutrino which may be a circulating spin 1/2 uncharged photon with low mass, or any of the quarks which may be spin 1/2 electrically charged gluons with color charge also. Fermions always have mass and sometimes charge. The unifying idea is that all fundamental particles move either externally or internally at light speed, whether they are fermions or bosons.
   I think it’s time to start thinking about how a spin 1/2 charged photon might be modeled by electric and magnetic fields. I think it would be much easier to generate an electron model from a spin 1/2 charged-photon model than a spin 1 uncharged-photon model (remembering that the the electron has spin 1/2 at highly relativist velocities which would be hard to get from a spin 1 photon). 
A spin 1/2 charged photon would be a net source of electric charge (by Gauss’ law), while an uncharged photon cannot be a source of net electric charge (as long as Gauss’ law holds), no matter how you twist and turn the photon. 
One thought is that a negatively charged photon could have all its electric field pointing inward (where the negative charge is located) and pointing transverse to the charged photon’s direction of motion, while the charged photon's magnetic field points perpendicular to the electric field directions but also transverse to the direction of motion of the circulating photon. 
The charged photon would follow a helical trajectory for a moving electron, which would become a circular trajectory for a resting electron, where the magnetic field would resemble a dipole field. Just an initial thought.
      Richard




On Apr 29, 2015, at 3:40 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Richard I supposed you were talking of a pictorial graphical model, but it dawned on me that you might be asking for a physical 3D model that I can create in my lab, perhaps of ABS plastic of your preferred color. Happy to help.  Just let me know what I can do. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 11:11 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] position  Chip,    In the energy-quantum photon model (for an uncharged spin 1 photon) the radius of the uncharged energy quantum's helix is R = lambda/2pi where lambda is the photon's wavelength, and the radius of the charged photon’s helix (for a spin 1/2 photon) is always lambda/4pi. In the spin 1 photon model the helix turns once per photon wavelength lambda (helical pitch = 1 lambda) while in the spin 1/2 photon model the helix turns twice per photon wavelength lambda (so the  helical pitch is 1/2 lambda). In both photon models the energy quantum's speed is c sort(2) and the forward helical angle is 45 degrees. The circulating charged photon's wavelength for a moving electron is found from E=gamma mc^2 = hf = hc/lambda (as in my charged photon/de Broglie wavelength article) and is lambda = h/(gamma mc, which is Lcompton = h/mc when electron speed  v=0) and so lambda decreases as 1/gamma with increasing electron speed. Combining this hidden circulating photon wavelength lambda=h/(gamma mc) with the 2 photon radius formulas above gives the spin 1 photon model's radius R1 in its electron model as R1=hbar/(gamma mc) = 2Ro/gamma, and the spin 1/2 photon model’s radius R2 in its electron model is R2= hbar/(2 gamma mc) = Ro/gamma where Ro = hbar/2mc is the usual radius for a resting double looped electron. So the two double-looping electron models composed of a spin 1energy-quantum photon model or a spin 1/2 energy-quantum photon model both reduce their photon’s radius R1 (for the spin 1 photon) and R2 (for the spin 1/2 charged photon) with increasing electron speed as 1/gamma as required from energy considerations. And for a resting electron (v=0) the two models give their photon radius as R1= 2Ro for the spin 1 photon model and R2=Ro for the spin 1/2 photon model. Geometrically as the photon circulates with its axis at radius Ro in both models, this gives the spin 1 photon model of the resting electron a closed helical trajectory on a spindle torus (self-intersecting torus) (because R1=2Ro) while the spin 1/2 photon model of the electron is a closed helical trajectory on a horn torus (donut with no hole) since R2=Ro. It would be nice to have a simple 3-D model of both of these photon-electron models of a resting electron and a moving electron (where the 1/gamma effect is shown for a moving electron).     Richard  
On Apr 28, 2015, at 4:37 AM, Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> wrote:  Hi Chip,Thank you for this very nice modeling, it is very good food for imagining things.Just a loose remark, it doesn’t matter a bit, why make negative red and positive blue? It is the weirdest convention I’ve seen. Maybe you do this on purpose just to triggers and not take any convention for granted!Anyway, what I really like to say with respect to the modelling of the photon is that the spiral structure around the line of propagation seems to be fractal or infinite or whatever. It occurred to me that there must be Some kind of fixed spiral structure that will mimic a spatial shrink by a factor of gamma while it is only the field strength over that spiral that changes, reallyl If you have modeled just that, then I think it is utterly brilliant. It reminds me of a infinitely broadband spiral antenna!!!! Whatever, you have helped me to gain a very interesting insight, thank you.The electron animation looks cool to, but in my mind no immediate observation condenses to something useful yet. Log spiral antennas: http://www.google.nl/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftolijojed.net%2Flog-spiral-antenna-pattern%2F&ei=7m8_VY2wNYe_PPXtgeAE&bvm=bv.91665533,d.d2s&psig=AFQjCNETagmdpl9_jVAhXKruvRJBCfqn8g&ust=1430307130240990 http://www.google.nl/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ems.elektro.dtu.dk/~/media/Centre/EMS_Electromagnetic_Systems/english/research/research_projects/projects/spiral_antenna/spiral_antenna02.ashx%253Fla%253Dda&imgrefurl=http://www.ems.elektro.dtu.dk/research/research_projects/projects/spiral_antenna&h=141&w=294&tbnid=Ag91Xs0bJg6dRM:&zoom=1&docid=0Ucr7bBdv8H0NM&ei=uW8_VYq5KdHbaPe0gMgK&tbm=isch&ved=0CCQQMygFMAU http://www.google.nl/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsuperkuh.com%2Fspiralantenna.html&ei=D3A_VYSXNsrZPdmOgbgL&bvm=bv.91665533,d.d2s&psig=AFQjCNETagmdpl9_jVAhXKruvRJBCfqn8g&ust=1430307130240990 Cheers, Martin Dr. Martin B. van der MarkPrincipal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare Philips Research Europe - EindhovenHigh Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)Prof. Holstlaan 45656 AE  Eindhoven, The NetherlandsTel: +31 40 2747548 From: General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: dinsdag 28 april 2015 1:45
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] position Hi Martin, John W, Vivian and all Attached is a video of an envisioned set of field lines for an electron model.Red lines are the more negative and blue the more positive ends of the field lines.There is a spiral shape to the field lines which assumes they have a fixed velocity.  That aspect does not come through completely in the animation.  It is also assumed that similar fields repel each other and that confinement places a limit on the repulsive effect.  The confined photon, which comprises the electron model, is one Compton wavelength, and makes a double loop.  Sorry, the animation does not yet rotate exactly around the center, still working on that one.  It is also assumed that the electron will have an additional “tumble” which is not yet modeled.  The electric field is depicted but the magnetic field is not yet in the animation. Watching the video, it seems you, Martin, are correct in that this type of model may display ½ integral spin from any direction. The intent is to attempt to go as deeply into the modeling as reasonably possible, to see if we can learn more of the details.  This seems to be required in order to reach the goal of modeling interactions more accurately. The color of the lines fades to white as the field strength drops off. (Of course the fields keep going, but become weaker with distance from the transport radius.) Thoughts, suggestions, and criticism are welcomed. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 3:01 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] position 
Dear Andrew,
It is a monumental task to keep track of everything, i have the same problem, but perhaps there are even more things that nobody seems to have mentioned, but can still also be found in a paper published in Annales de la fondation Louis de Broglie in 1997. ;-)Every fundamental particle must effectively be a single-mode cavity both containing and resulting from its own energy. It is three dimensional by diffraction of the almost infinite wavetrain that is biting its own tail in a single wavelength (mono mode) cavity. Well, actually, two polarization modes are allowed, giving rise to two spin states of the object. It is plausible, but remains to be proven rigorously, that a double loop gives the right equipartition of spin1/2 , simultaneous in all directions if the basic circulation is spin 1. The latter is what john and i put in: the photon, hence the title: Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology? Cheers, Martin

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
Op 27 apr. 2015 om 21:00 heeft Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:



Dear Richard,


Something that no one seems to have mentioned/noticed is that the bound photon, as a stationary electron, should have a spherical rather than a circular path. Only in this manner can it have angular momentum in all and any directions. Also, when moving, even slowly, relativistic effects will 'flatten' the sphere in the direction of motion. This flattening will raise the energy, increase the inertia, and introduce the E-field distortions called magnetic field, B.


The path distortion from the spherical with motion gives a helical path for some portion of the photon length. The path is much more complicated for elements of the path that are not normal to the direction of motion. The photon itself may be a standing wave moving at c. If so, elements of the wave move faster than c and later move slower than c. In the electron, the same thing may happen. Only the average velocity is limited to c. Since the photon is a wave, the phase velocity can greatly exceed c, before the electron velocity becomes relativistic.


Andrew
__________________________________ On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com> wrote:
Andrew and all,   Here’s a design challenge: design a single or double-looped circulating charged photon (either of spin 1 or spin 1/2) that models an electron and whose electric field satisfies Gauss’ law and generates the electron’s charge -e from its electric field, while its magnetic field generates the electron’s magnetic moment (or at least the Bohr magneton ehbar/2m). The charged photon should travel at light speed and obey the relations E=hf and p=h/lambda. It should move in a circular path when the electron is at rest and in a helical path when the electron moves at non-relativistic or relativistic velocities, and should continue to generate the charge -e from Gauss’ law while the electron is in motion. Indicate what modification(s) if any of Maxwell’s equations are necessary to do this (they should be as few as possible, if any).     Richard 
On Apr 26, 2015, at 9:04 AM, Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com> wrote:  Dear All,
Bob has addressed a point that should be too obvious to need consideration. However, for many years, I ignored it and it appears that most of us still do so. Conservation of charge. While it is possible to posit and describe the electron in terms of a photon, recognition of the requirement for charge conservation and the positive and negative (but net neutral) nature of all photons must be accepted as a 'given'.


It is for this reason that I have proposed the 4-D structure of the electron/positron pair. It explains so much and leads beyond the electron-only structure. I believe that this has to be a fundamental position for all of us - to be accepted, explained, and/or modeled in various ways. If not, then I fear that, as John W says, we will be unable "... to convince people we are not crazies..."


The point is that while the 'twist' can explain the net charge of an electron, it presents the problem of what happens to the opposite field lines. They cannot be confined inside a 3-D container (topologically impossible w/o a charge source). My field-rectification and wormhole conjecture may not be the answer; but, it does address the problem. The field lines, as the gradient of a potential, presents a picture that Bob and I will be proposing for the dynamic potentials of standing waves within an interference pattern.


The question is, "since there is no original potential within the space that becomes an electron, how does it get there?" Actually, to create an electron/positron pair, a strong electrical-potential gradient (such as a nucleus) must exist.  However, after the lepton pair is formed, the nucleus structure is left behind and remains unaffected. The potential(s) formed are balanced and become the lepton masses. They are separated in space by the nuclear potential gradient. Are they also separated and combined in 'time'? If so, how and by what. The energy density of the 'internal' field lines being compressed, by the photon 'curling' as it passes the nucleus, will distort space (into time) and help create the wormhole joining the field structures that will become the lepton pair.


This distortion is the electric potential created in the formation process. The womhole is the vortex that gives the pair stability (and perhaps their ultimate independence).


If anyone can come up with other (perhaps better) models, or reasons why such might not be required, please bring them forth.


Andrew
____________________________________ On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 8:17 AM, robert hudgins <hudginswr at msn.com> wrote:
Dear Friends of Light, 
Pardon my intrusion on your discussion.  I have been warned that I will be excluded unless  I actively participate.  

Chip's diagram's are beautiful!  His skill is enviable.  However, it provokes questions.  Why spin h and not 1/2?  Are colors charge related?  

The photon may be a useful abstraction for expressing the way light energy is packaged, rather than a stable, traceable entity. After the photon energy has been assembled it may travel as a loosely entangled assembly of EM waves that may follow unpredictable paths-- until they are condensed  and captured by a resonator.   Though the electron is clearly more discreet, it might also travel as an assembly of waves that pass through both openings of a double slit while engaging in constructive or destructive interference.  
I am having conceptual difficulty imagining a topological twist that totally conceals only the positive charge of a photon.  

Is an EM wave having only negative polarity a plausible construct?  Are electrons without a positive partners being created with any frequency today?

Thanks for your patience,
Bob


From: chipakins at gmail.com
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:59:56 -0500
Subject: Re: [General] Einstein Philosophy by Dyson


Hi All Just finished computing a possible field topology for a photon with spin h.Viewed from the longitudinal axis:<image001.jpg>And the side…<image004.png>Chip  From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2015 6:47 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Einstein Philosophy by Dyson Dear Chandra,I agree. I think that Einstein was even more right than he realized himself, but the future must show us.Bohr did a great job on finding the structure of the atom and introduced a revoltionary way of thinking to hold up the postulates required. That way of thinking, however, is merely a scafolding, and it should be removed to see the truth and beauty lying hidden behind it.Copenhagen interpretation is now no more than a dogma that hampers progress!Cheers, Martin
 
Op 25 apr. 2015 om 01:32 heeft chandra <chandra at phys.uconn.edu> het volgende geschreven:
Friends: For a brief moment, allow me to change the subject. Freeman Dyson is an excellent writer. In the last part  of his “Book Review” article (attached), Dyson beautifully summarizes the three philosophical positions of Einstein (Classical), Bohr (Duality) and the current generation (Quantum-Only). To save time and to get to the philosophy segment, jump to the bottom of the picture showing Bohr and Einstein goofing and relaxing!My philosophical position is more in line with Einstein; while acknowledging that the one of the three key reasons behind the emergence of quantum uncertainty is “because the processes in the second layer are unobservable” (Dyson). This is why I have proposed, with demonstrated experiments in my book (“Causal Physics”), that when we start framing our enquiring postulates to imagine and visualize the invisible interaction processes, the nature start to become a lot more transparent even within the current QM formalisms. Further, this philosophy of Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPME) shows that current QM, in spite of its great successes, a next generation formalism with deeper levels of enquiry has to be developed by the next generation. In other words, I am suggesting that our Knowledge Gatekeepers should change their blind devotion to currently successful theories and encourage the next generation to come up with various serious but radically different possible approaches.  Our conference platform is one such example.If we do not deliberately frame our enquiring questions to visualize the invisible aspects of nature’s interaction processes; we will forever remain in the darkness of duality. Duality represents ignorance; it does not represent new or better knowledge. We have to go beyond Bohr.Chandra. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 9:46 AM
To: David Mathes; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Manohar .; Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Ariane Mandray
Subject: Re: [General] Articles of interest Dear David and everyone,Sounds as though MIT does a bit of a better job of promoting itself than I do (what a surprise!).There is nothing much new in looking at single electrons. SLAC was doing this for years in HEP with its linear accelerator.  For that matter Millikan was sensitive to single electrons with his oil-drop experiment – and the school I went to was enlightened enough to let me do this experiment myself at the age of sixteen or so. What is marvelous is that they can make it sound as though detecting one electron something sexy! Robert Hadfield (in our group) is in the business of detecting single photons and John Weaver (in our group) has huge capability to look at individual electrons with some of his work as well. This stuff is widely published!More important than looking at detecting single electrons (easy enough!) is looking at the underlying  sub-electron structure. Back in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s I was in the business of looking at just that. I designed a single electron electrometer sensitive at down to about a thousandth of the electron charge. If you look at my Google scholar page you can find several papers related to this. The device could also be  used as a single electron pump, to deliver a stream of electrons phase locked to the frequency of a varying gate potential.  My paper (see attached), looking at the electron sub-structure delivered electrons one-at-a-time and probe the profile of the individual electron wave-function with a resolution of better than a tenth of its de Broglie wavelength. This experimental work did not stop when I left the field of course. Leo Kouwenhoven, in particular, spent many years investigating my single-electron electrometer device (and creating new ones) in the last quarter of a century. There is now a very great deal  of experimental information about the inner structure of matter, electrons (and photons) with which to work. What was lacking then, and is still not widely accepted now, is a proper theoretical framework within which to interpret this inner structure. This is what we have to do. Firstly develop the theoretical framework and secondly get the message out. We have to convince people we are not crazies and that this is serious, new science. That is what will be hard. Any communications of this to the outside world needs to get rid of the speculative , ill informed, or just plain wrong stuff that is perfectly ok within the context of an online discussion or over a pint or two, but not ok at all if we wish to make a serious attempt at convincing the outside world. Regards, John.

 _______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="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 mules333 at gmail.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%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 atmartin.van.der.mark at philips.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.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
<a href="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
<a href="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 davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.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/20150430/bd068937/attachment.htm>