[General] Questionnaire

Mon Aug 3 10:52:43 PDT 2015

Chip:

I obviously like your arguments. Somehow, our neural network has a decent degree of similarity, in spite of being brought up in different cultures! This is very important; because, we need, like the story of the blind men mapping the cosmic elephant, diversity of approaches and then bring them together by demanding conceptual continuity among diversity while imposing logical congruence. These two actions, taken iteratively, will take our epistemic theories closer and closer towards ontic reality. The path for iteration is to imagine (visualize) the invisible interaction processes. This is, of course, if we accept the postulate that the interaction processes in nature are connected more closely to the ontic reality than the measured data that represent only limited response to any interaction. Just data-validated theories cannot be our final theories.

As you have underscored, the word "complex" in CTF has been used after a lot of rumination on the interaction processes for different phenomena: Present belief that the current epistemic theories are good enough. As if there is no need to seek out ontic theories.

Yes, the entire concept of modern particle theory and the concept of forces will have to be changed to integrate with the CTF model; the CTF itself need to undergo many refinements. We have to replace Bosons as force mediators by emergent secondary and tertiary potential gradients of the CTF around self-looped oscillators (particles) and their assemblies. Some type of "CTF" is also the best approach to develop the unified field theory, the dream of Einstein. How can we unify physics unless everything tends to emerge and become one again repeatedly into the same field. That is CTF. The universality of energy conservation emerges automatically. Emergent particles and propagating EM waves are perturbations of the CTF, linear and non-linear, respectively. These entities can exchange energies. Since, the tension field cannot assimilate the perturbation energy delivered on to it; the energy can only be exchanged amongst the emergent entities; and the conservation of energy becomes a natural law of the universe.

Yes, 100% energy of the universe is held by the space as a very complex tension field. So, we need to start thinking what are the various possible mechanisms that can create (impart) such an aggregate of  complex tension properties. Which also begs the question: What is this primordial space occupying thing? How did it acquire these diversity of tensions? The enquiry is always endless! That is the perpetual challenge for the human mind so it can evolve continuously. This demand of nature for continuous evolution (changes) of our minds make a very large segment of global population to cling to un-changing religions. And that is how all of our cultures have been promoting the Messiah Complex (the belief in working orders) for millennia. Since all of us need a sense of stability to live our daily life; we all have some genetic propensity to Messiah Complex: The tendency to accept a working epistemic theory as the final theory.

I am of strong opinion that the advances we have achieved over the last few millennia, specifically, the last few hundred years; it is time to pull out all the foundational postulates behind all the working theories and then try re-casting them in many different ways based on the cumulative and latest experimental knowledge, that we have gathered so far.

Only collaboration among a large group of open-minded scientists can carry out this task forward through several generations. It is not the job of a single Einstein.

Sincerely,
Chandra.
PS: I have attached two my conference papers: where I have "gone out on the limb" to challenge myself and challenge others to over-ride our intrinsic Messiah Complex!
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 12:43 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Questionnaire

Hi John W

The Tipsy Crow sounds like it fits the needs.  Looking forward to it.  I have to arrive late, on Monday evening, due to business responsibilities, but hopefully we can all get together several times during the conference.

A bunch of opinion follows...

So if a photon occupies a single point in spacetime, then all energy is traveling, and always has traveled at c, so all energy, if it originated at a single point, like the big bang, is still at that single point is spacetime, so the universe occupies a single point in spacetime. ???

Nope my friend.  Doesn't add up.  For this and many other reasons.

Perhaps "absorber" is the wrong word for space, but "container" is correct.  Space contains and manages all energy.  It places the specific limitations on the propagation of all energy, including photons.  It keeps light from traveling infinitely fast, proven experimentally. So space "contains" light in more than one sense of the word. Space displays the following constraints on light:  [cid:image009.png at 01D0CDF3.A3A79400]
And similarly[cid:image010.png at 01D0CDF3.A3A79400], so that light exhibits a finite velocity, (and exhibits mass effects). So space constrains light, and light has momentum, so one result of these relationships is simply that light displays mass effects. Energy density in space defines the values for the "density" of space p and the transverse modulus of space[cid:image011.png at 01D0CDF3.A3A79400]. This is true because energy in space causes mass effects ... p, and energy in space stretches the "tensors" of space... [cid:image012.png at 01D0CDF3.A3A79400]  Space therefore constrains and contains light, and space constrains and contains all energy.  The properties of space, the constraints of space, allow the existence of light, and cause the confinement of energy into fermionic particles. So space is not that "simple".  However space is an elegant and comprehensive container for all energy.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 10:41 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Adam K; Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Manohar .; Joakim Pettersson; Ariane Mandray
Subject: Re: [General] Questionnaire

Hello Chip,

The feeling is mutual. Looking forwards to meeting you too.

Do not get the impression that I do not think that energy in any form has mass like effects. Pinned energy manifests as mass. Space, though, is not a "container". Space, by itself, is too simple. It is the derivatives of space-time with respect to space-time that introduce the phase changes needed to keep things confined. This is the stuff of the "boxes" that confine energy. Do not think too simply! Space, by itself, cannot (and does not experimentally) absorb light. Look around you! You need the right topology, and for that to be filled with energy, before you have a space-time capable of interacting with light.

Regards, John.

P.S. have been doing some research on possible meeting places. I think the "Tipsy Crow" on j - 5th may be interesting place. Good reviews and good beers. There are three floors. Upstairs seems the best. They have an "exchange rate" on beers , wth populars going up and others down, so if you have a preference for a particular style let Martin and I know and we will try to get in your favourites at a good rate. I think we may well find ourselves there on Saturday night for any early comers. There is a cover, but you can book in for nothing at their website early on Saturday for free.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 2:56 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Questionnaire
Hi John W

I am so looking forward to our discussions at the conference.

It seems that space is the container for all energy, in any form.  The properties of space manage and control all energy. Martin's "Light is heavy" paper illustrates part of the point, that energy, in any form, in space, has mass-like effects.  And for me, that also implies that light has an independent existence in space once emitted. Additionally, why state that matter is made of the same stuff as light, and then ignore the relativistic consequences of that statement?  For if that statement is true, then there is a clear Euclidian definition for 3 space, and a clear cause for time, as we perceive it.
So I am coming to believe that Chandra's CTF is more plausible than 4 space, and that 4 space is only a representation of the interaction of matter (fermions) with space. And then time, as we know and measure it, is the result of the interaction of particles, caused by the speed of light.

This would mean that space itself is a perfectly satisfactory "absorber" of emitted radiation, because space is the "container" and "manager" of all energy.

The Complex in Complex Tension Field, for me includes some torsion and "polarization" effects as David mentioned in an earlier email.

For many reasons therefore I do not believe the "single-point-in-spacetime" "photon exchange" is real at all. For me, this approach causes many more problems than it solves.

And for many additional reasons, I feel that entanglement is an illusion caused by misinterpretation of the results of experiment, and misunderstanding the basic nature of light and extended spatial nature of particles and their fields.

The cheapest solution to the HBT effect is Maxwellian waves.

I really admire your work, and the progress you have made in in that work, but I still feel that you have this one wrong.  Maybe you will be able to show me why it must be so, but so far it still seems contrived to me.

With respect and warm regards.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 7:59 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Michael Wright; Manohar .; Joakim Pettersson; Ariane Mandray
Subject: Re: [General] Questionnaire

Now this is an interesting bunch of questions. Right to the heart of the matter indeed!

I think it is wise to pause and go back here to the origin of dialectic itself - the Greek invention to begin to split up the world and systematise it. The idea that a question could be asked sufficient to split the answer into two possibilities, one true one false.  I think the answer to "is the photon quantised or is it the emitter and/or absorber" is ... "all three" because "all three" are part of the single process that we call photon exchange. Also the word "photon" as opposed to "light" simply CARRIES the meaning of "quantised".  This is a trite way to end an argument, but does not say anything about the deep understanding of why and how it is "quantised". Saying "quantised is often giving a word to sum up a lack of knowledge, to encompass a lack of understanding into a simple label. We humans have been doing this sort of thing for a long time. There is an awful lot of room for bullshit here and it is easy to fool oneself into thinking something has deep meaning, when in fact it is contingent on the mathematical framework in which one considers it. To illustrate this, just look at my light paper! The maths quantises continuous light if it is more than a few wavelengths long - but is the maths right? Who knows?

Coming back to experiment, it may be nice to think about an emitter emitting a single photon bullet, later absorbed by an absorber, with the photon having an independent existence in between but this is not only not what is observed in experiment, but the whole body of evidence contradicts this simple view. Emitter and absorber ARE experimentally entangled. Antibunching happens - but it part of a whole process. There is also the Hanbury-Brown Twiss effect to consider. The "interaction with absorber" theory also plays a role - bringing in the question of causality itself.  As Martin says this is a huge question.

Remember also that the whole theme of the bi-ennial conference Chandra has been organising for more than a decade has been to try to answer the very point of "what is a photon?". The fact that a conclusive answer has not yet emerged tells the story.

My own view is that the emitter AND absorber need to be quantised, but quantised in the same way. There is a need to look at Phat photons as a good experimental probe here and also, as I suggest in my "light" paper, emitters and absorbers in the fractional quantum Hall regime may have fractional quantisation E = 1/3 h nu (you heard it here first!). This would show, conclusively, the role the emitter and absorber play, but still not settle the question posed properly as I think the fractional quantisation itself is not yet properly understood..

I think to make proper progress  we need to develop a better theory that fits all the facts - just and no more. A theory that lays bare the nature of the emitter, the absorber, and the intermediating process - all at once and from a deeper underlying basis. A theory that allows the whole process to be understood within a single framework.

Should be fun trying this, even if we cannot sort it all out next week!

Regards, John W.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Mark, Martin van der [martin.van.der.mark at philips.com]
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 12:55 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Questionnaire
Dear David, Richard and Chip,
Thanks for the comments, what we are dealing with here is quite a difficult question indeed.
First of all Chip, by your remark I can see you do really get the essence of and reason for my question, that is going to be helpfull.
Richard, certainly most of what you say is true and even relevant but does not yet hit on the deep implications of the possible answer of my question.
I must emphasize that do not denie any of the experimental facts commonly or less commonly known about quantum optics, etcetera.
Bunching and anti-bunching are true phenomena that shows transfer of energy goes in blips, and with certain statistics associated, in complete accordance of what we may think is a photon. Indeed, this is what IS a photon, this is what defines ot experimentally.
What I am saying is that one can jump to conclusions and imagine a simple picture of a photon being some quantum particle to explain the outcome of the experiments (and for that purpose it will, always, work perfectly). Alternatively one can take a more involved point of view by asigning an essential role to the emitter and absorber to explain the experiment. Being lazy, that doesn't seem to be a comfortable option, but it does open the door to solving deeper questions:
What is the nature of the photon?
The alternative view relieves the photon from having on board everything to define it. That is the crucial insight.
After a century in which no person has been able to answer the question, this seems to be a viable option. On top of that, it solves non-locality issues.
Cheers, Martin

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone

Op 3 aug. 2015 om 06:13 heeft Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>> het volgende geschreven:
Hi Chip,
    There's a long history and fight among the founders of quantum mechanics since 1926 about whether quantum processes can be treated as continuous (Schrodinger and others) or discrete quantum jumps (Heisenberg and others). Their two quantum calculation methods (wave mechanics and matrix mechanics) were shown to be mathematically equivalent. And Einstein's ideas in 1905 about the light quantum (later named photon) as a carrier of light energy  weren't really generally accepted until 1923 with the Compton effect where photons seem to act like billiard balls in terms of their energy and momentum interactions with electrons. Semi-Classical physics argues that emission and absorption processes are quantized but energy transmission through radiation remains classical. Most physicists don't accept semi-classical ideas any more and accept that the photon carries quantized energy given by E=hf even when photons are not being emitted or absorbed. QED supposedly solved the problem by renormalizing infinities to finite numbers. Dirac was never satisfied with this approach (ugly math), but QED does give very precise answers. So it's a long and continuing story. I think that Compton wavelength-sized electron models are a key to deeper understanding of all this, because this length is often treated as a cutoff length in calculating the force between two electrons which might otherwise be treated as point charges associated with infinite energies.
      Richard

On Aug 2, 2015, at 7:07 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Richard

The question of whether the "photon" is inherently quantized, or just appears quantized to us, through our observation of the reaction of the quantized emitters and absorbers, seems to be an important aspect for creating a full understanding of the nature of "photons", and their reaction with particles.
The process of emission is a quantized process, as is the process of absorption. But since a photon can be any number of wavelengths, depending on the quantized configuration of the emission process, it seems that the photon itself cannot be strongly quantized, and may have no inherent quantization at all, meaning no forces in itself which cause it to be quantized.  We know that fermions have forces which cause their resonant nature and quantization.
If I understand Martin's challenge, it is to show that the photon must be inherently quantized, and not just quantized because of the emitter and absorber. ??

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2015 7:54 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Questionnaire

Martin,
   That's fine. But why focus on the photon as not a particle but a process? The emitter, electromagnetic field and absorber are processes also and not particles. So what is the source of existence and stability of all these? Everything is process. So where do we go from here? Quantum effects are also process. Does that not make them less physical?
          Richard

On Aug 2, 2015, at 5:38 PM, Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>> wrote:

Richard, not true. How does it work?
It only proves the end result, the quantized transfer, but not whether the field is intrinsically quantized.
There is an aweful lot of shit and confusion and parottery ( if that is a concept) about this. So, please dont quote it unless you can really explain why it makes the difference.
My position is actually that this is impossible at the deepest level!
But the consequence of that is that it is also impossible to make a description of a photon as being a particle! Because it is only a process, and that does not require existence and stability by itself, it aquires it within the context of the exchange of energy and angular momentum by emitter, electromagnetic field and absorber. This is why the process can have any number of wavelenghts, any polarization and be entangled.
Cheers, Martin

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone

Op 3 aug. 2015 om 02:14 heeft Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>> het volgende geschreven:
Hello Martin,
   Thanks for your challenge to the group.
   I'm quoting from the Wikipedia article "Photon" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon :  "Although these semiclassical models contributed to the development of quantum mechanics, many further experiments[2]<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#cite_note-2>[3]<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#cite_note-3> starting with Compton scattering<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering> of single photons by electrons, first observed in 1923, validated Einstein's hypothesis that light itself is quantized<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization_%28physics%29>. "

The abstract of reference [2] titled
Photon Antibunching in Resonance Fluorescence,
H. J. Kimble, M. Dagenais, and L. Mandel
Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 691 - Published 12 September 1977

says: "The phenomenon of antibunching of photoelectric counts has been observed in resonance fluorescence experiments in which sodium atoms are continuously excited by a dye-laser beam. It is pointed out that, unlike photoelectric bunching, which can be given a semiclassical interpretation, antibunching is understandable only in terms of a quantized electromagnetic field. The measurement also provides rather direct evidence for an atom undergoing a quantum jump."

You seem to be claiming that there is no definite experimental proof that light itself is quantized. Does the above experiment contradict your claim?  You may say that the above experiment or any single experiment or group of experiments cannot be completely conclusive. Well, is any physics experiment completely conclusive about a theory? Are you asking the impossible when you ask for conclusive experimental proof?

 all the best,
      Richard

On Aug 2, 2015, at 4:23 PM, Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>> wrote:

Dear Andrew,
I have looked at the questionnaire and realized that the one, most important question is missing!
Question 2 is closest to it, but not quite as straight to the point.

The question is to my opinion the most fundamental of any to be asked in the context of the nature of the photon. It is: Does quantization of the transfer of electromagnetic energy and angular momentum (the process that is mediated by what we call "photon") resides in the electromagnetic field itself or in the emitter and absorber?  Or something else, perhaps.
Anyone may take a position of what he or she likes best of course, and I have my preference of what I would think it to be.
But if one takes a position as being the truth, it should be accompanied by reference to experimental proof.
I bet that no one can come up with any reference that is conclusive about this! It is the pink elephant in the room...if it is there we should make it explicit!!!!
Best regards, 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] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg
Sent: zaterdag 1 augustus 2015 6:03
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew Meulenberg
Cc: Mary Fletcher
Subject: Re: [General] Questionnaire

Dear John M,
Looking forward to talking w you at the conference.

I recognized that most of us have too much to say on most of the items. Could you perhaps provide chapter or page of sections of your book that pertain to the questions? That would give an interested party a handy guide to the more detailed info and to your book.
Andrew

On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:02 PM, <john at macken.com<mailto:john at macken.com>> wrote:
Hello Everyone,

I am currently in Iceland and starting tomorrow I will be in Greenland for 7 days. Most of that time I will definitely be out of email contact and the rest of the time it is questionable if I will have any internet. I will be returning to the US just before the conference. I will arrive in San Diego about noon on Monday, Aug. 10. Therefore I will miss the Sunday night get-together.

I have found it very hard to write the concise answers required for the questionnaire. The reason is that I have much more detailed answers for each of the questions than most other people in the group. For example, I have just finished what I believe is the final substantive draft of my book titled "The Universe is Only Spacetime". It is now over 400 pages. The portion of the book addressed by the questions extends from chapter 4 to chapter 11. This is a total of 134 pages. Furthermore, I get into substantial quantitative detail and proofs which make short answers impossible.

For example, with electrons I have explained and quantified two components of the electron model. This model does not derive either the electron's Compton frequency or the fine structure constant. However, if these two numbers are provided, I can derive the electron's energy, inertia, gravitational curvature of spacetime, gravitational force with another fundamental particle, and electrostatic force with another fundamental particle. This derivation comes from the properties of spacetime and the particle model. If I just proceed from first principles, I generate the electrostatic force if both particles had Planck charge rather than elementary charge e. In an earlier email, John W. considered this to be a defect. He said that I had missed the correct value by more than a factor of 100 (missed by 1/α). This is ironic because I was quite happy with this answer. I was calculation the force assuming a coupling constant of 1, not the electron's force with a mysterious coupling constant of alpha (α).

I believe that this is the first time that a model of a fundamental particle has been able to generate the gravitational force and the electrostatic force even assuming a coupling constant of 1. If you know of any other model which has passed this test, I would be interested in hearing about it.

I have not mentioned it before, but my model also generates the strong force. The model also produces asymptotic freedom when quarks are bound together into hadrons and explains why the strong force increases as the separation distance is increased beyond the natural distance which produces asymptotic freedom. (all in the book.)

On another point, I believe that any model of particles that does not include waves which modulate the rate of time will never be able to generate either curved spacetime or the gravitational force. It is my understanding that Chandra's CTF model only involves the 3 spatial dimensions without involving time. If he introduces time into his model, then my model and his model would be very close.

Finally, I object to characterizing an electron as being a confined photon. I believe that a photon and an electron are both made of the same fundamental building block. Therefore photons can be converted to electron/positron pairs and vice versa. They are closely related, but saying that an electron is an oscillating confined photon implies that a photon is the fundamental building block of the universe or at least particles. It also implies that we will never be able to understand an electric field, a magnetic field or a charge in terms of a distortion of a more fundamental component.

I explain all of these in terms of a distortion of energetic spacetime. I claim that an electric field, a magnetic field and even a gravitational field have both an oscillating component and a non-oscillating component.   I give equations for these in the book. I show that the oscillating component gives the correct energy density to the electric and magnetic field. I also propose that a gravitational field has an energy density. I combine this with the energy of the spacetime field and show how the interaction generates a black hole when the energy density of the gravitational field at a particular frequency matches the energy density of spacetime at that frequency.

While I have finished this most recent revision of the book, it has not been loaded onto the website yet. There is a problem with the website that is preventing new material from being loaded onto the website. This problem is being worked on by one of my sons and should be fixed in a few days.

John M.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Andrew Meulenberg" <mules333 at gmail.com<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 10:57am
To: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Cc: "Mary Fletcher" <marycfletcher at gmail.com<mailto:marycfletcher at gmail.com>>
Subject: [General] Questionnaire
Dear Folks,
We have 4 contributors so far. It is very illuminating. I hope that at some point we can get convergence on at least some of the questions. John W. has added a question that everyone can add to the end of the list:
QUESTION 14: By what mechanism is the electron confined?
I do not have time to answer the good comments in the individual emails right now (wife and premature twins, Grant and Remington, are in the hospital and all doing well). However, I hope to have time at the Conference to do so in person for those present.
I will not be arriving until 8:16PM on Sunday evening, so I cannot join the group (where ever) until about 9PM. Please do not wait until then to get started. I will be leaving Friday evening.
My time and schedule are somewhat constrained by that of Bob Hudgins and Mary Fletcher, who will arrive earlier in the day. We are planning on renting a car and staying at a motel in South Bay where the rates are more reasonable. if anyone else is doing something similar, please let me know.
Best to all,
Andrew

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atmules333 at gmail.com<mailto: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>

________________________________
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">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto:martin.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>
_______________________________________________
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">
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">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto:martin.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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150803/9dc3d699/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image009.png
Type: image/png
Size: 702 bytes
Desc: image009.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150803/9dc3d699/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image010.png
Type: image/png
Size: 604 bytes
Desc: image010.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150803/9dc3d699/attachment-0005.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image011.png
Type: image/png
Size: 322 bytes
Desc: image011.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150803/9dc3d699/attachment-0006.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image012.png
Type: image/png
Size: 326 bytes
Desc: image012.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150803/9dc3d699/attachment-0007.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 150803_Phtn.-VI_SpaceInrtl.Frame.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 769600 bytes
Desc: 150803_Phtn.-VI_SpaceInrtl.Frame.pdf
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150803/9dc3d699/attachment-0002.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1508_Phtn.VI_Epistem_0724.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 513857 bytes
Desc: 1508_Phtn.VI_Epistem_0724.pdf
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150803/9dc3d699/attachment-0003.pdf>