[General] Nature of charge
Joakim Pettersson
joakimbits at gmail.com
Tue Dec 1 01:12:11 PST 2015
Sorry, I used the wrong reply button. Long for such a book though :-).
BR/joakim
On 2015-12-01 05:53, Richard Gauthier wrote:
> Vivian,
> Or at least the forward.
> Richard
>
>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Joakim Pettersson <joakimbits at gmail.com
>> <mailto:joakimbits at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Vivian: What if you invited John Williamson to write the first
>> chapter of your book?
>> Besides, a Kickstarter campain for that book could probably finance
>> John's work on that chapter and more ;-)!
>> BR/joakim
>>
>> On 2015-11-30 12:55, Vivian Robinson wrote:
>>> Johns W, H and All
>>>
>>> I would like to add a little to the discussion, particularly John
>>> Hodge's request for "What are the fundamentals of the universe? In
>>> doing so I wish to shorten John W's list somewhat.
>>>
>>> We have basic physical constants.
>>> Planck's constant h
>>> Electric charge e
>>> Gravitational constant G
>>> Electric permittivity𝜀o
>>> Magnetic permeabilityµo
>>>
>>> On top of those we have properties of matter:
>>> Structure?
>>> Massm
>>> Angular momentumIω (spin and intrinsic spin)
>>>
>>> Fundamental physical principles:
>>> Conservation of energy, momentum, parity
>>> Spacex, y, z of any value (Empty space has quite a lot of other
>>> interesting properties, the greatest of which are 𝜀o and µo)
>>> Position(wrt an observer)Δx, Δy, Δz from origin x = y = z = 0
>>> Time (wrt an observer)t
>>> Inverse timeν (frequency)
>>>
>>> I may have left out some and I am sure others will add those I have
>>> missed.
>>>
>>> Then you have derived properties,
>>> velocityd(x,y,z)/dt
>>> c= 1/(𝜀oµo)^2
>>> EnergyE = mc^2 = hν
>>> Temperature
>>> Pressure
>>> Special and general relativity theories
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> The list of derived properties gets quite large. I would like to go
>>> so far and suggest some physical principles, e.g., Pauli's exclusion
>>> principle and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle are derived
>>> properties based upon the structure of matter. You can argue whether
>>> energy is derived or fundamental, in the latter case, frequency and
>>> mass are derived.
>>>
>>> As best I can work out this discussion group has been about one of
>>> those properties of matter, namely structure. What started out s a
>>> discussion on the structure of photons has been extended to
>>> proposals for the structure of electrons. While new ideas are
>>> welcome, they should fit within a few parameters:-
>>> 1Known or demonstrable physical particles and principles. The
>>> standard model for the structure of sub atomic particles already has
>>> 61 fundamental particles (36 quarks, 12 leptons, 8 gluons and 5
>>> bosons (including the photon). Of those, none of the 36 quarks and 8
>>> gluons have been separately isolated and identified (they are all
>>> derived from experiment and mathematics). Only two combinations of
>>> two of the quarks form stable nucleons. Only three leptons, electron
>>> and electron and anti-electron neutrino, are known to be stable. The
>>> demonstration of their physical principles is almost entirely
>>> complex mathematics. Increasing that number and complexity on an "it
>>> matches a couple of properties" basis is not going to impress anyone
>>> unless it answers a lot of other questions.
>>> 2Electrons don't exist in isolation. They interact with protons,
>>> neutrons and photons in complex manners. If you wish your thoughts
>>> to be considered seriously it would be advantageous to show how your
>>> structure solves some of the unknowns about those other particles
>>> and some of the complex interactions.
>>> 3Demonstrate how a proposed structure matches known properties of
>>> electrons and preferably predicts unknown properties.
>>> 4From a personal perspective I would also add that if you can show
>>> how your structure leads to what I call derived properties, Pauli's
>>> and Heisenberg's principles, relativity etc. that is so much the better.
>>>
>>> Having said that, even if you do, there is no guarantee that your
>>> ideas will be taken seriously.
>>>
>>> I now revert to John H's question, "What are the fundamentals of the
>>> universe?" Apart from those listed above and some I may have missed
>>> out, my contention is that all matter is made of the same "stuff"
>>> (quoting MvdM), and that stuff is photons. Thus the importance of
>>> the SPIE conference and this discussion group on "what is a photon?"
>>> That the photon is not a well understood entity does not prevent it
>>> from being used as the basis of other structures, as long as known
>>> properties are acknowledged. Like others I contend that the electron
>>> is a photon (of a particular lower energy) that makes two
>>> revolutions within its wavelength to become the particle that is the
>>> electron. In order to physically rotate, it must continually emit
>>> and absorb (virtual) photons at a constant rate that matches its
>>> angular momentum (Iω), giving it the property of electric charge.
>>> Its spin is angular momentum, which is made up of the mass of the
>>> photon, m = hν/c^2, travelling in a circle of radius hbar/2mc at the
>>> speed of light. As it moves, its structure means that it
>>> automatically moves according to the special relativity corrections,
>>> with the added proviso that its radius must diminish as its velocity
>>> increases. This is why the electron is observed as a point particle
>>> when scattered at high energy. Its magnetic moment is generated as a
>>> combination of the rotating charge and the residual magnetic moment
>>> of photon's B field.
>>>
>>> That structure is also the key to Einstein's E = mc^2 equation. When
>>> the photon is travelling in a circle, it is mass with angular
>>> momentum Iω = half hbar. Unlocking its angular momentum converts it
>>> to a linear photon with energy E = mc^2. That model makes a number
>>> of testable predictions of unknown electron properties. The two
>>> polarities of electric charge are the direction the photon that is
>>> the particle rotates wrt its magnetic field. Different charges are
>>> mirror images of each other. Spin is quantised because an electron
>>> can only spin one way to the other, wrt an observer. The different
>>> states of spin are merely "other side of the page" images
>>> (measurements) of the same rotating photon.
>>>
>>> I also suggest that same model is the basis of the other particles,
>>> proton, neutron and neutrino. That enables a good number of
>>> properties of the protons and neutrons to be matched (I haven't
>>> tried them all), as well as predicting quite a few unknown
>>> properties that cn be tested experimentally. It also gives a
>>> structure and maximum mass for (electron) neutrinos and shows why
>>> they effectively travel at the speed of light c, even though they
>>> have mass. The measured diameter of the central core of the
>>> nucleons, ≈ 0.105 fm, exactly matches the radius predicted under
>>> this model, namely r = hbar/2mc.
>>>
>>> The structure of the nucleons is responsible the generation of the
>>> elementary particles. The muons and pions. the longest lived
>>> elementary particles, exist inside the nucleons at rest. The
>>> remainder are only generated when accelerated nucleons, which have
>>> an increased frequency and hence mass, are stopped in a collision.
>>> The nucleons now have excess energy of which they must rid
>>> themselves because their frequencies are no longer stable under
>>> their rest time frame reference. They do so by cascading through a
>>> series of quasi stable oscillations, continually generating and
>>> emitting muons and pions as circular photons and also energy as
>>> linear photons. Muons are 1/9th the fundamental proton frequency and
>>> are a single oscillation, giving them angular momentum half hbar.
>>> Pions are two oscillations combined, 1/9th plus 1/27th, giving them
>>> angular momentum 0 or 1 x hbar and positive, neutral or negative
>>> charge depending upon their combination.
>>>
>>> So it goes on. The proposed nucleon structure makes it very easy to
>>> understand nuclear binding and the structure of nuclei. You can get
>>> some more details at my website www.universephysics.com. I have
>>> compiled everything into a publication, Understanding the Physical
>>> Universe, of which the website gives over 10% of what is in the
>>> book. I must get some time one day to take it a little further.
>>>
>>> In the second chapter I suggest how special relativity is a derived
>>> property from the structure of matter. In the last chapters I
>>> suggest how general relativity is a derived property from the
>>> properties of photons and the principle of conservation of energy.
>>>
>>> In summary to John H's question, the fundamentals of the universe
>>> are a few physical constants, some conservation (and other)
>>> principles and the structure of matter based upon the existence of
>>> photons. Most of the other properties, special and general
>>> relativity, uncertainty and exclusion principles, temperature, etc
>>> are derived. Which brings us back to "What is a photon". I am
>>> prepared to say "I don't fully understand, but that should stop it
>>> from being used in a theory.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Viv Robinson
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30/11/2015, at 3:07 PM, John Williamson
>>> <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yo Al,
>>>>
>>>> (Many others French, Calibar parts of US ...)
>>>>
>>>> Yep, round and round in circles sounds likely doesn't it! This is
>>>> certainly true for most of the mad theories out there. The
>>>> parameter count starts large, argues to deal with one crucial point
>>>> which "no one else gets" but ends up (after including the ansatz)
>>>> even larger. The better ones (most of us then!) at least end up
>>>> with it being the same.
>>>>
>>>> I have a saying in reply to a cliche. Onwards and upwards! ....
>>>> and round and round in circles!
>>>>
>>>> If one goes up a hill one often ends up going round and round in
>>>> circles – or stuck at a point! There is a group in Scotland who
>>>> like to climb hills and pick off the tallest one a time - the so
>>>> called "munro baggers”. My brother, David and I like to mess with
>>>> this a little, climb the hills, walk round the top in a circle
>>>> (without mounting it - but taking time for each of the vistas -
>>>> spending perhaps an hour or two there) When we do this it always
>>>> amuses us to see how manyfolk reach the top, scan round briefly,
>>>> maybe take a selfie, and then go straight back down again. On the
>>>> popular hills, on a good day, this can easily be dozens. I have to
>>>> admit, once the rush has passed, we like to go and sit on the top
>>>> in peace and quiet as well- weather permitting!
>>>>
>>>> Back to business.In 1991 Martin and I made a list of all the
>>>> starting points of the set of theories that constituted the then
>>>> state of play of the “standard model”. I forget the exact number of
>>>> a-priori inputs– but it was approaching a hundred. Think … six
>>>> quarks, the SU(3) of flavour that goes with it,the additional SU(3)
>>>> of colour (gluons), three charged leptons, three neutrinos, four
>>>> electroweak gauge bosons, The Higgs mechanism to deal with the mass
>>>> problem, space, time, energy, charge, the Su(2) of spin, the
>>>> plethora of observed symettries – CPT. A handful of “principles”
>>>> Pauli exclusion, Heisenberg uncertainty, Mach’s ….
>>>> wave-particle-duality, U(1) in general (as it pertains to the
>>>> setting up of “wave-functions”, quantum “collapse”, the Poincare
>>>> stresses lots of “conservation laws” (which tend to express the
>>>> conservation of a quantity whose base nature is not more deeply
>>>> understood) …. I’m up at over 40 already and not even trying!
>>>>
>>>> Now it should be realised that if one can express any ONE of these
>>>> in terms of another – and hence reduce the number of “fundamental”
>>>> inputs by one, that this is major progress. For example Martin and
>>>> my 1997 paper reduced the number of fundamental constants by one
>>>> expressing charge in terms of Planck’s constant, or vice-versa.
>>>> This is net progress. It also –incidentally, got the value for g-2
>>>> (the experimental difference for the value of 2 for the
>>>> gyromagnetic ratio predicted by the Dirac model) from a
>>>> consideration of the “rotation horizon”.This latter is very
>>>> important as this experiment is the rock on which all previous
>>>> “electromagnetic electron” models of the 20^th century (due to Mie,
>>>> Einstein, Dirac) and many others, had foundered.
>>>>
>>>> It is indeed so that parts of your (latter) list are derivative of
>>>> one another – but it could be argued that the primary list (of 6)
>>>> are also not primary. For example, I would not put all of charge,
>>>> mass, and length there. I do not thing charge is a primary starting
>>>> point at all (though I know current comes into the MKSA system).
>>>> Also one can argue that mass and (inverse) time are related. Maybe
>>>> I would add stuff instead – for example Planck’s constant hbar.
>>>> Plus, there is the argument I have been making as to whether space
>>>> and time, or their inverses are more primary.
>>>>
>>>> After setting up the list, Martin and I set out to try to derive
>>>> the starting point of where this all came from using the simplest
>>>> possible ansatz. Now here comes the problem: as you say to a
>>>> “newbie” that any of this should be feasible sounds rather
>>>> unlikely.Read no further: the man is clearly a nutter. No-one could
>>>> do that! Just not possible. Forget about it!
>>>>
>>>> At the same time, as things stand in 2015,there are a large number
>>>> of “competing” “theories” (as David points out), of which the WvdM
>>>> view is only one. The present group, just by themselves, has lots!
>>>> Not only that- many of the others are more appealing on the surface
>>>> – they speak to “common sense” notions which dismiss things many
>>>> anyway find hard to understand – such as the limiting velocity of
>>>> light, for example. Some speak to “familiar” science fiction, such
>>>> as FTL travel and “many worlds” time travel that everyone has seen
>>>> on TV and in the movies. The WvdM view is, relatively, extremely
>>>> hard. Far easier to dismiss it and look, first, at something else.
>>>> The fact that other “theories” may raise more problems than they
>>>> solve, and may even be in direct conflict with aspects of
>>>> experiment, is taken to be irrelevant. If one fails to understand
>>>> so many things already, what is a few more?
>>>>
>>>> Now I am very much in favour of saying what goes into a theory –
>>>> and what comes out. The net balance then. A couple of years ago I
>>>> gave a series of lectures on “all of science”. These took some of
>>>> the base theories, such as quantum mechanics, quantum
>>>> electrodynamics and the “standard model” and explained what went in
>>>> and what came out-in terms meant for the understanding of (erudite)
>>>> mothers. You can look at most of these if you like as they are up
>>>> on Vimeo (thanks Nick!). Just google “Williamson physics vimeo” –
>>>> should do it! The bottom line of those lectures is that there is an
>>>> awful lot that goes into the foundation of current physics. The
>>>> “standard model has over fifty “free parameters” (see above and
>>>> below). In my view this is far too many.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand there are many theories out there purporting to
>>>> deal with the “central mystery of physics”. One thing. These may
>>>> explain a particular experiment in an alternative way – but in
>>>> doing so they raise a lot of other issues in conflict with other
>>>> experiment – which is further ignored. This has become all too
>>>> fashionable – even forso called”mainstream” theories (such as QCD)
>>>> which are clearly and fundamentally in conflict with experiment.
>>>> This is thought by many nowadays to be ok. For me, it is not.
>>>>
>>>> Ok .. here is a (short) list of what one would really like to
>>>> understand. Feel free to add to it
>>>>
>>>> ·h
>>>> ·e
>>>> ·nature of space and time
>>>> ·CPT
>>>> ·Boltzmann constant
>>>> ·Non-existence magnetic monopoles
>>>> ·Gravitons
>>>> ·Allowed black body modes
>>>> ·Bell
>>>> ·Red shift
>>>> ·3K background radiation
>>>> ·Quantisation of e
>>>> ·Mass
>>>> ·Spin
>>>> ·g-2
>>>> ·Pauli principle
>>>> ·Uncertainty principle
>>>> ·Origin of universe
>>>> ·Flatness of universe
>>>> ·Conservation laws (times n!)
>>>> ·Energy ... mass
>>>> ·Momentum .... Force
>>>> ·Angular momentum
>>>> ·why is c constant?
>>>> ·and why 300 000 000 m/s?
>>>> ·wave-particle duality
>>>> ·Baryon number (6)
>>>> ·why only qqq and qq*
>>>> ·Lepton number (3) (3 generations puzzle)
>>>> ·SU(3) quarks
>>>> ·SU(3) gluons
>>>> ·neutrinos
>>>> ·coupling constant EM
>>>> ·coupling constant EW
>>>> ·coupling constant S (plus why running coupling constant)
>>>> ·Postulate of equivalence
>>>> ·Quantum measurement collapse
>>>> ·Dark matter
>>>>
>>>> ·First law of thermodynamics (Energy conservation)
>>>> ·Higgs
>>>> ·Spontaneous symmetry breaking
>>>> ·Mach’s principle
>>>> ·Poincaré stresses
>>>> ·Why 4-D?
>>>> ·Why (apparently) 3D
>>>> ·…..
>>>> Good ho. Now the solution of Hilbert’s sixth should, if it is
>>>> indeed a solution, explain all of these, just and no more, in terms
>>>> of an axiomatic starting set. That is it should, for example, say
>>>> why there is an SU(3) of flavour AND why the only observed states
>>>> within this large group are in the subset of either qqq or qqbar.
>>>> It should get the SU(2) of spin. Explain the U(1) of
>>>> electromagnetism and quantum solutions. It should either predict
>>>> the whole lot, or remove their necessity (e.g for “spontaneous
>>>> symmetry breaking) – and explain why this is the case. Big problem!
>>>>
>>>> Ok – those particular “big problems” (SU(3) etc .. not the whole
>>>> list) ARE derived from the new theory. So too are observed
>>>> symmetries, for example CPT. What has charge got to do with parity
>>>> and time-reversal? Indeed. Easy to understand if you take charge to
>>>> result from an electromagnetic localisation in a non-trivial
>>>> topology. Other, things which fall (I’m just going up the list) are
>>>> thePoincare stresses, why apparently 3D, Higgs (not needed). The
>>>> generations mystery, dark matter, the Pauli principle (my 2012
>>>> paper) and the allowed black body modes. This is quite a lot. No
>>>> a-priori quarks
>>>>
>>>> Hodge keeps shouting “what goes in”. John I (and Richard, Chip,
>>>> John M, Viv, Hagen, Albrecht) have already said what goes in in
>>>> both the paper and in lots of these emails. Never mind: I will say
>>>> it again.
>>>>
>>>> What goes in (to mine) is space (and its inversion), time (and its
>>>> inversion) and (root) energy.
>>>>
>>>> That is not really fair since there is – in fact more. For one
>>>> thing there is a specific way in which space and time go in – for
>>>> me as a restricted Dirac-Clifford algebra. RÄCl(1,3) – (as opposed
>>>> to a general Dirac algebra which is CÄCl(1,3). Hence it contains
>>>> not just space and time but the experimentally observed properties
>>>> of “space” and “time”.So one could better say that what goes in is
>>>> this restricted algebra, root energy and no more.
>>>>
>>>> Now this algebra includes the properties of “multiplication”
>>>> “division” (and hence inversion as mentioned above) “addition” and
>>>> “subtraction”. You may think the latter set are a given – but they
>>>> are anything but. What does it actually MEAN to divide space by
>>>> time. What is the underlying physical process that the (human
>>>> invention of) “division” is meant to represent in reality? For this
>>>> to be properly explained you need my and Martins paper on “division
>>>> and the algebra of reality”. Coming soon!
>>>>
>>>> What does NOT go in are some of the numerical values mentioned
>>>> above – although given some values (e.g. h) one can calculate
>>>> others (e.g. e).
>>>>
>>>> So- what else comes out in payment for the input. One gets the
>>>> Maxwell equations – all four of them and not just 2 as in Jackson.
>>>> As a bonus one gets four more – connecting current and spin. One
>>>> gets out the SU(2) of spin and SU(3) of flavour. One can derive
>>>> U(1) as a simple projection of the better symmetry in eq 21 (e.g.
>>>> eq 22). In other words one derives a big chunk of the starting
>>>> assumptions of the standard model. One derives the point-like (as
>>>> opposed to the point) interaction of elementary leptons. One gets
>>>> the starting point of QED, while fixing some of the renormalisation
>>>> problems. One understands the origin of CPT. One gets out the
>>>> origin of the Poincare stresses (which bind the electron charge).
>>>> One gets out a fully-relativistic wave function for the photon. One
>>>> gets out the reason for the quantisation of travelling
>>>> electromagnetic waves. One gets a possible explanation for dark
>>>> matter. One gets out a possible reason for black-body quantisation.
>>>> One gets out a new solution of the new equations corresponding to a
>>>> charged, spin half pair or particles identified with the electron
>>>> and the positron. I think, given the Dirac algebra existed already
>>>> and that I have only made it simpler and more specific, this is net
>>>> positive. What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, this is only the beginning. One has a new set of equations
>>>> of motion to play with, just waiting for people to start finding
>>>> more particular solutions.
>>>>
>>>> More comments below (in blue)
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> *From:*af.kracklauer at web.de[af.kracklauer at web.de]
>>>> *Sent:*Sunday, November 29, 2015 4:00 PM
>>>> *To:*John Williamson
>>>> *Cc:*Mark, Martin van
>>>> der;general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org; Nick
>>>> Bailey;pete at leathergoth.com; Ariane Mandray; David Williamson
>>>> *Subject:*Aw: RE: RE: [General] Nature of charge
>>>>
>>>> Privet, Ivan: (Russian hi---more fun!)
>>>>
>>>> I'v been writting "Clifford" where I should have been writting
>>>> conventional/Grassmann/Clifford. I.e., some version of the basic
>>>> idea (toy model) that looks and smells like stuff found in
>>>> no-too-esoteric lit. Those more used to using than
>>>> creating/discovering math find it difficult to translate to a known
>>>> background. (Same with languages, if two are learned without
>>>> explicit connection, one may be able to speak both fluently but not
>>>> able to translate between them, in real time anyway.)
>>>>
>>>> You are right that people seem to have trouble understanding what I
>>>> am talkingabout.
>>>>
>>>> I find it highly likely that you, Albrecht and John M. are going in
>>>> circles.
>>>>
>>>> I agree about John M. and Albrecht! (sorry guys – you probably
>>>> think the same about me!).
>>>>
>>>> For BASIC physics the set of units is: {e,m,l (x3),t}, that is, 6
>>>> entities. On the hand, in physics theories there are many more
>>>> inserted items: e.g., momentum, energy, wave, angular mommentum,
>>>> spin, field, Compton wave length, deBroglie wave, electron,
>>>> position, quark, ....... etc., etc. Thus, among the latter set,
>>>> there has to be gobs of redundancy,
>>>>
>>>> True: see above
>>>>
>>>> which makes it possible to "derive" (actually extract) various
>>>> constants and magic numbers from other various combinations thereof!
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. There is a lot of numerology bullshit out there. Please
>>>> note, I’m not primarily about numbers, but about a new set of
>>>> differential equations with new solutions.
>>>>
>>>> If you wish to argue that this is not the case, then it might be
>>>> smart to so present your story(s) by starting from an explicit list
>>>> of what your are inputting (and thereby NOT explaining) and present
>>>> arguments why what your choice of inputs is, is resonable given
>>>> available emperical evidence.
>>>>
>>>> Good point. Have tried to do this. I thought that was what I was
>>>> doing in saying what went in (space, time and root-energy) and in
>>>> defining the algebra to be used. Obviously, this is not enough to
>>>> get this across to most folk.
>>>>
>>>> For one thing, this gives the newby a shot at determining with
>>>> relatively litte time invested whether what you intend to do is at
>>>> all feasible given his (the newby's) state of knowldege.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but hard stuff is just hard – otherwise loads of other folk
>>>> would have solved the problem long ago. Even when discovered by
>>>> another and then explained it remains hard.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, all conceivable refs, will be newbys in YOUR game.
>>>> This is where I stumble; usually I just assume that this can be
>>>> done and give it a go---until entropy diverges and I quit.
>>>>
>>>> You and me both. I tried it myself for a decade, gave up and went
>>>> into engineering – then met Martin. Two has been enough!
>>>>
>>>> For what it's worth, Al
>>>>
>>>> Ciao, John.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
>>>> Light and Particles General Discussion List atviv at universephysics.com
>>>> <a
>>>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.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 atjoakimbits at gmail.com
>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/joakimbits%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>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151201/4b21a24a/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list