[General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek

Sun Jul 5 11:35:44 PDT 2015

Hi Andrew

I will be in blue.  Let me express a slightly different view.

Most of the electron models presented by the group imply that a specific manifestation of fields are fundamental, and that charge is created by fields with certain topologies.  This fundamental “fields only” view, causes us to draw some conclusions about waves in space, their possible configurations and their nature.

This leads to a different take on several of the basics.  A little bit of my version of that view is touched on below.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg
Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2015 9:27 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew Meulenberg
Cc: Mary Fletcher
Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek

Dear Martin and Chip,

Thank you both for picking up on my comment. I chose not to clarify it in my original posting unless someone noticed it.

First off, I consider conservation of energy to be inviolate. However, it may not be easy to see at times. For a photon:

1.	The field regions have energy that oscillates between zero and a given value. It does not go negative. 

As a photon passes a point we see these oscillations at that point, but the photon, if we could observe it, may not be oscillating in that manner. It may be a fairly fixed pattern of energy causing space displacement and propagating at c, principally intact and unchanging. I think you will see that this view fits Maxwell’s equations much better.

2.	The 'node' regions, in a standing wave or a photon in its rest frame, have zero field, but they have potential energy.  A photon is of course, not a standing wave, but a traveling wave, similar to a traveling wave in water. The energy content is in the form of a propagating “displacement” or stress of space, traveling in a composite from, and the energy is never zero.
3.	The potential energy is neither observable or directly measurable. Does it represent mass or charge? Or both? In my opinion, all energy represents mass and field configurations represent charge, but the fields posses energy.
4.	The potential energy can be + or -. This fits for the 'charge' needed to create the fields. However, potential is relative so that it also can vary between zero and some value. Opinion: at the lowest level, space displacement creates fields, and field configuration creates charge.
5.	The sum of the field (kinetic?) and potential energies are probably constant in a standing wave where the B- & E-fields are 90 degrees out of phase and thus total energy is conserved. However,
6.	the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows the total energy to vary for a period of time that corresponds to a 1/4 wavelength, so that for free photons, we may have to consider other aspects of the problem. Perhaps the Heisenberg uncertainty principle does not give us a clear understanding of what is actually going on in nature, but only posits what we may be able to observe of the processes. So in that sense it may be incorrect to assume that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is actual physical law, and it seems incorrect to allow this to modify our understanding of the conservation of energy.
7.	In a normal photon with millions of cycles, the time difference between the different portions of the photon would average out to a constant energy. However, what happens when the photon ( where the B- & E-fields are in phase) is reduced to a single cycle? At 2 points in the cycle all potential and field energies pass thru zero. A quarter cycle later, they are all maximum. Thus, the extrema fit the HUP.  When we envision the wave as a travelling disturbance of space, carrying its energy along with it, maintaining the same space “displacement” as it travels, then the energy “paradox” vanishes.
8.	I consider the potentials of a photon to be both mass and charge. The field energies are neither. However, if potentials are relative, what does this say about mass and charge? I'm writing one of our SPIE papers on this right now, so I am interested in comments.  I consider the basic components of a photon to be energy and the fields that the energy causes by displacing space. And I consider the mass to have an equivalence to the energy--- but charge, which a photon does not possess, to be a consequence of field configuration.
9.	Just as charge is variable from + to -, I believe mass to be also. Unit charges and masses (e.g., electrons) are only resonances. I do not think that the “charge” argument applies to photons, nor that mass can be negative in the normal sense.  Under certain circumstances, energy is given up in the act of confinement, and we might want to call this “negative” energy, but it is not actually negative energy, it is just a particle or system taking on a lower energy state in confinement, and giving up some (positive) energy as it is confined.
10.	If AC mass of a body or photon is balanced, the net deflection of the space-time 'plenum' is zero but its distortion is not. Therefore, even for zero net mass, there is a small (2nd order) gravitating force (even if oscillating). I do not think that there can be any AC mass.
11.	Because of relativity, the charge of a body can be balanced, even if the mass may not be. This can provide a net DC mass which effect might exceed that of the balanced charge. It seems these issues are better cleared up by understanding what charge is and how it is formed.
12.	Since B- & E-fields also distort space, but to a much greater extent than AC mass, they (like all energy) also produce gravitational effects that I consider to be mass equivalent. But, I do not consider them to have mass It seems we differ here, because I feel that any energy in space is in many ways mass equivalent.
13.	I believe that we can not talk of a photon's rest mass. It is a non-sequitur, since photons may be confined but are never at rest. I agree, if your definition for “at rest” is “not moving”. But I think that the lowest energy state of a photon or a particle could be used to determine its definition of “rest” in a different sense, and if we use and define the approach carefully.  But in either case the photon has no rest mass in the conventional description of rest mass.

Martin, I hope that this photonic-electron development will eventually lead to the neutrino where we seem to have different views.

Andrew
______________________________

On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> > wrote:

Dear Andrew,

The way you put things in the email below makes me worry about conservation of energy. I hope you do not mean that energy (or equivalent, but better in this case: mass) is temporarily disappearing to mysteriously reappear. There are three pillars on which a logical and consistent physics is based: conservation of energy, a continuity equation for it and the dynamics of storing the energy in one form and let it flow into another form (and back, if we are talking oscillations or waves). What you say is not necessarily contradicting this if you say where the energy is at all times. If you cannot, then you ruin all and everything that is known to work in physics. Not a good plan at all.

If you say AC charge, I think I can fully agree (it is the reason for the de Broglie wavelength, even in neutral particles), AC mass: very close to nonsense, unless you mean that the DC mass is moving around.

Since it isn’t common knowledge I will tell the group: In the 90ties I have postulated that neutrinos are voids (dislocations) in the vacuum of space, being the topological template of the electron, an empty box, without the “photon”. Still I find this a very interesting thought, but as everyone should realize by now, I hope, I am not an advocate of models. Models are useful but also deceptive, and therefore a necessary mischief. Proper experiment, and consistent theory is what makes real physics. Models are Mickey Mouse physics until  their features are put into context by theory and experiment.

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  <resource://skype_ff_extension-at-jetpack/skype_ff_extension/data/call_skype_logo.png> +31 40 2747548  <resource://skype_ff_extension-at-jetpack/skype_ff_extension/data/call_skype_logo.png> +31 40 2747548  <resource://skype_ff_extension-at-jetpack/skype_ff_extension/data/call_skype_logo.png> +31 40 2747548

From: General [mailto: <mailto:general-bounces%2Bmartin.van.der.mark> general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark= <mailto:philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg
Sent: zondag 5 juli 2015 2:01
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew Meulenberg
Cc: Mary Fletcher

Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek

Dear Richard,

I am asking Mary to put this item on the questionaire that we will all be asked to fill out.

My view is that, as the EM fields are AC, the energy density will be so as well. Thus, the mass will vary as well and it cannot be measured directly. However, + & - mass are both attractive so it will have gravitational mass. Since the photon does not exist at rest, it has no rest mass. It can be confined and the mass measured. Normally, its total mass is constant. If reduced to a single wavelength, its confined mass may oscillate between a finite value and zero. However, I don't think that it can be confined as a single wavelength.

The neutrino, which can exist at rest, has restmass; but (in my view) its mass may still not be  measurable because it is AC mass.

Andrew

On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> > wrote:

Martin (and all)

   You say at the end of “Light is Heavy”: "If the photon would be put to rest, its gravitational mass would equal its rest mass, and hence vanish.”  I think we can agree that the closest light can be to “rest” in a vacuum is if it traveling at light-speed in a closed circle (or at light-speed in a helix as seen from a moving frame) as in our electron models. I think the question “Does such a photon have a rest mass?” is fundamental to our electron models and I think it would be good if we were able to  agree on a consistent answer that can be backed by rational arguments. I claim that this circulating (circularly or helically-moving) photon does have a constant rest mass (that of the electron) since it has energy E=gamma mc^2 but its average linear momentum is zero for a resting electron or p=gamma mv in the case of an electron moving with speed v (leading in either case to a calculation of rest mass m from the relativistic energy momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 +m^2 c^4). Plus we know that an electron has a rest mass m so that the hypothetical photon composing the electron also must have the same rest mass m, whether the electron is moving or not. John W has indicated earlier (as I understood him) that this photon would not have a rest mass because the photon is moving at light-speed, but its confinement due to a pivot produces the rest mass of the electron. Martin seems to be saying in “Light is Heavy" that this circulating photon has a non-zero rest mass due to its self-confinement and so it is heavy. Are these two positions really different?  Could both of you make a brief clarifying statement about this point, briefly summarizing your reasons, so we can see the level of our agreement or disagreement on this point?  Also Chip, John D, John M, Vivian, Andrew?

     Richard

On Jul 4, 2015, at 6:24 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> > wrote:

Thank you John D and Martin

This is what I also thought.  Light must have a very small contribution to the universal gravitational field.  After all, it is made of the same “stuff” as everything else.

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 Mark, Martin van der
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2015 8:13 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek

Hi Chip,

Yes it does, but the total mass in all the radiation in the universe is far less than that of matter, in the present era. In the first 300.000 years after the big bang (whatever that was), the universe was plasma and radiation dominated. I would have to look into the details again to tell you more.

As I am typing this I see John D giving a good answer as well.

Cheers, oh and thanks for the compliments about my paper. I will remove some typo’s and deal with some questions in a later edition this week.

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  <resource://skype_ff_extension-at-jetpack/skype_ff_extension/data/call_skype_logo.png> +31 40 2747548  <resource://skype_ff_extension-at-jetpack/skype_ff_extension/data/call_skype_logo.png> +31 40 2747548  <resource://skype_ff_extension-at-jetpack/skype_ff_extension/data/call_skype_logo.png> +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 Chip Akins
Sent: zaterdag 4 juli 2015 14:38
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek

Hi Martin

Energy in space, which comprises light, has momentum, is affected by gravity, and when confined, can demonstrate all the observable effects of mass that fermions display.

Light is affected by gravity, but a question for you, do you think that light also creates a gravitational field?  Does light contribute to the gravitation of the universe?

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 Mark, Martin van der
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2015 7:18 AM
To: David Mathes; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc:  <mailto:jgw at elec.gla.ac.uk> jgw at elec.gla.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek

Dear David, 

thanks for the reply.

You have a preference regarding mass and energy that, indeed,  I definitely do not share.

The essence is in fully grasping “light is heavy”. After that one will never accuse the photon of being massless and still having momentum, as if it were a mystery.

You provide me with even more evidence that “light is heavy” is a paper that I should try to publish in a real Journal, not just a conference. It is, implicitly, the very basis of ALL the electron models people are proposing in this discussion group. By the way you are in the same league with Frank Wilzcek, regarding this point at least.

For the coupling, I am sorry to let you down a bit, but you may have noticed the announcement of my second paper on topological solutions and 4-current. That will bring it closer.

Actually, one of the things required for the knots to be stable is some form of self-interaction that could be calculated from Hamilton’s principle, as a starting point see paper:  <http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.6072> http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.6072, another essential ingredient for particles made out of pure fields.

Then of course it is perfectly well allowed to come up with your own idea, and I would be very interested. The answer remains elusive, still …

Very 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  <resource://skype_ff_extension-at-jetpack/skype_ff_extension/data/call_skype_logo.png> +31 40 2747548  <resource://skype_ff_extension-at-jetpack/skype_ff_extension/data/call_skype_logo.png> +31 40 2747548  <resource://skype_ff_extension-at-jetpack/skype_ff_extension/data/call_skype_logo.png> +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 David Mathes
Sent: vrijdag 3 juli 2015 19:58
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc:  <mailto:jgw at elec.gla.ac.uk> jgw at elec.gla.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek

Martin

A very stuffy paper. 

Mass and energy equivalence in this paper seems a bit one sided as if mass dominates the universe, a thoroughly Machian view. Except Machian is not a local view.  While I enjoy the Machian view that this paper and Rañada's work provide , the difficulty is the mass-energy relationship you have proposed seems a bit one sided as if mass reigned supreme above energy. 

p. 2  all energy has the same “essence”: it is mass 𝑚

I prefer to thing the opposite. All mass has the same essence which is energy, not that all energy has mass. Mass is simply a special case of energy density or energy-momentum. After all, a massless photon has momentum.

The flavors of mass need some clarity not addressed - gravitational, inertia, EM, and quantum. If one insists on using the strong force for an an example, then add strong mass. As to coupling, I was hoping that the level and type of coupling would have been addressed if only as a prelude to working with multiphysics programs such as COMSOL. 

David

  _____  

From: "Mark, Martin van der" < <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
To: David Mathes < <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion < <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
Cc: " <mailto:jgw at elec.gla.ac.uk> jgw at elec.gla.ac.uk" < <mailto:jgw at elec.gla.ac.uk> jgw at elec.gla.ac.uk> 
Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2015 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek

David,

As promised, my paper. This is the philosophical one.
Protons and electrons are built from a continuous light-speed circulation of energy. That energy must take part in at least the electromagnetic interaction. Perhaps it is just  knotted light? In any case, quarks, gluons, strings, super-symmetrical particles, Planck-scale physics: all bullshit…well not entirely; the quark symmetry is there and should be there.

The other one paper is pure mathematics and it shows how Maxwell’s equation support topological solutions (knots of fields) that may be charged, and how the knots are behaving as quantum mechanical objects (the knots are also solutions to the Dirac or Klein-Gordon equation), I am in the process of drafting the text around it. A non-linear condition makes that the solutions must also obey a null-condition (invariant, being a proper spinor). All that together with the winding numbers of the knots should give enough conditions to select out only a minor number of possibilities to survive…haven’t proven that yet.

I will sent this second one in a few weeks time… actually it should be ready in two…

Cheers, 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  <resource://skype_ff_extension-at-jetpack/skype_ff_extension/data/call_skype_logo.png> +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 David Mathes
Sent: donderdag 2 juli 2015 2:59
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek

All, 

As I look at all these different models of the electron, we have all carefully grasped the elephant somewhere on the outside in an attempt to figure out what's on the inside. In our quest to determine the heart of the electron, we have compared present day notes in hopes of future results. So any description of the elephant called electron can be reduced to a series of experimental results that already exist and a limits can be placed to confine any model to reasonableness.

Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is the fairest...oh, forget that. What I want to know...what does the future hold for quantum and quanta and is there at least a roadmap in physics.

Specifically, what does the future hold in terms of photon models and photon-based electrons? 

That is a question open to interpretation but Wilczek at least provides a framework with a few directions in his paper published in March 2015.Summarized in a brief article on PBS website, Wilczek came out with a rather bold paper on musings and wishes available on Arxiv.

A quick article from PBS...from

 <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/in-100-years/> How Physics Will Change—and Change the World—in 100 Years — NOVA Next | PBS

The full paper....

 <http://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.07735.pdf> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.07735.pdf

The paper was a fun read in spite of the physics and mathematics involved. Here is one of my favorite quotes:

"When Leon Cooper, on behalf of Brown University, asked me to contribute to their 250th anniversary by giving a talk 

about the next 250 years of physics, I of course accepted immediately. Then I thought about it. I soon realized that 

I’d taken on a task that is way beyond me, or (I suspect) anyone else.  So as a first step I renormalized 250 → 100."

"Here I indulge in wide-ranging speculations on the shape of physics, and technology closely related to physics, over the next one hundred years. 

Themes include the many faces of unification, the reimagining of quantum theory, and new forms of engineering on small, intermediate, and large scales."

My take is that given the rapid advances in quantum computing, and Kurzweil's pending Singularity, we should  consider the Wilczek paper a roadmap good for at least 20 years. We should also consider this paper somewhat as guidance to modeling photon and electron.

Before looking forward, Wilczek summarizes the history of physics and mathematics where there has been unification. In the computer industry including Apple, HP, IBM and Microsoft, unification is also called integration. And in finance, mergers and acquisitions. But I digress.

>From history, Wilczek provide a summary of unification in specific fields. I'm sure there are others but these will do.

"Names are attached not as credit but a shorthand for developments:

– Unification of algebra and geometry (Descartes)
– Unification of celestial and terrestrial physics (Galileo, Newton) – Unification of mechanics and optics (Hamilton)
– Unification of electricity, magnetism, and optics (Maxwell)
– Unification of space and time (Einstein, Minkowski)
– Unification of wave and particle (Einstein, de Broglie) 

– Unification of reasoning and calculation (Boole, Turing) 

end"

So he continues on the theme of unification with the Standard Model and eventually leads us into Supersymmetry (SUSY). 

"For reasons I’ve detailed in an Appendix, I think the most sensible procedure is to use “Standard Model” in its original sense, to mean the electroweak theory only. "

That's interesting since most of the electron models don't even mention electroweak and prefer classical or semi-classical form of EM. However, there are couple models that have the guts to go GUT and encompass the four basic forces (or five if one treats the B field separate from E) as well as declare there is a bottom, and it is spacetime. As background, note that the Standard Model can typically be summarized using symmetry groups as 

SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1) × SO(3,1)

Keep in mind that Barrett using the appropriate extensions to Maxwell's equations (Maxwell 20)  confines his "Topological Electromagnistim" to

EM only ... SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1)

Topological Foundations of Electromagnetism 

 <http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-26j/aflb26jp055.pdf> http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-26j/aflb26jp055.pdf

I have two noteworthy additions to the SM.  Electrons can be spin coupled, and there is the question of phat photons, So I've wondered if the proper investigative path might be

N^2 hv == SU(4) X SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1) × SO(3,1)

Any comment or correction on this view may be of help. And yes, I have seen the equations of the universe.

>From Sean Carroll

 <http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/04/the-world-of-everyday-experience-in-one-equation/> The World of Everyday Experience, In One Equation

 <http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/04/the-world-of-everyday-experience-in-one-equation/> 

 <http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/04/the-world-of-everyday-experience-in-one-equation/> The World of Everyday Experience, In One Equation

Longtime readers know I feel strongly that it should be more widely appreciated that the laws underlying the physics of everyday life are completely understood. (If...

 <http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/04/the-world-of-everyday-experience-in-one-equation/> View on www.preposterousuni...

Preview by Yahoo

So as I look at the various models for this SPIE conference, I wonder what is the next unification?

Could Unification of the photon and electron be next?

Perhaps a topological description of inside the electron? Or could it be the unification of spacetime and waves that provides the key insight and breakthrough? 

Could it be we need to rethink how we think about things, and perhaps relearn a new way on how we learn how to learn? 

And what is inside the photon?

Best Regards,

David

  _____  

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  <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
<a href=" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.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  <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> 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 mules333 at gmail.com <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> 
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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 <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> 
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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/20150705/fd538e9c/attachment-0001.htm>