[General] Strong Force Modeling

Wed Oct 21 07:00:44 PDT 2015

Hello Richard and everyone,

Blue
________________________________
From: Richard Gauthier [richgauthier at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 2:41 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; John Williamson
Cc: davidmathes8 at yahoo.com; Mark, Martin van der; Joakim Pettersson; ARNOLD BENN; Anthony Booth; Ariane Mandray
Subject: Re: [General] Strong Force Modeling

Hello John,
    Thank you very much for this detailed explanation. Now of course I am curious about the second reason you left CERN.

Performed "test of QCD".  Cost - hundreds of millions - timescale decade. QCD failed - by four orders of magnitude. next day new "prediction" of QCD fitted new data perfectly. QCD is untestable. It will fit a spastic hamburger. You could make data up. It would "fit" that too. It is all a big waste of time and money.

You said:

Martin, David is not in the minority here - it is you and I. Nearly all the world thinks, at the moment, that there is no way the "electron is a localised photon" precisely BECAUSE the photon is uncharged. Deal with it! Richard tries to get round this by proposing it is charged (then removing the possibility of saying what charge actually is in my view then). Despite my view, this helps a lot of folk into thinking that electron and photon may be the same thing. Not the right path, for me, but more acceptable to many at first meeting.

This is I think a mischaracterization of my charged spin-1/2 photon model of the electron. I am not proposing that the spin-1 photon is charged.

I know this and was wrong to say this so sloppily (sorry if I gave that impression) : I meant that ascribing charge to the photon within the electron - constituting the electron in your model ,removes the possibility then of describing what charge is. That is all.

 tThere is clear experimental evidence (down to many factors of 10) that it is not. I am proposing that there is a second, previously un-noticed VARIETY of photon, which IS charged (with charge +e or -e), circulates helically and has a rest mass 0.511 MeV/c^2 as calculated from its measurable (as an electron) total energy E=gamma mc^2 and its longitudinal measurable (as an electron) linear momentum p=gamma mv . People unknowingly call this spin-1/2 charged photon variety an electron. But the spin-1/2 charged photon has 3 photon characteristics: 1) it moves at light-speed  c (like a spin-1 photon) along its helical trajectory,

I do not think that this is possible - for a charge of any magnitude - because the mass-energy of the charge-field would go to infinity. It simply has to be sub (or super) luminal if you want to keep both charge and SR. Martin and I see charge as a neccessary boundary condition to solve the internal (lightspeed) equations. The charge is only fully formed - for us- outside the electron boundary (its rotation horizon).

2) its energy/frequency relationship is E=hf like a spin-1 photon,

This is ok - at least within a factor of 2 (which is only a question of the definition of f).

 and 3) its momentum/wavelength relationship along its helical trajectory is p=h/Lambda like a spin-1 photon’s linear momentum.

This is the relation for a massless - hence chargeless - photon. Not consistent as for the reason above.

The charged spin-1/2 photon’s  spin 1/2, its electric charge, its invariant mass 0.511 Mev/c^2, its sub-light longitudinal speed (equal to the speed of the electron that it models) and its helical trajectory are what make it a new variety of photon which models the electron. I do state that my SPIE spin-1/2 charged photon model of the electron is a generic model, as it corresponds only to the trajectory of the charged photon (forming an electron) at different speeds, and needs to be supplemented by a more detailed charged-photon model that retains its spin 1/2 at relativistic velocities of the electron (corresponding to experiment). I do have a spin-1/2  internally-superluminal charged-photon model which has this spin 1/2 property at all wavelengths and energies, in addition to my previously published (https://www.academia.edu/4429810/Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron ) internally superluminal uncharged spin-1 photon model that I mentioned a few posts back. This internally superluminal spin-1/2 charged photon model has the additional and related property that it is helically double-looped for each wavelength (as compared to helically single-looped for each wavelength for the uncharged internally superluminal spin-1 photon model), so that it fits nicely onto the double-looped generic spin-1/2 photon model of the electron.). I displayed graphic images of this spin-1/2 superluminal model for various values of gamma on this discussion list some time ago.

You said in a different recent e-mail: No - Martin is correct in that a SINGLE photon (uncharged) can never curl up to give an electron.

I agree with this. But a single uncharged photon with sufficient energy and in the vicinity of a nucleus to absorb excess momentum, can (in my view of e-p pair production) split into two helical circulating spin-1/2 charged photons (positive and negative) which do curl up to give a positron and an electron.

Yes, this is also so. It remains the case, however, that charge is everywhere (and for all time) conserved in such a process.

with best wishes,
        Richard

Warm regards,

John.

On Oct 20, 2015, at 11:39 PM, John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>> wrote:

Dear David and Martin,

Please do not misunderstand one another. I like and respect both of you. I have learned so much from both of you. Please do not fall out.

Martin - you cannot consider David recalcitrant for revealing that he does not understand charge. You and I may have been discussing this for a couple of decades, but our view is not "common knowledge". You cannot point to a textbook where the underlying nature of quantised charge is laid bare and say “read all about it”.

David, Martin is getting upset because he keeps saying that one cannot produce charge from an uncharged photon and you keep asking "ok how does one get charge from an uncharged photon then?" Over and over. After a while he just goes mad. He cannot help it. Look back and read the posts. You will see what I mean. You may think that is what we were saying in our paper “Is the electron a localized photon?”. Most readers will agree with you. Martin and I will not. The operative words which distinguish these standpoints (in the old work) are “localized” and “topology”.

Martin, David is not in the minority here - it is you and I. Nearly all the world thinks, at the moment, that there is no way the "electron is a localised photon" precisely BECAUSE the photon is uncharged. Deal with it! Richard tries to get round this by proposing it is charged (then removing the possibility of saying what charge actually is in my view then). Despite my view, this helps a lot of folk into thinking that electron and photon may be the same thing. Not the right path, for me, but more acceptable to many at first meeting.

Now as to quarks, glueballs and to Laughlin theory.

Quarks. Have not been measured to have fractional charge though this is now taken to be "common knowledge". On the contrary.
Ok, so how do you know smarty-pants?  It is because it was me. In the best and highest statistics deep inelastic scattering experiment to date. It was me. I did the reconstruction, analysed the (huge) dataset, subtracted the lepton from antilepton cross sections (it appears in the difference between these). The results were not widely published - because they could not distinguish the (fractional) quark charge from so called, integrally charged, Han-Nambu quarks. The results are (only) in my doctoral Thesis. This is a very hard experiment - and has not yet been repeated as the lepton beamline was soon taken down thereafter to make way for the SPS (now the LHC). Quarks are taken to be fractional only because this fits the SU(3) of flavor theory most simply. The SU(3) of colour (gluon) theory does not need this – as one may assign any arbitrary charge to the gluons as well.

Laughlin theory. I know all (well, quite a lot!) about this too. I have, personally, measured the fractional QHE and also have a lot of papers about this. Many take this as being a theory of fractionally charged quasi particles. Not so. It is a mixed state of electron and magnetic field (quantized magnetic flux – read the papers!) - with odd quantum numbers (fermion like) interactions that are at the base of the Laughlin arguments. Not just 1/3 and 2/3 but also 7ths, 5ths, a big feature at 1/2 and lots and lots more. No way does “fractional charge” hack this.  How do you make 1/7 from 1/3 rds? No way. Look at the data. Read the papers! I DO have a nascent theory for all this and its relationship to high-temperature superconductivity - not ripe for email discussion in this forum though.

Glueballs. I also have lots of papers entitled things like "search for glueballs in ..." . Did not find any. This should be a killer for QCD since they should ABSOLUTELY be there. Everywhere. At all energies. QCD is a non-abelian theory - the gluons should couple to one another - apparently they do not - should be end-of-theory.  Apparently not for everyone! It is one of the (two) reasons I left the field in disgust.
Now there do pop up on occasion things like “is the 11199.9999 resonance a glueball?” but so far they tend to just pop down again. In my view this shows there is not such a thing as a physical gluon. Also Martin's paper at SPIE argues that this whole field is faulty – he is, in my view, correct.

Evidence for physical quarks (as Wikipedia claims). Not as such. There is strong evidence for PARTONS. These are hard bits in the hadrons. The detailed evidence is that these carry only HALF the proton invariant 4-momentum - squared (the rest mass squared) (at most). Now the rest COULD be gluons, or valence quarks or trapped light or anything else really really small and/or not a hard bit.
I do have a theory for where the quark symmetry (SU3) comes from. It is simple geometry and explained in  my 2008 talk at CYBCOM (online and on video).
You asked the question …
This leads me to a question everyone has been walking around...

If mass = E/c^2, and we convert mass completely to energy - say a photon, then where did all the charge go?

Everyone else may have been walking around it. I have not… Have you READ my SPIE papers yet?

Ok so what is charge then? It has two standard definitions in current physics. In classical electromagnetism it is a non-zero 3 divergence of the electric field. End of story. Does this explain, then, what charge IS? No. It is a definition of what it is in terms of a mathematical property of "field" within the theory. This begs, not only such questions as to what "field" is (and Al is quite right that it cannot be "fundamental") but also what a source of such a thing might be.
In QED it is defined, in contrast, as that thing which may emit (or absorb) “photons” with some probability (as emphasized by Hans) – and the detailed mechanics of that. It is there an exchange force, the electromagnetic force – or in its expansion to include massive boson exchange the electro-weak force.
If you call the rest massive bit phi (for the moment – as in the Schrodinger wave-function) for me, charge is the result (in my new theory) of the FORCE FREE motion of electro-phi-magnetism. As described in my SPIE paper “On the nature of the photon and the electron”.  Here I call the square-root rest mass density bit  (phi) p-vot, the electric field E-vot and the magnetic field B-vot. The equation of motion for this sort of stuff, as well as 4-current and 4-angular momentum is in my new, linear, equation. Explicitly: that is the equation as in both papers.
This is, for me, the Dirac equation as it should have been: a linear equation of both mass and field and not of “spinors” and ready-made electron and positron.
The result of the new theory is that, for a confined solution, one MUST have a radial electric field. Only for radial field does one have a mass-field solution with force-free motion. This is WHY there is no radiation from such objects. It is just, exactly and no more than the usual reason in classical electromagnetism. There is no acceleration - one gets the equation of motion by setting the acceleration zero- as usual.
Such objects gain or lose mass by mass-energy exchange – just as in quantum electrodynamics. This unifies to explain both definitions of what charge IS within the two theories. Both a radial field AND a mechism for mass-exchange within a single, linear theory. Gentlemen, this is not me explaining what someone else has done. This really is a new equation with new solutions. You cannot read about it in “big books”. It exists only in those two papers, the paper I circulated form FFP14 last year, and, in a more primitive form, in the paper on the CYBCOM website.
If you want to argue with my new theory or probe its weakness I am delighted to do this – but please argue with what is said in the papers – not the outline in this email.
Notice now that this now has nothing to do with “photons”. It is just the force free equation for P-vot E-vot and B-vot. The electron is a stationary, circulating , spinning, spherical state of BEP-vot then.
If you want to know why it is quantised – then that is in the other paper “Absolute relativity in classical electromagnetism: the quantisation of light”. The quantisation of light leads over to the quantisation of the electron and the quantisation of charge, As described in the papers.
If you want to then calculate the charge for such an object – that is in the 1997 paper “Is the electron a localized photon?”
If you want to know why all such objects have the same mass – it is because they simply equilibrate with one another by photon exchange – as discussed in the papers and in any textbook on quantum electrodynamics.
So, you see, I think I do understand what charge IS. Prove me wrong! Make my day!
Regards, John W.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] on behalf of davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> [davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 12:16 AM
To: Mark, Martin van der
Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Strong Force Modeling

Martin

Given the level of discourse, I will proceed no further with you.

Good day,

Davd

________________________________
From: "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>>
To: "<davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>>" <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>>
Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: [General] Strong Force Modeling

David, could it perhaps be that you are only projecting your own level of knowledge and understanding?

Further, I have not talked about or implied any stupid model, i am simply not very interested in models as a central theme, so i definitly have no obligation to explain any model.

As usual i have only tried to communicate the experimental and observational evidence combined with our (collective or personal) present (mis)understanding of physics. The exercise as i see it is to lay bare the possible roads ahead to make more sense of it all.

Sincerely,
Martin

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone

Op 20 okt. 2015 om 23:19 heeft "davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>" <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>> het volgende geschreven:

My Dear Martin,

What an admirable skill to piece out imperfections with mere thoughts expressed as ad hominem brain farts. Bravo for your bravado.

For photonic electron models I fear you have not answered the question of mass nor charge, and in doing so, you have intervened unnecessarily between Albrecht and I in my Socratic approach, no matter how naive.

Perhaps some reasonable progress can be made  with the charge issue by modeling quarks or perhaps from the POV of Laughlin's fractional quantum Hall effect.

If you have such a model of quantized 1/3e charge notable in quarks or in the quasiparticle used to explain fractional quantum Hall effect, speak up then.

Best regards,

David

________________________________
From: "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>>
To: "<davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>>" <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>>
Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: [General] Strong Force Modeling

David, you seem to have too much free time to come up with useless ideas. Whence a single photon producing an electron???
As they say : One idiot can ask more questions then ten wise man can answer in a lifetime.
Please go back to intelligible level, you can do it.
Regards, Martin

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone

Op 20 okt. 2015 om 18:47 heeft "davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>" <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>> het volgende geschreven:

Martin

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So, once more into the breach...

If charge is conserved, how can a neutral photon become a charged electron?

Two possibilities come to mind. First, a third particle is involved which provides the charge. One could introduce a neutrino, a Higgs particle, or other suitable candidate to provide the charge.

The second is that charge may be the result of the photon interacting with spacetime, and resonance in path curvature simply amplifies the effect.

This second conjecture leads one to wonder if the photon itself provides the charge.

David
________________________________
From: "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>>
To: "davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>" <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 4:17 AM
Subject: RE: [General] Strong Force Modeling

David, simply no, apparently experimentally not in this universe, as explained. You may want to do your homework and look it all up in the literature.
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 davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
Sent: dinsdag 20 oktober 2015 1:30
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Strong Force Modeling

Martin

IMHO we don't understand charge.

So when and where symmetry breaking is permitted, charge would appear to be a great candidate, high on the priority search list.

Best

David

________________________________
From: "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>>
To: "<davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>>" <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: [General] Strong Force Modeling

Hi David, it is interesting to think in such a direction, but I would say: No.
However, an example would convince me quite easily.
Why? It is all about symmetry to begin with. In an anihilation process everything comes together with its opposite, even the violations!
I appreciate the challenge...
Very best, Martin

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone

Op 19 okt. 2015 om 20:57 heeft "davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>" <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>> het volgende geschreven:

Martin

CP violations might be an exception.

Best

David

________________________________
From: "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>>
To: "<davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>>" <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: [General] Strong Force Modeling

Dear David,
First: Mass cannot be concerted to energy, never under any circumstances!
Rather mass IS energy, see "light is heavy" for explanation.
Second: Whenever matter is converted to radiation (this what you meat, right), charge is (and must be) conserved, always. An electron and positron covert to photons, for example, and there is no net charge at any time.
Cheers, Martin

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone

Op 19 okt. 2015 om 20:20 heeft "davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>" <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>> het volgende geschreven:

Albrecht,

While the current research focus is on getting photonic-based electron theory correct, an obvious goal would be to extend a building-block theory to all elementary particles, both simple (electron) and complex (proton, neutron, meson, etc)

To that end, one needs to address and parse some seemingly "what is it?" moments. Is it a particle or a wave? Is it mass or energy? Is it moving or not? Is there a reference frame dependency?

As to relativistic contraction, the general physics assumption is that charge is invariant especially in flat space. So, the charge to mass ratio for various particles is rather fixed. This leads me to a question everyone has been walking around...

If mass = E/c^2, and we convert mass completely to energy - say a photon, then where did all the charge go?

D

________________________________
From: Dr. Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de<mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>>
To: davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: Strong Force Modeling

David,

you have given here some criteria or properties which have to be fulfilled by a particle model. I shall try to answer this by listing some points which make up my model following your topics.

The particle model which I propose is not restricted to the electron but is assumed to be valid for all leptons and as well for all quarks.

To your challenges:

In this model a charge is an elementary entity, a kind of an "atom" in the real sense which causes a force onto a similar object. There a two kinds of charges in the model: the electric one and the strong one. The weak one is in fact the strong one but with a reduced coupling constant, caused by a different shape of the configurations having these charges. - Maybe that in the future development of particle physics we will find a more fundamental cause of charges. At present I do not see any, and in the present situation it seems not to be an urgent question.

The case of 8 gluons: We know that elementary particles react with certain others, but not with all. Particle physicists have made an ad-hoc assumption to "explain", or better to order this situation by assigning further quantum numbers to elementary particles, like isospin, strangeness, lepton number, quark number. The colour of gluons seems to be a similar category. These are in my case further properties of the "basic" particles, which are not described by the model as they do not influence the properties of the particles which I presently care about, like the inertial mass and momentum, which is explained by this model, as well as the conservation of energy, which is also explained (not only used!) by this model.

Leptoquarks have been an ad-hoc assumption to explain interactions between leptons and quarks. This assumption was not successful and is in fact not needed if the assumption of my model, that leptons are also subject to the strong force, is accepted.

>From this model follows gravitation as I have explained earlier. The exchange particles interact with light-like particles (photons and "basic" particles) and cause them to reduce their speed below c. From this all aspects of gravitation can be quantitatively deduced, Newton' gravity as well the results of Einstein's GRT.

Inertia is the direct consequence of this model. An elementary particle is, according to this model, extended, and any extended object has inevitably an inertial behaviour. I have shown (and show it in my web site) that with reference to this mechanism the mass of the electron can be determined with an accuracy of almost 1 : 1 million.

I am using exchange particles as mediators for the forces in a particle, which are the electric force and the strong force. The main advantage for the use in my model is that they provide a good physical explanation for the relativistic contraction.

Best regards
Albrecht

Am 16.10.2015 um 17:41 schrieb davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>:

Albrecht

If the electron modeling is to succeed and gain wide acceptance, then the modeling needs to become a foundation that can be built on to develop other Elementary Particles. While photonic electron theories may be that foundation, there are three challenges. First, explaining charge and the source of charge. Second, modeling the eight gluons - one would usually be enough, but eight...? Third, modeling the transitory nature of quarks and leptoquarks.

Modeling the electron to satisfy the leptoquark theory may involve force-bound states. If so, then in order for a lepton-quark interaction, given the E&M nature of the electron or even electroweak, no matter how transiently a leptoquark may require an electron with the addition of the strong nuclear force. Modeling a fully loaded electron with E&M, weak and strong forces may prove challenging. However, this path may lead towards explaining gravitation and inertia.

For the experts in electron modeling, perhaps the key to unlocking what's inside elementary is gluons. Glueballs (gluonium) may be worth the effort of modeling.

David

Article
Meson f0(1710) could be so-called “glueball” particle made purely of nuclear force<http://www.gizmag.com/meson-f01710-glueball-particle/39866/?-particle-made-purely-of-nuclear-force/>

"Elementary particles come in two kinds: those that carry force (bosons<http://www.gizmag.com/tag/boson/>), such as photons, and those that make up matter (fermions<http://www.gizmag.com/tag/fermions/>), such as electrons. In this context, gluons may be viewed as more complex forms of the photon. However, as photons are the force carriers for electromagnetism, gluons exhibit a similar role for the strong nuclear force. The major difference between the two, however, is that gluons are able to be influenced by their own forces, whereas photons are not. As a result, photons cannot exist in force-bound states, though gluons, which are attracted by force to each other, make a particle of pure (strong) nuclear force possible."

Arxiv
[1504.05815] Nonchiral enhancement of scalar glueball decay in the Witten-Sakai-Sugimoto model<http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.05815>

Arxiv
[1501.07906] Glueball Decay Rates in the Witten-Sakai-Sugimoto Model<http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.07906>

Glueball - Wiki<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glueball>

Leptoquark - Wiki<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leptoquark>

________________________________
[Avast logo]<https://www.avast.com/antivirus>

Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/antivirus>

_______________________________________________
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<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>

________________________________
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 davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto: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>

_______________________________________________
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 davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto: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>

_______________________________________________
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/20151021/3691c9b8/attachment.htm>