[General] inertia
Richard Gauthier
richgauthier at gmail.com
Sat Apr 30 17:22:00 PDT 2016
Hello Albrecht,
Thank you for your two thoughtful questions.
To try to answer them:
1) I think it is an incorrect assumption that only a second electric charge or a corresponding permanent field can cause a spin-1/2 charged photon to move in a circular or helical configuration. Have you considered other possible explanations? One I have considered, in the context of e-p production, is that two uncharged spin-1/2 photons of are formed in the process of electron-positron pair production from a spin-1 photon of sufficient energy (greater than 1.022 MeV). At first the two uncharged spin-1/2 photons both move forward together in a kind of unstable equilibrium. One has a negative charge potentiality and the other has a positive charge potentiality, yet both are still neutral. These two uncharged spin-1/2 photons can either then unite with each other to form a spin-1 photon, or they can separate in the presence of a nearby charged nucleus and each curl up, gaining negative and positive charge respectively, as well as rest mass Eo/c^2, and slowing down (as they become an electron and positron) to less than light-speed as they curl up. (Internally these spin-1/2 charged photons maintain light-speed c in their forward direction, but their curled-up configurations as a electron and a positron have v < c .) Once they are both fully curled up to form a fully charged electron and positron, they continue to move apart. Now they each have a stable internal equilibrium (because of conservation of electric charge) and they cannot individually unroll (except perhaps virtually) to become an uncharged spin-1/2 photon, and so they remain a stable electron and a stable positron. Their own charged curled-up stable equilibrium maintains them in their curled-up configurations, supplying the necessary configurational force that maintains their circulating motion to form an electron or a positron. This configurational force that maintains each of them curled up would be a non-electrical force. Perhaps this configurational force that maintains the electron and the positron curled up with rest mass and moving at less than light-speed c, comes from the Higgs field.
When an electron and positron meet, they may first form a positronium atom. Then they both uncurl and unite to form an unstable neutral particle which decays immediately into two or three spin-1 photons, in the process of electron-positron annihilation.
2) Why does the spin-1/2 charged photon have momentum? you ask. It is because it is a photon with momentum hv/c . My model of the spin-1/2 charged photon is similar to my internally transluminal model of an uncharged photon, except that the spin-1/2 charged photon makes two helical loops instead of one per photon wavelength, and the spin-1/2 charged photon model's helical radius is 1/2 that of the helical radius of a spin-1 photon model , being R=lambda/4pi instead of lambda/2 pi. The uncurled transluminal spin-1/2 uncharged photon model curls up nicely into a curled-up double-looping spin-1/2 charged photon model of an electron. You can read about my superluminal uncharged photon model at https://www.academia.edu/4429810/Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron <https://www.academia.edu/4429810/Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron> or I can e-mail you a copy. I have only talked about my current model of the superluminal spin-1/2 charged photon on the “Nature of Light and Particles” e-list during the past year.
I hope these possible explanations of the spin-1/2 charged-photon model are helpful. I don’t think that you have a photon model yet that is consistent with your two-particle electron model, in terms of e-p production and e-p annihilation.
The figure below, which I included in this e-list some months ago, shows a curled-up spin 1/2 charged photon forming a resting electron (top graphic) and at different increasing relativistic speeds (lower graphics). The green line is the double-looping helical trajectory of the circulating charged photon forming the electron, while the red line is the trajectory of the superluminal energy quantum of the spin-1/2 photon model. The superluminal energy quantum in the resting electron moves on the surface of a mathematical horn torus. As the speed v of the electron model increases, the radius of the green helical trajectory decreases as 1/gamma^2 , while the radius of the red trajectory of the superluminal quantum decreases as 1/gamma.
> On Apr 30, 2016, at 9:47 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:
>
> Hallo Richard,
>
> you are making good calculations. However, some questions are still open:
>
> 1. What does the photon make to move on a circuit? A charge can only be the cause if there is another charge attracting this one. Or a corresponding permanent field. I do not see it in your model. - If the reason is that the photon is curling up, which mechanism makes it to curl up?
> 2. You say that inertia and momentum is essentially the same. I agree. But if you refer the inertial mass of the electron to the momentum of the circling photon, this is by itself not an explanation. There has to be a mechanism which causes your charged photon to have a momentum. For this question I could also not find an answer in your academia.paper. What did I overlook?
> Albrecht
>
>
> Am 23.04.2016 um 06:44 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>> Hello Albrecht,
>>
>> Thank you for your further comments and questions about inertial mass and my electron model.
>>
>> It is becoming clear to me that the cause or origin of inertia is momentum. Newton’s “law of inertia” (his first law of motion) is just an expression of conservation of momentum in the absence of an outside force that changes momentum. But “inertia” has been a vague word because it has not been understood how an object with a rest mass m gets this inertial mass or resistance to acceleration given by m=F/a . But when it is understood that a resting electron may be composed of a circulating photon carrying momentum mc=Eo/c when the electron’s rest energy is Eo=0.511 MeV/c^2, then it becomes clear why an electron has inertial mass m — it is quantitatively due to this circulating internal momentum mc=Eo/c .
>>
>> But you raise very important issues: "I am still wondering which mechanism causes a photon to move on a circuit. And how the problem of the conservation of momentum is solved in this picture.” I think the ability of a photon to move in a circle or helix is closely related to its ability (for a proposed spin-1/2 photon that forms an electron) to carry an electric charge. My proposed model of a spin-1/2 photon (which I briefly described perhaps a year ago in this “Nature of Light and Particles” discussion list, is proposed to exist in a curled-up double-loop configuration (as an electron) or in a non-curled-up state (where it would be an uncharged spin-1/2 photon) or with any degree of curling in between. The more curled-up the spin-1/2 photon is, the greater its electric charge, up to a maximum of -e for an electron. And once the spin-1/2 charged photon is curled up and separated from the second spin-1/2 charged photon formed with it that became a positron in e-p production, the curled-up spin-1/2 charged photon is unable to uncurl itself because this would violate conservation of electric charge.
>>
>> My model of a spin-1/2 charged photon is closely related to the model of a spin-1 uncharged photon described in my article https://www.academia.edu/4429810/Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron <https://www.academia.edu/4429810/Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron> . In the spin-1/2 photon model, the proposed transluminal energy quantum (TEQ) forming the spin-1/2 photon makes 2 helical loops instead of one for each wavelength of the spin-1/2 photon, but the spin-1/2 photon model still has a forward internal angle of 45 degrees like the spin-1 photon model. (These two helical loops per wavelength of the spin-1/2 charged photon generate the zitterbewegung frequency of the curled-up double-looped photon model.) The radius R of the spin-1/2 photon model is R=lambda/4pi instead of R=lambda/2pi for the spin-1 photon model. In both the spin-1 photon model and the uncurled spin-1/2 photon model, the photon moves forward at the speed c but the transluminal energy quantum forming the photon moves helically at c sqrt(2).
>>
>> What about the problem of conservation of momentum in the one-particle circulating spin-1/2 charged photon model of the electron? It has been calculated that a centripetal force of 0.414 N keeps the spin-1/2 charged photon moving in a double-looped circle with a radius of hbar/2mc. This centripetal force of 0.414 N is continuously changing the direction of the circulating charged photon’s momentum mc.The source of this external force on the circulating charged photon is not known in the spin-1/2 charged photon model, but conservation of momentum is not required for the circulating spin-1/2 charged photon if there is an external force acting it to change its momentum into a circular trajectory to form the electron.
>>
>> I hope these explanations about the possible origin of inertial mass in the electron are helpful.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 22, 2016, at 7:53 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Richard,
>>>
>>> your calculations look good. However there has a mechanism to be understood which is the cause of inertia. This is also seen this way by main stream physics since a long time (answered there by the Higgs theory). But if the Higgs mechanism does not work, another one is needed. I am still convinced that the forces between the constituents of an extended object in connection with the finiteness of the speed of light build such a mechanism. Mathematically it works quite perfect as I have shown repeatedly.
>>>
>>> I am still wondering which mechanism causes a photon to move on a circuit. And how the problem of the conservation of momentum is solved in this picture.
>>>
>>> The fact that circling charges in our models do not radiate is not surprising. A charge does not "know" what an acceleration is. An object with inertia knows it, but that is a different phenomenon. Why does e.g. an electron radiate at acceleration? I have explained it in my mail to Andrew the other day. Here again:
>>>
>>> "The EM field emitted by the electron in case of an acceleration is caused by the following process. If an electron is accelerated then its shape is relativistically distorted. As a consequence, one sub-charge is subject to a changing electrical field of the other sub-charge. This causes an EM radiation. - This, by the way, is the only cause of radiation in physics, the situation that one charge is subject to a changing field. There is no other cause of radiation in physics. Or do you know one?"
>>>
>>> We should not be confused by the fact that Maxwell in his formalism states that an accelerated charge radiates. Maxwell's equation are a mathematical formalism which is very beautiful and very well usable by electrical engineers. But it does not touch the physical causes of electrical and magnetic phenomena.
>>>
>>> Albrecht
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 20.04.2016 um 20:44 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>>> Hello Albrecht,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your comments. I think that if it is recognized that a photon has an inertial mass M= hv/c^2, then it is a short step that in double-looping or single-looping resting electron models composed of a circulating photon of energy Eo = hv =0.511 MeV=mc^2 and having a circulating momentum p=0.511 MeV/c = mc (where m is the electron’s invariant mass Eo/c^2), the circulating photon will also have a inertial mass M=hv/c^2 = p/c = 0.511MeV/c^2 = m, the invariant mass of the electron. For a double-looping photon model of a resting electron, I show a separate short derivation of the resting electron’s inertial mass M=m at <https://www.academia.edu/23184598/Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia_and_Relativistic_Energy_Momentum_Equation_in_the_Spin-_Charged_Photon_Electron_Model>https://www.academia.edu/23184598/Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia_and_Relativistic_Energy_Momentum_Equation_in_the_Spin-_Charged_Photon_Electron_Model <https://www.academia.edu/23184598/Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia_and_Relativistic_Energy_Momentum_Equation_in_the_Spin-_Charged_Photon_Electron_Model> . The resting electron’s inertial mass M=m originates from the internally circulating photon’s momentum p=mc=Eo/c=0.511MeV/c. And even if it is not recognized that a linearly-moving photon has inertial mass hv/c^2, the derivation of M=m in the above-linked article still stands for circulating-photon models of a resting electron, since this derivation for the electron’s inertial mass in a circulating-photon model does not assume that the circulating photon composing the electron itself has inertial mass M=m. This inertial mass of the circulating photon (and therefore the inertial mass of the electron modeled by the circulating photon) is what is derived in the calculation of M=m for the circulating-photon electron model.
>>>>
>>>> As for your comment about the principle of equivalence in relation to photons, I will leave that to experts on general relativity theory.
>>>>
>>>> You say that the calculations of the inertial mass M=hv/c^2 of a photon, though good, don’t explain the origin of inertia in physics. But it is a big step that these calculations of a photon’s inertial mass during reflection help explain the origin of the electron’s inertial mass, as I mentioned above with circulating photon models. I hope that John W, Martin, Chip, Vivian, John M and any others with circulating photon models of the electron will agree. Of course, circulating photon models in their several varieties are still only hypotheses. There are (at least) two unexplained issues with a circulating-photon hypothesis for modeling a resting electron: 1) the source of the large apparent force 0.414 N required to curve a photon with momentum mc into a double-looping circle of radius Ro=hbar/2mc (and a slightly smaller force required for such a photon moving in a single-looping circle of radius R1=hbar/mc) and 2) with a centripetal acceleration of 4.66 x 10^29 m/s^2 in the double-looping charged-photon model (see the above link for these two calculations), how to explain why the circulating electric charge doesn’t radiate away the charged photon's energy 0.511MeV almost instantaneously, if classical radiation laws from an accelerating electric charge apply (which apparently they don’t). Perhaps charge-conservation forbids this. This, by the way, is also a problem for your circling 2-particle electron model since each particle has charge Q= -1/2 e and they both have a similarly huge centripetal acceleration while moving in a circle with the single-loop radius hbar/mc in your model. But it may also be that the electron is in a quantum "ground state" that doesn’t radiate its rest-mass energy 0.511 MeV away, like the electron's energy level -13.6 eV in the quantum ground state of the hydrogen atom, which is a minimum energy value for the hydrogen atom. The source of the 0.414 N force on the double-looping photon may be found in the future, or perhaps the charged photon follows some kind of electric-charge geodesic and doesn't radiate unless it departs from this geodesic.
>>>>
>>>> Richard
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 20, 2016, at 4:25 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Richard,
>>>>>
>>>>> the article about the inertia of the photon is a good presentation of cases where the inertia is visible, and the calculation complements this in a very good way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway I have two comments:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.) The "principle of equivalence" which means here the weak equivalence is not the only possible explanation for the fact that every object has the same acceleration in a gravitational field. The other possibility is that gravitational acceleration has nothing to do with mass and with a force. That is particularly visible in the case of the deflection of photons passing the sun. Many authors (e.g. Roman Sexl) have shown that this can be fully explained as a refraction process.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.) The calculations of the inertial mass of a photon are very good. However they do not cover the question what the origin of inertia in physics is. As you mention,the Higgs model does not work. It is a clear fact from astronomical observations that the QM Higgs field does not exist (conflict between theory and observation being a factor of > 10^57. You say that this is an open question in physics. Here I insist in the position that any extended object inevitably has inertia, and that another cause is not needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 12.04.2016 um 04:48 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>>>>> Hello John W, Martin, Andrew, Albrecht, John M, Hodge, David, Chip and all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I’ve just uploaded a new article “A photon has inertial mass hf/c^2 in mirror reflection and Compton scattering” to academia.edu <http://academia.edu/> at https://www.academia.edu/24307968/A_Photon_Has_Inertial_Mass_hv_c_2_in_Mirror_Reflection_and_Compton_Scattering <https://www.academia.edu/24307968/A_Photon_Has_Inertial_Mass_hv_c_2_in_Mirror_Reflection_and_Compton_Scattering>
>>>>>> I’ve attached below a pdf copy for your convenience.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Basically I show that when F=Ma is applied to photon reflection and to Compton scattering (viewed in the center of momentum frame), the photon is found to have an inertial mass hv/c^2. The Compton scattering calculation also shows that the electron has an inertial mass gamma m. I show how the photon inertial mass result could relate to the circulating charged photon model of the electron to generate the electron’s inertial mass m from the circling spin 1/2 charged photon's momentum mc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Comments and criticisms on the new results are welcome.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 10, 2016, at 11:59 AM, Albrecht Giese < <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>genmail at a-giese.de <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, any extended object has inertia. I think that this is not too difficult to understand and to visualize. So again:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What makes an object to be extended? The constituents have to be bound to each other so as to maintain a distance. If now one of the constituents is moved, the other constituents will follow to keep this distance. But that does not happen instantaneously as the binding field propagates "only" with the speed of light. That means that for a very short time the other constituents remain where they are and the binding fields originating in them will not change. So, for this short time the constituent being moved has to be taken out of the potential minimum of the fields of the other constituents. This requires a force. After a short time, the speed of light permits the other particles to move and also their fields to move. And as a consequence there is no longer a force necessary. - This fact that for an intermediate time a force is necessary to change the motion state of an object is called inertia. - Really too difficult?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The calculation shows that in fact a smaller object has more inertia. It is proportional to the inverse of the distance of the constituents. The reason is that on the one hand the binding field is universal for all elementary particles, on the other hand the strength of the forces is higher at smaller distances, as we know it from all forces. As I have said many times, the model provides precise results. This can be found on my web site for those interested. This precision applies of course also to the relation between size and mass.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since the time when I started this discussion about inertia 15 years ago, I have made the experience that a certain portion of discussion partners (maybe 10 to 20 percent) have problems to understand and to visualize this process of inertia. Those persons are mainly physicists working in theory and who are more specialized for algebra than for physics. But a minority. Last month we had the spring conference of the German Physical Society here in Hamburg about particle physics. Even though I had to give my talks about inertia and about the error of de Broglie in one out of 22 parallel sessions, most people came into my session. The acceptance and the discussion about these topics was very encouraging. And this is my permanent experience.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 10.04.2016 um 06:44 schrieb John Williamson:
>>>>>>>> Albrecht - why do you think that somethings "extent" gives it inertia? This is simply non-sense. You have just made this up haven't you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Experimentally smaller things - with less extent then - have higher mass.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> JW.
>>>>>>>> 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 Albrecht Giese [ <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>genmail at a-giese.de <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>]
>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2016 8:26 PM
>>>>>>>> To: Andrew Meulenberg; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [General] inertia
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear Andrew,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thank you for your considerations and arguments about my mass model. And please apologize that I kept you waiting for a response. I was off for several days.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My basic point is that any extended object necessarily has inertia. That is not just an idea or a possibility, it is on the contrary completely inevitable. I think that I have explained why this is the case. If necessary I can of course explain it again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now, if we assume or accept that elementary particles are extended, then the inertia of particles is inevitably given. And, as you have cited it again, the results for leptons and quarks are precise.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The main argument against my model is the general opinion that elementary particles, particularly electrons, are point-like and have no constituents. The argument of those who have performed the according experiments is that it was attempted to decompose the electron by bombarding it with particles (like protons) with sufficiently high energy, A decomposition has never occurred. From this it was concluded that the electron has no constituents. - But this argument does not apply to my particle model. The constituents of an elementary particle are according to my model mass-less. So one of its constituents may be accelerated by an arbitrary amount, the other one - as having no own mass - can follow immediately. Not even any force will occur. - Accordingly this argument is not applicable against this model.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And the rest is known. If one determines the size of the electron by the evaluation of e.g. its magnetic moment, the result for the mass conforms very precisely to the measurement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is true that the assumption of two constituents for an elementary particle is very uncommon. But as long as there are no conflicting facts such assumption can be made. It is a common way in physics by my understanding. On the other hand there was a kind of indication for two constituents described by the article of Frank Wilczek about the electron in Nature in summer 2013.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The explanation of inertia of an electron by a bound photon is in my understanding not a real explanation as it assumes that a photon itself has some kind of inertia, without explaining how this works inside a photon. So it just diverts the problem to another particle, at least as it was explained during this discussion since October last year. And also the task to be done is not only the mass of an electron, but the mass of all particles, i.e. all leptons and all quarks. Do you assume that all these particles are built by bound photons?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, in my understanding, if there is another explanation for inertia, then we will have two explanations in parallel. Or, if on the other hand someone has or knows an experiment which is in conflict with my model, that would of course refute my model. Up to now I did not hear about such results.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you again for your considerations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fri, 1 Apr 2016 12:49:24 +0530 schrieb Andrew Meulenberg :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dear Albrecht,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have repeatedly based your model on lack of alternatives (with very precise results). E.g.,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why 2 particles in the model? I say it again:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1) to maintain the conservation of momentum in the view of oscillations
>>>>>>>>> 2) to have a mechanism for inertia (which has very precise results, otherwise non-existent in present physics)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I will be happy to see alternatives for both points. Up to now I have not seen any.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm sure that alternatives exist. Whether they have very precise results to support them may be up for debate.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My own relativistic model for inertia depends on the electron being, in its ground (restmass) state, a spherically bound photon. Until that concept is accepted, it makes little sense to go further in a description. However, if accepted, it then also leads to understanding the inertia of a photon.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your two-particle model faces the same challenge. Unless you are able to shape that premise into an acceptable form, it is unlikely that anything that follows will matter. Can you (re)define your particles to be acceptable to an audience and still fulfill your assumptions and derived results?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andrew
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
>>>>>>>>> <x-msg://32/redir.aspx?REF=WHjKkanwaYbQ2cZ2gQTrQGWX69no9zz_hdqSZMuKnDZSFbR4-mDTCAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5hdmFzdC5jb20vc2lnLWVtYWlsP3V0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX3NvdXJjZT1saW5rJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1zaWctZW1haWwmdXRtX2NvbnRlbnQ9d2VibWFpbA..>www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <x-msg://32/redir.aspx?REF=02oHT6avpTxZIhLEkEsDCBgDAfQ4gy7EDcHGKbKFGQRSFbR4-mDTCAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5hdmFzdC5jb20vc2lnLWVtYWlsP3V0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX3NvdXJjZT1saW5rJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1zaWctZW1haWwmdXRtX2NvbnRlbnQ9ZW1haWxjbGllbnQ.> Virenfrei. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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 <mailto: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 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>">
>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virenfrei. <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>>>
>>>
>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virenfrei. <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virenfrei. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160430/241922d0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: moving electron animation spin half photon bitmap 2.bmp
Type: image/bmp
Size: 967734 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160430/241922d0/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160430/241922d0/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list