[General] self-diffraction self-confinement of waves???

Fri Feb 5 06:54:52 PST 2016

Hi John

I did some crude calculations regarding the self-confinement of waves to form fermions.

Some of that work is included here…

We can calculate the force of wave diffraction in space which could cause gravity, and check to see if this can cause the force of diffraction of the wave in the electron to provide for complete self-confinement.

The force of gravity can be expressed as:  then when mass is expressed in terms of energy this is equivalent to:  where F is force, E is energy, G is the gravitational constant, c is the speed of light, and d is distance.  Now we can split the force terms so that:    ??? Where is the force exerted by the first object on the second object and is the force exerted by the second object on the first object.

If we assume that fermionic particles, being particles which make up massive objects, are confined waves of energy, circulating at c, then gravitational mass would be caused by the diffraction of these waves toward a massive object.

One avenue we can explore is the force of diffraction of waves caused by a concentration of energy.  We can see if this diffraction force could possibly be sufficient to cause the self-confinement of waves to form fermionic particles.

For that exploration we would need to compute the force these confined waves would have on themselves.

We can estimate that this force would be  using the theorized transport radius for our distance term.

But this tells us that self-diffraction is too weak a force to hold these fermionic particles together, we actually need a force about 2.6E+14 stronger. 

However there is a catch. 

Portions of these confined waves may be (probably are) actually overlapping, reducing the distance term dramatically in the equation  … If we find that distance term could be actually 16124973.06693 times smaller than we estimated, then we would have the exact required force for confinement. 

But so far I do not have sufficient reason to assume this distance value is the correct one for this calculation in fermionic configuration.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 11:22 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] (no subject)

Chip:

You’re black, I’m blue:

The constant “amplitude” concept is still a bit confusing to me because this amplitude cannot be referring to a physical displacement distance. 

When an ocean wave moves through the sea, the sea waves. When a seismic wave move through the ground, the ground waves. Maxwell referred to transverse undulations, LIGO is looking for a length change in the interferometer arms, and I just can’t see why it’s any different for space.   

It seems, he does not yet really understand charge.  He is close, but does not get the concept yet that charge is not formed until the wave is confined in 3 dimensions in a specific manner

The article isn’t perfect, but note that it’s the quantization of electromagnetic change, and there’s stuff like this: ”The electric charge constant is neutral being the curved space surrounding the electric amplitude in the positive and negative direction of space, in each half cycle of the photon”. 

simply because it is the divergence of the E field in this topological 3 dimensional confinement with the spin ½ rate which creates the conditions for what we sense as charge. So a photon cannot possess the property of charge in any manner. It simply possesses the E field.

It doesn’t even possess the E field. The photon is an electromagnetic field variation. E and B are the spatial and time derivatives of potential. Something like this: 

There’s curved space on both sides of it, but the curvature nets to zero. As for the amplitude thing, I am reminded of a guitar string. The frequency varies as you move your left hand up and down the frets. But the amplitude of your pluck doesn’t. A charged particle is where there’s a none-zero curvature. Like you grab the lattice with your right hand and twist it round, then reach round from the side with your left hand and twist it round orthogonally, then let go and it stays “knotted”. 

Yes. I considered the single photon as purely a transverse wave as well.  But several factors are worth considering.  

QM has the basic photon with a spin of ħ.  Simply because all the spin math works out if this is the case.

Don’t forget that there’s angular momentum in a transverse wave.  See the motion of the red dots in this wind wave gif <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Deep_water_wave.gif> . But I don’t have a strong view on what type of wave a photon is. What I’d like to see is two waves in a lattice interacting such that each is displaced into itself, and that each then continues to forever displace its own path into a closed path. Whatever type of wave does that will do for me.    

If the photon is a spinning (spiraling) dipole corkscrew, then the neutrino could simply be a spiraling quadrupole.  This would make it much more neutral and less reactive with all other particles (which are principally dipole based). Neutrino data, at first look, seems to support this premise.

Maybe. Again whatever type of wave exhibits the right behaviour will do for me. Meanwhile, if you’ve got a washing line, sight your eye down it, and twang it. Then get a pair of pliers and twist it, then let go. 

Representing the photon as a spiraling dipole answers so many questions and ties so many of the puzzle pieces together that it seems worth exploring. Even if this spin and confinement effect does not present strongly until we get into the gamma region, it still seems worth exploring.  

Explore everything. 

Regards

JohnD 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: 27 January 2016 15:09
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Subject: Re: [General] (no subject)

Hi John D

Your comments have a way of really cutting through to the practical. I appreciate your thoughts immensely.

Regarding:

But whatever it is, there’s surely some kind of confinement going on. Photons don’t dissipate, and that h isn’t there for nothing. And when a 511keV photon ends up confined in three dimensions, we don’t call it a photon any more. We call it an electron. 

Yes.  So I am exploring the possibility that energy is always confined in at least 2 dimensions, and for fermions, 3 dimensions.

Thank you for the Kemp reference.  

His formula 

Is pretty interesting. Will take a look at this in more detail.

The constant “amplitude” concept is still a bit confusing to me because this amplitude cannot be referring to a physical displacement distance.  I think it must be referring to the formula above which is in his words the “saturation constant”.

It seems, he does not yet really understand charge.  He is close, but does not get the concept yet that charge is not formed until the wave is confined in 3 dimensions in a specific manner, simply because it is the divergence of the E field in this topological 3 dimensional confinement with the spin ½ rate which creates the conditions for what we sense as charge. So a photon cannot possess the property of charge in any manner. It simply possesses the E field.

Chip

Yes. I considered the single photon as purely a transverse wave as well.  But several factors are worth considering.  

QM has the basic photon with a spin of ħ.  Simply because all the spin math works out if this is the case.

I have considered the neutrality of the neutrino and some of the possibilities.

If the photon is a spinning (spiraling) dipole corkscrew, then the neutrino could simply be a spiraling quadrupole.  This would make it much more neutral and less reactive with all other particles (which are principally dipole based).

Neutrino data, at first look, seems to support this premise.

Representing the photon as a spiraling dipole answers so many questions and ties so many of the puzzle pieces together that it seems worth exploring. Even if this spin and confinement effect does not present strongly until we get into the gamma region, it still seems worth exploring.  

Due to the NIW principal with photons (superposition), we can realize any sensed polarization from gross EM radiation and still maintain the individual photon spin.

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 2:39 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Subject: Re: [General] (no subject)

Chip:

What you said below sounds promising. I’m not sure about the photon being a rotational wave though. I think of the neutrino as being the rotational wave and the photon as the transverse wave. If you haven’t already, have a look at this: http://photontheory.com/Kemp/Kemp.html. As ever it all comes back to What is a photon? <http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=2441825>  

But whatever it is, there’s surely some kind of confinement going on. Photons don’t dissipate, and that h isn’t there for nothing. And when a  511keV photon ends up confined in three dimensions, we don’t call it a photon any more. We call it an electron. 

Regards

John D

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: 26 January 2016 15:17
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Subject: Re: [General] (no subject)

Greetings All

We have all spent years working on this puzzle.  Each of us has formed opinion about how it must work.

For my part, that understanding has grown I hope, and meanwhile my opinion has developed and changed with each new understanding, each new connecting of the dots.

At this point I would like to summarize what I believe explains some of what we observe.

Opinion follows:

Light is propagating waves in the medium of space. Space is a medium with a specific set of properties, very similar to an elastic solid.

In my opinion light is quantized in a manner. I think light is a wave, but a rotational wave.  That is to say light is a wave which rotates as it moves forward. The rotation of light, its spin angular momentum, has the requirement of a sort of confinement of the wave. This is a sort of weak quantization of light.  This is, in my opinion, why we see “photonic” behavior of light is some circumstances. Because spin angular momentum requires an effective spin radius, and making the wave travel in that “corkscrew” fashion requires a confinement force acting on the wave.

To state this in different words, we know that light has forward momentum, and that spin angular momentum requires an effective radius of spin. In order for light to display spin angular momentum there then must be a centripetal force confining the wave to provide for spin. Since E=hv we can suggest that the effective radius of spin is the wavelength divided by 2π. Since the spin angular momentum is ħ we can calculate this radius and force for any given energy level.  We can then see why gamma radiation is much more confined than radiation of lower frequencies (energy levels).

And again, if we analyze these issues for a gamma photon which the energy level of the electron we have the following:

E=8.1871E-14 J.

= 2.7309E-22 where p is longitudinal momentum.

= 1.2356E20 Hz where f is frequency.

= 2.4263E-12 m where λ is wavelength.

That makes the effective spin radius of this photon: 

And the calculated angular momentum would be: 

So then the calculated centripetal spin confinement force for this photon would be: 

If this is actually how photons are confined then we have an explanation for the binding force, the centripetal force, which holds the electron together as well. But we will get to that in a moment.

This force is of exactly the same magnitude as the Strong Nuclear force.  Let’s take a look at that once more.

First let us calculate the electrical force one would experience at this radius: 

Now let us compare the centripetal force we calculated to the electrical force: 

The difference between the strength of the electrical force and this force Fc is equal to the fine structure constant α.

After these considerations I am coming to the opinion that there is a binding force Fc which acts on all wave energy propagating through space, which causes light to have a “soft” quantization and matter (fermions) to have a “hard” quantization, and provides for the creation (confinement) of all particles.

The difference between this force Fc and the electrical force, causes the fine structure constant which is so prevalent in nature.

Now we can look at the action of this force as it applies to the electron:

The electron has a spin angular momentum of ½ ħ. So since we know the longitudinal momentum of the confined photon we can calculate the effective confinement radius of the electron and check to see if our spin angular momentum is correct.

Electron effective transport radius: 

Now we calculate the spin angular momentum: 

So the confinement (centripetal) force for the electron would be: 

Note that this confinement (centripetal) force for the electron is simply related to 1/r: 

Also note that this force is always equal to Energy/radius: 

Radius r must then be constrained for some reason to be one of two values: λ/2π for light speed particles or λ/4π for fermionic particles.

If these assumptions are correct then this force is a 1/r force instead of a 1/r2 force.

It seems this approach yields solutions to rotational waves which are in agreement with Dirac’s wave functions when expressed in three dimensions. (Dirac bispinor)

Still much to do, but for me it seems the pieces are coming together.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 2:24 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >; 'Roychoudhuri, Chandra' <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> >
Subject: Re: [General] (no subject)

I think it’s very simple: 

Photon momentum is resistance to change-in-motion for a wave propagating linearly at c. 

Electron mass is resistance to change-in-motion for a wave going round and round at c. 

See  <http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.06478> http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.06478 . Catch a photon in a mirror-box, and you increases the inertia of that system. The electron is like a photon in a  box of its own making. . 

Regards

JohnD 

From: General [ <mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: 26 January 2016 02:12
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion < <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Roychoudhuri, Chandra < <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
Subject: Re: [General] (no subject)

Chandra and all,

    I think it has been historically misleading to define inertia as a “resistance” to acceleration. There is no known innate force or mechanism of resistance to acceleration (although Isaac Newton originally defined inertia as being caused by some kind of ‘innate force’. Conservation of momentum may be the best explanation for inertia. The more momentum something has, the larger the force required to accelerate it.  Why momentum is conserved is a deeper topic. If you google “difference between inertia and momentum” you’ll find a lot of confusion between inertia and momentum, probably because the concepts seem closely related.

    According to the Wikipedia article : “inertia”

 In fact, Newton originally viewed the phenomenon he described in his First Law of Motion as being caused by "innate forces" inherent in matter, which resisted any acceleration. Given this perspective, and borrowing from Kepler, Newton actually attributed the term "inertia" to mean "the innate force possessed by an object which resists changes in motion"; thus Newton defined "inertia" to mean the cause of the phenomenon, rather than the phenomenon itself. However, Newton's original ideas of "innate resistive force" were ultimately problematic for a variety of reasons, and thus most physicists no longer think in these terms. As no alternate mechanism has been readily accepted, and it is now generally accepted that there may not be one which we can know, the term "inertia" has come to mean simply the phenomenon itself, rather than any inherent mechanism. Thus, ultimately, "inertia" in modern classical physics has come to be a name for the same phenomenon described by Newton's First Law of Motion, and the two concepts are now considered to be equivalent.

On Jan 25, 2016, at 3:52 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra < <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> wrote:

Chip: My conjecture is this: what we call “mass” (m=E/c-squared) is the inertial behavior of the self-loped oscillations that we identify as particles. And the quantitative “inertial property” is directly proportional to the energy content, E, of the self-looped oscillation of the CTF. The inertia, of course, is its resistance to move through the CTF. We need new potential gradients in the CTF around interacting particles for them to experience “Falling into” or “be repelled by”. 

Chandra.

From: General [ <mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 5:44 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] (no subject)

Hi All

I am looking for any thoughts or insight regarding the masses of the particles.  Specifically the electron, muon, proton neutron, and tau.

Recently I have been searching for a physical explanation of why the following 4th order polynomial predicts these masses (Energies).

E = 2.16215091940284E-11n4 - 2.57974739967757E-10n3 + 1.06568810515144E-09n2 - 1.69871730871029E-09n + 8.69464305369825E-10

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 Roychoudhuri, Chandra
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 3:09 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion < <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] (no subject)

Friends: 

I am of the opinion that all waves are excited states of their respective mother tension field. They do not even carry energy. The externally perturbing energy; which disturbed the quiescent state of the tension field holding all the energy; gets perpetually pushed away by the mother tension field to regain its original state of equilibrium (quiescence). This is at the foundation of perpetual wave propagation; the velocity is being determined by the intrinsic tension properties of the tension field. This is built into our LINEAR wave equation! Linear superposition only means that within the linear domain (sum of all amplitudes) in the local tension field; all waves can co-propagate and cross-propagate away as per their original Poynting vectors without picking up any memory of their temporary co-local-propagation.

SP, the Superposition Principle is a very smart starting-step mathematical-logic invention by humans to structure the energy exchange process with a resonant detector  - as the square modulus of the sum-total complex amplitudes. Then what we measure is Superposition Effect SE.  This non-linear square modulus physical OPERATION can be carried out only by some resonant detector; not by the field themselves. That is why superposed fields do not re-organize their intrinsic energy; they still are propagating as various excited AMPLITUDE states of the tension field. Within the tension field, which still holds all the tension energies, they still remain dedicated to individual waves. That is why finite size waves, when emerge out of each other, do not have any memory of their earlier encounter. This what I have been describing as Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW).

SE is an observable phenomenon of nature; SP is not. That is why nobody is going to make quantum computers using mathematical logic based upon SP only. If we want to build something physical; we better build that logic based upon measurable SE. God is not going to change its operating rules just because we have already invested hundreds of millions of dollars to make quantum computers based upon non-observable logics of SP (single photon interference) over the past several decades. Neither can photon have mass; just like we do not assign mass to undulation surface tension field (water waves). Yes, water itself does have inertia to motion (“mass”). 

Chandra.

From: General [ <mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Baer
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 2:44 PM
To:  <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Subject: Re: [General] (no subject)

Does this not all start with the E=mc^2 energy mass equivalence postulate?
A moving photon has energy therefore mass , if the wave is confined to a circular path the mass could be considered stationary
The equations can all be manipulated to come up with various quantities and interpretations.

What to me is problematic is the centrifugal forces. What balances the tremendous outward pull?
An electron only has charge that repels, and now centrifugal forces, what holds it all together?

Wolf

Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail  <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com> wolf at NascentInc.com

On 1/25/2016 8:33 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:

Dear Richard,

you know that I object to your derivation of inertial mass. You deduce it from momentum. That is mathematically possible by using the known relations. But it is not logical in so far as momentum depends on inertia. In a world without inertia there would be no momentum.

So we have to explain first the mechanism of inertia itself, then we can derive the momentum and the inertial mass.

Best
Albrecht

Am 24.01.2016 um 20:42 schrieb Richard Gauthier:

Hello Vladimir and Chandra and all,

  Yes, I definitely support the idea of the ether as material space, and that all physical particles are derived from this ether. This ether can also be called a plenum or Cosmic Tension Field.

   I don’t however think that it is necessary to explain the inertial mass of particles in relation to a "coefficient of inertia” or "the amount of momentum the ether resists." I have shown ( <https://www.academia.edu/19652036/The_Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia> https://www.academia.edu/19652036/The_Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia ) by a very simple derivation that the inertial mass m of an electron may be derived from the momentum of the circling photon in a circulating-photon model of the electron, whose circling photon has momentum mc where m = Eo/c^2 = hf/c^2 ,  where Eo is the rest energy 0.511 MeV of the electron and f is the frequency of the circulating photon in the resting electron. Secondly, in a similar way I derived a linearly moving photon's inertial mass to be M-inertial = hf/c^2 , where f is the photon’s frequency, even though a photon has zero rest mass. Thirdly, I derived the inertial mass of a relativistic electron, whose momentum is p=gamma mv, to be  M-inertial = gamma m , even though the moving electron's rest mass is m.  

   I present these  derivations below, taken from the  <http://academia.edu/> academia.edu session on my electron inertia article at  <https://www.academia.edu/s/a26afd55e0?source=link> https://www.academia.edu/s/a26afd55e0?source=link :

"One reason people don’t think that a photon has any inertial mass (because it has no rest mass) is that how do you get a photon to change its momentum (i.e. accelerate) in order to measure its inertial mass. It can’t go faster or slower than c in a vacuum, so it can’t accelerate in a linear direction, and in normal physics a photon doesn’t follow a curved path (except with gravity), which would make it possible to measure its centripetal acceleration c^2/R . But as I showed in my short electron inertia article at <https://www.academia.edu/19652036/The_Origin_of_%20%20th%0A%20e_Elect%0A%0Arons_Inertia> https://www.academia.edu/19652036/The_Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia , the electron model in a resting electron has the photon going in a circle, with momentum mc and speed c, and the electron's inertial mass is then calculated to be M-inertial =(dp/dt)/Acentrifugal =wmc/(c^2/r)= m which is the inertial mass of the electron. But this calculation of the circling charged photon's inertial mass is independent of the radius of the charged photon’s circular orbit. Let that circular radius go towards infinity and you get a photon traveling in essentially a straight line, still having its inertial mass M =hf/c^2 (where the photon frequency f decreases as the radius of the circle increases) . So according to this logic, a linearly moving photon DOES have inertial mass M-inertial =hf/c^2 even though a photon has zero rest mass. And when a relativistic electron with momentum p=gamma mv travels in a circle with speed v, the inertial mass calcul ation ab ove gives M -in ertial = gamma m for a circling relativistic electron, and not just m the electron’s rest mass . Extending the radius here towards infinity also gives a linearly moving electron an inertial mass M = gamma m and not just the electron's rest mass m."

      As far as I know these are all original derivations of the inertial mass of a resting electron, a photon and a relativistic electron based on a circulating photon model of an electron. I would be pleased to be shown otherwise.

  Richard

On Jan 24, 2016, at 6:42 AM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra < <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> wrote:

Yes, Vlad, that is also my viewpoint.

I do not remember whether I have attached this paper while communicating with you earlier. I call the “plenum” Cosmic Tension Field (CTF), to be descriptive in its essential properties.

Chandra.

From: General [ <mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Vladimir Tamari
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2016 7:00 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] (no subject)

Hi Richard 

I barge into your discussion without knowing your views on a "plenum field" but if it is an ether I definitely think there is one. A "coefficent of inertia" might be defined as the amount of momentum the ether resists. In a charged or gravitational field this coefficent would increase...I think of this in terms of my Beautiful Universe ether of dielectric nodes, except this may give the wrong idea it is something matter wades in.. not so. Matter and ether are made if the selfsame nodes of energy!

Cheers

Vladimir

_____________________

 <http://vladimirtamari.com/> vladimirtamari.com

On Jan 21, 2016, at 7:41 AM, Richard Gauthier < <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> richgauthier at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Hodge,

    I don’t remember asking that. But if I did, I’m glad the question was helpful.

   I’m thinking about inertia these days. Do you or others have any insights about its nature?

         Richard

On Jan 20, 2016, at 1:43 PM, Hodge John < <mailto:jchodge at frontier.com> jchodge at frontier.com> wrote:

Richard Gauthier:

You asked if the galaxy redshift, Pioneer anomaly, Pound--Rebka experiment model had a velocity term. I looked at redshift data for 1 galaxy and found no indication of a velocity term.

I had not noticed this in the equations. Your suggestion that the plenum field can look like the Higgs field seems valid. That is, the acceleration of the plenum field looks like it adds energy (mass) is a Higgs Field characteristic. Thus, the plenum is closer to the idea of a quantum field and Higgs field (weak force).

Thanks for the insight.

Hodge

_______________________________________________
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 <mailto:vladimirtamari at hotmail.com> vladimirtamari at hotmail.com
<a href=" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

<2012.2_JMP_Space as real field.pdf>_______________________________________________
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  <mailto:phys at a-giese.de> phys at a-giese.de
<a href= <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> "http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?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> 

Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird. 
 <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avast.com

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at  <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com> Wolf at nascentinc.com
<a href= <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> "http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.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>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160205/29f4463b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 26044 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160205/29f4463b/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160205/29f4463b/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 174859 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160205/29f4463b/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 574 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160205/29f4463b/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 695 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160205/29f4463b/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 608 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160205/29f4463b/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1693 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160205/29f4463b/attachment-0005.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1985 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160205/29f4463b/attachment-0006.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1980 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160205/29f4463b/attachment-0007.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 3799 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160205/29f4463b/attachment-0008.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 3713 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160205/29f4463b/attachment-0009.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 2055 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160205/29f4463b/attachment-0010.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 3105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160205/29f4463b/attachment-0011.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 2959 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160205/29f4463b/attachment-0012.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1586 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160205/29f4463b/attachment-0013.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1016 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160205/29f4463b/attachment-0014.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 745 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160205/29f4463b/attachment-0015.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 658 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160205/29f4463b/attachment-0016.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 700 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160205/29f4463b/attachment-0017.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 682 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160205/29f4463b/attachment-0018.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 312 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160205/29f4463b/attachment-0019.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 328 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160205/29f4463b/attachment-0020.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 630 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160205/29f4463b/attachment-0021.png>