[General] De Broglie Wave
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Wed Feb 10 09:47:42 PST 2016
Hello Richard,
good question!
My model works originally for leptons and for quarks. The photon is
somewhat different visible through the different spin. So, I am not sure
that the photon can be described by two sub-particles, maybe the
description needs four sub-particles. But this means only a limited
correction factor.
For the determination of the mass, the model needs the size of the
particle. For the electron I have determined the size from the magnetic
moment. In case of the photon the wavelength can be taken as a measure
for the size. If the wavelength is inserted into the equation for mass,
then the dynamical mass (equivalently the energy) is the result. And
that fits well.
I have attached two pages of my power-point presentation in San Diego.
There you can see the calculation. The calculation is done there the
other way around. I start with the energy, convert it to the mass and
show that the resulting size of the photon corresponds to its
wavelength. - In case of any questions, please ask.
Albrecht
Am 10.02.2016 um 17:41 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
> Hello Albrecht,
> If you have solved the problem of inertia, then the inertial mass
> of a photon should also be explainable by your two-particle electron
> model. Is it?
> Richard
>
>> On Feb 10, 2016, at 5:13 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de
>> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Wolf,
>>
>> why do you think that I am frustrated? Why should I? Since I found 17
>> years ago the mechanism of inertia, which functions so straight and
>> logical with precise results, I am continuously happy. And the
>> appreciation by interested physicists is great. Since 14 years my
>> site about mass in internationally #1 in the internet. Only sometimes
>> the mass site of Nobel Prize winner Frank Wilzcek is one step higher.
>> But that is good companionship.
>>
>> True that it is a problem with Main Stream. They do not object but
>> just do not care. They love the Higgs model even though it is proven
>> not to work. - It just need patience. I still have it.
>>
>> Yes, quantum numbers work fine, but they are physically little or not
>> founded. It is similar to the known Pauli Principle. That also works,
>> but nobody knows why. And the bad thing is that nobody from Main
>> Stream concerned about this non-understanding. That is the biggest
>> weakness in today's physics in my view.
>>
>> Albrecht
>>
>>
>> Am 09.02.2016 um 20:35 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>> I can feel your frustration, Albrecht,
>>> The oldies are probably all wrong, but it's important to remember
>>> that right or wrong they give us the platform from which to see farther.
>>> "standing on the shoulders of others", and right or wrong they give
>>> us something tangible to argue about
>>> and what quantum numbers have done for us to organize chemistry is
>>> amazing.
>>>
>>> wolf
>>>
>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>> Research Director
>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>> On 2/9/2016 10:18 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>> Hi Al,
>>>>
>>>> the choice of de Broglie is not suboptimal, it is clearly wrong.
>>>> Badly wrong. The wave he has introduced does not exist, and if it
>>>> would exist its behaviour would cause a physical behaviour which is
>>>> in conflict with measurements (if those are comprehensively done).
>>>>
>>>> I agree with you that the main object now is to move forward. But
>>>> we will not move successfully forward if we carry millstones with
>>>> us. De Broglie's wave is a millstone. I just had a look into a new
>>>> textbook about QM, which was highly recommended by our university.
>>>> It makes full use of de Broglie's relation between momentum and
>>>> wavelength, so this is unfortunately not just history.
>>>>
>>>> But looking into the history: Bohr, Sommerfeld and others have used
>>>> the result of de Broglie to explain quantum numbers. Particularly
>>>> the quantisation of the angular momentum on atomic shells is
>>>> explained by "standing waves" where the wavelength is the one
>>>> defined by dB. This obviously hides the true reason of this
>>>> quantisation, but as anyone believes that the Ansatz using de
>>>> Broglie is right, nobody is looking for the correct cause. - This
>>>> is one of the reasons for our sticking physics.
>>>>
>>>> Tschüss back
>>>> Albrecht
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 09.02.2016 um 14:57 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>>>>> Hi Albrecht:
>>>>> As you fully know, the very same idea can be expressed in various
>>>>> languages. This is true of physics also. The very same structure
>>>>> can be attached to variuos words and images. I do not defend
>>>>> deBroglie's choice of words and images. I too find his choice
>>>>> suboptimal and somewhat contrdictory. So what? He was playing
>>>>> his hand at that time with the hand he was delt at that time.
>>>>> Since then, other ideas have been found in the deck, as it were.
>>>>> I find that, without changing any of his math, one can tell a
>>>>> story that is vastly less etherial and mysterious and, depending
>>>>> on the reader's depth of analysis, less self-contradictory. I
>>>>> think my story is the one DeBrogle would have told if he had been
>>>>> inspired by some facits of SED. And, some people have a greater
>>>>> affinty and interest in abstract structures, in particular when
>>>>> their mathematical redintion seems to work, that for the stories
>>>>> told for their explication. This is particularly true of all
>>>>> things QM.
>>>>> Anyway, the main object now (2016) is to move forward, not
>>>>> critique historical personalitites. So, I'm trying to contribute
>>>>> to this discussion by adding what I know now, and what I have
>>>>> found to be useful. We are "doing" physics, not history. Let's
>>>>> make new errors, not just grind away on the old ones!
>>>>> BTW, to my info, both Dirac and Schrödinger would agree that
>>>>> deBroglie proposed some not too cogent arguments regarding the
>>>>> nature of QM-wave functions. Still, the best there at that time.
>>>>> All the same, they too went to their graves without having found a
>>>>> satisfactory interpretation. SED throws some new ingredients into
>>>>> the mix.
>>>>> Tschuss, Al
>>>>> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 09. Februar 2016 um 13:41 Uhr
>>>>> *Von:* "Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
>>>>> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
>>>>> *Cc:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org, "Richard
>>>>> Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>
>>>>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] De Broglie Wave
>>>>> Hi Al,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have the impression that you have a solution for particle
>>>>> scattering which is in some way related to the idea of de Broglie.
>>>>> (I also have of course a solution). But was this the goal of our
>>>>> discussion and of my original contribution? It was not! My
>>>>> objection was de Broglie's original idea as stated in his thesis
>>>>> and as taken over by Schrödinger and Dirac.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have a lot of elements in your argumentation which I do not
>>>>> find in the thesis of de Broglie. (There is e.g. nothing at dB
>>>>> about SED ore background.)
>>>>>
>>>>> The essential point of our discussion is the meaning of his wave -
>>>>> and his wavelength. I think it is very obvious from his thesis
>>>>> (which you clearly know) that his "fictitious wave" accompanies a
>>>>> particle like the electron/all of the time/. There is no
>>>>> interaction mentioned except that there is an observer at rest who
>>>>> measures the frequency of the particle. But without influencing
>>>>> the particle.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now it is normal knowledge that a frequency and as well a
>>>>> wavelength appears changed for an observer who is in motion. This
>>>>> is caused by the Doppler effect. But the Doppler effect will never
>>>>> cause that a finite wavelength changes to Infinite if an observer
>>>>> moves at some speed unequal to c. But just that happens to the
>>>>> wave invented by de Broglie. It follows the equation
>>>>>
>>>>> lambda = h/(m*v) where v is the speed difference between the
>>>>> particle and the observer (to say it this time this way). And this
>>>>> is in conflict to any physics we know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best, Albrecht
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 08.02.2016 um 17:20 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Albrecht:
>>>>> Your challenge is easy! In fact my last responce covered it.
>>>>> The RELEVANT velocity is the relative velocity between the
>>>>> particle and the slit; not that between the observer-particle
>>>>> or observer-slit. An observer will see all kinds of
>>>>> distortions of the events, starting with simple persepctive
>>>>> due to being at some distance from the slit and its
>>>>> registration screen. In additon this observer will see those
>>>>> deB waves affecting the particle (NOT from the particle, nor
>>>>> from the slit, but from the universal background there before
>>>>> either the particle or slit came into being) as
>>>>> perspectively-relativistically distorted (twin-clock type
>>>>> distortion). BUT, the observer will still see the same
>>>>> over-all background because the totality of background signals
>>>>> (not just those to which this particle is tuned), i.e., its
>>>>> spectral energy density, is itself Lorentz invariant. That
>>>>> is, the observer's motion does not enable it to empirically
>>>>> distinguish between the background in the various frames, nor
>>>>> does the background engender friction forces.
>>>>> You have got to get your head around the idea that deB waves
>>>>> are independant of particles whatever their frame.
>>>>> Schrördinger did toy with some aspects that deBroglie used,
>>>>> but never did succeed in rationalizing his eq. in those or any
>>>>> other terms. For him, when died, wave functions were
>>>>> ontologically completely mysterious. From SED proponents, I'm
>>>>> told, my thoughts in #7 on www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com, are
>>>>> unique in formulating S's eq. in terms of deB concepts. Try
>>>>> it, maybe you'll like it.
>>>>> There are other SED-type stories too, but as they are based on
>>>>> diffusion (parabolic, not hyperbolic) precesses, I find them
>>>>> self contradictory.
>>>>> ciao, Al
>>>>> *Gesendet:* Montag, 08. Februar 2016 um 141 Uhr
>>>>> *Von:* "Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
>>>>> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
>>>>> *Cc:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org, "Richard
>>>>> Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>
>>>>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] De Broglie Wave
>>>>> Hi Al,
>>>>>
>>>>> if you follow de Broglie, you should have an explanation for
>>>>> the following experiment (here again):
>>>>>
>>>>> Electrons move at 0.1 c towards the double slit. Behind the
>>>>> double slit there is an interference pattern generated, which
>>>>> in the frame of the slit follows the rule of de Broglie. But
>>>>> now there is an observer also moving at 0.1 c parallel to the
>>>>> beam of electrons. In his frame the electrons have momentum=0
>>>>> and so wavelength=infinite. That means: No interference
>>>>> pattern. But there is in fact a pattern which does not
>>>>> disappear just because there is another observer. And the
>>>>> moving observer will see the pattern. - This is a
>>>>> falsification of de Broglie's rule. What else?
>>>>>
>>>>> The understanding that the de Broglie wave is a property of
>>>>> the particle (even though depending on their speed, but not on
>>>>> an interaction) was not my idea but the one of Schrödinger and
>>>>> Dirac and many others. Also by de Broglie himself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ciao Albrecht
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 08.02.2016 um 03:30 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Albrecht:
>>>>> BUT, the laws of Physics for "being" in a frame are not
>>>>> the laws for interacting between frames! The deB. wave is
>>>>> not a feature of a particle in its own frame, but a
>>>>> feature of the interaction of such a particle with at
>>>>> least one other particle in another frame. When the two
>>>>> frames are moving with respect to each other, then the
>>>>> features of the interaction cannot be Lorentz invariants.
>>>>> When one particle is interacting with another particle
>>>>> (or ensemble---slit say) the relevant physics is
>>>>> determined by the deB wave in that sitation, whatever it
>>>>> looks like to an observer in a third frame with yet
>>>>> different relative velocities. It is a perspective
>>>>> effect: a tree is the same ontological size in fact no
>>>>> matter how small it appears to distant observers.
>>>>> Observed diminished size(s) cannot be "invriant."
>>>>> Appearances =/= ,,so sein''.
>>>>> You have gotten your head stuck on the idea that deB.
>>>>> waves are characteristics intrinsic to particles in an of
>>>>> themselves. Recalibrate! DeB waves are charactteristics
>>>>> of the mutual interaction of particles.
>>>>> Best, Al
>>>>> *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 07. Februar 2016 um 22:10 Uhr
>>>>> *Von:* "Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
>>>>> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
>>>>> *Cc:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org,
>>>>> "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>
>>>>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] De Broglie Wave
>>>>> Hi Al,
>>>>>
>>>>> at one of your points I really disagree. The physical laws
>>>>> have to be fulfilled in every frame. That means that all
>>>>> physical processes have to obey the same laws in all
>>>>> frames. So also the process at the double slit. But the
>>>>> rule given by de Broglie looks correct in only one frame,
>>>>> that is the frame where the double slit is at rest. For an
>>>>> observer in motion the diffraction pattern looks very
>>>>> similar as for the observer at rest, but for the observer
>>>>> in motion the results according to de Broglie are
>>>>> completely different, because the momentum of the particle
>>>>> is different in a wide range in the frame of a moving
>>>>> observer and so is the wavelength assigned to the particle.
>>>>>
>>>>> The specific case: At electron scattering, the observer
>>>>> co-moving with the electron will see a similar pattern as
>>>>> the observer at rest, but de Broglie says that for this
>>>>> observer there does not exist any pattern. That is
>>>>> strongly incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Schrödinger equation and also the Dirac function
>>>>> should have correct results in different frames, at least
>>>>> at non-relativistic speeds. This requirement is clearly
>>>>> violated through their use of de Broglie's rule.
>>>>>
>>>>> Grüße
>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>
>>>>> PS: Your article refers to "Stochastic Electrodynamics".
>>>>> That is in my knowledge not standard physics and so a new
>>>>> assumption.
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 07.02.2016 um 19:03 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Albrecht:
>>>>> In my view the story in my paper has no new
>>>>> assunptions, rather new words for old assumptions. As
>>>>> I, along with most others, see it, there is no
>>>>> conflict with experiment, but a less than fully
>>>>> transparent explantion for experimental observations
>>>>> (particle beam diffrction) otherwise unexplained. At
>>>>> the time of writing, and nowadays too (although I'd to
>>>>> think that my paper rationalizes DeB's story) it was
>>>>> the most widely accepted story for this phenomna.
>>>>> The only entities that logically need to be Lorentz
>>>>> invariant are the particle. I the deB wave is not a
>>>>> 'Bestandteil' of the particle, but of its relations
>>>>> with its envionment, then invariance is not defined
>>>>> nor useful.
>>>>> M.f.G. Al
>>>>> *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 07. Februar 2016 um 14:39 Uhr
>>>>> *Von:* "Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
>>>>> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
>>>>> *Cc:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org,
>>>>> "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>
>>>>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] De Broglie Wave
>>>>> Hi Al,
>>>>>
>>>>> thank you for your reference. Your paper has a lot of
>>>>> intelligent thoughts but also a lot of additional
>>>>> assumptions. With reference to the de Broglie wave, I
>>>>> think, is the situation much simpler on the level of
>>>>> conservative knowledge. De Broglie has misunderstood
>>>>> relativity (particularly dilation) and so seen a
>>>>> conflict which does in fact not exist. He has solved
>>>>> the conflict by inventing an additional "fictitious"
>>>>> wave which has no other foundation in physics, and
>>>>> also his "theorem of harmonic phases" which as well is
>>>>> an invention without need. And his result is in
>>>>> conflict with the experiment if we ask for Lorentz
>>>>> invariance or even for Galilean invariance. - If we
>>>>> follow the basic idea of de Broglie by, however,
>>>>> avoiding his logical error about relativity, we come
>>>>> easily to a description of matter waves without
>>>>> logical conflicts. This does not need new philosophy
>>>>> or other effort at this level.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best, Albrecht
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 06.02.2016 um 03:15 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Albrecht:
>>>>> DeBroglie's verbage is indeed quite rococo!
>>>>> Nonetheless, his machinations, although
>>>>> verbalized, in the true tradtion of quantum
>>>>> mechanics, mysteriously, can be reinterpreted
>>>>> (i.e., alternate verbage found without changing
>>>>> any of the math) so as to tell a fully, if
>>>>> (somewhat) hetrodoxical, story. See #11 on
>>>>> www.Nonloco-Physics.0catch.com.
>>>>> cc: Waves are never a characteristic of a single,
>>>>> point-like entity, but colletive motion of a
>>>>> medium. IF they exist at all. My view is that
>>>>> E&M waves are a fiction wrought by Fourier
>>>>> analysis. The only real physical part is an
>>>>> "interaction", which mnight as well be thought of
>>>>> an absract string between charges. Also, neutrons
>>>>> have electric multipole moments; i.e., they are
>>>>> totally neutral but not charge-free.
>>>>> Best, Al
>>>>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 05. Februar 2016 um 21:43 Uhr
>>>>> *Von:* "Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
>>>>> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de,
>>>>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>>> *Cc:* "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>
>>>>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] De Broglie Wave
>>>>> Hi Al,
>>>>>
>>>>> true, in the frame of the particle the dB
>>>>> wavelength is infinite. Because in its own frame
>>>>> the momentum of the particle is 0. The particle
>>>>> oscillates with the frequency of the particle's
>>>>> Zitterbewegung (which background fields do you
>>>>> have in mind? De Brogie does not mention them).
>>>>> This oscillation is in no contradiction with this
>>>>> wavelength as the phase speed is also infinite.
>>>>> For the imagination, the latter means that all
>>>>> points of that wave oscillate with the same phase
>>>>> at any point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which background waves do you have in mind? What
>>>>> is the CNONOICAL momentum? And what about E&M
>>>>> interactions? De Broglie has not related his wave
>>>>> to a specific field. An E&M field would anyway
>>>>> have no effect in the case of neutron scattering
>>>>> for which the same de Broglie formalism is used.
>>>>> And into which frame do you see the wave
>>>>> Lorentz-transformed?
>>>>>
>>>>> So, an electron in his frame has an infinite
>>>>> wavelength and in his frame has the double slit
>>>>> moving towards the particle. How can an
>>>>> interference at the slits occur? No interference
>>>>> can happen under these conditions. But, as I have
>>>>> explained in the paper, the normal wave which
>>>>> accompanies the electron by normal rules (i.e.
>>>>> phase speed = c) will have an interference with
>>>>> its own reflection, which has then a wavelength
>>>>> which fits to the expectation of de Broglie. But
>>>>> that is a very local event (in a range of approx.
>>>>> 10^-12 m for the electron) and it is not at all a
>>>>> property of the electron as de Broglie has thought.
>>>>>
>>>>> To say it again: The de Broglie wavelength cannot
>>>>> be a steady property of the particle. But
>>>>> Schrödinger and Dirac have incorporated it into
>>>>> their QM equations with this understanding.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I should have misunderstood you, please show
>>>>> the mathematical calculations which you mean.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ciao, Albrecht
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 05.02.2016 um 19:20 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi: Albrecht:
>>>>> Your arguments don't resonate with me. The
>>>>> deB' wave length is infinite in the particles
>>>>> frame: it is the standing wave formed by the
>>>>> inpinging background waves having a freq. =
>>>>> the particle's Zitterbewegung. If these TWO
>>>>> waves are each Lorentz x-formed to another
>>>>> frame and added there, they exhibit exactly
>>>>> the DeB' modulation wavelength proportional to
>>>>> the particle's momentum. The only mysterious
>>>>> feature then is that the proportionality is to
>>>>> the CNONICAL momentum, i.e., including the
>>>>> vector potential of whatever exterior E&M
>>>>> interactions are in-coming. Nevertheless,
>>>>> everything works our without contradiction. A
>>>>> particle oscillates in place at its Zitter
>>>>> freq. while the Zitter signals are modulated
>>>>> by the DeB' wavelength as they move through
>>>>> slits, say.
>>>>> ciao, L
>>>>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 05. Februar 2016 um 12:28 Uhr
>>>>> *Von:* "Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
>>>>> *An:* "Richard Gauthier"
>>>>> <richgauthier at gmail.com>,
>>>>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] De Broglie Wave
>>>>> Hi Richard and Al, hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> recently we had a discussion here about two
>>>>> topics:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. The functionality of the de Broglie wave,
>>>>> particularly its wavelength
>>>>> if seen from a different inertial system. Such
>>>>> cases lead to illogical
>>>>> situations.
>>>>> 2. The problem of the apparent asymmetry at
>>>>> relativistic dilation.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have investigated these cases and found that
>>>>> they are in some way
>>>>> connected. Relativistic dilation is not as
>>>>> simple as it is normally
>>>>> taken. It looks asymmetric if it is
>>>>> incorrectly treated. An asymmetry
>>>>> would falsify Special Relativity. But it is in
>>>>> fact symmetrical if
>>>>> properly handled and understood.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is funny that both problems are connected
>>>>> to each other through the
>>>>> fact that de Broglie himself has
>>>>> misinterpreted dilation. From this
>>>>> incorrect understanding he did not find
>>>>> another way out than to invent
>>>>> his "theorem of phase harmony"; with all
>>>>> logical conflicts resulting
>>>>> from this approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> If relativity is properly understood, the
>>>>> problem seen by de Broglie
>>>>> does not exist. Equations regarding matter
>>>>> waves can be derived which
>>>>> work properly, i.e. conform to the experiments
>>>>> but avoid the logical
>>>>> conflicts.
>>>>>
>>>>> As announced, I have composed a paper about
>>>>> this. It can be found at:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/21564534/The_Conflict_with_the_De_Broglie_Wavelength
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> I thank Richard Gauthier for the discussion
>>>>> which we had about this
>>>>> topic. It caused me to investigate the problem
>>>>> and to find a solution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast
>>>>> Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication
>>>>> from the Nature of Light and Particles General
>>>>> Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de
>>>>> <a
>>>>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>> </a>
>>>>>
>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer
>>>>> gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird.
>>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer
>>>>> gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird.
>>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer
>>>>> gesendet, der von Avast geschützt wird.
>>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet,
>>>>> der von Avast geschützt wird.
>>>>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>
>>>>>
>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der
>>>>> von Avast geschützt wird.
>>>>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von
>>>> Avast geschützt wird.
>>>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>>>> <a href="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 atphys at a-giese.de
>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>> </a>
>>
>>
>> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von
>> Avast geschützt wird.
>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160210/7b6b649b/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list