[General] Proposed photon wave functions
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Wed Oct 12 03:44:51 PDT 2016
Hi Chip,
you find the information about mass on my web site
www.ag-physics.org/rmass .
And you can find additional refinements for the electron on the site
www.ag-physics.org/electron .
Albrecht
Am 11.10.2016 um 14:38 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> Hi Albrecht
>
> Can you tell me where to find your paper which discusses the aspect of
> any extended object must possess the property of rest mass?
>
> I have read it before but cannot find it in my archives. I would like
> to review it once more.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Monday, October 10, 2016 2:19 PM
> *To:* Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>; Nature of Light and
> Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Proposed photon wave functions
>
> Hello Richard,
>
> you are right that inertia and momentum are related to each other. The
> relation is that inertia is the cause of momentum, without inertia in
> our world there would be no momentum in our world.
>
> Mathematically spoken: momentum = mass * vector_of_motion. The
> vector_of motion is a vector, so the product "momentum" is a vector.
> An explanation of momentum needs the explanation of mass as a
> precondition. Not the other way around.
>
> Inertial mass can in fact be explained if one accepts that an extended
> object necessarily has inertia. And as the electron has to be extended
> (in order to have angular momentum and magnetic moment) it has
> inertial mass just from this reason. And I like to repeat: the
> assumption that an extended object has inertia is not only an idea but
> can be deduced quantitatively with precise results without the use of
> any free parameters which had to be adjusted.
>
> Albrecht
>
> Am 09.10.2016 um 03:00 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>
> Hello Albrecht, Vivian and all,
>
> Albrecht: Of course, if you say that an apple is essentially the
> same as an orange (despite their different properties) then you
> can also say that inertial mass is essentially the same as
> momentum (despite their different properties). But inertial mass
> is not the same as momentum, and apples are not the same as
> oranges. Inertial mass is a scalar quantity and momentum is a
> vector quantity, which is fundamentally different. They also have
> different physical units. My point is that inertial mass is NOT
> the same as momentum although they are related. A linearly moving
> photon has inertial mass hf/c^2 (while having no rest mass) as
> well as external momentum hf/c. A resting electron has inertial
> mass m= Eo/c^2 while having no (or minimal) external momentum. In
> circulating-photon electron models (which your electron model is
> not), the circulating photon also has inertial mass
> m=Eo/c^2=hf/c^2 of its circulating photon, and this inertial mass
> m of a resting electron is called the rest mass m of the electron,
> or simply the mass m of the electron.
>
> Vivian: I think you are agreeing with Albrecht too quickly.
> Physicists have been trying hard to understand the nature of
> inertia since Newton failed to. Mach tried and failed. Several
> modern physicists such as Einstein, Woodward and Haisch et al have
> also tried unsuccessfully to explain the nature of inertial mass
> (the fact that the rest energy stored in a mass m is Eo=mc^2 is
> NOT in itself an explanation for inertial mass). The Higgs Field
> (as I understand it) also doesn’t explain inertial mass, although
> it may explain the origin of a particle's invariant mass as is
> claimed. Anyway, I won’t accept any explanation from you about
> particles and inertia as long as you continue to insist that the
> relativistic kinetic energy of a particle is KE = pc = gamma mv c
> (instead of the well-known experimentally established formula KE =
> (gamma - 1) mc^2 ) as you claim on p 13 in your article “A
> proposal for the structure and properties of the electron” (attached).
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> On Oct 6, 2016, at 2:21 PM, Vivian Robinson
> <viv at etpsemra.com.au <mailto:viv at etpsemra.com.au>> wrote:
>
> Richard,
>
> I agree with Albrecht. For a physical relationship between
> energy and mass through E + mc^2, you have seen my paper on
> it. Energy is the photon travelling in a straight line. Mass
> is the same photon confined in a circle of radius equal to
> half its wavelength. That relationship is directly E = mc^2
> and it explains many other properties associated with mass
> particles.
>
> Mathematics comes in many forms, the same as languages. Not
> every one is specialised in all forms of mathematics, anymore
> than everyone is specialises in all languages. Almost all
> physicists understand physical descriptions. A physical
> description of the process accompanied by the appropriate
> mathematics will go a long way towards helping others
> understanding the message being presented.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Vivian
>
> On 07/10/2016, at 7:39 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de
> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Richard,
>
> you know my objection. Inertial mass and momentum are
> fundamentally the same physical phenomenon. Just the
> result of a different application. And so it is no real
> explanation to explain mass by momentum. Because that
> means that you explain a physical phenomenon by the same
> physical phenomenon.
>
> Albrecht
>
> (And you may have a look at www.ag-physics.org/rmass
> <http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass> )
>
> Am 06.10.2016 um 15:12 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>
> John and Vivian and others,
>
> Yes, inertial mass must be defined by F=ma and
> F=dp/dt as Newton defined it, though he couldn’t
> explain what causes it. It is caused by a particle’s
> circling internal momentum, as I derive in
> https://www.academia.edu/25641654/A_New_Derivation_of_Eo_mc_2_Explains_a_Particles_Inertia ,
> which is attached.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> On Oct 5, 2016, at 9:49 PM, Vivian Robinson
> <viv at universephysics.com
> <mailto:viv at universephysics.com>> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> Thanks for the advice. I regularly reference
> Einstein's Ann. der Phys. 17, 639-641 (1905)
> paper. By mass I have tried to think of it as
> inertial mass mi, given by F = mi.a. Gravitational
> mass mgis different by potential energy (PE)
> divided by c squared (mg= mi- PE/c^2). Rest mass
> mris mimeasured at velocity = 0 with respect to
> mi. Relativistic mass mrel is the mass measured at
> velocity v wrt an observer. Invariant mass doesn't
> exist because its value depends upon its
> position wrt an observer, gravitational field and
> velocity. In practice all mi, mgand mrwill be
> measured the same within experimental error,
> essentially making them invariant.
>
> IMHO, you are quite correct about aspects of the
> standard model. There are some very serious problems.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Viv
>
> On 06/10/2016, at 4:08 AM, John Duffield
> <johnduffield at btconnect.com
> <mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Viv:
>
> Good stuff. I empathize totally.
>
> Re photons and mass, do make sure you call
> it/inertial mass/. And/or protect yourself
> with a reference toEinstein’s E=mc² paper
> <https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/>,
> where the last line reads thus:
>
> /“If the theory corresponds to the facts,
> radiation conveys inertia between the emitting
> and absorbing bodies”./
>
> I say this because IMHO the sort of people who
> bang on about gluons or the 8^th spatial
> dimension will use anything cast aspersions on
> people like you.
>
> I’ve been doing some major writing recently,
> and in doing so I’m getting the feeling that
> there’s more wrong with standard-model physics
> than people appreciate. Much more.
>
> Regards
>
> JohnD
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]*On
> Behalf Of*Vivian Robinson
> *Sent:*05 October 2016 09:58
> *To:*Nature of Light and Particles - General
> Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
> *Subject:*Re: [General] Proposed photon wave
> functions
>
> Rear Richard and others,
>
> I submitted my results to the group in the
> hope that it would start debate on my topic.
> Richard I appreciate that you have taken time
> to make a couple of comments. I would like to
> add a few points to aid (I hope) further
> discussion.
>
> First, the so called "standard models" of
> matter suffer from some disadvantages, not the
> least of which is the use of invented
> concepts, e.g. quarks, gluons and strings that
> have never been separately identified. String
> theory is one very bad example. It uses
> several space dimensions that have never been
> detected along with particles too small to be
> ever detected to make predictions that don't
> match observation. However the mathematics is
> sufficiently complicated that referees are
> prepared to accept that it may have some
> future. That is another example of
> theoreticians being out of touch with reality.
> I am sure that if their funding body informed
> them that their salary has been paid in full
> in a combinations of strings in the 8th
> spatial dimension, our universe being the
> three detectable ones and they can collect it
> when they find the eighth dimension and
> unravel the strings, they would also be the
> first to complain. Yet they would have us
> believe that is the origins of the whole
> universe, not just their salary.
>
> Quarks and gluons are another example. They
> have never been separately isolated. So
> Quantum ChromoDynamics (QCD) theoreticians
> developed the concept that the gluon "force"
> between quarks increases as their separation
> distance increases. Unfortunately when
> "satellite" nucleons orbit a nucleus at a
> "significant distance" where quark separations
> are quite large, the binding is very weak and
> the lifetimes of these nuclei are measures
> immilli seconds. As some QCD practitioners
> will attest, QCD calculations are not good at
> matching observation so theoreticians keep
> changing their model until it does. They have
> devised 36 quarks, 2 types, 3 generations of
> each type. three "colours for each generation,
> plus their anti-particles, plus 8 colours or
> flavours of gluons, a total of 44 undetected
> particles, and they still can't get good
> answers. Again by making their mathematics
> complex they avoid scrutiny by non experts.
>
> The point is that "standard model" physics has
> many examples of theoreticians using non
> detected particles or entities and dimensions,
> to give unsatisfactory answers to some aspects
> of experimental observation. Trying to replace
> those with a further set of hypothetical
> particles, be they rotars, hods, microvita or
> faster than light
> (superluminal) particles does not make their
> concept any better than those forwarded by
> standard model practitioners. Being able to
> match a few physical properties by ascribing
> specific properties to undetected hypothetical
> particles is no advance if all it is doing is
> matching a few local properties.
>
> I am forwarding my work as different. It uses
> known properties of free space, namely its
> electric permittivity (ep) and magnetic
> permeability (mp). It suggests that these
> facilitate the passage of packets of
> electromagnetic energy called photons,
> possibly by being composed of vibrations in ep
> and mp. John W and I have used different
> wording to convey the idea that photons convey
> mass, as was proposed by Einstein in 1905. I
> feel sure a suitable set of words could be
> found to describe how those photon
> oscillations convey that mass. I have
> presented four wave equations that describe
> the Einstein-de Broglie wave function psi,
> along with a physical representation of them.
>
> I describe the angular momentum of photons as
> being due to the circular wave motion of the
> electromagnetic field in circularly polarised
> photons. This implies that plane polarised
> photons will not have any angular momentum and
> hence no intrinsic spin. This is able to be
> checked experimentally. Its rotating centre of
> mass only travels at sqrt 2 x c for a photon
> composed of a single wavelength. It is not a
> super luminal velocity. The centre of mass is
> a mathematical point that rotates. It is not a
> physical rotation of a mass traveling faster
> than c. The mass of the photon is traveling at
> c in its propagation direction. One might as
> well say that the wave motion of the electric
> field is superluminal because it follows a
> sine curve which has a length longer than the
> straight line travel of c. That does not mean
> that its mass is travelling faster than c and
> therefore all photons are superluminal.
>
> Mathematical points traveling at faster than c
> is not superluminal travel. There has been an
> often quoted example of waving a laser into
> space. If waved fast enough across the dark
> surface of the new moon, it could be possible
> to observe the laser point moving across the
> moon's surface at faster than c. That is a
> mathematical point moving faster than c. It is
> not superluminal motion.
>
> I submit that making models of hypothetical
> particles and ascribing properties to them is
> not the same as deriving those properties from
> fundamental considerations. Others are
> entitled to their own views.
>
> FYI, I have been working on this for three
> decades. I decided not to publish much of my
> work, apart from compiling it into some
> extended manuscripts, complete with ISBNs,
> that I made available to a few selected
> friends and interested parties. My career
> experience was that reviewers and critics have
> a habit of raising non relevant objections,
> bogging authors down and slowing further
> progress.
>
> Chandra, is that the kind of paper you would
> like presented at your next SPIE conference?
> It will be more advanced by then.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Vivian Robinson
>
> On 29/09/2016, at 11:25 PM, Richard Gauthier
> <richgauthier at gmail.com
> <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Hello Vivian, Chip and others,
>
> The derivations of the radius
> R=lambda/2pi of my internally superluminal
> photon model and the corresponding
> 45-degree forward angle of the photon
> model's internal helical trajectory are
> given in Section 5, equations 8 through 17
> in my published 1996 article “Microvita: A
> new approach to matter, life and health”,
> which I attach and which is available from
> Springer and at
> https://www.academia.edu/28777551/Microvita_A_New_Approach_to_Matter_Life_and_Health.
> My internally-double-looping model of the
> electron is also presented quantitatively
> there in Section 6. The electron model
> there has evolved into my SPIE
> relativistic spin-1/2 charged-photon
> electron model since then. It follows
> directly from the photon model's helical
> angle of 45 degrees that the internal
> speed of the photon model is c sqrt(2),
> which I state explicitly in my published
> 2007 article “FTL quantum models of the
> photon and the electron”, attached below
> and available from STAIF-2007 and at
> https://www.academia.edu/4429837/FTL_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron .
>
>
> Richard
>
> <Microvita A New Approach to Matter Life
> and Health.pdf>
>
> <FTL Quantum Models of the Photon and the
> Electron.pdf>
>
> On Sep 24, 2016, at 8:34 AM, Richard
> Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com
> <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hello Vivian,
>
> I’ve gone through your new article on
> the photon and it looks interesting. I
> appreciate that your photon model is
> now internally superluminal with an
> internal helical speed of c sqrt(2)
> and an effective radius of lambda/2pi.
> Your photon model has similarities to
> Chip’s model of the photon in this and
> other respects and I’m surprised that
> you didn’t reference his work. I would
> be interested to see a comparison
> between your photon model and Chip’s.
> I’d also like to hear Chip’s comments
> on your photon model.
>
> Richard
>
> On Sep 22, 2016, at 8:55 PM,
> Vivian Robinson
> <viv at universephysics.com
> <mailto:viv at universephysics.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Hodge,
>
> It would still be best if you sent
> the article. I (finally) accessed
> some of your STOE articles but
> could not find mse42my.pdf. I am
> not exactly sure to what you are
> referring.
>
> Some aspects of your work have
> commonality with mine. I use
> detectable photons as the basis of
> everything, you use hods. We are
> both trying to show that
> everything follows from that one
> particle. I prefer my approach
> because photons are detectable and
> have properties to which my work
> must comply. The wave functions in
> my article are their restriction.
> Like you I prefer Newtonian
> mechanics to relativity and
> quantum mechanics. There are many
> observations that confirm
> relativity and quantum mechanics
> that don't match Newtonian
> mechanics. My work must match
> those observations.
>
> I have found that the toroidal
> (John W and Martin vdM) or
> rotating photon (Viv R) model of
> an electron is one in which an
> electron consists of a photon of
> the appropriate energy (≈ 0.511
> MeV at rest) makes two revolutions
> in one wavelength. It is this that
> gives the electron spin (angular
> momentum) of half hbar. The E -
> mc^2 relationship between mass and
> energy is mass is the photon
> rotating twice within its
> wavelength. Unlock its angular
> momentum gives it energy E = mc^2.
> As the particle moves its
> structure means that it is
> automatically subject to the
> special relativity corrections of
> mass, length and time. I make
> mention of other properties,
> although as Richard G pointed out,
> my derivation of the magnetic
> moment of the electron was in
> error in that paper. I have now
> corrected that.
>
> I suggest that all other
> particles, stable or otherwise,
> are composed of appropriate
> rotating photons and have derived
> the structure and properties of
> many of them based upon that
> model. If this is the structure of
> all matter, the special relativity
> corrections are due to the
> rotating photon being "stretched"
> as it moves. They are not some
> mathematically imposed restriction.
>
> You will find that when you apply
> Newtonian mechanics to a photon
> with those waveforms and mass, you
> get Einstein's general theory of
> relativity for space outside
> matter, ie, gravity as we know it.
> The exception is that there is no
> singularity at the Schwarzschild
> radius and therefore no black
> holes. That doesn't prevent the
> existence of massive objects,
> which is all astronomers are
> detecting. It is the theoretical
> physicists who call them black
> holes. Astronomical measurements
> are still thousands of times less
> accurate than required to
> distinguish between my metric and
> the Schwarzschild metric. I am
> confident that when they do
> improve, my metric, with the
> gravitational singularity at the
> centre of mass and not at the
> Schwarzschild radius, will hold.
>
> You will then recognise that
> gravity is not inverse square law.
> If you studied Newton's Principia
> you will see that he also worked
> out what would happen if gravity
> was stronger or weaker than
> inverse square law. His
> observations showed that the
> planets were following the
> trajectories predicted by the
> inverse square law calculations,
> leading to the conclusion that
> gravity is controlled by inverse
> square. However, not all
> observations follow the inverse
> square law. Conclusion - gravity
> is not inverse square.
>
> The only reason the Big Bang
> theory was accepted was because
> early calculations showed that, if
> gravity was inverse square law, an
> infinite static universe would
> collapse in on itself through
> gravitational attraction. That
> clearly hasn't happened. Einstein
> tried to overcome it with his
> cosmological constant. His field
> equations only allowed for an
> expanding or collapsing universe.
> Since forwarding the Big Bang
> theory, they have done everything
> to match a new observation into
> that theory, ignoring the other
> possibility. If gravity isn't
> inverse square, other
> possibilities exist.
>
> Again, using Newtonian mechanics
> to the structure of the photon I
> propose, shows that gravity is
> either inverse square law or
> stronger for space outside matter:
> Or inverse square law or weaker
> for space inside matter, something
> that applies to the structure of
> the universe as a whole. If you
> have a universe in which gravity
> is weaker than the inverse square
> law by an amount predicted from my
> photon's wave function, then an
> infinite static universe will not
> collapse under gravitational
> influence. Photons from distant
> galaxies will still be redshifted,
> as observed. Things like
> gravitational lensing still occur,
> although I am not convinced that
> everything forwarded as
> gravitational lensing is actually
> gravitational lensing.
>
> Forget the Big Bang theory.
> Therefore no inflation (straight
> after the Big Bang). Dark matter
> is required to explain the more
> rapid rotation of galaxies. Based
> upon other aspects of inverse
> square law, galaxies and even
> clusters of galaxies would be
> expected to rotate about their
> centre of mass much faster than is
> determined from gravity alone. The
> detected components in galaxies
> will cause them to rotate
> significantly faster than
> predicted from either Newtonian or
> Relativistic gravity. That
> statement can be justified by
> experimental evidence (courtesy of
> Uncle Sam whose work is much
> appreciated at least by this
> author) beyond the mere detection
> of more rapidly rotating galaxies.
> Forget about dark matter.
>
> As for dark energy, it is based
> upon the observation of apparently
> anomalous type 1a supernovae
> (SNe1a) intensities. In order to
> match the observed SNe1a
> intensities to my work I need our
> galaxy to be in a region of space
> with a density of about 10^-24
> kg/m^3. This is about 1,000 times
> the density required under the Big
> Bang theory for the universe to
> exist in its current form some
> 23.8 billion years after the Big
> Bang. But there are many problems
> with that figure.
>
> The odds of the universe having
> this structure 13.8 billion years
> after the Big Bang are about 1 :
> 10^60. (I doubt that any Big Bang
> proponent would risk his/her money
> when she/he had only 1 : 1000
> chance of winning. If they are, I
> am prepared to wager against as
> many as are prepared to show their
> faith in low odds.) Yet they
> expect us to believe the whole
> universe exists because of 1 :
> 10^60 odds and we are the one
> universe in over 10^60 other
> universes in the multiverse. Talk
> about having lost touch with
> reality. Another feature is that a
> "quick" (i.e., long and involved)
> calculation will show that the
> density of the visible universe is
> higher than ≈ 10^-27 kg/m^3.
> Thirdly, for an expanding universe
> in which there is only light from
> up to 13.8 billion light years
> distance, there are far too many
> stars visible in the Hubble
> Extreme field images (again,
> thanks Uncle Sam). I am sure some
> of you can think of other
> observations as well.
>
> Going back to dark energy. In
> order to match the observed SNe1a
> intensities, my model requires a
> local (< 10^8 LYs radius) density
> of just over 1 x 10^-24 kg/m^3,
> dropping down to a background
> average of ≈ 8 x 10^-26 kg/m^3. Or
> another effect I haven't yet
> included. Both of these figures
> are much higher than the
> "official" (i.e. matches their
> theory) value of ≈ 10^-27 kg/m^3.
> A brief look at the stars in our
> local region, ≈ 10^6 LYs radius,
> gives the number of sun mass
> stars, ≈ 200 x 10^9 for Milky Way,
> ≈ 300 x 10^9 Andromeda, and
> others, gives a star mass density
> approaching 10^-25 kg/m^3. Here is
> where astronomers are a little
> vague. The mass of galaxies is
> usually quoted in terms of number
> of stars of the same mass as our
> sun (luminous matter). They also
> add to that figure, the
> observation that the average
> galaxy has about ten times as much
> matter in a gas and dust cloud
> surrounding the galaxy (non
> luminous matter) as there is
> luminous matter. Adding the mass
> of the non luminous matter to the
> mass of the luminous matter, if it
> isn't already included, gets me
> close to 10^-24 kg/m^3. I admit I
> am not quite there. I am not out
> by as much as a factor of 24 times
> the observed mass of the universe
> and that is without dark matter to
> make the galaxies rotate faster
> than they should under gravity alone.
>
> There are many other problems
> associated with the Big Bang
> theory. Just think about the
> additional mass a galaxy must have
> to a receding velocity that gives
> a redshift of 10. Perhaps you know
> a few more of them.
>
> In summary, I believe the photon
> model just forwarded can be used
> with the rotating photon or
> toroidal electromagnetic field
> structure of matter and Newtonian
> mechanics give a continuity
> between quantum "weirdness" and
> special and general relativity.
> Much of what is called quantum
> "weirdness" can be explained by
> the structures of the photon and
> the particles composed of rotating
> or toroidal photons. Yes they need
> refinement, but we have to start
> somewhere. As I said, the object
> of my communication was to have a
> general discussion on the nature
> of light and particles.
>
> I append my paper on the electron
> structure FYI.
>
> Regards,
>
> Vivian Robinson
>
> <Proposed electron structure.pdf>
>
> On 23/09/2016, at 1:08 AM, Hodge
> John <jchodge at frontier.com
> <mailto:jchodge at frontier.com>> wrote:
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication
> from the Nature of Light and Particles General
> Discussion List at viv at universephysics.com
> <mailto:viv at universephysics.com>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication
> from the Nature of Light and Particles General
> Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
> <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de <mailto: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>
>
>
>
> Virenfrei. www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
> Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
> viv at etpsemra.com.au <mailto:viv at etpsemra.com.au>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature
> of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
> richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
> <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>
>
>
---
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/20161012/56aa8040/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list