[General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Sat Aug 5 12:33:40 PDT 2017
Wolf:
Chandra does not hit the point in so far as the discussion was not about
the extension of the photon but about the question whether it has a
defined energy content. This is an important criterion for whether it is
a particle or only a wave packet. So our point is about the energy
transferred and not the size of something.
Regarding the width of the beam of a radar or of any configuration of
dipoles: The beam width generated depends on the relation between the
wave length and the extension of the antenna. This is a result of the
superposition of the constituents of a beam similar to the superposition
and the refraction at a lattice, which we know from optics.
The fact that in my experiment the energy of the originating electron is
reproduced when the photon is re-converted by pair production shows that
the exact energy is carried by the photon. The pair building process can
on the one hand not be initiated if the energy is too low to provide
that rest energy of electron and positron. In the other hand above this
threshold the pair production process does not have any preference for a
specific energy. So, there is nothing like summing up the energy until
the pair is produced, but the energy of the pair depends on nothing else
than the energy of the originating electron. And this energy is
transported by one photon. Any other process would yield a different
result. - Or does anyone have a different explanation?
Albrecht
Am Wed, 2 Aug 2017 23:08:52 -0700 schrieb Wolfgang Baer
<wolf at nascentinc.com>:
>
> Albrecht:
>
> i would be interested in the copy but I think I have access to the
> referenced paper.
>
> Chandra makes a good point in that as one goes to higher frequencies
> wave packets tend to become more localizable and therfore perhaps your
> experiment can be explained by a localized wave rather than a particle
>
> but this brings me to another question that has bothered me since
> highschool. The wavelength of light is a propagation phenomena in he
> direction of propagation how do people justify using it as a measure
> of the wavefront size. This in radar frequencies is the beam width.
> seems to me the wavelength only comes into play because the at shorter
> wavelengths the beam width and be made narrow using larger antennas.
> so the wave front size is determined by the materal shpe through which
> the energy passes not the wavelength
>
> if we do crossection calculations using a photon model we would be
> dealing with many photons , which is Chandra's argument in his SPIE
> 2015 paper , the presence of many wave packets in the photo elecric
> effect tells us something about the binding energy of electron dipoles
> not aboit the particle nature of light. Does the frequency of many wve
> packets reaching a threshold to produce an electron positron pair not
> also tell us something akin to a loading theory explained by the
> properties of space, that when stimulated by many waves at a specific
> frequency will react at one point because the waves randomly add up
> to cross a threshhold not because the light is made of little bullets.
>
> wolf
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
> On 8/2/2017 12:01 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>
>> Dear Eric,
>>
>> it is not so simple to mail you my thesis, because by that time
>> (1975) nothing was made available online. My original paper is more
>> than 80 pages, so not so easy to scan it. But DESY has published in
>> advance a short form of the experiment, accessible by the following
>> reference:
>>
>> G. Buschhorn et al., Measurement of proton compton scattering at 6
>> GeV and small momentum transfers, Physics Letters B, Volume 33, Issue
>> 3, 1970, pp. 241-244.
>>
>> Do you have access to Physics Letters? In case not, I can mail you a
>> copy of it.
>>
>> Regards
>> Albrecht
>>
>>
>> Am 01.08.2017 um 20:52 schrieb Eric Reiter:
>>> Eric says: Dear Albrecht.
>>> Please. I would like a copy of your thesis.
>>> Thank You. Eric S Reiter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> On Monday, July 31, 2017, 2:26:20 PM PDT, Wolfgang Baer
>>> <wolf at nascentinc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Albrecht:
>>>
>>> Thank you for Einsein's Paper especially a german version. As I said
>>> I can no longer remember the exact reference for the formula and but
>>> it was a book edited by Sommerfeld " The principle of Relativity" in
>>> which several of Einsteins papers were translated into english. I'll
>>> try to chase it down.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry I do not find your references to synchotron experiments
>>> that prove the speed of light is constant, I do have your thesis
>>> experiment but thought this pertained to the photon question , nor
>>> can I find your equation of the change in c in a gravitational field.
>>>
>>> But in any case is the formula mc^2 = m_0 c_0 ^2 *(1/(1 + 2x/c_0 ^2
>>> -v^2 /c_0 ^2 )^1/2 ) = ~ m_0 c_0 ^2 + mx - (1/2)v^2 where "x" the
>>> local gravitational potential, not correct for a single mass
>>> particle traveling at velocity v , and is the approximation not
>>> correct for v< c?
>>>
>>> According to Mach's principle mc_0 ^2 = -mMuG/Ru in other words
>>> mc_0 ^2 is the gravity potential in intergalactic space but still
>>> inside the mass shell
>>>
>>> So these considerations gives me a very simple classic visualization
>>> of most of the relativistic effects, when v^4 /c^4 terms can be
>>> neglected. All I've done is acknowledged that there is a universe
>>> mass shell gravity effect on the speed of light, and if we accept
>>> that then we can retain most of our classic physics.
>>>
>>> What I am looking for is experiments that prove Einstein's general
>>> relativity is correct beyond the v^4 /c^4 approximation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> AS an interesting aside if you accept that all we need to do is
>>> include the Mass shell in the gravity potential then we can rewrite
>>> the energy relation as a momentum relationship
>>>
>>> mc = m_0 c_0 *(1/(c_0 ^2 + 2x - v^2 )^1/2 ) = m_0 c_0
>>> *(1/(V-T)^1/2 ) = m_0 c_0 *(1/(L)^1/2 )
>>>
>>> and multipying by c_0
>>> gives mcc_0 = m_0 c_0 ^2 *(1/(L)^1/2 )
>>> which suggests the Relativistic correction simply accounts for the
>>> fact that phase rather than group velocity is used in some
>>> measurements like michelson morely and light bending while group
>>> velocity is used in Shapiro's measurements. I have not pursued this
>>> but always wondered that the wave mechanics has a phase x group
>>> velocity be a constant.
>>>
>>> Wolf
>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>> Research Director
>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>>> On 7/31/2017 8:08 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>
>>> Wolf,
>>>
>>> attached I have added here the original paper of Einstein from 1905
>>> as a facsimile (so in German). I cannot find your equation in his paper.
>>>
>>> Regarding the change of c in a gravitational field: I have given you
>>> several times the equation for that. So not a point of discussion.
>>> But you complained in the other mail that you have asked me half a
>>> dozen times for a measurement of the speed of light, without
>>> response as you said. For this I have given you the reference to my
>>> earlier mail where I referred to and explained the permanent
>>> measurement of c in particle accelerators, particularly in
>>> synchrotrons. Also in synchrotrons it follows from the finiteness of
>>> c that the mass /m /increases with an increasing energy of the
>>> particles.
>>>
>>> Further questions?
>>>
>>> Albrecht
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 31.07.2017 um 08:08 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>
>>> Albrecht:
>>>
>>> That equation waS copied out of Einsteins 1905 Paper , I gave the
>>> book back to the Library and will have to order it again to verify
>>> exactly the context Einstiein used it. It may be I copied the
>>> formula wrong and Einstein actually wrote c = c_0 *(1/(1-v^2 /c^2
>>> )^1/2 ) which the gives c^2 = c_0 ^2 +v^2 .
>>>
>>> In any case if I multiply by the mass "m" of the particle and takes
>>> the small velocity approximation one gets mc^2 = mc_0 ^2 *(1/(1-v^2
>>> /c_0 ^2 )^1/2 ) =~ mc_0 ^2 +1/2 mv^2
>>>
>>> I believe the point I was trying to make is that the classic
>>> Lagrangian = T-V which equals mc_0 ^2 +1/2 mv^2 if mc_0 ^2 =
>>> -GmMu/Ru . So I'm saying if we simply recognize that a mass "m" even
>>> stationary has a gravitational potential inside the mass shell of
>>> the universe then at least to terms v4/c4 a completely classic model
>>> actually gives us all of the experimentally verified Relativity
>>> predictions.
>>>
>>> Furthermore if we write mc^2 = m_0 c_0 ^2 *(1/(1-v^2 /c_0 ^2 )^1/2 )
>>> then it is quite arbitrary to which parameter m_0 or c_0 one apples
>>> the SRT correction to. You like applying it to the mass and say that
>>> mass increases. I thought it makes more sense to apply it to the
>>> speed of light
>>>
>>> Whether I made a mistake in copying Einsteins formula or not the
>>> argument I was trying to make is the same. The speed of light
>>> depends upon the gravitational potential in which the measurement of
>>> the speed of light is made, it is not constant
>>>
>>>
>>> Wolf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dr. Wolfgang
>>> Research Director
>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>>> On 7/30/2017 12:00 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>
>>> Wolf,
>>>
>>> in my mail of July 6 I have explained that any particle accelerator
>>> and particularly a synchrotron is a permanent check for the speed of
>>> light, and in particular also a check of the Lorentz transformation
>>> where it describes the behaviour of an object being accelerated
>>> towards c. And that a behaviour of physics regarding c different
>>> from the Lorentz transformation would require a different design of
>>> particle accelerators. So, the opinion of main stream regarded the
>>> measured value of the speed of light is permanently confirmed.
>>>
>>> And in your mail of July 4 you presented the following equation for
>>> the speed of light:
>>> c^2 = c_0 ^2 *(1/(1-v^2 /c_0 ^2 )^1/2 ).
>>> What ever the conditions for this equation should be, there exist
>>> conditions for c to go to infinity. To this equation I have referred.
>>>
>>> Albrecht
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 29.07.2017 um 08:21 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>
>>> Clarification:
>>>
>>> I have submitted equations in which the approximation of ( +2mm_l
>>> G/r -2mc^2 - mv^2 )^-1/2 =^~ ^1/2 mv^2 + mc^2 -mm_l G/r
>>>
>>> So that simply by recognizing that mc^2 is the classic potential
>>> energy inside a mass shell -m *Mu* G/Ru ofthe Universe we get a
>>> very simple cosmology that is completely consistent with all known
>>> experiments - the assumption is simply that the speed of light as a
>>> surrogate for the speed of all electromagnetic phenomena is
>>> dependent upon the gravitational potential which was shown by
>>> Shapiro's experiments. and light bending.and clock slow downs. I
>>> interpret c^2 is the universe escape velocity.
>>>
>>> This does not mean the speed of light is infinite but only that if
>>> we could get outside the mass shell in flat space where the
>>> gravitational energy of the universe mass is zero the speed of light
>>> is some reference c_0 ^2 In both case the speed of lighjt and the
>>> energy is only determined to an arbitrary reference constant what is
>>> important is the relative energy or speed of light
>>>
>>> I'm tired of not being recognized as an intelligent physicist doing
>>> physics. I'm only claiming that the the first order approximation is
>>> all I know that has been experimentally verified length contraction
>>> and close to speed of light experiments are only verified through
>>> circular reasoning
>>>
>>> I have asked Albrecht for references to experiments that show
>>> otherwise a half dozen times but am always ignored
>>>
>>>
>>> wolf
>>>
>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>> Research Director
>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>>> On 7/28/2017 8:54 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>
>>> Chandra,
>>>
>>> you have written here a lot of good and true considerations; with
>>> most of them I can agree. However two comments from my view:
>>>
>>> 1.) The speed of light:
>>> The speed of light when /measured in vacuum /shows always a constant
>>> value. Einstein has taken this result as a fact in so far that the
>>> real speed of light is constant. However if we follow the Lorentzian
>>> interpretation of relativity then only the /measured /c is constant.
>>> It looks constant because, if the measurement equipment is in
>>> motion, the instruments change their indications so that the result
>>> shows the known constant value. - I personally follow the Lorentzian
>>> relativity because in this version the relativistic phenomena can be
>>> deduced from known physical behaviour. So, it is true physics.
>>>
>>> There is a different understanding of what Wolf thinks. He has in
>>> the preceding discussion here given an equation, according to which
>>> the speed of light can go up to infinity. This is to my knowledge in
>>> conflict with any measurement.
>>>
>>> 2) The quantisation of light:
>>> This was also discussed repeatedly here in these mails. And I have
>>> (also) repeatedly referred to my PhD experiment, which was Compton
>>> scattering at protons. An electron of defined energy was converted
>>> into a photon. The photon was scattered at a proton at extreme small
>>> angles (so almost no influence) and then re-converted into an
>>> electron-positron pair. This pair was measured and it reproduced
>>> quite exactly (by better than 2 percent) the energy of the originals
>>> electron. This was repeated for electrons of different energies. - I
>>> do not see any explanation for this process without the assumption
>>> that there was a photon (i.e. a quantum) of a well defined energy,
>>> not a light wave.
>>>
>>> How does this fit into your understanding?
>>>
>>> Best wishes
>>> Albrecht
>>>
>>> PS: Can I find your book "Causal Physics" online?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 26.07.2017 um 18:52 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>>>
>>> Wolf:
>>>
>>> You have said it well:
>>>
>>> /“Concentrating on finding the mechanisms of connection between the
>>> Hallucination and the reality is my approach. I think the constant
>>> speed of light assumption is one of the first pillars that must
>>> fall. If there is such a constant it should in my opinion be
>>> interpreted as the speed of Now…”. /
>>>
>>> Yes, “constant c” is a fundamentally flawed postulate by the
>>> theoretician Einstein, so fond of “Gedanken Experiments”.
>>> Unfortunately, one can cook up wide varieties of logically
>>> self-consistent mathematical theories and then match them up with
>>> “Gedanken” experiments! We know that in the real world, we know that
>>> the velocity of light is dictated by both the medium and the
>>> velocity of the medium. Apparently, Einstein’s “Gedanken Experiment”
>>> of riding the crest of a light wave inspired him to construct SRT
>>> and sold all the mathematical physicists that nature if
>>> 4-diemsional. Out of the “Messiah Complex”, we now believe that the
>>> universe could be 5, or, 7, or 11, or, 13, …. dimensional system
>>> where many of the dimensions are “folded in” !!!! By the way,
>>> running time is not a measurable physical parameter. We can contract
>>> or dilate frequency of diverse oscillators, using proper physical
>>> influence, not the running time. Frequency of oscillators help us
>>> measure a period (or time interval).
>>>
>>> Wise human thinkers have recognized this “Hallucination” problem
>>> from ancient times, which are obvious (i) from Asian perspective of
>>> how five blinds can collaborate to construct a reasonable model of
>>> the Cosmic Elephant and then keep on iterating the model ad
>>> infinitum, or (ii) Western perspective of “shadows of external
>>> objects projected inside a cave wall”. Unfortunately, we become
>>> “groupies” of our contemporary “messiahs” to survive economically
>>> and feel “belonging to the sociaety”. The result is the current sad
>>> state of moribund physics thinking. Fortunately, many people have
>>> started challenging this moribund status quo with papers, books, and
>>> web forums.
>>>
>>> So, I see well-recognizable renaissance in physics coming within a
>>> few decades! Yes, it will take time. Einstein’s “indivisible quanta”
>>> of 1905 still dominates our vocabulary; even though no optical
>>> engineer ever try to propagate an “indivisible quanta”; they always
>>> propagate light waves. Unfortunately, they propagate Fourier
>>> monochromatic modes that neither exits in nature; nor is a causal
>>> signal. [I have been trying to correct this fundamental confusion
>>> through my book, “Causal Physics”.]
>>>
>>> Coming back to our methodology of thinking, I have defined an
>>> iterative approach in the Ch.12 of the above book. I have now
>>> generalized the approach by anchoring our sustainable evolution to
>>> remain anchored with the reality of nature! “Urgency of Evolution
>>> Process Congruent Thinking” [see attached].
>>>
>>> However, one can immediately bring a challenge. If all our
>>> interpretations are cooked up by our neural network for survival;
>>> then who has the authority to define objective reality? Everybody,
>>> but collaboratively, like modeling the “Cosmic Elephant”.
>>>
>>> Let us realize the fact that the seeing “color” is an interpretation
>>> by the brain. It is a complete figment of our neuro-genetic
>>> interpretation! That is why none of us will succeed in
>>> quantitatively defining the subtlety of color variation of any
>>> magnificent color painting without a quantitative spectrometer. The
>>> “color” is not an objective parameter; but the frequency is (not
>>> wavelength, though!). One can now recognize the subtle difference,
>>> from seeing “color”, to */quantifying energy content per frequency
>>> interval./* This is “objective” science determined by instruments
>>> without a “mind”, which is reproducible outside of human
>>> interpretations.
>>>
>>> And, we have already mastered this technology quite a bit. The
>>> biosphere exists. It has been nurturing biological lives for over
>>> 3.5 billion years without the intervention of humans. We are a very
>>> late product of this evolution. This is an objective recognition on
>>> our part! Our, successful evolution needed “instantaneous color”
>>> recognition to survive for our day-to-day living in our earlier
>>> stage. We have now overcome our survival mode as a species. And we
>>> now have become a pest in the biosphere, instead of becoming the
>>> caretaker of it for our own long-term future. */This is the sad
>>> break in our wisdom./* This is why I am promoting the concept,
>>> “Urgency of Evolution Process Congruent Thinking”. This approach
>>> helps generate a common, but perpetually evolving thinking platform
>>> for all thinkers, whether working to understand Nature’s Engineering
>>> (Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc.) or, to carry out our Social
>>> Engineering (Economics, Politics, Religions, etc.).
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Chandra.
>>>
>>> *From:*General
>>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
>>> Behalf Of *Wolfgang Baer
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 26, 2017 12:40 AM
>>> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path to
>>> introspection
>>>
>>> Chandra:
>>>
>>> Unfortunately the TED talk does not work on my machine but the
>>> transcript is available and Anl Seth states what many people
>>> studying the human psyche as well as eastern philosophy have said
>>> for centuries , Yes we are Hallucinating reality and our physics is
>>> built upon that hallucination, but it works so well, or does it?
>>>
>>> However as Don Hoffmancognitive scientist UC Irvine contends
>>> https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as_it_is
>>> <https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as_it_is>
>>>
>>> What we see is like the icons on a computer screen, a file icon may
>>> only be a symbol of what is real on the disk, but these icons as
>>> well as the "hallucinations" are connected to some reality and we
>>> must take them seriously. Deleting the icon also deletes the disk
>>> which may have disastrous consequences.
>>>
>>> For our discussion group it means we can take Albrechts route and
>>> try to understand the universe and photons first based upon the idea
>>> that it is independently real and then solve the human consciousness
>>> problem or we can take the opposite approach and rebuild a physics
>>> without the independent physical reality assumption and see if we
>>> cannot build out a truly macroscopic quantum theory. Concentrating
>>> on finding the mechanisms of connection between the Hallucination
>>> and the reality is my approach. I think the constant speed of light
>>> assumption is one of the first pillars that must fall. If there is
>>> such a constant it should in my opinion be interpreted as the speed
>>> of Now , a property we individually apply to all our observations.
>>>
>>> best
>>>
>>> Wolf
>>>
>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>> Research Director
>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>>>
>>> On 7/23/2017 2:44 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear colleagues:
>>>
>>> Lately there has been continuing discussion on the role of
>>> observer and the reality. I view that to be healthy.
>>>
>>> We must guide ourselves to understand and model the universe
>>> without human mind shaping the cosmic system and its working
>>> rules. This suggestion comes from the fact that our own logic
>>> puts the universe to be at least 13 billion years old, while we,
>>> in the human form, have started evolving barely 5 million years
>>> ago (give or take).
>>>
>>> However, we are not smart enough to determine a well-defined and
>>> decisive path, as yet. Our search must accommodate perpetual
>>> iteration of thinking strategy as we keep on advancing. This is
>>> well justified in the following TED-talk.
>>>
>>> Enjoy:
>>>
>>> https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2017-07-22&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=talk_of_the_week_image
>>>
>>> Chandra.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com <mailto: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 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>
>>>
>>>
>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com <mailto: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 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>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com <mailto: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 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>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com <mailto: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 unquant at yahoo.com
>>> <mailto:unquant at yahoo.com>
>>> <a
>>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/unquant%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>> </a>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List 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>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
>
---
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/20170805/382c54ac/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list