[General] Fwd: half-photons??
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Wed Nov 1 14:22:51 PDT 2017
Hi André, hi Chip and hi All,
now as there is so much about relativity here I would like to contribute
also my comment about it.
Einstein has developed SR from the requirement to explain the constancy
of the speed of light c in all inertial systems (which he called a
"principle"). So he has made assumptions about space and time and with
these assumptions he developed his SR on a purely mathematical basis.
There was earlier asked the question here whether SR can also be deduced
on a basis of causality. This is clearly true and was done (prior to
Einstein) by Lorentz and Poincare.
In 1888 Oliver Heaviside deduced from Maxwell's equations that a field
in motion necessarily contracts. (This was later deduced for all kinds
of forces.) Lorentz concluded that if fields contract also objects must
contract. This insight was then titled the "Lorentz contraction". So,
contraction was explained by cause. For dilation Lorentz and / or
Poincare found out that this can be explained by the assumption that on
the lowest level of matter, i.e. the elementary particles, there is a
permanent motion with c. From both assumptions, Heaviside and
Lorentz/Poincare the gamma factor follows, in the case of dilation very
simply geometrically (Pythagoras). The internal motion in particles with
c was later independently deduced by Dirac and Schrödinger specifically
for the electron and given the name "Zitterbewegung".
So, there are no axiomatic assumptions needed for SR, but SR can be
based on physical facts which are known otherwise.
I do not see a specific relation to the Coulomb law. This is not
plausible; among others arguments by the fact that the dominant force in
elementary particles is not the electrical force but the strong force.
And how can the increase of mass be explained? I have presented earlier
(in this group and in San Diego) a particle model which explains among
other properties inertia. According to this model the mass of an
elementary particle is universally given by m = h(bar)/(c*R) where R
is the radius of the particle. Now the relativistic increase is very
simple: In motion the quantity R decreases by the factor gamma and so
the mass increases by gamma.
We have discussed all this earlier at this place but I thought I should
recall it here in this stage of the discussion.
Best regards
Albrecht
Am 01.11.2017 um 19:29 schrieb André Michaud:
>
> Hi Chip,
>
> As you might expect from my previous statement, I have an unusual view
> of time dilation and length contraction.
>
> Not that I think that SR is not be self-consistent or that it has no
> uses, but I think that its doesn't completely address high
> relativistic velocities or very close charges proximity, in the latter
> case due to an issue with the concept of momentum when translational
> velocities are hindered.
>
> I find SR as good as classical Newton in the non-relativistic range,
> which covers all needs at the macroscopic level, given that zero
> momentum kinetic energy is the asymptotic limit from which energy is
> induced according to the gamma factor by the Coulomb force, and I find
> that it only partially addresses energy induction in the relativistic
> range (momentum correctly calculated, but no account taken of the
> related mass increase).
>
> I discussed time dilation and length contraction a little with Richard
> I think. At least I gave him my general opinion.
>
> I do not dispute either the validity of having derived the gamma
> factor from strict geometric and trigonometric considerations. I find
> it a clean derivation.
>
> What I think is the problem is the axiomatic assumption that the
> concepts of time dilation and length contraction logically emerge
> simply from the fact that the method brings into play velocities (thus
> time and space "seconds and meters") by plugging a velocities ratio
> into the otherwise dimensionless gamma factor.
>
> We tend not to pay attention to this particularity, but if you think
> about it, these dimensions simplify completely out of the gamma factor
> whatever calculation you involve it in, just like dimensionless
> constants such as alpha.
>
> What I mean is that time dilation and length contraction are axiomatic
> assumptions, not conclusions drawn from prior experimentally collected
> and analyzed data, contrary to the data collected by Kaufmann that
> relates the gamma factor to kinetic and mass energy induction in the
> accelerating electron.
>
> I always tended to keep axiomatic assumptions at arm's length, not
> even meaning that they are useless or always misleading.
>
> As for how I understand the manner in which kinetic energy accumulates
> in accelerating (and even in accelerated "meaning stabilized in some
> least action equilibrium state") charged particles, I see this energy
> as separate from the energy quantum making up the actual invariant
> rest mass of the electron, that is, as its "carrying-energy" or
> "carrier-photon", because from my understanding, it structures as a
> completely normal electromagnetic photon, but one that is stuck with
> the job of carrying "on its back", metaphorically speaking, the inert
> mass of the translationally inert electron quantum.
>
> I explain this idea in the paper titled "From Classical to
> Relativistic Mechanics via Maxwell". It stems in direct line from a
> derivation made by Paul Marmet from the Biot-Savart equation; a
> derivation that demonstrates that the magnetic field of an
> accelerating electron increases synchronously with its velocity, which
> directly matches Kaufmann's figures.
>
> That about summarizes what I think on these issues.
>
> Best Regards
> ---
>
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
>
>
>
> /On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 06:58:19 -0500, "Chip Akins" wrote:/
>
> Hi Andre
>
> Your statements are very interesting.
>
> I had taken for granted the aspect of kinetic energy being imparted by
> the Coulomb force, and not looked into it carefully. I will do that.
> Thank you.
>
> Your comment … “So to me, "relativity" simply relates to the fact that
> energy is induced non-linearly (according to the gamma factor) with
> velocity of charged particles by the Coulomb force, or with proximity
> between charge particles also due to the Coulomb force. It has no
> other implications from my perspective.”
>
> Has me wondering then, regarding your view on length contraction, time
> dilation, and how the excess kinetic energy is stored in accelerated
> particles in your view?
>
> Warm Regards
>
> Chip Akins
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *André Michaud
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 31, 2017 10:51 PM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Fwd: half-photons??
>
> Hi Chip,
>
> Thank you for your welcoming message. I remember that we crossed paths
> before on ResearchGate, but I don't recall the specifics.
>
> You really are going to the crux of the matter with this question "How
> do you view and understand the causes for “relativity”?"
>
> Fist time I have to actually answer it so directly.
>
> Contrary to most (seems to me, from decades of interaction with
> others) my first contact with relativity was through a book by Henri
> Poincare "La science et l'hypothèse", which led me directly to study
> the experiments carried out by Walter Kaufmann that Max Abraham
> interpreted, both of whom, I learned much later, got the gamma factor
> idea from Woldemar Voigt with whom Abraham had contacts, and who seems
> to have been to first to establish the concept.
>
> From Kaufmann's experiments with relativistic electrons in a bubble
> chamber, the gamma factor simply gives the exact measure of how much
> kinetic energy is induced in accelerating charged particles with
> velocity as they are accelerated by the ambient electric and magnetic
> fields he used to control the moving electrons during his experiments,
> as demonstrated by his results, half of which converts to a velocity
> related momentary mass increment which is measurable transversally,
> which is what the Kaufmann experiments demonstrate,
>
> Only later did I study Einstein's SR concept grounded on the idea that
> the gamma factor applies to time dilation and length contraction.
> Since I already was in agreement with Abraham and Poincare's views
> about the Kaufmann experiment, I always stuck with this view as
> matching more closely physical reality.
>
> So to me, "relativity" simply relates to the fact that energy is
> induced non-linearly (according to the gamma factor) with velocity of
> charged particles by the Coulomb force, or with proximity between
> charge particles also due to the Coulomb force. It has no other
> implications from my perspective.
>
> I know that the very idea that the Coulomb force induces physically
> existing kinetic energy in charges appears strange to most, but I
> found that so much can be explained with this idea that I just can't
> see how physical reality could be otherwise.
>
> Best Regards ---
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
>
> /On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 19:18:58 -0700, Richard Gauthier wrote:/
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> I forwarded the following from Chip on the discussion list.
>
> Richard
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *"Chip Akins" <chipakins at gmail.com
> <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>>
>
> *Subject: Re: [General] half-photons??*
>
> *Date: *October 31, 2017 at 4:00:37 AM PDT
>
> *To: *"'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'"
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>
> *Reply-To: *Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>
> Andre
>
> I am delighted that you might participate in our discussion group.
> I have read some of your work and comments on ResearchGate and
> find you to be a thoughtful, intelligent contributor to the
> process of discovery.
>
> Thank you for forwarding some of your thoughts through Richard. I
> am hoping you will join our group so that we can all benefit from
> your insights as well.
>
> As you have pointed out, the postulate that “/Absolute uniform
> motion cannot be detected by any means./” Does not mean that “/the
> concept of absolute rest and the ether have no meaning/”
>
> For if matter is made of energy, and energy always takes the
> propagating form, whether as light or confined to create matter,
> then it would be very difficult indeed for us to detect our motion
> through the medium (ether). This situation would also cause the
> appearance of relativity.
>
> So, there is another view, which is more causal than Einstein’s,
> where “relativity”*is the result of the medium of space*and the
> way energy creates matter and light.
>
> Is this your opinion as well? How do you view and understand the
> causes for “relativity”?
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
> Behalf Of*Richard Gauthier
> *Sent:*Friday, October 27, 2017 3:38 PM
> *To:*Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
> *Cc:*André Michaud <srp2 at srpinc.org <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>>
> *Subject:*Re: [General] half-photons??
>
>
> Hello Grahame, Vivian, Chip, John W, Martin, Andrew and all,
>
>
> Here are forwarded some more thoughtful comments/responses
> fromAndréthat I think are relevant to your SR discussions.
>
>
> Richard
>
>
> André:
>
>
> Thank you for forwarding the discussion between Vivian, Grahame
> and Chip. I must say that over the years, I have come across
> most of similar comments about SR and various flavors of photon
> and electron inner structure proposals, either just reading
> about them or partaking in the discussions.
>
>
> I appreciate you sending me such updates. Causes me to think of
> these issues from a fresh angle. Thank you for your offer to
> actively join the group, but I prefer to wait until one or other
> member wishes to exchange with me. As previously mentioned, I am
> quite happy just contributing my ideas to you, and let you be
> the judge of whether or not you communicate my thoughts in the
> meantime if you deem useful in context. As far as I am
> concerned, I am discussing with you personally, simply because
> you are interested in my opinion.
>
> I have some comments of my own regarding SR. It seems to be
> generally assumed that SR is completely electromagnetism
> compliant. I was once presented with this paper by Richard E.
> Haskell, as giving the full derivation of all Maxwell's
> equations in addition to Lorentz force from special relativity
> and Coulomb's law:
>
> http://www.cse.secs.oakland.edu/haskell/Special%20Relativity%20and%20Maxwells%20Equations.pdf
>
> I find it very well done and indeed clearly explaining SR and
> its origins.
>
> Here are some remarks that came to mind as I read it:
>
> On page 10, Einstein's first postulate is stated as follows:
> Absolute uniform motion cannot be detected by any means. The
> following conclusion by the author regarding this postulate
> seems to be totally inappropriate to me: "This is to say that
> the concept of absolute rest and the ether have no meaning." I
> fail to see how this conclusion can logically derive so
> straightforwardly from the stated first postulate.
>
> In my own book (Electromagnetic Mechanics of Elementary
> Particles: 2nd Edition--Richard), metaphorically speaking of
> course, as formulated, this first postulate is a totally
> arbitrary axiomatic assertion not grounded on experimentally
> observed data about physical reality. Consequently, it is an
> invalid premise to draw any conclusion about physical reality.
> Also, I am positive that absolute uniform motion of free
> electromagnetic energy in vacuum has been detected and confirmed
> out of any doubt. Its uniform velocity has also been derived by
> Maxwell from second partial derivatives of the equations of
> Ampere and Gauss, which themselves were established from
> experimental data 40 years before.
>
> His second postulate (on page 10 also) (light is propagated in
> empty space with a velocity c which is independent of the motion
> of the source), is in reality Maxwell's rightfully arrived at
> conclusion 40 years previously from the second partial
> derivatives from which he established the speed of light as
> being c, which is a conclusion that Einstein perfectly understood.
>
> In reality, this is not an axiomatic postulate as is being
> assumed, but a well established conclusion derived in direct
> line from equations themselves established from experimental
> data by Gauss and Ampere.
>
> So there is no requirement to "modify our ideas about the nature
> of time" as stated on page 10 to accommodate the confirmed fact
> that light travels at uniform velocity c in vacuum.
>
> Then comes the description of two famous different inertial
> frames each with an observer, moving at different fixed
> velocities both stuck with the task of seeing the same light as
> moving at a constant velocity.
>
> First, naturally occurring inertial motion at fixed velocities
> of material bodies is impossible in physical reality, so my view
> is that this set up cannot possibly lead to any valid
> conclusions with respect to physical reality. If a body is not
> in immediate contact with another body, it will accelerate, so
> its velocity will constantly change. If in contact with another
> body, it will accelerate with this second body and its velocity
> will also constantly change.
>
> Second, whatever opinion these two observers may have about the
> velocity of light will not change its actual physical velocity.
>
> You can see that the squared velocities ratio of the Lorentz
> factor is obtained from strictly mathematical geometric
> considerations established at equation (5) involving time to
> axiomatically associate the Lorentz factor to time with equation
> (6).
>
> You will also observe the same establishment of the Lorentz
> gamma factor for the so-called "length contraction" with
> equation (14) strictly from geometric and algebraic
> consideration, which is not a derivation from physically
> obtained data, but from a construct obtained by establishing a
> geometric set up that will produce this relation between the
> "mathematical" concept of length and the gamma factor.
>
> I must say here that most of my life, I had been convinced that
> the gamma factor proper had been derived from electromagnetic
> equations by Lorentz and not from this geometric/algebraic
> mathematical set up.
>
> The reason is that I have read so much material since the 50's
> that I didn't recall where I read about its derivation from
> electromagnetic equations, or even if this was a false memory. I
> tried to relocate the source after I derived it myself from an
> electromagnetic equation (equation 66 in the following paper,
> derived from equation 51, itself a conversion from strictly
> electromagnetic equation 34), to compare results, but couldn't
> re-locate it. I then assumed by default that it was Lorentz who
> had made the original derivation from electromagnetism and that
> I just did't succeed in re-locating the source document:
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282353551_From_Classical_to_Relativistic_Mechanics_via_Maxwell
>
> You can verify that from the electromagnetic perspective the
> "gamma factor" derived in this paper has nothing to do with
> length or time contraction, only with charged particles energy
> increase with velocity (and with proximity between charged
> particles according to the Coulomb law).
>
> I then investigated further and found that all past derivations
> of the gamma factor had been made from this geometric/algebraic
> set up that was initially established by Woldemar Voigt in 1887,
>
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2001ChJPh..39..211E&link_type=ARTICLE&db_key=PHY&high=
>
> who had epistolary contacts with Larmor, Lorentz and Poincare,
> who also are credited with developing the method. I finally
> relocated where I had gotten the idea that one of them had also
> derived it from electromagnetism.
>
> It was due to Walter Kaufmann's demonstration that the mass of
> the electron varied with velocity according to the relativistic
> equation during his experimentation leading to the
> identification of the transverse relativistic mass of moving
> electrons, that made use of the gamma factor developed from the
> geometry/algebraic method, but that finally no-one seemed to
> have actually derived the gamma factor directly from an
> electromagnetic equation, before my own derivation in the above
> paper.
>
> If on your side, you know of such a derivation directly from an
> electromagnetic equation, I would really appreciate a link to
> the paper, or a reference to the paper if not available online,
> so I can compare methods.
>
> All of this is meant to emphasize that this derivation of the
> gamma factor from an electromagnetic equation confirms that from
> the electromagnetism perspective, in physical reality the gamma
> factor is related strictly to energy increase with velocity of
> charged particles such as the electron, and under no
> circumstance to time dilation or so-called "length contraction".
>
> I place the word "so-called" before "length contraction",
> because there is a real problem with the very concept of length
> contraction when applied to physically existing bodies.
>
> I occasionally give the following example to bring to mind the
> immense distances that separate all charged particles within the
> atoms of which every macroscopic body is made.
>
> If a hydrogen atom was upsized so that its central proton became
> as large as the Sun, then the electron would stabilize as far as
> Neptune's orbit, which would make a hydrogen atom as large as
> the whole solar system. This means that distances between the
> charged particles within atoms making up macroscopic bodies are
> relatively astronomical.
>
> Given that all bodies are made of such empty structures, the
> very concept of "length" can be seen as meaningless with respect
> to its physical composition, and that what would be involved
> when the possible "length contraction" of a macroscopic body is
> considered, would really minimally be a "distance contraction"
> between the electronic escorts and the nuclei of the
> constituting atoms.
>
> This being said, such distance contraction would apply by
> structure not only to the length of macroscopic bodies, but also
> to their other dimensions, which are width and thickness.
>
> Given the assertion that SR is deemed electromagnetism
> compliant, such shortening of the distances between electronic
> escorts and nuclei within bodies subjected to "length
> contraction" should involve a corresponding energy increase
> within the mass of the body due to the Coulomb law at play as a
> function of the inverse square of the contracting distances
> between charged electrons of the electronic escorts and the
> charged nuclei.
>
> But, nowhere in SR is there a provision for this energy increase
> in the contracting mass of bodies moving at relativistic
> velocities, which is a gaping hole in the SR theory that seems
> not to have attracted any attention.
>
> So, if SR does not account for this energy increase mandated by
> the Coulomb force, this means that SR is not Maxwell equations
> compliant, because Gauss's equation for the electric field,
> which is Maxwell's first equation, is a simple generalization of
> Coulomb's law, which seems not to be applicable to bodies
> sustaining length contraction according to SR.
>
> Well, I hope this makes some sense to you, and if you have input
> about a prior derivation of the gamma factor from an
> electromagnetic equation, I really would appreciate.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> André
>
> On Oct 26, 2017, at 4:32 PM, Dr Grahame Blackwell
> <grahame at starweave.com <mailto:grahame at starweave.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear Vivian (et al.)
>
> On looking back over my email (below)just sent, I'm
> concernedthat my reference to "those who use language in such
> a way as to bolster their arguments" might possibly be
> misconstrued as a reference to yourself. Please be assured
> that this was not my intention, I certainly don't regard you
> as having done this, I fully appreciate that your usage was to
> describe a particular situation rather than to justify a line
> of argument. My point about precise use of language stands,
> and of course applies to all of us; my point about misuse of
> words to strengthen an argument was with reference to a wholly
> hypothetical situation which I cannot imagine applying to
> anyone in this group.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Grahame
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:*Dr Grahame Blackwell <mailto:grahame at starweave.com>
>
> *To:*Viv Robinson <mailto:viv at universephysics.com>;Nature
> of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>
> *Sent:*Thursday, October 26, 2017 11:58 PM
>
> *Subject:*Re: [General] half-photons??
>
> Dear Vivian,
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> First and foremost I need to say that I
> haven’t*ever*“chosen to misrepresent” you; that’s the sort
> of emotive language that I find quite unhelpful.To make
> assumptions regarding the intentions of others, and then
> state those assumptions as fact, is always a risky
> business!I have simply described my understanding of what
> you have said as it seems to me – and hopefully always
> made it clear that this is what I’m doing.[Why on earth
> would I*/choose/*to misrepresent you?]
>
> Second, with regard to my being “pedantic” over your
> choice of words: as I’ve said, I’m quite relaxed over the
> use of “crumpled” (though I see it quite differently);
> however I cannot be so casual about your use of the word
> “requires” when your proposed ‘requirement’ is in fact
> just one of at least two options.For me this goes right to
> the heart of scientific rigour: if, for example, a medical
> researcher stated that onset of a particular medical
> condition ‘requires’ an elevated temperature of five
> degrees above the norm, when in fact under some
> circumstances this need not be the case, the consequences
> could be catastrophic.
>
> Many parallel situations can be envisaged, in almost every
> branch of science.I’d go so far as to say that I wouldn’t
> be able to have a meaningful discussion with anyone who
> used language in such a way to bolster their own
> scientific arguments.Certainly a view of the nature of
> Relativity, or of the structure of photons, that (in my
> view) misuses language in this way would be of absolutely
> no interest to me.If this makes me a pedant then, yes, I
> plead guilty as charged – and I believe that science would
> be the worse for it if others investigating fundamental
> aspects of our universe didn’t take the same view.
>
> I agree 100% with your proposal that the
> circulating-photon model of an electron (at a constant
> light-speed) accounts fully for observed phenomena
> attributed to Relativity; this is a point that Chip and I
> have both been quite vocal about pretty much since we each
> joined this group (as I understand your position on this
> Chip – forgive me if that’s incorrect in any way) and that
> I’ve been writing about for nigh on 20 years.This causes a
> changed perception/experience of time, distance and object
> dimensions precisely in line with the observations that
> are put down to Relativity.In this respect
> Relativity*/is/*a thing, and it’s fully explainable as such.
>
> However this explanation stops short –*/well/*short – of
> supporting the proposal that spacetime is of itself, by
> its nature, ‘relativistic’ – i.e. that all inertial states
> of motion are equivalent, that there is no one unique such
> state of motion that can be termed ‘objectively static’,
> from which all other states of motion may be measured.In
> fact, it renders such a proposal superfluous, since all
> observed phenomena can be fully explained without
> introducing this additional constraint on the nature of
> reality.[I include in this the apparent reciprocity of
> ‘relativistic’ effects, which can be derived directly from
> this particle model.]
>
> It is*/that/*‘Principle of Relativity’ – the objective
> equivalence of all inertial states of motion – for which I
> see absolutely*/no/*causation proposed (I'm talking
> generally here, not just about your work).Certainly the
> circling-photon model (on which we appear to be agreed)
> offers no causal explanation for such a proposed
> phenomenon – at the same time as explaining very clearly
> why such a proposal is unnecessary to explain
> ‘relativistic’ effects.
>
> So, then: I thoroughly applaud both experimental evidence
> and mathematical rationale in support of any theory – and
> (as I observed to John W) I have never questioned either
> of these in respect of SR or GR, in fact I have endorsed
> them to the hilt.However, what I am saying, and what is
> fully supported by logical analysis of the circling-photon
> particle model, is that these experiments and math are
> respectively illustrating and
> documenting*/perceived/*reality rather
> than*/objective/*reality.If one recognises that effects
> attributed to Relativity are, in the
> main,*/observer/*effects (including mechanical/atomic
> ‘observers’ such as clocks), coupled with objective
> consequences such as the electromagnetic foreshortening of
> objects in motion (Lorentz/Fitzgerald contraction), then
> in my view we have a pretty complete theory!
>
> Where we come a-cropper is when we (i.e. mainstream
> science) insist on tacking on a wholly unnecessary
> ‘addendum’ to the effect that reality*/is/*in fact that
> strange place that our motion-affected senses and
> instruments tell us it is – that this train*/is/*longer
> (not just*/seems/*longer) for the guard on it than it is
> for the trackside workman, that your watch*/is/*going slow
> in respect of my reference frame whilst at the same time
> mine*/is/*going slow in respect of your reference frame.
>
> This distinction between ‘seems’ and ‘is’ may appear to be
> a bit irrelevant, but in fact it’s absolutely crucial if
> we’re to progress in our practical understanding of the
> universe.From inertia to gravitation, from our handling of
> time to our handling of space (and so arguably for the
> future viability of our species), every new physical
> theory is required to conform to this frame-invariance
> constraint.Since that constraint on physical laws is
> arguably totally illusory, we are (it very much seems to
> me) placing unnecessary obstacles in our path to future
> discovery and endeavour – ultimately, in our path to the
> stars.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Grahame
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature
> of Light and Particles General Discussion List
> atrichgauthier 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
> atrichgauthier 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 at phys 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 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/20171101/824abc8b/attachment.html>
More information about the General
mailing list