[General] Compton and de Broglie wavelength the "error"
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Sun Nov 26 09:34:54 PST 2017
Hi All,
attached I send you the English translation of de Broglie's PhD thesis
where he develops his idea of his special wave. The translation is done
by Al Kracklauer.
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/LDB-oeuvres/De_Broglie_Kracklauer.pdf
The essential chapter for this topic is no. 1 "The Phase Wave".
Best regards
Albrecht
Am 25.11.2017 um 21:49 schrieb André Michaud:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> I have been thinking on your comment: "/However, I have not seen
> anything written on a possible connection between intrinsic spin and
> the deBroglie wavelength (or frequency)./"
>
> Thinking about it, frequency and wavelength describe the observed and
> measurable "oscillating behavior" of energy, frequency being the
> number of time a quantum will complete its EM cycle per second, while
> the wavelength is the distance the quantum can cover during one such
> cycle at its natural velocity.
>
> Spin on its part has to do with how EM particles relate to each other,
> either parallel spin alignment or antiprallel spin alignment. Parallel
> spin alignment is related to repulsion between particles while
> antiparallel spin alignment, which is associated to covalent bounding
> and orbital pair filling, is related to attraction.
>
> We know that this is not due to electric charges, because 2 electrons
> (same sign of electric charges by definition, thus electrically
> repelling) can be joined in covalent pairs by antiparallel spin
> alignemnt, so this leaves only the magnetic aspect of the energy
> making up the substance of the electron mass to be related to spin.
>
> This is examplified by this experiment carried out by Kotler et al. in
> 2014 with two electrons from two different atoms forced to interact in
> parallel magnetic spin alignment, which reveals the inverse cube
> interaction involved, which is different from the inverse square
> electric interacton:
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13403.epdf?referrer_access_token=yoC6RXrPyxwvQviChYrG0tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PdPJ4geER1fKVR1YXH8GThqECstdb6e48mZm0qQo2OMX_XYURkzBSUZCrxM8VipvnG8FofxB39P4lc-1UIKEO1
>
> From my understanding, magnetic spin and charges have to do with the
> nature of the "substance" that electromagnetic energy is, while
> frequency and wavelength have to do with the nature of its
> "oscillating behavior".
>
> This would be my 2 cents contribution to your other comment: "/I hope
> that some others in the group, who have more ease with mathematics
> than I, will be able to contribute to this development./".
>
> By the way, I don`t feel particulary mathematically apt either. I
> think we each become more familiar with what part of math we needed to
> clarify issues we were interested in in the past.
>
> Best Regards
>
> ---
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
>
>
>
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 11:12:28 -0500, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:
> Dear Chip and all,
> Thank you for the deBroglie paper. It surprised me in several ways.
>
> 1. The biggest surprise was that the word _wavelength_ does not
> appear at all.
> * even tho lambda appears in eq 1, it is not defined. So,
> * while it may have been modesty or lost in translation,
> wavelength was not important for his story.
> 2. deBroglie emphasized frequency and the, now near-universal, use of
> deBrogle wavelength rather than frequency was a convenience for
> experimentalists.
> 3. deBroglie talks of the wave as being 'physical' (unlike that of
> the wave function of QM), yet as far as I could tell, he does not
> mention what is 'waving'.
> 4. The word _spin_ does not appear in the paper.
> * deBroglie's original work evolved at the same time at the
> concept of spin and therefore, as a thesis, would likely not
> include such esoterica.
> * the fact that this present (1970) paper does not include spin
> (as a potential source of the frequency) in a relativity and
> QM-driven paper appears inexcusable.
> * However, that apparent 'failure' is based on my concept that
> the physical 'wave' is a relativistic effect driving the
> precession of the physical spin vector.
> * The nearly 50 years since 1970 has produced many changes.
> However, I have not seen anything written on a possible
> connection between intrinsic spin and the deBroglie wavelength
> (or frequency).
>
> The concept of an electron being a bound photon feeds the information
> base on spin and its implications. I hope that some others in the
> group, who have more ease with mathematics than I, will be able to
> contribute to this development.
> Andrew M.
> ._________________
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com
> <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Andre
>
> I don’t know if you have read this, I suspect you have.
>
> Attached is de Broglie’s “The Reinterpretation of Wave Mechanics”.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins
> <mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins>=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] *On Behalf
> Of *André Michaud
> *Sent:* Friday, November 24, 2017 4:54 PM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Compton and de Broglie wavelengththe "error"
>
> Hi Albrecht,
>
> It seems that you "assume" that de Broglie deduced his wave from
> considerations about relativity.
>
> To my knowledge, this is not the case.
>
> If you can substanciate your claim by referring us to a verifiable
> text from de Broglie that explains his deduction from SR, this
> would be greatly appreciated. I am still in learning mode.
>
> Best Regards ---
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
>
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 23:25:09 +0100, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> Hi André, Chip, and all,
>
> if we discuss de Broglie's concept of a particle wave, we should
> in my view refer to his original work and not to others who have
> used the results (well understood or misunderstood) in other
> applications.
>
> So, de Broglie in original:
>
> It is of course correct that de Broglie did not just “assume” his
> wave but he has deduced it from considerations about relativity.
> But his deduction is based on a severe error as I have explained
> in detail earlier. So, let’s do it again.
>
> De Broglie has seen a logical conflict between the Einstein-
> Planck relation (1) E=h*frequency and (2) relativistic dilation;
> because according to (1) the frequency has to increase at motion
> and according to (2) dilation will cause the frequency to
> decrease. But his concern is an error as this conflict does not
> exist. Because we have to look at an interaction of particles,
> which is the relevant situation. Any interaction sees frequencies
> which are increased by the Doppler effect. And the Doppler effect
> gives an over-compensation of the normal relativistic slow down so
> that both frequencies above will fit on their own. The same result
> is achieved if the temporal Lorentz transformation is properly
> applied. - For de Broglie's new wave no justification exists at all.
>
> The comment of two of you that a single electron does not produce
> an interference pattern is of course correct. One electron only
> produces one dot on the screen. But if we assume that a bunch of
> electron flies to the multi-slit with same speed then the argument
> works. There will be an interference pattern behind the
> multi-slit. But if we transform the experiment into the frame of
> the electrons then the momentum of the electrons is zero, and so
> the wavelength is infinite, and seen from that frame no
> interference pattern can occur. But it does occur, also visible
> for a co-moving observer, and that shows that de Broglie's idea is
> erroneous. - I have shown in calculations (but not in this place)
> why under certain circumstances the impression occurs that de
> Broglie is correct. But in general it is wrong. De Broglie's
> approach violates Galileo's relativity as well as Lorentzian
> relativity.
>
> You have mentioned the good results of the use of the de Broglie
> wave to determine the quantization of atomic orbits. It is true
> that it works, but it has a similar problem like for the
> scattering of electrons. Assume a hydrogen atom moving into axial
> direction with a similar speed as the speed of the electrons in
> the orbits. Then the resulting momentum of the orbiting electrons
> increases by about 40% seen from the frame at rest. So the de
> Broglie wavelength has to decrease by this factor and the energy
> of these states has to change accordingly. But in practice there
> will be a much smaller energy change. So also in this case de
> Broglie fails at a more thorough look.
>
> In the mails there have been some considerations about what de
> Broglie did "have in mind". But what he had in mind he has written
> in his PhD thesis. Anything about the energy states of atoms came
> later and by others (like Schrödinger and Bohr).
>
> Now I will be wondering about objecting arguments.
>
> Albrecht
>
>
> I thank you for your answers and arguments. I will now answer to
> it, of course. Which means to repeat my arguments of the last
> three weeks here where I have given argument which seem to have
> been overlooked.
>
> Am 24.11.2017 um 01:20 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>
> Hi John,André, Chip and all,
>
> Deriving the de Broglie wavelength of an electron model
> without superluminal motion is easy (in hindsight, since de
> Broglie did it using special relativity.) But try getting,
> without superluminal motion, the spin-1 of a non-pointlike
> photon model (for a photon-in-a-box or otherwise) AND the
> spin-1/2 of a highly relativistic non-pointlike electron
> model. In either case there will be some longitudinal momentum
> Plong, at light speed for a photon model and at very near
> light speed for a highly relativistic electron model, as well
> as some significant locally transverse linear momentum Ptrans
> (even if the net transverse linear momentum of the photon
> model is zero as in the double-helix photon model) that
> generates spin Sz = R x Ptrans = 1 hbar for a photon model or
> 1/2 hbar for a highly relativistic electron model . A
> longitudinal light-speed or near-light-speed linear momentum
> vector plus a significant local transverse linear momentum
> vector gives a diagonal local linear momentum vector with a
> corresponding diagonal velocity vector whose magnitude is
> greater than c. Putting a photon model’s or electron model's
> transverse oscillatory motion, that generates its spin, into
> two different transverse dimensional spaces is ingenious, but
> if the photon is to move along longitudinally as a whole and
> not leave the two transverse dimensional spaces behind, I
> think there will still be some diagonal superluminal motion. I
> would be happy to see a proved counterexample.
>
> Richard
>
> On Nov 23, 2017, at 12:19 PM, John Williamson
> <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk
> <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
> Hi Richard and everyone,
>
> You do not need to add anything. "Superluminal" is not
> needed. If you consider light-in-a-box (including light in
> a box of its own making) the de Broglie wavelength follows
> from the beat frequencies of the proper relativistic
> transformations of the light going with the motion and
> that going against. Remeber, one needs to consider BOTH
> the Doppler shift AND the SR transformations. Then
> everything works. Martin is writing a definitive paper on
> this.
>
> Regards, John.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*General
> [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
> on behalf of Richard Gauthier [richgauthier at gmail.com
> <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>]
> *Sent:*Thursday, November 23, 2017 6:36 PM
> *To:*srp2 at srpinc.org <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>; Nature of
> Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:*Re: [General] Compton and de Broglie
> wavelengththe "error"
>
> Hello André, Chip, John and all,
>
>
> I also think that there is “an additional factor”
> that settles an electron into an atomic resonant
> state. In my view the electron is composed of this
> additional factor, a charged superluminal energy
> quantum that circulates and generates quantum
> waves having the de Broglie wavelength. These
> quantum waves self-resonate in regions around an
> atomic nucleus. When an available resonant region
> around an atomic nucleus is found, the
> superluminal energy quantum settles into this
> region and continues to emit quantum waves that
> for some period of time maintain it in this
> resonance state in the atom. The electron is more
> likely to be detected wherever the amplitude of
> this resonant state (the electron’s eigenfunction
> for this state) is larger.
>
>
> This idea is not fully developed but is hinted at
> in “Transluminal Energy Quantum Model of a Spin-½
> Charged Photon Composing an Electron”,“Electrons
> Are Spin-½Charged Photons Generating the de
> Broglie Wavelength”,“The Charged-Photon Model of
> the Electron Fits the Schrödinger Equation”and
> “The Charged-Photon Model of the Electron, the de
> Broglie Wavelength, and a New Interpretation of
> Quantum Mechanics"
> athttps://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research#papers
> <https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research%23papers>.
> What I called a charged photon in theses articles
> I am now calling a charged half-photon.
>
> Richard
>
> On Nov 23, 2017, at 8:52 AM, André Michaud
> <srp2 at srpinc.org <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi Chip, and all
>
> You write: "/I prefer the second option, there is some
> additional factor interacting with the electron, to
> cause these quantized orbitals, and understand from
> Andre’s writings that he feels the same way./"
>
> You are exactly right about what I think. I came to
> the same conclusion as yourself (the second option)
> way back in fact when I finally lighted up to the fact
> that the wave function originally was related to
> electrons orbitals by Schrödinger because he was
> inspired in this direction by a conclusion of de
> Broglie that electrons had to be captive in some form
> of resonance state about nuclei.
>
> I think that this was sort of lost sight of in the
> community due to the acrimonious debate that raged on
> afterwards between the proponents of the Copenhagen
> school and the determinists, which indeed was
> fundamentally whether the first or second option
> applied in physical reality.
>
> After I came to the second option conclusion, I
> started to look around for descriptions of this
> resonance state that could be related to the wave
> function but found nothing, as if the only option that
> had been explored was the first one, with which the
> Heisenberg solution was in harmony and also later
> Feynman's path integral.
>
> To me, the idea of "resonance" always made me think of
> a vibrating guitar string, whose shape and extent of
> the volume visited by the transversally oscillating
> string can be described by the wave function.
>
> I suspected that this might have been what de Broglie
> had in mind also, and became convinced that the
> electron could remain localized while being captive
> within the theoretical volume defined by the wave
> function, on an axial resonance trajectory (sort of
> stochastic maybe to some extent) that may be
> describable mathematically and that could be due to
> electric versus magnetic interaction between the
> electron and the nuclei.
>
> I see that you lean in a similar direction Chip. I
> have explored the possible electric vs magnetic
> potential explanation to a large extent, but I am at a
> loss as to how to exactly mathematize the localized
> resonance trajectory proper within the volume
> definable by the wave function. You seem to be better
> equipped mathematically than me to address such an
> issue, with your¼ de Broglie wavelengthexploration.
>
> For a general overview of how the trispatial geometry
> allows defining this type of electromagnetic electron
> equilibrium states involving both electric and
> magnetic aspects of energy, here is my final paper on
> the whole concept:
>
> https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/gravitation-quantum-mechanics-and-the-least-action-electromagneticequilibrium-states-2329-6542-1000152.pdf
> <https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/gravitation-quantum-mechanics-and-the-least-action-electromagneticequilibrium-states-2329-6542-1000152.pdf>
>
> Even though it involves an entirely new paradigm that
> may feel very unfamiliar at first, I hope it
> nevertheless makes some sense to you.
>
> Best Regards
>
> ---
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
>
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 05:16:52 -0600, "Chip Akins"wrote:
>
> Hi All
>
> But in all this, regarding de Broglie’s wavelength and
> the electron orbitals, there is still something missing.
>
> Either we have to assume that the electron occupies
> the entire circumference of the orbital simultaneously
> by its wavefunction, or there is some additional
> factor interacting with the electron, to cause these
> quantized orbitals.
>
> I prefer the second option, there is some additional
> factor interacting with the electron, to cause these
> quantized orbitals, and understand from Andre’s
> writings that he feels the same way.
>
> In the hydrogen atom there is a simple, naturally
> occurring cause, for a “matter wave” which is exactly
> ¼ the de Broglie wavelength. This “matter wave” is a
> beat frequency created by the perceived frequency
> difference with motion, of the outer radius and inner
> radius of the electron as it circulates about the
> proton. I found this to be interesting, and wanted to
> share this observation.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]*On
> Behalf Of*André Michaud
>
>
> *Sent:*Wednesday, November 22, 2017 10:52 PM
> *To:*
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>
> *Subject:*Re: [General] Compton and de Broglie
> wavelengththe "error"
>
> Hello John,
>
> You are absolutely right.
>
>
> In fact de Broglie derived this relation with respect
> to the values of the Bohr ground state orbit energy
> parameters.
>
>
> Heisenberg did the same, except that he formulated the
> relation so that it could account for a precision
> drift of the chosen velocity on either side of the
> selected velocity value about the ground orbit of the
> Bohr atom.
>
>
> In 1923, he himself expressed his uncertainty
> principle as delta_x delta_p equal-or-larger-than h,
> which is the same as delta_x approx_equal to h / (m
> delta_v_x), which is fundamentally de Broglie's single
> valued h/mv for the Bohr ground state orbit.
>
> This is at the origin of Heisenberg's statistical
> solution.
>
>
> Best Regards ---
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
>
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 03:17:31 +0000, John Williamson wrote:
>
> Dear Albrecht,
>
> Your error is more fundamental than you know. See
> below in green.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*General
> [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
> on behalf of Viv Robinson [viv at universephysics.com
> <mailto:viv at universephysics.com>]
> *Sent:*Wednesday, November 22, 2017 10:49 PM
> *To:*Albrecht Giese; Nature of Light and Particles -
> General Discussion
> *Subject:*Re: [General] Compton and de Broglie
> wavelengththe "error"
>
> Dear Albrecht,
>
> IMHO you have a fundamental flaw in your first
> paragraph below. A single electron cannot generate an
> interference pattern, any more than can a single
> photon. An observer moving with a single electron
> will, if the screen is angled towards him, see only a
> single spot where the electron impinged upon that
> screen. That is all. If he repeats that observation
> say 10,000 times he will still only see on spot each
> time the electron impinges upon the screen. If the
> spots are recorded, each time he travels with another
> electron he will see an interference image slowly
> appear because it is dependent upon the frame of
> reference of the slit and screen. The motion of the
> observer does not interfere with that pattern.
>
> Sincerely
>
> Vivian Robinson
>
> On 23 November 2017 at 8:24:21 AM, Albrecht Giese
> (phys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>) wrote:
>
> Dear André,
>
> the "error" which I see for de Broglie is his
> assumed relation lambda = h / momentum .
>
> Your error, and this is an error not an "error" is
> that you assume that de Broglie "assumed lambda =
> h / momentum. Louis de Broglie did not assume
> lambda = h / momentum - he derived it. From
> relativity. Please do not assume what you think
> other people assume. Remember, de Broglie was very
> smart, and this relation had to come from
> somewhere, no? It would be instructive for you to
> understand the how and why he did this before
> making uninformed comments on it.
>
> This relation fails at any linear transformation.
> Take as an example the scattering of electrons at
> a multi-slit. If you look at it from the rest
> frame of the multi-slit then de Broglie's
> wavelength describes correctly the generated
> interference pattern. However, if this situation
> is observed by someone moving at the side of the
> electron the result is completely wrong. Assume as
> an extreme situation that the observer moves
> together with the electron. Then in the frame of
> the observer the electron has the momentum = 0 and
> so the wavelength is infinite. This means: no
> interference! But the pattern does of course not
> disappear and will be visible to the observer.
> This shows that de Broglie does not even fulfil
> Galileo's physical rule of relativity believed and
> proven since 600 years.
>
> Regarding the particle mass: My equation is
> simple: m = h(bar) / (c*R) , where R is the radius
> of the particle. And R can be easily determined by
> use of the known magnetic momentum of the particle.
>
> The mag. momentum of a circling elementary charge
> is classically: mm = (1/2)*c*e_0 *R
>
> The mag. moment of particles is known. So, R can
> be determined. This R inserted into the equation
> above yields the particle mass with an accuracy of
> about 10^-3 . - This is now based only on the
> strong force. If the result is corrected by the
> influence of the electrical charge, this yields
> the Landé factor in case of the electron. This
> applied yields the mass with an accuracy of 2*10^-6 .
>
> References for this are:www.ag-physics.org/rmass
> <http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass>andwww.ag-physics.org/electron
> <http://www.ag-physics.org/electron>.
>
> Hope this explains it. Otherwise please ask.
>
> Albrecht
>
> Am 18.11.2017 um 22:54
> <http://airmail.calendar/2017-11-18%2022:54:00%20AEST>schrieb
> André Michaud:
>
> Dear Albrecht,
>
> I must say that I don't see as "errors"
> conclusions that were drawn before more
> precise knowledge was discovered. For example,
> I don't think that Newton made an "error" by
> not immediately concluding to the possibility
> the fixed velocity of light. He simply did not
> know about it because this had not yet been
> discovered.
>
> The same for de Broglie in my opinion, he
> worked with the knowledge available a the time.
>
> As i understand it, what we call the de
> Broglie wave is simply a representation of the
> sum of the energies of the rest mass of the
> electron plus the translational energy related
> to its momentum. How can this be wrong at the
> general level, unless I misunderstand the
> whole concept?
>
> As for Hönl and the mass of the electron, I
> was meaning this rhetorically. I simply mean
> that any solution that exactly provides the
> exact mass of the electron as experimentally
> measured by numerous means can only be a
> proper description, so your description has to
> be correct. The exact mass of the electron has
> been experimentally confirmed for over 1
> century. I do not know where to look to
> examine your solution. Can you provide a link?
>
> ---
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
>
> /On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 21:56:34 +0100/
> <http://airmail.calendar/2017-11-19%2006:56:34%20AEST>/,
> Albrecht Giese wrote:/
>
> Dear André,
>
> there is no doubt that de Broglie has made
> great contributions to the development of
> physics. So, if there is an anniversary in
> honour of him and even the Nobel price, then
> as many as possible of his achievements are of
> course presented.
>
> My concern, however, refers to a specific
> result of his early activities. The assumed
> necessity to introduce the "harmony of waves"
> and to deduce the "de Broglie" wavelength are
> based on a logical error and on a
> misunderstanding of SR.
>
> It is a quite funny situation that in spite of
> this error his result seems usable to explain
> certain physical processes. It is one goal of
> my physical activities to understand this. In
> one fundamental case I have found an
> explanation. That is the scattering of
> electrons at a double / multiple slit. If such
> experiment is viewed from a specific inertial
> frame (the one normally used), de Brolgie's
> calculation conforms to the measurement.
> However in any other frame it fails. - I can
> explain why the de Broglie wave seems to work
> even though it is erroneous. (Not here but I
> can give you a reference if you want it.)
>
> Regarding Hönl I do not understand what you
> say. Hönl did NOT get a correct mass by
> assuming only the electrical force in the
> electron. He was wrong by a factor of about
> 300 as I wrote earlier. But the calculation
> which I did is correct with high precision and
> the formula does not have any free parameters,
> only the standard ones. I do not know any
> other model which has this. Do you? Then
> please give me a reference.
>
> Best regards
> Albrecht
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from
> the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion
> List atsrp2 at srpinc.org <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>
>
> Click here to unsubscribe
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/srp2%40srpinc.org?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> <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
> <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 <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>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
> Light and Particles General Discussion List at srp2 at srpinc.org
> <mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org>
>
> Click here to unsubscribe
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/srp2%40srpinc.org?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
> Light and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com
> <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171126/75852800/attachment.html>
More information about the General
mailing list