[General] Compton and de Broglie wavelengththe "error"

Mon Nov 27 12:54:40 PST 2017

Richard,

As I mentioned. The De Broglie quote in your recent paper expresses that
the half-wavelength photons are Dirac Fermions. So a photon can be treated
a a series of pairs of Dirac Fermions.

So I see these models of an electron as a photon are saying that the
electron is made of a pair of Dirac Fermions while not showing why the
electron is matter with negative charge rather than the opposite. Then
there is the circularity issue an electron is made of a photon which is an
electron-positron pair, which are both photons, which are both
electron-positron pairs,...

Of course Dirac Fermions will behave like Dirac Fermions, but unless we
break the circular logic we cannot achieve anything definitive. For my part
I see *The* Dirac Fermion, the electron as what is fundamental. That said,
I do not have a model for it. I do appreciate all the fine work on the
problem.

One thing a lot of papers have in common is talking about the point like
nature of an electron, while several including my own derivation of
electron mass show that it relates to a size around the Compton wavelength.
If we are to understand the true structure of an electron we need to
perform scattering experiments with electrons and photons rather than
protons, and at lower energies that allow us to see what is going on an the
Compton scale. As I say in a couple of my books, proton scattering to find
the size of an electron is simply an attempt to find the diameter of the
center of a hole.

Ray

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello John, Martin, Vivian, Chip, André, Grahame, Albrecht, Ray and all,
>
> Three of our members, that I know of, have derived the de Broglie
> wavelength in different ways from our double-looping-photon-like-object
> electron models having spin-1/2: John (and Martin), Vivian and myself. I
> don’t know if Grahame, André, Chip or Albrecht have derived the de
> Broglie wavelength from their electron models (and if so, where), but I
> would like to know.
> The three de Broglie wavelength derivations from the above electron models
> are at:  1. Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?”, J.G.
> Williamson and M.B. van der Mark, http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf,
> section 6, pp15-16.
>
> 2 “A Proposal on the Structure and Properties of an Electron”, VNE
> Robinson, https://www.academia.edu/10819172/A_
> Proposal_on_the_Structure_and_Properties_of_an_Electron , section 9, p.13
>
> 3. “Electrons are spin 1/2 charged photons generating the de Broglie
> wavelength”, Richard Gauthier, https://www.academia.edu/15686831/
> Electrons_are_spin_1_2_charged_photons_generating_
> the_de_Broglie_wavelength, section 11, pp 9-11. What I call “charged
> photons” in my article I am now calling “charged half-photons”, but this
> does not affect the derivation.
>
> Since we are focusing on the validity of the de Broglie wavelength
> relation in this email thread, I would like to know if anyone, besides
> myself, sees any serious error in any of the three de Broglie wavelength
> derivations above. If there is an error in the derivation in my electron
> model, I would certainly like to know what it is, and I think that the
> others feel the same about theirs. Thanks!
>
>   Richard
>
> On Nov 24, 2017, at 3:41 PM, André Michaud <srp2 at srpinc.org> wrote:
>
> Hello Chip,
>
> You touch an important point by highlighting that at α**c* velocity,
> would-be dilation or contraction tiny at these velocities, since it lies in
> the very low relativistic velocity range.
>
> A note however regarding motion at such velocity on a "trajectory" about
> the nucleus of the hydrogen atom, Heisenberg concluded that the electron
> did not have to translate at any velocity to remain captive on the ground
> state orbital. From my analysis from the trispatial perspective, I tend to
> agree with him. Considering how both electrons have to remain by structure
> midway between the two protons in a hydrogen molecule for their covalent
> bounding to be logically explainable, this seems to be factual from my
> perspective.
>
> Best Regards---
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
>
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 17:13:54 -0600, "Chip Akins" wrote:
>
> Hi Albrecht and Andre
> First, Albrecht, I agree that the de Broglie wave, as envisioned by de
> Broglie, leaves much unexplained, and may well be simply wrong, even though
> it sort of fits partial mathematical descriptions which seem to be shedding
> some light on the atomic orbitals in a narrow set of circumstances. This
> failure of the de Broglie hypothesis to work in all circumstances is a part
> of the reason I started looking into this subject more. The de Broglie wave
> also seems to fit double slit experiments, but does not really offer a
> foundation of physical cause. It just seems to work that way without really
> disclosing the physical reasons for the de Broglie wave itself. So I think
> we should look for a better foundation, a causal and concrete explanation,
> instead of building elaborate theoretical structure on speculation which
> still remains unexplained. So, yes, there are occasions where the
> speculation of de Broglie can be applied, and we get the right numbers, but
> that does not mean the theory is correct and we should stop looking for the
> actual answers.
> Andre is onto something when he looks for a relationship between the
> fields of the proton and the fields of the electron to sort out these
> issues of the quantization of orbitals. However I will have to do some more
> math to see if the magnetic field relationships can actually be the answer.
> At this point, prior to doing the requisite math, I think there is also the
> possibility that certain dynamics of the electric fields created by the
> proton and electron will explain the quantization of orbitals. But this is
> premature speculation. And is sort of a moot point because the dynamics of
> electric fields are the cause of magnetic fields.
> There exists a beat frequency which is ¼ the de Broglie wavelength, and
> this beat frequency is a natural condition of the electron in the
> significantly sub-light speed orbital (example: a mean circular path at α*
> *c* velocity), so it requires no speculation about dilation or
> contraction (which are tiny at these velocities).
> So I think you are both quite correct to look into these issues. We have a
> lot to gain by reexamining our theoretical basis.
> Chip
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.
> natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
>  *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Friday, November 24, 2017 4:25 PM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Compton and de Broglie wavelengththe "error"
> 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> 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] on behalf of Richard Gauthier [
> richgauthier at gmail.com]
> *Sent:*Thursday, November 23, 2017 6:36 PM
> *To:*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. 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> 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
>
> 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
> <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
> *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] on behalf of Viv Robinson [
> 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) 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*e0*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/rmassand
> 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
>
> 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
> <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
> <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" <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/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
>
> 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 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>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171127/16369a22/attachment.html>