[General] How we progress

Wed Oct 4 11:19:11 PDT 2017

Thanks, Chip, for inspiring the group to identify how to logically challenge the continuing unhealthy status-quo in physics thinking as a coherent group.

As I have mentioned many times earlier, our thinking logics always develops the “right” theory since they match the founding postulates. It is a vicious cycle. We are stuck in this vicious cycle because “evidence based science” is the best practical approach to explore the unknowns of nature. Further, by raising our human invented “working” mathematical logics to the status of un-challenge-able logics; we have surrendered the evolution of a big chunk of our enquiring minds. [see the 1-slide last attachment]

     Therefore, we need to pro-actively introduce a cultural agreement to develop organized challenges to the founding postulates behind all the “working theories” based upon our latest understanding.

   However, we need to identify a referent platform connected to nature’s reality for continuous exploration, which will assure our steady advancement when used repeatedly and iteratively to break the limitations of the prevailing logics behind  “evidence based science”.

   That is called Reverse System Engineering Thinking [the first attachment]. Nature herself appears to be the most creative system engineer at all levels – from the grand galaxy clusters to the living single cells. Historically, the system engineering thinking is displayed by all those children who eventually contribute something of value in understanding nature during their adult lives. Such children always show the propensity of opening up their most treasured toys and then try to put them back together. That is the bottom-up reverse system engineering thinking, which we are genetically endowed with. However, through generations, the modern culture is in the process of destroying this evolutionary gift. Even modern scientists have been making a short-cut out of this system engineering thinking assuming that the mathematical successes of Einstein and Heisenberg can be repeated indefinitely and still we will be in tune with nature! We are finding today, that in spite of their theories working well, we are in a sustained disarray.
     We need to anchor our imaginative thinking logics to the referent plane of nature’s System Engineering Interaction Processes. Both Relativity and QM avoid addressing the Interaction Processes in nature. They have remained focused on Measurable Data Modeling Epistemology (being happy with Evidence Based Science). Interestingly, there is enormous amount of literature on the “Measurement Problem”; but almost none on how to visualize the invisible interaction processes, which represent the realities, a level deeper behind the perpetually evolving nature.

Sincerely,
Chandra.
PS: I took “Classical and Quantum Coherence” from late Prof. L. Mandel at the Rochester U. During that time, he was already at “the top of the world” as the experimental demonstrator of single photon interference using a home-built Ruby-laser. When the cooling system of that laser started leaking, Mandel gave that to me to fix it and use it to measure the coherence properties of this pulsed laser (the then part of my research project). Another graduate student had already built a newer Ruby laser for their ongoing “single photon” projects. However, I never believed in the “indivisible single photon interference” based purely on causality argument. Mandel knew my view point since I “stupidly” expressed that in my very first entry interview with him.  My latest definition of photons and the impossibility of “indivisible single photon interference” can be appreciated from the 11-page VG (2nd attachment).
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2017 8:37 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] How we progress

Hi All

Here is a rant from my soapbox again.

It may be time to digress for a moment, and discuss why it is that we have not been able to unravel these mysteries of physics in our recent history.
First, we should probably recognize that, in spite of our many advances, and some brilliant minds working on these problems, we, as a species are quite adolescent in this particular endeavor.
We have allowed ourselves, in our recent past and current theoretical philosophy, to be constrained once again, by beliefs in theories which are not entirely correct or complete.  This has had a large impact on our scientific advancement in the last century.

My opinion is that we should remain practical, question anything and everything which we assume, and follow the evidence, wherever that leads. If we can refrain from adding arbitrary beliefs into our theories, and especially refrain from accepting the existing arbitrary beliefs embedded within current theories as complete and accurate, we simply accomplish more. But during this endeavor we should avoid including explanations which contain any aspect of the “magical”.  Our job, as scientists, is to explain, not to indoctrinate with a new belief system. For such indoctrination has caused us so many roadblocks historically, preventing our progress.

Chandra has correctly suggested that we need a new way of thinking, a new way of addressing the inadequacies of our current understanding and theory. And collective thinking, collaboration definitely helps.  But that is only one aspect of what it seems we need to change in order to make progress. Individually we also need to readdress what we accept as correct which comes from existing theory. Yep, it requires work.

Historically it has been those who question the current beliefs, and those who find practical explanations which replace previous theory, who have contributed to the advancement of physics.

I cannot think of one example where this was done without collaboration, without learning from and sharing ideas with others. But clearly the collaboration was not the factor which made the difference, for collaboration occurs constantly, but real progress does not. It is the creative intelligence which weeds out the chaff and replaces it with sound logical causal foundation. That is the mindset and mental work which becomes fruitful.

We have been stagnant for a century. Perhaps that indicates it is time to go back and question our full set of foundations. Keeping what is provable, and discarding anything arbitrary, replacing it with concepts which are causal.
Then, when all of us as individuals share our thoughts, we are working with new material, and we can grow a coherent theory with a greater chance of success.

I have a list of things which I think are arbitrary and are embedded in current theory.
Perhaps if we each create and share such a list, we can spark thoughts in each other and achieve more individually and collectively?

If you agree with this suggestion, I will certainly be happy to provide my list.

Thoughts?

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 10:56 AM
To: John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>; Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>>
Cc: robert hudgins <hudginswr at msn.com<mailto:hudginswr at msn.com>>
Subject: Re: [General] A composite electron?

Dear All,
John W. has raised a point (below) that I do not think has been addressed in this forum. Since a photon travels at the speed of light, time does not exist for it. In its frame, it is created and absorbed simultaneously. This would imply that the source and destination are 'joined' in time by the photon, even if they are light years apart. Is this true? Or, does the interaction 'break' the connection at both ends? Does time stop when traveling at c (in vacuum) or when traveling at the speed of light in a medium? If the photon is connected to its source and sink, then it is not moving at c. In its own frame, it is not moving at all.
This discussion then introduces some questions about the nature of the photon that becomes a lepton. Interaction depends on time. Does this prevent a photon from "interacting with itself"? A 'bound' photon, as an electron (a soliton), is traveling at the speed of light in its self-defined medium; but, probably, at less than c. It becomes its own destination. It does not have any connection with its source. (Or does it?)  What are the implications?
Andrew M.
_ _

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 9:04 AM, John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>> wrote:
Dear everyone,

It is perhaps worth pointing out that there is yet another theory where the photon requires two corpuscles of charge. it is called quantum electrodynamics, where the emitting and absorbing corpuscles are both necessarily charged. As Al has been saying all along, no such thing as a photon without charge.

Regards, JGW.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] on behalf of Andrew Meulenberg [mules333 at gmail.com<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 1:20 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew Meulenberg
Cc: Martin Rivas; David Hestenes; robert hudgins
Subject: Re: [General] A composite electron?

Dear Folks,
The composite electron model has a history of which I was not aware. From mid-right column of page 4 of (free access):
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-last-challenge-of-modern-physics-2090-0902-1000217.php?aid=87682
Louis de Broglie elaborated a most promising hypothesis to help
explain these special characteristics of the photon [7]. Having analyzed
them in light of the verifed aspects of the various pertaining theories,
he eventually concluded that the only way for an electromagnetic
photon to satisfy at the same time Bose-Einstein's statistic and Planck's
law, and to perfectly explain the photoelectric eﬀect while obeying
Maxwell's equations and conforming to the symmetry property of
complementary corpuscles in Dirac's Hole Theory, would be for it to
be made not of one corpuscle, but of two corpuscles, or half-photons,
that would be complementary, like the electron is complementary to
the positron in Dirac's Hole Theory [15].

This conclusion mandates the association of charges (possibly
unsigned) to each half-photon, and consequently to the photon itself, ...

7.  Michaud A (2016) On De Broglie’s Double-particle Photon Hypothesis. J Phys
Math 7: 153.

15. De Broglie L (1937) New physics and quanta, Flammarion, 2nd 1993 new
Preface.

This would imply that, historically, the Nature of Light is even more curious than most of us thought.
Andrew M.

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hello Martin (and all),
   Thank you for this summary of your CC-CM approach to a moving particle such as an electron. My approach to modeling an electron is quite similar to yours, except that in my approach the CC (center of charge) is the position of a light-speed spin-1/2 charged quantum particle that I call a choton. It is in circular motion in a resting electron and moves helically in a moving electron. The linear momentum of the choton in a resting electron is Po=mc=2.73x10^-22 kg m/s = 0.511 MeV/c  (and its energy is mc^2= 0.511 MeV) and this momentum mc circles with radius Ro= L-compton/4pi = hbar/2mc = 1.93x10^-13m at the zitterbewegung frequency f-zitt=2mc^2/h. The choton’s average position as the choton circles around is what you call the CM (center of mass). In a resting electron the choton (at the position CC) and the CM are separated by the distance Ro, with the choton circling around its CM at the zitter frequency. Due to its circular motion with its changing momentum direction, the choton appears to be acted on by a centripetal force Fc=dp/dt =  w Po = w-zitt Po = 0.424 N , where w-zitt (omega-zitt) = 2 mc^2/hbar = 1.55 x 10^21 rad/sec. The choton’s centripetal acceleration A-cent in this circular motion in a resting electron is A-cent = r w^2  = Ro (w-zitt)^2 = 4.66x10^29 m/s^2. My article “Derivation of the inertial mass m=Eo/c^2 of an electron composed of a circling spin-1/2 charge photon” at https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research#papers<https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research%23papers>  (4th article) also shows that the above circling choton (spin-1/2 charged photon) has an inertial mass m = Eo/c^2 = 0.511MeV/c^2 derived from its circling momentum mc=Eo/c.
   When no external force (besides the apparent 0.424 N central force) acts on the choton, the moving electron model moves longitudinally with velocity v and with momentum p=gamma mv. The choton circulates with its longitudinal momentum component P-long = gamma mv, which is the electron’s linear momentum, and with a transverse momentum component P-trans = Po = mc. Using the Pythagorean equation, this gives the choton’s total momentum directed along its helical trajectory as P-total^2 = P-long^2 + P-trans^2 =  (gamma mv)^2 + (mc)^2  = (gamma mc)^2, or P-total = gamma mc. The choton’s corresponding total energy is E-total = P-total c = gamma mc^2, which is the same as a relativistic electron’s total energy.
   When an external electric field E acts on the circulating choton, the choton (with its inertial mass m=0.511 MeV/c^2) is accelerated by a net force Fnet equal to the rapidly rotating centripetal force Fc= 0.424 N plus the external force F=-eE. The total force on the choton is Fnet = Fc + eE = m a-total in the non-relativistic case or Fnet = dp-total/dt in the relativistic case. The choton’s helical motion (the motion of the CC) will be changed by the external electric field E acting on the choton, and the choton’s CM (average position) will be affected accordingly, and move in the direction of the applied external force E.
   There are also quantum mechanical features of the above motion. As the choton changes its helical trajectory due to the applied electric field E, the choton’s transverse momentum component P-trans = mc adjusts its orientation so that P-trans continues to be transverse to the choton’s new longitudinal motion with its new longitudinal component velocity v’ (the new electron velocity). In this way the calculated spin of the choton electron model continues to be Ro x Po = hbar/2 and the Pythogorean momentum relation continues to be P-total^2  = P-long^2 + P-trans^2 (which is mathematically equivalent to the relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 +m^2 c4). Further information on the spin-1/2 charged photon model is at “Electron’s are spin 1/2 charged photons generating the de Broglie wavelength” at https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research#papers  (19th article).
   In summary, the choton electron model does not need to be a rigid body to maintain the relation between CC and CM. All forces (including the apparent centripetal force F-cent) act on the choton (at the CC), which has its own inertial mass, producing the choton’s acceleration and average center of mass position CM.
with warm regards,
       Richard

On Sep 25, 2017, at 2:18 AM, Martin Rivas <martin.rivas at ehu.es<mailto:martin.rivas at ehu.es>> wrote:

Dear Wolfgang and Richard,
Thank you for your interest. I will try an answer to your hints and questions.

In my opinion there is no need to find a mechanism for binding together the center of mass and center of charge
of the electron.
For any arbitrary mechanical system, once the total external force F is determined, we use this total
force to compute the trajectory of the CM by considering that this point (CM) is a point particle of mass
m, the total mass of the system, and solve the corresponding differential equations dp/dt=F. The linear momentum p
is expressed in terms of the CM velocity v, as usual p=mv in a non-relativistic framework, or p=gamma(v)mv
in a relativistic one.
This is known as the center of mass theorem.

In the case of an elementary particle the hypothesis is that the interacting property, the charge,
either electric, weak or strong charge, can be associated to a single point, the center of charge.
An elementary particle is such a simple system that its interacting structure can be reduced to a single
point (the CC) and no further multipoles.
To know the position of this point is important to determine from there the fields produced by the elementary
particle and also, by assumption, the force produced by the external fields on the particle, which is
just the evaluation of the external fields at the particle center of charge.

In the Preamble of my Notes I consider as an example the possibility that an elementary particle can be
considered as a rigid body. All electromagnetic structure can be reduced to a single point, the CC.
But this point is by assumption a different point than the CM. What we get is that once the trajectory
of the CC is determined,
the trajectory of the CM can also be computed as an average trajectory of the other. And we have not to worry
about how these two points are bound together. We can also compute the trajectory of the CM as usual,
as a Newtonian equation, but the total external force is not defined at the CM but rather at the CC.
The CC satisfies fourth order differential equations which have helical solutions, so that the center
of the helix corresponds to the CM trajectory.

In this way there is no need in this formalism to consider that an elementary particle
to be a helically-moving charged photon-like object. It can be reduced to a single point, the CC.
But three degrees of freedom are not sufficient to describe spin 1/2 objects.
Later I need some extra three degrees of freedom to describe orientation, so that an elementary
particle becomes a localized and orientable mechanical system. The particle moves and rotates.
From the quantum mechanical point of view we need the orientation variables to have spin operators
with 1/2 spectrum. The analysis in the preamble shows that if the two centers are different points, then
the CC has to be moving at an unreachable velocity for every inertial observer. This is the speed of light but we have
no photons moving around. Just the motion of the CC.

At this stage of the formalism what we have are electromagnetic forces. Gravity is absent by assumption
because we are in a Restricted Relativity Principle framework. The electromagnetic forces are computed in terms
of the motions of the CC's of the particles that interact.

Bohr atom.
The usual conception that the electron, in the ground state, describes an orbit,
either circular or elliptic trajectory around the CM of the proton is misleading.
The reason is that in the ground state of the atom, the orbital angular momentum of the electron is L=0. It is a S-state.
Literally it means from the classical point of view that the linear momentum of the electron,
and therefore the trajectory of the CM of
the electron, has to be pointing always to the CM of the proton. It has to be a back and forth trajectory
around the CM of the proton, a straight trajectory. This is impossible for a spinless point particle because
the two particles will collide at the common CM. But if the electron has two separate points,
there is no problem that the motion of the CM of the electron go through the CM of the proton, while the CC
of both particles will never meet each other. For the electron the separation between CM and CC is 10^{-13} m,
while the estimated size of the proton is smaller, around 10^{-15} m, 100 times smaller.
The CC of the electron will never collide with the charge of the proton.

Best regards

Martin

De: Richard Gauthier [mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com]
Enviado el: lunes, 25 de septiembre de 2017 4:50
Para: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
CC: Martin Rivas; David Hestenes
Asunto: Re: [General] A composite electron?

Hello Martin,
   I would like to know if you have ever considered your helically-moving-lightspeed-charge electron model (which is similar to David Hestene's helically-moving-lightspeed-charge zitter electron model) to be a helically-moving charged photon-like object (which I call a “choton” — rhymes with “photon" -- for “charged photon”). A helically-moving lightspeed charged photon-like object would have its inertial mass centered on its helical axis (as in your electron model) and so It seems that it would be quite similar in many ways to your electron model, including having the electron's spin 1/2 due to its helical radius of hbar/2mc. Furthermore, a helically-circling charged photon-like object would have the ability to generate the electron’s relativistic de Broglie wavelength L-db= h/(gamma mv) due to its wave motion (and wavelength lambda = h/(gamma mc) for a relativistic electron of energy E=gamma mc^2 = hf= hc/lambda) along its helical trajectory.
        Thanks,
              Richard

On Sep 24, 2017, at 12:20 PM, Martin Rivas <martin.rivas at ehu.es<mailto:martin.rivas at ehu.es>> wrote:

Tank you Richard,
Best regards

Martin

De: Richard Gauthier [mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com]
Enviado el: domingo, 24 de septiembre de 2017 8:45
Para: Martin Rivas
CC: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Asunto: Fwd: [General] A composite electron?

Hello Martin,
You must have been accidentally left off of the reply list.  So I am forwarding Wolf’s latest reply which is directed partly to you. You can send any reply back to general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> . You are also welcome to join the discussion group if you like.
     with warm regards,
          Richard

Begin forwarded message:

From: Wolfgang Baer <wolf at nascentinc.com<mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>>
Subject: Re: [General] A composite electron?
Date: September 23, 2017 at 11:14:31 PM PDT
To: 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>>

I  looked at Martin's
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299636714_Kinematical_Theory_of_Elementary_Spinning_Particles_Lecture_Notes
and was
Quite interested in several problems he discussed. First the question of how to address charge separation from mass when charge  cancels to a neutral. I’ve had the same thoughts that somehow one must treat the centers of positive and negative charge separately and then put them together. I do not know if he is listening but one idea I have been mulling through is that the sign of charge is somehow associated with the observers time , so that plus and minus charge is associated with before and after the observers now. Just a wiff of something going through my head.

The other however is the force relationship between the Lorenz force on one side and the Newtonian force on the mass
He then equates the two but that leaves a separate pull on a charge and one on a mass. So I’ve postulated a force holding the two together and approximated the force between charge and mass as Fcm and its opposite Fmc as two additional forces that must happen inside material and have been trying to connect them to the weak and strong force, but without success. Mainly because I do not know that much about elementary particles.
 But it is clear to me that we have two parallel systems of force categories when looking at material from the outside. One is Electromagnetic governed by Maxwell and the Lorenz force on charges the other is Gravito-inertial forces governed by Einstein
We just assume charge and mass must be held together or these two force types would operate completely independently and we would have nothing of the kind of material we actually experience.
 I’ve modeled such internal force simply by a spring with a spring constant that is infinity when we assume charge and mass are co located, but then as the spring constant become finite all kinds of interesting effects can happen. One I’ve asked Albrecht to look at is to see if we consider the Bohr atom and assume that the central force between proton and electron pulls the mass and charges apart slightly. The coulomb force would be a bit greater since the inertial balancing force would pull the mass outward.
            Would such a system account for the fine structure? And would we get Sommerfelds fine structure constant out of it. I do not have the background to do such a calculation but wish I could find someone who could do it or have a reference to someone who has done it.If you get any leads on thios kind of thing let me know
Perhaps Martin if you are listening could shed light on this problem with his Kinem,atic Theory of elementary particles?
best for now
Wolf

Dr. Wolfgang Baer

Research Director

Nascent Systems Inc.

tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432

E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com<mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
On 9/22/2017 9:36 PM, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:
Dear Wolf,
This whole concept is new to me (only weeks old), so i can't recommend anything yet. I'm just trying to find the time to scan/read what looks promising. However, it may be something to draw a number of models together (given a little 'wiggle-room'). .

One of the questions to be addressed is certainly on what holds the centers together. So, your thoughts could be very important. My first instinct is to look at the whirlpool effect as exemplified by the Falaco effect (see various papers like  Falaco solitons, cosmic strings in a swimming pool<https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0101098>  RM Kiehn - arXiv preprint gr-qc/0101098, 2001 - arxiv.org<http://arxiv.org/>). I am slow with the mathematics; nevertheless, I find the concept to be useful and now I can apply it to the polarizability of, and forces between, two centers. My preference at the moment is to assume relativity and 3-space + time.
Richard has shown that his charged photon concept has wiggle room and therefore it is probably compatible with my present concepts (which also have wiggle room). Both of our models may be compatible with a 2-center model.

I fear that Albrecht's twin particle model may not be given the wiggle room to incorporate the two-center model. If so, that is too bad, because both models might benefit from the comparison.
Since my twins were born, I have not had time to keep up with most of the discussions of this forum. (This lack of time is the result of a different 2-center model. Just this evening, I had two pair of glasses, which I had left on my laptop, nearly destroyed.) So pointing out important threads might be necessary to bring me up-to-speed on some of the things presented as they pertain to the present discussion.
Andrew M.
_________________
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Wolfgang Baer <wolf at nascentinc.com<mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>> wrote:
Andrew:
I've been working on the concept of charge and mass center differences and forces thaT MAY HOLD THEM TOGETHER
You mention quite a few papers which one or which set would you recommend  to find out more about what has been proposed?
And yes I have suggested this to Albrecht but he has not felt it was what he has in mind, his idea is that the two rotating chrges are purely a elecromagnetic strong or weak force, I cannot remember which
Wolf

Dr. Wolfgang Baer

Research Director

Nascent Systems Inc.

tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432

E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com<mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
On 9/20/2017 2:45 PM, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:
Dear Richard and Albrecht,
Richard has expressed doubts about Albrecht's 2-body electron and Albrecht probably has reservations about Richard's charged photons.

I just read a paper ("The dynamical equation of the spinning electron," J. Phys. A, 36, 4703, (2003), and also LANL ArXiv:physis/0112005, along.with some background papers) that Richard has referenced in his: The Dirac Equation and the Superluminal Electron Model (https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research#papers). I found a concept with which I was previously unfamiliar: the centers of mass and charge being different. If this interesting concept is valid; then it might be possible that the two centers are the 'objects' that Albrecht has proposed for his composite electron. It might also apply to the charged photon.
Has anyone any comments on this concept (or n the author of the paper: Martin Rivas)?
Andrew M

_______________________________________________

If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf 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 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">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

_______________________________________________

If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf 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 richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List 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">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171004/35b63cba/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2015.8_Epistem.Systm.Eng..pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 307946 bytes
Desc: 2015.8_Epistem.Systm.Eng..pdf
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171004/35b63cba/attachment-0003.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 170923_Hybrid Photon_OSA Annual_Dstrbtn.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 328071 bytes
Desc: 170923_Hybrid Photon_OSA Annual_Dstrbtn.pdf
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171004/35b63cba/attachment-0004.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 171004_Thinking Logics_Modfd.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 15624 bytes
Desc: 171004_Thinking Logics_Modfd.pdf
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171004/35b63cba/attachment-0005.pdf>