[General] A composite electron?
Andrew Meulenberg
mules333 at gmail.com
Wed Oct 11 09:53:18 PDT 2017
Dear Richard,
Your use of the term "double helix" (for a photon consisting of a pair of
spin-1/2 charged half-photons) certainly has a popular precedent that
refers to the structure formed by double-stranded molecules of nucleic
acids such as DNA. A few comments:
1. Such a model certainly is no less supported than mine of a
'rectifiable' photon. In both cases, bifurcation of a photon of sufficient
energy leads to the lepton pair.
2. I would suggest that your proposal for 1/2 photon charge >e is
unnecessary, since like the DNA molecule, the photon would be composed of 2
'strings' of spatially-matched interacting 'point sources'.
- Each point would be only a minute charge.
- The strings of point sources are modeled by sinusoidal field
distributions; but, I don't think that distribution shape is written in
stone.
3. If we talk about charges, instead of field distributions, then I
think that we are too closely bound by 'similarity' rather than by the
mathematics (or the reality?).
- An electron is a unique (resonant) *E*-field distribution that we call
charge.
- Is it required that a photon have that same distribution built into
it?
- Do photons with E < 1022 keV, have charge?
- They certainly have *E*-fields.
- Are they polarizable? Why, or why not? (Is this the source of
virtual lepton pairs and the dielectric properties of space?)
- Are they separable? Why, or why not?
- If separated, what charge do they have?
- I think that a lot more attention needs to be paid to the
formation of photons (see below as a start).
- Are 1/2 photons of a photon with E > 1022 keV:
- separable by anything other than strong *E*-fields?
- polarizable. If this is the source of virtual lepton pairs, is
the only thing preventing pair separation (virtual becoming real) the
conservation of energy and momentum?
4. .We need to look at the creation of photons from other than the
special case of lepton annihilation:
- Assuming dipole radiation, is charge created by, or extracted from,
the dipole or its motion?
- strong fields can be created by the dipole motion.
- Resonant conditions can create photons.
- Can the special resonant conditions of unique charge exist?
- Either way, energy is removed from the dipole. Is charge?
5. The whole area of time for a photon is problematic.
- If time does not exist, then how do we get the forces (F = dp/dt)
required to hold them together (or keep them apart)?
- how can they separate? That is also a time-dependent phenomenon.
- In a medium, the velocity of light decreases. Does this allow time
to 'flow'?
- Is space a medium? If so is the limit for time to contract to zero,
only mathematical?
- In an absorbing medium, where anomalous dispersion allows a photon
velocity to exceed c, is the Lorentz contraction adjusted for the
refractive index 'n' and the limiting velocity to be nc or do all things
become imaginary?
Probably more comments than you wanted.
Andrew M.
__________________
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 12:59 AM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hello Andrew and all,
>
> De Broglie proposed his 2 spin-1/2 particle photon idea (not sure if
> he also had a model for this) in the early 30’s in his book "La Physique
> Nouvelle et les Quanta” (available free at archive.org) and in English
> translation as "The revolution in physics: A non-mathematical survey of
> quanta
> <https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007G309U/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1>”,
> available at Amazon.com. With the help of Google Translate (slightly
> edited) I give below what de Broglle wrote on this (p. 277-278 in the
> French edition):
>
> From these general remarks, we have concluded that, in order to constitute a theory of the photon, we must first use a relativistic
>
> form of wave mechanics comprising elements of symmetry due to polarization and, secondly, introduce something to differentiate
>
> the photon from the other particles. The first part of this program is realized immediately by using the theory of the electron of
>
> Dirac that we studied previously. We know that Dirac's theory is relativistic and that it contains elements of symmetry with a marked
>
> kinship with those of the polarization of light. Nevertheless, it was not sufficient to suppose that the photon is a particle of negligible
>
> mass obeying the equations of the Dirac theory, for the model of the photon thus obtained would have, so to speak, only half the
>
> symmetry of the real photon; moreover, it would, like the electron, apparently obey Fermi statistics and could not be annihilated in
>
> the photoelectric effect. We need something more.
>
> This something more, we tried to introduce on the assumption that the photon is constituted not of a Dirac particle, but of two. It can
>
> be realized that these two particles or half-photons must be complementary to each other in the same sense as the positive electron
>
> is complementary to the negative electron in Dirac's hole theory. Such a pair of complementary particles is liable to annihilate itself
>
> by contact with matter and yielding all its energy, and this perfectly accounts for the characteristics of the photoelectric effect. Moreover,
>
> the photon then being constituted by two elementary particles with spin h/4pi must obey Bose-Einstein statistics, as required by the
>
> accuracy of Planck's law for black-body radiation. Finally, this photon model makes it possible to define an electromagnetic field linked
>
> to the probability of annihilation of the photon, a field which obeys Maxwell’s equations and possesses all the characteristics of the
>
> electromagnetic light wave. Although it is still premature to pronounce definitively on the value of this attempt, it is indisputable that it
>
> leads to interesting results and that it heavily draws attention to the properties of symmetry of complementary particles whose existence,
>
> suggested by the Dirac theory, was verified by the discovery of the positive electron.
>
>
> So what I have called in the past a spin-1/2 charged photon I now think
> should be called a spin-1/2 charged half-photon, since two of them (one
> positive and one negative) would move in a double helix to form a spin 1
> photon which helps generate electromagnetic waves. This renaming should
> also solve the semantic problem of the name of this superluminal charged
> spin-1/2 particle , which I would no longer consider to be a variety of
> photon, since it would take two of them to make a photon. Such a photon
> model could easily generate an electron-positron pair when near an atomic
> nucleus that absorbs excess momentum (creating two rest masses) and splits
> a sufficiently energetic photon into an e-p pair. Comments?
>
> On Oct 2, 2017, at 5:20 AM, Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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>
> 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
>> (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 m*v*. 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 (19
>> th 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> 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
>> <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> wrote:
>>
>> Tank you Richard,
>> Best regards
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> *De:* Richard Gauthier [mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com
>> <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 . 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>
>> *Subject: Re: [General] A composite electron?*
>> *Date: *September 23, 2017 at 11:14:31 PM PDT
>> *To: *general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> *Reply-To: *Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <
>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>
>> I looked at Martin's
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299636714_Kinematic
>> al_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
>>
>> 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). 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>
>> 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
>>
>> 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
>>
>> <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
>> <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
>>
>> <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
>> <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
>> <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/20171011/b5f498f8/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the General
mailing list