[General] Stiffness of space

[John Williamson]

Dear All,

This conversation is beginning to get somewhere. Thank you for reminding me, John, that there is indeed evidence that different photons can interfere with each other. Such observations as the Hanbury-Brown Twiss effect also support this.

We are all, I hope, searching for a theoretical framework that extends science as it stands.

Let me remind everyone what a theory is. It is something like Newton’s law or Maxwell’s equations, described by a differential equation or a set of differential equations. It may include the properties of a medium, such as a stress tensor describing just stress, or such things as gravitation in general relativity.  One may invoke a Hamiltonian principle, embodying energy, or Lagrangian, involving the embodiment of the principle of least action to obtain the dynamical (differential then) equations through well-established principles which work in many cases. Further examples include wave mechanics (or even just mechanics), thermodynamaics, acoustics, theory of strings (guitar or otherwise) really pretty much everything in the whole of useful science.

I think there is, and has been, a lot of quite loose talk without any proper theoretical foundation or even new content. This is not a bad thing, of course, if one works to understand or explain existing science, but is not good if one attempts to break aspects of science down with out replacing or extending it.

For example, it is indeed true that epsilon and mu, embody some aspect of the nature of space (and time) and hence are fundamental, and that this is major insight. However that major insight is of the nineteenth century when it was then noted that the speed of light was related to the electric and magnetic constants in  that only two of the constants epsilon mu and c are independent, related by epsilon mu = 1/(c squared). It is true, that (quantized) angular momentum is an important basis of the nature of reality. This is what went into Martin and my 1997 paper which, when related to a physical photon, allowed a calculation of the effective charge of its rectified field, thus connecting q and hbar. That model was no theory though, it assumed hbar as a starting point and started from fields. As Al has pointed out, taking the (electromagnetic) fields as a starting point is anyway not sound as the fields themselves should be derived. Indeed, QED does couple the fundamental fields to charges, their source and sink. Many others introduce both fields and the (even more complex) starting point of angular momentum. Essentially, angular momentum is a momentum flow rotating about some perpendicular lever arm. What is this fundamental momentum and worse, where (and what!) is the arm?
Carver Mead also took hbar as the most important input in his magnificent book “Collective electrodynamics”, which is well worth reading. Effectively, this is what Martin and I did in the paper, “Is the electron a localized photon”, so we took on both field and angular momentum then.  Ok this allows one to calculate a value for q, so there is some output as well as input, but is there net gain?

Twenty years later, let us look where we are within the group. Alex has introduced a theory again with hbar as input, associating this with a strong underlying gravity and using a bag model for confinement. Wolf has introduced an action, albeit classical, and looked at the resulting consequences. Martin has extended the Bateman method within electromagnetism. I have introduced a set of coupled differential equations extending Maxwell’s equations using root mass-energy, space and time as a basis. Others have looked at analogies with physical strings or acoustic waves, associating certain physical constants with others. One has to look at these theoretical frameworks and decide whether they have any value in describing the underlying nature of reality.

Let me give a personal view on these and (some of) the problems I have with them (including my own). If one introduces extra potentials into electromagnetism what are they physically and why has one not observed them directly? Is reality just audio by another name? I think it is a bit more complex that that. In CTF, is complex complex enough? is tension the only option? and what is this  field anyway if it is not electromagnetic? Further, if indeed all waves are non-interacting, wouldn’t we just wave through one another unnoticed? In Alex’s extension of gravitation, what is the bag? I get the importance of angular momentum, but not why it is required to associate it with gravitation rather than anything else. If one STARTS with things as complex as field, or angular momentum, how can one hope to explain these things within the resulting theoretical framework? If reality is determined by an implicit order of non-commutative dynamical changes, what determines the absolute order?

I think, if we want to make progress, we need to deal with an extend the hard things which are gaps in the present state of knowledge, rather than rail against some existing theories without replacing them with anything substantial.

Regards, JGW.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Roychoudhuri, Chandra [chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 7:42 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Stiffness of space

John M.:
We are very happy that you have had already grown 10-meter wide fire-break shrubs. Excellent pragmatic thinking! Your example will now be followed by all who live in fire-prone areas.

Hello Everybody:
Heterodyning two CO2 or He-Ne lasers with a fast detector does not validate interference between different “photons”. My teacher, Len Mandel at Rochester, was famous for demonstrating interference between photons from two different Ruby lasers. Experiments were done  by 1968. (In fact, I have used one of his early Ruby lasers for some coherence studies.) I have also done similar work with He-Ne-lasers.


(i)            Detector’s interaction characteristics determines what we measure: If you use a slow detector, fast heterodyne signal become time averaged CW signal. Detector displays the superposition effect as the rate of change of oscillating electron transfer from the valence to the conduction band after it executes the non-linear, quadratic energy transfer operation on the resultant linear superposed amplitude stimulations, which it experiences. This is what I call, Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E). Without IPM-E, I will keep on repeating old models as absolute scientific truth uttered by science-messiahs.

(ii)          Superposition Principle is not an observable phenomenon in the world of EM waves: Both classical and QM formalism clearly states that the energy transfer from the EM field to a detector is a non-linear square-law process, [(χE1+χE2)*( χE1+χE2)], or [(ψ1+ ψ2)*(ψ1+ ψ2)]; where χ is the first order linear polarizability of the detecting dipole. “χE”  is the physical interaction process. This is evidence based science, “colored” differently by interaction processes in different detectors (IPM-E). We never observe E or ψ in any normal interference experiments with EM waves. So, I am seriously confused as to why we use the correct mathematical formalism; and yet, insist on promoting non-causal interpretations of “evidence based” results, as if they are due to superposition of amplitudes (E1+E2), (or ψ1+ ψ2). Waves, as linear excitations of a tension field, do not exist independent of the parent tension field. And, linear excitations of a tension field cannot execute the non-linear square-law operation. These are all correct mathematics we have been following. Yet, our mental propensity to like and admire mysticism, since our early evolution, is still getting the best of our minds.

Sincerely,
Chandra.
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 1:25 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Stiffness of space

John M.

Did your landscaping act as a fire break by design or by accident?



Andrew M.



On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 3:08 AM, <john at macken.com<mailto:john at macken.com>> wrote:



Hello John W. and All,

I have some experimental evidence indicating that photons can interfere with other photons. From about 1969 to 1971 I worked of CO2 laser radar systems. We would routinely interfere two laser beams generated by different lasers and observe the beat frequency. These two beams were combined using a semi-transparent mirror similar to the mirror used in an interferometer. The beat frequency could be as large as 40 MHz or as small as a few tens of Hz. Since the photons in each beam were coming from different lasers, they must have been interference between different photons. I have several other examples that prove this point, but these additional examples probably are not necessary.

On another subject, I live in Santa Rosa, California and my house was one of the thousands of houses in the path of the tremendous wild fires to strike Northern California. Of the 49 houses closest to me, 39 were destroyed and 10 survived. My house was one of the 10 that survived. It was surrounded by landscaping about 10 meters wide that served as a fire break.

John M.



-----Original Message-----
From: "John Williamson" <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2017 9:27pm
To: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Cc: "Phil Butler" <phil.butler at canterbury.ac.nz<mailto:phil.butler at canterbury.ac.nz>>, "Niels Gresnigt" <Niels.Gresnigt at xjtlu.edu.cn<mailto:Niels.Gresnigt at xjtlu.edu.cn>>, "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>>
Subject: Re: [General] Stiffness of space
Dear All,

I think the recent discussions could do with a dose of the other side of the scientific method: facing any conjectures with experiment. Also there are a couple of bits of theory I thought were also “common knowledge” which seem to be outside the recent discussion within the group and, on which, I would appreciate clarification by those more knowledgable in the field than I.

Firstly, the recent experimental detection of gravitational waves has something to say about the conjecture that gravitation may be “faster than light”.  If this were so, then one would expect to see the timings in Ligo be more similar to each other, would one not? At “infinite” velocity of the disturbance the signals would appear at the same time. They do not. The observed results are all consistent with the gravitational wave disturbance travelling at lightspeed, as far as I am aware. If there were indeed two solar-mass objects in rotation about one another at near lightspeed I would expect to see longitudinal gravitation waves which Ligo should have been able to pick up, would I not? I must admit to being a bit disappointed by this, as Martin and I have long conjectured that disturbances in the fabric of space-time may be pretty much “instantaneous”. Apparently not so.

Secondly on photons interfering with themselves. I am pretty sure, not only because of the exclusion principle but also because of having done the experiments myself, that electrons interfere only with themselves. I do not see why the same should not be true of photons.  Three things confuse, one experimental one “theoretical” and one just basically confusional.

Experimental: it is my understanding that many experiments have been done in interference where there is only one “photon” in the detector at a time. The interference pattern builds up, photon by photon. This has now been done so often, and for so many years, that I thought this was beyond any reasonable doubt. True?

Theoretical: the path integral formalism of electromagnetism requires photon interference with itself to derive why photons travel in “straight” lines at all. There is a simple exposition of this in the Feynmann lectures on physics. This is here a consequence of the photon interfering ONLY with itself, and with many different possible phases. Is this then wrong and if so, why? If it is wrong, and given that the Maxwell equations by themselves would predict sources give out pretty much spherical waves, as is the case for sound, what is the alternative explanation for their traveling pretty much exclusively in straight lines from emitter to absorber?

Confusional. If a photon is somewhere emitted at lightspeed it is immediately and irrevocably outside the light-cone of every other photon in the universe. It is a “gone”.  The only other thing on its light-cone is its future absorber. How then, could this possibly interfere with anything but itself?

Yours, confusedly,

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 09, 2017 7:36 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Stiffness of space

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Andrew

One thing which we may have overlooked is the possibility that longitudinal displacement of space is faster than light, just as longitudinal displacement of any medium is faster than transverse waves.

The only direct manifestations we have of longitudinal displacement of space are electric charge and gravity.  If circulating transverse displacements create particles, then the fields are longitudinal displacements, with their geometric origin at the particle center.

So it is my opinion that longitudinal displacement is much faster than light.
I also feel that what we sense as transverse waves, are actually caused by the mechanism which creates momentum in the spinning longitudinal displacements of particles.

While I agree that the phenomenon that leads to gravity, mass, and charge cannot be turned on or off instantaneously. It must be 'moved' from place to place…
I do not feel that it is caused by standing waves or anything else which travels at c. But I do feel that the center of the phenomenon that leads to gravity, mass, and charge of any particle cannot move faster than c.


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 Andrew Meulenberg
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2017 7:13 AM

To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Subject: Re: [General] Stiffness of space

Dear Chip and all,
Could you comment on my view of superluminal velocities?

The phenomenon that leads to gravity, mass, and charge cannot be turned on or off instantaneously. It must be 'moved' from place to place. Their infinite-range consequences precede and follow along this motion. This means that any 'changes' in the source of these effects are propagated thru a region that already has 'excess' energy 'embedded' (probably as a standing wave). Therefore, the disturbance can move thru the region as a phase change that can propagate at greater than the speed of light. "New' energy transfer is still limited to c. The difference in phase vs group velocities could be the cause of 'inertia'.

Andrew M.
_ _ _

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Adam

Due to information from experiment, and calculations by Feynman, there is significant evidence that electric charge “propagates” much faster than light. (References available)
When we carefully study binary stars, and compute their orbital changes, it becomes clear that gravity is also a faster than light phenomenon. (Take a look at this for yourself, I think you may be surprised.)

In any medium, longitudinal displacement propagates through the medium significantly faster than transverse waves propagate.

So it is a reasonable avenue of inquiry to address the possibility, in fact probability, that longitudinal displacement propagates through space much faster than light.

When we combine that premise with the premise that space is a two component tension medium, we can easily explain the cause of electric charge, gravity, the strong force, the quantization of charge, the mechanism which creates momentum, the mechanism which creates mass, and the list goes on. (I have written, or am writing papers on each of these subjects due to the fruitfulness of this research.)

I have not found any place in the literature which has explored this possibility (space as a two component tension medium, and longitudinal displacement faster than light).  But many important things can be resolved using such an approach.  There is then no need to resort to extra dimensions, or magical explanations, to explain what we observe.

If this is the reality of nature, then Maxwell’s equations are a partial description of the behavior of the momentum created in this scenario, and we can recreate Maxwell’s equations by expressing part of the momentum operators generated by this approach.

BTW, this approach also explains magnetic fields, shows why more energetic particles are smaller particles, explains why light (photons) have a spin of 1 hbar and electrons have a spin of ½ hbar… etc.

So, after much work to find out if this could be the way it actually works in nature, I have found that the answers to most of the puzzles of physics emerge naturally from this scenario. Including pilot waves and the appearance of entanglement.

Therefore my current opinion is that this is much more causal than assuming that nothing travels faster than light.  In fact, since we have never found a medium in which longitudinal displacement propagation is as slow as transverse displacement propagation, it is starting to seem quite naive to me that we assumed that transverse “waves” were the only form of displacement, and naïve to assume that longitudinal displacement of space would be the same speed as transverse “waves”.

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 Adam K
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2017 10:51 AM

To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Subject: Re: [General] Stiffness of space

Hi Chip,

I did not gather that you want longitudinal waves to travel faster than light. I don't understand how that idea explains things causally. It seems to be the opposite of causality.

I agree that Maxwell's equations are incomplete (a "torso" as Einstein called them) and need to be derived from properties of a CTF. The way to do this, in my opinion, is to discover the structure of a single electron within the CTF, and show how placing two of them side by side gives rise immediately to the electrostatic force.

I did not see any derivations of fundamental equations in your paper. Perhaps I missed them. Did you have an equation yourself, which describes the behavior of objects in the CTF? It would be good to see how Maxwell's equations result from that.

Adam



On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 5:37 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Adam

Thank you.

I agree that gravity is a refraction.

Perhaps I have not written the paper in a manner which gets the ideas across well.

I have not started with anything more than a tension medium of space, Planck’s action, the force of electric charge, the mass energy equivalence, and experimental data, to derive the model of space discussed in the paper.

I did not start with GR, but GR is a result, I did not start with Schrodinger’s or Dirac’s equations, but they are results.

My view and Chandra’s of space are quite similar, but that I feel that longitudinal displacement of space is much faster than light.

I also feel that Maxwell’s equations are a good mathematical expression for the momentum which is created by the mechanisms mentioned in the paper.  But that Maxwell’s equations are not to be considered complete because they do not address spin.  But in addition to not being complete, I think Maxwell’s equations are just an expression of one of the artifacts (momentum) of the reaction of energy with space, and that the reactions are at a deeper level than these equations by themselves can disclose.

So I do not think that a stiffness of space which is derived from Maxwell’s equations alone will be accurate either.  Just as I do not think that a stiffness derived from the speed of light will be accurate.  One concept that I wanted to get across in the paper is that the speed of light and Maxwell’s equations are a study of certain observables, but that evidence seems to suggest that these observables arise from a set of circumstances which is not just a transverse wave in space.  There is more than that going on.

If space is a tension medium and, if we accept that longitudinal displacement of space propagates much faster than light, it solves so many of the puzzles in a simple causal natural manner, that I feel we cannot ignore this possibility.

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 Adam K
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2017 2:59 AM

To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Subject: Re: [General] Stiffness of space

Chip,

I think you would do well to follow Chandra's way of thinking here. There are a few reasons:

1) It is much simpler.

2) The vacuum fluctuations are not without their problems. They give rise to a prediction that is the worst in all of physics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant_problem

I was talking to Carver Mead about this issue and he pointed out that the vacuum catastrophe has come about through explanation of the Lamb shift, which is a tiny discrepancy in the energy levels of hydrogen. In his opinion, we should be humble and admit we have not figured out the Lamb shift yet, rather than accept the current explanation, which gives rise to a prediction of the cosmological constant at least 10e40 times, ie 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times larger (and possibly even another 10e60 times greater!!) than what is observed. Maybe John M has an opinion about this.

3) In my humble opinion, you are on the right track to think about gravity as the refraction of a wave. This is how I think about it, and I believe this is clearly correct. (I could not tell if this is how you think about gravity, really, because in the paper you sent out you use different terms to explain it). Whatever theory you are looking for needs derive the Einstein equation (as well as the Maxwell equations and Schrodinger equation), not start from there. General Relativity is so profound, and wonderful, it is because of it that you and I and Chandra et al. are searching for a solution to the question in terms of an underlying ether, fabric, CTF, what have you. However, GR only describes the reaction of that fabric to mass and energy, it does not explain how mass and energy emerge. These quantities are expressed by the stress energy tensor T_{\mu\nu} in the right hand side of the Einstein equation, and Einstein called this tensor an 'asylum ignorantiae'. It seems to me that you are looking to explain the origin of energy and mass, which is what you should be doing, so your explorations should be one level deeper than GR.

Adam






On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu<mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>> wrote:
Chip, Macken:

I have a different approach to the stiffness of the space.
Just look at the Slide#12 in the attached document.
I conclude Ether as the Complex Tension Field (CTF) based on the fact that this CTF allows the perpetual velocity “c” for light WAVES through it, same everywhere. Therefore, from Maxwell’s equation “epsilon” and “mu” are the most important determinants of the space stiffness. These two constants have been measured repeatedly since the beginning of physics. I have presented this approach in my 2014 book (“Causal Physics”) and many of my earlier papers. Fortunately, math is accessible to undergraduate students (Slide #12).

Chandra.

PS: The attached document is a cut out version of my1-hr. seminar today to our graduate students.
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri<mailto:general-bounces%2Bchandra.roychoudhuri>=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of John Macken
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 1:30 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>; 'Hodge John' <jchodge at frontier.com<mailto:jchodge at frontier.com>>

Subject: Re: [General] Stiffness of space

Hi Chip,

I do have an answer for your question about the stiffness of space.  I have been working on this for a long time and I believe that I have come up with some amazing results.  Attached is my latest version of a paper I have been writing on this subject.  Here is the abstract from this paper.

Abstract: Gravitational waves (GWs) have some characteristics of acoustic waves. For example, GWs have amplitude, frequency, intensity, propagation speed and encounter spacetime as having a quantifiable impedance.  These characteristics permit GWs to be analyzed to obtain the apparent “acoustic” properties of spacetime. The result is that GWs encounter spacetime as if it is an extremely stiff elastic medium with a large energy density. The energy density encountered by GWs scales with frequency squared and equals Planck energy density (∿10113 J/m3) at Planck frequency. This matches the vacuum energy density predicted by quantum field theory at this frequency. This finding makes a new contribution to one of the major mysteries of physics known as the cosmological constant problem. An analysis of the GW designated GW150914 is also given as a numerical example. A model of vacuum energy is proposed to be Planck length vacuum fluctuations at Planck frequency.

John M.

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 8:16 AM
To: 'Hodge John' <jchodge at frontier.com<mailto:jchodge at frontier.com>>; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Subject: Re: [General] Stiffness of space

Hi John H

Not like inertia.

Chandra and I both feel that space is comprised of a tension medium.
But if that is the case then it seems that medium must be very “stiff”.
So that it would take a large force to displace space a small amount.
But the stiffness would be due to the tensor strength of the medium.
Space would then be “frictionless” for all practical purposes. But would oppose displacement with a force.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Hodge John
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 9:57 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Subject: Re: [General] Stiffness of space

"Stiff" like inertia?
Hodge

On Friday, October 6, 2017 7:22 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi John M

Earlier, while reading your work, I noticed you discussed the stiffness of space.

I am looking for some insight into how to quantify just how “stiff” the medium of space is.  Hoping to relate fundamental force to fundamental displacement.

Do you have any thoughts on how to address this issue?

Chip



_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at jchodge at frontier.com<mailto:jchodge at frontier.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/jchodge%40frontier.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 afokay at gmail.com<mailto:afokay at gmail.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%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 afokay at gmail.com<mailto:afokay at gmail.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%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>


_______________________________________________
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 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/20171017/e6e7768f/attachment.html>