[General] Fwd: Re: Foundational questions Tension field stable particles
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Thu Feb 22 19:38:40 PST 2018
Andre
Comments in your text below
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
On 2/22/2018 6:35 AM, André Michaud wrote:
>
> Hi Wolfgang,
>
> When I say "energy can be present even when no momentum can be
> observed", I specifically refer to the well know energy that a pair of
> electrons captive in mutual covalent bounding between two protons, in
> a hydrogen molecule.
>
> It is physically impossible that these two electrons not be induced
> with the energy that can be calculated with the Coulomb equation
> (stemming from Maxwell's first equation) according to the distances
> separating both electrons from their respective proton.
>
> There is no way either that this momentum energy that thez are induced
> with can be expressed as motion since they are captive with their
> momentum energy oriented to move in opposite directions.
>
It must always be remembered that any statement about what happens below
the quantum level as your example is theoretical and one must look
carefully at the experiment and how the data is processed as Chandra
points out. But to be more specific are you saying that in this case
that these electrons have no mass and their orbits are determined by
electric fields alone? That certainly is not the case for the Bohr atom
in hydrogen or any atom where Coulomb and inertial forces balance and I
would be supersized if the hydrogen molecule electron motion is so
radically different. At least I never hear of anything like it.
>
> I agree with you that classical physics was and remains the jumping
> off point for physics that can make any sense. In fact, it can be
> demonstrated that Newton's physics falls in direct sync with
> electromagnetism when his equations are converted to electromagnetic
> form (to take into account the existence of electric charges – that
> were unknown when Newton established his theory) and appropriately
> fine tuned to account for presence of the magnetic energy aspect of
> elementary particles masses.
>
> Quantum theory never was completely harmonized with electromagnetism
> as Feynman himself noted, and neither were Relativity theory
> (specifically speaking of Einstein's SR and GR), so I also always had
> the same discomfort you mention about them.
>
> It is however possible to reconcile the wave function with
> electromagnetism, but not by trying to reverse-engineer the
> electromagnetic properties that the electron must have from the
> unrelated characteristics of the wave function, which is what has been
> the traditional attempts, but rather from defining the electromagnetic
> properties of electron so as to explain how thez can explain quantum
> resonance states, whis is what de Broglie and Schrödinger were
> contemplating.
>
> Not so for Einstein's theories, that I found were incorrectly grounded
> on electromagnetism to start with, which is something that Einstein
> himself had become aware of close to the end of his life, and wrote about.
>
I think we are in agreement here but though I've heard about Einsteins
latest work but have not studied his own problem with his own theory
>
> As for the notion of "mass", that was defined before electric charges
> and electromagnetism were understood at the general level, I stopped
> having problems with the concept when I started thinking about "mass"
> as meaning "omnidirectional inertia", which then allowed me to think
> of momentum energy as providing "longitudinal unidirectional inertia",
> which definitions allow thinking about "mass" as being directly
> compatible with electromagnetism, because "inertia" has the same
> meaning in electromagnetism and classical mechanics.
>
> What this allows, for example, is to understand with respect to the
> bending of light that you mention, which I think of rather as
> localized photons trajectories deflection by the sun, is that the
> classic hv/c^2 equation should rather be hv/2c^2 since localized
> photons can be defined as self-sustaining their own velocity from half
> their energy remaining unidirectional sustaining their momentum while
> the other half transversally oscillate according to electromagnetism,
> while displaying "omnidirectional inertia", which then results in the
> correct deflection angle.
>
interesting the factor of 2 is necessary to match experiment and is one
of Einstein's achievements, but you are saying that half the energy is
due to electromagnetic transverse motion but there is a unidirectional
sustaining Poynting vector energy that together gives it the energy to
calculate the correct deflection when converted to a mass equivalent.
>
> But this belong to a paradigm entirely different from the current
> paradigm, although grounded directly on electromagnetism, which can be
> shown to be directly compatible with correctly refocused classical
> mechanics.
>
> I don't know if this makes any sense to you, but I assure you that if
> you were to start thinking of "mass" as meaning "localized energy
> quantum displaying omnidirectional inertia – which is exactly what the
> electron is from the electromagnetic perspective", I am confident that
> this would open new avenues of exploration to you, even if not the
> same as mine.
>
Well yes this is new to me, but interesting, have I understood your idea
correctly? Does it make sense to ask where this other half goes when
only hv is absorbed ? Is there an additional momentum transfer with
hidden energy during collisions and absorption and emission.
Also what is your concept of the ether in which the oscillations happen.
I've followed Schroedinger's original derivation and found that any
static three dimensional array will oscillate in the small displacement
approximation and satisfy Schroedinger's equation Goldstien chapter 10
theory of small oscillations - the derivation however involves mass held
to its equilibrium position by spring like linear forces in the small
approximation regime. So i think ether like Bohm is composed of small
cells that are like little clock systems containing classic charge and
mass which oscillate around their dynamic equilibrium state.
My question is can one build a self contained system out of EM and
gravto-electric force fields?
>
> Best Regards
>
> André
>
> ---
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
>
>
>
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 21:07:14 -0800, Wolfgang Baer wrote:
>
> Andre;
>
> here is a copy of what I sent to the group; "neither mass nor charge
> are observed when no energy is present, but energy can be present even
> when no momentum can be observed.' Observation requires a flow of
> action i.e. energy and energy can be EM or gravitational is that what
> you are saying?
>
>
> Chip and Chandra:
>
> In Golstien’s Classical Mechanics he states the existence of mass,
> charge, space and time are a prior assumptions. In grad school I
> always thought classical physics was the last jumping off point for
> physics that made sense i.e. corresponded to my sensory intuition.
> Neither quantum or relativity theory gives me the same feeling of
> comfort, that is why I like to, and perhaps have always been stuck, on
> attempting to find my way from classical physics assumptions.
>
> I agree most with Chandra’s call for reexamination of our belief in
> “various characteristics of waves and particles with reference to the
> experiments that measure them and the interaction processes that give
> rise to the data.’’
>
> What I am missing ss the rational for calling something emergent
> rather than fundamental. Most of the arguments I’ve seen indeed
> include equations that relate energy and perhaps properties of the CTF
> field to mass and charge but why is one set of variables more
> fundamental and the other derived.
>
> Consider mass a single parameter that appears in the calculation of
> gravity and inertial forces both as a source and sink. E=mc^2 does not
> make any of the three parameters more fundamental than the others , in
> fact since c^2 is related to space permeability and susceptibility and
> is in this case equal to the potential energy of the particle in a
> Universe mass shellso E = mMG/R , and furthermore Sciama showed
> inertia is directly calculable from a velocity dependent gravitational
> field in analogy with the Magnetic field since any velocity change of
> a particle is equal to the opposite velocity change of the M mass of
> the surrounding universe.
>
> So momentum is due to the velocity dependent component of the grvito
> inertial field fulfilling Mach’s principle.
>
> I do not understand “Particles much tinier than the wavelength of a
> propagating radiation, and electromagnetically non-resonant to the
> frequency, will not experience any “momentum” due to the passing wave.”
>
> I assume you are assuming a mass-charge particle and a very long EM
> wave. The EM wave passes the charge is moved very slowly compared with
> its size- as it moves it drags the mass along, the mass in turn
> interact with the inertial gravity field and restrains the charge from
> moving. If there were no mass attached the charge would always stay in
> equilibrium with the field i.e. its motion would be determined by the
> current in Maxwell’s equation assuming transverse waves. So,
> “momentum” is an interaction property. Yes but an interaction property
> due to interaction with other masses. How does this make mass emergent?
>
> Chip I do not understand your first statement. “One problem with the
> approach you suggest is the overwhelming evidence that space (the
> complex tension field) is a frictionless and therefore massless
> medium.” There is no friction in elementary particle interactions why
> does a frictionless medium have to be mass less?
>
> “In our macro world momentum is the result of moving mass, but for
> particles, and EM radiation, momentum is present without what we call
> mass.’ I assume your are talking about light bending around the sun.
> But that is due to a refraction effect due to the fact that the speed
> of light squared varies in a gravitational field. Einstein’s field
> equations code this fact into space warp. If you use the classic
> hv/c^2 one gets the wrong answer by a factor of two.
>
> Richard has shown how confined momentum can create mass.I assume this
> has to do with gyroscopes and would be very surprised if mass did not
> show up to calculate theinertia in the first place and such
> confinement depended upon internal mass-charge interaction. After all
> what forces keep the mass in a gyroscope from flying apart? Some form
> of coulomb attraction? .
>
> I have also shown how displacements in the CTF can cause momentum This
> is very interesting and may give us a hint that I asked Chandra
> starting this thread.
>
> What properties of CTF are you assuming? What motions of those
> properties are you assuming that would confine the momentum to a
> particle size?
>
> This may lead to an answer I’m looking for?
>
> Wolf
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
> On 2/21/2018 5:38 AM, André Michaud wrote:
>
> Hi Chip (and All),
>
> I completely agree with you, except that I would formulate what you
> say only from a strict electromagnetism perspective, in which the
> classical concept of "momentum" does not come in perfect focus with
> the manner in which the energy that allows momentum to exist is
> adiabatically induced in charges by the Coulomb force (stemming from
> Maxwell's first equation, which is Gauss's equation for the electric
> field).
>
> In classical mechanics, momentum is obviously the more fundamental
> principle, but in electromagnetism energy proper is even more
> fundamental than momentum, and still remains adiabatically present
> even when translational momentum is inhibited.
>
> He is how I would reformulate what you wrote, but re-focused from the
> electromagnetism perspective:
>
> /"/Another consideration regarding the energy of which mass is made,
> is its similarity to the energy that sustains momentum. In our macro
> world momentum is the result of moving mass, which is due from the
> electromagnetism perspective to translational momentum energy not
> being inhibited in its motion, but for charged particles, and EM
> radiation, the energy sustaining their translational momentum is
> present without its transversely electromagnetically oscillating
> component being called mass. Richard has shown how inhibiting the
> forward motion of the energy sustaining momentum can create inertia. I
> have also shown how displacements in the CTF can cause momentum, and
> how that specific momentum can become mass of a particle. So there is
> some evidence from the electromagnetism perspective which seems to
> indicate the energy is more fundamental than momentum and mass, and
> that mass, which in electromagnetism amounts to the "omnidirectional
> inertia" of transverslly oscillating energy, is created from the same
> momentum sustaining "unidirectional" energy that remains adiabatically
> induced even when its translational motion is inhibited.
>
> At any rate, neither mass nor charge are observed when no energy is
> present, but energy can be present even when no momentum can be
> observed. So it is likely that momentum, mass and charge are emergent
> properties, resulting from the physical presence of energy as a
> materially existing substance, which is adiabatically induced by the
> Coulomb force in action between all charged particles."
>
> If interested in this perspective on momentum, I provide my analysis
> in Section "Momentum, the Hamiltonian and the Lagrangian" starting on
> page 15 of this paper:
>
> https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/gravitation-quantum-mechanics-and-the-least-action-electromagneticequilibrium-states-2329-6542-1000152.pdf
>
> Best Regards
>
> André
> ---
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
>
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 00:28:29 -0600, "Chip Akins" wrote:
>
> Hi Wolf
>
> One problem with the approach you suggest is the overwhelming evidence
> that space (the complex tension field) is a frictionless and therefore
> massless medium.
>
> Another consideration regarding mass, is its similarity to momentum.
> In our macro world momentum is the result of moving mass, but for
> particles, and EM radiation, momentum is present without what we call
> mass. Richard has shown how confined momentum can create mass. I have
> also shown how displacements in the CTF can cause momentum, and how
> that specific momentum can become mass of a particle. So there is some
> evidence which seems to indicate the momentum is more fundamental than
> mass, and that mass is created from confined momentum.
>
> At any rate, neither mass nor charge are observed when no energy is
> present. So it is likely that mass and charge are emergent properties,
> created by the interaction of the complex tension field and energy,
> and not fundamental components of space.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Wolfgang Baer
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 20, 2018 10:36 PM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Foundational questions Tension field stable
> particles
>
> Chandra:
>
> I think the first question I would want to ask is whether the idea of
> making charge and mass elementary makes sense
>
> I ask this because so many of our participants are attempting to
> derive these quantities from the more fundamental principles.
>
> Then I would ask is there any traction in recognizing an internal side
> of matter in addition to the past and future side?
>
> As far as 4-D space time , I think putting time on a spatial dimension
> and calling it the 4'th dimension is confusing the actuality of change
> with the way we display phenomena, Time is simply the state of a
> system we use as a clock, which traditionally is the whole gravity
> driven universe of stars, time intervals such as a second is a measure
> of the amount of change required to go from one state to another - the
> 4th dimension concept has always been a confusion between the map and
> the territory.
>
> The flow of charge around a circle produces a self contained doughnut
> of magnetic field - this makes me think cold mass have a similar
> characteristic and are we moving along with our mass aong a cycle in time
>
> Best
>
> wolf
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>
> On 2/20/2018 3:00 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:
>
> /“We nee//d a geometry in which both space and time are curved
> back on themselves to provide a donut in which the forces Fem,
> Fgi, Fcm,Fmc are self contained eigen states at each action quanta. /
>
> /Does any of this suggest a tension field you might be thinking
> about??”/
>
> Yes, Wolf, we need to model mathematically the “twists and turns”
> of different intrinsic potential gradients embedded in CTF
> (Complex Tension Field) to create stationary self-looped
> oscillations (*/field-particles/*). Maxwell achieved that for the
> propagating linear excitations using his brilliant observations of
> using the double differentiation – giving us the EM wave equation.
> We need to find non-propagating (stationary – Newton’s first law)
> self-looped oscillations – the in-phase ones will be stable,
> others will “break apart” with different life-times depending upon
> how far they are from the in-phase closed-loop conditions. The
> successes of the mathematical oscillatory dynamic model could be
> judged by the number of predicted properties the theory can find
> for the */field-particles,/* which we have measured so far. The
> physical CTF must remain stationary holding 100% of the cosmic
> energy.
>
> However, I would not attempt to keep the primacy of Relativity by
> trying to keep the Space-Time 4-D concept intact. If we want to
> capture the ontological reality; we must imagine and visualize the
> potential */foundational/* physical process and represent that
> with a set of algebraic symbols and call them the primary
> parameters of “different grades”. During constructing mathematical
> theories, it is of prime importance to introduce consciously this
> concept of “primary”, vs. “secondary”, vs. “tertiary”, etc.,
> physical parameters related to any observable physical phenomenon.
> The physical parameter that dictates the core existence of an
> entity in nature should be considered as primary. However, it is
> not going to be easy because of the complexities in the different
> interaction processes – different parameters take key role in
> transferring the energy in different interactions. Besides, our
> ignorance is still significantly broad compared to the “validated”
> knowledge we have gathered about our universe. Here is a glaring
> example. νλ = c = (1/ϵµ). If I am doing atomic physics, ν is of
> primary importance because of the quantum resonance with ν and the
> QM energy exchange rule is “hν”. “λ” changes from medium to
> medium. If I am doing Astrophysics, ϵ and µ for free space, are of
> primary significance; even though people tend to use “c”, while
> missing out the fundamental roles of ϵ and µ as some of the core
> building blocks of the universe. Funny thing is that the ϵ and µ
> of free space were recognized well before Maxwell synthesized
> Electromagnetism.
>
> With this background, I want underscore that the “running time,
> “t” is of critical importance in our formulation of the dynamic
> universe. And, yet “t’ is not a directly measurable physical
> parameter of any object in this universe. What we measure is
> really the frequency, or its inverse, the oscillation periods of
> different physical oscillators in this universe. So, frequency can
> be dilated or contracted by controlling the ambient physical
> parameter of the environment that surrounds and INFLUENCES the
> oscillator. The running time cannot be dilated or contracted; even
> though Minkowsky introduced this “dilation” concept. This is the
> reason why I have been pushing for the introduction in physics
> thinking the Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E).
>
> Chandra.
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
> Behalf Of *Wolfgang Baer
> *Sent:* Monday, February 19, 2018 10:56 PM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Foundational questions Tension field
> stable particles
>
> Candra:
>
> Let’s consider your tension filed is a medium underlying the
> experience of space composed of charge and mass density spread out
> in the cross-section of a time loop.. Coordinate frame cells of
> /small enough/ sizes can be described by constant enough mass and
> charge densities in each cell. For small enough cells the mass and
> charge values concentrated at their centers may be used in stead
> of the densities. The resulting field of center values can take
> any pattern that satisfies the extended dAlambert principle.
> Besides the classic electro-magnetic Fem and gravito-inertial
> force Fgi I postulate forces tat hold charge and mass together
> Fcm, Fmc. This condition assures mass charge centers in each cell
> appear at locations of balanced forces. Each pattern which
> satisfies this condition represents a static state of the loop in
> which the patterns are fixed for the lifetime of the loop.
>
> *The Charge-Mass Separation Vector and Equilibrium States*
>
> The physical size of the space is its volume. The volume (Vol) of
> space is the sum of the infinitesimal volumes dVol of each of the
> cells composing that space “Vol = ∫_all space dVol”. These
> infinitesimal volumes are calculated from the mass-charge density
> extensions in each cell when viewed externally as shown in figure
> 4.3-3a . The physical volume depends upon the mass charge
> separation pattern of the equilibrium state the system being
> modeled exists in.
>
> In CAT the extension of a cell can be calculated as follows. In
> each cell the distance between the center of charge and mass is a
> vector d*ζ.* The projection of this vector onto the degrees of
> freedom directions available for the charge and mass to move in
> the generalized coordinate space allows us to expansion this
> vector as,
>
> Eq. 4.3-1 *dζ =* dζ_t *∙u_t * + dζ_x *∙u_x *+ dζ_y *∙u_y *+ dζ_z
> *∙u_z +…* dζ_f *∙u_f +…,*
>
> where the *u_f *’s are the unit vectors. A space limited to
> Cartesian 3-space is characterized by three x,y,z directions, but
> CAT models a generalized space that encompasses all sensor
> modalities not only the optical ones.
>
> The volume of a cell calculated from the diagonal expansion vector
> “*dζ”* by multiplying all non zero coefficients,
>
> Eq. 4.3-2 dVol = dζ_t *∙*dζ_x *∙*dζ_y *∙*dζ_z *∙…∙*dζ_f *∙… .*
>
> The shape of this volume is determined by the direction of the
> expansion vector which in turn is determined by the direction and
> strength of forces pulling the charge and mass apart. The
> direction of pull depends upon the number of dimensions available
> in the generalized coordinates of the media. The forces must be in
> equilibrium but exact equilibrium pattern depends upon which
> global loop equilibrium state “Ζ” the event being modeled is in.
>
> In the simplest equilibrium state the masses and charges are
> collocated. This implies the internal forward propagating in time
> forces F_cm ,F_mc , and backward propagating in time force F_mc
> *,F_cm * are zero, and if there are no internal force pulling the
> charges and masses together then sum of the remaining exterior
> gravito-electric forces pulling the charge and mass apart must
> separately be zero precisely at the collocation point. A trivial
> condition that satisfies these equations is when all forces are
> zero. In this case there is no action in the media and no action
> for expanding the coordinate frame defining a volume of space. We
> are back to a formless blob of zero volume, where all charges and
> masses are at the same point. This is the absolute ground state of
> material, one level of something above nothing. The big bang
> before the energy of action flow is added.
>
> To exemplify the methods we consider an equilibrium state of a
> single isolated cell whose only degree of freedom is the time
> direction. This means the volume in all space directions are
> infinitesimally small and the volume can be considered a single
> line of extension “ΔVol = ΔT_w = ∫dζ_t “ along the time direction
> as shown in the god’s eye perspective of figure 4.3-6. In this
> situation we can consider charges and masses to be point
> particles. Forces as well as action can only propagate along the
> material length of the line time line represented in space as
> “Qw”. We now list the sequence of changes that can propagate
> through around the equilibrium positions indicated by numbers in
> parenthesis.
>
> (1)The upper charge is pushed from its equilibrium position
> (filled icon) forward along the time line
>
> (2)It exerts a force “Fem” on the left charge pushing it forward
> while feeling a reaction force “Fem*” that retards it back to its
> equilibrium position
>
> (3)While the left charge is moved from equilibrium it exerts an
> internal “Fcm” force on the bottom mass while feeling a reaction
> force “Fcm*” which returns it to equilibrium.
>
> (4)While the bottom mass is moved from equilibrium it exerts a
> force “Fgi” on the right mass while feeling a reaction force
> “Fgi*” which returns it to equilibrium.
>
> (5)While the right mass is moved from equilibrium it exerts a
> force “Fmc” on the upper charge while feeling a reaction force
> “Fmc*” which returns it to equilibrium. We are now back to (1).
>
> If the system is isolated there is no dissipation into other
> degrees of freedom and the oscillation continues to move as a
> compression wave around the “Qw” time line circumference forever.
> The graph however is static and shows a fixed amount of action
> indicated by the shaded arrows around the time line. Motion in
> “block” models is produced by the velocity of the observer or
> model operator as he moves around the time line. From our god’s
> eye perspective an action density is permanently painted on the
> clock dial and thereby describes an total event. The last degree
> of freedom events are rather trivial
>
> We need a geometry in which both space and time are curved back on
> themselves to provide a donut in which the forces Fem, Fgi,
> Fcm,Fmc are self contained eigen states at each action quanta.
>
> Does any of this suggest a tension field you might be thinking about??
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>
> Research Director
>
> Nascent Systems Inc.
>
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>
> On 1/24/2018 7:20 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:
>
> 1. Yes, I have submitted an essay. FQXi has not sent the
> approval link yet.
>
> 2. Replacement of our SPIE conf. Without a supporting
> infrastructure to replace SPIE-like support, it is very
> difficult to manage. I will try NSF during the last week of
> May. Do you want to start negotiating with some out-of-box
> European groups?
>
> 3. Re-starting afresh from the bottom up is the only way to
> start re-building a unified field theory. It is futile to
> force-fit whole bunch of different theories that were
> structured differently at different states of human cultural
> epoch.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Jan 24, 2018, at 6:08 PM, Wolfgang Baer
> <wolf at nascentinc.com <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>> wrote:
>
> Chandra:
>
> Just rereading your 2015 paper "Urgency of evolution..."
>
> I love the sentiment " This is a good time to start
> iteratively re-evaluating and restructuring all the
> foundational postulates behind all the working theories"
>
> Did you write a paper for FQXi?
>
> I sent one in https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3043
>
> Is there any chance to get a replacement for the SPIE
> conference, one that would expand the questions
>
> beyond the nature of light?
>
> Wolf
>
> --
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>
> Research Director
>
> Nascent Systems Inc.
>
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
> Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
> chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu
> <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu?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 atWolf 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 atWolf 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 srp2 at srpinc.org
>
> Click here to unsubscribe
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/srp2%40srpinc.org?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
> <a href="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 atWolf at nascentinc.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.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/20180222/f5d75b73/attachment.html>
More information about the General
mailing list