[General] Foundational questions Tension field stable particles
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Mon Feb 26 18:49:39 PST 2018
Chandra:
Here I fully agree with Albrecht mass and charge are something physical
behind these two forces and conveniently behind gravity and the Coulomb
force as well.
I just finished a draft chapter on model building in which I define
something very similar to your CTF however in order to make the model or
any model useful I need to define appropriate visualizations. Since mass
and charge have been rejected by the consensus, I must ask 'anyone"
please give me some other visualization for what CTF is that can be
imagined.
Wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 2/26/2018 2:07 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> Chandra,
>
> Which "something physically" exists in case of the Coriolis force?
> Answer: It is an inertial mass.
>
> And which "something physically" exists in case of magnetism?
> Answer: It is an electrical charge.
>
> Albrecht
>
> Am 26.02.2018 um 22:02 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>>
>> Albrecht and the rest of our colleagues::
>>
>> Albrecht: Thanks for your patience in guiding me to delve into
>> magnetism that I never paid attention to before.
>>
>> Now I see that it has deep implications in understanding (further
>> defining properties of) the Complex Tension Field (CTF).
>>
>> My current position is that nothing can be perceived by another “test
>> object”, whether stationary or moving, unless something physically
>> exists in the first place. */What is in the space around a charge
>> that appears as a magnetic field when the test magnetic field is in
>> “relative motion”?/* Is it the temporal gradient of a static
>> charge-field? But, then we are back again to Maxwell! Yet, I agree
>> that Maxwell has not given us the complete final physics.
>>
>> I hope this question alerts the enquiring minds of everybody in our
>> group. I believe, it is of some fundamental importance. I will keep
>> pondering.
>>
>> Right now I am looking for money to test the existence of a
>> stationary CTF guiding linear EM waves via “epsilon-not” and “mu-not”.
>>
>> Chandra.
>>
>> *From:*General
>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
>> Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
>> *Sent:* Monday, February 26, 2018 3:30 PM
>> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Foundational questions Tension field stable
>> particles
>>
>> /Chandra:/
>>
>> Let's begin with your question at the end.
>>
>> It is a good and a challenging question in so far as we treat
>> magnetism in our everyday live in a way which does not reflect the
>> true physics behind it. Normally if we have to do it with magnetism,
>> then it is a magnetic dipole. And when we measure a magnetic field we
>> use another magnetic dipole, i.e. we measure the force or the angular
>> momentum onto this test dipole.
>>
>> The clean way to measure a magnetic field is to use an electric test
>> charge. If there is a force acting on the test charge we have to
>> check whether this force can be explained by the presence of another
>> charge using the Coulomb law. Then we have to build the difference
>> between the force given by the Coulomb law and the real force
>> observed. This difference is "magnetism".
>>
>> If we say that the earth has a magnetic field, we mean that it is a
>> magnetic dipole. And we measure the field strength by the use of
>> another magnetic dipole, we may call the latter one a "test-dipole".
>>
>> Now your question regarding the Earth. To measure the magnetic field
>> of the Earth physically, one should use an electrical test charge and
>> measure the force on it. Now, if the earth is not electrically
>> charged, the result will be 0. That means no magnetic field is
>> detected. Should now the observer move together with his charge in
>> relation to the Earch, there will be a force. That means during his
>> motion he will see a magnetic field. - This answers your question how
>> it can be achieved that an observer does not see a magnetic field.
>> Normally he will not see it anyway. Our daily experience is of course
>> different. Because if someone starts to measure the magnetism of the
>> earth he will use a dipole as said above; with the conclusion that
>> there is a magnetic field. And it will be extremely difficult (I
>> think impossible) to move a dipole so that it will not see a magnetic
>> field. The reason is simple. In a magnetic dipole, which is generally
>> a coil with a current in it, there are always charges at some
>> position in the coil which are in a motion state to the moving
>> charges in the Earth, so one will register magnetism.
>>
>> You mention a "magnetic body". I do not feel that this is a good way
>> to name it. The magnetic body at the end is an electric charge. And
>> that one is only "magnetic" if it is viewed from a certain perspective.
>>
>> Then you say: A propagating EM wave has oscillating E and B vectors.
>> A dipole oscillation induces oscillating E, which generates its own
>> restoring force B, ...Please have in mind that this is the
>> understanding of Maxwell's theory. But Maxwell is good for the
>> practical use of electromagnetism, but it does not reflect the cause
>> of magnetism.
>>
>> If you have general doubts about my description of magnetism I should
>> say that all this is not my idea but main stream physics, can be
>> found in textbooks e.g. about SR. However ignored by most practising
>> main stream physicists.
>>
>> Albrecht
>>
>> Am 26.02.2018 um 00:25 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>>
>> */Wolf:/*
>>
>> I think, I am more along the line of your thinking.
>>
>> *//*
>>
>> */Albrecht: /*
>>
>> Now I am realizing that magnetism is a very important field (pun
>> intended Jthat I do not fully understand. Intuitively I disagree
>> with the explanation that “magnetic field” EMERGES only due to
>> RELATIVE VELOCITY between a charge and an */observer/*. Relative
>> velocity may change the quantification by our instrument of what
>> already exist in nature. I submit, I do not have good counter theory.
>>
>> On a different angle, we human are mere interpreters of data,
>> send to our neural network, whether by our internal body-sensors
>> or by reading “dials” of external sensors (instruments).
>> */Interactants, inside our instruments that generate the data,
>> are the real “observers”/*, if we must use this word..*/Humans
>> are not the observers, just interpreters. /*Therefore, the job of
>> humans should be to develop theories that directly tries to model
>> the */interaction processes/* going on between the interactants
>> inside the instruments, or in nature. Our interpretations can
>> vary widely from person to person; but the physical
>> transformations experienced by the interactants inside our
>> instruments follow ontological (existing) rules of operation in
>> nature. That is why we can get re-producible data for the same
>> interaction process. This is the bedrock of causal physics. We
>> can modify the strengths of interactions by introducing changes
>> in the interaction parameter in diverse ways, including relative
>> velocity.
>>
>> Unfortunately, my expertise on magnetism is quite limited.
>> However, as of now, I am reluctant to accept that magnetism
>> */appears/* only as SR implicates. In my stationary CTF model,
>> everything observable and their properties do emerge due to
>> dynamic movements. But they are real, not “relative”. Can we
>> really claim that magnetism is like Doppler Effect? The measured
>> frequency shift is solely dependent on the relative velocity.
>> However, the frequency of the emitted radiation is the real
>> physical parameter of a physical entity, an EM wave packet. That
>> is why Doppler shift varies with the relative velocity.*/Does the
>> strength of magnetic field changes with the relative velocity of
>> the detector with respect to the magnetic body?/*
>>
>> Another angle. A propagating EM wave has oscillating E and B
>> vectors. A dipole oscillation induces oscillating E, which
>> generates its own restoring force B, thereby, generating the
>> perpetually oscillating and propagating wave packet in the
>> */stationary/* CTF. In the biological world, cellular magnetism
>> plays wide ranges of important functions. I will have read up on
>> these phenomena.
>>
>> Let me pose a question.
>>
>> Earth and many other planets have magnetic fields due to motions
>> in their cores.
>>
>> Can an external magnetic sensor be forced to read “null magnetic
>> field” by giving it the right velocity in the right direction?
>>
>> Chandra.
>>
>> *From:*General
>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
>> Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
>> *Sent:* Friday, February 23, 2018 3:02 PM
>> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Foundational questions Tension field
>> stable particles
>>
>> Hi Wolf, and hi Chandra,
>>
>> comments and answers down in the text:
>>
>> Am 23.02.2018 um 05:28 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>
>> Albrecht:
>>
>> "Whenever an observer is in a magnetic field, he can find a
>> motion state so that the magnetic field disappears."
>>
>> I've heard this many times but now that you said it, and I'm
>> no longer a student so I have time to wonder ,
>>
>> there is a coil of wire in front of me I feel a magnetic
>> field exactly how would I move to make it disappear? And what
>> other forces would I experience to maintain that motion?
>>
>> This may be explainable stepwise. In the first step use a coil of
>> wire with only one moving charge in it. Now have a test charge at
>> the side outside the coil. This test charge will see the
>> electrostatic force according to the Coulomb law, but nothing
>> more. If this test charge is not at rest but moving then in the
>> frame of the test charge nothing changes, Coulomb still applies.
>> But if an observer at rest measures the electrostatic force
>> between both in _his _frame, he will see a different force acting
>> on the test charge. This can be also calculated using the Lorentz
>> transformation with respect to force. This difference is called
>> "magnetism". If now the observer moves with the test charge he
>> will only see the electrostatic force like the test charge itself
>> does, so no magnetism.
>> If there in not only one charge in the coil but a lot of them,
>> there will be a superposition of all applying forces. Now an
>> observer who wants to escape the magnetic field will have to find
>> a new frame which takes into account this superposition.
>>
>>
>> The electron velocity in a wire is quite low and I can
>> increase the current and keep the velocity the same thus
>> increase the magnetic field so if I rotate around the center
>> axis of the loop I can make the charges stand still and there
>> should be no magnetic field - maybe but now we have to ask
>> how do I measure the magnetic field to reach this conclusion?
>>
>> A magnetic field is generally measured in the way that the force
>> on a charge is measured and the result is compared to the
>> expected Coulomb force. If there is an excess of force, it is
>> magnetism.
>>
>>
>> well if I place another wire loop the electrons in both wires
>> move at the same velocity and by the argument above they
>> would not "see" the electrons in the other ring moving but
>> they would certainly feel a magnetic field and the two loops
>> would attract each other
>>
>> The electrons in one loop will of course "see" the electrons in
>> the other one. If both wires are overcharged with electrons then
>> there will be the repelling Coulomb force. But in the normal case
>> in practise the wires are electrically neutral. And a current
>> means that negative charges (here electrons) are moving into one
>> direction and positive charges (the corresponding positive
>> "holes" of charge) are moving into the other direction. Now, what
>> will a test electron notice which moves outside along the wire?
>> It will see the charges moving into the opposite direction
>> relativistically contracted, the co-moving ones not (or
>> precisely: extended). And so the test electron will see a
>> different density of charges (for the positive and negative ones)
>> and so a resulting field (which an electron at rest will not
>> see). The resulting force which is only noticeable by a moving
>> test charge is called magnetism.
>>
>> There is a video of Versitasium which shows this quite illustrative:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0
>>
>>
>> What am I missing?
>>
>> Was this understandable?
>> Albrecht
>>
>>
>> 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 2/22/2018 11:26 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>
>> Chandra,
>>
>> I like very much what you have written here. Particularly
>> what you say about "time" which physically means
>> oscillations. That is what one should keep in mind when
>> thinking about relativity.
>>
>> However in one point I have to object. That is your
>> judgement of the parameter µ. I think that it is a result
>> from the historical fact that magnetism was detected long
>> time earlier than electricity. So magnetism plays a great
>> role in our view of physics which does not reflect its
>> role there. We know since about 100 years that magnetism
>> is not a primary phenomenon but an apparent effect, a
>> side effect of the electric field which is caused by the
>> finiteness of c. If c would be infinite there would not
>> be any magnetism. This is given by the equation c^2 =
>> (1/ϵµ)which you have mentioned. This equation should be
>> better written as µ = (1/c^2 ϵ) to reflect this physical
>> fact, the dependency of the magnetism on c.
>>
>> The symmetry between electricity and magnetism is
>> suggested by Maxwell's equation. These equations are
>> mathematically very elegant and well usable in practice.
>> But they do not reflect the physical reality. Easiest
>> visible is the fact that we have electrical monopoles but
>> no magnetic monopoles. Einstein has described this fact
>> by saying: Whenever an observer is in a magnetic field,
>> he can find a motion state so that the magnetic field
>> disappears. - This is as we know not possible for an
>> electric field.
>>
>> I think that we have discussed this earlier. Do you remember?
>>
>> Albrecht
>>
>> Am 21.02.2018 um 00:00 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>>
>> /“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 atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>>
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>>
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>
>> </a>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> 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 atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>>
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>>
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>
>> </a>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>>
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>>
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>
>> </a>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?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">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180226/76879643/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 807 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180226/76879643/attachment.png>
More information about the General
mailing list