[General] Foundational questions Tension field stable particles
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Mon Feb 26 19:46:09 PST 2018
Albrecht:
I have a tremendous aversion to believing that the observer (unless we
are talking quantum effects where measurement interferes with the object
measured ) can have any effect on the independent “whatever it is” out
there. But physicists often confuse measurement results with physical
realities.
Regarding “*The relative velocity between charges does NOT determine the
magnetic field.”*
Jaxon Classical Electrodynamics p 136 states the force between two
current segments is oin differential form
d*F12*= - I1*I2 (*dl1* ● *dl2*)**X12* /(c^2 * |*X12*|^3
now the current is charge q1**v1 = *I1**dl1 *and q2**v2 = *I1**dl1
*substituting means the magnetic force between the two charges is
dependent on the dot product between the two velocities (*v1* ● *v2*).
Furthermore Goldstien Classical Mechanics talks about velocity dependent
potentials p19
And we all know the magnetic force is F =~ v1 x B12 while the magnetic
field is dependent on v! , so the force is dependent on two velocities.
Now your statement ‘*But the magnetic field depends on the relative
velocity between the observer and the one charge and the observer and
the other charge. Where "observer" means the measuring tool.” *Is
certainly true because one can always define one coordinate frame that
moves with velocity of the first charge and a second coordinate frame
that moves with the velocity of the second charge. So in these two
coordinate frames each one would say there is no B field.
However I see both charges in *one coordinate frame* and that is how the
experiments leading to the force equations were conducted. So I question
whether your assumption that there are two coordinate frames and I
assume you would like to connected by the Lorenz transforms reflects
physical reality.
I reiterate the concept of fields even the coulomb fieldis passed upon
the measured force between a test charge Qt and another charge Qn. So
that the total force on the test charge is
F =~SUM over all n (Qt * Qn / Rtn^2 )
And it is possible to introduce a field
E = SUM over all n (Qn / Rtn^2 )
As that F= Qt * E
Perfectly good mathematically. But to assume that physically E is a
property of space rather than simply the sum of charge to charge
interactions that would happen if a test charge were at that space is a
counter factual. And not consistent with the quantum photon theory.
Which by the way I think is also wrong. Photons are false
interpretations of charge to charge interactions.
that is for another discussion
best wishes
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 3:27 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> Wolf,
>
> my comments and explanations in the text below.
>
>
> Am 25.02.2018 um 05:26 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>
>> Albrecht:
>>
>> I think I understand your arguments since this is what is generally
>> taught, however I have always been uncomfortable with the statements
>> involving “observer”.
>>
>> So I question your statement “The different amount seen by the
>> observer can be calculated by the use of the force-related Lorentz
>> transformation - from the frame of the electrons to the frame of the
>> observer.”
>>
>> Now ancient experiments discovered that there are two reciprocal
>> forces between charges. The relative distance R gives the Coulomb
>> force F_E and the relative velocity gives the Magnetic force F_B
>>
>> Now if these are independent entities whose existence does not depend
>> upon any observation made by the observer (until we get to quantum
>> measurements) . /This means the physics is fixed /and so are the
>> parameters. Any measurement made by any coordinate frame when
>> properly processed for its own distortions will result in the same
>> parameters, so R,V, F_B , F_E ^and yes the speed of light must be
>> constant.
>>
>> If the measurement results differ either we do not have objective
>> measurement independent reality or else there is an unaccounted
>> artifact in the measurement process.
>>
> There is an error in your above arguments. The relative velocity
> between charges does NOT determine the magnetic field. But the
> magnetic field depends on the relative velocity between the observer
> and the one charge and the observer and the other charge. Where
> "observer" means the measuring tool.
>
> The entities are not independent in so far as any observer will see
> them in a different way. That is not a consequence of quantum
> mechanics but very simply the consequence of the fact that in a moving
> system the tools change (like rulers contract and clocks are slowed
> down) and so their measurement results differ from a tool measuring
> while being at rest. This is the reason that we need a Lorentz
> transformation to compare physical entities in one moving frame to
> entities in another moving frame.
>>
>> I and QM claims there is no objective measurement independent reality.
>>
> That may be the case but has nothing to do with our discussion here.
>>
>> Lorenz assumed the coordinate frame dilates and shrinks so that when
>> raw measurements are made and no correction is applied we may
>> notobserve a magnetic field but instead a different Coulomb field so
>> that the actual result on the object measured remains the same only
>> the names of the causes have been changed.
>>
> You are permanently referring to coordinate frames. But we are
> treating here physical facts and not mathematical ones. So coordinates
> should be omitted as an argument as I have proposed it earlier.
>>
>> Now consider looking at the same two charges from an arbitrary
>> coordinate frame. then in that frame the two charges will have wo
>> velocities V1 and V2 but there will always be a difference V
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ^
>>
>> ^
>>
>> ^
>>
>> ^
>>
>> ^
>>
>>
>> I contend that it does not matter what frame you chose cannot get rid
>> of the relative velocity. The only way you can get rid of the
>> magnetic field is if there was no relative velocity in the first
>> palace. And there never was a magnetic field in the physics.
>>
> As soon as the observer moves in the same frame, i.e. with the same
> speed vector as one of the charges, he does not see a magnetic field.
> In the deduction of the magnetic field which I have attached (from a
> talk at a conference last year) the magnetic force is defined by the
> equation:
>
> where v and u are the speeds of two charges, q1 and q2, , with respect
> to the observer. y is the distance and gamma the Lorentz factor in the
> set up shown.
>>
>> Therefore your further conclusion “As soon as an observer moves with
>> one charge, i.e. he is at rest with respect to the frame of one of
>> the charges, then there is no magnetic field for him.” Is only true
>> if there was no magnetic field in the first place, a very special case.
>>
>> We must be very careful not to confuse the actual physics in a
>> situation with the way we look at it.
>>
> I guess that you know the Coriolis force. This force is somewhat
> similar to magnetism. It is in effect for one observer but not for
> another one depending on the observer's motion. And there is nothing
> mysterious about it, and also quantum mechanics is not needed for an
> explanation.
>
> In your logic you would have to say: If there is no Coriolis force
> then there is no inertial mass. But that is clearly not the case.
>>
>> If we apply the same analysis to the Michelson Morley experiment I
>> think we will also find that there never was a fringe shift in the
>> physics. The physics states charges interact with other charges,
>> basta. Introducing fields and then attributing what has always been a
>> summation of many charge effects on one test charge onto a property
>> of empty space is simply a convenient mathematical trick that hides
>> the physical reality.
>>
> The MM experiment is easily explained by the fact that there is
> contraction in the direction of motion. Nothing more is needed to
> explain the null-result. In the view of Einstein space contracts and
> in the view of Lorentz the apparatus contracts as the internal fields
> contract. And the latter is a known phenomenon in physics.
>>
>>
>> I further submit this as an argument that mass and charge are
>> fundamental physics and if there is to be a CTF it is the tension
>> that holds mass and charge together when electro-magentic forces
>> operating on charge densities and gravito-inertial forces operating
>> on mass densities are not balanced and pulls mass and charge apart. I
>> further submit the the resulting fluctuations in the mass-charge
>> densities leads to CTF propagating patterns that are an ontologically
>> defensible interpretation of Schroedingers Wave function.
>>
> An indication that mass is not fundamental is the fact that mass can
> be converted into energy. On the other hand charge cannot be converted
> into energy; this can be taken as an argument that it is fundamental.
>>
> Anything still controversial? Then please explain.
> Albrecht
>>
>> Tell me why I’m wrong
>>
>> Wolf
>>
>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>> Research Director
>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>> On 2/23/2018 6:51 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>
>>> Chandra:
>>>
>>> If two electrons move side by side, the main force between them is
>>> of course the electrostatic one. But there is an additional
>>> contribution to the force which is measured in the frame of an
>>> observer at rest (like the one of Millikan). In the frame of the
>>> moving electrons (maybe they belong to the same frame) there is only
>>> the electrostatic force, true. The different amount seen by the
>>> observer can be calculated by the use of the force-related Lorentz
>>> transformation - from the frame of the electrons to the frame of the
>>> observer.
>>>
>>> If the oil-drop chamber is in steady motion this has primarily no
>>> influence. Important is the motion state of the observer. If the
>>> observer is at rest with respect to the moving oil-drops (and so of
>>> the electrons), he will notice a contribution of magnetism. Any
>>> motion of the chamber does not matter for this fact.
>>>
>>> In general magnetism is visible for an observer who is in motion
>>> with respect to both charges under consideration. As soon as an
>>> observer moves with one charge, i.e. he is at rest with respect to
>>> the frame of one of the charges, then there is no magnetic field for
>>> him.
>>>
>>> Your example of two compass needles is a more complex one even if it
>>> does not look so. To treat this case correctly we have to take into
>>> account the cause of the magnetism of the needle, that means of the
>>> circling charges in the atoms (in Fe). If we would do this then -
>>> seen from our own frame - both groups of charges are moving, the
>>> charges in the conductor and also the charges in the needle's atoms.
>>> So as both are moving with respect to the observer, this is the
>>> cause for a magnetic field between both objects.
>>>
>>> Albrecht
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 22.02.2018 um 21:02 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>>>>
>>>> Albrecht: Your point is well taken. Not being expert in magnetism,
>>>> I need to spend more time on this issue.
>>>>
>>>> However, let me pose a question to think.
>>>>
>>>> If two electrons are trapped in two side by side but separate
>>>> Millikan oil drops, the two electrons feel each other’s static
>>>> E-field, but no magnetic field. If the oil-drop chamber was given a
>>>> steady velocity, could Millikan have measured the presence of a
>>>> magnetic field due to the moving electrons (“current”), which would
>>>> have been dying out as the chamber moved further away? This
>>>> experiment can be conceived in many different ways and can be
>>>> executed. Hence, this is not a pure “Gedanken” experiment. I am
>>>> sure, some equivalent experiment has been done by somebody. Send me
>>>> the reference, if you can find one.
>>>>
>>>> Are two parallel current carrying conductors deflecting magnetic
>>>> needles (undergraduate experiment) different from two independent
>>>> electrons moving parallel to each other?
>>>>
>>>> I have just re-phrased Einstein’s example that you have given below.
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>> Chandra.
>>>>
>>>> *From:*General
>>>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
>>>> Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 22, 2018 2:26 PM
>>>> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Foundational questions Tension field
>>>> stable particles
>>>>
>>>> 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 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 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/20180226/a0000508/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cmmpoehdbdlkmfdj.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 778 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180226/a0000508/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: jchaklmahldlaada.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 934 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180226/a0000508/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: gdfpdmnggfigcpkp.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5404 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180226/a0000508/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3622 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180226/a0000508/attachment-0002.gif>
More information about the General
mailing list