[General] Single Component Model of Electrons

Sun May 12 17:32:11 PDT 2019

Hi Chandra,

I have not followed all the implications of the NIW, but I would like to add a different perspective. In the model I am proposing there appears to be NIW at all experimentally accessible energy densities. However, this changes in the most extreme conditions. I will explain this by telling a story. There was a time when I had developed the physical properties of the spacetime field, and also the distortion of these properties produced by groups of photons (EM radiation). Then I was struck by a disturbing idea. I realized that the spacetime field was finite. There should be a maximum allowed energy density of EM radiation for a given frequency. I imagined a laser beam focused to the smallest diffraction limited size possible for a given wavelength. I then imagined increasing the intensity of this focused beam to any desired level. The expectation is that the full power of the laser should always pass through the focus and emerge on the expanding beam on the other side of the focus. 

However, the model was predicting that there should be a condition where the properties of the spacetime field reach a limit where the spacetime field could not transmit any higher power EM radiation.  Increasing the power further should result in the focus being incapable of transmitting that energy density and all the light would be absorbed by the focus volume of the spacetime field. I quickly calculated the quantifiable properties which would create this counter intuitive limit. To my amazement, this limiting condition is the exact condition which would create a black hole. Therefore, rather than this being a flaw in the model, it was a strength of the model because it gave insights into the wave and field conditions which create black holes. 

I mention this because it also put NIW into a different perspective. In my view, there is not an absolute rule about NIW. Instead, we live under conditions where we never can experimentally encounter the interaction of EM waves because these interactions are too weak.  However, the same way that Newtonian gravity transitions into the gravity of general relativity at extreme conditions, so also does the NIW transition into the nonlinear interaction of waves under extreme intensity conditions. This is explained in more detail in the “Foundation” paper. This explanation starts near the bottom of page 14 with the paragraph that starts “Next we will attempt to quantify…”. This “Foundation” paper is available at: http://onlyspacetime.com/QM-Foundation.pdf  

John   

From: General <general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> On Behalf Of Roychoudhuri, Chandra
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 3:11 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Single Component Model of Electrons

Adam: 

I am glad that you now appreciate the obviousness of NIW in nature. That is the reason why our world is working smoothly.

But, the neglect of NIW has introduced a very serious number of basic mis-conceptions, which we are trying to correct by introducing non-causal postulates like, “delayed-choice”, “uncertainty principle” as nature’s fundamental behavior, rather than asour ignorance, etc. Fourier summation of monochromatic waves do not take place in nature. First, nature cannot allow the existence of Fourier plane wave as that would violate the conservation of energy. Second, by virtue of NIW, Fourier summation can happen only through some interacting material medium, not in free space.

I am attaching my last book, where I have illustrated a series of conceptual mistakes in optical phenomena, which are also carried over into quantum interpretations. Read the last Ch.12 first, on epistemology; then continue from backward.

Chandra.

From: General < <mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> On Behalf Of Adam K
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 5:56 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion < <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Single Component Model of Electrons

Hi Chandra,

I understand now. I agree with you more or less completely. It is time for the human race to wake up, and striking deeply into the heart of nature is a definite prerequisite. I hope that it will also be sufficient. 

It seems that NIW as you conceive it is a pre-theoretic FACT, which must be accommodated. The usual way of doing this is with the linearity of the wave equation. But I like your approach because it attempts to truly think about the foundations. The much more common approach, one which I think is not going to work in the long run, is to attempt a deep formulation of nature and physical truths while assuming some part of the current theoretical physical apparatus. There is so much that needs to be explained, that assuming pretty much anything is a dangerous move. An example of this is John M.’s recent explanation of electromagnetism. Whether or not it is correct, it tries to explain something typically thought of as fundamental. This needs to be done everywhere. 

My own approach is to start more or less where you do. With some CTF which satisfies the wave equation. I leave it open whether or not the medium is acoustic, elastic, or something else. But I strongly base everything on NIW. I am glad that I understand your approach better now. I think that it is a sound epistemological  position. It reminds me moreover of one of my favorite quotes by Einstein: 

How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there not some more valuable work to be done in his specialty? That's what I hear many of my colleagues ask, and I sense it from many more. But I cannot share this sentiment. When I think about the ablest students whom I have encountered in my teaching — that is, those who distinguish themselves by their independence of judgment and not just their quick-wittedness — I can affirm that they had a vigorous interest in epistemology. They happily began discussions about the goals and methods of science, and they showed unequivocally, through tenacious defense of their views, that the subject seemed important to them.

Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Therefore it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analysing long-held commonplace concepts and showing the circumstances on which their justification and usefulness depend, and how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. Thus their excessive authority will be broken. They will be removed if they cannot be properly legitimated, corrected if their correlation with given things be far too superfluous, or replaced if a new system can be established that we prefer for whatever reason.

Best wishes,

Adam

On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 10:05 AM Roychoudhuri, Chandra <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> > wrote:

Adam:

When we focus our earthbound telescope (of appropriate resolution) to any specific near-by planet, or a most-distant galaxy, we register its image unperturbed by the light due to trillions of other light sources which have spatially cross-propagated through each other through the same cosmic volume. That is Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) in the linear domain in “vacuum”! The Global Internet is constantly working exploiting multi-channel optical data multiplexed through the same single-mode fiber-glass volume. This is also simple NIW. Nonlinearities of the fiber does produce some weak Raman shifted signals; but we know how to reject them in our de-multiplexing process. 

My original re-discovery was with an “expensive and sophisticated” experiment during 1975, as most modern physicists try to do. I used a very expensive Fabry-Perot parallel-plate interferometer in a tilted posture. 

     Decades later, I found out that, literally one thousand years ago, the Arab physicist, Alhazen, carried out a conceptually much simpler  and yet definitive experiment, using a set of candles and a pin-hole camera (“camera-obscura” in those days!) and he drew the same conclusion.  Of course, I may be the first one to recognize that NIW is the inherent property of all tension-field-based waves, which is built into the wave equation and hence the space must have “ether” as a Complex Tension Field (CTF). I am using the word “complex” to refer to my deeper ignorance about this CTF, as to how it is capable of generating all the observable (i) waves, (ii) particles and (iii) interaction forces to engender the perpetually recycling universe without endangering the long re-cycling processes to allow the biological evolution and their pleasure of living out the lives. The “islands of temporal stability” allows  the biological entities to appreciate the marvels of the recycling universe and even model them! 

     The foundation of the edifice of physics has not yet been laid out firmly by the currently “working theories”. However, humans have advanced enough to re-start the re-organizing process for a new set of comprehensive foundation postulates and generate the second round of human adventure to develop a unified field theory of the universe. This second round will take us to a much higher summit of comprehensive understanding of the universe. However, we will have to keep re-iterating such theorizations using the Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E) several more times, before we can master the universe.  

     Why IPM-E? Human invented mathematical logics are not identical to those of the creator. Further, human logics can never be pinned down to one, and only one, meaning. Subjectivity of the human neural network is both our savior towards our sustainability out of diversity and our creativity, and a serious danger to guide ourselves to a deadly wrong path. Remember the  children’s “Pied Piper” story?! We need to learn to re-train our subjective neural network (evolved for survival) towards an objective neural network to really appreciate the objective evolution of the universe. We need to anchor our understanding to objective reality by trying to model and measure the interaction processes going on in nature. Nature is a marvelous creative system engineer. We must retrain ourselves to emulate her.

     Gorgeous mathematical painting, with built-in symmetry, may display superb esthetic beauty; but it cannot guide us to carry out the geo-physical re-engineering PROCESS along some path that will assure the sustainability of our biosphere. I am more interested in the assurance that our grand, grand-children will be alive to enjoy their lives while still continuing to understand nature deeper and deeper. I do not feel rushed to acquire the “final knowledge” within my life time. Let it be a multi-century, or a multi-million-year endeavor by the human species!

Chandra. 

From: General <general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri= <mailto:uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> On Behalf Of Adam K
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2019 7:26 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion < <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Single Component Model of Electrons

Chandra,

Could you explain in simple terms in a few sentences what NIW is? I have never been able to understand how it differs from the superposition principle (i.e. linearity of the wave equation). 

John,

Thanks for the details re Schrodinger. I have skimmed some of your other work, but I am afraid I have not been able to get very far. The main issue is that I don’t have the time to read and digest 40 pages, much less 400. Your dilatory style prevents me from rapidly assimilating the essence of your thought. For example, in the very beginning you spend several pages talking about how light in a box can have inertia. For me, at least, it would be better if you did that in two lines, drawing out the mathematical essence. 

I have a lot of respect for what you are doing, I don’t want you to stop or change your process. However, when you get around to promulgating your ideas, I think that for some people it would be helpful to have things distilled down to their very essence. The words are helpful a lot of the time, but sometimes they get in the way. 

Best wishes,

Adam

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 8:56 PM Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> > wrote:

Hello John M. and all,

   Elementary particles such a neutron, and even small molecules such as fullerenes (Buckyballs) show double-slit wavelike interference patterns with a de Broglie wavelength Lambda-dB = h/p , where p is the particle’s or molecule's momentum. Does a resting neutron, consisting of 3 quarks and many gluons, actually have an internal fundamental physical frequency equal to the neutron’s calculated Compton frequency f=Mc^2/h where M is the mass of the neutron? I don’t think so. 

   I think that it is also not necessary for a resting electron model to contain the Compton frequency Fcompton=mc^2/h in order to generate the de Broglie wavelength Lambda-dB=h/p when moving. My quantum vortex zitterbewegung electron model, like the Dirac electron, has an internal frequency equals to the Dirac zitterbewegung frequency 2mc^2/h which is twice the Compton frequency. Yet the electron model has a resting energy Eo=mc^2 because it is composed of a spin-1/2 half-photon originating from a double-helix photon model (composed of 2 spin-1/2 half-photons) that needed to have photon energy of at least E=2mc^2 and photon frequency Fzitt=2mc^2/h so that each half-photon composing this photon, during e-p pair production near an atomic nucleus, would have enough energy to form an electron or positron of rest energy mc^2 while internally keeping the original photon’s zitterbewegung frequency 2mc^2/h. It may be that it is a particle's rest energy Eo=mc^2 (as in a resting neutron or electron), and not a particle’s internal Compton frequency mc^2/h, that creates the de Broglie wavelength of a moving particle.

     Richard

On May 10, 2019, at 3:55 PM, John Macken <john at macken.com <mailto:john at macken.com> > wrote:

Adam, 

In your last post to me, you asked the following question: “What spherical standing wave models did Schrodinger work on? That is news to me!”  Schrodinger’s paper is discussed in my paper titled: Energetic spacetime: The new aether . My paper is available at:

 <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F280081640_Energetic_Spacetime_the_New_Aether&data=02%7C01%7Cchandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu%7C9bfd975af06a4b431e8d08d6d724b184%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C636932949954085601&sdata=tLn32k8ayWO%2BxS1XtrbV4X7Q8%2BTZjlbYs5WYCGTH5so%3D&reserved=0> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280081640_Energetic_Spacetime_the_New_Aether

Starting on page 10 of this paper, I talk about Schrodinger’s wave-based explanation of Compton scattering. I reference and quote from his paper titled: The Compton effect. He did not specifically mention spherical standing waves, but he did propose a model of the standing wave pattern which would be formed by the spherical wave model of an electron I am proposing. In words, the photons in Schrodinger’s explanation of Compton scattering are reflecting off the Bragg reflector which would be produced in spacetime by my proposed model of an electron. There are more details to this explanation which are in the article.

I must also mention that it was very difficult for me to obtain a copy of Schrodinger’s original paper. I saw references to it, but I had to buy a book of all of Schrodinger’s papers in order to get a copy of this paper. I do not now have a copy of this book.

It should also be noted that in order to get the correct de Broglie wave pattern produced by an electron, the electron must be producing waves with frequency equal to the electron’s Compton frequency, in a stationary frame of reference. De Broglie himself also postulated this Compton frequency in his famous thesis paper. He used this frequency to predict the wave characteristics which were experimentally observed several years later. This earned him the Nobel prize. I mention this because several of the electron models being discussed by the group are based on twice the electron’s Compton frequency. This higher frequency does not produce the correct de Broglie waves for an electron. 

John M.

From: General < <mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> On Behalf Of Roychoudhuri, Chandra
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2019 4:39 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion < <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Single Component Model of Electrons

Adam: 

I am working from the bottom up, leveraging my re-discovery of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW), which was experimentally demonstrated by Alhazen about 100 years ago and formally postulated by Huygens around 1676.

NIW is built into wave equation where waves are propelled by the built-in tension property. Classical Superposition Principle (SP) and NIW are built into Maxwell’s wave equation.

   Quantum Superposition Principle if built into Schrodinger’s “wave” equation. However, this equation does not propel particles unless we plug in a potential gradient “V”!??

   Optical SP can be displayed only after a detector interacts with the superposed multiple waves and absorbs energy. NIW remains effective – no results without a detector! That is the context where I defined the need for incorporating Interaction Process mapping Epistemology (IPM-E).

   However, for quantum SP, we have been ignoring this IPM-E and spending many brilliant physicist-hours trying to build quantum computers using quantum SP!?

Just some food for thought.

Chandra.

From: General < <mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> On Behalf Of Adam K
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2019 2:33 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion < <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Single Component Model of Electrons

Chandra: 

Yes, something like this is certainly true. The nature of the self-looping and the interactions of the structures and the gradients is mostly what I think about. 

Adam

On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 11:21 AM Roychoudhuri, Chandra < <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> wrote:

Adam: 

I have conceptualized in my earlier papers, from the stand point of grand unification, that all the “forces” are fundamentally different kinds of potential gradients of the same CTF, generated (caused) by different kinds of localized self-looped oscillations, the exact structures of which should be determined by our mathematically talented colleagues.

Chandra.

From: General <general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri= <mailto:uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> On Behalf Of Adam K
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2019 1:55 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion < <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Single Component Model of Electrons

John, Chandra,

There is no doubt in my mind that what Chandra outlines is the right way to go for physics. There is of course a wave medium through which light and gravitational waves propagate. What exactly it is, is an open question. I prefer Chandra’s CTF to the zero-point energy field, because this is based on quantum concepts, and I feel that we should derive these concepts, not rely on them as foundational. 

I will find time to look more in depth at your book, John. I believe that you are on the right track with your notions of electrostatic force and gravity. I had the same ideas myself, as have several others. The main problems (how to specify exactly how this works from simple first principles) remains unsolved I think. 

What spherical standing wave models did Schrodinger work on? That is news to me! 

Best wishes,

Adam

On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 8:10 AM Roychoudhuri, Chandra < <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> wrote:

“My work starts with a quantifiable model of zero-point energy (ZPE) in the quantum vacuum. This is modeled as a sea of Planck length and Planck time vacuum fluctuations, predominantly at Planck frequency. This is not arm waving – it has quantifiable impedance, flux energy density and elasticity. I then prove that both gravitational waves and electromagnetic radiation encounter this same impedance. This has the property of a universal field. Now I have a concrete starting point to build everything in the universe.” 

John M: 

This is great progress. Keep up the good work!

What the current literature is calling “zero-point energy”, I call it “Complex Tension Field” or CTF. This is to trigger a fresh conceptual start. To me, CTF holds 100% of the energy of the universe. EM waves cannot travel across the entire cosmic space with the same fixed velocity without the presence of stationary tension field. To accommodate absence of “ether drag”, particles have to be localized self-looped oscillators of the same tension field. EM waves and particles, comprising the observable universe, are just different kinds of excited states of this same CTF. Particles and EM waves can interact with  each other and can get converted to each other. These excited state energy cannot be assimilated back by the CTF, hence the law of conservation of energy reigns supreme in our CAUSAL universe. Dark Energy and Dark Matter are dark alleys to me.

     Generating models for localized self-looped harmonic oscillators as elementary particles is the right direction for Physics, as you gentlemen are doing. Schrodinger’s Exp[iEt/ћ] with E=hf, f being the self-looped oscillation frequency of particles, makes  Schrodinger equation so powerful. Interpreting Exp[iEt/ћ] as a plane wave has been a grave mistake of Physics. The universe cannot sustain a plane-waves; it is energetically divergent. 

Keep up the good work,

Chandra.

From: General <general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri= <mailto:uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> On Behalf Of John Macken
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2019 2:59 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' < <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Single Component Model of Electrons

Hi Adam,

Thank you for your comments. You have reminded me that I should look into previous work a little deeper. I did come across Milo Wolf’s work years ago. However, as I recall I concluded that de Broglie himself had pointed out that the counter propagating waves could create some of the characteristics of a particle’s de Broglie waves. Therefore, I did not see Milo Wolf adding too much. In fact, both Milo and Gabriel LaFreniere have monopole wave diagrams. These are the easiest to draw as a starting point, but they are wrong when you actually look at their particle characteristics more closely. The most obvious problem is that they do not have ½ h bar angular momentum and related properties.  

Schrodinger also attempted to generate a similar wave-based particle model. He eventually abandoned the idea because he was visualizing waves in classical space which is an empty void. Schrodinger could not offer any mechanism of how these waves could be stabilized. 

My work starts with a quantifiable model of zero-point energy (ZPE) in the quantum vacuum. This is modeled as a sea of Planck length and Planck time vacuum fluctuations, predominantly at Planck frequency. This is not arm waving – it has quantifiable impedance, flux energy density and elasticity. I then prove that both gravitational waves and electromagnetic radiation encounter this same impedance. This has the property of a universal field. Now I have a concrete starting point to build everything in the universe. 

I will skip many intermediate steps and mention that this model of the quantum vacuum and particles generate both electric fields and gravity. I then find that this wave-based model reveals relationships between the gravitational force and the electrostatic force which were previously unrecognized. I give several predictions which are easily proven correct. I have other predictions, not mentioned in the article, which require experiments. If you are interested, I can talk about predictions (not in the article) in a future post. 

John M.

From: General < <mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> On Behalf Of Adam K
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2019 11:24 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion < <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Single Component Model of Electrons

Hi John,

I was surprised to see your diagrams. I thought I was the only one pursuing models of this kind. Well done for striking so closely at the door of truth! 

Your paper would probably benefit from mention of the work of Milo Wolf, Gabriel LaFreniere, Geoff Haselhurst, and others who have pursued the spherical standing wave model of the electron. Their diagrams are basically identical to yours (except for the spirals). 

One problem that all of these authors have had is how to get the inward-propagating waves. You mention Bragg reflection of vortex waves entering resonance with the spacetime field. Do you have the details worked out mathematically? 

Also, many thanks for the appendix, which looks very useful. 

Best wishes,

Adam

On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 10:17 AM John Macken < <mailto:john at macken.com> john at macken.com> wrote:

Hello All,

      I have been following the discussion, but I have not contributed for a long time. I have been working on a model of the universe based on the idea that the quantum vacuum is Planck length and Planck time vacuum fluctuations. This is a quantifiable starting assumption for a universal field which generates everything in the universe, including electrons. The attached paper draft titled Single component model of the universe, starts off by describing this basic building block. However, the second half of this paper tests this hypothesis by seeing if it can generate a model of an electron from the properties of the quantum vacuum. 

      This model addresses electron properties generally not addressed in this group. For example, an electron’s de Broglie wave characteristics give key insights into the required physical properties of an electron model. Since this research generates equations for the properties of the quantum vacuum, it is possible use these equations to test whether the model generates the electron’s energy, inertia, electric field and gravitational field. This model generates numerous falsifiable predictions. Some of these predictions can be easily tested. Other predictions require further analysis or experiments.

      Besides the attached paper, there is a second attached PDF titled “Chapter 1 Appendix”. This is reference [19] in the paper. This reference is 2 pages out of a 400 page book. Therefore, it is easier to just attach this for this group. It contains several key calculations which form the basis of the electron model. 

John Macken

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at  <mailto:afokay at gmail.com> afokay at gmail.com
<a href=" <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.natureoflightandparticles.org%2Foptions.cgi%2Fgeneral-natureoflightandparticles.org%2Fafokay%2540gmail.com%3Funsub%3D1%26unsubconfirm%3D1&data=02%7C01%7Cchandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu%7C9bfd975af06a4b431e8d08d6d724b184%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C636932949954095613&sdata=ZDPg%2BPhb5h8inZZ1sKaTLv7HmAvrUBGpFxrlZeCPM9E%3D&reserved=0> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at  <mailto:afokay at gmail.com> afokay at gmail.com
<a href=" <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.natureoflightandparticles.org%2Foptions.cgi%2Fgeneral-natureoflightandparticles.org%2Fafokay%2540gmail.com%3Funsub%3D1%26unsubconfirm%3D1&data=02%7C01%7Cchandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu%7C9bfd975af06a4b431e8d08d6d724b184%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C636932949954105622&sdata=zBH8Z%2F4uANlmGWOb63zjhZ1VqSgKjy8%2FaOeyaqR%2BkW8%3D&reserved=0> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at  <mailto:afokay at gmail.com> afokay at gmail.com
<a href=" <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.natureoflightandparticles.org%2Foptions.cgi%2Fgeneral-natureoflightandparticles.org%2Fafokay%2540gmail.com%3Funsub%3D1%26unsubconfirm%3D1&data=02%7C01%7Cchandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu%7C9bfd975af06a4b431e8d08d6d724b184%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C636932949954105622&sdata=zBH8Z%2F4uANlmGWOb63zjhZ1VqSgKjy8%2FaOeyaqR%2BkW8%3D&reserved=0> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at  <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href=" <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.natureoflightandparticles.org%2Foptions.cgi%2Fgeneral-natureoflightandparticles.org%2Frichgauthier%2540gmail.com%3Funsub%3D1%26unsubconfirm%3D1&data=02%7C01%7Cchandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu%7C9bfd975af06a4b431e8d08d6d724b184%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C636932949954115626&sdata=BuCYJDCYDmtlRExLEpDlCJmSo%2B7OQzQBhaXdLL283Ak%3D&reserved=0> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at afokay at gmail.com <mailto:afokay at gmail.com> 
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1 <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.natureoflightandparticles.org%2Foptions.cgi%2Fgeneral-natureoflightandparticles.org%2Fafokay%2540gmail.com%3Funsub%3D1%26unsubconfirm%3D1&data=02%7C01%7Cchandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu%7C9bfd975af06a4b431e8d08d6d724b184%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C636932949954125634&sdata=H%2FHVg8s0mSc4RLrZMKVY%2FrBjWc9nDrRULyax4w8%2FeyU%3D&reserved=0> &unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at afokay at gmail.com <mailto:afokay at gmail.com> 
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1 <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.natureoflightandparticles.org%2Foptions.cgi%2Fgeneral-natureoflightandparticles.org%2Fafokay%2540gmail.com%3Funsub%3D1%26unsubconfirm%3D1&data=02%7C01%7Cchandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu%7C9bfd975af06a4b431e8d08d6d724b184%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C636932949954125634&sdata=H%2FHVg8s0mSc4RLrZMKVY%2FrBjWc9nDrRULyax4w8%2FeyU%3D&reserved=0> &unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20190512/5e7177ff/attachment.html>