<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">
<!--
p
{margin-top:0;
margin-bottom:0}
-->
P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
</head>
<body ocsi="0" fpstyle="1">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma; color:#000000; font-size:10pt"><style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"MS ??";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:128;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:fixed;
mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-1593833729 1073750107 16 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-520082689 -1073717157 41 0 66047 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS ??";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS ??";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:35.4pt;
mso-footer-margin:35.4pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}</style>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">Replies ....</span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%">
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">
General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of af.kracklauer@web.de [af.kracklauer@web.de]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, November 15, 2015 4:25 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<br>
<b>Cc:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] SU(2) equation set</span><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Hi Chip:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">In my view, both photons and waves are imaginary constructs to assist
thinking about E&M interactions, which in the final analysis is described by the sum of all Gaussian 1/r˛ interactions (with delay, i.e., the Lenard-Wichert potentials, etc.). The Gaussian comes closest to what the interaction actually IS (as onta, not virtual
or represntational or ....). The idea that light is quantized comes from the fact that it is observed exclusively with one or another version of the photoelectric effect made up of countable electrons. Fields,
<i>per se</i>, are never seen, just the resulting photo current</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:blue;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">You
keep saying this Al, but I think it is just not true. Currents can produce field and (changing) field a current. It is not one or the other, but both. Sure one can describe a lot as a mere potential, with delay- but it is severely limited description The
"delay" is not magic, but a function of the field propagation rate (the speed of light - the propagation rate of pure fields).<br>
<br>
Take two magnets. Feel the force. . photocurrents? One is talking properly about small modifications of a quantum solution -no single emitted electrons!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:blue;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"><br>
Sit on the chair: field chair v field pants. Photocurrents? <br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:blue;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:blue;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">Set up a standing wave EM cavity. One can measure the fields – obviously.
Just with a magnet or the hairs on the back of your hand. Photocurrents?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:blue;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:blue;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">Ok I agree one can look at the “current” interaction. But that presumes
one knows what a “current” is. Not a good onta!<br>
<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><br>
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><br>
Spin (angular momentum) for light is no problem, it is a multibody effect from the timing of various oscillations in the transverse direction. [I think spin in a photon is actually never seen for a single photo electron detection, but is deduced statistically
from multiple measurements of multibody processes. If anybody thinks they know better, please quote me chapter and verse regarding the experimental observation method.]</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:blue;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:blue;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">Ok – single photon emission from atoms – any chemistry textbook – strongest
lines – one unit of angular momentum. Likewise absorption spectroscopy – one photon at a time.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:blue;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:blue;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">Also positronium decay. Two photons short, three photons long. Explanation.
Spin 1 photons and QED. Any HEP textbook. Please explain how “multibody effects” achieve this this. Chapter and verse.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Wave ideas come from Fourier analysis. Each so-called wave is actually
just one Fourier component---often the largest one, the others being considered noise, etc. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:blue;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">Nope, one can have perfectly good waves with more than one fourier component.
For example that of a pure note on a flute (two). Fourier analysis is an interesting human concept, but not the fundamental basis of wave motion. … Sorry – as you say below as well…</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:blue;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">The real sginal is, again, the sum of the Gaussian interactions for
all charges in the sending device (antenna) with all charges in the receiving device (antenna). All Fourier componets are unreal, just aids for calculation. This is an old, historical debate brougt up as criticism of Fourier. Namely, the components of a
short time pulse extend from -inf. to +inf, and it was arguend that, if real, they would telegraph today tomorrows news! But not just tomorrow, for all time!! Eventually it was concluded that, only the sum is real, all components are fictitous.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:blue;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">It may,indeed, be described as such at some level- but the quantum-mechanics
of the process is simply not encompassed by the formalism. For me better onta than charges, magic delays and 4-potentials are space and time and root-energy. These lead, for me to the (4) potentials AND the fields – both from a deeper level. I do not think
one is ever going to “get” fields properly by presuming they are really just arising from point charges. Perhaps I am wrong, but<a name="_GoBack"></a> that is a personal choice.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Counter arguments welcome. I will be delighted if I hear a new one!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:blue;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:blue;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">I cannot imagine my arguments above were new to you!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Best regards, Al</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:blue;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">Cheers, John.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:
Times" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<div style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#000000; font-size:16px">
<div>
<div style="font-family:Verdana; font-size:12.0px">
<div>
<div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px; padding:10px 0 10px 10px; border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5; word-wrap:break-word">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0"><b>Gesendet:</b> Sonntag, 15. November 2015 um 13:22 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Chip Akins" <chipakins@gmail.com><br>
<b>An:</b> "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'" <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] SU(2) equation set</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Hi Al</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">This idea of modeling the electron from a photon when we know so little about light and whether photons are real, or just illusions caused by the quantization of matter, has troubled me too.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">When we model the electron in this manner, it winds up (eventually) defining a thing called a photon. This seems to always happen because the quantization we observe in the energy of the electron “spills over”
into our understanding of what the nature of propagating energy (light) must be. Spin angular momentum, it seems, MUST also be due to a form of confinement. The same set of balanced forces which cause spin angular momentum would have to also cause a form of
quantization and “localization”. And when we create equations, much as John W has done, to describe a condition in which this spin angular momentum is created for the electron, it means that the rules we suggest to describe the observed properties of the
electron also have an impact on the way light behaves.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">For some time I had been of the opinion that it is possible that light is simply continuous radiation. In some ways I would be delighted if we found that is the case. However it now seems to me that there simply
has to be a form of quantization in order for light to display any spin angular momentum. So in my personal view I am back to considering the “photon” to actually be a quantized energy form (no matter how distasteful that is to me).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Thoughts?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Chip</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none; border-top:solid rgb(225,225,225) 1.0pt; padding:3.0pt 0.0in 0.0in 0.0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:Calibri ,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:Calibri ,sans-serif"> General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>af.kracklauer@web.de<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, November 15, 2015 2:29 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; pete@leathergoth.com; david williamson <david.williamson@ed.ac.uk>; Nicholas Bailey <Nicholas.Bailey@glasgow.ac.uk>; Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark@philips.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] SU(2) equation set</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana ,sans-serif">Hi John:</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana ,sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana ,sans-serif">Some mothers are more erudite than others. But, erudite mothers matter too!</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana ,sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana ,sans-serif">Much of what I see in your papers tickles memories of things I once knew rather well regarding differential manifolds, diffential forms, Clifford algebras, etc. dF=0, for example,
written as d˛A=0 says that A is an exact form, which gives it lots of nice propeties---and so on and so forth. This is all very nice, but your terminology appears to me to be distinct from that in math/phys lit on the matter. </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana ,sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana ,sans-serif">Do you have a paper somewhere that makes the comparison? Can you start your story in the histrocially conventional notation and then carefully introduce your specaializations
so that the known maths consequences of what you'r about can just be looked up rather than rediscovered? </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana ,sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana ,sans-serif">Likewise, there are giant software packages for Clifford algebra applications in existence. While not at all easy to jump in and use them, it is still much easier than redoing
the whole thing.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana ,sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana ,sans-serif">BTW, as one who holds that photons do not exist (just photo electrons) I have grave indigestion over the idea of modeling the electron on the photon! Seems it ought be the
other way around; there is credible empirical evidence for the existence of electrons, where as there is none for photons (distinguished from photo electons!).</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana ,sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana ,sans-serif">ciao, Al</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana ,sans-serif">
</span></p>
<div style="border:none; border-left:solid rgb(195,217,229) 1.5pt; padding:0.0in 0.0in 0.0in 8.0pt; margin-left:7.5pt; margin-top:7.5pt; margin-right:3.75pt; margin-bottom:3.75pt">
<div style="margin-bottom:7.5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana ,sans-serif">Gesendet:</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana ,sans-serif"> Sonntag, 15. November 2015 um 05:20 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "John Williamson" <<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>><br>
<b>An:</b> "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>>, "david williamson" <<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">david.williamson@ed.ac.uk</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> "<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">pete@leathergoth.com</a>" <<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">pete@leathergoth.com</a>>, "Mark, Martin van der" <<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a>>,
"Nicholas Bailey" <<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">Nicholas.Bailey@glasgow.ac.uk</a>><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] SU(2) equation set</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Hello everyone,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Yes Al – I could not agree more. We can do better though, as I have said before. I always say to others that, if one truly understands anything, one should be able to explain it at any level. Mums are important!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Verdana ,sans-serif">to
unsubscribe</span></a></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer@web.de
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">
Click here to unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>