> Il 13 luglio 2018 alle 20.55 [email protected] ha scritto: > > > > On Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 8:24:32 AM UTC-6, scerir wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Il 12 luglio 2018 alle 3.57 [email protected] ha > > scritto: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 11:23:55 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Il 11 luglio 2018 alle 0.01 > > > > [email protected] ha scritto: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 11:55:45 PM UTC-6, > > > > > scerir wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Il 9 luglio 2018 alle > > > > > > 22.46 [email protected] ha scritto: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 4:48:51 > > > > > > > PM UTC-6, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at > > > > > > > > 12:19:23 PM UTC-6, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 6, 2018 > > > > > > > > > at 1:56:12 PM UTC-6, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 6, > > > > > > > > > > 2018 at 1:22:03 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/6/2018 > > > > > > > > > > > 11:44 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 5:14:34 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/5/2018 3:55 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 2:03:46 PM UTC-6, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brent wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/5/2018 11:27 AM, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 10:57:06 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/4/2018 1:57 AM, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the superposition of states is wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although I have asked several times, no > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one here seems able to offer a plausible > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > justification for interpreting that a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > system in a superposition of states, is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > physically in all states of the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > superposition SIMULTANEOUSLY before the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > system is measured. If we go back to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those little pointing things, you will > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > see there exists an infinite uncountable > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set of basis vectors for any vector in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that linear vector space. For quantum > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > systems, there is no unique basis, and in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > many cases also infinitely many bases, So > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO, the interpretation is not justified. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ***SIMULTANEOUSLY*** was used by EPR in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > their paper, but that did not have much > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaning (operationally, physically). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can we say that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the observable, in a superposition state, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has a ***DEFINITE*** value between two > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > measurements? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No - in general > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - we cannot say that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in some definite state. But it may be a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > state for which we have no measurement > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operator or don't intend to measure; so we > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say it is in a superposition, meaning a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > superposition of the eigenstates we're > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > going to measure. So it does not have one > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the eigenvalues of our measurement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So for the radioactive source, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the superposed state, Decayed + Undecayed, does > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NOT imply the system is in both states > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > simultaneously? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it is in a state that consists of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Decayed+Undecayed. So in a sense it is in both > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > simulatnaeously. If you are sailing a heading > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of 45deg you are on a definite heading. But > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are simultaneously traveling North and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > East. And if someone was watching you with a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > radar that could only output "moving north" or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "moving east" it would oscillate between the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > two and you might call that a superposition of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > north and east motion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see. But as I have pointed out, there are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uncountably many sets of basis vectors that result > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the same vector along the 45 deg direction. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus, it makes no sense to single out a particular > > > > > > > > > > > > > > basis and claim it is simultaneously in both. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's where you're > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrong. It makes perfect sense if that's the only > > > > > > > > > > > > > > basis you can measure in. That's why I gave the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hypothetical example of a radar that could only > > > > > > > > > > > > > > report motion as northward or eastward. In some > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cases, like decayed our not-decayed, we don't have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > instruments to measure the superposition state. In > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other cases like sliver atom spin we can measure > > > > > > > > > > > > > > up/down or left/right or along any other axis. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ISTM, this is the > > > > > > > > > > > > > cause of many of the apparent paradoxes in QM such as > > > > > > > > > > > > > Schroedinger's cat, or a radioactive source which is > > > > > > > > > > > > > decayed and undecayed simultaneously. I have no > > > > > > > > > > > > > objection using such a state to do a calculation, but > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it's an error to further interpret a > > > > > > > > > > > > > superposition in terms of simultaneity of component > > > > > > > > > > > > > states. What say you? AG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I say use what's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > convenient for calculation. Don't imagine your > > > > > > > > > > > > > > calculation is the reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the > > > > > > > > > > > > consensus, perhaps unstated or subliminally, is that > > > > > > > > > > > > the superposition is imagined as reality, which leads > > > > > > > > > > > > to cats and radioactive sources being (respectively) > > > > > > > > > > > > alive and dead, and decayed and undecayed, > > > > > > > > > > > > simultaneously. Isn't this what Schroedinger was > > > > > > > > > > > > arguing against? I have rarely, if ever, seen it argued > > > > > > > > > > > > NOT to interpret a superposition as reality as a > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed solution to these apparent paradoxes. AG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You just go around and around. You never put together > > > > > > > > > > > > the explanations you get. Decoherence shows that, in > > > > > > > > > > > > the presence of an environment, the wave function FAPP > > > > > > > > > > > > collapses into orthogonal quasi-classical states in > > > > > > > > > > > > fractions of a nano-second. That's why the > > > > > > > > > > > > Schroedinger cat story doesn't show what Schroedinger > > > > > > > > > > > > thought it did. BUT there are experiments, like silver > > > > > > > > > > > > atoms thru and SG in which superpositions of left+right > > > > > > > > > > > > persist, they are up polarizations for example; and we > > > > > > > > > > > > know they exist because we can prepare up states and > > > > > > > > > > > > then measure them left/right or measure them up/down. > > > > > > > > > > > > The latter, up/down measurement, would always yield > > > > > > > > > > > > "up" showing they were in an up eigenstate, even though > > > > > > > > > > > > they were also in a left+right superposition. But > > > > > > > > > > > > there are other cases where we can't measure the > > > > > > > > > > > > eigenstate (e.g. neutrino family) so we always describe > > > > > > > > > > > > them as being in a superposition because the eigenstate > > > > > > > > > > > > is operationally unmeasurable and we can't prepare them > > > > > > > > > > > > in an eigenstate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You also go round > > > > > > > > > > and round without answering a key question about > > > > > > > > > > decoherence theory. You refer to the infinitesimally short > > > > > > > > > > decoherence time of, say, the apparatus, but ISTM it has > > > > > > > > > > already decohered way before it is employed in any > > > > > > > > > > experiment. What then is the reasoning for including the > > > > > > > > > > apparatus in the superposition for the entire system, and > > > > > > > > > > claiming this wf represents the total system before any > > > > > > > > > > environmental interaction? BTW, what is a right + left > > > > > > > > > > superposition in SG measurement, and how is it relevant to > > > > > > > > > > this discussion? TIA, AG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (My computer is > > > > > > > > > > being repaired, so I have limited library time for possibly > > > > > > > > > > a week or more. This means I will have to study some of > > > > > > > > > > your examples later before possibly responding.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thinking about this some > > > > > > > > > more, I agree that if one measures in a particular basis, it > > > > > > > > > is natural to express the wf of the system in a superposition > > > > > > > > > of this basis. However, where I disagree with your analysis > > > > > > > > > is that one doesn't need decoherence theory to resolve > > > > > > > > > Schroedinger's apparent cat paradox. This is because > > > > > > > > > regardless of the natural basis used, there is nothing in QM > > > > > > > > > to allow, or compel us to interpret the superposition as > > > > > > > > > meaning the system is simultaneously in all component states > > > > > > > > > (which interpretation seems to produce an alleged paradox). > > > > > > > > > Moreover, although we cannot measure in other bases, the wf > > > > > > > > > can nevertheless be expressed in other bases, and sometimes > > > > > > > > > the set of bases is uncountable, again casting doubt on the > > > > > > > > > legitimacy of interpreting the superposition in terms of > > > > > > > > > simultaneity of component states. Do you agree or disagree? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, when doing an SG > > > > > > > > > spin measurement, I don't see that right-left is well defined > > > > > > > > > for a well-defined Up / Dn measurement. I also don't see why > > > > > > > > > the system is assumed to be in a superposition of right + > > > > > > > > > left, or why it persists after the measurement, or in what > > > > > > > > > way these facts -- if they are facts -- is in any way > > > > > > > > > enlightening. I would appreciate your comments on these > > > > > > > > > issues. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TIA, AG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From Wiki; > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The principle of quantum > > > > > > > > superposition states that if a physical system may be in one of > > > > > > > > many configurations—arrangements of particles or fields—then > > > > > > > > the most general state is a combination of all of these > > > > > > > > possibilities, where the amount in each configuration is > > > > > > > > specified by a complex number > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, if there are two > > > > > > > > configurations labelled by 0 and 1, the most general state > > > > > > > > would be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A|Up> + B|Dn> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where the coefficients A and B > > > > > > > > are complex numbers describing how much goes into each > > > > > > > > configuration. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The principle was described by > > > > > > > > Paul Dirac https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The general principle of > > > > > > > > > superposition of quantum mechanics applies to the states > > > > > > > > > [that are theoretically possible without mutual interference > > > > > > > > > or contradiction] ... of any one dynamical system. It > > > > > > > > > requires us to assume that between these states there exist > > > > > > > > > peculiar relationships such that whenever the system is > > > > > > > > > definitely in one state we can consider it as being partly in > > > > > > > > > each of two or more other states. The original state must be > > > > > > > > > regarded as the result of a kind of superposition of the two > > > > > > > > > or more new states, in a way that cannot be conceived on > > > > > > > > > classical ideas. Any state may be considered as the result of > > > > > > > > > a superposition of two or more other states, and indeed in an > > > > > > > > > infinite number of ways. Conversely any two or more states > > > > > > > > > may be superposed to give a new state... (underlining my > > > > > > > > > emphasis) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO, he's mistaken. There's no > > > > > > > > need for the underlined assumption. If anyone here disagrees, > > > > > > > > please offer your *argument*. TIA, AG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cat got your tongue Brent? Bruce out > > > > > > > to lunch? No genuine seekers of truth here? What's the rationale > > > > > > > for Dirac's claim? I am all ears. AG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "The non-classical nature of the > > > > > > superposition process is brought out clearly if we consider the > > > > > > superposition of two states, A and B, such that there exists an > > > > > > observation which, when made on the system in state A, is certain > > > > > > to lead to one particular result, a say, and when made on the > > > > > > system in state B is certain to lead to some different result, b > > > > > > say. What will be the result of the observation when made on the > > > > > > system in the superposed state? The answer is that the result will > > > > > > be sometimes a and sometimes b, according to a probability law > > > > > > depending on the relative weights of A and B in the superposition > > > > > > process. It will never be different from both a and b. The > > > > > > intermediate character of the state formed by superposition thus > > > > > > expresses itself through the probability of a particular result for > > > > > > an observation being intermediate between the corresponding > > > > > > probabilities for the original states, not through the result > > > > > > itself being intermediate between the corresponding results for the > > > > > > original states. (PAM Dirac, The Principles ......, second edition, > > > > > > 1947, page 12 ). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IIRC, the above quote is also in the Wiki > > > > > article. It's not a coherent argument; not even an argument but an > > > > > ASSERTION. Let's raise the level of discourse. It says we always get > > > > > a or b, no intermediate result when the system is in a superposition > > > > > of states A and B. Nothing new here. Key question: why does this > > > > > imply the system is in states A and B SIMULTANEOUSLY before the > > > > > measurement? AG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us imagine the system is in state A or in state B > > > > before measurement. Would that be consistent with outcomes of > > > > experiments? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not exactly clear what Dirac means by states A and B. I > > > think he means the Up/Dn states of a spin measurement. Generally, If A > > > and B are eigenstates of the operator whose observable is being measured, > > > the system will remain in those eigenstates after measurement. OTOH, if A > > > or B are superpositions of other states, the system will be some > > > eigenstate after the measurement, possibly A or B if they are eigenstates > > > of the operator being measured. AG > > > > > > > > > > Somenthing useful maybe here: > > > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/nkly114dpabfy1t/quantum.pdf > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/nkly114dpabfy1t/quantum.pdf > > > > > > I'll check it out. In the meantime, why don't you tell us, in your own > words, why you believe (if you do), that a system in a superposition of > states is interpreted to be in all component states simultaneously, given the > non-uniqueness of bases? In particular, for a radioactive source, why do you > believe (if you do), that the system is in the Decayed and Undecayed states > simultaneously, prior to measurement, given the non-uniqueness of bases? Why > is this interpretation of the superposition of states a requirement, or > necessity, of quantum theory. As I have repeatedly stated, I believe this is > the error which has led to much of the nonsense which is alleged to follow > from quantum theory, inclusive of the MWI. TIA, AG >
"The compulsion to replace the "simultaneous* happenings, as indicated directly by the theory, by *alternatives*, of which the theory is supposed to indicate the respective *probabilities*, arises from the conviction that what we really observe are particles - that actual events always concern particles, not waves." -Erwin Schroedinger > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us imagine the state of system is a mixture of A > > > > and B. Would that be consistent with outcomes of experiments? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A mixture isn't a superposition, so your question doesn't > > > seem relevant to my issue here; namely, the proper interpretation of a > > > superposition of states. AG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Same for cat, Alive + Dead? Same for ( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Undecayed, Alive) + (Decayed, Dead) ) for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Schroedinger's composite system? If that's the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case, why would anyone think these states are in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any way paradoxical or contradictory? AG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You received this message > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Everything List" group. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > email to [email protected]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To post to this group, send > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > email to [email protected]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Visit this group at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For more options, visit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/optout > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/optout . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You received this message because you are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop > > > > > > > > > > > > > > receiving emails from it, send an email to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To post to this group, send email to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Visit this group at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For more options, visit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/optout > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/optout . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > You > > > > > > > > > > > > received this message because you are subscribed to the > > > > > > > > > > > > Google Groups "Everything List" group. > > > > > > > > > > > > To > > > > > > > > > > > > unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails > > > > > > > > > > > > from it, send an email to > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]. > > > > > > > > > > > > To post > > > > > > > > > > > > to this group, send email to > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]. > > > > > > > > > > > > Visit > > > > > > > > > > > > this group at > > > > > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > > > > > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list . > > > > > > > > > > > > For > > > > > > > > > > > > more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > > > > > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/optout . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > You received this message because you > > > > > > > are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group and > > > > > > > stop receiving emails from it, send an email to > > > > > > > [email protected]. > > > > > > > To post to this group, send email to > > > > > > > [email protected]. > > > > > > > Visit this group at > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list . > > > > > > > For more options, visit > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/optout > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/optout . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > You received this message because you are > > > > > subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving > > > > > emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. > > > > > To post to this group, send email to > > > > > [email protected]. > > > > > Visit this group at > > > > > https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > > > > > https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list . > > > > > For more options, visit > > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/optout https://groups.google.com/d/optout > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > > > Google Groups "Everything List" group. > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from > > > it, send an email to [email protected]. > > > To post to this group, send email to > > > [email protected]. > > > Visit this group at > > > https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > > > https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list . > > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > > > https://groups.google.com/d/optout . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > mailto:[email protected] . > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > mailto:[email protected] . > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
