<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">Albrecht: <o:p>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">Thanks for your critical questions. I will try to answer to the extent I am capable of. They are within your email text below.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369"> However, I am of the general opinion that Physics has advanced enough to give us the confidence that generally speaking, we have been heading in the right direction – the laws of natural
evolution are universally causal in action and are independent of the existence or non-existence of any particular species, including human species.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369"> History has also demonstrated (Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific revolutions) that all working theories eventually yield to newer theories based upon constructing better fundamental postulates
using better and broad-based precision data. So, this century is destined to enhance all the foundational postulates behind most working theories and integrate them into a better theory with much less “hotchpotch” postulates like “wave particle-duality”, “entanglement”,
“action at a distance”, etc., etc. Our community should agree and stop the time-wasting philosophical debates like, “Whether the moon EXISTS when I am not looking for it!” Would you waste your time writing a counter poem, if I write, “The moon is a dusty ball
of Swiss cheese”? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">In summary, leveraging the evolutionary power of self-introspection, human observers will have to learn to CONSCIOUSLY direct further evolution of their own mind out of its current trap
of biologically evolved neural logics towards pure logic of dispassionate observers who do not influence the outcome of experimental observations!</span></i></b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369"> Let us not waste any more of our valuable time reading
and re-reading the inconclusive Bohr-Einstein debates. We are not smarter than them; but we have a lot more observational data to structure our logical thinking than they had access to during their life time. So, lets respectfully jump up on the concept-shoulders
of these giants, a la Newton, and try to increase our Knowledge Horizon. Bowing down our head at their feet will only reduce our Knowledge Horizon.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"> General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, July 28, 2017 11:55 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>Chandra,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>you have written here a lot of good and true considerations; with most of them I can agree. However two comments from my view:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>1.) The speed of light: <br>
The speed of light when <i>measured in vacuum </i>shows always a constant value. Einstein has taken this result as a fact in so far that the real speed of light is constant.
<span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">[Sorry there are no perfect vacuum in space, or on earth. Even a few atoms per 100-Lamda-cubed volume defines an effective refractive index for light in that volume. The outer space is a bit more rarer.]
</span>However if we follow the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity then only the
<i>measured </i>c is constant. It looks constant because, if the measurement equipment is in motion, the instruments change their indications so that the result shows the known constant value. - I personally follow the Lorentzian relativity because in this
version the relativistic phenomena can be deduced from known physical behaviour<span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">.[I am more comfortable with Lorentzian logics than Einsteinian. However, I do not consider this thinking will remain intact as our
understanding evolves further. </span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">]</span><span style="color:windowtext"> So, it is true physics</span><span style="color:#6B2369">.</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">[Sorry, I do not believe
that we will ever have access to a final (“true”) physics theory! We will always have to keep on iterating the postulates and the corresponding theories to make them evolve as our mind evolves out of biological-survival-logics towards impartial-observer-logics.]</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>There is a different understanding of what Wolf thinks. He has in the preceding discussion here given an equation, according to which the speed of light can go up to infinity. This is to my knowledge in conflict with any measurement.<span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">
[I agree with you. All equations for propagating wave tell us that the speed is determined by the intrinsic physical tension properties of the corresponding mother “field”. I have not found acceptable logic to support infinite speed for propagating waves.]</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>2) The quantisation of light:<br>
This was also discussed repeatedly here in these mails. And I have (also) repeatedly referred to my PhD experiment, which was Compton scattering at protons<span style="color:#6B2369">.</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">[There are number of
papers that explain Compton Effect using semi classical theory, using X-rays as classical wave packets. De Broglie got his Nobel based on his short PhD thesis proposing “Pilot Wave” for electron diffraction phenomenon along with “Lambda= “h/p”. I happened
to have proposed particles as localized harmonic oscillators with characteristic “Kinetic Frequency”, rather than wavelength (See Ch.11 of my “Causal Physics” book). This explains particle diffraction without the need of “wave particle duality”. I have separately
published paper modeling, using spectrometric data, that QM predicted photon is a transient photon at the moment of emission with energy “hv”. Then it quickly evolves into a quasi-exponential wave packet with a carrier frequency “v”. This bridges the gap between
the QM predictions and all the successes of the classical HF integral. ]</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#7030A0"> </span> An electron of defined energy was converted into a photon. The photon was scattered at a proton at extreme small angles (so
almost no influence) and then re-converted into an electron-positron pair. This pair was measured and it reproduced quite exactly (by better than 2 percent) the energy of the originals electron. This was repeated for electrons of different energies. - I do
not see any explanation for this process without the assumption that there was a photon (i.e. a quantum) of a well defined energy, not a light wave.
<span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">[Albrecht, with my limited brain-time, I do not understand , nor can I dare to explain away everything. But, remember, that literally, millions of optical engineers for two centuries, have been using Huygens-Fresnel’s
classical diffraction integral to explain many dozens of optical phenomena and to design and construct innumerable optical instruments (spectroscopes, microscopes, telescopes (including grazing angle X-ray telescope), etc. QM has never succeeded in giving
us any simple integral equivalent to HF-integral. That is why all these millions of optical scientists and engineers give only “lip service” to the photon concept and happily and successfully keep on using the HF integral! My prediction is that this will remain
so for quite a while into the future.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">Let us recall that neither Newtonian, nor Einsteinian Gravity can predict the measured distribution of velocities of stars against the radial distance in hundreds of galaxies; even though they are excellent within
our solar system. However, Huygens postulate (Newton’s contemporary) of wave propagation model of leveraging some tension field still lives-on remarkably well. This significance should be noted by particle physicists!].</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>How does this fit into your understanding?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Best wishes<br>
Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>PS: Can I find your book "Causal Physics" online?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 26.07.2017 um 18:52 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Wolf: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">You have said it well:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>“Concentrating on finding the mechanisms of connection between the Hallucination and the reality is my approach. I think the constant speed of light assumption is one of the first pillars that must fall. If there is such a constant it
should in my opinion be interpreted as the speed of Now…”. </i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes, “constant c” is a fundamentally flawed postulate by the theoretician Einstein, so fond of “Gedanken Experiments”. Unfortunately, one can cook up wide varieties of logically self-consistent mathematical theories and then match them
up with “Gedanken” experiments! We know that in the real world, we know that the velocity of light is dictated by both the medium and the velocity of the medium. Apparently, Einstein’s “Gedanken Experiment” of riding the crest of a light wave inspired him
to construct SRT and sold all the mathematical physicists that nature if 4-diemsional. Out of the “Messiah Complex”, we now believe that the universe could be 5, or, 7, or 11, or, 13, …. dimensional system where many of the dimensions are “folded in” !!!!
By the way, running time is not a measurable physical parameter. We can contract or dilate frequency of diverse oscillators, using proper physical influence, not the running time. Frequency of oscillators help us measure a period (or time interval).
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Wise human thinkers have recognized this “Hallucination” problem from ancient times, which are obvious (i) from Asian perspective of how five blinds can collaborate to construct a reasonable model of the Cosmic Elephant and then keep on
iterating the model ad infinitum, or (ii) Western perspective of “shadows of external objects projected inside a cave wall”. Unfortunately, we become “groupies” of our contemporary “messiahs” to survive economically and feel “belonging to the sociaety”. The
result is the current sad state of moribund physics thinking. Fortunately, many people have started challenging this moribund status quo with papers, books, and web forums.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, I see well-recognizable renaissance in physics coming within a few decades! Yes, it will take time. Einstein’s “indivisible quanta” of 1905 still dominates our vocabulary; even though no optical engineer ever try to propagate an “indivisible
quanta”; they always propagate light waves. Unfortunately, they propagate Fourier monochromatic modes that neither exits in nature; nor is a causal signal. [I have been trying to correct this fundamental confusion through my book, “Causal Physics”.]<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Coming back to our methodology of thinking, I have defined an iterative approach in the Ch.12 of the above book. I have now generalized the approach by anchoring our sustainable evolution to remain anchored with the reality of nature! “Urgency
of Evolution Process Congruent Thinking” [see attached].<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">However, one can immediately bring a challenge. If all our interpretations are cooked up by our neural network for survival; then who has the authority to define objective reality? Everybody, but collaboratively, like modeling the “Cosmic
Elephant”.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Let us realize the fact that the seeing “color” is an interpretation by the brain. It is a complete figment of our neuro-genetic interpretation! That is why none of us will succeed in quantitatively defining the subtlety of color variation
of any magnificent color painting without a quantitative spectrometer. The “color” is not an objective parameter; but the frequency is (not wavelength, though!). One can now recognize the subtle difference, from seeing “color”, to
<b><i>quantifying energy content per frequency interval.</i></b> This is “objective” science determined by instruments without a “mind”, which is reproducible outside of human interpretations.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And, we have already mastered this technology quite a bit. The biosphere exists. It has been nurturing biological lives for over 3.5 billion years without the intervention of humans. We are a very late product of this evolution. This is
an objective recognition on our part! Our, successful evolution needed “instantaneous color” recognition to survive for our day-to-day living in our earlier stage. We have now overcome our survival mode as a species. And we now have become a pest in the biosphere,
instead of becoming the caretaker of it for our own long-term future. <b><i>This is the sad break in our wisdom.</i></b> This is why I am promoting the concept, “Urgency of Evolution Process Congruent Thinking”. This approach helps generate a common, but perpetually
evolving thinking platform for all thinkers, whether working to understand Nature’s Engineering (Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc.) or, to carry out our Social Engineering (Economics, Politics, Religions, etc.).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b>On
Behalf Of </b>Wolfgang Baer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 26, 2017 12:40 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Chandra:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Unfortunately the TED talk does not work on my machine but the transcript is available and Anl Seth states what many people studying the human psyche as well as eastern philosophy have said for centuries , Yes we are Hallucinating reality and our physics
is built upon that hallucination, but it works so well, or does it? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>However as Don Hoffmancognitive scientist UC Irvine contends <a href="https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as_it_is">
https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as_it_is</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>What we see is like the icons on a computer screen, a file icon may only be a symbol of what is real on the disk, but these icons as well as the "hallucinations" are connected to some reality and we must take them seriously. Deleting the icon also deletes
the disk which may have disastrous consequences.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>For our discussion group it means we can take Albrechts route and try to understand the universe and photons first based upon the idea that it is independently real and then solve the human consciousness problem or we can take the opposite approach and rebuild
a physics without the independent physical reality assumption and see if we cannot build out a truly macroscopic quantum theory. Concentrating on finding the mechanisms of connection between the Hallucination and the reality is my approach. I think the constant
speed of light assumption is one of the first pillars that must fall. If there is such a constant it should in my opinion be interpreted as the speed of Now , a property we individually apply to all our observations.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>best<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Wolf<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Research Director<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 7/23/2017 2:44 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Dear colleagues:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Lately there has been continuing discussion on the role of observer and the reality. I view that to be healthy.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">We must guide ourselves to understand and model the universe without human mind shaping the cosmic system and its working rules. This suggestion comes from the fact that our own logic puts the universe to
be at least 13 billion years old, while we, in the human form, have started evolving barely 5 million years ago (give or take).
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">However, we are not smart enough to determine a well-defined and decisive path, as yet. Our search must accommodate perpetual iteration of thinking strategy as we keep on advancing. This is well justified
in the following TED-talk. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Enjoy:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><a href="https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2017-07-22&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=talk_of_the_week_image">https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2017-07-22&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=talk_of_the_week_image</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D">Chandra.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<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"</a>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<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"</a>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="1" cellspacing="3" cellpadding="0" style="border:none;border-top:solid #D3D4DE 1.0pt">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="57" style="width:41.25pt;border:none;padding:13.5pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration:none"><img border="0" width="46" height="29" style="width:.4791in;height:.3055in" id="_x0000_i1025" src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td width="415" style="width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:12.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:13.5pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#41424E">Virenfrei.
<a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank">
<span style="color:#4453EA">www.avast.com</span></a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>