<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Dear Colleages:<div><br></div><div>Summing up my arguments to avoid misinterpretations:<br><br>- Any calculation with QFT gives infinite results. This is something that has been known since the 1930s. The only way to obtain finite results is by cheating mathematics (Renormalization). This is totally illegitimate as Dirac denounced on multiple occasions.<br><br>- QED not only obtains finite results but it obtains some incredibly precise ones. All its prestige is due to its precision of 12 decimal places. My paper shows that this precision is a FRAUD. The calculations are manipulated, secret and cannot be reproduced independently. There is nothing to be saved o fixed in the QED. QED is totally worthless. <br><br>- According to Maxwell's laws, an electrically charged-point-particle has an infinite charge density and therefore an infinite energy. These infinities are what the QED and QFT tried to fix with Renormalization. But in an illegitimate and fraudulent way.<br><br>- My hypothesis is that elementary particles are point-particles and that the infinite energy derived from the infinite charge density is not real, but a deficiency of Maxwell's equations. Therefore, it is necessary to improve Maxwell's equations taking into account the existence of indivisible point charges of charge "e". With Weber's electrodynamics this is possible. Weber's equations are not perfect either, but they point the way that should be followed to improve Maxwell's laws.<br><br>- An alternative hypothesis to this problem is to postulate that elementary particles are extended-particles. But this involves other problems, mainly it is necessary to explain what force holds the parts together and why the charge cannot be divided into fractions of "e".<br></div><div><br></div><div>- To explain other effects such as the compton effect, the spin, the magnetic moment of the electron or the zitterwebegung, my hypothesis is that the electron is a point particle of charge "e" that always moves at the speed of light following a helical path. My hypothesis is that the force that makes the particle rotate in a helical movement is of magnetic origin and forces the particle to move in such a way that always produce a quantizied magnetic flux of value "h/e".<br><br>- The "Vortex electron" model (or "ring electron" or "zitter electron" or "helical electron") is not an original idea of mine but is shared by several dozen researchers before me like Huang, Hestenes, Rivas, Barut, Parson, Allen, Lucas, Gauthier, Vassallo, Burinskii, etc ... with many similutes and many differences between each model.<br><br>- The great contribution of my electron model ("Helical Solenoid") is that the very geometry of the electron trajectory implies a "g-factor" value that affects the magnetic moment of the electron. I have been able to calculate as g = sqrt (1+ alpha / pi) = 1.0011607. This calculation has been highly appreciated by David Hestenes, who has incorporated it into his Zitter Electron model.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Best Wishes,</div><div>Oliver Consa</div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">El lun, 18 oct 2021 a las 21:54, Jarek Duda (<<a href="mailto:dudajar@gmail.com">dudajar@gmail.com</a>>) escribió:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Dear Oliver,</p>
<p>First of all, many of these issues are resolved e.g. in Manfried
Faber model:
<a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012022/pdf" target="_blank">https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012022/pdf</a></p>
<p>1) Charge quantization means that Gauss law can only return
integer charge - what can be realized by making Gauss law
calculate topological charge: by interpreting field curvature as
electric field:</p>
<p><img src="cid:17c9851e3a3eefa7ed01" alt="" width="430" height="49"></p>
<p>2) The problem of infinite energy of electric field of point
charge can be resolved by using Higgs-like potential, allowing for
deformation to finite energy:</p>
<p><img src="cid:17c9851e3a4532f63282" alt="" width="204" height="139"></p>
<p>For example in liquid crystals they experimentally realize this
kind of charge quantization, and long-range e.g. Coulomb
interaction for them:
<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-16200-z" target="_blank">https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-16200-z</a></p>
<p>Experimental example of finite size effect is running coupling -
deformation of alpha in very low distances, what is also seen in
such models.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Your assumption of perfect point charge means that you have this
infinite energy of electric field problem - you would like to
solve with renomalization ... so let me remind some quotes from
your article:</p>
<p><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"><b>Dirac</b>:</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">“I must say that I </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">am very dissatisfied with the
situation because this so-called </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">’good</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">theory’</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">does</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">involve</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">neglecting</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">infinities</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">which</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">ap</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">pear</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">in</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">its</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">equations,</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">ignoring</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">them</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">in</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">an</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">arbitrary</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">way. </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">This is just not sensible mathematics. Sensible
mathematics </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">involves
disregarding a quantity when it is small – not ne</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">glecting it just because it is
infinitely great and you do not </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">want it!.”</span></p>
<p><b>Feynman</b>: <span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">“The shell game
that we play </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">is technically
called ’renormalization’.</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">But no matter how </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">clever
the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">Having to resort to such
hocus-pocus has prevented us from</span><br role="presentation">
<span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">proving</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">that</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">the</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">theory</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">of</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">quantum</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">electrodynamics</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">is </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">mathematically</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">self-consistent.</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">It’s</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">surprising</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">that</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">the </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">theory still
hasn’t been proved self-consistent one way or the </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">other by now;</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">I suspect that renormalization is
not mathe</span><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">matically
legitimate.”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">QFT is constructed by Feynman
ensemble of fields - with your perfect point charges, each field
of such ensemble has infinite energy ... so has their ensemble -
this infinity has to be regularized before quanitzation, and it
is not a problem to do it.<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"><br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">After postulating this perfect
point charge, you assume it being constrained to a solenoid ...
why? What is this solenoid made of?</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">It resembles me these 1D "magnetic
flux tubes/ropes" observed in Sun's corona - also stable, with
helical traveling electrons/ions ...</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">But such electron would have
various masses - not only observed 511keV, but would be
dependent on length of such solenoid - why should it be fixed in
your view?</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">Also if you already have this
point charge, why couldn't it just freely travel - be seen in
experiments as additional charged free particle (not in
solenoid) lighter than electron?</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">(Also: what are 3 leptons?)<br>
</span></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Thanks for suggesting Weber's EM - I have looked at it some time
ago, will take a look again.</p>
<p>Best wishes,<br>
Jarek<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>On 18.10.2021 18:48, oliver consa
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Dear Jarek
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I postulate that the <b>electron is a point-particle </b>("in
the case of the Helical Electron Model, the geometric static
ring is replaced by a dynamic point-like electron. In this
dynamic model, the electron’s ring has no substance or
physical properties. It need not physically exist. It is
simply the path of the CC around the CM.")</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A point-particle cannot be divided, then it is natural for
a point-particle to be a quantum of charge. If you postulate
an extended-particle, then you have to responde two important
questions: (1) Why can't the particle divide? And what force
holds the different parts of the extende-particle together?
poincare stress forces? These questions have a obvious answer
in the case of point-particles, but they have a very difficult
explanation in the case of extended-particles.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On the other hand, point-particles have their own problems.
Mainly infinit-mass-density and infinit-charge-density. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Infinit-mass-density is not a problem in a
dynamic-point-particle model because "The CC has no mass, so
it can have an infinitesimal size
without collapsing into a black hole, and it can move at the
speed of light without violating the theory of relativity. The
electron’s mass is not a single point. Instead, it is
distributed
throughout the electromagnetic field. The electron’s mass
corresponds to the sum of the electron’s kinetic and potential
energy. By symmetry, the CM corresponds to the center
of the electron’s ring.".</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The infinit-charge-density is a more complex problem,
because it imply an infinit electromagnetic energy at that
point. This is just the problem with infinits that QED try to
resolve using illegitime renormalizacion.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My hypothesis is that there is a weak in the Maxwell's
laws. Maxwell discovered its laws before he knew that electric
charge was quantized. There is an alternative to Maxwell's
laws proposed by Weber that allow electromagnetic
point-particles without singularities (<a href="http://www.weberelectrodynamics.com/" target="_blank">http://www.weberelectrodynamics.com/</a>
or <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.10082.pdf" target="_blank">https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.10082.pdf</a>).
Weber's Electrodynamics have their own problems but it shows
the way in which an improved version of Maxwell's laws should
be sought.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best wishes</div>
<div>Oliver Consa</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">El sáb, 16 oct 2021 a las
20:25, Jarek Duda (<<a href="mailto:dudajar@gmail.com" target="_blank">dudajar@gmail.com</a>>)
escribió:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Dear Oliver,</p>
<p>Thank you for the interesting article, great motivation -
I didn't know about it. <br>
</p>
<p>I see you emphasize <span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">Gouanère"A Search for the
de Broglie Particle Internal Clock by Means of Electron
Channeling" electron clock confirmation paper - I also
believe is extremely important.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr"><br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">Regarding your electron
model as toroidal, the g-factor agreement is indeed
spectacular - I will think about it. I am just working
on electron ansatz and it seems to require some spin
precession/nutation.<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">The main initial remarks:</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">- shouldn't such solenoid
have mass density per length? Electron has very concrete
511keV mass, couldn't yours have various? (I rather
reserve such shape e.g. for 3 neutrinos),</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">- the most basic
interaction for electron is Coulomb - how would you like
to get it? Why charge is quantized - e.g. no
half-electron?</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">- there is very strong
experimental confidence that electron is nearly
point-like (some gathered:
<a href="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/397022/experimental-boundaries-for-size-of-electron" target="_blank">https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/397022/experimental-boundaries-for-size-of-electron</a>
) - yours is much more complex, what might be crucial
objection.<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">Best wishes,</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif" role="presentation" dir="ltr">Jarek</span></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>W dniu 16.10.2021 o 19:40, oliver consa pisze:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Dear Alexander,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thank you very much for your interest in this
paper. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
In my paper "Helical Solenoid Model of the Electron" (<a href="http://www.ptep-online.com/2018/PP-53-06.PDF" target="_blank">http://www.ptep-online.com/2018/PP-53-06.PDF</a>),
I proposed an electron model in which the g-factor
appeared as a direct consequence from its geometry.
As a result I got a g-factor value of g = sqrt (1+
alpha / pi) = 1.0011607. This result is consistent
with the Schwinger factor, and it offers a value much
closer to the experimental value.</div>
<div><br>
One criticism I received, is that it was invalid
because the QED predicted a much more accurate result.
From there I tried to understand how the calculation
was carried out in the QED to transfer the ideas to my
model. But to my surprise I found out that all the QED
calculations are bullshit. I kept investigating and
everything I found continued to confirm my suspicions.
In the end I was encouraged to publish this article. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My conclusion is that the quantization of the
electromagnetic field is an incorrect hypothesis that
only leads to infinite results.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best wishes, </div>
<div>Oliver Consa</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">El vie, 15 oct 2021 a
las 9:55, Burinskii A.Ya. (<<a href="mailto:bur@ibrae.ac.ru" target="_blank">bur@ibrae.ac.ru</a>>)
escribió:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Dear Oliver,<br>
<br>
Thank you very much for new version of your article.<br>
It is very interesting, and I expect to cite it in my
further publication.<br>
I am working now for a stringy version of the Dirac
electron as a Kerr-Newman black hole.<br>
What is your opinion about the point that anomalous
magnetic momentum<br>
is result of interaction of the electron with
external em field, and thus,<br>
it is not proper electron's magnetic momentum.<br>
<br>
Best regards, Alexander<br>
<br>
________________________________<br>
От: oliver consa [<a href="mailto:oliver.consa@gmail.com" target="_blank">oliver.consa@gmail.com</a>]<br>
Отправлено: 10 октября 2021 г. 13:06<br>
Кому: oliver consa<br>
Тема: [General] Arxiv paper: Something is wrong in the
state of QED<br>
<br>
<br>
Dear colleague,<br>
<br>
<br>
I am sending you this paper because I am convinced
will be of interest to you:<br>
<br>
<br>
Something is wrong in the state of QED<br>
<br>
<a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.02078" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.02078</a><br>
<br>
<br>
“Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is considered the most
accurate theory in the history of science. However,
this precision is based on a single experimental
value: the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron
(g-factor). An examination of the history of QED
reveals that this value was obtained in a very
suspicious way. These suspicions include the case of
Karplus & Kroll, who admitted to having lied in
their presentation of the most relevant calculation in
the history of QED. As we will demonstrate in this
paper, the Karplus & Kroll affair was not an
isolated case, but one in a long series of errors,
suspicious coincidences, mathematical inconsistencies
and renormalized infinities swept under the rug.”<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
This paper raises important questions about the
validity and legitimacy of the QED. I believe that it
is a topic that deserves a greater diffusion and a
public debate.<br>
<br>
<br>
It is an improved and corrected version of a popular
previous paper published by me on Vixra. The
information has been expanded and corrected, much more
respectful language has been used, and most subjective
interpretations of the facts have been eliminated.<br>
<br>
<br>
I hope you enjoy it<br>
<br>
<br>
Best Wishes,<br>
<br>
Oliver Consa<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from
the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion
List at <a href="mailto:oliver.consa@gmail.com" target="_blank">oliver.consa@gmail.com</a><br>
<a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/oliver.consa%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/oliver.consa%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:dudajar@gmail.com" target="_blank">dudajar@gmail.com</a>
<a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/dudajar%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/dudajar%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre cols="72">--
dr Jarosław Duda
Institute of Computer Science and Computer Mathematics,
Jagiellonian University, Cracow, Poland
<a href="http://th.if.uj.edu.pl/~dudaj/" target="_blank">http://th.if.uj.edu.pl/~dudaj/</a></pre>
</div>
-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Models of particles" group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
it, send an email to <a href="mailto:models-of-particles+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">models-of-particles+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/models-of-particles/c4c25e4b-66c5-4da5-a84f-1e4127eaa1c9%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer" target="_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/models-of-particles/c4c25e4b-66c5-4da5-a84f-1e4127eaa1c9%40gmail.com</a>.<br>
For more options, visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/optout" target="_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<pre cols="72">--
dr Jarosław Duda
Institute of Computer Science and Computer Mathematics,
Jagiellonian University, Cracow, Poland
<a href="http://th.if.uj.edu.pl/~dudaj/" target="_blank">http://th.if.uj.edu.pl/~dudaj/</a></pre>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div>