Re: [Vo]:Link between em and qm
I would probably like to reconsider and reformulate this in hindsight On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 9:20 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com < bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Only 2 POINTS ON A SPHERICAL SURFACE CAN HAVE THE SAME VECTOR DIRECTION > AND HENCE THE SAME VELLOICTRY, 0 velocity is not considered. One would > assume the same corrodent system for velocity defines the spherical surface > and its points. The 2 points would lie on a line that runs through the > center of the spherical surface at the surface. > > > > > > The statement assumes that the tenants of solid geometry apply to real > spcce > > > > Bob cook > > - > > > > *From: *Jürg Wyttenbach > *Sent: *Saturday, May 6, 2023 11:00 AM > *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Link between em and qm > > > > Stefan > > There is no such thing as a common velocity for 3 different points on a > sphere except for one axes angular motion (w instead of v) > > > J.W. > > On 06.05.2023 15:33, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: > > I think the following paper illustrate an avenue to find the > > connection between EM and QM now take this link and explain Aspects > > experiment... How come we can define a normal 2000 century model and > > end up with no determinism and whatnot strangities. > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/14G9U_Iee4jsppn0Rcp4A5BBrGDRkR5tC/view?usp=drivesdk > > > > I will blog in easier to understand format later. But really it's not > > a difficult stude, which is a good thing in my mind. > > -- > Jürg Wyttenbach > Bifangstr. 22 > 8910 Affoltern am Albis > > +41 44 760 14 18 > +41 79 246 36 06 > > >
RE: [Vo]:Link between em and qm
Only 2 POINTS ON A SPHERICAL SURFACE CAN HAVE THE SAME VECTOR DIRECTION AND HENCE THE SAME VELLOICTRY, 0 velocity is not considered. One would assume the same corrodent system for velocity defines the spherical surface and its points. The 2 points would lie on a line that runs through the center of the spherical surface at the surface. The statement assumes that the tenants of solid geometry apply to real spcce Bob cook - From: Jürg Wyttenbach<mailto:ju...@datamart.ch> Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2023 11:00 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Link between em and qm Stefan There is no such thing as a common velocity for 3 different points on a sphere except for one axes angular motion (w instead of v) J.W. On 06.05.2023 15:33, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: > I think the following paper illustrate an avenue to find the > connection between EM and QM now take this link and explain Aspects > experiment... How come we can define a normal 2000 century model and > end up with no determinism and whatnot strangities. > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/14G9U_Iee4jsppn0Rcp4A5BBrGDRkR5tC/view?usp=drivesdk > > I will blog in easier to understand format later. But really it's not > a difficult stude, which is a good thing in my mind. -- Jürg Wyttenbach Bifangstr. 22 8910 Affoltern am Albis +41 44 760 14 18 +41 79 246 36 06
RE: [Vo]:Link between em and qm
This discussion suggests that 3-D space geometry goes to 1-D space as dimensions go to 0. Quantum Magazine had a item on this issue about 3 weeks ago. IO made note of this item in a Vortex commentator the time. Space may also have a lower volume limit , suggesting its also quantized and not continuous to 0. As Robin has pointed out in the past, magnetic fields seem to be continuous, however. This point raises whether the curl of a magnetic field is another parameter of nature. I have to think the curl of a magmatic field, as considered in Maxwell’s classical E-M theory , is alson quantized as is space itself and as magnetic dipoles are are quantized at a space scale around 10^-35 meters, consistent with the scale of the Planck constant h. The surface defined as a Clifford torus may well become a sphere at small dimensions. The physics of space and solid geometry may come together in the concept of REALITY. Bob Cook From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe<mailto:stefan.ita...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 7:16 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Link between em and qm It's kind of crazy how the brain works. It parses your complaints and then when I wake up I see things even more clear. So the addition to the setup are that we need to constrain interactions in the rest frame of the current moving at C (you can consider a limiting argument to make this stringent) now I think that in this reference frame we will need the parallel line segments to be also located so that the line connecting them are orthogonal to the stream. This simplifies many things and I assumed this without stating it clearly. This has some implications for the decomposition of the 3 quark systems. First of all we only consider systems where there are two paths that are parallel and that you can do. And then make a similar system so that we do get the triangulation we are after and can get the argument done (as all three are not lined up in that example). This is possible if everything is symmetrized. On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 9:05 PM Jürg Wyttenbach mailto:ju...@datamart.ch>> wrote: Also the potential is not correct... If you do it quark like 2/3 2/3 -1/3 you will get 2*(2/9) - 4/9 = 0! because 2/3 are repulsive... You should always write down all details of what you exactly name how and what e.g. potential means. The Dirac equation is plain nonsense as the e/p magnetic moment field (the strongest of all) is missing. Also the 3 rotation solution is unphysical for mass... So going on with old garbage just produces a new flavor of old garbage... J.W. On 06.05.2023 20:21, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: You are right, the paths are more complex than just on a sphere, we build it up as an addition of such paths. On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 8:00 PM Jürg Wyttenbach mailto:ju...@datamart.ch>> wrote: Stefan There is no such thing as a common velocity for 3 different points on a sphere except for one axes angular motion (w instead of v) J.W. On 06.05.2023 15:33, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: > I think the following paper illustrate an avenue to find the > connection between EM and QM now take this link and explain Aspects > experiment... How come we can define a normal 2000 century model and > end up with no determinism and whatnot strangities. > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/14G9U_Iee4jsppn0Rcp4A5BBrGDRkR5tC/view?usp=drivesdk > > I will blog in easier to understand format later. But really it's not > a difficult stude, which is a good thing in my mind. -- Jürg Wyttenbach Bifangstr. 22 8910 Affoltern am Albis +41 44 760 14 18 +41 79 246 36 06 -- Jürg Wyttenbach Bifangstr. 22 8910 Affoltern am Albis +41 44 760 14 18 +41 79 246 36 06
Re: [Vo]:Link between em and qm
It's kind of crazy how the brain works. It parses your complaints and then when I wake up I see things even more clear. So the addition to the setup are that we need to constrain interactions in the rest frame of the current moving at C (you can consider a limiting argument to make this stringent) now I think that in this reference frame we will need the parallel line segments to be also located so that the line connecting them are orthogonal to the stream. This simplifies many things and I assumed this without stating it clearly. This has some implications for the decomposition of the 3 quark systems. First of all we only consider systems where there are two paths that are parallel and that you can do. And then make a similar system so that we do get the triangulation we are after and can get the argument done (as all three are not lined up in that example). This is possible if everything is symmetrized. On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 9:05 PM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote: > Also the potential is not correct... > > If you do it quark like 2/3 2/3 -1/3 you will get 2*(2/9) - 4/9 = 0! > because 2/3 are repulsive... > > You should always write down all details of what you exactly name how and > what e.g. potential means. > > The Dirac equation is plain nonsense as the e/p magnetic moment field (the > strongest of all) is missing. Also the 3 rotation solution is unphysical > for mass... > > So going on with old garbage just produces a new flavor of old garbage... > > J.W. > On 06.05.2023 20:21, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: > > You are right, the paths are more complex than just on a sphere, we build > it up as an addition of such paths. > > On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 8:00 PM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote: > >> Stefan >> >> There is no such thing as a common velocity for 3 different points on a >> sphere except for one axes angular motion (w instead of v) >> >> >> J.W. >> >> On 06.05.2023 15:33, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: >> > I think the following paper illustrate an avenue to find the >> > connection between EM and QM now take this link and explain Aspects >> > experiment... How come we can define a normal 2000 century model and >> > end up with no determinism and whatnot strangities. >> > >> > >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/14G9U_Iee4jsppn0Rcp4A5BBrGDRkR5tC/view?usp=drivesdk >> > >> > I will blog in easier to understand format later. But really it's not >> > a difficult stude, which is a good thing in my mind. >> >> -- >> Jürg Wyttenbach >> Bifangstr. 22 >> 8910 Affoltern am Albis >> >> +41 44 760 14 18 >> +41 79 246 36 06 >> >> -- > Jürg Wyttenbach > Bifangstr. 22 > 8910 Affoltern am Albis > > +41 44 760 14 18 > +41 79 246 36 06 > >
Re: [Vo]:Link between em and qm
I added a new name for this paper a new link I have different names on this one, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GChNtVtTgvQzF4jSu1tSjCx5ub9lu4RD/view?usp=share_link On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 9:05 PM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote: > Also the potential is not correct... > > If you do it quark like 2/3 2/3 -1/3 you will get 2*(2/9) - 4/9 = 0! > because 2/3 are repulsive... > > You should always write down all details of what you exactly name how and > what e.g. potential means. > > The Dirac equation is plain nonsense as the e/p magnetic moment field (the > strongest of all) is missing. Also the 3 rotation solution is unphysical > for mass... > > So going on with old garbage just produces a new flavor of old garbage... > > J.W. > On 06.05.2023 20:21, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: > > You are right, the paths are more complex than just on a sphere, we build > it up as an addition of such paths. > > On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 8:00 PM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote: > >> Stefan >> >> There is no such thing as a common velocity for 3 different points on a >> sphere except for one axes angular motion (w instead of v) >> >> >> J.W. >> >> On 06.05.2023 15:33, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: >> > I think the following paper illustrate an avenue to find the >> > connection between EM and QM now take this link and explain Aspects >> > experiment... How come we can define a normal 2000 century model and >> > end up with no determinism and whatnot strangities. >> > >> > >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/14G9U_Iee4jsppn0Rcp4A5BBrGDRkR5tC/view?usp=drivesdk >> > >> > I will blog in easier to understand format later. But really it's not >> > a difficult stude, which is a good thing in my mind. >> >> -- >> Jürg Wyttenbach >> Bifangstr. 22 >> 8910 Affoltern am Albis >> >> +41 44 760 14 18 >> +41 79 246 36 06 >> >> -- > Jürg Wyttenbach > Bifangstr. 22 > 8910 Affoltern am Albis > > +41 44 760 14 18 > +41 79 246 36 06 > >
Re: [Vo]:Link between em and qm
You may have a point but I updated the paper and I hope that it does not have this property now. The last update was at 20:34 CET On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 9:05 PM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote: > Also the potential is not correct... > > If you do it quark like 2/3 2/3 -1/3 you will get 2*(2/9) - 4/9 = 0! > because 2/3 are repulsive... > > You should always write down all details of what you exactly name how and > what e.g. potential means. > > The Dirac equation is plain nonsense as the e/p magnetic moment field (the > strongest of all) is missing. Also the 3 rotation solution is unphysical > for mass... > > So going on with old garbage just produces a new flavor of old garbage... > > J.W. > On 06.05.2023 20:21, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: > > You are right, the paths are more complex than just on a sphere, we build > it up as an addition of such paths. > > On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 8:00 PM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote: > >> Stefan >> >> There is no such thing as a common velocity for 3 different points on a >> sphere except for one axes angular motion (w instead of v) >> >> >> J.W. >> >> On 06.05.2023 15:33, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: >> > I think the following paper illustrate an avenue to find the >> > connection between EM and QM now take this link and explain Aspects >> > experiment... How come we can define a normal 2000 century model and >> > end up with no determinism and whatnot strangities. >> > >> > >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/14G9U_Iee4jsppn0Rcp4A5BBrGDRkR5tC/view?usp=drivesdk >> > >> > I will blog in easier to understand format later. But really it's not >> > a difficult stude, which is a good thing in my mind. >> >> -- >> Jürg Wyttenbach >> Bifangstr. 22 >> 8910 Affoltern am Albis >> >> +41 44 760 14 18 >> +41 79 246 36 06 >> >> -- > Jürg Wyttenbach > Bifangstr. 22 > 8910 Affoltern am Albis > > +41 44 760 14 18 > +41 79 246 36 06 > >
Re: [Vo]:Link between em and qm
Also the potential is not correct... If you do it quark like 2/3 2/3 -1/3 you will get 2*(2/9) - 4/9 = 0! because 2/3 are repulsive... You should always write down all details of what you exactly name how and what e.g. potential means. The Dirac equation is plain nonsense as the e/p magnetic moment field (the strongest of all) is missing. Also the 3 rotation solution is unphysical for mass... So going on with old garbage just produces a new flavor of old garbage... J.W. On 06.05.2023 20:21, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: You are right, the paths are more complex than just on a sphere, we build it up as an addition of such paths. On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 8:00 PM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote: Stefan There is no such thing as a common velocity for 3 different points on a sphere except for one axes angular motion (w instead of v) J.W. On 06.05.2023 15:33, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: > I think the following paper illustrate an avenue to find the > connection between EM and QM now take this link and explain Aspects > experiment... How come we can define a normal 2000 century model and > end up with no determinism and whatnot strangities. > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/14G9U_Iee4jsppn0Rcp4A5BBrGDRkR5tC/view?usp=drivesdk > > I will blog in easier to understand format later. But really it's not > a difficult stude, which is a good thing in my mind. -- Jürg Wyttenbach Bifangstr. 22 8910 Affoltern am Albis +41 44 760 14 18 +41 79 246 36 06 -- Jürg Wyttenbach Bifangstr. 22 8910 Affoltern am Albis +41 44 760 14 18 +41 79 246 36 06
Re: [Vo]:Link between em and qm
You are right, the paths are more complex than just on a sphere, we build it up as an addition of such paths. On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 8:00 PM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote: > Stefan > > There is no such thing as a common velocity for 3 different points on a > sphere except for one axes angular motion (w instead of v) > > > J.W. > > On 06.05.2023 15:33, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: > > I think the following paper illustrate an avenue to find the > > connection between EM and QM now take this link and explain Aspects > > experiment... How come we can define a normal 2000 century model and > > end up with no determinism and whatnot strangities. > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/14G9U_Iee4jsppn0Rcp4A5BBrGDRkR5tC/view?usp=drivesdk > > > > I will blog in easier to understand format later. But really it's not > > a difficult stude, which is a good thing in my mind. > > -- > Jürg Wyttenbach > Bifangstr. 22 > 8910 Affoltern am Albis > > +41 44 760 14 18 > +41 79 246 36 06 > >
Re: [Vo]:Link between em and qm
Stefan There is no such thing as a common velocity for 3 different points on a sphere except for one axes angular motion (w instead of v) J.W. On 06.05.2023 15:33, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: I think the following paper illustrate an avenue to find the connection between EM and QM now take this link and explain Aspects experiment... How come we can define a normal 2000 century model and end up with no determinism and whatnot strangities. https://drive.google.com/file/d/14G9U_Iee4jsppn0Rcp4A5BBrGDRkR5tC/view?usp=drivesdk I will blog in easier to understand format later. But really it's not a difficult stude, which is a good thing in my mind. -- Jürg Wyttenbach Bifangstr. 22 8910 Affoltern am Albis +41 44 760 14 18 +41 79 246 36 06
