### 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 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,

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.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 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.
>
>

>
> 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.

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

```