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<>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 7:16 AM
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 
<<>> 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 

So going on with old garbage just produces a new flavor of old garbage...

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:

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)


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

Reply via email to