Re: [Vo]:A though experiment and discussion that should be important in my view

The point is that as you shrink it energy density will increase and I simply assume there is a limit for how much density space can take. I alsa suggest that this limit is consistent with lorentz transformations as it would not make sense if this depends on which frame the observer has. This also m

[Vo]:Link between em and qm

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_Iee4jsppn0

[Vo]:LENR-CANR.org Chatbot is slower but better

The vendor changed the control parameters for the Chatbot ( https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=2988). When you ask a question, it now takes longer to respond. I think it often takes about 30 seconds. It is worth the delay, because it is improved in various ways. It does a deeper search. I thi

[Vo]:TruthGPT

The man who help start OpenAI but exited due to fear of AI plans his new AI. https://www.engadget.com/elon-musk-says-he-wants-to-start-truthgpt-to-rival-openai-and-google-014938539.html

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 t

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

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 magneti

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!

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