The creator replied through researchgate.net within the web to a mathematician’s supposition that mathematicians acknowledge as it were hypothetical affirmed comes about. Your supposition is off-base; the orthomodular rationale in my article from early 1980 is hypothetically affirmed. If you apply it you’ll see how off-base the material science coherent quantum catch 22s are. And mathematicians connect in not utilizing their brain for my quantum rationale: administrators are not commuting and typically hypothetically affirmed and gives for occurrence the acknowledged Heisenberg instabilities. Moreover the inquiries almost not understanding the gyromagnetic connection are of that kind. It is helicity for electrical charged leptons and helicity of unbiased leptons is acknowledged long time back, but as of late the nonorientable adaptation for turns up down changes is connected to this issue by the creator. I apply it to the superposition of two sorts of Gleason outlines GF for leptons: turn GF and the moment helicity GF. The reason is consistent and GF well established hypothetically but mathematicians and material science people will not tune in to me. For helicity the introduction clockwise cw or counterclockwise mpo is changing additionally the cleared out- or right hand screw introduction in space. In switching mpo for positron + charges to electron cw - charges the gyromagnetic connection inverts its superposition GF heading towards the spin GF. That’s a noncommutative administrator rationale just like Heisenberg. But you fairly need to recognize my tall quality of investigating orthomodular non commutative rationale since the 1980th. For Hopf and his geometry material science does it much longer. Why? In this case mathematicians too appear with an apathetic brain. The Hopf outline is due to anticipating 4-dimensional spacetime down to the Hopf Riemannian circle in space, erasing time as a Hopf fiber within the Hopf fiber bundle. And applying after the Hopf outline the stereographic outline for the Riemannian circle projection onto a plane E isn’t examined by them, but all usually as it were in my papers not cited by them and Wikipedia. A modern control framework for citing inquiries about results is required from me.