The intent of the paper is to explore what happens to the Biot-Savart operator in a curved space (hence the embedding in a 4D space) but the action of the operator still takes 2D->1D.

As I said: Basic math field operators must always be 2:1. But the important fact is to notice that each added dimension ads left/right transport of the field. If you add more dimensions you can only go on by "right->right->" or left-> left->" all along new great circles you define with each added dimension (3--> 6). What you finally get is an infinite (time less) flux along the 4 great circles, because the Biot Savart force and then rotation speed in the **equilibrium **end up in the static Lorenz action.

The final picture is a 2D (1 added rotation) flux tube that produces the self induced charge mutually enwinded by a 4 rotation flux layer.

You obviously cannot use classic field math to describe the final static situation given e.g. by an alpha particle. The alpha is the first full symmetric 4 rotation particle (always + 1 rotation for charge). The modelling shows that it is composed by 4 symmetric protons that seem to go on with their own rotations. What produces the 4-He quadrupole field. To make this a bit more complex we still have the external charge flux-tube that is responsible for a "potential mass".

The final problems - to find a perturbative model are:

- Lorenz interaction and Biot Savart effects could coexist. Do we need 4:1 or 5:1 Operators?

- We know from experiments that only 2 "synchronous" rotations can stimulate the strong force binding. Thus perturbations must be 2D rotations at least. So again we we have 2:4 actions in 6D what could be reduced.. to 1:2 eventually.

- The Golden ratio is the fixpoint operator for the mass forming waves so with 5 rotations you get 72 degrees also know as golden angle...But this gives no correlation so far. You cannot break it down to 5 plain (photon like) rotations.

It took 10 years to settle down a first consistent math description for GR. Mostly done by Grossmann not Einstein and many others (Hilbert) did help discussing.

We here still even miss the starting line for any discussion. But contrary to GR we have the exact experimental proof that the model reproduces nature. So it should take less time, at the end, to enhance it.

And last: Larger nuclei potentially need octonions to complete the structure equations...