Category Archives: Applications

Spinning Vectors Unleashed

For me, getting rid of the image of a static spinning vector has been a very long process. Initially I have thought that there would be no “quick” mechanism for changing a spinning vector orientation. Then external challenges thrown in by real physicists enforced me to adopt the possibility that maybe those spinning vectors actually change their orientation as everyday business.

But still I was thinking that maybe this spinning vector orientation changing business concerned only those free particles, not those numerous electrons generating a magnetic fields. Now I have to admit, static spinning vectors in magnetic poles just won’t work. So, back to the drawing board…

Ok then, let’s say that those electron spinning vectors (SVs) in a magnetic pole are constantly changing their orientation, does it make things work more correctly? And how are those SVs changing in a magnetic field, do they change in an unified manner? Let’s start with the assumption that electron SVs in a magnet change their orientation in a plane (perpendicular to magnetic field lines) by spinning into the same direction.

If we have a cylinder shaped magnet having N at the other end and S at the other, what can we say based on the previous assumption?

Magnetic_pole

In picture above we have a magnetic pole seen above having a bunch of electron SVs which are spinning counter-clockwise. Underneath those SVs there is other layers having the same SV spinning pattern. Those SVs precess at the same rate due to the similar similar crystal structure and involved atoms in the magnet (Why exactly? Needs further clarification). If we turned our magnet upside down we would see that those SVs are spinning in clockwise manner.

At this point, our test particle (electron) enters the stage. What would happen to it if we put it above the magnetic pole? It would be surrounded by FTEP fluxes ejected by electrons in the pole and FTEPs ejected from those FTEP fluxes would have the additional angular momentum. Let’s take a closer look…

Close_up

 

Which direction our test particle’s SV would start to precess? It precesses because electron tends to change its SV orientation antiparallel to those of other nearby unpaired electrons. If it precesses counterclockwise it would precess to the same direction than the unpaired electrons in the magnet and just like in case of two magnetic poles that would result attractive force between them. Opposite precession direction would result repulsive force between the electron and the magnet. I’ll explain the exact mechanism in future FTEP Dynamics paper update.

In the next experiment we shoot an electron with velocity \(\vec v\) perpendicular into to our inhomogeneous magnetic field.

electron_curving

Red arrows mean the trajectory of the electron and blue arrows its precession direction. Why the electron deflects to the right? Simply because the angular momentum of the FTEP fluxes from the magnet’s electrons. Those FTEP fluxes push the electron constantly to the right and above a large enough magnet the electron would start making a circle (guiding center).

According to the contemporary physics conventions electron’s deflection to the right means that the magnetic field points away from us which means that we are looking at the south pole here in our example. Because of the opposite precession directions the electron would experience repulsive force pushing it towards us (spin up).

After the electron leaves the magnetic field, as it does in our example, it still has its precession (conservation of angular momentum). So if we measure the electron spin again in another magnetic field (having the same orientation) the outcome would be the same, spin up. Having two “entangled” electrons and randomly orientated magnetic fields (perpendicular to electrons’ trajectories) while measuring electron spins from TOEBI’s point of view should be a very interesting topic. Can TOEBI reproduce quantum mechanical results?

How the velocity of electron affects its behaviour in a magnetic field? Obviously its velocity perpendicular to a magnetic field affects the amount of deflecting (to the right in our example) FTEPs encountered by it. In other words, particle’s velocity perpendicular to a magnetic field and the force deflecting (to the right in our example) particle has the linear dependency. However, particle’s velocity doesn’t affect the deflection (anti)parallel to a magnetic field because the amount of incoming FTEPs (experienced by particle) stays the same.

I’ll enhance this post later or make a new one to include i.e. proton and positron.  

Skipping Fusion Economy?

If we can build asteroid busting devices based on TOEBI’s antimatter concept then we should pull off electric power production based on the same concept as well. At first I thought that such a thing is impossible due to technical difficulties, for example, how in Earth one can manage to maintain a sufficient annihilation level? And in controlled manner!

Obviously we need to have a core which heats up the water. Ok then, we annihilate a needed and safe amount of protons. We can’t heat up the water too much at once, otherwise turbines and other accessories would get broken. So there must be a mechanism which enables more or less constant feeding of protons to be annihilated. But how such a mechanism could work? I mean,  inserting solid hydrogen ready to get annihilated inside hot water can’t be the easiest task.

Maybe some kind of insulated rod (holding prepared solid hydrogen at the end) could be pushed into middle of the core and then blasted away…? Maybe… maybe. At the moment I can’t imagine another way round. Man, I should have my own lab!

Anyway, presented idea for electric power production is extremely safe and very little toxic waste is produced. Actually, the amount of toxic waste depends entirely on design of the rods. There is no possibility for uncontrolled energy releasing because those rods must be inserted into the core. Even in the unfortunate case when the whole core would explode (for any reason) used material (small amounts of hydrogen) won’t pose a serious hazard, it would just burn away.

Thoughts on Flyby Anomaly

It’s almost the time for the results of Juno’s Earth flyby. I’m considering one year as the deadline for NASA publishing and in less than three weeks, we’ll hit the deadline. My previous ideas about how to calculate an amount of flyby anomaly were wrong or inadequate. TOEBI is not in the level of explaining adequately why and with what magnitude a flyby anomaly occurs.

However, the key factor is a spacecraft’s spinning frequency. Every previous flyby anomalies can be determined by it. When a spacecraft hits the perigee it has gained approximately a half of its maximal anomalous additional velocity, no matter what’s its mass, velocity or incoming angles etc. Ok, why approximately half of its maximal anomalous additional velocity? Well, also spacecraft’s spinning plane is a factor, but in most of the cases, spinning plane has been towards Earth’s center when the perigee is hit.

Juno had its spinning plane towards Earth’s center at perigee. Measured spinning frequency at that point was \(1/30.24\) 1/s. In TOEBI, particles and stellar objects generate interaction through spinning, which effects by factor of \(f^2\), so it’s natural to expect the same in cases of flyby anomaly. Now, we get the number \(f^2 \approx 0.00109\), which is my prediction for Juno’s anomalous speed increase at perigee. But wait a minute, where are the units, m/s? Good question… I don’t know! I haven’t figured out it yet, it just works, ok.

There has been numerous flybys over time and every time the spacecraft has been spinning with its spinning plane towards Earth near the perigee, anomalous speed increase has been detected. No spinning, no flyby anomaly! And in cases of spinning spacecraft, detected speed increase matches my \(f^2\) pattern, except in cases where there has been mid flyby maneuvers or flyby occurred at too low altitude (atmosphere caused drag).

After the perigee, spacecraft is still gaining an extra acceleration (hence speed increase) due to its spinning. In most cases, after perigee speed increase is pretty much as big as speed increase gained before the perigee. Those two would be identical if spinning frequency and plane were symmetrical before and after the perigee. Unfortunately, in case of Juno, there happened something at the perigee which caused Juno to go into the safe mode and that might have caused some changes to both spinning frequency and orientation of spinning plane.

I hope, that after published NASA results I’ll get my (fulltime) chance to develop TOEBI further so that it will be capable of explaining the flyby anomaly mechanism in detail.

Let’s get on with it!

From theory to practise, I’m starting a collaboration among particle and theoretical physicists in order to create the proof of concept for my idea about antimatter. Originally I presented the invitation for the collaboration on ResearchGate. I’m happy to announce that such collaboration is getting air under its wings. If you are particle and/or theoretical physicist and interested in participating, just contact me via email. We are about to make physics history!

What kind of things we are going to study or do? That’s totally up to collaborators, so I can’t tell exact plan at the moment. However, the ultimate goal is to demonstrate that particle annihilation is possible with the method described in Antimatter paper. Naturally, further research will be needed to find the most effective setup and potential applications.

Let’s get on with it!

Should I write a book?

I got this wild idea of writing a book. I have already material for something like 100 pages or so, and in a book I could open up various matters more freely. Naturally I would use Amazon Kindle Direct Publishing and/or Amazon’s CreateSpace, it can’t get any easier than that. I’ll be damned! 🙂 Of course, at this moment there wouldn’t be too many buyers but things are about to change…

I’ll think about this for couple of days and then make the final decision. Only problem is my limited time resources, but I’ll try to find a solution. This is so exciting! 😀

Update: I decided to write a book. Actually, I’m going to write two books. First one will be targeted to physicists and advanced physics enthusiasts. It will contain all the math and details in ToEbi. Second one will be targeted to laymen and it won’t contain any math.

Do you want to be my Arthur Eddington?

I have the theory, do you have the facilities mr. Eddington?

Based on ToEbi, it’s possible to annihilate protons just by putting two protons, with different spin directions, together their axis poles head on. In normal circumstances, when two protons approach each other they pretty quickly change their spin orientation and repel each other due to repulsion. Fortunately, we know how to manipulate spin vectors! With magnetic fields of course.

You, mr. Eddington, should conduct the experiment with these protons. Naturally, going overboard is extremely dangerous, so use only as many protons as actually needed. You don’t want to blow up your lab, do you? So, what’s needed? Actually, I don’t know the safest but still mind blowing way to go. That should be your cup of tea! But using huge energies should be avoided so that there won’t be any doubts about the origin of annihilation. Maybe two low energy proton guns is the way to go? Protons are shoot through magnetic field so that when they meet in the middle they have different spin directions and they are aligned spin axis poles head-on.

Another way to go would be using chromium and water. But controlling the amount of annihilation might be difficult, at least in case of homemade experiments. With lab equipment, you probably can control the process more accurately. The ultimate experiment would be using solid hydrogen. By putting two monolayered solid hydrogen sheets together provides multiple simultaneous proton annihilation. So, choose your method wisely! 🙂

Update: It’s possible to use electrons instead of protons.

2014, The Year of Antimatter

Based on recent ToEbi site traffic activity (amount & origin) from U.S. and China I predict that 2014 will be the year of antimatter. There is few other points also supporting my conclusion which I won’t disclose at this moment. Ongoing year will change our future totally. Energy production in large scale comes very cheap and much safer. All this benefits mankind greatly.

On the gaining side is also space travel technology. It won’t hurt if needed fuel is extremely efficiently packed and extra fuel can be collected during the space journey. Pretty much unlimited future in that direction. But we (as a mankind) should act in very quick fashion. Superb energy source has its darker side too and it should be addressed also in very quick fashion. All big high tech countries like U.S., China and Russia, together with UN, should unite their forces and create the ground rules regarding antimatter technology. Antimatter is potentially the ultimate black swan and we don’t have too much time to waste.

I really do hope that my model is total BS. But based on evidence I’m afraid that it’s not. Therefore, I really hope that mainstream physics won’t ignore my model for too long. Fermilab, hurry up! 😉

 

Chromium and Water

Chromium is antiferromagnetic material at room temperatures and below. Being antiferromagnetic means that free electrons on lattice are arranged so that their neighbouring spin orientations are opposite hence cancel magnetic moment. That’s pretty obvious if you look at the phenomenon through ToEbi. These free electrons are located on top of each crystal node due to thicker FTE. Distance between nodes is 2.883 Å (\(10^{-10}\) m).

So what? Well, normal tap water contains 25 percent so called para-water where hydrogen atoms (protons) have opposite spin orientations. Water molecules put on antiferromagnetic material with low enough temperature (lower, the better) will be arranged according the underlying electron spin pattern. Now we should have proton pairs with different spin orientations and on top of that, they are aligned spin axes head-on. Normal environmental perturbations (heat, external basis vibrations) on those water molecules should guarantee conditions for measurable proton annihilation events.

All above are for people like me who has no access to high tech nuclear lab. More efficient annihilation methods could be based e.g. on solid hydrogen which contains only para-hydrogen diatomic molecules. Monolayers of solid hydrogen handled with proper technique would provide almost 100 percent annihilation rate (a.k.a. antimatter bomb).

Quantum computers are BS

Yeah, why’s that? Simply because there is no such thing as superposition. Superposition is just a QM concept based on poor understanding of nature. Funny thing is that security agencies are spending a huge amounts of money in order to build the quantum computer based on that poor understanding. That’s just fine, the endeavor keeps people busy and money flows into the economy. It could be worse 🙂

If it’s up to me, I would stop spending on quantum computers and particle colliders. Particle colliders were useful but not anymore.

 

A Little Confession

Forget those cobalt bullions, you don’t need them. Ordinary tap water works just fine! 25% of that water (in room temperature) is so called para-water where those two hydrogen atoms have different spin directions. Their proximity is very convenient. You only need to know the method for introducing them.

My personal target (to make ToEbi break) deadline expires on 12/31/2013. Evidently, there is lots of interest towards ToEbi but the final step is missing.