Category Archives: Theory of Everything by Illusion

Main category for theory related posts.

Particle Entanglement

Once again I got involved with the conversation about particle entanglement. It was the line from the George Musser’s quest blog post (mistreated by the host by the way) which lit up my involvement.

Give me a step-by-step explanation of how particle spins show the observed correlations even though neither has a determinate value in advance of being measured.

Naturally I’ll try to explain phenomena through TOEBI point-of-view and there isn’t too many options. Only reasonable explanation is that those spinning particles generate a FTEP-based connection from the beginning of entanglement.

FTEPs are ejected at the speed of light hence generating such a connection is possible, even in case of entangled photons. But how i.e. measuring particle spin is able to change the orientation of the other particle via that generated connection? Changing orientation of the measured particle can’t influence the other particle faster than \(c\) if the mechanism behind entanglement works via eject-FTEPs-receive-FTEPs mechanism, so it must rely on some other mechanism.

What could it be? I can’t figure out any other explanation than that the FTEP-based connection between entangled particles is a “solid” connection which forces those particles behave as observed. Measuring particle spin (potentially) changes particle’s orientation which twists the solid connection which changes the other particle’s orientation, and this happens pretty much instantaneously. How to test about it? Well, we could set up an experiment where we disturb the generated entanglement before making any measurements. Simple way to disturb such a solid FTEP-based connection would be just inserting a thick object between the flying out particles, that should break down the connection, hence no quantum correlations should be observed.

Meanwhile, I’ll ponder the inner works of such FTEP-based connection. Have a great Summer!

Two Way Street

Couple of weeks ago I did realize that I can also go into the opposite direction… opposite to reducing FTE density. How about increasing it? What good comes out of that? Well… something quite extraordinary and unbelievable, anti-gravity, sort of. I have never thought that anti-gravity could be possible in any way, but now I have reconsidered my opinion, it might be possible after all.

It all comes down to the mechanism behind gravitational interaction according to TOEBI. Subtle difference of the FTE density between the sides of particles causes gravitational interaction. Slightly greater FTE density next to side facing a gravitating object generates a smaller pressure towards the particle than on the other side, kind of Bernoulli’s principle at work at subatomic level. Spinning particle generated flow of FTEPs is the substance at work in this case. Described process is the mechanism behind gravitational interaction according to TOEBI.

Here comes the fun part… it should be possible to generate higher local FTE density with magnets! Just by doing the reverse what was described in the reduced  FTE experiment. We need a setup where FTEP fluxes have the opposite momentum, that in principle should stall the fluxes and generate higher local FTE density which could be used in this new anti-gravity experiment.

Next step is to put an object on top of scale just under the volume having this higher than normal FTE density. What should happen is a slight decrease with the object’s observed mass. Amazingly easy experiment don’t you think? There is at least one major obstacle, how to stall the fluxes for real? Yes, opposite FTEP flow momenta help but how to stall the fluxes and increase the local FTE density? Magnet generated FTEP fluxes are too bound to their sources a.k.a to ordered electrons i.e. in solid magnets. If we put two repelling magnets close to each other their FTEP fluxes will have the opposite momenta but this just causes the familiar repulsive phenomenon. What we need is at least two unbound FTEP fluxes having the opposite momentum!

Unfortunately, I haven’t found out the setup capable of generating these unbound FTEP fluxes, but I’ll keep on searching. From the lessons of Bullet Cluster one can say that those FTEP flows or fluxes don’t interact too easily…

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.  

Electron Spin

Update: Text in this blog post is outdated and wrong! For more accurate information read Spinning Vectors Unleashed.

 

Experiments have given rise to the contemporary quantum mechanical concepts like electron spin and electron intrinsic angular momentum. On the other hand, TOEBI tells that electron has its spinning vector, just like any spinning sphere would have. How do these two interpretations come along?

If we have a free electron in a magnetic field how does it behave according to TOEBI? Due to the arranged electrons on the magnetic poles (see Introduction to Theory of Everything by Illusion) our free electron aligns itself so that its spinning vector is perpendicular to the “magnetic” field lines. Such a alignment happens because of the FTEP fluxes ejected by electrons on the magnetic poles interact with the free electron’s own FTEP flux. Due to more dense and spatially constrained incoming FTEP fluxes , free electron changes its spinning vector orientation accordingly (a.k.a. perpendicularly). But that’s not the whole story.

When free electron is surrounded by these multiple FTEP fluxes coming in from many directions (correction: it should refer at electron’s TOEBI defined spinning vector) it also starts to rotate around new axis which is aligned to the “magnetic” field lines. It simply reacts to the emerged FTEP flux (combination of all magnetic pole electron FTEP fluxes) having a certain rotation frequency. Details of this emerged FTEP flux need further research but obviously the frequency is depending on the amount of poles’ electrons, hence depending on the strength of a magnetic field.

Now we have a free electron having its spinning vector aligned perpendicular to the magnetic field lines and on top of that, the spinning vector spins around another axis which is aligned to the magnetic field lines. Free TOEBI electron’s spinning vector in a magnetic field is able to spin (around the axis aligned to the magnetic field lines) either left or right. This is the point where TOEBI and quantum mechanics shake their hands so to speak.

If free electron’s spinning vector spinning is watched above a magnetic field (field lines are coming towards viewer) then counter-clockwise spinning is interpreted as negative charge (i.e. electron) and clockwise is interpreted as positive charge (i.e. positron).

Above is only qualitative presentation for the mechanism behind quantum mechanics’ electron spin concept. Things get more tricky when we have an electron bound to an atom, like in Stern-Gerlach Experiment. But that’s something for a new blog post.

FTEP Dynamics

Update: You can check out the progress from FTEP Dynamics paper. After the paper is completed it will be inserted as a part into Introduction to Theory of Everything by Illusion.

I do realize, thanks to the site visitors Yop and Berry, that FTEP dynamics is the most important thing in TOEBI. But I haven’t touched the topic previously because I have needed more data and experience from the different circumstances where FTEPs play their part. Accumulating all that requires time and patience and I’m also updating Introduction to Theory of Everything by Illusion along this journey. What have I learned so far?

FTEPs carry the main part of particle mass. Underlying particle’s cross section and spinning frequency matter but the amount of FTEPs bound to particle constitutes its mass. This means for example that electron can appear as muon if it gains the additional amount of FTEPs around itself. I will write out the mechanism in detail in future versions of the book, this applies also for the following observations.

continue…

Galaxy Rotation Curve – v2.0

You are most likely familiar with the concept of galaxy rotation curve, so I cut to the point. We don’t need dark matter to hold up our more or less constant orbital velocities (measured values in line B), we better call it FTEPs from now on…

Picture from Wikipedia

Centripetal force, which keeps those stars on their orbits, behaves like this \[F = \frac{mv^2}{R}\] and in this case the force is generated by \[F = \frac{GmM}{R^2}\] What’s the problem? Let’s see \[\frac{mv^2}{R} = \frac{GmM}{R^2}\] so we get \[\text{constant} \approx v^2 = \frac{GM}{R}\]

We pretty much know how normal matter is distributed around a disk galaxy, and therefore mainstream physics has stumbled on the matter (pun unintended) and hit its head on dark matter.

If you look at the issue from TOEBI POV the answer is (now) obvious! If velocity stays pretty much stable and \(G\) won’t increase at the same rate as distance then something’s gotta give! It’s the mass, but not the mass we can observe directly, hence scientists call it as dark matter. Particle mass emerges from particle’s surface area (linked to its cross section), spinning frequency and the amount of FTEPs it can bound to itself by those first two ingredients.

Space itself is filled with FTEPs. Around mass concentrations most of these FTEPs are leftovers from the together gathered particles, mass defect in greater scale so to speak. FTEPs themselves clump together pretty weakly if at all, so when orbiting stars deflect FTEPs around the highest velocity FTEPs go towards the outer parts of a galaxy in plane wise manner. Observed wave patterns in galaxy arms might emerge from these millions of FTEP deflection phenomena along the galaxy arms.

At some point, deflected FTEPs starts to build up due to lost momentum, pretty much similarly than in case of some particle interactions described by TOEBI. Nevertheless, the outcome from increased FTE density will be an increased gravitational interaction as described in The Mechanism blog post.

What I now need to do is to calculate how things would emerge for example in our galaxy according to the above description. Before that I have to finish off my current project on FTEP dynamics.

Length of Day

Variations on Earth’s length of day (LOD) is most likely the reason for the different measurements of \(G\). You can read more about the variations of LOD from Phys.org article. Anyway, the variation is the magic word!

Let’s picture our Earth as an electron… spinning and minding its own business and all the sudden its spinning frequency changes. What would happen in case of electron? Let’s say that the spinning frequency increases a tiny fraction, say \(1.001 * f_{e}\). We already know that due to electron’s huge spinning frequency (\(f_{e} = 8.98755179*10^{16}\) 1/s) and tiny size changes in the amount of circulating and bound FTEPs happen pretty quickly. In case of spinning frequency increase the amount of FTEPs bound to electron increases, hence electron mass would increase till there exists an equilibrium with the spinning frequency and the amount of bound FTEPs.

Earth’s spinning frequency increase would increase also the amount of circulating and Earth bound FTEPs on top of the amount already bound to Earth mass. But due to Earth’s size and slow spinning frequency those changes on the amount of FTEPs won’t happen that quickly at all. What happens before the equilibrium between spinning frequency and the amount of additional bound FTEPs is achieved?

Increased spinning frequency would mean that outwards FTEP flow (in planet scale) would be greater than inwards FTEP flow. Inwards flow will eventually catch up. Based on Phys.org article that catching up might take as long as couple of months. During that time particles bound to Earth experience a situation where outwards flux consumes FTEPs around them and generate increased pressure on those particles’ sides perpendicular to Earth’s center of mass which is detected by sensitive \(G\) measurements during those months. During those months inwards flux gets stronger and eventually the equilibrium is achieved and \(G\) measurements converge towards its mean value.

In case of decreased Earth’s spinning frequency things go reverse. There will be a temporary excess of FTEPs surrounding Earth’s mass and also the pressure around the sides of particles perpendicular to Earth center of mass is decreased due to decreased Earth’s spinning frequency. All this generates the illusion of the increased value for \(G\) as described in previous blog post. Again, the equilibrium state between inwards and outwards fluxes will be achieved during the following months and \(G\) settles down.

On top of \(G\) measurements when Earth’s spinning frequency increases or decreases I suggest that measurements should be done also when decrease happens a few months after the previous decrease (no increases in between).

Variations of G

Retired JPL physicist John D Anderson is back! He has, with his colleagues/team, found the linkage between LOD (Length Of Day) and the measured values of gravitational constant \(G\). LOD variations mean variations with the spinning frequency of Earth, ah, my first crush 😉 You better read the whole paper from IOPscience.

The conclusion is that smaller the Earth’s spinning frequency greater the value of G. How is that possible? Or I should ask, how is that possible according to TOEBI? Because mainstream physics is pretty clueless about the question. There is no apparent reason why Earth’s spinning frequency, caused by Earth originated reason, should affect conventional laboratory measurements of \(G\). By using quantum mechanical based measurements results differ, why? At least free fall measurements won’t suffer from the following mechanism.

So, let’s see what TOEBI can offer… at this point, qualitative. Relevant background information can be found from my previous blog posts (Dark Side – Part I & The Mechanism). Why smaller spinning rate of Earth increases the value of \(G\)?  All the involved masses stay the same… first I thought that there would be changes with masses due to the possible changed FTE density caused by the decreased Earth’s spinning rate.

Because the smaller Earth’s spinning rate the amount of the ejected/deflected surrounding FTEPs is smaller. That indeed might change the FTE density (decrease) throughout Earth (in principle detectable phenomenon) but that’s not affecting the \(G\) measurements by itself. However, there is another effect due to the decreased FTEP ejection/deflection.

Spinning particles generate a denser local FTE around them which is shown to us as particle mass, greater amount of FTEPs around an elementary particle means a higher mass for it. In special conditions, generated by high energy particle collisions, elementary particle can temporarily hold larger amount of these FTEPs around itself, e.g. muon. Nevertheless, the shape of those local particle FTE “bubbles” without any interacting outside FTEPs would be totally spherical.

Gravitating object most certainly affects the FTE “bubble” shape of a particle, it generates higher FTE density on the particle’s side facing it. This is all described in those linked previous blog posts. Those, because of Earth spinning, deflected FTEPs shape those particle FTE “bubbles” too! They might distribute to the gravitational interaction (on the short scale probably not, this requires whole new blog post) but on top that they generate higher FTE density/pressure on the “sides” perpendicular to the gravitating object. Now you probably realize the mechanism how reduced Earth’s spinning rate affects the measured \(G\) values…

…In case you didn’t. Reduced FTE density/pressure (due to reduced Earth’s spinning rate) on the particles sides perpendicular to the gravitating object allows larger amount of particle’s FTEPs to spread on those sides (for a while! – new blog post is coming on the phenomenon). Now two macro world objects can share more of their FTEPs which causes the higher gravitational interaction between them, hence generate the illusion of the increased value for \(G\).

Published paper opens whole new perspectives for TOEBI development.

Update (6/5/2015): Check out also Matthew Pitkin’s paper about the paper.

Taming The Rotation

What prevents the large scale proton annihilations in case of two solid blocks of hydrogen? Although a solid block of hydrogen might provide the needed support for keeping those spinning vectors in wanted orientation it also provides an environment which induces the rotation for those enclosed protons a.k.a. proton electrons. Such a rotation phenomenon ruins the chances for the accurate contact between two lattices put together.

What can be done about the rotation? Obviously it must be tamed, but how? This needs further research.

Proton vs. Neutron

According to TOEBI, both protons and neutrons consist of three plain vanilla electrons. As we know protons and neutrons behave differently if we put them into a magnetic field. In this post we go through some properties and differences between protons and neutrons.

First of all, both particles have approximately the same mass, \(1.67262178*10^{-27}\) kg for proton and \(1.67492735*10^{-27}\) kg for neutron. Why neutron is a bit heavier than proton if both are constructed by three electrons? What reduces neutron’s charge? These two questions might have the same answer.

Let’s start from the basics. How three electrons manage to stay together when they normally would repel each other away? Obviously something prevents the expected behaviour and most likely it’s the FTE density outside the three electrons, at least it’s difficult to invent anything else compatible with TOEBI ideas. It means that the FTE density in between the electrons must be lower than the outer density because if it were higher, the density would prevent the stable system. Just like a nucleus generates high enough FTE density which blocks electrons from crashing into it.

According to previously described mechanism those three electrons experience acceleration outwards their system, but the higher outer FTE density prevents them from escaping the system, hence protons and neutrons are stable. Well, neutrons are stable only in nucleus and also that phenomenon needs an explanation.

What kind of setups those three electrons can possess inside proton or neutron? Based on proton and neutron behaviour in a magnetic field there is two possible setups, either they all have the parallel spinning vector orientations (u-u-u) or one of the electrons has antiparallel spinning vector orientation compared to others (u-u-d). How come? Well, the spinning vectors can’t be at random orientations because protons’ and neutrons’ consistent behaviour in a magnetic field. Ok then, which setup belongs to proton and which one to neutron? Neutrons react in lesser extend to a magnetic field than protons, that’s a clue… In TOEBI, the only reasonable mechanism explaining that would be that neutrons have two electrons with parallel spinning vector orientations and one electron with antiparallel spinning vector orientation (u-u-d). Such a setup would reduce neutron’s reactivity in a magnetic field (e.g. \(g\)-factor). One electron works against the other two which leads to the observed reduced charge of neutron.

How do these two different electron spinning vector orientation setups affect proton and neutron mass? What exactly is particle mass? In TOEBI papers I have defined mass as being the cross section of a particle. But that’s not the whole truth, also the amount of FTEPs contained around the particle matters, it must matter. If we take a look at for example muon and tau particles, both of them have an underlying electron at their core surrounded by a larger amount of FTEPs than in case of electron, hence muon and tau have the bigger mass than electron. However, those heavier versions of electrons lose their excess FTEPs pretty quickly according to their decay patterns. The bottom line is that the particle mass includes also those FTEPs associated with the particle (spherical object having the boundary where background FTE density equals the lowest FTE density of the particle).

Back to the differences between proton and neutron. Does the electron spinning vector orientation setup of neutron (u-u-d) generate the bigger mass ( = more FTEPs contained) than proton’s setup (u-u-u)? If so, why? Observably the electron spinning vector orientation setup of neutron generate bigger mass than of proton’s.

The reason for neutron’s bigger mass must be related to the larger distances between neutron’s inner electrons which is due to lower FTE density in between the electrons compared to proton’s. Proton’s three electrons have a parallel spinning vector orientation which generates higher inner FTE density than neutron’s three electrons (u-u-d). Proton’s higher inner FTE density means that the density difference between the inner and outer volume is smaller than of neutron’s which leads to the smaller acceleration for those three electrons, hence the smaller distances between proton’s electrons.

Neutron’s a bit larger volume compared to proton’s is due to a bit larger distances between the inner electrons. How much is the difference? Unfortunately I haven’t developed TOEBI further enough in order to answer that. Nevertheless, above description is TOEBI’s view on proton and neutron.

What makes neutron decay when out of atom nucleus? Why can’t neutron and electron create an atom? I think those questions deserve the blog post of their own!

Greetings from Lapland! Conditions for viewing planets and other targets in nightly sky were excellent. Light pollution was minimal and on couple of nights the sky was crystal clear and seeing was great. It was just perfect!