Category Archives: Theory of Everything by Illusion

Main category for theory related posts.

The Mechanism

What makes particles accelerate, either repulsively or attractively, towards gravitating objects or in interactions between charged particles? Even though TOEBI has the law for the acceleration between charged electron based particles I haven’t really understood what is the exact mechanism behind the acceleration. Now I understand it and it’s actually so simple and beautiful than one can think of.

The simplest scenario is the pure gravitational interaction between a larger mass and particle. FTE density generated by the larger mass gradually gets smaller and smaller according the distance between the center of the larger mass and the particle. There is also this minuscule FTE density difference between the side facing the center of the larger mass and the opposite side of the particle.

How FTE density affects the FTEP dynamics surrounding spinning particles? Higher the density then more difficult it’s for particle to suck FTEPs through its spinning vector poles, because surrounding higher FTE density slows down the incoming FTEP flow near the surface of the particle. In case of the gravitating larger mass, the same mechanism is also present, but this time the effect is located on the side facing the larger mass. Particle’s spinning vector orientation doesn’t matter in this phenomenon.

Obviously now the incoming FTEP flux flows and spreads more freely to everywhere else compared to the side facing the gravitating mass and this mechanism pushes the particle towards the larger mass. The same mechanism applies, but in much greater magnitude, when two charged particles interact (because both particles have the huge spinning frequency \(f_{e}\)).

Particles’ spinning vector orientations are very relevant because the generated FTEP flux handedness. Two electrons with parallel spinning vectors eject FTEPs between them which causes a huge increase (compared to the gravitating case) in local FTE density next to both electrons on the side facing the other electron. Now the incoming FTEP flux flows much more freely to the other side of the particles.

The same mechanism is also in action when electrons’ spinning vectors are antiparallel and particles are pushed away. How come? Antiparallel spinning vectors won’t accumulate FTEPs in between the electrons, quite contrary, meaning that the FTE density is actually decreased between the particles (compared to the other side of the particles). So this time the incoming FTEP flux flows much more freely to the side facing the other particle, hence the repulsive force.

Things are going to get even better… I’ll continue this post later. Berry and Yop, you should sit down while reading the upcoming text…  just to make sure you guys won’t fall on the floor and hurt yourselves.

Here’s a picture (I was drawing with my kids and got an idea) describing how spinning electron generates a bubble of FTEPs around itself. I thought one picture would tell more than thousand words…

20150207_095635
Click to get larger pic. That arrow pointing upwards is supposed to present particle’s spinning vector, not the direction of FTEP flow.

 

Adhesive Force (Magnets)

Update: Updated Second Law of TOEBI applied.

Let’s say that we have a large, homogeneous magnetic field in classical sense.
The easiest way to create such a magnetic field is by putting two symmetrical
magnetic poles face each other with a gap between them.

Magnet

If we look at the setup from TOEBI point of view we realize that electron spinning vectors are parallel on both poles. Obviously, if we want attractive force between the poles those electron spinning vectors have to be parallel according Second law of TOEBI.

Let’s say that we have two cylinder shape iron magnets with dimensions \(r=0.5\) cm and \(h=0.5\) cm having their magnetic axis along their height. Based on their volume and iron density we can say that each magnet is made of \(\approx 3.334*10^{22}\) iron atoms. So in the ideal case we would have \(n\approx 1.33*10^{23}\) unpaired electrons per magnet participating in generating the magnetic field.

In theory, we can calculate the force between the two attached magnets by calculating the force (by Second Law of TOEBI) between their center of masses with given number of unpaired electrons. \[F=n*c^2\frac{X}{d^2}\approx 1.23\text{ N}\]where \(d=0.5\) cm is the distance between the center of masses and \(X\approx 2.56696976*10^{-45}\) kg*m^2 (see FTEP Dynamics). In practice, due to a bit differently oriented magnetic domains and blocking caused by magnet’s subatomic particles gained force won’t be as high as calculated theoretical value. Generated force could hold \(\approx\)0.125 kg object in the air.

Deceiving Phenomenon

As usually, an incomplete knowledge and view about all the influencing factors involved in any given situation can lead people, and yes, physicists are people too, into the wrong direction. Unfortunately, physics community has travelled into the wrong direction for awfully long time. I’m talking about magnetic fields and free particles interacting with them.

If we have an electron entering a magnetic field it will always (according to TOEBI) change its spinning vector antiparallel to the electrons it encounters during its entrance. Due to the presence of numerous unpaired magnet’s electrons which have pretty much the same spinning vector orientations locally the test electron’s spinning vector starts rotating on a plane (almost every time to the same direction). Underlying mechanism for the spinning vector rotating is the FTEP flux handedness from numerous magnet’s electrons interacting with the test electron’s FTEP flux, which also has handedness.

No matter what we’ll encounter the same phenomenon. Actually this spinning vector rotation frequency on a plane is measured and it depends on the amount of involved electrons in the magnets (more involved electrons in the magnets means more powerful the generated magnetic field). Spinning vector rotation frequency in a magnetic field is called Larmor frequency by contemporary physics.

Always when we put electrons into a magnetic field they’ll behave as described above, I mean almost always. There might be some special ways to inject an electron into a magnetic field so that it actually manage to gain the opposite spinning vector rotation direction, but that’s irrelevant at the moment. How about the situation where we manage to trigger a particle pair production (electron-“positron”) in a magnetic field? Just like in many everyday particle collision experiments. I mean, in TOEBI world, those two are just two plain vanilla electrons with antiparallel spinning vectors. What contemporary physicists see happening at the event?

They’ll see that those two particles behave differently in the magnetic field. What conclusion can be drawn from the observation? Obviously something is different with these two particles, right? Contemporary physicists decided to call that other oddly behaving electron as electron’s antiparticle (positron), just like Dirac had predicted. That’s a huge mistake if you ask me, albeit very understandable.

The real reason why “positron” behaves differently in that magnetic field is because it was created in it, with its twin electron. It can’t change its spinning vector orientation freely as needed in order to behave like a normal electron, the presence of its twin electron prevents it initially, just the amount of time needed to define “positron’s” spinning vector rotation direction in that magnetic field. In reality, that “positron” is just plain vanilla electron with the opposite (to its twin electron) spinning vector rotation direction in that magnetic field. No positrons, just plain vanilla electrons.

That was the qualitative description how “positrons” are created and how one phenomenon deceived generations of physicists, every one of them. Can we fix the damage done over the years? In principle yes, in practise no. Even exclusive experiment covering the phenomenon won’t change a thing, it probably will be ignored to the point when first antimatter experiment by TOEBI are conducted. You can’t argue with those antimatter experiments that’s for sure.

Electron in Magnetic Field

This post is inspired by Berry’s challenge…

So let’s have a magnetic field of 0.1 T in z-direction and an electron with \(\vec f\) aligned in x-direction and a velociy of 100 m/s in x-direction. What happens according to TOEBI?

How does it play out in TOEBI? Let’s assume that the magnetic field is homogeneous and constructed with two opposite magnetic poles where electron density is constant (electrons/area). First of all, unit Tesla is defined by mainstream physics without the knowledge of the underlying mechanism which generates electric and magnetic fields. Therefore our first task is to solve the amount of electrons in magnetic poles which would generate the effect of 0.1 T. We already know how such a homogeneous magnetic field is constructed, we need to have our electrons (in the magnetic poles) in a symmetric spinning vector pattern around the center of the pole (CoP). Every electron has its spinning vector aligned with the pole’s surface and perpendicular to the direction of CoP and neighboring electrons’ spinning vectors are parallel (see picture).

Lower magnetic pole (N) from above
Lower magnetic pole (N) from above

How big force 0.1 T field would generate on our moving charge? Mainstream unit (T) requires mainstream equation, hence \[f=q*v*B=\frac{m*v^2}{r}\approx1.60217657*10^{-18}\text{ N}\tag{1}\]so the radius for generated circle would be \[r=\frac{m*v}{q*B}\approx5.68563*10^{-9}\text{ m}\tag{2}\]and we do know that single electron changes its spinning vector orientation antiparallel to the spinning vectors on its trajectory. Electrons in magnetic poles can’t change their spinning vector orientations (too easily) due to their interactions with the surrounding material (magnet’s material).

The question goes, how many electrons is needed to keep the electron in the track where \(r\) is known? First observations is that the electron must experience attractive net force towards the CoP and part of the attractive force is generated by the electrons on the other half of the circle. On top of those electrons, also the electrons on the right hand side of the electron’s path generate repulsive force pushing the electron towards the CoP. Net attractive force overcomes also the repulsive force generated by the electrons between the electron and the CoP.

*** Removed the calculation for now

Updating…

Above would hold if the electron between the poles wouldn’t change its spinning vector orientation in relation to the CoP, however, it does change it because it’s moving. Surrounding FTE density is pretty much the same in radial dimension, hence the electron is free to change its spinning vector orientation perpendicular to its velocity during the time when the electron is between adjacent orbital electrons in the poles. The amount of spinning vector orientation change depends on the velocity of the electron, slower it moves more it’s capable of changing the orientation, hence lesser the force towards the CoP.

If the electron doesn’t move at all it will find itself between the adjacent orbital electrons having its spinning vector aligned with the pole radius.

More updating…

Finally I realized what’s going on in the gap between the poles. Also I realized that I had a wrong idea about how particles behave during motion. Now I have updated Introduction to TOEBI paper accordingly. I’ll re-write this post in future.

Three Free Electrons

Let’s get this conundrum clear now. How do they behave in various setups. Our basic assumption is that these three free electrons are in equilateral triangle shape so that the distance between any two electrons is the same.

Three ElectronsThree Electrons upside down

Major update starts

Let’s assume that the initial distance between the electrons is large enough for not disturbing the wave pattern generated by these electrons (at least not too much), so that second law is applicaple. Now we can describe quolitative what happens. After more detailed description of repulsive force we are able to do quantitative predictions regarding the timing and trajectories.

Electrons having parallel spinning vectors experience attractive force towards each other as stated by second law and they start moving towards the center of the system. FTE density between electrons ncreases to the point where electrons’ trajectories are reversed. Build up repulsive potential energy does the job. If one of the electrons had antiparallel spinning vector orientation at begin with then things would progress differently. Now the electron with antiparallel spinning vector starts immediately generate repulsive force towards the other two. At the same time those two electrons with parallel spinning vectors attracts each other to the point where repulsion kicks in.

In principle it should be possible to measure the different electron behaviour between this setup and the setup where all spinning vectors were parallel. All we need to measure is if all these electrons hit symmetrically (and with proper distances) set up measuring devices at the same time. In case of all spinning vectors parallel, electrons should hit the measuring devices at the same time but in the other case one electron (antiparallel one) should hit the measuring device before the other two. Those other two electrons have to travel an additional distance before they start experience the repulsive force.

Major update ends (text below is wrong)

1. Scenario

All spinning vectors are parallel. The key player is the bottom electron which has FTEP flux which ejects FTEPs from underneath itself towards the other two (for more information check out subsection Two Electron Based Particles from Introduction to Theory of Everything by Illusion). This electron (electron B) starts to change its spinning vector orientation after the other two. But which one of these other two electrons starts the spinning orientation changing? Again, the surrounding FTE density dictates the order. The one which is closer to Earth’s center of mass (electron C) generates denser FTEP flux (*), hence will be the anchor for the other electron. So, the spinning vector changing order would be, top electron, down electron and the original anchor electron. This order is also the order for electrons leaving the scene.

(*) If the triangle is top down, then the upper electron which ejects FTEPs from underneath of itself towards the other upper electron will be the anchor for the other upper electron. In the picture right it would electron A.

2. Scenario

three_electrons_uud

There is two parallel spinning vectors (electrons A and B) and one antiparallel (electron C). This one is easy. Based on TL2 those antiparallel spinning vectors (B and C) generate repulsive force which triggers the movement for those electrons.

three_electrons_uud_phase2

That single antiparallel electrons experiences the repulsion first and after that, electron A changes its spinning vector, which leads to repulsion between electrons A and B. At the same time electrons A and B are travelling away from electron C.

 

three_electrons_uud_phase3

Again surrounding FTE ordered which electron changes its spinning vector orientation. Momentum will be conserved (the sum of momentum vectors is zero).

3. Scenario

Random spinning orientations (I’ll write this later)

Muon – Take Two

Update: Second law of TOEBI is updated.

Based on the feedback from Berry and Yop I updated TOEBI to accommodate made observations. But before entering made changes I want to thank both Berry and Yop, Thank You! At the same time I have to apologize for barking current physicists for wrong reasons, namely for my own mistakes.

So what has changed? Here we go… new Second law of TOEBI

\[\vec F_{1\leftarrow 2}=G_{electron} \frac{M_{electron}^2}{r^2_{12}}\vec{e_{12}}\cos\alpha\tag{1}\]
where \(M\) is electron mass, \(\alpha \) is angle between spinning vectors,
\(r\) is distance between electrons (center to center), \(\vec e_{12}=\frac{\vec r_{12}}{r_{12}}\) is unit vector pointing from electron 1 to electron 2 and
\[G_{electron}=f_{electron}^2 \ \mathrm{\frac{m^3}{kg}}\tag{2}\]
where \(f_{electron}\) is the spinning frequency of electron.

At first look, it might seem that I have narrowed down my second law even further, but that’s not the case. Protons are constructed of three electrons, also muons are electrons with the bigger mass. Ok, how muons have gained the bigger mass? That’s the topic of a future blog post.

Now we can say that TOEBI agrees with \[F_{e-e}=F_{\mu-e}=F_{\mu-\mu}\tag{3}\]Finally, if I may say so.

I might continue this post later…

Muon

Update: Yop was right. Therefore muon don’t have reduced spinning frequency. It has gained a bigger mass by other means than by reducing spinning frequency. I’ll “revamp” TOEBI accordingly.

You can check the basic facts about muon from Wikipedia. How does muon plays out in TOEBI which contains only one lepton family particle, electron? In general, contemporary particle physics makes the difference between leptons on how much their trajectories bend in a magnetic field, for example heavier particles’ trajectories bend less.

According to experiments muon mass is approximately 206.768 times the electron mass. Another interpretation (based on TOEBI) is that muon is electron with reduced spinning frequency. Let’s see how this interpretation plays out…

When electron interacts with a magnetic field the \(G\) factor of interacting particles is \[G_{electron}=\frac{1}{2}f_{electron}^2 \ \mathrm{\frac{m^3}{kg}}\]where \(f_{electron}\approx8.98755*10^{16}\) 1/s. Now Berry wrote

We separately consider an electron-electron pair, a muon-electron pair and a muon-muon pair, each of them with the same separation distance and anti-parallel spinning direction. Then we can cancel \(r^2\) and compare magnitudes. Experimentally the forces are found to be the same, so according to Second Law of TOEBI we must have
\((G_e+G_e)M_e^2=(G_\mu+G_e)M_\mu M_e=(G_\mu+G_\mu)M_\mu^2~\Leftrightarrow~2f_e^2=(f_\mu^2+f_e^2)\mu=2f_\mu^2\,\mu^2\)
where I have introduced the mass ratio \(\mu=M_\mu/M_e\approx 200\).

First of all, I would like to have a reference which states that those forces are equal and how the measurements are done. But let’s forget that for a moment. The most interesting interaction happens between electrons creating the magnetic field and muon particle, and the force between single electron and muon is \[F=(G_{electron}+G_{muon})\frac{M_{electron}^2}{r^2}\tag{1}\]Now contemporary particle physics says that the muon mass is 206.768 times the electron mass, so what would be the reduced spinning frequency which will generate such a “mass”? In order to create 206.768 times greater mass illusion electron have to interact that much weaker which means that \[\frac{G_{muon}}{G_{electron}}\approx1/206.768\tag{2}\]which gives us \[f_{muon}\approx\sqrt{1/206.768}f_{electron}\approx0.07f_{electron}\approx6.25*10^{15}\text{ 1/s}\tag{3}\]

Now, back to Berry’s example. What kind of distance differences would give equal force measurements? Let’s say that the distance between two electrons is 0.01 m, so we get force \(\approx6.7*10^{-23}\) N. So, what would be the distance between electron and muon in order to generate the exact same force? That’s easy \[6.7*10^{-23}\text{ N}=(G_{electron}+G_{muon})\frac{M_{electron}^2}{r^2}\tag{4}\]which gives \(r\approx 7*10^{-3}\) m and two muons would give \(r\approx7*10^{-4}\) m. According to Berry forces should be exactly the same at the same distance, so references are needed.

Or what about the size of muon atoms? According to mainstream physics, the muons (same attraction, higher mass) have to have smaller orbitals, in agreement with experiments. According to your ideas (lower attraction, same mass), though, the orbitals would have to be larger. Bummer!

What prevents electrons from crashing into nucleus? According to TOEBI, it’s the repulsion generated by FTEP flux originated from spinning (proton) electrons (see chapter Equilibrium State from Atom Model and Relativity). Naturally the same applies in case of muons, however, due to smaller spinning frequency, muons are able to get closer to nucleus than electrons.

The muon mass does not only affect its trajectory in magnetic fields. For example, if Mμ=Me, how come after decay there is an electron left plus a lot of energy? Where was the energy stored before the decay? Maybe in the spinning? Nope, because according to you, fμ<fe. Bummer!

What happens (according to TOEBI) at the moment when muon decays? Obviously it gains back its original spinning frequency \(f_{electron}\) due to its interactions with other particles. Increased spinning frequency causes the particle accelerate which leads at the end neutrino generation. This last chapter is a bit lousy due to my lack of research, sorry about that.

The Biggest Blunder in TOEBI

For multiple reasons I had this idea that gravitational constant \(G\) is easily calculated from object’s spinning frequency \(f_{object}\). \[G_{object}= \frac{1}{2}f_{object}^2 \frac{m^3}{kg}\tag{1}\]

That doesn’t work, as Berry has pointed out. Good old gravitational constant seems to be still valid in our solar system. However, rotation induced force generation still works in TOEBI. Spinning particle interactions can be calculated with those laws. So the question goes, what I have missed regarding gravitational interactions?

In TOEBI, gravitational interaction must emerge and be calculable from its hypotheses and laws. We have two observations

  1. Gravitational constant is valid
  2. Attractive force can be increased with significant rotation frequency (apparently Earth’s rotation frequency is too small to increase attractive force)

With these building blocks I should be able to save my theory of everything… I have an idea already.

Mercury

This blog post is inspired by the conversation in The biggest blunder in physics? where Berry was grilling TOEBI like no tomorrow. Calculations made inside my head are not necessarily the most accurate ones so here I do the math in format of a blog post.

Basic facts are here:

  • \(G_{Mercury}\approx 1.96*10^{-14}\frac{m^3}{kg*s^2}\) if whole Mercury is spinning at the same rate.
  • \(G_{Sun}\approx 3.2*10^{-13}\frac{m^3}{kg*s^2}\) based on estimated total spinning frequency [1]
  • \(M_{Sun}\approx1.98*10^{30}\) kg (TOEBI agrees with this value)
  • \(M_{Mercury}\approx3.3022*10^{23}\) kg (current value)

Everything should match with the next equation (Newton vs. TOEBI’s II Law \[G\frac{M_{Sun}M_{Mercury}}{R^2}= (G_{Sun}+G_{Mercury})\frac{M_{Sun}X}{R^2}\tag{1}\]hence \(X\approx6.5*10^{25}\) kg. Obviously such a value is pretty suspicious. Let’s keep that in mind…

Berry also pointed out that \(g_{Mercury}\approx 3.7\) m/s² and that value would give Mercury even higher mass in case of \(G_{Mercury}\approx 1.96*10^{-14}\frac{m^3}{kg*s^2}\). What’s happening? There is two possible explanation, either TOEBI can’t calculate Mercury’s mass or Mercury’s crust and core have a very different spinning frequencies.

Due to Mercury’s size it’s obvious that there is much smaller pressure inside Mercury caused by gravitational interaction. Smaller pressure makes these potentially very different spinning frequencies between the core and the crust plausible.  I wonder if this same explanation works with my Moon mass calculation…? The idea of very large spin frequency differences between a stellar object’s core and crust didn’t occurred to my mind earlier, shame on me.

At this point, I shall release Berry. I might continue with this post later on.

Ok then, what is the real \(G_{Mercury}\)? We can calculate it from equation (1) by substituting \(X\) with Mercury’s mass, so we  get \(G_{Mercury}\approx6.64*10^{-11}\frac{m^3}{kg*s^2} \). Total spinning frequency is hence \(1.15*10^{-5}\) 1/s which means sidereal rotation period \(\approx 1.007\) d.

Now gravitational acceleration on the surface is \[G_{Mercury}\frac{M_{Mercury}}{R_{Mercury}}\approx3.68\text{ } \frac{m}{s^2} \tag{2}\]

[1] http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1994ApJ…435..874J/0000878.000.html

GRB Light Curves

For various reasons I suspect that gamma ray bursts are partially “man-made” and therefore the obvious great filter candidate.

GRBs come in various durations and radiation signatures, so can they really be “man-made”? How can those short and hour lasting events be triggered by some intelligent civilization and what explains the detected duration variations?

Source: Wikipedia

Let’s hypothesize that ignited GRB chain reaction proceeds with the speed of light. How long would it take in case of Earth (diameter \(\approx 12740\) km)? It would take only \(\approx 0.04\) seconds! Annihilating for example Moon would take \(\approx 0.01\) seconds. Detected duration from billions of light years away would be even shorter than those theoretical time frames. Depending on the amount of surrounding matter and other factors involved in the annihilation process detected radiation peaks can be sharp and/or smooth.

How long it would take if we started a GRB here on Earth to annihilate both Earth and Moon? Well, it wouldn’t take too long for sure… approximately \(1.3\) second! And it’s radiation profile would include two radiation peaks. Interesting… let’s stretch our imagination and say that we would manage to annihilate also Mars when it were pretty close to us, something like \(5.6*10^{7}\) km away. In that unfortunate case the whole chain reaction would take \(\approx 187\) seconds! (Including three peaks; two initial peaks would be very close to each other)

Different solar systems around the universe come in many different setups which can explain all kinds of GRB profiles. Why sometimes more than one stellar object is annihilated? It has to depend on the initial annihilating object. If a larger object is the ground zero then it’s more likely to take a neighbouring stellar object within the chain reaction. But in case of smaller initially annihilating object or in case of a bigger distance between two neighbouring objects chances are that only one stellar object is annihilated. So it doesn’t mean that in case of a GRB chain reaction the whole solar system will be wiped out, but it surely can.

In case of total annihilation of solar system, the expected time frame would be (in case of our solar system and Earth was the ground zero) something like \(260\) minutes… over four hours. This calculation surely makes one think.