# Merry Christmas!

I want to wish you all a merry christmas. Also, I want to thank you for your interest and support during the year. Things went pretty good in toebi-wise, I managed to find two pretty simple experiments which can prove that I’m on the right track. My main goal for the next year is to conduct the reduced FTE density experiment in more rigorous way and I already have few ideas how to enhance it (update (01-05-2016) i.e. by putting magnets inside the frame).

I’m also a bit hesitant about the experiment. If TOEBI is really the TOE then reduced FTE density might the long sought great filter. Under that light, is it really wise or necessary to go for it? However, the phenomenon could be used for so many noble purposes, i.e. getting rid of nuclear waste like Berry mentioned or for energy production, so the pros are making the phenomenon so exciting. All in all, my point is that we are living in extremely exciting times!

# One-Way Speed of Light

Another make it or break it experiment for TOEBI is the following one-way speed of light experiment. Measuring the one-way speed of light won’t be as trivial as one might initially think, check out the Wikipedia article for more information.

My claim, based on TOEBI, is that the one-way speed of light won’t be the same in all inertial frames and to my surprise the following experiment has never been done.

Let’s have a train (our inertial frame) moving with a constant velocity $\vec{v}$. Then we set up two light detectors, say 30 meters apart and mark up the spot X in between the detectors having an equal distance (15 m) to the detectors. At spot X we synchronize two atomic clocks and move them next to the detectors with the same, very slow, pace. Detector and atomic clock pair functions so that when light is detected then atomic clock records the time of the event.

Then we set up our light source on spot X and start making events. According to relativity theories those recorded times should be exactly the same, but according to TOEBI that won’t be the case. How come? That’s because photons move through FTE, in our case, FTE provided by Earth. Inside FTE, photons move at speed $c$ as expected but the problem obviously arises in our experiment. If the train moves at speed $v$ and photons at speed $c$ then photons will reach the rear detector sooner than the front detector, but Einstein disagrees, without any experimental backup.

Synchronization of the atomic clocks was performed as relativity theories would require in order to keep those clocks synchronized. In reality, it would be sufficient to put all those equipment in their proper places before the train leaves a station. Acceleration of the train won’t unsync those clocks even though equivalence principle “dictates” so, once again, no proof exists for unsynchronization in case like this one (a.k.a. acceleration happens perpendicularly to a gravitational field).

# Reduced FTE Density

Finally I managed to get some time for explaining the experiment concerning reduced FTE density. I’ll draw few clarifying pictures as soon as possible but now let’s focus on the qualitative description.

Due to physical spinning phenomenon an electron inside FTE generates  incoming FTEP vortices towards its spinning axis poles and those incoming FTEPs are ejected away from the electron when those vortices encounter. This is the basic mechanism related to electrons in TOEBI. Basically this means that electrons are capable of redistributing FTEPs around them and we can amplify this phenomenon with magnets.

Only possibility (in TOEBI) which prevents hadrons from decaying must be so much greater outer FTE density than the inner FTE density that it compensates the FTEP momentum received by quarks, otherwise those quarks would fly away from each other. How come outer FTE density is able to bound the quarks receiving constant impulse (in form of FTEPs) from each other?

If we have an electron in an environment where its other side has a smaller FTE density than the other side then what would happen? Obviously electron’s outward FTEP flux experiences lesser resistance in the direction of smaller FTE density, meaning also that the outward FTEP flux towards the other direction experiences greater resistance. In practice it means that in the direction of greater resistance ejected FTEPs push electron into the opposite direction more than ejected FTEPs on the other side do. Hence greater outer FTE density is capable of preventing hadrons from decaying.

What will happen to hadrons if we manage to reduce outer FTE density enough? They will decay. Surely before noticing anything special about hadrons we should notice some effects concerning larger atoms and that’s the target of the experiment.

So we only need a test material surrounded by a bunch of magnets in a specific pattern in order to generate something measurable, right? Not so fast, we have to take into the consideration few other things, like Earth’s movement around Sun, the biggest FTE density distributor to the experiment after Earth. Earth itself can be ignored due to the fact that its FTE moves along us, hence provide a static FTE circumstances for the experiment. Naturally phenomena, like external magnetic fields, on Earth can interfere with the experiment.

Blueprint for the experiment is following. We indeed enclose a test material with magnets in certain pattern… Every magnet pair (pair of magnetic poles facing each other) should be N-S pairs in order to maximize the local FTEP redistribution. Putting up the setup might require few trials and errors before it’s stable and here’s how it should look alike.

At left there’s a test material sitting in the middle of the “magnetic walls” and at right it’s fully covered. It doesn’t need to be a air tight configuration and surely it leaks magnetic field lines but that’s not too damaging. The point is that the volume surrounded by magnets is going to experience a reduced FTE density. How’s that happening?

Well, because those unpaired electrons inside the magnets, which are responsible for magnet’s properties, do the trick. They “suck” in nearby FTEPs through their spinning axis poles and eject them (mainly) on their spinning plane, in our experiment it means following FTEP flow pattern.

But that’s not enough. In order to create reduced FTE density we have to something about the FTE provided by Sun. Earth orbits Sun which is the second greatest FTE provider after Earth. Every atom bound to Earth experiences Sun’s FTE(Ps) and because we are orbiting Sun it means that the atoms are constantly receiving “new” FTEPs along our journey around Sun. These new FTEPs go through our magnets and maintain the normal FTE density in our volume. That must be eliminated.

One simple method for eliminating those FTEPs would be a stack of magnets (next to our setup) magnetic field pointing to the direction of Earth’s orbital movement. Such a stack receives incoming Sun provided FTEPs and ejects those FTEPs away perpendicularly to the magnetic field. The question goes how big stack of magnets is sufficient?

That I must somehow calculate, at least if we aren’t selecting the trial & error approach. I’ll try to calculate the exact stack size at some point, at latest when I’m trying out the experiment by myself. Nevertheless, trial & error is an option, I just need more N52 grade magnets.

What would be a suitable test material then? Obviously radioactive substances qualify, measured increase with their radioactive decay rate works as the proof of concept. Americium-241 from smoke detectors is the easiest choice for test material, after positive outcome, some heavy elements as well as hydrogen gas are next to go.

What else interferes with the experiment? Naturally anything capable of redistributing FTEPs effectively can interfere, in most cases this means that we have to make sure that there won’t be large amounts of electrons (other than those involved with the experiment) next to our setup. Not used magnets and unnecessary objects (i.e. electronic devices, wires, metals, static electricity sources) should be cleared around the setup.

With above instructions we should achieve (based on TOEBI) increased radioactivity of Americium-241 and if that happens the sky’s the limit.

# That’s It

I have to admit… I don’t have enough time and knowledge for developing TOEBI properly, unfortunately. This situation has eaten up my motivation to the point which has reduced even more the time spent on TOEBI development, nice vicious circle… And I don’t see any better circumstances in near future, hence I give up, at least for now. You can read about the latest efforts from Theory of Everything by Illusion 2.0.

But I won’t abandon TOEBI, I just concentrate on more fruitful aspects of it, for example on experiments. Now you ask how can I conduct experiments if I can’t first calculate the predictions?  Well, there is couple of experiments which are doable and TOEBI gives exciting predictions about the outcomes. The first experiment is about to happen in November and I’ll write about it in advance, most likely in October.

At least the first experiment won’t require very much time nor material. I just need to make few thought experiments and ethical thinking first.

# Heureka!

Heureka indeed… The missing piece of the puzzle. But this time, I want to proceed differently. Now I can qualitatively explain the behaviour of a magnetic fields and phenomena related to them, but I want more. This more means certain corrections to TOEBI but the gain makes it worthwhile, we’ll have the complete toolset for every particle related calculation.

What’s going to happen?

1. I’ll stop writing this blog until I have finished my paper and I don’t have any idea for how long that will take. Surely I’ll answer your questions in comments but that’s all.
2. The paper will satisfy scientific requirements, hence it should be peer reviewed and published. I’ll ask your feedback before submitting the paper.
3. TOEBI 2.0 will be launched.

That’s all folks!

# TOEBI 3 Years Old

Once again another year has gone… it’s time to recap some of the highlights from the past year. At first, a lot has happened! I personally have learned a lot about different phenomena and mathematics in physics. Also, I have had the pleasure to enjoy feedback from professional physicists like Berry and Yop. Both of these advances have guided TOEBI into more correct form which means, on the other hand, that some of the old ideas were dropped, i.e. the attempt to explain magnetic fields by static electron spinning vectors.

What is the current situation? According to Berry, there is no point for me to continue because I have failed so many times in my attempts to deliver something out of TOEBI. I can understand his point, but the thing which I don’t understand, is what other reasonable underlying explanations there can be for Nature and its phenomena other than concrete, spherical, spinning objects, under the hoods of quantum mechanics and relativity? And being satisfied with the mainstream physics theories’ depth looks like a failure to me. I believe we can do much better.

What can I do and what I’ll have to do? To be more convincing, I need to go back to basics, FTEP dynamics it is. By creating a compact toolset from existing TOEBI principles which can be used in explaining and calculating every possible physical phenomena should do the trick. Is it doable? It should be if I’m right about the underlying reality of Nature. Can I do it? That’s another question…

…But at least I’m f**king trying!!! Yuri Milner and other billionaires, few million euros would speed up the process considerably 😉

# 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?

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…

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.

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.

I had my one week early summer vacation and I headed to Stockholm with my family. We just browsed through the usual attractions and from my request we visited also Nobel museum in Gamla Stan, kind of small and crowded place I would say. I suggest that one should visit the place absolutely off-season. Here are the mandatory pictures from the museum… with about 1.5 EUR one can buy her own (sweat) Nobel prize and no, I didn’t buy one.

The best place for me was the shop at the museum, there was all sorts of tourist stuff but also a bunch of interesting books related to sciences. One member from our traveling party purchased me a book as a souvenir and so I did select Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions!

First of all, the book was kind of hard to read, used language was very elaborate and I lost frequently the thread in a sentence. Nevertheless the message itself was loud and clear, paradigms do change via scientific crisis, albeit extremely slowly on human timescale. Well, no news here… almost! Because physics is currently experiencing a huge crisis. Dark matter and energy as its main issues. Problems with gravitational interaction in theory wise, variations with $G$, flyby anomalies, what are mass and inertia. Wasted years with String theories etc. Also by reading some of the physics blogs one can notice how viciously trained physicists attack on the alternative theories, just as described in Kuhn’s book (first printed in 1962), paradigms defend themselves. It’s ok to attack an alternative theory if it sucks from a mile’s distance but if a theory shows some potential it should be explored a bit more and yes, TOEBI belongs to the later category.

Naturally I believe that the next big paradigm will be TOEBI which is able to include quantum theory, relativity theories and explain dark matter and energy, all the ingredients for the theory of everything. According to Kuhn, I most likely won’t enjoy the fruits of TOEBI because a paradigm shift takes so much time, bummer! That might be the case indeed, however, I have an ace in my sleeve… antimatter!

According to TOEBI, one can annihilate particles without at first generating contemporary antiparticles with various contemporary ways. The biggest challenge is to control particles’ spinning orientation and keep them at the wanted orientation before putting them together. If that can be done then annihilation through particle-particle interaction will be doable. I have previously presented that with two solid hydrogen blocks one can accomplish a major simultaneous annihilation event. The problem is that a block of solid hydrogen induces an unwanted spinning axis motion (rotation) for the contained protons.

One solution could be the usage of two solid hydrogen monolayers… Anyway, my point is that by succeeding in this annihilation endeavor I might be able to see and enjoy the future TOEBI paradigm. Now I’m “enjoying” a flu picked up from my Stockholm visit… Hot tea and honey, please!

# 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…