# 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.

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.

## 57 thoughts on “Adhesive Force (Magnets)”

1. Berry says:

> 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.

That does not create a homogeneous field, but never mind, let’s go on.

> So in the ideal case we would have n≈1.33∗10 23 unpaired electrons

4 electrons/atom, that two on either side, right?

> per magnet participating in generating the magnetic field.

Generating a TL2 force field. Its magnetic character is your unsubstantiated claim.

> 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.

Your “center of mass theory” is only a crude approximation, but never mind, let’s go on.

$F=n\,G_{\mathrm e}\frac{m_{\mathrm e}^2}{h^2}$

The reason that only $h$ but not $r$ enters the game is obviously its role as distance between the centers of mass, rather than the cylinders’ height. When separating the cylinders, such that their centers of mass are a distance $d$ apart, the $h$ in the formula gets replaced by $d$, right?

2. 4 electrons/atom, that two on either side, right?

Are you talking about atom’s sides? or magnet’s poles?

the $h$ in the formula gets replaced by $d$, right?

That’s right.

3. Berry says:

>> 4 electrons/atom, that two on either side, right?

> Are you talking about atom’s sides? or magnet’s poles?

The latter. Since I’m not from TOEBI world, I cannot place an electron onto a side of an atom.

>> the h in the formula gets replaced by d, right?

> That’s right.

Even for $d\gg h$, right? Actually, the approximation of your “center of mass theory” gets better with increasing $d$.

4. Yop says:

Kimmo, I don’t get it. You realize the force field you propose has not at all the same orientation as in reality?

5. Berry says:

@Yop: Why not? As far as I understand Kimmo, all involved TOEBI-electrons have, in the idealized case, their $\vec f$ aligned in the same way, namely in the direction of the cylinders’ axes.

6. Yop says:

Sorry, I meant if you look at, say, an electron coming from a random direction.

7. I added picture for your pleasure… so electron spinning vectors have this pattern.

8. Even for $d\gg h$, right?

In theory yes… There is this phenomenon related to spinning vector orientations when magnets are attached and when they are apart. When magnets are attached their spinning vectors orientation are as parallel as possible with the opposite pole’s electrons. When poles are apart, spinning vectors are more in their “natural” orientation.

9. Yop says:

Sure, that failure was already present in http://www.toebi.com/blog/theory-of-everything-by-illusion/electron-in-magnetic-field, but Kimmo never cared.

Here, we have a static situation, the attraction between two permanent magnets.

Failure is present in TOEBI for a long time anyway.

But okay, let’s just imagine we need TOEBI to be able to represent attraction between 2 permanent magnets. I mean, it’s not explaining electron repulsion, but based on wrong assertion, it would be sad it cannot explain this macroscopic problem either.

10. Berry says:

> I added picture for your pleasure… so electron spinning vectors
> have this pattern.

Then your “center of mass theory” gives the wrong result even in leading order. But you’ll change the prefactor anyway by pure handwaving.

>> Even for $d\gg h$ , right?

> In theory yes…

We are talking explicitly about the theory.

> There is this phenomenon related to spinning vector orientations
> when magnets are attached and when they are apart.

This is not a phenomenon, but an unsubstantiated non-quantitative claim of yours. And, as usual, quite a weird one: The electrons at the far sides of the magnets “know” whether the other side is touching something? Yeah, sure, the Fairy Tale Extensions in all their glory.

> When magnets are attached their spinning vectors orientation are as
> parallel as possible with the opposite pole’s electrons. When poles
> are apart, spinning vectors are more in their “natural” orientation.

So the answer to “Even for $d\gg h$, right?” actually is: In theory no.

11. Berry says:

> But okay, let’s just imagine we need TOEBI to be able to represent
> attraction between 2 permanent magnets.

We don’t need it, Kimmo does.

> I mean, it’s not explaining electron repulsion, but based on wrong
> assertion, it would be sad it cannot explain this macroscopic
> problem either.

It can’t, that may be sad, but it’s not surprising.

12. Yop says:

You mean that in the end, we won’t explain the word thanks to a bunch of spinning spiky stuff??

13. Berry says:

Alas, no. God must have lied to all the crackpots in this world when he told them that nature must be describable using high school math.

14. Don’t pull imaginary creatures into this conversation.

15. Yop says:

Don’t pull imaginary creatures into this conversation.

Ain’t you the one who keeps on bringing some little convenient sprites you call FTEPs?

16. I was expecting that “reflect” response.

This was the end of weekend… and no, I hadn’t the time for deriving all the stuff I promised. Better luck next week.

One thing which is clear to me regarding electron’s trajectory in a homogenous magnetic field is that it won’t experience attractive force during it’s time in the field. Those parallel spinning vectors in the magnets only put the test electron’s spinning vector rotate (Larmor frequency). Only force acting on the test electron is all the time the repulsive force by TL2.

So, faster the electron moves in the magnetic field more it’s capable of experiencing repulsive force from nearby antiparallel magnets’ electrons (Larmor frequency stays the same so there will be more repulsive force per one circle around the CoP). I need to make few calculations based on that principle.

But now, Good night! 🙂

17. Yop says:

And what happens to a positron in this “magnetic” field?

18. Yop says:

Oh, and FYI, it’s not a ‘reflect’ response. It was a sarcasm.

19. Berry says:

May I raise the issue that the topic of this post was the attractive force between permanent magnets? What’s the status now? Well, for $d\not\gg h$, your “center of mass theory” is an invalid approximation, hence $F\sim 1/d^2$ won’t hold true. For $d\gg h$, unspecified and miraculous disalignment processes occur, rendering $F\sim 1/d^2$ invalid also here. Thus, TOEBI once again fails to make quantitative predictions. Great …

20. I’m in a bit of hurry…

@Berry How about contemporary theory… how exact values you can get for magnets’ attractive force?

@Yop Positrons will rotate their spinning vectors into the other direction than electrons and that phenomenon makes the difference.

21. Berry says:

> How about contemporary theory… how exact values you can get for
> magnets’ attractive force?

I don’t know the exact numbers, it depends pretty much on the actual system under consideration. Getting the properties of ferromagnets from first principles e.g. is quite a difficult business, while magnetism due to electric currents is not. Again: Do the research yourself.

On the other hand, contemporary theory doesn’t nail the electron spins to the board like you do it in TOEBI. If it does, it just needs to add all contributions (like you tried to do it) and then the accuracy is 100% as long as you’re able to handle the sheer amount of spins under consideration. But also upon replacing the discrete set of spins by a continuous field (the magnetization) for macroscopic bodies, the error is negligible for all reasonable purposes.

But I wasn’t worried about specific numbers in Newton, anyway. I’m interested in the principal $F(d)$-relationship, and for the near field $d-h\ll r$ your “center of mass theory” approximation gives a different relationship than what the application of TL2 actually yields. That it is even qualitatively in contradiction with reality is clear to everyone who ever played with magnets: The force grows drastically as the gap $d-h$ approaches zero, but $d-h$ doesn’t appear in your “center of mass theory”.

The far field would be easier to handle, but alas, friendly FTE* sprites help the TOEBI-spins to behave more naturally (whatever that means). Well, the nonsense of this story is obvious: If two touching cylinders are able to keep the TOEBI-spins aligned according to your pattern, I could take two pairs of touching cylinders for studying the far field behavior without worry. But probably you’ll evoke another nonsensical FTE* activity, then.

> Positrons will rotate their spinning vectors into the other direction than electrons

How does $\vec f$ know the correct “rotation” direction?

22. Yop says:

@Yop Positrons will rotate their spinning vectors into the other direction than electrons and that phenomenon makes the difference.

Nope, I remind you that in TOEBI positrons don’t exist. They are just electrons. So in a magnetic field, they turn their spin antiparallel as every other electrons.

23. Nope, I remind you that in TOEBI positrons don’t exist. They are just electrons. So in a magnetic field, they turn their spin antiparallel as every other electrons.

That’s right (positrons do that also), but there is cases where spinning vectors start to rotate differently than usually and those cases are behind the behaviour of “positrons”.

24. How does $\vec f$ know the correct “rotation” direction?

Excellent question! Which I’m going to answer as soon as I have a proper time slot.

25. yop says:

That’s right (positrons do that also), but there is cases where spinning vectors start to rotate differently than usually and those cases are behind the behaviour of “positrons”.

Which brings us back to the problem you eluded carefully for a while now: in TOEBI, a positron-behaving particle, once free from magnetic field, is just a random electron. As such, when interacting with a new magnetic field, it should behave as a random electron, and then most of the time adopt an electron-behaviour.

In reality, a positron-behaving particle will behave as a positron ’til the end of its life. Why is TOEBI wrong on this?

26. In reality, a positron-behaving particle will behave as a positron ’til the end of its life. Why is TOEBI wrong on this?

TOEBI was right, I was wrong. When positrons get kicked out of a magnetic field their spinning vectors still keep on rotating just like in the previous magnetic field. I just didn’t realize that earlier. Therefore when positrons enter a new magnetic field they already have that positron-like spinning vector rotation!

27. Yop says:

Nope, that makes no sense. Otherwise, it would suffice to turn any magnetic field device 180° to change electrons into positrons.

Hey, that’s the problem of TOEBI from the start: you cannot picture things in 3D.

28. Nope, that makes no sense. Otherwise, it would suffice to turn any magnetic field device 180° to change electrons into positrons.

Changing the direction of a magnetic field 180 degrees kind of changes particle’s curvature…

29. Yop says:

Not with TOEBI !

Awesome no?

30. Berry says:

> Hey, that’s the problem of TOEBI from the start: you cannot picture
> things in 3D.

I think, the problem is rooted deeper than that.

In any case, electron/positron role in TOEBI is as goofed up as is the force between the permanent magnets.

It’s getting too much, I’ll start a list of TOEBI’s failures.

31. It’s getting too much, I’ll start a list of TOEBI’s failures.

Interesting… does the list contain the existing failures or the previous fixed ones or perhaps them all?

32. Berry says:

Only the persisting ones; otherwise, it would become way too long. “List of flaws” or “List of defects” would indeed be more appropriate.

33. Yop says:

Well, why making a list of what failed?

TOEBI’s, as a TOE is supposed to explain everything.

So we can safely say, now, that it fails at everything safe repulsion between electrons in some selected case.

And I don’t even know what to do with the rule “hey, let’s turn a magnetic field 180° and look how positron behave like electrons and the opposite”.

34. Berry says:

> Well, why making a list of what failed?

Not, what has failed, but essential points of what is still flawed. Kimmo tends to forget, to deny or at least to distort them.

> TOEBI’s, as a TOE is supposed to explain everything.

Come on, everyone knows that this name was just made up by the marketing department.

> So we can safely say, now, that it fails at everything safe
> repulsion between electrons in some selected case.

And gravitation! If that’s not a definite proof of TOEBI’s amazing potential, I can’t help you.

> And I don’t even know what to do with the rule “hey, let’s turn a
> magnetic field 180° and look how positron behave like electrons and
> the opposite”.

I think you’ll deduce, like every rational mind would, that charge cannot possibly be a direction in real space.

Anyway, here’s my non-exhaustive list:

[F1] Laws for TOEBI’s fundamental particles (the FTEPs) are non-existing, their claimed properties don’t enter anywhere.

[F2] None of the laws of TOEBI (currently two and a half: TL2, gravitation and a flickering $\vec f(t)$) is derived from its fundamental particles (the FTEPs).

[F3] TOEBI’s predictions all contradict experiments, except for two cases: gravitation (because the corresponding law is directly taken over from mainstream physics) and repulsion of two electrons with fixed, anti-parallel $\vec f$s (because then TL2 reduces to Coulomb’s law with $G_\mathrm{e}=\frac{e^2}{4\pi\epsilon_0\,m_\mathrm{e}^2}$

[F3] TL2 breaks down for more than two electrons: Symmetric electron repulsion is not possible, symmetric electron attraction (!) does occur and switches off TL2 upon collision. The further fate of TL2 after the collision is unknown.

[F4] TL2 needs $\vec f(t)$ to work at least until the next collision, but the state of $\vec f(t)$ is permanently in limbo.

[F5] TL2 is not applicable to composite particles.

[F6] TL2 is incapable of correctly describing an electron’s deflection in a magnetic field.

[F7] TOEBI is incapable of describing the force between two permanent magnets.

[F8] TOEBI’s concept of encoding the property “anti-/particle” in $\vec f$ doesn’t work.

Probably, you, Yop, would like to add something concerning photons.

And Kimmo, please refrain from trying to invalidate it by means of your standard phrases “We’ll see!”, “I already have some ideas…”, “I’m actually working on it…”, “I have the blue print ready in my mind, I just need time to write it down.”, “I’ll create some pictures for you.”, “There’ll be a new blog post soon.”, etc.

As long as you don’t actually bring forward something valid (and you didn’t since the beginning of our discussion), these flaws are real.

35. yop says:

Not, what has failed, but essential points of what is still flawed. Kimmo tends to forget, to deny or at least to distort them.

Oh, then it’s ok, but that might be very close to speaking of what shouldn’t be spoken about. i.e. the skills of a certain would be scientist.

Come on, everyone knows that this name was just made up by the marketing department.

They should have anticipated all the puns that could be made about illusion/delusion then. They must be too old school.

And gravitation! If that’s not a definite proof of TOEBI’s amazing potential, I can’t help you.

When I write my theory of everything, I’ll just take every postulates, and laws from standard model but add “schblouf” in the end of particles’ name and “Wouza” at the beginning of principles. That will have a great potential!

I think you’ll deduce, like every rational mind would, that charge cannot possibly be a direction in real space.

I’ve been afraid that my mind was perverted by all this high level geometry they taught me when I was 8. That would hide the big picture.

Probably, you, Yop, would like to add something concerning photons.

They look funny with their mass.

36. Berry says:

> that might be very close to speaking of what shouldn’t be spoken about.

I think, I played it safe. The list does not address the reasons for the persistence of the flaws. Some “softer” points are missing, too, like e.g. that TOEBI doesn’t address at all the question which caused TOEBI’s birth: “essence of mass. What mass is?” as Kimmo narrates in http://www.toebi.com/blog/uncategorized/special-edition . And I left out the big [F0].

>> charge cannot possibly be a direction in real space.

That is meant seriously. And it can be stated even sharper: Charge cannot possibly be a function of a direction in real space. At least not without breaking the isotropy of real space. But such piffle won’t stop Kimmo from dreaming up blue prints.

37. yop says:

I think, I played it safe. The list does not address the reasons for the persistence of the flaws. Some “softer” points are missing, too, like e.g. that TOEBI doesn’t address at all the question which caused TOEBI’s birth: “essence of mass. What mass is?” as Kimmo narrates in http://www.toebi.com/blog/uncategorized/special-edition . And I left out the big [F0].

Well, that’s actually fascinating that the mass in TOEBI was (is?) homogeneous to a surface. Which brings us back to the difficulties of some with 3D.

That is meant seriously. And it can be stated even sharper: Charge cannot possibly be a function of a direction in real space. At least not without breaking the isotropy of real space. But such piffle won’t stop Kimmo from dreaming up blue prints.

Oh, I never doubted it was serious. But it’s hard no to fly away from seriousness when stating “unicorns don’t exist”.

38. Not, what has failed, but essential points of what is still flawed. Kimmo tends to forget, to deny or at least to distort them.

But not on purpose! You guys just bombard me with so many question that I occasionally forget something previously asked. Sometimes I read your comments in hurry and misunderstand the point etc.

I’ll go through Berry’s list in future blog post… in future comments. Some list items are more or less already solved.

39. Yop says:

But not on purpose! You guys just bombard me with so many question that I occasionally forget something previously asked. Sometimes I read your comments in hurry and misunderstand the point etc.

That’s gross misrepresentation of the process. We don’t bombard you with question. We show why you’re wrong. And as you deny evidence, we have to look for numerous example and setups to make you understand. But as you don’t want to understand, you’ll just jump at any new subject you think you can solve.

40. That’s your opinion. Anyway, I’ll handle all those items in Berry’s list.

41. Berry says:

> Some list items are more or less already solved.

Of course, Kimmo. Let me guess: You just didn’t have time to write down those solutions, right?

> That’s your opinion.

I second Yop’s opinion. You are the one who keeps opening new tins all the time.

> Anyway, I’ll handle all those items in Berry’s list.

Yeah, sure, “I’m Winston Wolf Kimmo Rouvari, I solve problems.”

You’ve started two muon posts. Did you solve the muon problem? No. Then you started the “Three Free Electrons” post. Did you “get this conundrum clear now”? No, instead you started the “Electron in Magnetic Field” post. Did you solve that problem? No, you found it more adequate to release the two bragging posts “Watch Out The Curve” and “Deceiving Phenomenon”. Did you solve the issues (re-)raised in there? No, you started the “Adhesive Force” post instead. Did you solve that problem? Nope. All the time you left a trail of unsolved problems. But now you’ll solve them all in one sweep, eh?

Is that a sign of having learned something? Not at all. “Handling all of them” means you producing loads of hand waving again and spouting unsubstantiated claims, which in turn will provoke loads of questions by us and you’ll be lamenting again.

Why don’t you pick the one you’re most sure about and stick to it until you’ve really solved it?

42. Yop says:

Because geometry don’t authorize solving all of the problems we raise.

And I’m serious.

43. Berry says:

> Because geometry don’t authorize solving all of the problems we raise.

I don’t quite get it. Is that an answer to my question to Kimmo? And what exactly do you subsume under “geometry” in our case?

44. yop says:

It’s an answer to your last question: what prevents Kimmo from answering our problems.

For example, there is no f evolution law that can correct TL2, because TL2 is fucked up from the start. There is no “spin” orientation that can replace charge, because you just have to flip the system upside down to obtain stupid results.

In the end, all the TL2 bullshit can be thrown to garbage based on geometry (and a bit of mathematics) most 12 year old know.

45. In the end, all the TL2 bullshit can be thrown to garbage

Angry reader is demanding Yop to get banned due to improper language… so choose your words more carefully.

@dwarf Thanks for the tip 😉

46. Berry says:

> Angry reader is demanding Yop to get banned due to improper language…

People who are themselves banned can demand the banning of others? Funny!

Moreover:

“Holy Shit! We have a bunch of fucked up theories and now we are wondering how to mix them all together. “(http://www.toebi.com/blog/rant/emperors-new-clothes)

“Quantum computers are B[ull]S[hit]” (http://www.toebi.com/blog/applications/quantum-computers-bs)

“Lorentz Factor is Bull’s Shit” (http://www.toebi.com/blog/theory-of-everything-by-illusion/lorentz-factor-bulls-shit)

You need more quotes?

47. yop says:

Angry reader is demanding Yop to get banned due to improper language… so choose your words more carefully.

Please if you feel like you should ban me, just do so. It’s been a while now that nothing’s really improving here, and you don’t seem to want to improve TOEBI. So I won’t lose nothing. We’re just going in circle.

But instead of voicing meaningless threat, just act and ban me. Some will believe it was for bad language. Others will just think you’re tired of being contradicted in your little delusional fantasy. I don’t care.

Another choice, of course, is to answer our comments on the “scientific” plan. But that doesn’t seem to be on its way.

48. Well, it seems that I have to improve my own language… Back to business or should I say back to sickness, because I managed to pick up another flu straight after the first one, FUCK (sorry about that dwarf). So fighting against viruses and taking care of my professional obligations have consumed my strengths completely.

49. Berry says:

I recommend once more to answer only one, namely the one you are most sure about.

50. Berry says:

> I heard you Berry.

Great! And since “Some list items are more or less already solved.”, you could just take the one where the more is maximal and the less minimal, couldn’t you? Then the answer shouldn’t take long, should it? Unless you’ve caught a “very-fucking-long-lasting flu” again, that is.

51. Berry says:

> By the end of this week…

Sure, don’t press yourself too hard. I’m quite used to “solution ready” meaning “in couple of days”.

52. And you might also be used to my next announcement… I discovered the underlying mechanism which generates the (attractive/repulsive) acceleration for particles. It is beautiful!!!

Maybe it’s my somewhat altered perception of reality due to severe flu which helped me realize the mechanism. This is really mind blowing! It’s the time to bring FTEPs on the stage.

53. Berry says:

> And you might also be used to my next announcement…

… being pompous, serving actually to deflect from a real problem and then turning out to be a bubble, anyway? Yes, I’m very much used to that.

54. Berry says:

In the case I’m doing you wrong, you can surely use your beautiful discovery to fix all of TL2’s problems. In couple of days, of course.