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.

52 thoughts on “Deceiving Phenomenon

  1. There are so many thing wrong with this post.

    I think, the starting point is the fact that TOEBI's not even able to rule more than two electrons interaction.

    The second one is of course that due to the force, there's nothing whatsoever which can explain magnetic field in TOEBI.

    A third point could be that standard theory is working much better with much simpler explanations, but we're not here to do epistemology, are we?

    A fourth point is that positrons are observed in other cases than pair creation.

    The fifth point is not a good point, and is the choice of bold use. It's really laughable how bold is used to underline the fact that with Kimmo, a particle is ITS VERY OWN PLAIN VANILLA ANTIPARTICLE. I like how it sounds like we're dumbass not able to understand it or to see the incredible beauty of it to the point that we would quit standard physics to believe in fairy tales.

    But we should believe it because Kimmo says so.

    And now, you will ban me for saying this is even more hilarious than the preceding post?

  2. Relax, mathematical handling of a magnetic field in TOEBI is coming. Also saying that standard theory is working much better sounds a bit hollow if physicists realize that it's ultimately inadequate theory.

    Certainly there is other ways for creating positrons. Most likely those events have similar underlying mechanism which prevents created "positrons" from initially changing their spinning vector orientation freely in a magnetic field.

    ...not able to understand it or to see the incredible beauty of it to the point that we would quit standard physics...

    Your loss or mine?

  3. Relax, mathematical handling of a magnetic field in TOEBI is coming. Also saying that standard theory is working much better sounds a bit hollow if physicists realize that it's ultimately inadequate theory.

    Well, standard theory IS working much better than TOEBI, for many reasons, including simplicity, efficiency, realism and the like, but mainly for a starter because it works. And that's a lot more than TOEBI, which only predictions are limited to the exclusive case of attraction between 2 electrons.

    What sounds really hollow is your bragging since you don't have the tiniest proof to show that your theory works.

    Certainly there is other ways for creating positrons. Most likely those events have similar underlying mechanism which prevents created "positrons" from initially changing their spinning vector orientation freely in a magnetic field.

    Try to think very carefully. Some disintegrating atoms, in the center of a Farady cage, emit positrons, evolving freely. There's a small hole in the cage. So some positrons, randomly chosen, escape, and fall into… into what? Oh, what could they emerge into, when leaving the cage… That would be fun… Hmmm… A MAGNETIC FIELD, which we chose constant.

    Oh oh oh, Kimmo, my friend, we just found a very very very simple experiment that will disprove TOEBI (or the standard mode), that you can do in your little sweet home. Will you do it?

  4. > mathematical handling of a magnetic field in TOEBI is coming.

    You're promising that since quite a long time now. Alas, if there will be something coming at all, it will be wrong again and again and again. And there are two reasons for that.

    > Also saying that standard theory is working much better sounds a bit
    > hollow if physicists realize that it's ultimately inadequate theory.

    Whether it sounds hollow to you, the king of objectivity, doesn't make it less true. A car with a few problems in difficult terrain, even if one day being replaced by a better car, is already now much better than a wreck which can't even leave the garage.

  5. What's the point of such delirious statements as "physics community has travelled into the wrong direction for awfully long time. I'm talking about magnetic fields and free particles interacting with them."?

    The stupid physics community has as description of this matter which is confirmed by experiments every day, while magnetism in TOEBI doesn't work at all. TL2 is neither capable of correctly predicting the deflection of an electron in a magnetic field nor does it get the forces between two magnetic poles right. And since you can't do anything about it, you have to evoke the ole Fairy Tale Extensions and to accuse physicist of being stupid.

    Do you really think that reverting to your old style of even more arrogance would help you or TOEBI?

  6. There is an easy experiment which would prove my qualitative description correct. I mean, if we generate positron in a magnetic field then by releasing it through a space not affected by any magnetic fields into another magnetic field we will "magically" convert our positron into an electron. Doable?

  7. Kimmo, my experiment is even easier. That's almost what you proposed, except you directly create your positron with disintegrating atoms in a place free of magnetic field.

    This is probably doable by you alone. You will probably find that HUGE number of people working on atom disintegration worked on this for TENS of YEARS, but I'm currently lazy to look for it. So, for once, I will hope that you will look for it by yourself. That's probably very easy to find a corresponding scientific paper where scientists have checked beta+ or beta- decay by putting the electrons and positrons in electric or magnetic field.

  8. > There is an easy experiment which would prove my qualitative
    > description correct. I mean, if we generate positron in a magnetic

    Why taking a positron? Just to make the experiment more difficult? We can also take an electron, because TOEBI already fails there.

  9. It would be smarter to spend your time on google scholar looking for papers handling positron and electrons in magnetic field. You'd see your "qualitative" results are already wrong, and you'd avoid waste of time. Especially if you say your time is scarce.

  10. > Actually I do have all the needed ingredients for handling TOEBI
    > based magnetic fields.

    Sure. Let me guess: You've got a decent blue print in your mind? Everything will come out nice and smooth and easy? Of course ...

    > I'll try to write those down during this weekend.

    That makes me remember the movie "Groundhog Day", I dunno why.

    Well, while you're busy writing it down, maybe I'll count just how often exactly you've made such promises.

  11. Why taking a positron? Just to make the experiment more difficult? We can also take an electron, because TOEBI already fails there.

    That was actually funny! Anyway, extra "difficulties" are needed in order to amaze physicists. Are you afraid of such an experiment? What if I'm right about the outcome?

  12. > Are you afraid of such an experiment?

    Why should I?

    > What if I'm right about the outcome?

    What if the moon actually is made out of cheese?

  13. > Are you afraid of such an experiment?

    Why should I?

    How would you explain the phenomenon where a positron converts into an electron during its visit on magnetic field free zone?

  14. How would you explain the phenomenon where the moon is found to be made out of cheese?

    Kimmo, it's obvious that you're getting quite a lot out of wallowing in your "What if I'm right?"-fantasies, but they have zero scientific relevance.

  15. How would you explain the phenomenon where a positron converts into an electron during its visit on magnetic field free zone?

    We won't have to because no such stupidity exists. Such setups must have been part of hundreds or thousands of experiment, in particular for positron detection. So make a research.

    Looking for state of the art is first step of any decent research. Try to be a decent researcher for once.

  16. There is at least one explanation for AMS observations, but more about it tomorrow, now it's time to go to bed.

    Anyway, is space free from magnetic fields? My possible explanation for the findings won't be related to that though. Now that I think about it, my explanation might also explain the excess regarding the high energy "positrons". So hilarious actually!

  17. Initial denial, as usual.

    The question is not specifically about AMS observation. It's about AMS functioning, and before you say anything stupid, be aware that AMS was tested using some synchrotrons and other particle production device.

  18. before you say anything stupid, be aware that AMS was tested using some synchrotrons and other particle production device.

    Thanks for the heads up.

    As I wrote in the post, there might some factors which affect whether (in this case) an electron changes its spinning vector orientation as electrons normally do in a magnetic field or does it manage to avoid the normal spinning vector behaviour.

    The most important factor must be electron's initial spinning vector orientation. I would think transversely polarized spin electrons (in TOEBI world this means that spinning vector is in the same line than particle's velocity) have at least a chance behave unexpectedly. Do you have information what kind of spin configurations were used in those tests?

    Another factor boosting the chances for positron detection comes from the energy of detected electron. Higher energy means bigger mass for the detected particle which means that changing its spinning vector orientation into any direction takes more time, hence it's more likely to detect high energy positrons. Just as AMS has detected.

    What creates the valley in the chart (behind your link)? Beats me, I might look into it some day.

    Update: Actually the absolute amount of positrons as well as the positron-electron ratio starts to decline once again with even higher energies.

  19. Oh, and I hope you'd make the effort to have some intellectual honesty…

    YOU LOOK FOR THIS TEST SETUP. If you cannot provide theoretical background for your hypothesis, at least make some efforts on proving they are compatible with your BS.

  20. I still don't get it, not even qualitatively.

    So, we've got this TOEBI-positron, leaving a TOEBI-magnetic field. What TOEBI-measurement do you perform to check whether it's still a TOEBI-positron or whether it has turned into a TOEBI-electron?

  21. Don't worry about TOEBI-things. Just normal positrons from a magnetic field to a magnetic field via non-magnetic area. There shouldn't be any electrons detected in that other magnetic field, right?

  22. > Don't worry about TOEBI-things.

    Then, what has this "positron transformation" to do with TOEBI?

    > There shouldn't be any electrons detected in that other magnetic field, right?

    In Ultra High Vacuum there are still about 10000 atoms/cm³, but there won't be many free electrons around. Hence, ...?

  23. Then, what has this "positron transformation" to do with TOEBI?

    You'll get there... I'll walk the walk with you.

    Hence what? From 1000 positrons how many will survive the trip?

  24. > You'll get there... I'll walk the walk with you.

    Oh, thank you so much, Kimmo, please enlighten me.

    > From 1000 positrons how many will survive the trip?

    That depends obviously on the time they're spending there.

  25. At berry, you're to much used to think rationally to follow up here. Kimmo's idea is that, since positron are electrons, when you send them from a magnetic field free place into a magnetic field, their spin will align following TOEBI like behavior.

    Hence, if you create 1000 positrons, send them in magnetic free place, then once again in a magnetic field for detection, they will just act as electrons and you will only detect 1000 electrons.

    And Kimmo really think that's what happens. That those released positron will be detected as electrons. Of course it's not, and many experiment have been done proving otherwise. But hey, could that really stop Kimmo?

  26. > Kimmo's idea is that, [...] ,
    > their spin will align following TOEBI like behavior.

    I thought so, but he said I won't need to "worry about TOEBI things". He wouldn't lie, would he?

  27. Well, you should worry as much about TOEBI stuff than you do for being impaled by a unicorn. Unexisting, but a real pain in the ass if it's true.

  28. That those released positron will be detected as electrons. Of course it's not, and many experiment have been done proving otherwise.

    Such as? I'm listening...

  29. > Such as?

    Actually, almost all experiments involving positrons can be named. Handling a positron beam involves magnetic fields as well as electrostatic fields as well as field free regions. Oppositely charged particles, i.e. electrons, would behave totally wrong in these setups. Also the chamber containing the target to be investigated by positron annihilation spectroscopy is field free. If the positrons had changed into electrons, there wouldn't be any annihilation radiation to be detected.

    Moreover, your absurd transformation would violate the conservation of charge, experimentally as well confirmed as its companions.

    > I'm listening...

    And I'm still listening for an answer to my question from yesterday: What TOEBI-measurement do you perform to check whether you've got a TOEBI-positron or a TOEBI-electron at hand?

  30. The problem with (all?) experiments you mentioned might have a magnetic field free areas but positrons pass through such areas "too quickly" (they have high energy = high mass which surely has its effects). What experiment would have the slowest moving positrons in such magnetic field free area?

    I'll get back to your question later...

  31. > The problem with (all?) experiments you mentioned might have [...]

    The problem with all your baseless predictions is that you'll always add yet another vague loophole why your absurd effect didn't happen or wasn't noticed.

    > What experiment would have the slowest moving positrons in such
    > magnetic field free area?

    Do the research yourself.

    > I'll get back to your question later...

    You first have to work it out?

  32. > Do the research yourself.

    Ok, since I'm a nice guy: In positron annihilation spectroscopy, they go down to velocities of about c/20 (to sample the target's surface region), which means a time of flight through (say) 1.5cm of field free region of one nanosecond, i.e. about 100 million times TOEBI's famous \(t_f\). What now? You'll pull a larger time scale out of your ass hat.

  33. > I'll get back to your question later...

    You first have to work it out?

    No, I had something else to do. You can tell the difference between electron and positron based their behaviour in a magnetic field, even in TOEBI. Before you start telling that TOEBI can't describe particle behaviour in a magnetic field, I answer beforehand that we'll get there.

    Step by step... now I have calculated the force between magnets (latest blog post).

  34. In positron annihilation spectroscopy, they go down to velocities of about c/20 (to sample the target's surface region), which means a time of flight through (say) 1.5cm of field free region of one nanosecond

    Thanks! That sounds interesting case. I'll go through it mathematically after I have derived particle behaviour in a magnetic field (in TOEBI world).

  35. > You can tell the difference between electron and positron based
    > their behaviour in a magnetic field, even in TOEBI.

    How? So, I set up a TOEBI-magnetic field where I know the TOEBI-*tron to be, let's say the field is in z-direction. How does the TOEBI-positron's behavior differ from the TOEBI-electron's behavior?

  36. > Actually not, there is a rotation of \(\vec f\) involved also (Larmor frequency).

    Ah, another thing copied from stupid mainstream physics, just like gravity. You still have no law for \(\dot{\vec f}\), but probably you'll just postulate the Larmor frequency.

  37. > Actually Larmor frequency won't need postulating

    Of course it needs. You won't derive it from FTE*.

    > (that's my gut feeling at the moment).

    And what tells your gut feeling about how \(\vec f\) and its "rotation" determine the TOEBI-*tron's deflection in a TOEBI-magnetic field?

  38. Of course it needs. You won't derive it from FTE*.

    Maybe not only from FTE* but \(f_{e}\) gives the needed help combined with distance and the total amount of electrons involved from the magnets.

  39. So, you need all this information to tell apart TOEBI-positron from -electron? A given magnetic field is not enough?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *