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Update: Text in this blog post is outdated and wrong!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.

43 thoughts on “Electron Spin

  1. > Now we have a free electron having its spinning vector aligned perpendicular to the
    > magnetic field lines and on top of that, it spins around another axis which is aligned
    > to the magnetic field lines.

    How can an object simultaneously spin around two distinct axes?

  2. > Long time no see!

    Because of your high-handed censorship in February! Because of your traceless removal of my revelation of an inconvenient truth; without explanation, without flagging.

    > That second rotation is precession.

    But then it’s wrong to state “and on top of that, it [the electron] spins around another axis which is aligned to the magnetic field lines”!

    What you intended to state was the electron’s spinning \(\vec\omega\perp\vec B\) and the spinning vector \(\vec\omega\) itself spinning around \(\vec B\), i.e. \(\dot{\vec\omega}\parallel\:\pm\!\vec B\), yes? Or no?

  3. Hmm… I usually remove comment or parts of a comment if those contain abusive language or like. Although, it’s possible that I have removed a whole comment in case where smaller reductions would have done the job. My bad! Let’s keep this place civilized.

    The answer is yes. I have explained that second spinning wrong (I’ll fix it).

  4. > Hmm… I usually remove comment or parts of a comment if those
    > contain abusive language or like.

    That hadn’t been the case. I had “just” proofed that your claim “so
    eventually everything gets done”
    (http://www.toebi.com/blog/theory-of-everything-by-illusion/the-mechanism/#comment-2170)
    was utterly wrong, namely by a long list of your unkept promises. I
    had asked what was uncivil about my comment. You didn’t bother to
    answer, you obviously found “@Berry Take a break.” a sufficient
    explanation.

    > Although, it’s possible that I have removed a whole comment in case
    > where smaller reductions would have done the job. My bad! Let’s keep
    > this place civilized.

    Look who’s talking!

    > The answer is yes. I have explained that second spinning wrong (I’ll
    > fix it).

    The current “fix” does a lousy job. Why can’t a Master of Science
    write down the business in formulas?

    So, do I get it right that \(\dot{\vec\omega}\parallel\,+\!\vec B\) is
    TOEBI’s “spin up” and \(\dot{\vec\omega}\parallel\,-\!\vec B\) is TOEBI’s
    “spin down”, with \(\vec\omega\perp\vec B\) all the time?

    Then, what is the FTEP flux ejected by free electron passes a spot
    (i.e. detector) next to the magnetic field twice per one rotation
    around the axis aligned to the magnetic field lines.
    supposed to
    mean? Experimenters are detecting FTEP fluxes? And, more important,
    where does the factor two come from?

  5. You didn’t bother to answer, you obviously found “@Berry Take a break.” a sufficient explanation.

    There might have been some sort of unfruitful/semi-hostile conversation before that Take a break comment. My apologies! We should move on… BTW, I have the list of those promised tasks and eventually I’m going to get those done.

    I’m now (mainly) focused on the FTEP dynamics and related phenomena as you guys insisted. Actually I’m pretty happy about it.

    I’ll get back to those other things later.

  6. > There might have been some sort of unfruitful/semi-hostile
    > conversation before that Take a break comment.

    Our conversations are always unfruitful, so that’s hardly a
    valid point. And a “semi-hostility” is rather in the eye of the
    beholder. For me it was quite obvious that you didn’t like to be
    reminded of all those unkept promises.

    > My apologies! We should move on… BTW, I have the list of
    > those promised tasks and eventually I’m going to get those
    > done.

    No, you won’t. That’s empirically established.

    > I’m now (mainly) focused on the FTEP dynamics and related
    > phenomena as you guys insisted. Actually I’m pretty happy
    > about it.

    Sure, despite the fact that the document contains
    contradictions instead of anything helpful concerning the
    FTEPs. E.g. you don’t even have any attractive interaction
    between them, then how can a TOEBI-electron be stably spinning?

    > I’ll get back to those other things later.

    Sure, because you didn’t invest much thinking in the factor two,
    right? “One axis of spinning plus another axis of spinning,
    that’s two of them: voilà the factor of two! No need for the
    gyromagnetic ratio…” To top this deep reasoning, the factor
    two you’re aiming at isn’t even the gyromagnetic ratio!

  7. For me it was quite obvious that you didn’t like to be reminded of all those unkept promises.

    Not in every second comment, that’s right.

    >BTW, I have the list of
    > those promised tasks and eventually I’m going to get those
    > done.

    No, you won’t. That’s empirically established.

    Give me a break 🙂

    E.g. you don’t even have any attractive interaction between them, then how can a TOEBI-electron be stably spinning?

    Outside FTE pressure takes care of that. Those outwards ejected FTEPs are replaced by those FTEPs having inwards motion.

    Later more…

  8. So, do I get it right that \(\dot{\vec\omega}\parallel\,+\!\vec B\) is
    TOEBI’s “spin up” and \(\dot{\vec\omega}\parallel\,-\!\vec B\) is TOEBI’s
    “spin down”, with \(\vec\omega\perp\vec B\) all the time?

    It should be more like \(\dot{\vec\omega}\parallel\,-\!\vec B\) for TOEBI’s “spin up” and \(\dot{\vec\omega}\parallel\,+\!\vec B\) for “spin down” , with \(\vec\omega\perp\vec B\) all the time, based on observations I mean.

  9. >> For me it was quite obvious that you didn’t like to be
    >> reminded of all those unkept promises.
    >
    > Not in every second comment, that’s right.

    You had provoked it by your blatantly false claim that
    “eventually everything gets done”. And you provoke it again and again
    every time you claim progress while never delivering anything tenable.

    >>> BTW, I have the list of those promised tasks and eventually
    >>> I’m going to get those done.
    >>
    >> No, you won’t. That’s empirically established.
    >
    > Give me a break 🙂

    I gave you lots of breaks. The last one lasted almost 5
    months. Which promises did you fulfill during that time?
    None. The list got longer instead. If you like fooling yourself,
    keep going on like that. But give us a break in trying to
    make us follow you.

    Maybe we can put that topic to rest now, no more pestering, but
    no more cock-and-bull stories, either.

    > It should be more like \(\dot{\vec\omega}\parallel\,-\!\vec B\)
    > for TOEBI’s “spin up” and
    > \(\dot{\vec\omega}\parallel\,+\!\vec B\) for “spin down”,
    > with \(\vec\omega\perp\vec B\) all the time, based on
    > observations I mean.

    (That’s the reason to avoid unclear notation like “rotate […]
    left (spin up) or right (spin down)”.)

    Ok then, despite next to no knowledge about the FTEP dynamics
    and despite TOEBI alreday failing to describe the deflection of
    an electron in a magnetic field
    (cf. http://www.toebi.com/blog/theory-of-everything-by-illusion/electron-in-magnetic-field),
    you’re pretty darn sure that the FTEPs produce this precession
    behavior?

  10. you’re pretty darn sure that the FTEPs produce this precession
    behavior?

    FTEPs and electrons together, yes. Otherwise I’m all wrong with TOEBI. I need to think out the mechanism next.

  11. >> you’re pretty darn sure that the FTEPs produce this
    >> precession behavior?
    >
    > FTEPs and electrons together, yes.

    TOEBI-electrons are just bunches of FTEPs, aren’t they?
    So what’s the difference between FTEPs and “FTEPs and electrons together”?

    > Otherwise I’m all wrong with TOEBI.

    Really? If the FTEPs don’t behave in such a way as to give rise to
    above precession, then you’re all wrong with TOEBI?

    > I need to think out the mechanism next.

    You mean
    http://www.toebi.com/blog/theory-of-everything-by-illusion/the-mechanism
    wasn’t complete? No way…

  12. TOEBI-electrons are just bunches of FTEPs, aren’t they? So what’s the difference between FTEPs and “FTEPs and electrons together”?

    You are absolutely right. It might be even so that TOEBI electrons are nothing but circulating FTEPs, even the core, instead of compressed “solid” core.

    TOEBI is like a 10 000 piece jigsaw puzzle and I have put together only those edge pieces. And maybe some isolated island here and there. Putting it together will be a very long journey and it will require the effort of numerous physicists. The biggest problem, assuming I’m right, is the opportunity for utilizing “antimatter” too easily. So, should we make the journey at all?

  13. > TOEBI is like a 10 000 piece jigsaw puzzle and I have put
    > together only those edge pieces.

    And even they don’t fit together at all. Nothing in TOEBI
    works. And if the list of its flaws hadn’t been long enough already
    (cf. http://www.toebi.com/blog/theory-of-everything-by-illusion/the-mechanism/#comment-2151),
    you opted to add yet another item:

    [F9] Spin precession in a magnetic field comes out wrong in
    TOEBI: In the two eigenstates “spin up” and “spin down”, it
    yields non-zero results, one of them even in the wrong
    direction.

    > Putting it together will be a very long journey and it will
    > require the effort of numerous physicists.

    No sane physicist will put any effort into it, because the
    futility of this “very long journey” is immediately obvious. No
    need for any moral worries, either.

  14. Not so fast… at least [F1] is covered in FTEP Dynamics paper.

    We’ll see about the moral worries later.

    Regarding that “wrong” direction, it’s interpreted as positron.

  15. > Not so fast… at least [F1] is covered in FTEP Dynamics
    > paper.

    “Covered”? I beg your pardon?!? We find the following “laws” in
    that paper: You assume FTPEs to be classical, spherical (spikes
    are gone?) particles with unknown radius and unknown
    mass. That’s it, period, no specific law for the FTEPs at
    all. But wait, there is a gem:

    “Due to the geometric distribution of FTEPs the momentum obeys
    the inverse squared law.”

    Care to explain what the heck that is supposed to mean? Maybe
    even by writing it down as a formula?

    And, as [F1] states, the (unknown) properties of the FTEP don’t
    enter anywhere in the rest, which consist of postulates
    instead of being derived from any FTEP laws (TOEBI’s flaw [F2]).

    > Regarding that “wrong” direction, it’s interpreted as
    > positron.

    Which is bogus, because in reality electrons with opposite spin
    don’t annihilate each other while electron and positron do. Time
    to evoke first law of Kimmo, right?

    We’ve long laid out that TOEBI’s encoding of anti-/particle by
    means of \(\vec f\) (which I accidentally denoted \(\vec\omega\) above)
    cannot be consistent (http://www.toebi.com/blog/theory-of-everything-by-illusion/adhesive-force-magnets).
    That’s TOEBI’s flaw [F8]. And since this kills the only relation
    between your “antimatter bomb” and TOEBI, no need for moral
    worries.

  16. There is something said about FTEP momentum, that’s enough information… TL2 is partly based on FTEP momentum because TOEBI-electrons eject FTEPs with pattern towards each other. Hidden (at least for now) part consists of TOEBI-electron dimensions and FTEP mass.

    Ejected FTEPs spread around geometrically, hence inverse squared law applies to TL2.

    Opposite spin electrons won’t annihilate each other in normal circumstances where the spinning vector orientations are not suitable for annihilation event. Check out that antimatter (bomb) paper for more details.

  17. Yo!

    I’m just here to correct something. This blog post, once again, states nothing about FTEPs dynamics. That’s business as usual, but I had to point it out.

    Kimmo, you might like to reread posts explaining you what’s expected about FTEPs dynamics.

  18. > There is something said about FTEP momentum, that’s enough
    > information…

    You must be kidding. Occurrence of the same keyword alone does
    not create logical implications. The momentum of a classical particle is trivial and in no way FTEP specific.

    > TL2 is partly based on FTEP momentum because TOEBI-electrons
    > eject FTEPs with pattern towards each other.

    Where do these patterns come from? Why do they work as claimed
    by you? If that would work at all, it would need FTEP
    specific
    interaction between FTEPs for that. Perfect billiard
    balls e.g. wouldn’t perform those magical maneuvers, which
    you’re claiming all the time.

    > Ejected FTEPs spread around geometrically, hence inverse
    > squared law applies to TL2.

    But you write: “Due to the geometric distribution of FTEPs the
    momentum obeys the inverse squared law.”
    Hence, “the momentum” and TL2 are the same thing to you?

    > Opposite spin electrons won’t annihilate each other in normal
    > circumstances

    In reality they never annihilate, otherwise
    anti-ferromagnets would make a great firework.

    > where the spinning vector orientations are not suitable for
    > annihilation event.

    In deed? What are those “suitable spinning vector
    orientations” then?

    > Check out that antimatter (bomb) paper for more details.

    No, thanks, that one is immodesty overdrive.

    But even without annihilation, your positron-interpretation is
    bogus in many ways:

    1) An electron with spin up and one with spin down don’t attract
    each other, an electron and a positron do.

    2) Electron/positron in state spin up/down follow four distinct
    trajectories in a magnetic field. Only because TOEBI is blind on
    that eye (flaw [F6]), you deem the positron-interpretation
    sensible.

    3) Turning the magnetic field by 180°, still swaps
    anti-/particle identity (flaw [F8],
    cf. http://www.toebi.com/blog/theory-of-everything-by-illusion/adhesive-force-magnets/#comment-2098)

    4) You’re drawing the distinction from two opposite precessions,
    when there shouldn’t be any precession at all (flaw [F9]).

    The last point, flaw [F9], is a problem independent of this
    positron-nonsense.

    And, of course, you still didn’t explain the factor two in
    “twice per one rotation around the axis aligned to the magnetic
    field lines” and the relation to the gyromagnetic ratio.

  19. The momentum of a classical particle is trivial and in no way FTEP specific.

    I haven’t claimed momentum to be FTEP specific, nevertheless, it’s important concept for FTEPs and in the end, for TL2.

    Perfect billiard balls e.g. wouldn’t perform those magical maneuvers, which you’re claiming all the time.

    So if we have a huge number of billiard balls in a very large container and we shoot at it with one billiard ball then the incident billiard ball’s momentum won’t be distributed more or less according to the inverse squared law? And why not?

    But you write: “Due to the geometric distribution of FTEPs the momentum obeys the inverse squared law.” Hence, “the momentum” and TL2 are the same thing to you?

    Of course not, but distribution of FTEPs’ momentum is a major factor in TL2. Particles do react to a incoming FTEPs’ momentum and their reaction generate either attractive or repulsive force.

    In reality they never annihilate, otherwise anti-ferromagnets would make a great firework.

    Only in case when those electrons would get in touch with their spinning vectors antiparallel and their spinning vectors were in the same line (a.k.a. suitable spinning vector orientation).

    I’ll get back to those four points later today.

  20. But even without annihilation, your positron-interpretation is
    bogus in many ways:

    1) An electron with spin up and one with spin down don’t attract each other, an electron and a positron do.

    This is indeed interesting thing… for example, if we have an event where new pair of electron and positron is created, say in a magnetic field. They start their trajectories pretty close to each other but are still capable of escaping annihilation, even though they attract each other all the time. Is there repulsion at the beginning? I bet there is a natural and logical explanation for the phenomenon and you can explain it briefly.

    Is positron’s velocity from pair production sometimes smaller than electron’s? Just wondering…

    2) Electron/positron in state spin up/down follow four distinct trajectories in a magnetic field. Only because TOEBI is blind on that eye (flaw [F6]), you deem the positron-interpretation sensible.

    What do you mean by four distinct trajectories? If, say, electron curves right (having spin X) then positron curves left (having spin -X)? I see two trajectories.

    3) Turning the magnetic field by 180°, still swaps anti-/particle identity (flaw [F8],
    cf. http://www.toebi.com/blog/theory-of-everything-by-illusion/adhesive-force-magnets/#comment-2098)

    No it doesn’t. Electron still curves to the direction what’s expected from it and the same goes with positron.

    4) You’re drawing the distinction from two opposite precessions, when there shouldn’t be any precession at all (flaw [F9]).

    You are right, because there won’t be an angle between spin and magnetic field lines. But even though the angle goes to zero (as well as spin’s precession) particle’s spinning vector keeps on spinning. Incoming FTEP fluxes takes care of that.

    And, of course, you still didn’t explain the factor two in “twice per one rotation around the axis aligned to the magnetic field lines” and the relation to the gyromagnetic ratio.

    That wasn’t right, I’ll remove that from the post.

  21. >> The momentum of a classical particle is trivial and in no way
    >> FTEP specific.
    >
    > I haven’t claimed momentum to be FTEP specific, nevertheless,
    > it’s important concept for FTEPs and in the end, for TL2.

    The point is that you don’t provide anything
    specific
    about the FTEPs. Being classical, spherical
    particles, the only place something specific could enter,
    would be their mutual interaction.

    >> Perfect billiard balls e.g. wouldn’t perform those magical
    >> maneuvers, which you’re claiming all the time.
    >
    > So if we have a huge number of billiard balls in a very large
    > container and we shoot at it with one billiard ball then the
    > incident billiard ball’s momentum won’t be distributed more or
    > less according to the inverse squared law? And why not?

    With “magical maneuvers” I didn’t refer to this propagation of
    momentum. I was referring to the patterns they’re taking
    on and all that stuff about the formation of FTEP jets and
    vertices.

    > distribution of FTEPs’ momentum is a major factor in
    > TL2. Particles do react to a incoming FTEPs’ momentum and
    > their reaction generate either attractive or repulsive force.

    That are still solely your unsubstantiated claims.

    >> In reality they never annihilate, otherwise anti-ferromagnets
    >> would make a great firework.
    >
    > Only in case when those electrons would get in touch with
    > their spinning vectors antiparallel

    That’s the case for spin-up + spin-down.

    > and their spinning vectors were in the same line
    > (a.k.a. suitable spinning vector orientation).

    When their spinning vectors are anti-parallel, their spinning
    vectors are automatically in the same line. Do you try to
    express that the spinning vectors should be in line with the
    electrons’ relative vector?

    Anyway, no such additional requirement exists for the
    annihilation of electron and positron. Yet another sign that
    TOEBI’s positron-interpretation is counter-factual.

    BTW: I noticed that you’ve updated
    http://www.toebi.com/blog/theory-of-everything-by-illusion/adhesive-force-magnets. Alas,
    the result is still wrong, [F7] still holds true. And why is
    X≈2.6e−45 kg*m^2 there, instead of X≈7.7e-37 kg*m^2 as stated in http://toebi.com/documents/FTEP.pdf?

  22. >> The momentum of a classical particle is trivial and in no way
    >> FTEP specific.
    >
    > I haven’t claimed momentum to be FTEP specific, nevertheless,
    > it’s important concept for FTEPs and in the end, for TL2.

    The point is that you don’t provide anything
    specific
    about the FTEPs. Being classical, spherical
    particles, the only place something specific could enter,
    would be their mutual interaction.

    >> Perfect billiard balls e.g. wouldn’t perform those magical
    >> maneuvers, which you’re claiming all the time.
    >
    > So if we have a huge number of billiard balls in a very large
    > container and we shoot at it with one billiard ball then the
    > incident billiard ball’s momentum won’t be distributed more or
    > less according to the inverse squared law? And why not?

    With “magical maneuvers” I didn’t refer to this propagation of
    momentum. I was referring to the patterns they’re taking
    on and all that stuff about the formation of FTEP jets and
    vertices.

    > distribution of FTEPs’ momentum is a major factor in
    > TL2. Particles do react to a incoming FTEPs’ momentum and
    > their reaction generate either attractive or repulsive force.

    That are still solely your unsubstantiated claims.

    >> In reality they never annihilate, otherwise anti-ferromagnets
    >> would make a great firework.
    >
    > Only in case when those electrons would get in touch with
    > their spinning vectors antiparallel

    That’s the case for spin-up + spin-down.

    > and their spinning vectors were in the same line
    > (a.k.a. suitable spinning vector orientation).

    When their spinning vectors are anti-parallel, their spinning
    vectors are automatically in the same line. Do you try to
    express that the spinning vectors should be in line with the
    electrons’ relative vector?

    Anyway, no such additional requirement exists for the
    annihilation of electron and positron. Yet another sign that
    TOEBI’s positron-interpretation is counter-factual.

    BTW: I noticed that you’ve updated
    http://www.toebi.com/blog/theory-of-everything-by-illusion/adhesive-force-magnets. Alas,
    the result is still wrong, [F7] still holds true. And why is
    X≈2.6e−45 kg*m^2 there, instead of X≈7.7e-37 kg*m^2 as stated in http://toebi.com/documents/FTEP.pdf?

    >> 1) An electron with spin up and one with spin down don’t
    >> attract each other, an electron and a positron do.
    >
    > This is indeed interesting thing… […] and you can explain
    > it briefly.

    I could. But you’re not trying to use your ignorance about pair
    production to deflect from this fundamental problem of TOEBI’s
    positron-interpretation, are you?

    >> 2) Electron/positron in state spin up/down follow four
    >> distinct trajectories in a magnetic field. Only because TOEBI
    >> is blind on that eye (flaw [F6]), you deem the
    >> positron-interpretation sensible.
    >
    > What do you mean by four distinct trajectories? If, say,
    > electron curves right (having spin X) then positron curves
    > left (having spin -X)? I see two trajectories.

    Because you only consider a homogeneous magnetic field. In an
    inhomogeneous field (a constant gradient along the field lines
    is sufficient), there are four distinct trajectories.

    >> 3) Turning the magnetic field by 180°, still swaps
    >> anti-/particle identity (flaw [F8],
    >> cf. http://www.toebi.com/blog/theory-of-everything-by-illusion/adhesive-force-magnets/#comment-2098)
    >
    > No it doesn’t. Electron still curves to the direction what’s
    > expected from it and the same goes with positron.

    That’s what happens in reality. But TOEBI is ignorant about the
    deflection in a magnetic field (flaw [F6]), TOEBI just says
    “spin-up = electron; spin-down = positron”. Switching the field
    switches up/down and thus elec/posi. Which is nonsensical, of
    course.

    >> 4) You’re drawing the distinction from two opposite
    >> precessions, when there shouldn’t be any precession at all
    >> (flaw [F9]).
    >
    > You are right, because there won’t be an angle between spin
    > and magnetic field lines. But even though the angle goes to
    > zero (as well as spin’s precession)

    In QM, the angles do not go to zero. Hence, this is
    definitely not the point where TOEBI and quantum
    mechanics shake their hands so to speak.

    > particle’s spinning vector keeps on spinning.

    But \(\vec f\neq\dot{\vec f}\). And, irrespective of any
    positron-interpretation, if free TOEBI electron’s spinning
    vector in a magnetic field is
    spinning (around the axis
    aligned to the magnetic field lines) either left or right

    (i.e. it is precessing), then free TOEBI electron is not
    a real electron.

    >> And, of course, you still didn’t explain the factor two in
    >> “twice per one rotation around the axis aligned to the
    >> magnetic field lines” and the relation to the gyromagnetic
    >> ratio.
    >
    > That wasn’t right,

    But at least it made a nice example of “talkg big or go home”.

  23. Do you try to express that the spinning vectors should be in line with the
    electrons’ relative vector?

    Yes.

    In QM, the angles do not go to zero. Hence, this is definitely not the point where TOEBI and quantum mechanics shake their hands so to speak.

    Even If we have a free single electron in a magnetic field?

    I’ll comment the rest later.

  24. > Even If we have a free single electron in a magnetic field?

    Even then, the angles do not go to zero, in spin-up or spin-down state they are “zero” in the following sense: Performing a spin-measurement in direction \(\vec n\) perpendicular to the field, the probabilities for \(\parallel\,+\!\vec n\) and \(\parallel\,-\!\vec n\) are both 50%, independent of time and of \(\vec n\). No precession.

  25. The point is that you don’t provide anything specific about the FTEPs. Being classical, spherical particles, the only place something specific could enter,
    would be their mutual interaction.

    FTEPs interact by colliding with each other, not so specific to me.

    With “magical maneuvers” I didn’t refer to this propagation of
    momentum. I was referring to the patterns they’re taking on and all that stuff about the formation of FTEP jets and vertices.

    I see… that part is just about coming into the paper. I have set the stage for those “magical maneuvers”.

    > distribution of FTEPs’ momentum is a major factor in
    > TL2. Particles do react to a incoming FTEPs’ momentum and
    > their reaction generate either attractive or repulsive force.

    That are still solely your unsubstantiated claims.

    At the moment, it’s TL2. I’ll describe the mechanism behind the repulsive and the attractive force between TOEBI electrons, it’s heavily based on FTEPs momentum. And I have described it already at least here in TOEBI blog.

    Anyway, no such additional requirement exists for the annihilation of electron and positron. Yet another sign that TOEBI’s positron-interpretation is counter-factual.

    That’s true but not the whole truth. TOEBI’s prediction is that you can annihilate two electrons without at first creating “positron”. That’s a prediction, not a postdiction. I will find the mechanism behind the “normal” electron-positron annihilation and I have a hunch about it. That’s why I was asking about positron’s velocity compared to electron’s velocity after a pair production.

    Also confinement times for the low energy positrons interests me (My question in Physics StackExchange). It’s on hold at the moment, but it will be opened again in a day or two (it needed some editing).

    And why is
    X≈2.6e−45 kg*m^2 there, instead of X≈7.7e-37 kg*m^2 as stated in http://toebi.com/documents/FTEP.pdf?

    That post needs to be updated, thanks for reminding me!

    My time is up! Need to continue tomorrow…

  26. Because you only consider a homogeneous magnetic field. In an
    inhomogeneous field (a constant gradient along the field lines is sufficient), there are four distinct trajectories.

    How blind of me. This changes the underlying mechanism how a magnetic field is generated (ruins my fixation on fixed spinning vectors on magnetic poles).

  27. >> the only place something specific could enter, would be their
    >> mutual interaction.
    >
    > FTEPs interact by colliding with each other, not so specific
    > to me.

    Exactly! But it’s as specific as you can muster. Someone with an
    actual scientific inclination instead would ask: Colliding with
    each other, what does that mean? Like cars collide? Or better
    like space-ships (as to fulfill conservation of momentum)? But
    maybe energy should also be conserved? Should the contact time
    be finite or zero? “Collision” doesn’t even rule out attractive
    parts in the interaction. And what about angular momentum?
    Particles with finite radius and mass in principle can carry an
    angular momentum. If yes, should a collision transfer also
    angular momentum? An infinite number of possible interaction
    laws is conceivable. And their details would influence the
    properties of the “gas” of FTEPs. Kimmo, on the other hand, is
    content with “Well, they collide.”. Very unspecific, indeed.

    >>> distribution of FTEPs’ momentum is a major factor in
    >>> TL2. Particles do react to a incoming FTEPs’ momentum and
    >>> their reaction generate either attractive or repulsive force.
    >>
    >> That are still solely your unsubstantiated claims.
    >
    > At the moment, it’s TL2.

    No. It’s an unsubstantiated claim that these “magical maneuvers”
    would emerge from the FTEPs at all, and it’s an unsubstantiated
    claim that they would give rise to TL2. You just postulate both.

    > I’ll describe the mechanism behind the repulsive and the
    > attractive force between TOEBI electrons, it’s heavily based
    > on FTEPs momentum. And I have described it already at least
    > here in TOEBI blog.

    Your so called “descriptions” are just repetitions of your
    postulates. You never prove anything.

    >> Anyway, no such additional requirement exists for the
    >> annihilation of electron and positron. Yet another sign that
    >> TOEBI’s positron-interpretation is counter-factual.
    >
    > That’s true but not the whole truth.

    It is enough truth to show that TOEBI’s positron-interpretation
    is wrong.

    > TOEBI’s prediction is that you can annihilate two electrons
    > without at first creating “positron”. That’s a prediction,

    … not only without evidence, but which is instead flatly ruled
    out by zillions of experiments performed during more than 100
    years. That’s the hallmark of TOEBI, all its predictions
    contradict reality, nothing works. Fantastic!

    >> In an inhomogeneous field (a constant gradient along the
    >> field lines is sufficient), there are four distinct
    >> trajectories.
    >
    > How blind of me. This changes the underlying mechanism how a
    > magnetic field is generated (ruins my fixation on fixed
    > spinning vectors on magnetic poles).

    That’s no loss, your underlying mechanism never worked anyway,
    cf. flaws [F6] and [F7].

  28. > TOEBI’s prediction is that you can annihilate two electrons
    > without at first creating “positron”. That’s a prediction,

    … not only without evidence, but which is instead flatly ruled out by zillions of experiments performed during more than 100 years.

    I have presented a sketch of the experiment which would reveal the predicted outcome. Two monolayers of solid hydrogen (nucleus electrons a.k.a. quarks) put together, is it done already?

  29. >>> TOEBI’s prediction is that you can annihilate two electrons
    >>> without at first creating “positron”. That’s a prediction,
    >>
    >> … not only without evidence, but which is instead flatly
    >> ruled out by zillions of experiments performed during more
    >> than 100 years.
    >
    > I have presented a sketch of the experiment which would reveal
    > the predicted outcome.

    No, you have not! You have rather presented a sketch of
    an experiment which would reveal whether the prediction is
    right or wrong. That you declare a positive outcome as a fact
    beforehand is once again an expression of your mind boggling
    immodesty as well as your disrespect to the scientific
    method. Kimmo, may I ask what was the topic of your master’s
    thesis?

    > Two monolayers of solid hydrogen (nucleus electrons
    > a.k.a. quarks) put together, is it done already?

    Apparently (http://www.toebi.com/blog/clock) this experiment was
    not done, yet. That’s strange… despite your unremitting hunt
    for sponsors, despite “for sure, somebody is going to give it a
    shot.”, despite your top secret connections to CERN and
    elsewhere, despite “I can always start experimenting by myself.”

    So the score still is zillions to zero against TOEBI.

    But don’t get discouraged. I too have a sketch of the experiment
    which would reveal that the moon actually is made out of
    cheese, but nobody wants to give it a try. It’s a scandal, isn’t
    it?

  30. No, you have not! You have rather presented a sketch of an experiment which would reveal whether the prediction is right or wrong.

    That’s what I meant. Announcing the positive outcome in advance comes of course from my immodesty but also from the reasonable hypotheses of TOEBI. Those hypotheses offer the building blocks for various interactions (although I haven’t described all of them qualitatively correctly yet) and for dark matter & energy. Also Fermi Paradox is obvious due to the great filter, which, of course, is learning how to annihilate particles without at first generating their “antiparticles”.

    My master’s thesis was about Cyclotomic field.

    Obviously I can’t do the experiment by myself, at least for a very long time (having the equipments and knowhow available). And yes, I lost my CERN contact, maybe he got discouraged by the errors in my papers. But this is the current situation… I’ll fix those errors and make another round of collaboration requests.

    Kind of funny that you haven’t got interested in the collaboration. I mean if I’m right… surely you’ll have the advantage compared to others anyway.

  31. > Announcing the positive outcome in advance comes of course
    > from my immodesty

    … which serves as a formidable magnet for collaborations, of
    course, and is …

    > but also from the reasonable hypotheses of TOEBI.

    … once more shown to be unbounded by this ludicrous
    statement. TOEBI hypotheses are the opposite of
    reasonable. Someone with an average level of modesty would have
    gotten the hunch that something’s wrong with his pet theory,
    when nothing in it works, when its predictions are all
    permanently wrong. Then again, someone with an average level of
    modesty and an illiteracy in physics (“I rarely read physics or
    physics related books for obvious reasons.”) wouldn’t set out to
    construct a physical theory.

    Dear Kimmo, to every sane reader it’s perfectly obvious that the
    reason for your sticking to TOEBI is not the alleged
    plausibility of its hypotheses.

    > Those hypotheses offer the building blocks for various
    > interactions

    You haven’t even formulated all the necessary basic hypotheses
    of TOEBI; the (postulated) existence of classical, spherical
    (spikiness gone?) FTPEs is only part of them. From these
    incomplete “axioms” you jump totally proof-free to totally
    deliberate 2nd level hypotheses (FTEP jets, patterns, vertices,
    …) and from there again totally proof-free to TL2 and
    annihilation claims. The funny thing is: Since you persistently
    avoid any proofs (despite a lip service now and then), you are
    completely free about the 2nd level fairy-tales, but still
    manage to get it all wrong.

    > (although I haven’t described all of them qualitatively
    > correctly yet)

    That’s an understatement very well fitting your level of
    modesty. Up to now, only two things have worked in TOEBI:
    gravitation (because you’ve copied the law verbatim from main
    stream physics) and the repulsion of not more than two electrons
    (when disregarding their spins). That’s all which ever worked in
    TOEBI. The rest is a sea of failures.

    > My master’s thesis was about Cyclotomic field.

    So, once upon a time, you have had intense contact with actual
    maths. That’s amazing to learn.

    Well, then you know what’s a (mathematical) proof, right? May I
    ask your opinion about circle squarers?

    But more important: Do you understand the role of (mathematical)
    proofs in physics? Do you understand that e.g. Newton’s 1/r²-law
    wouldn’t have been confirmed (before Cavendish, that is) if he
    hadn’t mathematically proofed that it implies Kepler’s
    laws?

    > Kind of funny that you haven’t got interested in the
    > collaboration.

    Given your personality and the content of TOEBI, that’s rather
    the only sane stance.

    > I mean if I’m right…

    If the moon is made of cheese, we can get rid of famines (in,
    well, exchange for nutritional deficiency).

    Even though you don’t bear any traces of a mathematician (rigor
    = zero, error-rate = high), this permanent confusing of fact and
    premise reminds me of an old joke, where three scientist were
    each locked into a prison cell with a tin of food but without a
    tin-opener. Next day, the experimental physicist had totally
    demolished his cell by throwing the tin hundreds of times
    against the walls until it opened, while the theoretical
    physicist had covered all cell walls with formulas to get the
    right trajectory which opened his tin in one shot. Alas, the
    mathematician got stuck in perpetually stating “Premise: The tin
    is open.”

    Now, back to the post’s topic: What has TOEBI got to say about
    the electron spin? Does \(\dot{\vec f}\parallel\,-\!\vec{B}\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad\uparrow\)
    and \(\dot{\vec f}\parallel\,+\!\vec{B}\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad\downarrow\)
    still hold true in TOEBI?

  32. Someone with an average level of modesty would have gotten the hunch that something’s wrong with his pet theory, when nothing in it works, when its predictions are all permanently wrong.

    I just haven’t mastered my own theory. I’m about taking over magnetic fields and phenomena related to them. Once again, you helped me realize my error, thanks again. I’ll create a new blog post which contains contemporary electron spin explained correctly based on TOEBI and electron interaction in a magnetic field.

    From these incomplete “axioms” you jump totally proof-free to totally
    deliberate 2nd level hypotheses (FTEP jets, patterns, vertices, …) and from there again totally proof-free to TL2 and annihilation claims.

    Good point, but doing things in top-down manner helps me to understand the underlying FTEP dynamics. Naturally I’ll have to fill the gaps eventually.

    Well, then you know what’s a (mathematical) proof, right? May I
    ask your opinion about circle squarers?

    Yes, I do know. Circle squarers? I thought that such a thing is impossible… but I might remember the fact incorrectly 😉

    But more important: Do you understand the role of (mathematical)
    proofs in physics? Do you understand that e.g. Newton’s 1/r²-law wouldn’t have been confirmed (before Cavendish, that is) if he hadn’t mathematically proofed that it implies Kepler’s laws?

    That’s my plan. I’m going to show that quantum mechanics’ basic elements are rooted from TOEBI based concepts and mechanics. I’m also going to show that relativity emerges from the mechanisms of TOEBI.

    Given your personality and the content of TOEBI, that’s rather
    the only sane stance.

    Interesting to see if your opinion changes in future. Let’s see how my next take on electron spin and magnetic fields affect…

    …still hold true in TOEBI?

    No it doesn’t.

  33. > I just haven’t mastered my own theory.

    True. Very true.

    > I’ll create a new blog post which contains contemporary
    > electron spin explained correctly based on TOEBI and electron
    > interaction in a magnetic field.

    How much are you willing to bet that it actually will be
    correct this time?

    >> May I ask your opinion about circle squarers?
    >
    > Circle squarers? I thought that such a thing is
    > impossible… but I might remember the fact incorrectly

    You remember correctly. Nevertheless, there are enough of them
    around on the internet.

    > I’m going to show that quantum mechanics’ basic elements are
    > rooted from TOEBI based concepts and mechanics.

    No, you’re not! If at all, you’re going to try to
    show that. And you’d fail.

    > I’m also going to show that relativity emerges from the
    > mechanisms of TOEBI.

    No, you’re not! If at all, you’re going to try to
    show that. And you’d fail.

    > Let’s see how my next take on electron spin and magnetic
    > fields affect…

    You’ve already claimed (as you already have a dozen times, unjustified)
    that it will be correct. Because it’s always Kimmo who knows
    best.

    >> …still hold true in TOEBI?
    >
    > No it doesn’t.

    Not? Do you remember this (5 days ago):

    B>> you’re pretty darn sure that the FTEPs produce this
    B>> precession behavior?
    K>
    K> FTEPs and electrons together, yes.
    K> Otherwise I’m all wrong with TOEBI.

    Ergo: You’re all wrong with TOEBI.
    Wiser words you’ve never spoken.

  34. Oops, I had accidentally cut too much in my last response:

    > Good point, but doing things in top-down manner helps me to
    > understand the underlying FTEP dynamics.

    That’s a fallacy, too. Due to your jumps being
    proof-less, you can’t know whether your allegedly understood
    underlying FTEP dynamics are relevant at all.

    > Naturally I’ll have to fill the gaps eventually.

    You really have a problem with logical reasoning. You really
    think that a proof is just a tedious formality that can be
    subsequently filed. Despite a Master of Science in maths, you
    seem to have never understood that a proof is the
    prerequisite for concluding anything from the premise.

    For you there is not the tiniest doubt that the gaps can
    actually be filled. For you that’s just a simple truth, because
    what Kimmo says is always correct. But they can’t be
    filled.

  35. you seem to have never understood that a proof is the prerequisite for concluding anything from the premise.

    I do understand that, but I haven’t possessed the needed ingredients (knowledge, skills and ideas) for the proofs. I’m gathering those as much as possible, but doing everything by myself with very limited time resources is a world of hurt emotionally, at least it was previously. I had to change my attitude and take TOEBI as an interesting hobby.

    To those pessimistic lines of yours, I’ll have to quote Barack Obama: “Yes we can!”. I love to prove you wrong 🙂

  36. > I do understand that, but I haven’t possessed the needed
    > ingredients (knowledge, skills and ideas) for the proofs.

    That’s pretty obvious. For a normal person, the consequence
    would be to keep a low profile until this is remedied (which may
    be until doomsday) instead of producing texts which ooze “It’s
    true because I say so, no proof required.” from every line,
    however inane the claim.

    > To those pessimistic lines of yours, I’ll have to quote Barack
    > Obama: “Yes we can!”.

    That’s what the circle squarers say, too, because they’ll never
    grasp the implications of what von-Lindemann did. Just like you,
    they would mistake the reason to answer “No, you can’t!” for
    pessimism rather than knowledge.

    > I love to prove you wrong 🙂

    Again, a normal person would have written “I would love
    to prove you wrong.” which would be understandable as “being
    only human”. You don’t prove me wrong, you never have.

  37. Before the end of this week I have posted a new blog post which describes perfectly (at least qualitatively) how and why a free electron behaves as it does in a magnetic field. After that I’m nailing down the same quantitatively and after that “positively” charged particles.

    By unleashing all spinning vectors for spinning I can see so much more.

  38. B>> you’re pretty darn sure that the FTEPs produce this
    B>> precession behavior?
    K>
    K> FTEPs and electrons together, yes.
    K> Otherwise I’m all wrong with TOEBI.

    FTEPs indeed produce a precession.

  39. B>> you’re pretty darn sure that the FTEPs produce this
    B>> precession behavior?
    K>
    K> FTEPs and electrons together, yes.
    K> Otherwise I’m all wrong with TOEBI.

    > FTEPs indeed produce a precession.

    Where’s the proof for that? You don’t need any, right? Because
    Kimmo’s word weighs more than any proof, right?

    And don’t think your attempt of bending context went unnoticed:
    My question had been about FTEPs producing “this
    precession behavior”, i.e. the one described in this blog post
    “Electron Spin”. And you’ve already admitted
    (http://www.toebi.com/blog/theory-of-everything-by-illusion/electron-spin/#comment-2519)
    that not being true. Ergo: You’re all wrong with TOEBI.

Leave a Reply

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