# Muon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

## 116 thoughts on “Muon”

1. Yop says:

First of all, I would like to have a reference which states that those forces are equal

Coulomb’s law. You’ll find it on wikipedia.

2. Berry says:

> First of all, I would like to have a reference which
> states that those forces are equal and how the
> measurements are done.

You’ve heard about Coulomb’s law, haven’t you? It’s irrefutaed since 229 years, so please think twice before again claiming that the guys don’t know what they are doing. As I said: You would have to prove that TOEBI predicts all experiments involving electric charge (and that are quite a lot) at least as good as Maxwell’s equations (of which Couomb’s law is a part) or, if necessary, QED.

> and the force between single electron and muon is

Where did you pull that equation (1) from? According to Second Law of TOEBI the force should rather be
$F_{\mu-e}=(G_\mu+G_e)\frac{M_\mu\,M_e}{r^2}$

I’ll comment on the rest of your post when this question is settled.

3. Yop says:

Where did you pull that equation (1) from? According to Second Law of TOEBI the force should rather be

This I think I understood: the muon and electron mass are identical, because muon is a slowly spinning particle. The only answer to your comments you’ll find in today’s blog is that you need to find some references that Coulomb law applies in the case of muon and electron.

I think the next objection will be, instead of absurd mass, absurd spinning frequency, to pull out absurd charge. But I don’t want to go to far ahead.

4. Yop says:

Muon is a slowly spining electron, sorry.

5. Yes, but muon’s cross section (a.k.a. mass) equals electron’s cross section (same underlying particle).

6. Berry says:

Ok, you obviously assume $M_\mu=M_e$ from equation (1) onward.

And you claim, head on against Coulomb’s law, that $F_{e-e}/F_{\mu-e}=207$ (no need for extra precision here) at the same distance $r$, right?

With $M_\mu=M_e$ this means
$\frac{2G_e}{G_\mu+G_e}=207 \quad\Leftrightarrow\quad \frac{G_e}{G_\mu}=\frac{207}{2-207} \approx -1$

That’s obviously not your equation (2). So, the ratio of which forces exactly do you really assume to be 207? And why?

7. Berry says:

Man, I’m really to denso to post here, sorry: My comment from 19:07 was meant as continuation of the one from 18:19.

8. Berry says:

Sorry, but you cannot call that “cross section”, as that has a well defined meaning in mainstream physics already. And it’s neither the mass nor proportional to it, and there is no “cross section of the electron” nor a “cross section of the muon”. To avoid confusion, you could call it differently, maybe “TOEBI section”, but I fail to see why one should introduce it, anyway.

9. My cross section concept is more concrete than the concept you were referring at. I really do mean the actual cross section of particle (in case of elementary particles).

10. Yop says:

Then call it mass.

Cross-section clearly refers to a value homogeneous to an area.

You will have a lot of difficulty to explain why, for a macroscopic system, like say, a sphere, when you double it’s radius, its measured mass is multiplied by 8 while you mass is multiplied by 4.

11. I understand your point but now we are talking about spheres which construct our universe, I’m not talking about e.g. footballs. Particle’s cross section is the mass in TOEBI.

12. Yop says:

Then don’t say that this cross-section is “more concrete”. It’s not.

13. If we hypothesize that muon is actually an electron with reduced spinning frequency then obviously spinning frequency have to absorb the mass difference, right? That’s the origin of the equation (2).

14. Yop says:

And then Coulomb’s law doesn’t work any more? That’s not a problem?

15. Not as accurately than in case of normal electrons.

16. Yop says:

That’s most unfortunate. But Lorentz law still works though?

17. Berry says:

Still you should give it another name to avoid confusion, e.g. “TOEBI cross section”, as it is, while you may call it merely “more concrete”, actually utterly different from the usual one. But, as I said, if it is anyway nothing else than the mass, then there is no reason to introduce another name for the same thing in the first place.

18. Berry says:

It it’s “obvious”, then please explain it! Spinning frequency has to absorb the mass difference in which quantity (most probably a force)?!? There is more than one possibility, and I gave my best guess above.

19. In TOEBI there is no other option, that’s why it’s obvious. In which quantity? Force consists of the mass, the distance and the spinning frequency, so plain and simple spinning frequency reduction makes the magnitude of the interaction smaller.

20. Lorentz law is obsolete when we calculate with TOEBI laws. That is described in the book.

21. Concept of mass would have been sufficient, but I wanted to point out the origin of mass. I’ll fix that.

22. Berry says:

“no other option” in order to achieve what? Which equation would not be fulfilled, which requirement would not be met, if equation (2) was replaced by something else (e.g. by $G_\mu=G_e$?

23. dwarf says:

@Kimmo:

To my understanding, convincing Berry and Yop of TOEBI is not going as smoothly as expected.
Could you please make a assessment, where you think this debate is going to be:

A) Berry and Yop will be convinced by your argumentation
B) You will be convinced by Berry’s and Yop’s argumentation
C) There will be no agreement between you and Berry and Yop
D) something else

I think such assessment would be an interesting also for your non-commenting readers.
Without any particular reason, personally I would guess for option C.

24. Yop says:

Every law is obsolete with TOEBI, that’s not an answer.

In the case of Coulomb’s force, TOEBI, despite not a single experiment, demonstrated it was plain wrong.

My question is, does Lorentz law, despite obsolete, still coincide with TOEBIE or is it wrong like Coulomb’s?

25. Mmm.. naturally I root for the options A or B, but C might be the final outcome. However, I have no problems changing my views if proved wrong.

26. Berry says:

But why, what is the basis, which equation? Don’t you understand the question?

Look, the basis for my result (the one in “Major Update” not the $\approx -1$ above) was the equality $F_{e-e}=F_{\mu-e}=F_{\mu-\mu}$, due to Coulomb’s law for the same distance.

But you deny Coulomb’s law, so which relation do you use to arrive at equation (2)? In other words, $M_\mu=M_e$ toghether with which equation yields $G_e/G_\mu=207$?

You know that “Its’ obvious!” is not a valid argument in science, don’t you?

27. The basis for equation (2) is that in order to create the illusion of greater mass muon have to have reduced spinning frequency, because the underlying particle (electron) and its mass stays the same.

28. Berry says:

The “illusion of greater mass” in which experiment, that in turn is described by which of your equations? Kimmo, I’m really getting the impression that you’re delibarately trying to evade.

29. I’ll get back to this later today. (now busy)

30. The “illusion of greater mass” in which experiment, that in turn is described by which of your equations?

For example circling “charged” particle in homogenous magnetic field the centripetal force is $F=\frac{mv^2}{r}$from which we can calculate for example muon mass. But now if we hypothesize that $m_{electron}=m_{muon}$ then what would explain observed differences between trajectories of electron and muon? I mean other than spinning differences.

31. Berry says:

> what would explain observed differences
> between trajectories of electron and muon?

I don’t know, because: Which one of TOEBI’s laws governs the force experienced by an elementary particle in a homogeneous magnetic field? Obviously, it’s not “Second Law of TOEBI”, despite the latter being our current subject of discussion. Could you please point me to that law in question?

32. I don’t know, because: Which one of TOEBI’s laws governs the force experienced by an elementary particle in a homogeneous magnetic field? Obviously, it’s not “Second Law of TOEBI”

It’s exactly that second law! Take a look at Introduction paper, there is few examples which clarify the issue. Magnetic field’s strength is the sum of those electrons’ (in magnets) exerted force in any given point.

33. Berry says:

> It’s exactly that second law!

No, that’s utterly impossible, because:

* Second Law of TOEBI gives the mutual force of two (possibly different) particles, instead of one particle in an external field.

* Even when writing its force as two distinct factors in order to declare one of them as the field produced by the other particle, this field is not at all homogeneous.

* Even when dropping the requirement of homogeneity, there is nothing of a magnetic field in it, because in contrast to the latter it decays too slowly with distance and it has spherical symmetry.

Hence, unless you also redefine the expressions “homogeneous” and “magnetic”, then, no, Second Law of TOEBI tells us nothing about a particle in a homogeneous magnetic field.

If you think that there is anything relevant in the “introduction paper”, then please name page and paragraph, as I’m not inclined to go through all this prose.

If you claim that TOEBI has something to say about particles in a homogeneous magnetic field (as it should have, being a theory of everything!), then please write down the corresponding formula or point me to it.

34. Yop says:

Ok, you do realize that Coulomb’s law and Lorentz law are actually linked to each other.

Why would you accept bending due to magnetic field and not electrostatic repulsion, which are due to Maxwell’s equation. Maybe it’s all wrong from the start.

35. Yop says:

After outright negation of Coulomb’s law? That’s impressive.

36. Magnetic field is generated by individual electrons in a magnet hence second law works perfectly.

Check from page 20 (Magnetic field).

37. Berry says:

Another objection regarding the role of “Second Law of TOEBI” (which I abbreviate as “TL2” from now on) in the context of homogeneous magnetic fields:

Let us somehow fix one of the particles in space and stay with the other particle far away in a region small enough, such that the gradient of the force field can be neglected and we thus have an approximatively homogeneous field. Will this test particle then perform synchrotron-like orbits in our region of almost homogeneous field? No, of course not! Due to the gravity-like nature of TL2, it will perform Kepler-orbits with the other, spatially fixed particle as the focal point. Bummer!

Hence, for your magnetic argument to have any relevance at all, TOEBI badly needs a corresponding force law, which is really not TL2.

38. Second law of TOEBI makes Coulomb’s law obsolete as well as Lorentz part.

39. Once again, check from page 20, 21, there you have a homogenous magnetic field described by TOEBI, no sweat.

40. Yop says:

The point is, why is COulomb’s law false and Lorentz law still right?

41. They are both obsolete, because second law takes care of them.

In TOEBI you can calculate how test particle behaves in a magnetic field based on electrons’ spinning vector alignments in the magnet.

42. Berry says:

> Magnetic field is generated by individual
> electrons in a magnet

How does this work in TOEBI? If you claim that it follows from TL2, you have to prove that.

> hence second law works perfectly.

That’s a claim without any substanciation. Prove it!

So, let’s have a string of electrons with spacing $\lambda$, moving with velocity $\vec v=v\vec e_z$ along the z-axis. Please, show us how TL2 generates a magnetic field from that.

> Check from page 20 (Magnetic field).

I checked. This is the only relevant sentence: “the underlying mechanism is exactly the same, organized electron spinning vectors. ”

So please, take a set of electrons, their spinning vectors organized as you need it, and calculate the magnetic field resulting from TL2. You must have done that already. otherwise you wouldn’t claim it, would you?

PS: I didn’t fail to notice how we switched from your unsubstanciated claim $M_\mu=M_e$ to your unsubstanciated claim that TL2 could create a magnetic field.

43. Berry says:

> Once again, check from page 20, 21,
> there you have a homogenous magnetic
> field described by TOEBI, no sweat.

Once again, there we have just words repeating your claim, but no proof that TL2 would actually cause such a magnetic field.

44. Individual forces add up in case of magnetic field. Actually I haven’t done any deeper calculations related to magnetic fields. I haven’t had the available time, but such a calculations would make a great future blog post though…

45. Yop says:

And what about the fact that Coulomb’s law has always been verified experimentally?

– Are you sure it won’t work on electron and muon?
– In which other case Coulomb’s law is obsolete?
– Why is it valid macroscopically?

46. What kind of experiments? With pair of electrons?

47. Yop says:

You’re the one pulling a new theory, it’s up to you to present new experimental results. But I am very dubious: a lot of people are working on accelerating muons (I’ll let you look, it’s your job), and they seem to gain the good acceleration based on their charge and mass and the used electric field, obeying perfectly Lorentz’ law. So what’s wrong? If we put an electric field, it’s the same as if we put electrons or protons no?

And no, no one will check if Coulomb’s law valid in this precise little case for you saying that, just for once, it doesn’t work because it doesn’t fit a TOE that for now, is valid for a veeeeery little range of interaction. It doesn’t explain photons, it doesn’t explain electro-optic effects, it doesn’t explain gravity. It explains the repulsion of 2 particles when you choose to give them the mass that’s been measured by experimentalists. In other case, it fails immediately as Berry showed for Muon.

48. Yop says:

Yeah yeah, whatever.

So, back to electrons and Muons (nice try avoiding scientific discussion by the way). How come people get good acceleration value using Lorentz law when accelerating muon in an electric field, and not an acceleration value following 2nd law of TOEBI?

Namely, they should find an acceleration twice inferior to that of electrons (almost, since Gmu <<<< Ge) with TOEBI. Unforunately, they find an acceleration 200 times inferior, perfectly confirming Lorentz law. The electric field is due to electrons in this case, not muon, right?

49. Namely, they should find an acceleration twice inferior to that of electrons (almost, since Gmu <<<< Ge) with TOEBI. Unforunately, they find an acceleration 200 times inferior, perfectly confirming Lorentz law. The electric field is due to electrons in this case, not muon, right?

I don’t get it. What do you mean by twice inferior? I calculated muon’s spinning frequency which gives the behaviour matching that 200 time inferior.

50. Berry says:

> Individual forces add up in case of magnetic field.

No, they don’t. Gravity forces don’t do that, electro-static forces don’t do that, either. If you think that TL2, despite being very similar in shape to those two, actually can do that, you have to prove it. Otherwise it’s just yet another repetition of your unsubstanciated claim.

Also Newton, after presenting his axioms and his law of gravity had to prove that they yield Kepler’s laws (and he did so). Why dou you think people should blindly believe your claim? Just because you have the internet while Newton had not?

> Actually I haven’t done any deeper
> calculations related to magnetic fields.

That’s glaringly obvious. But then you have no scientific reason (and no, your wishes and hopes and your imagination do not belong to this category) to claim that TL2 was actually able to produce a magnetic field. Heck, you don’t even have a force law ready for the case of a magnetic field somehow being present (whatever its source).

> I haven’t had the available time, but such
> a calculations would make a great future
> blog post though…

Sure, feel free to do so. But until you’ve accomplished that, rebutting successfully the arguments against this capability of TL2 (yes, there are), your claim has no scienftific ground.

Hence, your “obvious” equation (2) has, for the time being, no sound basis. Are you able to admit that?

51. Berry says:

>> Individual forces add up in case of magnetic field.

> No, they don’t.

Just to avoid misunderstandings: Adding up sources of magnetic field of course yields a magnetic field again (being just the sum, since Maxwell’s equations are linear). But adding up force-fields of non-magnetic nature does not miraculously create a magnetic field (in the same inertial frame), at least not in mainstream physics. If you think it to be different in TOEBI, then… do I have to repeat myself?

52. dwarf says:

@Kimmo:

Do you agree, that TOEBI and Coulomb’s are in essential conflict?
Hence, if Coulomb’s law is correct, TOEBI would be proven wrong.

Given that there is some experimental evidence that supports Coulomb’s law,
how much more evidence would be necessary for you to be convinced of the
correctness of Coulomb’s law and in consequence TOEBI’s incorrectness?

53. Yop says:

Second law gives Fm-e = (Gelectron+Gmuon)*Melectron^2/r^2 for electron muon, and Fe-e = 2Gelectron*Melectron*^2/r^2 for electron electron.

So if Gmuon<<<Gelectron, you have Fm-e = 1/2 Fe-e.

The repulsion force between muon and electron is half the repulsion for between 2 electrons. ACCORDING TO TOEBI AS WRITTEN.

Because you know, muon trajectory bends less than electron in a magnetic field, but let's not care at how much less it bends, that's irrelevant. Same goes for acceleration in a electric field, it's just that it accelerate less, doesn't matter how much less…

54. Yop says:

Don’t worry, there is still the possibility to say that fundamental principle of dynamics is fucked up.

55. dwarf says:

@Yop:

Anyway, let’s wait what the boss has to say.

56. Hence, your “obvious” equation (2) has, for the time being, no sound basis. Are you able to admit that?

No I’m not (in case we study electron-muon interaction). So I must prove that magnetic field emerges from TL2… so be it, which apparently is my next blog post.

57. No they are not. Pretty much same results comes out of TOEBI.

58. yop says:

No they are not. Pretty much same results comes out of TOEBI.

How can you even say something so wrong?

You find a force 2 orders of magnitude inferior to Coulomb’s law in the case of Muon-Muon repulsion. 2 ORDERS. OF. MAGNITUDE.

Oh yes, I know, you corrected the mass so that it corresponds to the observed acceleration. So let’s believe it, lower mass should, somehow make it accelerate faster.

The funniest case, as you discovered is electron-muon repulsion, where, according to you, the 2 should accelerate at the same rate, while applying Coulomb’s law, the muon will accelerate 200 times slower than the electron (2 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE again).

All this coming from the fact that you based your muon “theory” on a single sentence:
“Muon trajectory bends less in an electromagnetic field than an electron”. So you thought, well, let’s say M is the same and change our G. Except it doesn’t fucking work because you forgot that, ultimately, magnetic field is due to electron’s movement, hence Gelectron will appear somehow, and kill everything you asserted.

I tried to sum this up to you by telling you that a muon would accelerate 200 times less in an electric field (electric field du to electrons, of course), but you decided to avoid answering.

So now tell me please, how much do you rate your intellectual honesty? How long will it take ’til you give up on TOEBI’s second law to revamp it once again admitting you were light years away from imagining even 2 or 3 of its implications?

59. yop says:

I’m nice, so I’ll give you a hand here, revamp should be as simple as changing G1+G2 by G1*G2 in 2nd law.

While berry will explain you why it’s stupid, can you have a look at stimulated emission?Those guys working in the field of laser would be happy.

60. Except it doesn’t fucking work because you forgot that, ultimately, magnetic field is due to electron’s movement, hence Gelectron will appear somehow, and kill everything you asserted.

Of course $G_{electron}$ appears, magnetic field emerges from properly aligned electrons’ spinning vectors.

I tried to sum this up to you by telling you that a muon would accelerate 200 times less in an electric field (electric field du to electrons, of course), but you decided to avoid answering.

Eh, electric field accelerates muons? I thought we were talking about magnetic field.

BTW. What’s wrong with revamping? Business as usual.

61. Yop says:

Eh, electric field accelerates muons? I thought we were talking about magnetic field.

O. M. G…

You – I computed new Gmuon so that it bend correctly in a magnetic field
Berry/me – Doesn’t work with Coulomb’s law.
You – I don’t give a shit, experiments must be inexistant or wrong.
Me – What do you think of people accelerating muon with electric field, since Coulomb’s law’s only one consequence of Lorentz law?
You – awkward silence and attempt to change subject.

So now, let’s be clear:

1 – let’s assume behaviour in a magnetic field is okay. Adding new variable no one can measure should at least make you able to do that*.

2 – Elementary calculations that could be made by a high school student make you able to see immediately that acceleration of a muon in an electric field should be half acceleration of an electron.

3 – Fact: acceleration is divided by 200, not 2.

62. Yop says:

I understand how much fun you’re having here, but please let the other have their own kind of fun.

My language never was inappropriate, especially considering the despise and lack of consideration Kimmo gives to people who are only trying to open his eyes on the necessity to get informed on today’s science before claiming pretentiously to have found a TOE.

63. Berry says:

> No I’m not (in case we study electron-muon
> interaction).

We are (or rather: we were) indeed. But equation (2) does, as you finally admitted, not stem form electron-muon interaction but from comparing the synchroton-radius of electrons and muons in a homogeneous magnetic field. And since the magnetic field is not yet covered in TOEBI, this radii-argument is gone.

Hence, what is your new basis for equation (2)?

64. We should continue this discussion after my next blog post, unless you accept equation (2) for now.

65. Dwarf has left the build, for good this time.

66. @Berry This is for you too.

I might have had some wrong ideas about electric fields and magnetic fields, shame on me. Second law works exactly right with electric fields. Lorentz part emerges from the alignment pattern of underlying electrons’ spinning vectors.

So, we can calculate electric field strength for our test particle by adding up forces calculated with TL2. (test particle vs. electrons in our magnet)

67. Berry says:

> We should continue this discussion
> after my next blog post,

No way, because your next blog will be prone to the same problems as this one.

> unless you accept equation (2) for now.

Since you still have no TOEBI-derived explanation for it (which apparently you’re unable to admit), I have no reason to do so.

Instead I move on to the next issue of this blog post:

> What prevents electrons from crashing into nucleus?

Electron and nucleus don’t experience a 1/r²-attraction?

68. Berry says:

> Second law works exactly right with electric fields.

How do electric fields orginate in TOEBI? It has no electric charges.

> Lorentz part emerges from the alignment
> pattern of underlying electrons’ spinning vectors.

Can you prove that, based on TL2?

> So, we can calculate electric field strength
> for our test particle by adding up Forces
> calculated with TL2. (test particle vs.
> electrons in our magnet)

We still have no basis for a magnet in TOEBI.

69. Spinning particle generates the illusion of electric charge, after all, we are talking about TOE here. I thought this one was obvious, sorry, my bad.

I’ll try to prove (in the next post) that magnetic fields emerges from TL2.

70. Electron and nucleus don’t experience a 1/r²-attraction?

Electron and proton electron do, but closer we get those two bigger the repulsion and eventually they find the equilibrium distance.

71. Berry says:

>> Electron and nucleus don’t experience a 1/r²-attraction?

> Electron and proton electron do,

(Despite the fact that TOEBI currently has no law for composite particles, but I’m willing to buy that one.)

So, they (or rather, to be precise, their relative vector) should perform Kepler-orbits, shouldn’t they?

72. Berry says:

> I’ll try to prove (in the next post) that
> magnetic fields emerges from TL2.

That’s an undone job at the moment, yes. But still you won’t admit that currently you cannot give a TOEBI-derived basis for equation (2)?

73. Yop says:

Second law works exactly right with electric fields.

NO. IT. DOESN’T. That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you with very simple words for 4 or 5 answers already. And no, doesn’t matter how delusional you get in your next blog post you won’t avoid this basic problem.

If you put an electron or a muon in an electric field, the force that applies will be a sum of individual forces due to electrons. So in TOEBI you will integrate force based on the electron distribution. Gelectron and Gmuon are independant from position, so anyhow, they will get in front of the integral. And the distribution of electrons causing the electric field being the same if you send an electron or a muon in the field, finally, the only change you’ll see is in having 2Ge or Ge+Gm. Fundamental principle of dynamics let you calculate directly acceleration from this.

In electron case, you will find a 2*Ge factor in front of the acceleration.

In muon case, you will find a Ge+Gm = Ge (Gm<<<<Ge) in front of the acceleration.

SO, acceleration is halved in the case of muon versus electron in TOEBI.

ONCE AGAIN, people accelerating muon see an acceleration 200 times inferior in the case of muon versus electron.

FACT: undeniable experimental proof against a direct application of TOEBI's second law.

QUESTION: what will you do?

74. QUESTION: what will you do?

Obviously I thank you and change my view that muon has reduced spinning frequency. Better say that muon has increased mass and find out the mechanism in TOEBI which explains mass increase.

75. Berry says:

But you still deny Coulomb’s law?

76. (Despite the fact that TOEBI currently has no law for composite particles, but I’m willing to buy that one.)

So, they (or rather, to be precise, their relative vector) should perform Kepler-orbits, shouldn’t they?

Oh no, this ain’t Bohr’s model.

77. Berry says:

> Oh no, this ain’t Bohr’s model.

No, because you didn’t have radiation loss in the first place.

But: If we have two masses attracting each other with a 1/r²-force (according to TL2), why don’t we get Kepler-orbits?

78. Berry says:

> TL2 makes Coulomb’s law obsolete.

No, because Coulomb’s law, unlike TL2, tells us $F_{e-e}=F_{\mu-e}=F_{\mu-\mu}$, in agreement with experiments.

79. yop says:

You’re welcome.

But once again, the easier solution would be to replace your G1+G2 by G1*G2. Then you would replace the mass product by your invented factor product, which would allow you to spend a little more time arguing TL2 is so smart and right. Of course, this would still make Coulomb’s law false, but then we’d have to find a precise measure of muon-electron repulsion behavior, with muon accelerating slower to contradict you. Here, electric field was enough.

But seriously, after seeing that TOEBI is not able to describe bosons, gravitation, most interaction except some very specific case of electromagnetic interaction for selected particles, what makes you stick to it, apart you being its creator?

I mean, TOEBI explains concretely nothing about the physical world, it has been proven wrong by only 2 commentors, at least one being clearly not a theoretical physicist (I don’t know for Berry…).

Shouldn’t you apologize for repeatingly insulting scientists who did not look or admire your work, since it was lightyears from being flawless and smart? Shouldn’t you reconsider calling you work a TOE ’til it’s at least able to replace classical physics (it would be a start)? You’re a math major, or so you say, in 2 years you hadn’t computed your theory for even 3 entities in solar system correctly. You never made any calculation regarding Young’s double slit despite claiming your model fits. Your theory is right on proton only assuming some very weird claim on their structure, never calculating how and why FTEP would limit interaction to the closest electron.

MOST OF ALL, I looked into both TOEBI and Intro to TOEBI, and never saw any of the typical fluid mechanics equation anyone would expect with an mechanic ether like framework.

80. what makes you stick to it, apart you being its creator?

I see a huge potential in it. That’s one of the reasons why I have rushed ahead without too much calculating things, limited time resources combined with a huge potential.

Shouldn’t you apologize for repeatingly insulting scientists who did not look or admire your work, since it was lightyears from being flawless and smart?

Yes I should and I will.

MOST OF ALL, I looked into both TOEBI and Intro to TOEBI, and never saw any of the typical fluid mechanics equation anyone would expect with an mechanic ether like framework.

Good point! That’s worth of pondering the issue.

81. But: If we have two masses attracting each other with a 1/r²-force (according to TL2), why don’t we get Kepler-orbits?

What would make an electron (or muon!) orbiting? Quite contrary, it finds equilibrium position in a “crossfire” of other particles (proton electrons, neutrons, other electrons, etc), although the position might be a very short lived in temperatures significantly over absolute zero.

82. No, because Coulomb’s law, unlike TL2, tells us $F_{e-e}=F_{\mu-e}=F_{\mu-\mu}$, in agreement with experiments.

Wait a day or two and TOEBI agrees with that. I rejected the idea of muon’s reduced spinning frequency.

83. Berry says:

> What would make an electron
> (or muon!) orbiting?

A 1/r²-attraction to a nucleus, maybe?

> Quite contrary, it finds Equilibrium
> position in a “crossfire” of other particles

We’re not talking about an atom in a “crossfire of other particles”, we’re talking about two particles (one electron, one nucleus) alone in vacuum, attracting each other. Is TL2 not applicable to this simple case? Is there something in TL2 which makes the vicinity of loads of other particles necessary?

84. We’re not talking about an atom in a “crossfire of other particles”, we’re talking about two particles (one electron, one nucleus) alone in vacuum, attracting each other. Is TL2 not applicable to this simple case? Is there something in TL2 which makes the vicinity of loads of other particles necessary?

Of course TL2 is applicable in that situation and the vicinity of other particles isn’t needed. I just wanted to point out that usually there is other particles present than proton electrons and electron.

85. Berry says:

Yeah, I know, TOEBI is super flexible. One day you boastingly claim “hence second law works perfectly”, next day you have to fix it. And all that doesn’t affect your modest-o-meter the tiniest notch.

Once you’ve arrived at $F_{e-e}=F_{\mu-e}=F_{\mu-\mu}$, check
http://www.toebi.com/blog/uncategorized/major-update/#comment-1148 which was the origin of this blog post.

86. Yeah, I know, TOEBI is super flexible. One day you boastingly claim “hence second law works perfectly”, next day you have to fix it. And all that doesn’t affect your modest-o-meter the tiniest notch.

Sure it affects! You can realize the progress if you compare recent blog posts vs. older ones.

87. Berry says:

> Of course TL2 is applicable in that
> situation and the vicinity of other
> particles isn’t needed.

Great to hear that. So, do we have Kepler-orbits in a TOEBI-Atom in vacuum, yes or no?

88. So, do we have Kepler-orbits in a TOEBI-Atom in vacuum, yes or no?

No, we don’t have.

89. Berry says:

If that’s true, I should avoid the older ones. Would be bad for my temper.

90. Berry says:

Care to explain why not? We’ve got two masses with 1/r²-attraction and nothing else. Why no Kepler-orbits?

91. Care to explain why not? We’ve got two masses with 1/r²-attraction and nothing else. Why no Kepler-orbits?

Due to attractive force between proton electron and electron. You can imagine three magnets put together in triangle fashion on the bottom of a container large enough for the triangle and orbiting iron ball.

If we put that ball orbiting the triangle the ball will eventually stop and attach to one of those three magnets, right? No orbiting after that, unless we push it back to orbiting.

92. Berry says:

> Due to attractive force between
> proton electron and electron.

That attraction prevents orbits? Why?

> You can imagine three magnets put
> together in triangle fashion

I can imagine that, sure, but what the heck do three dipoles have to do with two monopoles?

93. Berry says:

I have to add: Does this business “Electron and proton electron do [have 1/r²-attraction], but closer we get those two bigger the repulsion and eventually they find the equilibrium distance.” also take place in a TOEBI-atom in vacuum? Maybe I got confused by the grammar, but it’s about the interaction between electron and nucleus (and not about the interior of the nucleus), right?

94. Berry says:

> If we put that ball orbiting the triangle
> the ball will eventually stop

There is friction in TL2? Where?

95. but closer we get those two bigger the repulsion and eventually they find the equilibrium distance.” also take place in a TOEBI-atom in vacuum? Maybe I got confused by the grammar, but it’s about the interaction between electron and nucleus (and not about the interior of the nucleus), right?

Yes, it does.

Proton electron and electron does interact, however generated FTEP flux by whole proton and electron generates the repulsion.

> If we put that ball orbiting the triangle
> the ball will eventually stop

There is friction in TL2? Where?

No there is not. Forget the example. Let’s say that the interaction between electron and nearest proton electron dominates the possible orbiting, which in practice means that electron finds a suitable potential well.

96. yop says:

No there is not [No friction].

Of course there is. That’s precisely why your FTEP are “spiky”.

If you refuse distant interaction, there has to be friction. It’s the only way.

97. Berry says:

> Proton electron and electron does
> interact, however generated FTEP flux
> by whole proton and electron generates
> the repulsion.

Hence, TL2 does not give us the total force acting on the electron and on the nucleus? That’s quite disappointing.

And for an atom in the ground state, the repulsive force has the same magnitude as the one given by TL2, i.e. it’s not at all negligible. Where can I find TOEBI’s equation for that repulsive force?

>> There is friction in TL2? Where?

> No there is not.

But there is friction in TOEBI?

> Let’s say that the interaction between
> electron and nearest proton electron
> dominates the possible orbiting,

Hence, TL2 alone cannot even describe a hydrogen atom?

98. Where can I find TOEBI’s equation for that repulsive force?

I have that (sort of) in Atom Model and Relativity paper. I need to finish it properly before we can study it.

And yes there is friction in TOEBI but not yet derived.

99. Berry says:

>> Where can I find TOEBI’s equation for that repulsive force?

> I have that (sort of) in Atom Model and
> Relativity paper. I need to finish it properly
> before we can study it.

So, at ist current state, TOEBI cannot predict e.g. the size of a hydrogen atom?

You ignored this related question: “Hence, TL2 alone cannot even describe a hydrogen atom?”

> And yes there is friction in TOEBI but not yet derived.

That was a misunderstanding, I wasn’t refering to macroscopic friction. But obviously in TOEBI, an electron moving in the vicinity of a nucleus experiences a kind of friction. That is governed by which of TOEBI’s laws?

100. So, at ist current state, TOEBI cannot predict e.g. the size of a hydrogen atom?

Actually the size is predicted based on the equation in Atom Model paper and its radius is $\approx 7.52047*10^{-11}$ m. But describing hydrogen purely with TL2 can’t be done, that needs the proper repulsion force equation (in my todo list).

But obviously in TOEBI, an electron moving in the vicinity of a nucleus experiences a kind of friction. That is governed by which of TOEBI’s laws?

At least TL2 must be a factor in it… I’ll think about it. Oh my… my todo list is getting bigger and bigger.

101. Berry says:

Wait a mo … $r=f/2\cdot m$?!? And what was that story with “cross section aka mass”? Hello? Cross section $\propto r^2$!

In TOEBI-world that’s not a contradiction?

102. Berry says:

(Sorry, I had again misposted this. Maybe you can delete that other copy.)

> Actually the size is predicted based on
> the equation in Atom Model paper and
> its radius is ≈7.52047∗10 −11 m.

Yep, I checked that. There, you’re using the hitherto unmentioned relation r=f/2⋅m (where again a factor to unfuck the units is missing, of course). What’s that? Fourth Law of TOEBI? It’s how you arrived at an eletron radius of about 0.5fm, right? Pretty big, actually. What about the experiments giving an upper limit of 0.02% of your value? Again fellows at work who don’t know what they’re doing?

>> But obviously in TOEBI, an electron
>> moving in the vicinity of a nucleus
>> experiences a kind of friction. That
>> is governed by which of TOEBI’s laws?

> At least TL2 must be a factor in it…

How come? A few hours ago, you denied friction to be present in TL2.

103. What’s that? Fourth Law of TOEBI? It’s how you arrived at an eletron radius of about 0.5fm, right? Pretty big, actually.

No it’s not, that equation needs a proper derivation which at the moment is in my todo list. So no, you can’t calculate electron radius with that one. The equation was meant to calculate the equilibrium distance between two particles.

> At least TL2 must be a factor in it…

How come? A few hours ago, you denied friction to be present in TL2.

He, good and funny point!

104. Berry says:

> No it’s not, that equation needs a proper
> derivation which at the moment is in my
> todo list.

Kimmo, to which degree (in %) do you regard TOEBI as “well thought out, tested and ready”?

> So no, you can’t calculate electron radius
> with that one.

So, $r_\mathrm{electron}$ is not the electron radius? Very well…

Nevertheless, you explicitely provide an electron radius of about 0.5fm in that paper. No comment on this being 5000 times larger than the current experimental upper limit?

> The equation was meant to calculate
> the equilibrium distance between two
> particles.

Yeah, and using it with $M_\mu=207M_e$, this equilibrium distance gets bigger for muons in contrast to experiments and mainstream theory. Any (well-considered) comments on that?

>>> At least TL2 must be a factor in it…

>> How come? A few hours ago, you denied
>> friction to be present in TL2.

> He, good and funny point!

Yeah, quite funny that you have no clear idea about intrinsic “friction” in your own theory, and thus not about conservation of energy (one of the most powerful rules in mainstream physics).

This brings me to your third argument in this muon post: “What happens (according to TOEBI) at the moment when muon decays? Obviously it gains back its original spinning frequency $f_{electron}$ due to its interactions with other particles.”

Hence, in TOEBI-world a muon cannot decay in vacuum?

105. Kimmo, to which degree (in %) do you regard TOEBI as “well thought out, tested and ready”?

Less than 1 %? Developing it by myself is sooo slow, plus my ignorance on latest research. You can see the result by yourself.

Nevertheless, you explicitely provide an electron radius of about 0.5fm in that paper. No comment on this being 5000 times larger than the current experimental upper limit?

I would love to have a reference to that!

> The equation was meant to calculate
> the equilibrium distance between two
> particles.

Yeah, and using it with $M_\mu=207M_e$, this equilibrium distance gets bigger for muons in contrast to experiments and mainstream theory. Any (well-considered) comments on that?

No good. I need to check out that repulsion thingy and derive maybe a new one.

This brings me to your third argument in this muon post: “What happens (according to TOEBI) at the moment when muon decays? Obviously it gains back its original spinning frequency $f_{electron}$ due to its interactions with other particles.”

Hence, in TOEBI-world a muon cannot decay in vacuum?

Of course it can. I was wrong about the idea of reduced spinning frequency. There is another way for gaining larger mass and then losing it. It might be better if I’ll write a new blog post on this issue, yes, that will be my next task.

106. Berry says:

>> Kimmo, to which degree (in %) do you
>> regard TOEBI as “well thought out,

> Less than 1 %?

I wholeheartedly agree to $<1\%$. We would probably disagree on how much below that figure.

So, how much out of the impressive list in the right hand frame on your page is based on actual rigorous TOEBI-based derivations and how much on your purely speculative claims?

> Developing it by myself is sooo slow,

This won’t change, sorry. If you find someone as enthusiastic as you (or at least enough to support you) at all, (s)he won’t be more competent.

> plus my ignorance on latest
> research. You can see the result by
> yourself.

I can indeed. And it’s not only on latest reasearch, but on research and basic physics in general. And you seem to be neither willing nor capable to analyze the actual implications of your postulates.

>> Nevertheless, you explicitely provide
>> that paper. No comment on this being
>> 5000 times larger than the current
>> experimental upper limit?

> I would love to have a reference to
> that!

Sorry, I was wrong by three orders of magnitude. Your value is actually too big by a factor of 5000000: http://iopscience.iop.org/1402-4896/1988/T22/016

Yeah, 1988. So much for your ignorance on “actual” research.

>>> The equation was meant to calculate
>>> the equilibrium distance between two
>>> particles.

>> Yeah, and using it with $M_\mu=207M_e$,
>> this equilibrium distance gets bigger
>> for muons in contrast to experiments
>> and mainstream theory. Any

> No good. I need to check out that
> repulsion thingy and derive maybe a
> new one.

You didn’t derive “that repulsion thingy”, either. You just postulated it, right?

>> This brings me to your third argument
>> in this muon post: “What happens
>> (according to TOEBI) at the moment
>> when muon decays? Obviously it gains
>> back its original spinning frequency
>> f_{electron} due to its interactions
>> with other particles.”
>>
>> Hence, in TOEBI-world a muon cannot
>> decay in vacuum?

> Of course it can. I was wrong about
> the idea of reduced spinning
> frequency. There is another way for
> gaining larger mass and then losing
> it. It might be better if I’ll write a
> new blog post on this issue, yes, that
> will be my next task.

Shouldn’t you first take care of TL2’s flaws? It still can’t reproduce $F_{e-e}=F_{\mu-e}=F_{\mu-\mu}$.

107. Shouldn’t you first take care of TL2’s flaws? It still can’t reproduce $F_{e-e}=F_{\mu-e}=F_{\mu-\mu}$.

108. Shouldn’t you first take care of TL2’s flaws? It still can’t reproduce $F_{e-e}=F_{\mu-e}=F_{\mu-\mu}$.

That one is taken care of and I updated TOEBI paper. In examples chapter I mentioned that muon in TOEBI is based on electron. Now I need to figure out the mechanism (which are possible in TOEBI) behind other properties of muons.

109. Berry says:

>> Shouldn’t you first take care of TL2’s flaws?
>> It still can’t reproduce F e−e =F μ−e =F μ−μ .

> That one is taken care of and I updated TOEBI
> paper.

Yeah, by restricting TL2 to electrons. A very clever solution indeed. Does the “E” in TOEBI now stand for “Electron”?

> In examples chapter I mentioned that muon in
> TOEBI is based on electron.

Yeah, without mentioning the mass problem, of course.

> Now I need to figure out the mechanism (which
> are possible in TOEBI)

We already know that everything is possible in TOEBI, you just can’t provide corresponding quantitative laws. If you need fixes, you just postulate them, with no (or just a claimed) relation to TL2 (which itself is still flawed, by the way).

Then, while checking the “muon section” in your paper, my jaw dropped upon reading this:

“Based on Coulomb’s law, the force between two elementary charges 1 meter apart is≈ 2.30662∗10−28 N. Naturally such a small force hasn’t been measured directly. On the other hand, based on second law of TOEBI force between two electrons 1 meter apart (remember, proton is constructed from 3 electrons.) is ≈ 6.702866∗10−27 N. Discrepancy is easily explained with measurement errors when actual measurements were done with greatly shorter distances.”

That’s “First Law of Kimmo” in all its glory, right? “If experiments and TOEBI disagree, experiments must be wrong.”
But the absurd logic in this paragraph even tops First Law of Kimmo: “2E-28N is too small; but when choosing bigger forces, measurement errors of -97% must be expected.”

That brings me back to my question, which you silently chose to ignore:

How much out of the impressive list in the right hand frame on your page is based on actual rigorous TOEBI-based derivations and how much on your purely speculative claims?

110. How much out of the impressive list in the right hand frame on your page is based on actual rigorous TOEBI-based derivations and how much on your purely speculative claims?

Concepts is those papers are derived from basic hypotheses, but obviously there is few ad hoc postulates as well. My intention is to replace them with proper derivations.

BTW. I made a new blog post on muon.

What I meant with the measurement errors is that currently there is not know (exactly) how many electrons generated for example electric field used in measurements.

111. Berry says:

> Concepts is those papers are derived from basic
> hypotheses, but obviously there is few ad hoc
> postulates as well.

To put it very mildly, yes.

> My intention is to replace them with proper
> derivations.

That’s a honorable intention. But it is more than a formal issue, because you don’t know whether these “proper derivations” are possible at all (you only hope so). Isn’t a global disclaimer concering this present state of affairs in order?

> What I meant with the measurement errors is that
> currently there is not know (exactly) how many
> electrons generated for example electric field used
> in measurements.

You still don’t take your ignorance about precision experiments into account. And even if you come up with an experiment of which you just imagine that it is how it’s done in reality, you have to provide an error-calculation in order to find out how brain-dead the experimentalists must have been to get an error of 97%. Invoking First Law of Kimmo just isn’t enough!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.