Spinning Vectors Unleashed

For me, getting rid of the image of a static spinning vector has been a very long process. Initially I have thought that there would be no “quick” mechanism for changing a spinning vector orientation. Then external challenges thrown in by real physicists enforced me to adopt the possibility that maybe those spinning vectors actually change their orientation as everyday business.

But still I was thinking that maybe this spinning vector orientation changing business concerned only those free particles, not those numerous electrons generating a magnetic fields. Now I have to admit, static spinning vectors in magnetic poles just won’t work. So, back to the drawing board…

Ok then, let’s say that those electron spinning vectors (SVs) in a magnetic pole are constantly changing their orientation, does it make things work more correctly? And how are those SVs changing in a magnetic field, do they change in an unified manner? Let’s start with the assumption that electron SVs in a magnet change their orientation in a plane (perpendicular to magnetic field lines) by spinning into the same direction.

If we have a cylinder shaped magnet having N at the other end and S at the other, what can we say based on the previous assumption?

Magnetic_pole

In picture above we have a magnetic pole seen above having a bunch of electron SVs which are spinning counter-clockwise. Underneath those SVs there is other layers having the same SV spinning pattern. Those SVs precess at the same rate due to the similar similar crystal structure and involved atoms in the magnet (Why exactly? Needs further clarification). If we turned our magnet upside down we would see that those SVs are spinning in clockwise manner.

At this point, our test particle (electron) enters the stage. What would happen to it if we put it above the magnetic pole? It would be surrounded by FTEP fluxes ejected by electrons in the pole and FTEPs ejected from those FTEP fluxes would have the additional angular momentum. Let’s take a closer look…

Close_up

 

Which direction our test particle’s SV would start to precess? It precesses because electron tends to change its SV orientation antiparallel to those of other nearby unpaired electrons. If it precesses counterclockwise it would precess to the same direction than the unpaired electrons in the magnet and just like in case of two magnetic poles that would result attractive force between them. Opposite precession direction would result repulsive force between the electron and the magnet. I’ll explain the exact mechanism in future FTEP Dynamics paper update.

In the next experiment we shoot an electron with velocity \(\vec v\) perpendicular into to our inhomogeneous magnetic field.

electron_curving

Red arrows mean the trajectory of the electron and blue arrows its precession direction. Why the electron deflects to the right? Simply because the angular momentum of the FTEP fluxes from the magnet’s electrons. Those FTEP fluxes push the electron constantly to the right and above a large enough magnet the electron would start making a circle (guiding center).

According to the contemporary physics conventions electron’s deflection to the right means that the magnetic field points away from us which means that we are looking at the south pole here in our example. Because of the opposite precession directions the electron would experience repulsive force pushing it towards us (spin up).

After the electron leaves the magnetic field, as it does in our example, it still has its precession (conservation of angular momentum). So if we measure the electron spin again in another magnetic field (having the same orientation) the outcome would be the same, spin up. Having two “entangled” electrons and randomly orientated magnetic fields (perpendicular to electrons’ trajectories) while measuring electron spins from TOEBI’s point of view should be a very interesting topic. Can TOEBI reproduce quantum mechanical results?

How the velocity of electron affects its behaviour in a magnetic field? Obviously its velocity perpendicular to a magnetic field affects the amount of deflecting (to the right in our example) FTEPs encountered by it. In other words, particle’s velocity perpendicular to a magnetic field and the force deflecting (to the right in our example) particle has the linear dependency. However, particle’s velocity doesn’t affect the deflection (anti)parallel to a magnetic field because the amount of incoming FTEPs (experienced by particle) stays the same.

I’ll enhance this post later or make a new one to include i.e. proton and positron.  

33 thoughts on “Spinning Vectors Unleashed

  1. > In picture above we have a magnetic pole seen above

    What is that supposed to mean exactly? In which direction do the field lines run?

  2. Thus, in the new TOEBI-world, a TOEBI-magnetic-field is no longer produced by aligned \(\vec f\)s (now coined “SVs” by the marketing department), but by their precessions being aligned?

  3. > Spinning Vector (=SV) isn’t that new in TOEBI.

    I never said it was. Instead I assumed that SV = \(\vec f\). Isn’t that true?

  4. But you’re not inclined to confirm that in the new TOEBI, for a magnetic field \(\vec B\) created by a group of electrons it holds true that \(\vec B\not\parallel\,\pm\vec f_i\), where \(i\) is the electron label?

  5. Which in turn means that \(\vec f\) (now aka the SV) cannot possibly be the electron spin. Why does \(\vec f\) perform a precession then?

  6. That’s right. Precession is due to the tendency of electron to change its SV orientation antiparallel to those nearby other unpaired electrons (including electrons inside proton and neutron). This needs more detailed study of the ferromagnetic materials.

  7. > Precession is due to the tendency of electron to change its SV
    > orientation antiparallel to those nearby other unpaired
    > electrons

    Hence, the \(\vec f\) of a single TOEBI-electron wouldn’t perform a
    precession in a magnetic field?

    And why do the \(\vec f\)s “want” to align antiparallel?

  8. No precession, just changing its spinning vector orientation constantly.

    In general, if we have a free TOEBI-electron interacting with another TOEBI-electron their FTEP fluxes collide which causes the accumulations of FTEPs in between them (see FTEP Dynamics paper). Because there is nothing preventing those electrons from changing their SV orientations, due to the FTEP accumulation, they react accordingly (a.k.a. seek the antiparallel orientation for their SVs).

  9. As you can see, I had to assume an additional constraint (sync spinning of those magnet’s electrons). Naturally I have to clarify its origin but let’s take it for granted, at least for now.

  10. >> Hence, the \(\vec f\) of a single TOEBI-electron wouldn’t
    >> perform a precession in a magnetic field?
    >
    > No precession, just changing its spinning vector orientation
    > constantly.

    A precession is a permanent changing of its spinning
    vector orientation. Hence, how does the \(\vec f\) of a
    single TOEBI-electron in a magnetic field change permanently?
    What’s its movement if not precession?

    And if “precession is due to the tendency of electron to change
    its SV orientation antiparallel to those nearby other unpaired
    electrons”, why does it need a magnetic field at all?

    Anyway, that’s it, Kimmo? That is your “new blog post which
    describes perfectly (at least qualitatively) how and why
    a free electron behaves as it does in a magnetic field”?
    Seriously?

  11. Hm… I thought that in case of precession the angle between those spinning axes can’t be 90 degrees, but if it can, then spinning vector indeed precess, sorry about that.

    Magnetic field emerges from those nearby other unpaired electrons.

  12. Anyway, that’s it, Kimmo? That is your “new blog post which describes perfectly (at least qualitatively) how and why a free electron behaves as it does in a magnetic field”? Seriously?

    Seriously. What’s wrong with it? And the best part is yet to come, that’s right, how electron’s velocity affect the deflecting force… their magnitudes go hand-in-hand! Lorentz force here we come!

  13. There is at least two problems to solve… How does my explanation works with multiple spin measurements? Spin up should be spin up in following measurements.

    The second issue will be with positrons. What a heck puts their SVs precess to the opposite direction compared to electrons?

    Update: I need to make a small adjustment…

  14. > Seriously. What’s wrong with it?

    Nothing at all, Kimmo, how would I even insinuate such a thing?
    There have never been any errors in TOEBI, have there?

    But maybe you can explain the following about the \(\vec f\) of
    the test-electron: “If it precesses counterclockwise it would
    precess to the same direction than the unpaired electrons in the
    magnet and just like in case of two magnetic poles that would
    result attractive force between them. Opposite precession
    direction would result repulsive force between the electron and
    the magnet.”

    Brief: \(\dot{\vec f}_\mathrm{e}\parallel\dot{\vec f}_\mathrm{M}~\Rightarrow~\) attraction, while
    \(\dot{\vec f}_\mathrm{e}\parallel-\dot{\vec f}_\mathrm{M}~\Rightarrow~\) repulsion

    But that’s in utter contradiction to TL2. What’s up,
    Kimmo? Poor old TL2 is invalid again? But nevertheless you use it later
    on. Fascinating!

    We obviously have very different ideas about the meaning of the
    attribute “perfect”. For you it’s just a synonym for “written by
    Kimmo”. For me it implies (among others) “free from
    inconsistencies”.

  15. TL2 handles the force between TOEBI-electron particles according to their SV orientations. We don’t know (at least for now) how those magnet’s electrons and test electron are aligned their SVs (on the spinning plane) at specific moment.

    I’ll get back to this tomorrow…

  16. > We don’t know (at least for now) how those magnet’s electrons
    > and test electron are aligned their SVs (on the spinning
    > plane) at specific moment.

    Please refrain from the ignoramus. At least I know that for
    \(\dot{\vec f}_\mathrm{e}\parallel-\dot{\vec f}_\mathrm{M}\) there is no alignment!

  17. Further fundamental mistakes in your “new blog post which
    describes perfectly (at least qualitatively) how and why
    a free electron behaves as it does in a magnetic field”:

    • “Why the electron deflects to the right? Simply because the
    angular momentum of the FTEP fluxes from the magnet’s
    electrons.”

    Wrong! An angular momentum cannot push anything, you need a
    force for that.

    • “After the electron leaves the magnetic field, as it does in our
    example, it still has its precession (conservation of angular
    momentum).”

    Wrong! This precession means the opposite: The angular
    momentum is not conserved but is changing all the time.

  18. Let me remind you of this order:

    (1) “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.”

    You still haven’t done so. Sure, you have posted yet another blog post, but it is the opposite of a perfect description (not even qualitatively).

    (2) “After that I’m nailing down the same quantitatively”

    Of this, not even an attempt is visible. Your new approach seems to be to avoid formulas more than ever.

    (3) “and after that ‘positively’ charged particles.”

    Despite having failed to deliver (1) or (2), you have announced (3) again: “I’ll enhance this post later or make a new one to include i.e. proton and positron. ”
    Please don’t!

  19. I have been pretty busy with my other commitments, hence my progress has slowed down a bit. Anyway, I’m working on the subject.

    Wrong! An angular momentum cannot push anything, you need a
    force for that.

    Of course not, but FTEPs coming from those fluxes (having an angular momentum) can push.

    Wrong! This precession means the opposite: The angular
    momentum is not conserved but is changing all the time.

    I meant the angular momentum of the spinning vector generated by the precession.

    Please refrain from the ignoramus. At least I know that for
    f⃗ ˙e∥−f⃗ ˙M there is no alignment!

    That’s true. I’m figuring out the mechanism…

  20. > I have been pretty busy with my other commitments, hence my
    > progress has slowed down a bit.

    There is no progress in TOEBI, there is just semper idem.

    >> Wrong! An angular momentum cannot push anything, you need a
    >> force for that.
    >
    > Of course not, but FTEPs coming from those fluxes (having an
    > angular momentum) can push.

    What’s the relevance of this angular momentum (which is just one
    of your gazillions of unsubstantiated claims, anyway) for the
    push?

    >> Wrong! This precession means the opposite: The angular
    >> momentum is not conserved but is changing all the time.
    >
    > I meant the angular momentum of the spinning vector generated
    > by the precession.

    Precession doesn’t generate any angular momentum. Learn some
    physics, for heavens sake.

    >> Please refrain from the ignoramus. At least I know that for
    >> \(\dot{\vec f}_\mathrm{e}\parallel-\dot{\vec f}_\mathrm{M}\) there is no alignment!
    >
    > That’s true. I’m figuring out the mechanism…

    Yeah, Kimmo, sure. Just like you’ve figured out all the other
    mechanisms in the last nine months.

    Geez, do you still claim that we’re dealing here with a blog
    post “which describes perfectly (at least qualitatively) how and why
    a free electron behaves as it does in a magnetic field”? Really?

  21. Precession doesn’t generate any angular momentum.

    Hm… it doesn’t generate angular momentum per se, but one of its properties is angular momentum.

    I’m going to enhance this post.

  22. >> Precession doesn’t generate any angular momentum.
    >
    > Hm… it doesn’t generate angular momentum per se, but one of
    > its properties is angular momentum.

    Even that statement is wrong. If one wants to show good will and
    tries to read something sensible from it, that would be:
    “Precession has to do with angular momentum.” Duh!

    > I’m going to enhance this post.

    Merely volume-wise, I bet.

    And once more: Do you still claim that this is a blog
    post “which describes perfectly (at least qualitatively) how and why
    a free electron behaves as it does in a magnetic field”?

  23. And once more: Do you still claim that this is a blog
    post “which describes perfectly (at least qualitatively) how and why
    a free electron behaves as it does in a magnetic field”?

    No I don’t 😉

  24. I suppose that the smiley suggests that the announcement of this
    “perfect description” wasn’t meant serious, anyway. Otherwise,
    how would that have even been possible? Only two days after
    surprisingly acknowledging a fundamental problem
    (http://www.toebi.com/blog/theory-of-everything-by-illusion/electron-spin/#comment-2510)
    you announced nothings less than “contemporary electron spin
    explained correctly based on [a new] TOEBI” and allotted
    yourself a time slot of two days for that
    endeavor. WTF?!? During eight whole months you didn’t manage to
    get anything working in the old, simpler
    static-spinning-vector-TOEBI. Nevertheless, you reckoned two
    days as being sufficient to pull it off in the new, more
    complicated precession-everywhere-TOEBI. Is it abusive language
    to call such an assessment totally insane?

    And I haven’t even addressed all the problems in this blog post,
    yet. The conclusion that you’re all wrong with TOEBI
    (http://www.toebi.com/blog/theory-of-everything-by-illusion/electron-spin/#comment-2520)
    still holds true.

  25. Nevertheless, you reckoned two days as being sufficient to pull it off in the new, more complicated precession-everywhere-TOEBI. Is it abusive language
    to call such an assessment totally insane?

    Fair question. It’s insane, I have to admit. I need to digest this new precession-everywhere-TOEBI and it will take some time. But if it turns out to be more fruitful the consumed amount of time won’t be that big, it’s just an extension to previous, viable, TOEBI ideas, i.e. spinning vector and FTEPs.

  26. > But if it turns out to be more fruitful

    It won’t, that’s obvious at first sight: It makes TL2 unusable,
    it kills conservation of angular momentum, while you’re
    just replacing prosaically \(\vec f\) by \(\dot{\vec f}\) in
    your fairy-tales, anyway.

    The absurd thing is that there shouldn’t be any room for the
    speculation about static spinning vector
    vs. precession everywhere, because allegedly it all
    follows automatically from the FTEP dynamics. But in contrast to
    http://www.toebi.com/blog/theory-of-everything-by-illusion/electron-spin/#comment-2481
    you’re not working on them.

    > the consumed amount of time won’t be that big, it’s just an
    > extension to previous, viable, TOEBI ideas, i.e. spinning
    > vector and FTEPs.

    It’s a bad joke to call TOEBI ideas viable. They are the
    opposite, even though your inability to get anything correct
    from them is not a strict, formal proof.

    The question, dear Kimmo, is: How often do you intend to repeat
    this buffoonery of claiming that the next blog post will solve
    all your problems?

  27. It’s a bad joke to call TOEBI ideas viable. They are the opposite, even though your inability to get anything correct from them is not a strict, formal proof.

    They must be, at least in a theory which is based on concrete, spherical, spinning objects. I can’t see any alternative and sensible way for explaining Nature and its phenomena, I mean under the hood of QM and relativity. My hobby is to promote and practise this type of thinking and theory developing.

  28. > They must be [viable], at least in a theory which is based on
    > concrete, spherical, spinning objects.

    No, they don’t! Not if this theory does it all get wrong.

    In your sense viable doesn’t mean anything more than “can
    be used in the theory to arrive at predictions” without
    implying whether the predictions are right or wrong. But you
    don’t even pull that off: You never actually use the FTEPs other
    than for hand-waving and totally proof-less claims, no FTEP
    dynamics at all.

    > I can’t see any alternative and sensible way for explaining
    > Nature and its phenomena

    What you can or cannot see is totally irrelevant for the
    accuracy of whatever theory about nature.

    > My hobby is to promote and practise this type of thinking and
    > theory developing.

    You’re free to choose a hobby as futile and time-wasting as you
    like. But don’t expect any sane person to follow your judgment
    of the results. This expectancy is insulting.

    Moreover, (I think Yop already mentioned that more than once)
    your ideas are neither new nor unique. There have been other
    crackpots before you. Just as there is more than one
    circle-squarer out there.

Leave a Reply

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