Sunday, February 3, 2013

Provocation Spreads the Theory of Something and a New Electron Picture

Under the blog post from January 5th you find comments relating to this post from Anonymous/James and Ta Wan, together with my replies that you may want to catch up with before reading this. I have been busy with other things since the excitement after the short video, the face book spread and Lumo’s tennis racket attack a month ago.

All of that was good, since there were many downloads of the both the Summary and of the full Theory of Something document, which I hope mean that some scientists and other interested actually are reading the ToS. Both documents are now updated to version 1.4, including the new electron picture below and some minor adjustments. 

Ta Wan gave this comment about the Theory of Something below:
"if it's dead wrong, it's interesting and creative." dead right. it is interesting and creative. I'd love for it to be right.  as said above also. in 100 pages and with all the maths it must be easy to prove wrong if it is wrong.  I think nature works this way. at least it would be cool if it did. come on those who can review with authority, take a look. just over 100 pages. nothing to lose, a lot to gain.

I can only agree. The ToS is clear and simple enough to be understood, challenged or confirmed. Although already more supported than other theories, there are many, many computer simulations that could be done, experiments to do, old data to be checked and continuation, improvements and developments of the ToS to done. Some will come soon.

Also, the ToS is not a small incremental advance in a specific field (which seems to be what the peer-review system is about), but a major rewrite of the last 100 years research of the fundamentals of Nature. That is like saying that thousands of scientists have been marching in an ever more complex, obscure direction, missing the obvious, much simpler solution. That is of course not easily swallowed and digested, but questioned just by definition.
I guess many still have the ToS in the unread crackpot pile, for the simple reason it is too good to be true. Actually, I have received no qualified major objections yet - NO! The ToS gets some appreciation and of course some “rubbish comments” from those that has not opened it, and persons like A-Anonymous that has replaced knowledge and curiosity with obscene language.   

I am hoping for some influential scientists to speak up, but that seems to take time to happen. It is a large and daring step to take – but one cannot look away and ignore forever, especially if there is provocation and the ToS is being spread. Next video in progress may provoke some…

Lumo’s (Lubos Motl’s) review of his self-invented tennis racket theory, the TrT, gave many Theory of Something visitors and face book friends - and tennis-related ads on his blog J  I am still awaiting his return though; He does have a brain and knowledge in this field even if it is very narrowed at string-theory as the only way.

Lumo did one interesting statement: “A true description of Nature isn't necessarily easy to be visualized.” That is certainly the general view, and was also mine until a year ago, since quantum mechanics took over in the last 100 years.

However, I got highly surprised during the development of the ToS, that the smallest in Nature actually could be understood and visualized:
- The photon as the rotation of a negtrino in the Grid (ToS 3.1.3)
- All particle cores just made up of “negtrino magnets” (ToS 4)
- Grid rooms and the very nature of mass and gravity (ToS 4)
- Dark energy just being a tiny charge overpressure in the Grid (ToS 5)
- Gravity – curved space-time – simply being reduced negtrino density in the Grid (ToS 4.3.5)
- Energy being magnetic moment density, and its conservation by the Grid (ToS 6.3)
- A black hole just being positive charge, postrinos, i.e. anti-matter (ToS 4.7.2)

One example of such visualization is the new picture of the electron I made few days ago and is publishing now. After some thinking and sleep on how the 9 negtrinos in the electron Grid room could be arranged, I came up with the picture shown. With some “childish touch and feel”-understanding how electrostatic and magnetic forces work, it is not hard to understand the outlined locations and directions of the grey/white negtrinos in its Grid room. The magnetic energy, 57 keV, of those 9 negtrinos coupled to the electron instead of to the Grid, gives the electron its mass of 9 x 57 = 511 keV. We can also see how 6 additional negtrinos in the Grid are pushed away by electrostatic forces, giving the electron its visible charge:  -9/3e in the core +6/3e pushed-off = -3/3e = -1e. (See figures 28 – 29 in the ToS.)

With this visualization of the electron, the wave-like behavior of an electron can also be understood. The electron is not just a point particle with < 1 fm (10-15 m) size. It is an irregular 35 pm (35 x 10-12 m) 35 thousand times larger structure, shaking up the Grid when moving, thus creating electromagnetic waves that certainly can move through two slits even if the electron core just goes through one of the slits.

With a single particle, the negtrino having only charge and magnetic momentum as qualities (in addition to its very small size), the ToS becomes simple. The ToS explains far more than any other theory – even what was thought to be fundamental physical laws that “just exits” has been derived from the simple ToS model. In the ToS there is just one force, one fundamental law (ToS 8.2) and no fine-tuned constants at all. The ToS stays in 3 room dimensions, time and electrical charge and I claim that is all needed for universes to exist, http://bit.ly/TheCreation. That should provoke! 

10 comments:

  1. Mr. Tosman,
    While I find your ToS facinating and thought provoking, there is one thing that disturbs me greatly about your new electron and its grid room. That is its lack of physical symmetry. Space has no up/down, left/right, or front/back, and your view of the electron interacting with the grid should be the same independent of the viewer's perspective. But your figure of the electron interacting with its 9 negtrino particle room is distinctly non-symetric. Why should any one negtrino be pushed farther away from the electron than any other negtrino? It seems to me that the electron's disturbance of the negtrino grid should be roughly spherical, at least as much as possible with individual negtrinos. I don't see how your illustration can possibly be in a stable, minimum energy state.
    ... Dan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Dan,

      You are right that the electron Grid room must be stable – very stable – otherwise we would not have believed it was an elementary particle without any inner structure (as in the standard model). I believe it is the only stable Grid room before we get to the proton and atoms with the multilayer spherical Grid rooms.

      The electron must have an up/down though, it has a magnetic moment about 1000 times stronger than the e.g. the proton. (The magnetic moment is related to its spin +- 1/2 in QM). That is also why the electron has orbitals in an atom – it only fits the surrounding Grid at certain places, because it has this unsymmetrical shape and interaction with the surrounding Grid.

      Otherwise the structure illustrated can be twisted in 90 degrees snaps and look the same (that is some symmetry). A Grid room should have a charge density similar to the Grid and the repelling Coulomb forces between the negtrino charges (including the core charge blowing the Grid room up from the inside) must be compensated by its magnetic forces holding the Grid room together. The only solution I could come up with, was arranging the 9 negtrinos in the Grid room as shown. There are 2 circles of 4 negtrinos held together magnetically, then there is the 9th on top which is magnetically coupled to the core only.

      Can you find another arrangement? Tell us! Eventually, computer simulation should show if I’m close or not.

      Delete
  2. hi Anonymous. I'm pretty sure the grid rooms are symmetrical and near spherical. The diagrams are not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ta-Wan,

      Only larger particles form spherical Grid rooms – I am on track to Tosman’s First Riddle: Largest Atom and Magic Number 244. It will show that are only a few strong/stable Grid room structures. The electron’s Grid room is one of them.

      Delete
  3. of any interest? phys.org/news/2013-03-evidence-magnetic-superatoms-doors-electronics.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. This must be of interest to you http://phys.org/news/2013-05-graphene-redefine-ampere.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keep your focus on the structure of the graphene. The grid is not cubic but could be an order lower. The actual basic shape of the grid could be a derivative of the hexagonal- shaped Graphene - - triangles form hexagons. Modern architecture is intuitively using this shape to clad curvelinear surfaces. They are not stuck with boxy buildings. Don't get stuck in boxes. open your mind.

      Delete
    2. http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-accidentally-discover-metal-heals-itself-121100228.html

      The same structure is showing up again!!!

      Delete
    3. Even beehives follow the same transformation, from spheres to hexagons. Shapes follow the path to the lowest state of nature.

      Delete
  5. May be you should invest in companies involved with graphene. Graphene could be the plastic of the 21st century. "I should have invested in plastics" is a common refrain of the old folks I know.

    ReplyDelete

Real Time Web Analytics