Scotland’s opportunities for sailing and boating on rivers, lochs and seas are being promoted in a new campaign. A series of 360 degree virtual reality videos

What is your theory of everything?

Old Chinese got it right 2300 years ago. They knew what we don’t know yet- that all Existence consists of 2 contradicting elements. Niels Bohr knew that there was something about this concept, so he chose to use jin/yang symbol in his coat of arms.

3 years ago I came across to papers of Peter Kohut, computer scientist turned physicist who posed simple question- if virtual reality is based on binary code. why not everything in the real world? I think he got it right too.

I think all answers are out there. Just to pick them, put them into one basket and we have Theory of Everything.

  1. What is a photon

This is how electro- magnetic radiation looks like. A series of waves. But what is positive, and what negative part of the wave? What is Jin and Yang part of a wave?

We could say, everyhing below the line is negative, and everything over the line is positive. This is what our senses dictate us. Then it would look like this:

But hey, why it is not upside down, negative poles up, positive down?

2 different observers would see something completely different when looking at the same point.

For Observer 1, the point marked with arrow is approaching wave, but for Observer 2 this is receding wave. How then can we call it plus ?

So the point is somewhere else. We can no longer talk about pluses and minuses, because it depends on observer’s position. We can only talk about waves veering to- and- from observer. And this is 2 basic forces in this world.

Expansion and contraction, explosion and implosion, growing and shrinking, blowing and sucking, attraction and repulsion and so on.

These 2 components are present in all things. It is amusing to listen to scientists searching for „antimatter“. Antimatter is here ladies and gents, everywhere around us, embedded into particles. All particles consist of positive and negative elements.

What is a photon made of

It sounds like utterly absurd idea, but photon is possibly made of nothing. Of void. Dave Kornreich of Humbold State University in California, founder of Ask an Astronomer website, wrote:

The simplest answer is that when a photon is absorbed by an electron, it is completely destroyed. All its energy is imparted to the electron, which instantly jumps to a new energy level. The photon itself ceases to be…The opposite happens when an electron emits a photon. The photon is not selected from a “well” of photons living in the atom; it is created instantaneously out of the vacuum. The electron in the high energy level is instantly converted into a lower energy-level electron and a photon. There is no in-between state where the photon is being constructed. It instantly pops into existance. So the question is: where does the photon come from? Strangely, it doesn’t seem to come from anywhere. The universe must put the extra energy somewhere, and because electrons in atoms are electromagnetic phenomena, a photon is born with the required energy.“ (Thank you Mr. Javadi for publishing this)

I understand photon as follows: when you smash void at speed of light, you create something denser than void on one side, and something thinner on the other side. Pressure and slipstream. This irregularity bends surrounding vacuum and spreads. A wave is born. Wrinkle on face of the Universe. Similar effect can be observed on roads, especially in descends and crossroads, where decelerating cars (and heat) create waves in asphalt.

Series of waves separated from other series of waves is called photon. It might look like Alladin’s flying carpet.

“Matter does not consist of matter” Josef M. Gassner (ger)

Spheres and vortices

I think all spheres and any protruding things are what we call positive, and any vortices and hollows are negative. Positive particles / objects have more spherical shape (or simply more surface), negative particles have more vortices and hollows. Sucking cup needs surface.

Theories of Peter Kohut

In his paper THE UNITY PRINCIPLE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES FOR EINSTEIN´S THEORIES he proposes these models of elementary particles:

(In other words, electron consists of 2 photons connected to each other with + poles)

Neutron:

Excited neutron:

I use Kohut’s models as kind of Lewis structures. I believe they are correct although physical reality might look different.

I think all negative poles in his pictures are in reality vortices or hollows, and positive poles (spinning) spheres. I think elecrons are simply small spherical tornadoes, sucking photons in the same way as black holes.

This is one of my interpretations of Kohut’s model of electron:

Photons passing by trapped in electrone’s vortex. New photon of lower energy emitted. The core of the electron is repulsive due to centrifugal forces caused by spinning.

And this is how covalent bonds could look like:

2 electrones attached to each other. For the sake of simplicity I omitted the rest of atoms. + pole of one electron connected to – pole of another electron thus forming molecule. As Peter Kohut claims, all + poles in the universe are non- locally connected to all – poles.

Personally I don’t understand fully why – poles should not be able to bond to other minus poles, but apparently they are not (it is as if I tried to get left- handed screw into right- handed nut.)

Founding Fathers

Amateur science is very rewarding. You spend many hours with research until you make discovery, only to discover that someone else said it first 170 years ago. In 1849, William Rankine gave scottish physicist James Forbes a paper on the hypothesis of molecular vortices (electrons were not known by then), which stated: “[The hypothesis of molecular vortices] ascribes the elasticity connected with heat to the centrifugal force of small revolutions of the particles of bodies.”

“Each atom of matter consists of a nucleus, or central point, enveloped by an elastic atmosphere which is retained in its position by attractive forces, and that the elasticity due to heat arises from the centrifugal force of these atmospheres, revolving or oscillating about their nuclei or central points.”

It is not easy to decipher words of prophets. But elastic atmospheres connected to the centrifugal force of small revolutions of the particles of the bodies is proof, that William Rankine got it first. Spinning particles repulsive thanks to centrifugal force caused by spinning versus vortices. The essence of plus and minus.

“They had advantages today’s scientists must envy- an enormous range of interests, a vast breadth of knowledge, the freedom to share everything they learned and the luxury of time to think, experiment and pursue other interests without professors, managers or funding bodies breathing down their necks. Who today could spend 30 years following a hunch?” Stephanie Pain, Review of The Invention of Air by Steven Johnson, Newscientist, 5 dec 2009

Evolution of electron

And here is how I understand emission of an electron – positron pair created out of gamma ray from atomic nucleus:

We know this process, but we have very little understanding why emitted gamma ray disintegrates into electron- positron pair so quickly. Obvious explanation is, gamma ray as most energetic type of radiation must meet some repulsive force, for example from an atom nearby. And than e/m waves react in similar way as waves in the ocean when hitting coast- chaotically. Result is vortices.

(Warning! Do not take these depictions 100% seriously, but rather as attempt of Average Joe to explain most fundamental questions of our existence. We do not have strong enough lenses yet to confirm these theories)

What happened to Vortex theory of matter

Rankine’s ideas influenced heavily James Maxwell, but Rankine’s heat generation theory was in direct conflict with Maxwell’s kinetic theory of heat. After some time, Maxwell’s’s theory prevailed.

William Rankine’s findings also inspired Lord Kelvin, who proposed that “atoms could be described as knots of vortices in the aether”. J.J.Thomson continued to develop this theory further by studying interactions between interwined vortices of matter. After discovery of electron, J.J.Thomson and others abandoned the vortex theory of matter. However, the idea that electrones (and particles generally) could have a vortex structure persisted in science until 21th century. (Nice paper about this subject here.)

Rankine’s idea that vortices embrace particles with heat sounds today almost medieval. But why not. When molecular bonds break, it is often associated with fire, or, even worse, explosion.

The Bomb

Bombs have been extensively used by sinister people to intimidate civilized folk for more than 1000 years. But what is mechanism of explosion?

Many explosives contain nitrogen. Nitrogen misses 3 electrones from it’s outer shell, so it makes triple bonds. When these 3 sucking cups deteriorate due to ignition, they release massive amounts of energy. Try to pull 3 sucking cups at once!

Double- slit experiment

Understanding of vortex structure of electrons could shed some light on murky double- slit experiment. I have no time to explain this experiment (google it), but those who are familiar with it could understand my picture quite well.

One of mysteries of this experiment is why photons (and also electrons) create 2 lines (typical for particles) when a sensor is used.

Now fasten your seatbelts my audience, this is highly controversial claim.

Emergence of 2 lines on target could be due to the fact that sensor as such is negative entity. And negative entities seem to have vortex structure (at least for me and, bless his soul, Rankine). And so it is quite likely, that not all photons pass through vortex’s field lines easily (do not forget, negative entities devour photons. Logically, if there is sudden increase of current in sensor, then it means that a photon got trapped. At the same time, we miss photons oriented perpendicular to slots / field lines. These are the photons that create extra lines on target ). Some of those photons oriented perpendicular to field lines are maybe deflected or turned to penetrate through vortex’s field lines but very likely simply swolloved. Sensor has to be placed above or below passing photons in order to make an effect.

Now you can say this is utterly unfounded claim, lacking any evidence, but, is it better to put the blame on some “quantum physics” that nobody really understands?

If this is true, then it also means that we have handy and cheap device to detect negative waves (or at least direction of negative field lines).

Stern- Gerlach experiment

I think also Stern- Gerlach experiment is quite easy to understand, if we know real structure of electrons and magnetic field lines. You fire an electron along strong magnetic field, and it lands in 2 separate areas. Scientists think some spin is to blame, but personally, I doubted existence of spin since secondary school. Spin is so abstract entity, that most of teachers in the world can’t explain it using human language. How poor kids should understand it?

What is worst, all hierarchy of particles in physics is based on spins. You hear “1/2 spin”, “integer spin” , “baryons have odd half- integer spin” and so on, but what happens, if we find out, that spin is something completely different, more real, more tangible than we think? How is it possible, that all methodology of particles is based on something that we don’t understand?

Kitchen experiment for 10€ questions fundamentals of particle physics

To find- out, I conducted a very simple experiment. I sliced a small ball made of solid rubber into two pieces. Then I glued 2 neodymium 15/2mm round magnets to each other, so that magnetic north faces magnetic north (they repel each other so i used superglue). Then I inserted the magnets right in the middle of the rubber ball and glued both hemispheres together.

What I created is something that has two south poles while exhibiting properties of north pole in the middle hence very close to Kohut’s model of electron (orange ball on an improvised launching device, picture below).

Then I placed 2 extra strong magnets (used for welding) on the floor attracting each other (north facing south). I placed a plastic box between them to prevent them from collapsing. Further left, I installed a small paper box. Theoretically, the ball should hit the target or nearly miss it.

I rolled the ball 85 times as slowly as possible, but fast enough so that the ball does not get stuck in magnet alley. The ball hit the paper box 11 times only. However, It ended up 35 times on the left side and 39 times on the right side.

I got similar results as Stern- Gerlach experiment, but I would never dare to say that some spin is to blame. But i dare to say that taxonomy of particles based on spins is nonsense, because it is not spins what makes particles to land in various destinations.

In fact this thing only cost me 56 eurocents (1 neodymium magnet worth 28 cents), because I had those big magnets in my garage + the ball I thieved from my kids). In compare, Large Hadron Collider cost 50 billion dollars…

Electron orbits

When I look into chemistry books, after some time I develop symptoms of confusion. Those people who wrote these books are perfectly correct in mathematical sense. But they don’t seem to bother about physical reality at all. Or maybe they do care, but they don’t know… Anyhow. We need to tidy-up mess in spin science, and we also have to question other big headache in science books- logic of electron orbitals. We know a lot about them, but what is missing is evolutionary perspective.

We can start with innocent childish questions (these are most difficult to answer). Why do we have 2 electrons in first orbital?

This is my artistic explanation- one vortex is not enough to shield all atomic core It can only cover 50% at most (if the atomic core is spherical). So 2 electrons are needed. 3rd electron is one electron too many, because atomic core is already embraced by vortices of these two.

In case of hydrogen, couple of proton and electron have no other choice but to pair- up with another couple hence creating H2 molecule. Now protons are completely shielded by electrones’ vortices. Nice and easy.

Coriolis force

According to definition, “Coriolis force is inertial or fictitious force, that acts on objects that are in motion within a frame of reference that rotates with respect to an inertial frame”. It’s effect can be observed in hurricanes which swirl counter-clockwise in the northern hemisphere, and clockwise in the southern hemisphere. (In many cases also drainiing water in your wash basins and toilet bowls). This is supposed to happen due to rotation of the Earth.

I do not exclude this possibility, but this could also mean that gravitational waves on southern hemisphere are clockwise and on the northern hemisphere anti- clockwise.

If you take closer look at my model of the electron (which is not really mine, because it is based on Kohut’s and Rankine’s models, it is also spherical because 2 independent studies proved it spherical), you can see that it’s 2 vortices are different. one is clock-wise and the other anti- clockwise. We can ignore it. But it must have some effect without any doubt.

Gravity

Negative components of particles (vortices) are apparently non- local. Otherwise we would not have gravity, and transformators would not work. (Btw. two studies from 2011 and 2017 claim electrons are spherical, but frankly, did anyone measure shape of electrons in a transformator?)

There is so much talking about gravity and gravitons, but I don’t understand why, given we know since 1850 that there is entities on atomic level that suck other entities. And it it not difficult to figure out that these entities could have non- local, weaker bond with other things in the universe.

There is a physicist named Adrian Ferent, who says that gravitational waves carry negative energy. See here.

Btw. the same man calculated that black holes are, in fact, much lighter than we expected (which is no surprise to me, I, have been puzzled for several months why physicists ignore vortex structure of black holes so much and lay too much importance on gravity as supposed prime force behind black holes).

This is all for now. If you do not believe me dear readers, if you miss equations and calculations, then make your own!! 🙂

I do apologize Quora for this article being so long (and I only started), but can you imagine Theory of Everything in a few sentences? I can’t 🙂

Ciao!