FQHE, Orientation-Entanglement-Twist, and Atomic Structure

[Yablon]

This will lead me to propose an experiment to the condensed matter guys: Generate so-called quasi-particles with |Q|=1/3. Study those quasi-particles the way you would study an electron in an atomic shell. I predict that aside from their reduced charges, they will show characteristics of l=1 electrons with m=-1,0,+1. Then create the |Q|=1/5 quasi particles. Or, because you need really strong magnetic fields to do 1/5, if you can't do that, settle for 2/5. I predict that aside from their reduced charges, these will show characteristics of l=2 electrons with m=-2,-1,0,+1,+2. If I am right, that will confirm Dirac monopoles in condensed matter at low energies. I get to this through orientation/entanglement in a way I will carefully lay out, through the topological twisting of the entanglement threads (which as I have said has previously been either overlooked or ignored in the literature to the best of my knowledge), which is illustrated at https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... figure.jpg which I will spruce up into a Figure in this paper. (I did not go to NSF for the funding to put together this experiment; I sprung for the five bucks of supplies myself ) These photos are a clue: look at them closely, and use them to figure out how I get to this prediction. (Hint: look at the number of electrons that get into s,p,d,f... shells in an atom, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_shell, look at the number of twist configurations associated with a given orientation of the wood pieces and compare, and notice how my azimuth is defined in the same physical space and in the same way as the azimuth of the orbital quantum number. This turns into a study of the topology underlying the atomic quantum numbers, and it is condensed matter that reveals this to us.)

Dear Friends,

I have been hard at work updating and expanding my FQHE paper to respond to the commentary from Erick Weinberg which I shared last week. In particular, it was important to show how the extra FQHE denominators which I obtained from Dirac-Wu-Yang gauge theory are not just states associated with trivial 4pi differences in orientation-entanglement, but have a real, physical basis in topology for being observably-distinct. Above, pasted from an earlier thread at viewtopic.php?f=6&t=113#p3784, I gave you some hints about how I would do this. I have been highly motivated to pull together and share the details, and now I have enough of them down on paper that I can do so. As I discussed with Q-reeus, when you have got something new, write it down, fast!

In a new draft of my paper linked at https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... ll-1-7.pdf, I have started to detail how I am doing this. You will see how I am using orientation-entanglement-twist to lay a topological foundation for atomic and nuclear structure, which I will then seek to have experimentally validated using FQHE because in superconducting states at low temperatures under large magnetic fields we can get the electrons to cough up these secrets of how they structure into atomic shells. READ SECTION 5 IN PARTICULAR. IMHO, this is a blockbuster.

Also, SPECIAL NOTE TO JOY CHRISTIAN: Look at my OET results in Figures 5 and 6. I see in this "conservation of twist," a solution to the Alice and Bob problem which may dovetail very well with what you are trying to do.

Jay

[Yablon]

In a new draft of my paper linked at https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... ll-1-7.pdf, I have started to detail how I am doing this. You will see how I am using orientation-entanglement-twist to lay a topological foundation for atomic and nuclear structure, which I will then seek to have experimentally validated using FQHE because in superconducting states at low temperatures under large magnetic fields we can get the electrons to cough up these secrets of how they structure into atomic shells. READ SECTION 5 IN PARTICULAR. IMHO, this is a blockbuster.

Dear friends:

Today was my most intensive day of scientific discovery in months, and it yielded possibly the most important and fundamental breakthrough I have ever made: I now understand how to explain quantum physics on a totally topological basis. This will probably take a week to ten days to write up properly. But as has always been the case in the past when I come upon something brand new, I am totally wired and will be racing myself to get this down on paper. This builds on the orientation-entanglement-twist (OET) results in section 5 of https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... ll-1-7.pdf referenced above, now also at http://vixra.org/pdf/1412.0160v1.pdf.

First, let me show you a photograph of the topology of an electron, or any other Dirac spinor. Here: https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... spinor.jpg. Electrons are not strings, but they are rings with twist. The outer ring in the photo is made with a ribbon, the inner one is made with a rubber band. They are just two different models of the same thing. Both are stapled at two ends and then twisted through once. The left and right hemispheres (hemi-rings) represent both the left and right helicity states of a spinor. As a nod to Joy Christian and EPR, I will name the left half-ring Alice and the right half-ring Bob. When we observe an electron, we are observing a portion of one half or the other, not both. But it is like touching two different parts of the same elephant. Each half is always an opposite-helicity version of the other half. Sometimes the halves get entangled, and sometime they get more twists, and these menu of possible topologies match 100% perfectly the the quantized electronic structure n, l, m, s of atoms. And there are also certain manipulations which produce supersymmetry which has never been my top subject priority but now has some of my attention.

By then subjecting these to various entangling rotations and then untangling the two halves, I can model with perfect fit, totally from topology, every single n, l, m and s electron state in the periodic table, every proton and neutron state in the nuclear table, and the QHFE which got me into this the first place. And it gives me a tool to discuss EPR and Alice and Bob with some semblance of sanity. I basically started from the above section 5 results which topologically tracked orbital angular momentum L, reminded myself that what is conserved hence observable is total angular momentum J=L+S because that commutes with the Dirac Hamiltonian [H,J]=0, and so decided to topologically develop spin 1/2 which was needed anyway for other reasons because the FQHE denominators are always odd. (Think of it this way: the odd integers o=2l+1 where l is any integer. Multiply through by 1/2. Now we define j==.5o=l+1.2 which models the conserved total angular momentum [H,J]=0.) It all came out in perfect fit with atomic structure and FQHE.

But the real breakthrough today is this: when Misner, Thorne and Wheeler (MTW) or anyone else talk about orientation-entanglement (and should also be talking about twist), they are talking about an "object" which is entangled via "threads" with its external "environment." A few weeks ago I opined here that the threads might be the the field lines of an electron as first modeled by Faraday, but of course those are classical field lines, and in quantum these would need to be operators and I want to understand quantum topologically, not through these damned operators which work well mathematically but give no topological visualization to the physics aside from correspondence rules by which one converts classical to quantum, e.g., Poisson Brackets to Canonical Commutators or classical angular momentum to orbital angular momentum. So for the past several weeks, I have been asking myself over and over the same question: what are these "threads," physically? MTW use these "threads" to track OE of an "object" relative to its "environment," and we assume the "object" is a spinor and the environment is something else like some nearby nuclei. But the threads are just some abstraction unless they correspond to a physical observable. So if OE is ever to go from a nice visual analogy for a spinor to something physically real, then the threads have to be physically real. So again, and again, turning over and over in my mind for a few weeks, night and day, has been the question: WHAT ARE THESE THREADS WHICH DO THE ENTANGLEMENT AND THE TWISTING? They have to be something physically real. But what? Think about this, and look at my Figure 2a or 3a in http://vixra.org/pdf/1412.0160v1.pdf, and imagine that each ribbon in those Figures are twisted once with opposite helicity which is what we need to bring spin 1/2 into the topology per the j==.5o=l+1.2.

Then today it hit me: Nature has been playing a "Wizard of Oz" game with everybody. We have been focusing on this big ole scary Wizard, and missing the man behind the curtain. Like the magician who distracts us into looking at the shiny object while the real business is done elsewhere, we have all been looking at the wrong thing in OE when we talk about "threads" connecting an "object" to an "environment" and presumed that somehow the (shiny) "object" is the electron or other particle we want to study. THERE IS NO "OBJECT" AND THERE IS NO "ENVIRONMENT." THERE ARE ONLY THE THREADS, AND THE THREADS (REALLY RINGS KINKED WITH OPPOSITE HELICITY TWISTS) ARE THE ELECTRONS AND ANY OTHER DIRAC SPINORS. The topological deformation I did in Figure 2 of http://vixra.org/pdf/1412.0160v1.pdf stopped one step short of its final step: In the final step, we can remove the top and bottom "bars" entirely, and just make those part of the ribbon. The pictures https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... spinor.jpg represent the final topological deformation of Figure 2, once we have added a twist to account for the spin 1/2.

So, when you study orientation-entanglement, make sure to include twist, ignore the "object" and the "environment" which are misleading magician tricks, and study the "threads / ribbons / rings" themselves, with the understanding that they have forced kinks which give them twists, that the usual OE operations take place by manipulations of these kinks, and that these ARE the particles and via their variable topologies the particles states that we observe in nature. The "object" and the "environment" are merged with the "threads" et. al, and become the two kinks or anchors which separate the Alice half from the Bob half of the ring and unite what are the two spinor eigenstates of a single fermion into a topologically holistic entity. If you do, you will have a new tool to deal with EPR, you will be able to model nuclear and atomic quantum structure with topology, and you will explain FQHE and electric magnetic-duality and its symmetry breaking.

And finally, you will have a way to use QHFE to confirm all of this, because I will predict with confidence that under careful observation, the 1/3 fractions behave like atomic p shell electrons and show three different (m=+1,0,-1) appearances, the 1/5 behave like atomic d shell electrons with five variants (m=+2,+1,0,-1,-2), the 1/7 behave like atomic f shell electrons with seven variants (m=+3,+2,+1,0,-1,-2,-3, etc. That is a prediction I make (I said prediction, not retrodiction which I have done a lot of with the nuclei), and I will bet the farm that if somebody does these experiment, this whole thing will be confirmed.

Jay

[Ben6993]

Jay previously wrote on a nearby thread, prior to the new visualisation:

Ben,

I'll stop you right there. On that point, my critic was correct. I threw in the mention of strings parenthetically, because I was miffed that they would not review the paper and just proclaimed that it was "outside the scope" of PRD which is clearly baloney. It may be within the scope of other journals, but that is not the same as being outside the PRD scope. So I fought their baloney with my own baloney, playing with the word "strings," which in retrospect was bad judgment because it is always best to keep the high ground. I did read somewhere that strings came out of Dirac strings, but personally, I don't really see that and agree with my critic on that point. I did get what I wanted in the end, which was Weinberg's substantive comments. So all the jurisdictional stuff, as he also says, is moot.

Jay
PS: I do think that strings are very relevant in a preon model, especially two preons which I have used in the past, because the ends of the strings provide a means to connect the preons.

Does that mean you had been seeing 'string theory' strings as connectors between particles while the particles themselves were not strings? Strings were supposedly introduced to replace point particles to try to overcome the singularity problem on wave function collapse. Do you now disagree with your critic on this 'string' interpretation?

I did not reply to this before as you had seemed to see see strings quite differently to me. In my preon model, the electron is made of preons and the preons are string-like in that they travel at speed c and end on colour branes. So my strings do end up on bars, as in your older diagrams, but for me, and for string theory*, those bars in your older diagrams are colour branes, not particles, and they are in extra dimensions, not in our 4D, so there is an attachment possible to a colour brane at every point in our 4D.

There is one thing about your new diagram that I do not like. You only have one piece of elastic for one electron. In my model I have at least 96 strings per electron. And that number seems to double with every new version of my model, so maybe more to come. So call it n times 96 preons per electron. I could dubiously identify one preon with one tangible line of force and lots of potential lines of force are needed per electron. This is important in that your original diagram had two lengths of elastic per electron so that you could distinguish between 1) rotating the whole electron and 2) getting separate twists in the two lines of force that you illustrated. The twists in the lines of force represented electron spin while rotation of the whole electron was what happened as the electron moved around the Moibus strip in that analogy (corresponding to you rotating the end bars in your old diagram).


* As I noted in a previous post, I started out following Susskind's description, in his online lectures, of a string as having a quark at each end but finished the course visualising a string as being the 'particle' and ending, at least at one end of the string, on a colour brane as that was what was being described at the end of the course.

[FrediFizzx]

Hi Jay,

Please don't go down the SUSY path. IMHO, it's a dead end. Do you really think there is such a particle in Nature as a selectron boson? SUSY just makes everything way more complicated that it needs to be. We will probably know more about the death of SUSY by the end of next summer after the LHC does runs at higher energy.

[FrediFizzx]

Hi again Jay,

I believe the only way you can get the "twists" or torsion is via parallelized 3 and 7-sphere topology. According to Joy, in parallelized 3-sphere topology, the torsion is constant. In parallelized 7-sphere topology the torsion is variable. We have been trying to apply those topologies to fermions and in doing so are trying to figure out if the torsion energy is a factor in the rest mass-energy. If so, how would one quantify torsion energy in that case?

[Ben6993]

Hi Fred

I agree about SUSY in part. I followed the first five out of ten of Susskind's online SUSY lectures before losing incentive. The maths is interesting. I found the operators to be sensible (though not usually in the Standard Model) though he often apologised for their obtuseness.

Say you want to hit a LH electron with an operator which converts it to a boson. Well, take your pick of bosons (main problem ... what is so special about a superpartner? .. what is so special about the operators?), say you want to try for a W- boson partner.

Hit the electron (LH e-) with a field/particle/operator which is made out of a composite of a RH positron & W- ( = e+W- which in my preon model is a LH muon antineutrino)
The outcome is a combination of e-, e+ and W- which in my preon model is a higher generation W- with twice as many preons as an ordinary W-. I don't think that looking for a higher generation W- is unimportant. But I have no idea how much heavier than a normal W- it would be. But, as you say, these heavy partners are not being found.

[Yablon]

Hi Jay,
Please don't go down the SUSY path. IMHO, it's a dead end. Do you really think there is such a particle in Nature as a selectron boson? SUSY just makes everything way more complicated that it needs to be. We will probably know more about the death of SUSY by the end of next summer after the LHC does runs at higher energy.

Hi Fred and Ben et al.:

Before anybody thinks I have done over to the "dark side," let me be clear about how playing around with this OET toy https://jayryablon.wordpress.com/wp-adm ... p?item=821 got me to pay attention to supersymmetry. This will all be detailed when I write up yesterday's discoveries. I really do recommend that you build yourself one of these toys then study the twists and entanglements that occur under various operations. After all, this is the 3D space in which our physics takes place so this toy helps us study the properties of that space just as Hamilton was doing when he first conceived quaternions.

Suppose that you have your toy in the Figure 3a configuration of http://vixra.org/pdf/1412.0160v1.pdf. And as I have already shown, each double twist maps to one unit of angular momentum so that each single twist maps to 1/2 unit of angular momentum. Suppose that you want to then introduce a single twist into each thread in the toy -- one left handed and one right handed -- to represent spin 1/2. Do you need to unstaple the ribbons and reconnect them with these twists? Or, can you just rotate the toy and untangle the threads in some way to get those twists?

Referring to Figure 3a of http://vixra.org/pdf/1412.0160v1.pdf, if you do one 360 degree rotation of the N-->S bar through the y-z plane about the x axis letting the ribbons roll around the bar, then pull out the north ribbon over N and the south ribbon over S, you will have introduced one unit of offsetting (right and left helical) twists into the two threads. So a toy that represented spin zero has turned into a toy that represents spin 1/2, and nothing needed to be unstapled and restapled. It all can be done with topological deformations. To the extent that each full twist on the threads represents a half unit of spin, that is a form of supersymmetry.

What then becomes interesting is this: As I have already written about, rotating around z twice, then disentangling, yields the various l, -l<m<+l configurations of orbital angular momentum observed in the electronic structure of atoms. So that is a "permitted" operation. If you rotate about y twice then disentangle, it turns out that it is equivalent to rotating twice about z the disentangling. So that is permitted. But the rotation about x and then disentangling instead adds a half unit of angular momentum and changes spin 0 to spin 1/2. That is not permitted, because we do not observe that sort of thing in atoms.

So the question becomes this: one what basis might some form of rotation in the usual three-dimensional space of physics be permitted to occur about two of the three space axes but not about the third? Is there something about 3D space, or some physics phenomenon in 3D space, which makes two axes "stable" for a rotation and one axis "not stable" for a rotation? Voila: you may remember from your physics courses that if you take, say, a block of wood with different lengths, say, 1" x 6" by 12" and throw it up in in the air while spinning it, you can have a stable rotation about the 1" axis and about the 12" axis, but not about the 6" axis. The mid-dimensioned axis is always unstable for rotations. So in Figure 3a, the x axis is akin to the 6" axis which is unstable for rotations. This, in turn, tells us about the relative sizes of these "sticks and ribbons" in the physical world, because whatever "size" these strings / ribbons / loops / rings / sticks have in the real physics world, we know that the x axis is the "6 inch," middle-sized axis for which rotation is unstable.

That is the extent of my connection with supersymmetry, and I am concluding that this real, observed, dynamical quirk of three-dimensional space, is what is responsible for us not seeing supersymmetric particle transitions in our laboratories. And I do not think this quirk of 3D space ever goes away. So if that is the case, that may be a bar to supersymmetry which is intrinsic to the inherent dynamical properties of the 3D physical space we all live in.

Jay

[Ben6993]

Jay wrote on Saturday December 13th:
And finally, you will have a way to use QHFE to confirm all of this, because I will predict with confidence that under careful observation, the 1/3 fractions behave like atomic p shell electrons and show three different (m=+1,0,-1) appearances, the 1/5 behave like atomic d shell electrons with five variants (m=+2,+1,0,-1,-2), the 1/7 behave like atomic f shell electrons with seven variants (m=+3,+2,+1,0,-1,-2,-3, etc. That is a prediction I make (I said prediction, not retrodiction which I have done a lot of with the nuclei), and I will bet the farm that if somebody does these experiment, this whole thing will be confirmed.

Hi Jay

Sorry that I am a bit slow on the uptake ... do you mean that your calculation of 3, 5, 7 levels [N.B. is there a "1"?] fits this:
[quote from http://www.docbrown.info/page07/ASA2ptable2.htm]
"for n = 4 there are four sub–shells: 1 x 4s, 3 x 4p orbitals, 5 x 4d orbitals and 7 x 4f orbitals, maximum of 2 + 6 + 10 + 14 = 32 electrons."

I know very little about this, so please excuse me. Presumably you are implying that, at say room temperature, these shell electrons will have fractional charges (i.e charges less in absolute magnitude than -1)? And as the shell electrons act as screeners for the nucleus +ve charge, so will the net charge of an atom tend to an excess of +ve charge as the electron charges are reduced by fractioning? Or might the quarks get (further) fractioned, too, to make a balance? Or ...?

[Yablon]

Hi Jay

Sorry that I am a bit slow on the uptake ... do you mean that your calculation of 3, 5, 7 levels [N.B. is there a "1"?] fits this:
[quote from http://www.docbrown.info/page07/ASA2ptable2.htm]
"for n = 4 there are four sub–shells: 1 x 4s, 3 x 4p orbitals, 5 x 4d orbitals and 7 x 4f orbitals, maximum of 2 + 6 + 10 + 14 = 32 electrons."

Yes. Here is a good link I use for this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital

I know very little about this, so please excuse me. Presumably you are implying that, at say room temperature, these shell electrons will have fractional charges (i.e charges less in absolute magnitude than -1)?

No. At room temperature the electrons behave as in the links above.

And as the shell electrons act as screeners for the nucleus +ve charge, so will the net charge of an atom tend to an excess of +ve charge as the electron charges are reduced by fractioning? Or might the quarks get (further) fractioned, too, to make a balance? Or ...?

You lost me here Ben. When we are near absolute zero in a superconductor, what is a broken room temperature symmetry becomes restored. That happens to be electric-magnetic symmetry in Maxwell theory. Then, the quantum numbers seen in atomic structure are still all there, but manifest differently via fractional charges.

Jay

PS: I do not expect that this is something that you will see instantly. It is taking a fair effort for me to write this up properly.

[Ben6993]

Jay
Thanks. Your explanation is very helpful: the fractional charges apply only at very low temperatures (which is what I originally thought quite a few posts back). But your spin/twists apply to both hot and cold temperatures as they explain the quantum numbers in both cases.
Looking forward to seeing your new paper in due course.

[Yablon]

Jay
Thanks. Your explanation is very helpful: the fractional charges apply only at very low temperatures (which is what I originally thought quite a few posts back). But your spin/twists apply to both hot and cold temperatures as they explain the quantum numbers in both cases.
Looking forward to seeing your new paper in due course.

Ben,

Exactly. And that has not been easy for me to sort out and present well, either. So join the club.

Jay

[Yablon]

I wanted to keep everybody apprised my my progress developing this paper. I have just posted the latest draft to http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2 ... l-1-12.pdf. By morning it should also appear at http://vixra.org/pdf/1412.0160v2.pdf.

Since the last draft, I have added sections 6 and 7. Section 6 adds the topological foundation of intrinsic spin to the orbital angular momentum I had already elaborated in my last draft.

Section 7 contains the beginning of the development of electrons as twisted strings, and a reshaping of the MTW orientation-entanglement paradigm. This provides the initial detail about what I had in mind when I wrote the material quoted below several days ago. For the first time, I introduce my "Alice" and "Bob." And I have started to produce my own take on the EPR and Bell business that has been generating so much heat lately.

Joy, if you can take a few minutes off from the war between England and the Netherlands, I'd be curious to have to peek into this. I am hoping by next week to have some more explicit EPR development included. I am not trying to have it match or contradict what you anyone else has done; I just want to do this right according to my own scientific compass. But as you know, along with you and Hess, I too believe that Einstein had the best instincts of anybody as what nature really does and does not do and that his views will eventually carry the day. I hope to hasten that day.

Jay

First, let me show you a photograph of the topology of an electron, or any other Dirac spinor. Here: https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... spinor.jpg. Electrons are not strings, but they are rings with twist. The outer ring in the photo is made with a ribbon, the inner one is made with a rubber band. They are just two different models of the same thing. Both are stapled at two ends and then twisted through once. The left and right hemispheres (hemi-rings) represent both the left and right helicity states of a spinor. As a nod to Joy Christian and EPR, I will name the left half-ring Alice and the right half-ring Bob. When we observe an electron, we are observing a portion of one half or the other, not both. But it is like touching two different parts of the same elephant. Each half is always an opposite-helicity version of the other half. Sometimes the halves get entangled, and sometime they get more twists, and these menu of possible topologies match 100% perfectly the the quantized electronic structure n, l, m, s of atoms. And there are also certain manipulations which produce supersymmetry which has never been my top subject priority but now has some of my attention.
. . .
But the real breakthrough today is this: when Misner, Thorne and Wheeler (MTW) or anyone else talk about orientation-entanglement (and should also be talking about twist), they are talking about an "object" which is entangled via "threads" with its external "environment." A few weeks ago I opined here that the threads might be the the field lines of an electron as first modeled by Faraday, but of course those are classical field lines, and in quantum these would need to be operators and I want to understand quantum topologically, not through these damned operators which work well mathematically but give no topological visualization to the physics aside from correspondence rules by which one converts classical to quantum, e.g., Poisson Brackets to Canonical Commutators or classical angular momentum to orbital angular momentum. So for the past several weeks, I have been asking myself over and over the same question: what are these "threads," physically? MTW use these "threads" to track OE of an "object" relative to its "environment," and we assume the "object" is a spinor and the environment is something else like some nearby nuclei. But the threads are just some abstraction unless they correspond to a physical observable. So if OE is ever to go from a nice visual analogy for a spinor to something physically real, then the threads have to be physically real. So again, and again, turning over and over in my mind for a few weeks, night and day, has been the question: WHAT ARE THESE THREADS WHICH DO THE ENTANGLEMENT AND THE TWISTING? They have to be something physically real. But what? Think about this, and look at my Figure 2a or 3a in http://vixra.org/pdf/1412.0160v1.pdf, and imagine that each ribbon in those Figures are twisted once with opposite helicity which is what we need to bring spin 1/2 into the topology per the j==.5o=l+1.2.

Then today it hit me: Nature has been playing a "Wizard of Oz" game with everybody. We have been focusing on this big ole scary Wizard, and missing the man behind the curtain. Like the magician who distracts us into looking at the shiny object while the real business is done elsewhere, we have all been looking at the wrong thing in OE when we talk about "threads" connecting an "object" to an "environment" and presumed that somehow the (shiny) "object" is the electron or other particle we want to study. THERE IS NO "OBJECT" AND THERE IS NO "ENVIRONMENT." THERE ARE ONLY THE THREADS, AND THE THREADS (REALLY RINGS KINKED WITH OPPOSITE HELICITY TWISTS) ARE THE ELECTRONS AND ANY OTHER DIRAC SPINORS. The topological deformation I did in Figure 2 of http://vixra.org/pdf/1412.0160v1.pdf stopped one step short of its final step: In the final step, we can remove the top and bottom "bars" entirely, and just make those part of the ribbon. The pictures https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... spinor.jpg represent the final topological deformation of Figure 2, once we have added a twist to account for the spin 1/2.

So, when you study orientation-entanglement, make sure to include twist, ignore the "object" and the "environment" which are misleading magician tricks, and study the "threads / ribbons / rings" themselves, with the understanding that they have forced kinks which give them twists, that the usual OE operations take place by manipulations of these kinks, and that these ARE the particles and via their variable topologies the particles states that we observe in nature. The "object" and the "environment" are merged with the "threads" et. al, and become the two kinks or anchors which separate the Alice half from the Bob half of the ring and unite what are the two spinor eigenstates of a single fermion into a topologically holistic entity. If you do, you will have a new tool to deal with EPR, you will be able to model nuclear and atomic quantum structure with topology, and you will explain FQHE and electric magnetic-duality and its symmetry breaking.

[Ben6993]

Hi Jay

[Very minor typo alert: In your new wordpress paper there is a "Mich" which should be a "Much" on page 32.]

I completely agree that the electron "is" the thread(s).

Figure 8 seems too static for me as the loop of the electron seems to encompass Alice and Bob in one circuit. AFAIK the electron circuit length should be too small to be able to simultaneously encompass Alice and Bob because of the very high frequency of the zitter (zbw effect). Ie isn't one circuit for the electron equivalent to one zit of the zbw?

I keep saying that I am not a physicist, which explains why I have never heard of spin around the middle-sized dimension of a plank or block of wood being unstable. I believe you though, and will read up about it. Strings of string theory are travelling at or near speed c and I would have thought that perhaps gyroscopic stability might also be investigated as the reason that certain routes of untangling are not possible?

All the best.

[Yablon]

Hi Jay
[Very minor typo alert: In your new wordpress paper there is a "Mich" which should be a "Much" on page 32.]
I completely agree that the electron "is" the thread(s).

Hi Ben,

Thanks for the typo alert, and I agree with you agreeing with me.

Figure 8 seems too static for me as the loop of the electron seems to encompass Alice and Bob in one circuit. AFAIK the electron circuit length should be too small to be able to simultaneously encompass Alice and Bob because of the very high frequency of the zitter (zbw effect). Ie isn't one circuit for the electron equivalent to one zit of the zbw?

I have not really explained the Alice and Bob part of these Figures. The whole electron (entire string) is a singlet state, the type that is prepared before doing an EPR experiment. It corresponds to the Klein Gordon equation, and with both a right and left handed twist in the east/west sectors, its nets a zero twist. The twofold spin degeneracy that comes out of Dirac's equation is represented by the separate east/west sectors being part of one object. But when we observe a spin 1/2 state for and electron, i.e., when we "collapse the wavefunction" whatever that gobbledegook expression really means, we are only detecting part of the whole string (which is what that means). But, there is a definite correlation between the part we detect and the other part we do not. So if Alice observes the W spin state and Bob observes the E spin state (and this string can grow in spatial radius when the electron is free which is how those states do their EPR separation) then what Bob observes will most definitely correlate oppositely to what Alice observes, and if you do the math when Bob sets up a different angle of observation than Alice, you get the quantum correlation shown by the blue line in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_t ... e:Bell.svg.

Also, and this may be radical but I believe it to be true, the electron really does not have an intrinsic spin. It has an intrinsic twist, and really, two oppositely-handed intrinsic twists. When those twists move through the Higgs field, they will stir up (and I do mean "stir") a circular flow of energy momentum. See https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... s-spin.pdf which is one of the most important yet underappreciated papers anyone has written. That is detected as the spin and the angular momentum, but it is an angular momentum in the vacuum which is stirred up by the electron twists, and the net energy result is what Ohanian describes here. Think about the circular air currents that you would stir up if you took a fan or a propeller which is not spinning and simply propelled it along a straight line at 100 mph. (PS: I took a relativity course with Ohanian in 1980 and he used to review ideas I ran by him even then and that was where my interest in all this stuff really blossomed.)

I have decided that now that I have all of these views on record, I am actually going to take them out of this paper, because I want this paper published by a top journal and I need to stick with the main thesis and whatever is strictly needed to support it so this does not become another 80 page paper and get distracting to me and the reviewers or set up targets that will sink the paper for collateral reasons. And I am not going to go back to PRD with this; I had the review I wanted from Weinberg and that forced me to some good new insights to back up the correct view I had formed in the first place about the connection between DWY monopoles and the FQHE.

I keep saying that I am not a physicist, which explains why I have never heard of spin around the middle-sized dimension of a plank or block of wood being unstable. I believe you though, and will read up about it. Strings of string theory are travelling at or near speed c and I would have thought that perhaps gyroscopic stability might also be investigated as the reason that certain routes of untangling are not possible?
All the best.

Just throw a block of wood up in the air and spin it. At MIT one of the exercises when I took differential equations was to solve the differential equations to show this. I love the gyroscope idea. Do not know if I can use it here, but it is the type of creative thinking that leads to discovery. For a "not a physicist" you have one of the best physical intuitions I have come across in a long time. Maybe that is precisely because you are not a physicist but you can think formally and logically and your thinking is not so cluttered up as to miss these sorts of things because you think some complicated explanation is needed for something that really has a simple explanation.

Best,

Jay

[Ben6993]

Hi Jay,

You are too kind and I am not sure I deserve it. I am learning physics as fast as I can and no doubt picking up my own baggage too. I note that you will prune your paper for publication. That is good. From my previous "life", I still have, after nine years, a paper on the website of a government agency. I didn't really want to write it but I was volunteered for the job. The draft had sixteen tables in an appendix. All absolutely vital to understand the story of the research of course. It was published with just three tables. And every word in the main text was examined: go or stay. And every point made could only be mentioned once. The final paper (21pp) was about half the size of of the draft. An earlier joint research project had a draft with about 100 pages. The local committee reduced that to about 35 pages. The national committee reduced it further to about 20 pages with appendices (i.e. original report) available on request. No committee seems to like a report with more than 20 pages, and a one-page executive summary would be even better!

If you start with a completely symmetric field that should have no properties and be equivalent to the vacuum field. In my model, that neutral vacuum field would correspond to 192 preons. That field could simultaneously produce an electron and a positron, or a quark and an antiquark or anything and its anti-version of first generation particles. To get a higgs and anti-higgs would require a neutral field with four times as much matter in it. I think that your paper does not mention the positron (?). As I understand it, if Alice measures an electron then Bob measures the positron partner. An electron on its own with both + spin and - spin in separable RH and LH parts is not symmetrical/neutral wrt electric charge and not symmetrical wrt the weak isospin (or do they not matter?). But if you include the positron with the electron there is overall neutrality of field.

Best wishes.

[Yablon]

...I think that your paper does not mention the positron (?). As I understand it, if Alice measures an electron then Bob measures the positron partner. An electron on its own with both + spin and - spin in separable RH and LH parts is not symmetrical/neutral wrt electric charge and not symmetrical wrt the weak isospin (or do they not matter?). But if you include the positron with the electron there is overall neutrality of field....

Ben,

You have made my point as to why it is better in the paper I will submit to just use the topology as an analogy and not try to make the claim that these strings are electrons. While this is less expansive which goes against my nature, as soon as I make the claim to the electron, then I will need to start demonstrating that these strings can do all of the hundreds of tricks that an electron can do. Roll over, play with Alice and Bob, do uncertainty, play dead, beg for a doggy biscuit, etc. I do not at this time want to take on that battle of making this fit every last thing that an electron does. I just want to show that I am right about FQHE and get that highly placed.

Jay