The chemical bond.....way more evidence about flatland!

Take a look at this figure!

This is the laplacian of the electron density of urea molecule. The lone pair over the nitrogen is composed of two toruses. They semifused "over" the nitrogen and separate around the harboring atom. The "sigma bond" between the nitrogen and the protons are two deformed spheres. The core of the nitrogen atom is an helium atom and it is an sphere into another sphere. This core is observed in the carbon and oxygen atoms as well. The double bond between the carbon and the oxygen is again two distorted spheres. One of the sphere is completely around the oxygen atom. The other sphere smashed against the carbon atom. The extra electrons of the oxygen form an sphere in a sphere structure over the oxygen atom. They are slightly fused with the lone pair on the nitrogen.

I got the following conclusions from this very shot:

1) just like the deuteron, the electron shows the same shapes
2) the electron occupy a larger space than the deuteron
3) the chemical bond is the mass fusion of valence electrons

I looked to all the molecules I could. This structures are in all of them. I plot the normalized area of the bond against the bond energy. I got the straightest line and experimentalist can get. You can take a look at that in this paper: http://vixra.org/pdf/1011.0060v1.pdf

1) the shorter the normalized bond area, the larger its energy.

2) the normalization number is the number of electrons involved in the bond.

I got the first model independent count of electrons in a molecule!

No assumption, no guesses, no high tech computer software!

Where is the evidence?

A toroidal internal magnetic field does not "leak" outside of the torus and contains all the energy inside. This is a good property to describe mass. I believe that this internal magnetic field is what tenses space-time around it, which is another good property to describe mass. A third requirement/property is that this toroidal  internal magnetic field should use all the dimensions of the space it is intersecting. For flatland,  the internal toroidal magnetic field is a circle and fulfill this requirement. For space-land, this magnetic field has to have three dimensions. This is new. A way to imagine this is that the hypertorus produce an spherical internal magnetic field. 

The field outside this hyperdimensional toroidal internal magnetic field is the gravitational field. This is better illustrated like this,

The difference between 2D and 3D space bending. One circle (2D object) is enough to bend 2D space in time. To bend 3D space you need a 3D object.

Charge, magnetic moment, anapole moment and mass

As observed in the previous posts, it is very easy to solve the EPR paradox. Just two non-superimposable images (chirality) are required. This occurs because the flat electron intersection is in two places at the same time and the internal magnetic field got inverted after performing its mirror image. These two separated circles have to be at present time. This is why they are perpendicular to the direction of movement. If one is ahead of the other, that one is in the future, the other in the past and no wave is produced. A consequence of this is that the magnetic moment of the flat electron will have just two orientations, not any! Would this be enough for the mystery of the "SPIN"!?

The problem I have now is how  to put a magnetic moment on a toroidal current? I found that a toroidal current has a charge moment called an anapole moment. Just at the center of the torus, where I need it. The units of this moment are coulombs per square meter. I think that the "flat electron magnetic moment" is the "anapole moment" consuming an intersection time, some sort of intermittent moment.

If this moment is not in the plane, it will not consume the intersection time and it will be an anapole moment (Concentric circles in Figure 1). But, if this moment is in the plane, it will consume the intersection time and it will be a magnetic moment (two separated circles in Figure 1).

Figure 1  The anapole moment T occurs at the intersection of two concentric circles (aiming into the future in this case). When it is in the plane, it is a magnetic moment.

The intersection time will be the torus arc length divided by the speed of light c. This multiplied by the toroidal current i_{theta} is the electron charge e. By this way, the toroidal current is obtained,

Therefore, the major radius of the torus r_{phi} is half the Compton wavelength and the flat electron cross section would have the extension of the Compton wavelength. Theta is equal to pi and is distributed in the four circles observed in the post "Matter wave", i.e. 45º circle section areas.

The energy contained in the toroid is:

Thus, the mass energy of the electron is the energy contained in the toroid's internal magnetic field.

Correlation Measurements in Flatland (EPR paradox)

I will follow the instructions very similar to what you can see here:(http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/SternGerlach/SternGerlach.html)

We imagine a radioactive substance that emits a pair of flat electrons in each decay. These two electrons go in opposite directions, and are emitted nearly simultaneously. So we can have a sample emitting these pairs of flat electrons. Figure 1 shows such a sample and flat electron filters measuring the spin of each member of the pair:

Figure 1 Entangled flat electrons traveling through filters in opposite directions.

Continuing, for the radioactive substance we will be considering in Figure 1, one-half of the flat electrons incident on the up hand filter emerge and one-half do not. Similarly, one-half of the flat electrons incident on the down hand filter emerge and one-half do not.

But if we look at the correlation between these flat electrons in Figure 2, we find that if the up hand electron does pass through the filter, then its down hand companion does not pass its filter. The handedness of the coupled flat electrons at the center determined this correlation.

Figure 2 Example of a 0% correlation.

We say that each radioactive decay has a total spin of zero: if one electron is spin right its companion is spin left. Now, the case where the two filters have opposite emerged spin.

Figure 3 Example of a 100 % correlation

This time if a particular left hand flat electron passes its filter down Figure 3, then its companion right hand flat electron always passes its filter. It is obvious that the handedness of the flat electrons produced this correlation! 

Finally, if the two filters defined the same emerged flat electron are one perpendicular to the other. 

Figure 4. Correlation experiment with different magnetic field orientation.

One-half of the down hand flat electrons emerge from their filter. One-half of the up hand flat electrons emerge from their filter. If a particular down hand electron passes its filter, one-half of the time its companion up hand flat electron will emerge from its filter, one-half of the time it will not. Because this particular orientation produced the donut intersection and a 50:50 percent probability to have either structure again (see Figure 4).

Thus, Einstein was right! "Imagine that your friend had a pair of gloves and two boxes. He put one glove in each box, and then separated the boxes. Now imagine that you didn’t know which glove was in which box, and you were asked to open one of the boxes. Simple logic would tell you that there was a 50-percent chance of getting the right-handed glove and a 50-percent chance of getting the left-handed glove. And say you opened the box and saw the right-handed glove. You would automatically know which glove was in the other box, but there wouldn’t be any occult connection between the two gloves. Rather, each glove always had its handedness before the observation. "

The orientations of the filters in Figure 1, 2 and 3 were arbitrarily but consistently set to get the Space-Land experimental results.

Playing with Spin Filters

I will follow the instructions very similar to what you can see here:(http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/SternGerlach/SternGerlach.html). For simplicity, I would not collimate the particle after it has been separated. Thus, the filtered electron will continue in a straight line down the filter. The flat electrons movement in a magnetic field just obeys the spin separation and do not move as negative particles in a magnetic field.

Figure 1 Spin-right flat electron filter

Figure 1 shows a Stern-Gerlach apparatus, in which a block of lead stops the "spin left" flat electrons. One-half of the incident beam, the "spin left" electrons will be stopped inside the filter, while all the "spin-right" flat electrons will emerge in the same direction before they entered the magnetic field. Thus, this is a "filter" that selects "spin-right" flat electrons.

Figure 2. A second "spin-right" electron filter will not affect the selected spin.

On Figure. 2, We now put a second filter after the first with the same orientation. The second filter has no effect. Half of the electrons from the electron gun emerge from the first box, and all of those electrons pass through the second filter. So, once "right" is defined by the first filter, it is the same as the "right" defined by the second.

Figure 3. A Spin right filter follow by a spin left filter will block all the electrons.

On Figure 3, Now we put the second filter after the first and a block to the right relative to the first. As always, half of the beam of electrons from the electron gun emerge from the first filter, and none of those electrons emerge from the second filter. So, evidently once the first filter defines "right" that definition is the second filter's definition of "left".

Fig. 4 Flatland version of the Space-Land Stern-Gerlach experiment.

Here is another orientation for the second filter, this time it is oriented at 90° relative to the first one. To repeat once again, half of the beam of electrons from the electron gun emerge from the first filter. It turns out that one-half of those electrons pass through the second filter. So if we have two definitions of "right" from two filters at right angles to each other, one half of the electrons will satisfy both definitions. This is because the intersection of the flat electron will change to the intersection of the donut through it equator (see Particle-wave duality post). This will occur with a 50:50 percent probability. Thus, from the 16 flat electrons that went into this second filter, 8 are retained and the other 8 passed through. These 8 flat electrons that passed through have  again 50:50 percent probability to produce the original orientations again. As a result a left filter that should have blocked all the remained electrons can block just half of them. 

This is in perfect agreement with Quantum Mechanic predictions.

Spin in Flatland!

What is Spin?

When you find something new and unexpected, it is natural to associate that with some other phenomenon that you are more familiar with. This is the case according to the invention of Spin, which was the interpretation of the Stern-Gerlach experiment's results.

The Stern–Gerlach experiment consists of sending a beam of particles through an inhomogeneous magnetic field and observing their deflection. The results show that particles possess an "intrinsic angular momentum" this is most closely analogous to the angular momentum of a classically spinning object, "but that takes only certain quantized values" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern-Gerlach_experiment).

For example, tiny current loops will have an associated magnetic moment. Thus, they could be thought of as tiny magnets. If you send these tiny magnets through an inhomogeneous magnetic field, they will land into a detector screen according to its initial orientation. Thus, each tiny current loop would be deflected by a different amount, producing some density distribution on the detector screen. This is not what is observed in the Stern-Gerlach experiment, which means that the "Spin" phenomenon detected has nothing to do with current loops, magnets and/or spinning objects. It is something else.....

Lets say that these particles are as shown in the post "Matter Wave". The particle is a toroid made with a current. Always, this  toroid intersects at present time in a symmetrical way. Half of the toroid is in the past and the other half in the future. This current produces an internal magnetic field. If the toroid flips 180º, its internal magnetic field is inverted. As a consequence, the particle can switch between these two structures. This would be the origin of the 50:50 percent probability for either structure to show up, see Figure 1.

Figure 1 Present time flat particle intersection and its 180º flip structure. Notice that, after this transformation, the internal magnetic field gets inverted. This is the origin of the 50:50 percent probability to get either structure.

I took disk magnets and arranged them as suggested in Figure 1. I pass them through an external magnetic field. The result of the experiment is shown in Figure 2. Please do this experiment, it is very easy!

Figure 2 Flatland version of the Stern-Gerlach experiment.

I think this is the flatland equivalent of the space-land Stern-Gerlach experiment. Given that the particle can switch between these two structures, there is a 50:50 percent probability to have either configuration.

Thus, the 50:50 percent probability and the "superimposition of states" are needed to account for the two different outcomes of this experiment. This is fully consistent with the predictions of Quantum Mechanics.

This may indicate a way to understand the Stern-Gerlach experiment without a classic analogy.

Self-interference

Now that we have constructed the Matter and Light waves, I would explain a phenomenon where they behave in the same way....i.e. Self-interference. If you send individual photons to a double slit, you will get an interference pattern. An interference phenomenon entitles destructive and constructive interference. When the valley of one wave coincides with the crest of the other (destruction) and when two crests coincide (construction).

The latest self interference experiment makes a weak-measurement of a single photon several times. The average trajectory of the photon can be detected. Please read "Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two Slits Interferometer"(http://materias.df.uba.ar/labo5Aa2012c2/files/2012/10/Weak-measurement.pdf) Figure 1 shows the average trajectories of Single photons. You can see that in three ocations, two trajectories merge from the slits and get together toward the center of the figure. This produces the central maximum in the pattern. The rest of the trajectories diverge towards other maxima, but they don't merge. This means that there is no interference as described in the previous paragraph.

                                           
                                              Figure 1 Average trajectories of a single photon

These results are very similar to Ashfar's experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afshar_experiment). He puts a grit of wires at the dark fringes, which in Figure 1 are the spots with lower density of trajectories. Ashfar did not find a significant reduction in the interference pattern with or without the grit! This means that there are regions that the photon avoids, i.e. there is no destructive interference.

Back to Figure 1, at the slit position 0 mm, two trajectories merge toward the center of the figure. This occurs several times, at the distances 3500, 5500 and 6000 mm. At each side of the central trajectories, there are no trajectories. These are the places where the dark fringes occur. The rest of the trajectories diverge from the center, move somewhat sinusoidaly and aim toward other maxima.

Every single photon was divided in two at the slits. Thus, every two trajectories belong to a single photon. If there would be constructive and destructive interference, every two trajectories should merge at the detector. This is not happening. Besides the central trajectories, the divided photon continues being divided as it travels toward the detector.

Also, the trajectories deviate from a straight line and correct its optical paths. It looks that the photon is trying to reach a maximum in the interference pattern. Hence, the probability to reach a minima is very low.

Every single photon reaching the detector, is still in two places at the same time. Upon arrival to detection, the photon still has the chance to collapse in one of the two spots. This last process will be stochastic and the photon will leave a mark at either place of landing.

Given that these maxima and minima occur by following an interference law, these results support a model where the components to produce maxima and minima are internal to the particle.  Thus, no merge of the trajectories between slits are required.