Looped Strings

Strings having two free ends may have those ends join to each other, creating dynamic objects similar in appearance to rotating wheels. I suggest that the main physical property of a string is its intrinsic property to spin. When the fundamental longitudinal string has both ends fixed so they don't restrict its spin, the one-dimensional string translates into a three-dimensional object. It rotates the same way as two children rotate a skipping rope. When they decrease the distance between them, then the rotation momentum of other points on the rope increases, so that it may even pull out of their hands. When the skipping rope is pulled out of their hands, it creates--or wants to create--a rotating rope for a moment. This is caused by the tendency of objects rotating around an abscissa axis to rotate around a point axis.

Similarly, when we have a quantum string on the surface of an object, it may have one end fixed to the object and the second free. This free end waves around while spinning, creating a string vortex. However, when this vortex increases the diameter of its cone, the string shrinks, coming closer to the fixed end. The rotating momentum of the string points can then tear the string out of the object in which it was fixed, such that the vortex attracts its own stem and thus creates the circled or looped string. Theoretical physics should also treat the looped string as a fundamental object of the physical world; hence, any String Theory should account for them.

The String Theory developed by mathematicians is a theory based on the effects of tiny vibrating strings. They work with both closed string loops that can break apart into open strings, and those that cannot break apart into open strings. Both types of loops vibrate, and thus change their size and form. However, it seems to me that it is impossible for a rotating circle to vibrate so that changes its circumference. The high rotational speed causes points of a rotating line to have a firm radius, to maintain the stable angular momentum.

A force does emerge from the looped objects, and thus we come to the second force related to subatomic particles. Just as the electric force is a derivative force arising from the effects of strings vortexes, another force arises from looped strings. In the physical world, we register a force relating to the rotating of objects in close proximity. For example, with two solid "wheels" having the same abscissa and axis of rotation, and which may also change their distance between each other, we see a force effect between them. When they have the same rotation orientation, the force is repulsive. But when they have different rotation orientations, we observe an attractive force between them. This is the fundamental force of existence in the material world, because this force binds atoms into molecules, and even electrons among themselves within an atom.

Natural objects contain baryons in their nuclei, with electrons orbiting far from those nuclei. Although electrons have a negative charge, they are attracted to other electrons that spin in the opposite direction. The force pairing electrons in the atom is also responsible for bonds between atoms. (Besides this, there is also an effect that works toward having each electron shell occupied fully.) However, there exist chemical elements that do not enter into chemical bonds, because they lack unpaired electrons (and even more so if they have saturated electron shells, as inert gases do). But if an atom does not have all its electrons paired on its surface, then it's susceptible to entering into a chemical bond with another atom, whether that is an atom of the same element or of another element. The tendency is always towards stability. Thus, atoms lacking stability, even in electron shells, may create chemical bonds; this is reality as observed for centuries. In any case, no one can doubt the existence of a physical force rising from direction of rotation. If they doubt it, then they deny the existence of molecules and chemicals in our world.

Any force of the physical world observed among atoms must have its root in strings, and thus in the String World; the macro-world just reflects the String World. If this force relates to rotation, then it should be found wherever looped strings are found. This force is the magnetic force. Rotating looped strings are responsible for the quantum of the magnetic force in nature; one looped string is the magnetic monopole of the String World.

Theoretical physics tells us that the magnetic force arises from electrons due to the rotation of the electric charge. If the source of magnetism is the electron, then the electron is the elementary particle for magnetism. The electron has a magnetic moment. However, the magnetic moments of atomic nuclei are thousands of times smaller than the electron's magnetic moment. Therefore, what they propagate it is not the smallest elementary carrier of the magnetic force. Since the electron also carries the electric charge, physicists unite both forces into one called the electromagnetic force. Yet they do not know of any other forces besides that of gravity in the macro-world, and thus we deal only with gravity and with the electromagnetic force in nature.

Again, according to these theorists, the elementary carrier of the electromagnetic force is the electron. Now we have the electron charged electrically. But this negative charge carries both magnetic charges, thus creating the north pole or the south pole of a magnet. From this, we get an elementary particle carrying one electric charge, but two magnetic charges. What, then, is electromagnetism? Is it the negative electric charge and the magnetic north pole, or the negative electric charge and the magnetic south pole? Are protons also elementary particles for electromagnetism, since they have the same electric charge value, except that it is positive, and yet a very low magnetic moment?

The electron has the properties of a macro-particle that enters into many physical processes. For example: the electric current, inductive event, chemical bonds and production of frequency -- atomic clocks. Hence, the behavior of the electron as a macro-particle cannot satisfy the definition for magnetism. Magnetism must be explained by String Theory, or by elementary magnetic quanta, to be valid in today's quantum physics. Don't forget that the birth of quantum physics was caused by the discovery of a quantum of light when an electron accepted the quantum or lost the quantum; the discovery of the electron did not give the birth to quantum physics. Hence, the quantum is a part of the electron, which means that quanta make up macro-particles like the electron. Magnetism must be explained by quantum string theory to be valid in quantum physics.

[a picture of the created electromagnetism at photon]A string loop approaching another string loop orients itself according to the other string's rotation. A vector direction to create a couple is tangent to the rotation. When we have two looped strings and the directions are directed toward one another, then there is a likeness between the two; and thus, there is an attractive force between them. However, when directions do not match toward, then there is no attraction potential, and they repulse each other.

Rotation is the intrinsic property of all vortexes, especially when we look at their edges. Therefore, there should also exist some magnetic force as a vortex's side-effect. Here, we may take note of the directions of electric and magnetic effects. The string vortex attracts string stems into its funnel; therefore, the vector of the electric force lies in the axis of rotation. The edges of the vortex rotate, and since the rotation is attracted to others rotating to the tangent of its rotation, which is perpendicular to the axis of rotation, the magnetic force is perpendicular to the electric force. The assumption is, when nature deals with both vector forces in one place, then the electric force is in perpendicular to the magnetic force. Their interrelation is called electromagnetism.

[a picture of propagating looped string]

Propagating Looped Strings

Any object can be replaced in nature. When we want to replace a rotating string, then we must start with replacing its point axis. The axis of rotation goes mostly in a straight line; thus, we add this straight trajectory to our string movement. If the looped string does rotate like a wheel, then we must combine both trajectories. The combination of the rotational trajectory and the straight-line trajectory results in a sinusoid as the final trajectory. The combination of its orbital speed and straight-line speed yields the velocity for the entire string, and thus for each point of the string. Certainly, it must be higher than the speed of the orbital trajectory, and higher than the speed of the straight-line trajectory for the center of rotation. Since an object lacking a rest mass must have a speed of c, the absolute value of the speed of any part of the string must always be higher than c. The best illustration for this combination is when we move a desk on which a pencil draws circles on a straight-line path. When we start to move the desk at a speed c in the straight-line direction, our marker draws a two-dimensional sinusoid on the desk. From this, we know that a velocity of the point on the desk is not the velocity of the desk; thus, c is not the real velocity of the point. As we know that photons have sinusoidal or other transverse trajectories, then the real speed of the photon, and thus of the real point of the photon, is not the speed of its axis of rotation. When an object rotates around a given fixed point (the center of the circle), there is no real matter in the center of rotation--just the given point. Therefore, the real speed for the photon cannot be the speed of nonexistent reality in the center of rotation.

Speed is defined as the time it takes to cover a particular distance. The real speed of a car moving on a crooked route shows on its speedometer. But what speed would be displayed on a speedometer placed on a photon? Certainly, it would not be the calculated speed for a beeline distance between two points. Just as we calculate the real speed of the car between two cities by measuring the length of the crooked route, so too must we do the same in particle physics. Just as between two cities a crooked route is always longer than a straight route, so a photon's sinusoidal route is always longer than a straight route for the center of rotation.

A rotating object can have a speed equal to propagation of its axis, but only if its axis of rotation is real and in the object. For example, car wheels rotate while driving. Here the wheel rotates around the axis of rotation, which is in the car. Thus, the distance taken by the rotating wheel is the same as the wheel's circumference. Therefore, the speed of the wheel's center of gravity is the velocity of the wheel's point touching the road. However, a looped string rotating and propagating in two-dimensional space must break in order to propagate on a waving route. When the string leaves the circular form to move through space, its real velocity is never the same as the velocity of the axis of rotation. Therefore, the looped string must propagate at a higher velocity than c.

Looped strings and string vortexes propagate in space almost in the same way: in a sinusoidal or transverse trajectory, but looped two-dimensionally, and string vortexes three-dimensionally. Both trajectories look like transverse waves, and therefore we call them propagating transverse waves. When a photon is absorbed, it loses its linear momentum; thus, it loses straight-line motion. A line is one-dimensional geography. But since the photon was a transverse wave function, then some two or three-dimensional geography must remain; and the geography that remains can have an electric or magnetic effect.

Thus, the photon in general is the carrier of both the electric and magnetic force--i.e., electromagnetism.

Assemblies of Looped Strings

We are unable to see strings directly, and therefore refer to basic collections or assemblies of strings as elementary particles. To be more realistic to nature, however, we must start with individual strings. Single strings can affect others due to their dynamic forms, giving birth to elementary forces presented by subatomic particles. We've seen how they generate the electric charges in electrons and protons, and the strong force among baryons in atomic nuclei. It follows, then, to ask if looped strings can also group to form a particle that bears their magnetic effect. If the attractive effect exists among the looped strings, then it is logical to assume they can assemble themselves to form a subatomic particle. Anyway, the physical model of particle physics must posit an elementary magnetic particle existing in the material world. Hence, we should also work with particles consisting of looped strings.

The assembly of this particle can occur so that one looped string attaches to other, creating a string couplet. This couplet consists of strings that have opposite magnetic poles. Other strings can be added to both ends in a series, creating what at first look resembles a tube. The looped strings spin on their invisible axes of rotation along the long axis of our tube. Each string differs from the adjacent string in direction of rotation, however. This composition should be the prototype of a particle composed from rotating looped strings.

The physical property of this particle is firstly the magnetic force, since each rotating looped string is an elementary magnetic monopole. There are no vortexes to produce the elementary electric charge. Although rotation is found in string vortexes on the vortex fringe, our rotating looped strings cannot have any vortex effect because they are paired. Again, a couplet of rotating strings consists of two kinds of looped string rotating in opposite directions in relation to each other. For instance, if one string rotates clockwise, the second string rotates counterclockwise, annulling the contingent electrical effect. Therefore, this particle bears the magnetic force, but does not have any electric force; it cannot be described as having a true electromagnetic effect. The magnetic effect keeps this particle away from any electric charges, since vectors of electric force prefer to be transverse to vectors of magnetic force. Since objects in our macro-world are composites of atoms, which have electrically charged particles on their surfaces and in their nuclei, this particle avoids them. The conclusion is that this particle avoids any collisions with atoms, and thus travels "stealthily" through our world.

However, this is not so, because any magnetic object can accelerate or decelerate while traveling through an electric field. For example, we can make electromagnetic cannons in which electric and magnetic effects are directed so that they accelerate a magnetic bullet to a high speed. The magnetic bullet is pulled into the center of a coil through which an electric circuit flows. The bullet does not strike electrons (i.e., electric charges), but passes among them. The bullet trajectory in the barrel tube is the axis of the coils in which electrons travel. As electrons travel in a solenoid, they create a vortex of a magnetic field into which our magnet is pulled.

Since matter consists of atoms in which electrons orbit nuclei, there are also electron coils. Yet, even electrons create bonds in chemicals that may create coils for electrons to travel, as for example in aromatic substances. Thus, it appears that electric circuits are intrinsic properties of all elements and molecules.

Therefore, our magnetic particle can use them to travel safely through material objects. Moreover, our particle can even increase its own propagating speed, just as the magnetic bullet accelerates inside the solenoid of the above-mentioned cannon. Hence, this particle may have a very high speed even when traveling through matter. While light may propagate slowly through matter, this particle propagates more quickly. Indeed, the speed of this particle in a material is higher than it is in a vacuum.

The physical property of mass should not exist in our prototype particle, since strings do not have the freedom to move in this particle in a zigzag pattern; and there are no longitudinal strings at all. Hence, our "prototype" does not have a rest mass. This means that gravitons do not interact with it, and therefore gravity does not affect this particle. As a result, this particle may freely leave the gravitational fields of even massive universal bodies, and should not travel at a speed lower than c.

Our particle, however, is a real object of nature; and therefore, when it propagates through space, it must have the property of linear momentum. That's why there exists mass in relation to its speed. When the mass for this particle is derived from its momentum--as for instance, when it collides with other particles--then the fact that there is no rest mass for this particle just points to the number of strings comprising this particle.

The magnetic particle proposed above must have some limitations. The first is that a tube, as described above, cannot be very long. If it is inside a baryon, then its length cannot be any longer than the diameter of the baryon. Nor can it be very long during its propagation period, since it avoids electrically charged particles, and must turn repeatedly to do so. If it were long, then our tube would have to bend during those turns; and any bending of a tube eventually leads to its breaking. Rotational energy goes into its creation, and thus our new elementary particle might also rotate in some way. Thus, a whole tube can rotate, let's say transverse to its direction of propagation. If this is so, this additional rotation of a whole particle would cause a long tube to break. Put simply, a tube must not be very long if wants to rotate in all directions.

We should also consider what would happen if we added a longitudinal string to this tube, since a longitudinal string can penetrate a rotating string and thus dive into our tube. Indeed, not just a single longitudinal string, but many longitudinal strings can be connected to this tube. Other longitudinal strings, being on the surface of this grouping, can dive into other tubes. This process may result in an object that has longitudinal strings in its core (nucleus), and many tubes stretching out cover them. I propose that this is the final form of a particle that we observe in nature: the neutrino. Since it rotates, it is now more viable than it was as an empty tube. The neutrino may be visualized as a rotating cogwheel in a two-dimensional view, and as a rotating hedgehog in three-dimensions.

This final form of this particle has quite different physical properties from our prototype. The magnetic effect remains, due to the magnetic tubes. However, now this particle also has a rest mass, due to the longitudinal strings in its core. This means that its speed in a vacuum should be slower than c, and some gravitational effects should also appear.

Earlier, I mentioned the possibility of a particle holding longitudinal strings inside baryons. I propose that the "teeth" of the neutrinos engage among points of the longitudinal string, like the teeth of a cogwheel would engage points of screwed spring and, as it turned, change the speed of the longitudinal strings. If so, then another "cogwheel" located on another side of the longitudinal string might also engage it as well. They can coexist if the two cogwheels turn in opposite directions. If this is so, then we have the same number of neutrinos rotating in each direction. This means that when one neutrino rotates clockwise, the other rotates counterclockwise. As an experimental example to support the above theory, we can observe the decay of a muon. The muon has the same electric charge as the electron, but has a mass 207 times higher. The muon decays into an electron and two neutrinos of different types (the muon neutrino and the electron antineutrino). Therefore, we should expect symmetry among neutrinos; thus, that an equal number of neutrinos and antineutrinos exists in nature.

When theorists propagate the existence of matter and antimatter due to symmetry, they propose an antiparticle for each particle of regular matter; the positron to the electron, antiproton to the proton, and so on. The above-described particles and their counterparts differ only in opposite electric charges, as they have the same mass. However, they rotate, and electrons manifest this very strongly. Electrons have high rotational momentum, which creates a magnetic force. They say the orientation of electrons due to their spin is "left-handed," to their propagation. Positrons (anti-electrons) have a "right-handed" orientation. However, neutrinos are classified only in relation to their direction of rotation when they propagate. We call neutrinos "left-handed" and antineutrinos "right-handed." Having different rotations does not mean we're dealing with antimatter; after all, we do not say that toothed objects that start to rotate one way are matter and those that rotate in the other direction are antimatter. Should we make cogwheels from antimatter in order to set the gear system so that it will work?

When neutrinos are ejected from objects or atoms and propagate freely through space, the direction of rotation in relation to the direction of propagation may be easy changed, especially when neutrinos carry a strong magnetic force. We know how a bar magnet adjusts its position when it approaches another magnet. When one is stable and another can rotate, the one that rotates turns so that its south pole is directed to the north pole of the static magnet. Even in a case where a rotating magnet advances toward the same magnetic pole, it tries to turn 180 degrees to change the direction of its magnetic orientation, just as classic magnetism determines. Since we know that it is much easier for a spherical object to turn than it is for a bar to do so, the neutrino during propagating through a magnetic field of chemicals should change its direction of rotation; thus, neutrinos change into antineutrinos. This kind of neutrino oscillation should exist in nature (neutrinos change identity - the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physics).

These conclusions lead me to certain physical observations of neutrinos, especially those produced during the beta decay of neutrons. The neutron produces a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino. Here, in accordance with physical terms, matter produces matter and antimatter. This is a strange outcome, which leads to further consideration of the decay process. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that the antineutrino is related to regular subatomic particles, and the neutrino is a fellow to antiparticles.

The electron is left-handed in beta decay and the neutrino is right-handed, which makes it an antineutrino. It leads one to wonder what is happening during neutron decay. The electron is formed from surface strings, which are disconnecting from inner longitudinal strings. This can uncover neutrinos, leaving them on the surface. As string vortexes wind off to create clusters of string vortexes, the clusters rotate as whole particles. When an electric charge rotates, or moves, it creates a magnetic field around itself that has its own magnetic orientation. Thus, the forming electron has a magnetic force that attracts other magnetic fields with the opposite orientation. That is why, when the created electron rotates clockwise, the electron attracts neutrinos rotating counterclockwise.

If this is a reason to pluck out the neutrino (or antineutrino) from the neutron, then we may suggest that magnetism plays a primary role in why we have different orientations of rotation in products of the neutron decay.

The proton and the neutron have their nuclear magnetic moment. Theoretical physicists propose that quarks carry all their magnetic moment, because the charged quarks rotate inside baryons. But the combinations of proposed charges and spins for quarks do not result in the nuclear magnetic moments of protons and neutrons. This means, firstly, the proposition that quarks make up protons and neutrons is a false assumption. Secondly, the proposed spins of quarks are also a false assumption; they are neither paired inside the baryon.

The neutron is electrically neutral; therefore, its magnetic moment should be zero. However, the neutron has a magnetic moment 2/3 as large as that of the proton. I propose that neutrinos generate the magnetic moment for baryons. Neutrinos in baryons should be paired, as I showed using the example of the cogwheels. Therefore, their magnetic effects would be diminished. During neutron decay, we saw how one neutrino was ejected from the neutron. As a result, the rest of the neutron--i.e., the proton--has a broken neutrino couplet, and therefore the proton should have a higher magnetic moment. Perhaps this is why the magnetic moment of the proton is higher than the magnetic moment of the neutron (the magnetic moment measured for the proton is 1.41 x 10-26 Nm/T, and for neutron 0.97 x 10 Nm/T).

Experimental data for a magnetic moment of the neutrino does not exist. Theorists simply assume some magnetic moment for neutrinos; but the neutrino magnetic moment is not fully understood in terms of their Standard Model. However, I've determined that the magnetic moment has already been detected for neutrinos, though this fact is not generally recognized.

Physicists have measured the speed of neutrinos at not less than c. It is rumored that on 22 September 2011, researchers had measured a higher speed than c--which is supposedly impossible. When the neutrino has mass, then in accordance with scientific presentations, the neutrino cannot travel at a speed equal to c; but it did travel at c, and therefore the neutrino had to be pulled along or accelerated during its journey. Since the neutrino traveled through matter between CERN and Gran Sasso Mountain, where it was detected, the intervening matter had to act on the neutrino. Matter is composed of charged moving particles, and therefore magnetic fields exist in matter; and they had to affect the neutrino during its trip. In other words, the Gran Sasso project proved the neutrino is the magnetic particle.

Time shift to a higher speed than c was also observed from Supernova 1987A (which is located approximately 168,000 light-years away). A burst of neutrinos was observed approximately two to three hours before the visible light from SN 1987 reached the Earth. Thus, photons and neutrinos did not travel together, but their trajectories were the same. If their trajectories were the same, then the neutrinos did not experience any gravitational obstruction; and therefore, these neutrinos lack a rest mass.

If they arrived early, then they had to accelerate at some point during their journey. In accordance with the physical law of action and reaction, objects accelerating neutrinos must be pushed toward the source of the neutrinos--the supernova. Hence, we are dealing with a force acting on distant objects. The carriers of this force are neutrinos. Interaction between neutrinos does not produce collision effects like photon interaction do, not even very small effects when passing by as gravitons do; this force is the effect of magnets going through electric loops. This is the same effect seen, for example, with electromagnetic cannons. In accordance to physics, it is the same inductive effect we observe with electromagnets.

The neutrinos' effect on the substance where their electrons create loop circuits must be very strong. Therefore, we also observe the strong force caused by neutrinos. We might call this the strong inductive force. This force is a vector force; thus, it has a direction. This force is directed toward universal bodies that produce free neutrinos. Therefore, it must be the force by which universal bodies producing neutrinos attract other objects having loop circuits in their structure--and again, this force has already been observed and registered.

However, defenders of the Standard Model believe only in gravitational effects. Since matter causes gravitational attraction, they look for additional matter existing in the universe that they can't see: dark matter. Scientists have come up empty-handed in their effort to find this dark matter, as realized the by Large Underground Xenon experiment and by space station experiments. However, they have not repented their heresy; and their last hope to find this dark matter is the Large Hadron Collider. It seems to me that these scientists prefer to prove amazing theories instead of using common sense to prove that neutrinos interact with particles of matter simply by avoiding them. If enormous numbers of neutrinos penetrate regular matter, then a huge number of such avoidances must occur. So: why don't they accept common sense?

It seems to me that we have two kinds of scientists working here. One group constructs new kind of cannons where magnetic bullets do not come in contact with the material of a barrel tube, and another group of scientists considers this to be physical nonsense, and instead would rather build expensive laboratories deep underground to catch a magnetic "bullet" when it accidentally hits a baryon (a gun barrel).

The finding that neutrinos change identity is in changed mass. They compared neutrinos traveling down from above with those coming a much longer distance upward through Earth and showing that the number were different. The difference serves as the proof that neutrinos had changed type in transit. Fajita and McDonald concluded this from changed momenta at collisions of neutrinos with other particles, so detected changed momenta. Momentum of objects having mass depends from mass and speed. The materialistic physics does not allow changing--disappearing mass and energy according to the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy and when they concluded the mass was changed, then the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physics was given to idealism and not to materialism. When we stay in physics to be just materialistic science then these neutrinos changed speed as the Gran Sasso project mentioned above found a higher speed for neutrinos traveling through the earth.

Now, since there exist two kinds of attractive forces acting on distant universal bodies, we need to know more about their differences. The first difference is that gravity is very weak, while the inductive force is strong. The gravitational force acts between two celestial bodies reciprocally, because each object mass-produces gravitons, and gravitons interact with any object having mass. However, the inductive force is not reciprocal, because not every universal body produces neutrinos in the same relationship to its size. Then, not every object has electric circuits in the same density and with the same force effect. For example, cyclic hydrocarbons have stronger electron-circuits than aliphatic hydrocarbons, and aromatic hydrocarbons have stronger electric-circuits than cyclic hydrocarbons. Then too, atoms differ in their number of electrons; and we also have ions to deal with. Hence, scientists should be able to distinguish them very easily, due to the lack of an existing reciprocal effect for strong attractive forces in the universe.

Continue to "Free Strings Without Linear Momentum"

or go to read about Relativity vs. Reality from the book.

Go to Home Page