# The giant magneto effect explained using logic and discard the belief that electrons are ‘tiny magnets’.

Yesterday I did the same explanation on the other website and today I thought why not post that picture on this website too. Years ago when I met this giant effect for the first time I relatively soon figuered out that if my view on electrons as being magnetic monopoles is true, the giant magneto effect is one of the best examples of this.
The giant magneto effect is important because this was the basis of making very small magnetic sensors and as such those old spinning hard disk in your computer could suddenly contain much more bits & bytes.
So you might think that understanding electron spin is an important thing if it lays at the basis of so much technology. Yet important or not, the weirdo’s from the universities keep on talking about electron spin as it was a tiny magnet.

Anyway, the giant magneto effect is about the resistance an electrical current meets when passing through a multi-layered semi conductor material.
If we assume that electrons are not fucking stupid tiny magnets but are always magnetic monopoles that never ‘flip’ their spin, all of a sudden things become logical.
I have only one picture to show to you, it was the one I made yesterday and in the upper half of that picture it is supposed there is an electrical current, say electrons going from the left to the right.

The giant magneto resistance effect says that if the two outer layers have opposite magnetic directions, there is more electrical resistance…

Please remark this is logical if electrons are magnetic monopoles; if they meet two different magnetic charges about 100% of these electrons feel some kind of resistance. If the two magnetic layers have the same ‘orientation’ as they say, oops the electrical current is capped by at most 50%.

Let me ask the fucked up physics professors the next question: Can you please use you stupid ‘tiny magnet’ theory explaining why the electrons in the lower half of this picture meet more electrical resistance?

Likely you can’t and that is why you are fucking stupid.

Just like you are fucking stupid when you ‘explain’ why an electron pair must have opposite spin numbers. That is Pauli’s exclusion principle…

Well good luck my dear physics professors with being stupid. Is that the way your brain runs all of the time? I guess it is and it will be for many more years to come.

# 2 Vids: One good on Pythagoras and a terrible bad one (on an impossible problem if you choose your space so fucking stupid)…

The last week I have been stuck in a writers block. I started writing on another post on the Pythagoras matrix version stuff and I just don’t know how to proceed. On the one hand I want to tell a cute so called ‘weird root formula’ while I want to avoid using that +/- scheme that is difficult to explain and has nothing to do with what I wanted to say.

May be I put the stuff I don’t want to talk about in a separate appendix or so. That sounded like a good idea two weeks ago but I’m still not working on it…

But it is about time for a new post and because my own Pythagoras stuff is glued to my writers block, the mathologer had a new video out about Pythagoras stuff the mathologer’s way. If you have seen vids from the mathologer before, you know he likes visual proofs to back up the math involved. The mathologer works very differently from me, I got hooked up to that matrix version earlier this year while he is doing stuff like trithagoras in a very cute manner.

The video is about half an hour long, just pick what you like or what you need and move on to other things. Digesting all stuff in a video from the mathologer always takes more time as the video is long! So you are not looking at just another insignificant idiot like me…;)

The next video is from Michael Penn. Now Michael has that typical American attitude of putting out one video a day. Often they are not bad if you take into consideration this must be done every 24 hours. But his treatment of (x + y)^n = x^n + y^n is just horrible. If you look like Michael for solutions on the real line it is easy to understand this cannot work.
Yet last year all my counter examples to the last theorem of Pierre de Fermat were always based on this (x + y)^n = x^n + y^n equation.
Take for example the natural numbers modulo 35.
In this simple case we already have a cute counter example to the last theorem of Pierre de Fermate, namely:
12^n = 5^n + 7^n mod 35.

Why did Michael choose this fucking stupid space of real numbers for this equation that is the basis of a lot of counter examples to the last theorem of Pierre de Fermat? May be the speed of new videos is a thing here.

Ok, that was it for this post. See you around…

# Quantum computing with electron spins; David Jamieson explains…

The Royal Institution had a new video out from somebody of that Australian group that wants to build a quantum computer based on electron spin. The official version of electron and nuclear spin is that it is a tiny magnet, that is what I name the “tiny magnet model”.
I think that is nonsense because this tiny magnet model leads to dozens and dozens of problems that are just not logical if electrons are in fact tiny magnets.
The last years more and more I wonder why those physics professors themselves don’t see all those holes in their version of electron spin. It is not a secret that I think electrons are magnetic monopoles, as such they have a one pole magnetic charge and until proven otherwise my understanding is that this charge is permanent. That means there are two kinds of electrons, one kind with say north pole magnetic charge and a kind with south pole magnetic charge.

When about seven years ago I came across the results of the Stern-Gerlach experiment from 1922, after a bit of thinking my estimation was that likely electrons are magnetic monopoles. For years I tried to shoot holes into that idea of magnetic monopoles, but that always failed and after a few years I accepted the idea.

In this post I want to look explicitely at why there are three spectral lines in that what mysteriously is named a spin one particle. With a spin one particle as shown in the video, they mean an atom with two unpaired electrons.

One of the many dozen things wrong with the tiny magnet model is as next: The Stern-Gerlach experiment does a beam of silver atoms split into two beams, the explanation for the opposing acceleration is that an inhomogeneous magnetic field is used together with the very mysterious property of electrons “anti-aligning” theselves with this applied magnetic field. But in a lot of other things, say the energy levels of electrons in atoms under the Zeeman effect, you never see a gradient of the magnetic field but straight in your face the actual strength of the magnetic field.
That is one of the many things that is not very logical.

Lets start with some validation that David Jamieson is a believer of the church of the tiny magnets:

If you accept that electrons are not tiny magnets a lot of solar phenomena become better understandable. If you realize that if you have a cylindrical shaped portion of plasma and that rotates along it’s central axis, it will spit out a lot of electrons and because that column or cylinder is now very positively charged the magnetic field it creates becomes much more stronger. That is precisely what we observe with all those flares and stuff.

Well for seven years on a row people like David are not interested at all. So one way or the other you just cannot claim these people are scientists, in my view it is a bunch of weirdo’s married to some form of weird groupthink. The groupthink is that all things must be tiny magnets, they have zero experimental proof for that so these people are weird.

But lets not dive into politics and why we pay these weirdo’s a tax payer funded salary, lets go into what they can do good: spectral analysis.
Now sun spots are places with strong magnetic fields (rotating column or cylinder kind of stuff) and in the picture below they take a line over such a sun spot and look at the spectrum of a particular frequency.
Remark that a line here is the projection of a plane so you can have many contributions into the end result, so why do we see three spectral lines?

Ok, what does David mean with a spin one particle? That’s not a photon but he means an atom with two unpaired electrons. The light you see is from electrons jumping down in energy in those atoms (I don’t know what element, what atom it is). But the situation is easy to understand:

1) Some of those atoms have two unpaired north pole electrons,
2) Some of those atoms have two unpaired south pole electrons, and
3) Some of those atoms have two different electrons.

That would explain the two outer lines, the middle line must be caused by electron jumps where there is much less magnetic field.

Please remark that the ‘line’ is actually a plane so the electron emissions can come from any height.

The sun my dear reader is a complicated thing, but if people like David can’t explain stuff like the corona temperature why should you believe his version of electron spin?
It is time to go to the video, at about 32 minutes into the video the spin stuff starts:

That was it for this update. Thanks for your attention, think well and live well.