How I foolishly and lazily created the theory of ferromagnetism, developed by the French physicist Pierre Ernest Weiss in 1907.

I’ll define the concepts right away:

Stupidity: When I first got acquainted with this theory, I immediately rejected Ampere’s old idea of molecular currents, and with it about atoms! And I imagined that the FREE electrons in ferromagnets combine by some mysterious “Exchange forces” into conglomerates and create spatial regions of spontaneous magnetization, domains, due to the identical orientation of the spins (and magnetic moments) of the electrons.

Laziness: I was too lazy to read articles in university textbooks and serious reference books. If I had done this in a timely manner, then, of course, I would not have created “my own home made” theory of ferromagnetism with the self-confidence of an illiterate fool.

This is probably some strange feature of psychology: Striving to rediscover America and reinvent the wheel.

I still live with this unfortunate tendency. Although I have repeatedly stated that, in principle, it is necessary to do this and it is very useful for the author-creator. Because if a person HONESTLY knows nothing about America or a bicycle, then honor and glory to him if he “FROM SCRATCH” (FOR HIM!!!) makes a discovery or invention!

In general, I started thinking, and after a couple of days of thinking, I came to the conclusion that the idea of conglomerates of FREE ELECTRONS (which, for the reasons described above, I considered GENERALLY ACCEPTED in physics) was no good and it could be done ONLY by electrons BOUND IN ATOMS in their outer orbits. They can create such regions, domains, due to both their orbital motion (the Bohr magneton) and spin (the rotation of an electron around its own axis).

I did this by using my idea of the “Configurational Theory of Electronic Orbits” (KTEO), which I came up with as the core of a more general “Molecular Electrical Theory” (MET), designed, OF NECESSITY, to replace the generally accepted one to this day, distorted by epigones and fundamentally incorrect (more precisely, INCORRECTLY APPLIED to unsuitable ones objects) “Molecular Kinetic Theory” (MKT), created by two great physicists Maxwell and Boltzmann.

I will not dwell on the retelling of the serious inconsistencies of the MKT, since I have already described them and the MET in detail more than once. But, I emphasize, KTEO was invented as the basis, the core, of the MET, and for nothing else! And there, the concept of an “Ideal atom” was also coined to explain the meaning of changing the configuration of the electronic orbits of atoms when they accumulate thermal energy, and the more, the more “degenerate” the state of the orbits, their difference from the orbits of “ideal”, not deformed atom, at temperatures close to Absolute zero, -273 degrees Celsius, or Zero on the Kelvin scale.

A question that, of course, will be asked by an inquisitive reader who had the patience to read the note to this point:

What does “blessing” have to do with it?

And the fact is that I developed my entire “theory of ferromagnetism” using, as a basis, precisely the concept of the “Ideal Atom” and, more generally, KTEO!!! And the result was the LONG-KNOWN and GENERALLY ACCEPTED theory of ferromagnetism IN PHYSICS. The fool Esprit rediscovered America and invented the bicycle, but on the basis of his own THEORIES, unconfirmed and untested in experiment – KTEO and the “Ideal Atom”!

This means, at least to me, that there is a very healthy grain of objective TRUTH in these two hypotheses. That is, because of my stupid mistake and laziness, I unexpectedly received confirmation of two of my assumptions at once!

The first: This is KTEO and the idea of the “Ideal Atom”.

The second, even more significant, is the confirmation of the long–standing idea of an A Priori Criterion of Truth, that is, is it possible to know in advance, BEFORE the EXPERIMENT, with a high degree of probability, WHETHER this Hypothesis is SUITABLE for the role of Theory or not? Hypotheticals mentioned were invented NOT FOR ferromagnetism, I didn’t think about it at all then, but to explain phenomena that contradict the MKT and the Brownian motion! (The last was actually the beginning of my process of “revising” the MKT.)

So, the hypotheses that were invented to solve a problem in one area suddenly worked perfectly in a completely different area, far from the “original” in the conceptual space, for which they were intended only!

This, for me, is a weighty argument in favor of the PROXIMITY of THESE HYPOTHESES to the Truth!

Faciant meliora potentes.

If I’m wrong, let my seniors correct me.

I wish I could make THESE MISTAKES more often!

8 IX 2025