*(Fig.1) Because they hide that topology is useless scientifically*

Nobel prize physics in 2016 was awarded to exotic topological matter. But you probably **couldn't** understand the scientific meaning of the topology, even after reading all the *media*.

If you understand what the "topology" means after reading some of the media, you probably have some "supernatural ability".

Because all the media and commentators are **hiding** the fact that topology and exotic matter are **useless** with NO scientific meaning, though it got Nobel prize.

This is the reason all the media and physicists **avoid** detailed explanation about topology.

*(Fig.2) But electron "spinning" speed is much faster than light, so unreal ! *

The present quantum mechanics claims when electron spins are aligned in parallel, it causes ferromagnetism in iron.

But an electron is so tiny and **point**-like that its spinning speed must be much faster than light ( > c ) to cause its *magnetic* field.
So this "spin" model is **unrealistic**.

*(Fig.3) Just "three abstract letters" (= JSS ) mean actual ferromagnet ?*

How does the present quantum mechanics describe the actual ferromagnetism in **iron** magnet ? In fact, quantum mechanics has **NO** ability to explain actual phenomena.

They just put three simple letters side by side to express ferromagnet.

This spin model is too **abstract** to deal with actual complicated phenomena !

Here, "S" denotes "electron spin" at each atomic position, and "J" means the strength of their spin-spin interaction. That's all.

This spin interaction parameter J is freely **chosen** and adjustable ( NOT gotten from the original spin postulate ! ), so **useless** and can predict nothing.

*(Fig.4) Spin magnet is too weak to explain ferromagnet.*

You may think Spintronics and excitonics are **useful** (← ? ) for your career.

But almost **nobody** knows electron spin **lacks** reality !

Its spinning far **exceeds**
light speed.

You may hear spin is tiny magnet with the magnitude of Bohr magneton.

This spin magnet can explain stable ferromagnetism ? Unfortunately **NOT**.

Spin-spin *magnetic* interaction is too weak to explain actual ferromagnet.

See this p.6 this p.7. So spin model **failed** from the beginning.

Then, what the heck does this spin model mean ?

It uses "Heisenberg" spin model ( this p.3 ).

But this *Heisenberg* spin model is too **old**, which was introduced in **1920s**, and it's too **abstract** to describe actual phenomena ( this p.2 ).

This spin model just puts nonphysical symbols side by side. So **useless**.

Parameter J is **arbitrarily** chosen. J > 0 = antiferromagnet, J < 0 = ferromagnet.

*(Fig.5) ↓ Old Heisenberg XY spin model got Nobrl prize 2016 ?*

Schrodinger equation invented 100 years ago **cannot** handle *multi*-electron atoms. So physicists try to describe them using fake model in solids and semiconductor.

Nobel prize physics in 2016 is based on **old** Heisenberg spin model
( this p.6 and this p.2 ) where they just put two spins (= S ) side by side in very simple symbols.

Magnetic interaction between two spins is too **weak** to explain actual physical phenomena such as ferromagnet and Pauli exclusion principle.

Unreal spin model already **failed**. They just *artificially* determine spin-spin interaction parameter J to fit experimental results.

So quantum mechanics and this "too abstract" spin model have **NO** ability to predict any useful physical values, so useless in applied science field, forever.

*(Fig.6) θ _{ij} is the angle between two spin vectors (= S_{i} S_{j} )*

In this old Hersenberg spin model, physicists just put two neighboring spins side by side. θ_{ij} is the angle between two spin vectors (= S_{i} S_{j} )

**J** means "spin-spin interaction parameter" which size can be freely *adjusted*, so has **NO** scientific value.

When this J is positive ( J > 0 ), the total energy becomes the **lowest** and stable with two spins parallel to each other ( θ_{ij} = 0 degree ).

As the angle between two spins is bigger, the total energy is higher, which means more unstable, and **more** energy is needed to create it.

*(Fig.7) Kosterlitz and Thouless got Nobel prize in 2016 by this theory ↓*

When spin interaction J is positive, two adjacent spins tend to be *parallel* to each other to **lower** the total energy.

When the *temperature* becomes higher than some point with **higher** energy, each angle between spins can be **bigger** enough to arrange spins to form "*vortex* pattern" like Fig.7 right.

This change to form spin vortex is called "Kosterlitz-Thouless transition", which got Nobel prize physics this year.

*(Fig.8) Model using "freely-chosen parameter" is useless, despite Nobel prize*

If we *artificialy* determine the spin interaction parameter J, it means we can also adjust the transition temperature freely ( this p.9 ).

So this old spin model based on "freely-chosen parameter J" has **NO** scientific meaning, because it **cannot** predict any physical value using only this model.

And this spin model is **too** simple to consider any other complicated effect ( ex. particle momentum, density difference, vortex interaction, Coulomb interaction ).

So this "too abstract" model remains **useless** in applied field despite getting Nobel prize.

*(Fig.9) One spin vortex pattern = topology one ?*

It is said that this year's Nobel prize physics was awarded to "topology". Then, what the heck is this "**topology**" ?

In fact, this "topology" has **NO** physical meaning and **NO** scientific value.

Like impractical quantum computer and symmetry, the present **useless** physics needs some "imaginary **target**" to give *motive* to physicists.
One of imaginary targets is topology.

If we define each spin direction (= θ_{spin} ) in each position ( designated by the polar coordinate θ ), when the integer v is 1, one spin *vortex* is formed.

Physicsits just call this integer v "topology". As long as the total ( spin ) energy is conserved, spin vortex pattern is conserved (= topological value is protected ? ).

The point is the definition of this spin equation and topology are " *artificially*-introduced concepts ", **NOT** meaning our nature law at all.

*(Fig.10) ↓ This is also another example of topological value ( v = 1 ) ?*

Spin pattern in Fig.10 is also an example of topological value v = 1.
The point is this topology is an "**artificially**-defined concept", as you see.

So this artificial topology itself has **NO** scientific value.

When the topology is negative, spin vortex direction is the opposite. The sum of all topological values is related to the total energy, which is conserved and protected, they insist.

But the actual physical phenonema in material are much more complicated than the old simple spin model which already **failed**.

*(Fig.11) Haldane state is also based on too simple, artificial spin model.*

Another Nobel prize laureate, Haldane state is also based on too **simple**, old spin model ( this p.6 ) where parametes J, D can be *artificially* adjusted.

So this spin model is impractical, **cannot** predict any useful values. As long as we stop seeking "more concrete" model, our science stops progressing, and useless forever.

2016/10/7 updated. Feel free to link to this site.