What An Electron Looks Like.
Kevin
model aircraft and wind up the rubber band then the rubber band is an
electron... Then you take that rubber band and put it inside an
oscilloscope and you have trapped an electron inside of an
oscilloscope... Well, if that's what it takes to make an atomic clock
but... what does this have to do with the electron spin on...
(whatever element that isn't Neon?)... I don't quite see the
connection. Theoretically, a salt under a microscope should show the
VII column element while the I column element is invisable.
herbert glazier
It looks like a spinning cloud. My spin is in theory gives it
structure and spin speed. TreBert
richard....@comcast.net
Within an atom, 'cloud' is an analogy. Similarly. electron momentum
is an analogy.
"A spinning zero diameter electron has zero angular momentum, because
no part of the electron's mass extends beyond a radius of zero."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spin_quantum_number
"The term "electron spin" is not to be taken literally in the
classical sense as a description of the origin of the magnetic moment
described above. To be sure, a spinning sphere of charge can produce a
magnetic moment, but the magnitude of the magnetic moment obtained
above cannot be reasonably modeled by considering the electron as a
spinning sphere. High energy scattering from electrons shows no "size"
of the electron down to a resolution of about 10^-3fermis, and at that
size a preposterously high spin rate of some 10^32 radian/s would be
required to match the observed angular momentum."
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/spin.htm
An atom's energy change due to quantized electron-proton distance
change requires preposterous electron momentum changes. Similarly,
electron position changes within a cloud also require ridiculous
electron momentum changes. Therefore, can electron 'cloud' is an
analogy.
Benj
Sorry boys, it looks like a southern tornado. It's actually a "true
vacuum" or "hole" in the aether!
(I might as well join in with the other tinfoil helmet nutcases
here...)
Y.Porat
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 16:13:11 -0700 (PDT), herbert glazier
>
---------------------
the electron is certainly not a point particle
it does not rotate it vibrates as a string
2
it is sub divided sub composed
or else it would not be able to absorb -keep and radiate energy
and other reason why it is sub composed
it can turn completely to (destroyed to ) energy
and energy has mass - the only mass !!
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------
herbert glazier
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 16:13:11 -0700 (PDT), herbert glazier
>
If electron did not spin at c (always) it would not be an electron.
TreBert
herbert glazier
Reality is the structure + spin of electrons create QED .Thus the
quantum field theory,and much more can be added to what electrons and
their great spin can create. Think about it.(Think force fields) etc.
TreBert
richard....@comcast.net
>quantum field theory,and much more can be added to what electrons and
>their great spin can create. Think about it.(Think force fields) etc.
>TreBert
The energy of electron SPIN (electron angular momentum) is too small
to be the energy responsible for the magnetic moment of EPR. In other
words, electron spin might not exist and ACTUAL ELECTRON SPIN DOES NOT
CONTRIBUTE TO QED. 'Electron spin' is an analogy.
Why not use 'electric potential energy (responsible for absorption and
emission spectra) instead of electron 'structure'?
herbert glazier
Porat what is the structure of a string? Not nice to throw
stuFF(words) around without clearification of structure TreBert
herbert glazier
Take spin away and your taking electron away. In micro realm "Spin is
in" Get the picture? Trebert
herbert glazier
Electrons have to line up their spin to create magnetic force.
Magnetic force and electricity are two sides to the same force. TreBert
Marvin the Martian
> What does an electron look like?
The question is nonsense.
herbert glazier
Its a vortex TreBert
Marvin the Martian
Prove it.
Jim Greenfield
What is the spin relative to?
An imaginary observer orbiting an electron at the same revs
in the same direction would see it as non-rotating.
Also, do all electrons in the same vicinity rotate in tandem?
Jim G
c'=c+v
richard....@comcast.net
>Magnetic force and electricity are two sides to the same force. TreBert
Are you one of those people who believe there is a relation between
charge concentration and electricity?
if you put 3 batteries or 3 charged capacitors in series, do you
change the plus or minus charge (or electron) concentration on any of
the batteries or capacitors?
If the charge concentration is unchanged:
1. How do you explain that voltage triples, w/o a change in charge
concentration?
2. Since voltage tripled w/o a change in charge concentration, is
charge concentration responsible for the voltage on any single
capacitor or battery?
3. If charge concentration is not responsible for voltage, do
electrons indeed flow from one end of the battery or capacitor, to the
other (during current flow)?
If a series circuit indeed increases concentration of plus and minus
charges at the ends of the series circuit:
1. Does putting batteries in series increase the amount of anode or
cathode material in the end batteries?
2. Did creation of the series circuit redistribute the charges, w/o a
change of energy? In other words, how do you change charge
concentration in the end batteries or capacitors, w/o changing energy?
3. Why does current require a closed circuit? For example: charged
pieces of Styrofoam do not discharge each other, they attract or repel
each other. Discharge requires voltage sources within a CONDUCTIVE
closed circuit.
In other words, if charges can move from an insulator (Styrofoam) to a
conductor (within a closed circuit), why can't charges move directly
from a minus charged insulator to a plus charged insulator?
PD
> On May 2, 3:50 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontmars.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 14:47:03 -0700, herbert glazier wrote:
> > > On Apr 30, 3:18 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontmars.org> wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 11:58:07 -0700, Kevin wrote:
> > >> > What does an electron look like?
>
> > >> The question is nonsense.
>
> > > Its a vortex TreBert
>
> > Prove it.
>
> What is the spin relative to?
"Spin" in quantum mechanics is a borrowed term with a specialized
meaning and it has absolutely no connotation to revolution around an
axis, Jim. None.
Sam Wormley
> What is the spin relative to?
> An imaginary observer orbiting an electron at the same revs
> in the same direction would see it as non-rotating.
> Also, do all electrons in the same vicinity rotate in tandem?
>
> Jim G
> c'=c+v
In atomic physics, the spin quantum number is a quantum number that
parameterizes the intrinsic angular momentum (or spin angular momentum,
or simply spin) of a given particle. The spin quantum number is the
fourth of a set of quantum numbers (the principal quantum number, the
azimuthal quantum number, the magnetic quantum number, and the spin
quantum number) which describe the unique quantum state of an electron
and is designated by the letter "s".
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_quantum_number
Kevin
OK, isn't the convention the right hand rule? Spin is a problem
because... it's has either a right or left hand convention and is
therefore math, not physics. Does the electron spin to the right?...
or to the left?... or does it make any differance? I suppose the
issue is resolved if a right hand wound up rubber band is overlapped
with a left hand wound up rubber band... so that the slippery little
devil doesn't creep away from you over time.
PD
> On Apr 29, 6:13 pm, herbert glazier <herbertglazi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 29, 2:58 pm, Kevin <barry196...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > What does an electron look like? If you take a rubber band powered
> > > model aircraft and wind up the rubber band then the rubber band is an
> > > electron... Then you take that rubber band and put it inside an
> > > oscilloscope and you have trapped an electron inside of an
> > > oscilloscope... Well, if that's what it takes to make an atomic clock
> > > but... what does this have to do with the electron spin on...
> > > (whatever element that isn't Neon?)... I don't quite see the
> > > connection. Theoretically, a salt under a microscope should show the
> > > VII column element while the I column element is invisable.
>
> > It looks like a spinning cloud. My spin is in theory gives it
> > structure and spin speed. TreBert
>
> OK, isn't the convention the right hand rule?
Not for quantum mechanical spin, no. Completely different physical
property. You're confused by a similar name. Happens a lot to
amateurs.
herbert glazier
Electrons relate their c spin with positrons c spin. They can push
back gravitation force. When gravity over comes this electron force a
neutron star is formed. Still gravities force can get still greater
and a BH is created, Still greater my critical gravity force field
theory comes in,and a universe is created. 'And the band plays on.'
TreBert
herbert glazier
I'm big on particale spin. In the micro realm "Spin is in" TreBert
herbert glazier
Shit brain "Tell us the big diference from spinning like a top in
macro and QM spin. Lots like Feynnam went with macro spin. Get the
picture TreBert
richard....@comcast.net
Y.Porat
-------------------
Quantum 'Schmamtum' !
people want to understand it physically
not just impressive words
with just mathematical
ACCOUNTANTS parroting meaning
they would like to understand better
the structure of matter
and why it works as it works
(and that is not just orchestra conducting... by parrots )
Y.Porat
---------------------------------
Y.Porat
-----------------
and you are a professional ??
professional what ??...
(what have you ever innovated ??!!)
(:-)
Y.P
-------------------------
Shrikeback
> What does an electron look like? If you take a rubber band powered
> model aircraft and wind up the rubber band then the rubber band is an
> electron... Then you take that rubber band and put it inside an
> oscilloscope and you have trapped an electron inside of an
> oscilloscope... Well, if that's what it takes to make an atomic clock
> but... what does this have to do with the electron spin on...
> (whatever element that isn't Neon?)... I don't quite see the
> connection. Theoretically, a salt under a microscope should show the
> VII column element while the I column element is invisable.
An electron looks like the inside of a Klein bottle.
herbert glazier
Matter works because of electrons. TreBert
Marvin the Martian
Yet another total cut and paste.
cjcountess
It's a counterclockwise (-1 charge) standing spherical wave rotating
about two axis (spin 1/2) spining at speed of light or c, with angular
momentum of (h/2pi/2), and (energy = mc^2)
I am so surprised that after all this time and all the supporting
evidence, that people still believe that an electron has no
geometrical structure that can be visualized, considering it just a
point particle and probability wave.
Technically it can be argued that an electron does not look like
anything in the strictest sense, because we visualize things by
reflecting electromagnetic waves that are smaller and much less
massive than the objects we wish to see, off of them, and that is hard
to do with an electron, which is the smallest free standing EM wave,
and anything almost as small or just as small, would not only reflect
off of it, but would reflect the electron itself off of it, causing a
great uncertainty in its measurements of position and momentum through
direct measurements.
This has lead to the "Uncertainty Principle' and all its confusion,
which will to be replaced with the "Certainty Principle" and a
clearing up of alot of that confusion because (h/2pi/2), is indeed a
measure of the particles "certainty," not its "uncertainty" when
viewed in this new way, which is geometrically.
Through analogy, logic, math, geometry, and statistics, I have mapped
its geometry, and it matches latest empirical evidence, that has
somehow seem to overcome the problem of viewing and filming the
geometry of the electron, thereby varifying and collaborating my
discovery.
See this for my interpretation of electron structure
http://gsjournal.net/science/countess.pdf
And this to collaborate it with the latest empirical evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofp-OHIq6Wo&feature=related
Scientists in Sweden film moving electron for the first time.
It resembles an elongated standing spherical wave, rotating about two
axis, fitting description which I have geometrically demonstrated, as
opposed to a point particle or probability wave.
Conrad J Countess
Sam Wormley
> I am so surprised that after all this time and all the supporting
> evidence, that people still believe that an electron has no
> geometrical structure that can be visualized, considering it just a
> point particle and probability wave.
>
There appears not to be *supporting evidence* for electron structure.
Hypothesize any structure you like. Maybe that structure is purely
to help you visualize like a Newtonian. What is important, is that
if a structure exists, it must be physically measurable... otherwise
it is meaningless and serves no real purpose.
cjcountess
The electron microscope utilizes electron waves in lue of photons for
better resolution, proving similar but shorter wave length
(structure), than photon, which has been measured and may provide a
starting point for measurement.
If we start with known measurement, or just any measurement that can
be scaled down to photon wavelength and amplitude, knowing the basic
structure of photon waves, we can reason that as the shorter the
wavelength, the higher the energy, mass, and momentum, although
amplitude remains constant, that at a wavelength where the 90 degree
angular energy, mass, and momentum, equals the linear energy, mass,
and momentum, it should acts as any equal and right angular energy,
mass, and momentum, and create a centrifugal and centripetal force
balance, just as with circular polarized waves, but in all 3
dimensions, and that this enables circular and or spherical motion and
rest mass.
See this about circular polarized waves being created by equal and 90
degree angular momentum of light waves:
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae694.cfm,"
Even “deBroglie”, realized that an electron emerged from same
electromagnetic spectrum of wavelengths as photons, and put forth
(E=hf=mc^2), and “Compton”, realized this also, and put forth that the
wave length of an electron would be the same as that of a photon of
the same energy, mass, and momentum, Compton Wavelength), and I am
putting forth that they all have the same amplitude also.(wave
height). Now I know that amplitude for some is considered just a
statistical measurement involving many waves, and does not apply to
single waves, at least that is what I’ve been told by so called
experts, in ask a physicist or a similar group, but if a single photon
has a wavelength, it must also have a wave height, and I am reasoning
that it is constant along the whole electromagnetic structure, for
single photons, in order to maintain the speed of light, “c”, in the
linear direction.
It is only logical that the electron be the dimension of the amplitude
of a single wave height all around.
This measurement is in line with (h/2pi), for a circle, (h/2pi/2), for
a circle making two rotations at right angle to complete one wave
cycle, as a standing spherical wave, and (wavelength/2pi), also as
measure of radius. This radius would be the measure of this constant
amplitude and also the “fine structure constant”.
Below, is a cut and paste from my paper which says it well.
If we draw progressively shorter waves on a graph, with progressively
higher energy, we will
evidentially arrive at a wave whose 90 degree angular energy/momentum
equals its linear
energy/momentum, which create a balance of centripetal and centrifugal
forces, and 90 degree
arc, which if constant creates a circle in 2d, or a spherical wave in
3d, which happens if
amplitude is constant, or we start with circular polarized wave.. This
3d wave makes two
rotations in order to complete one wave cycle, (spin1/2) with angular
momentum (h/2pi/2), and
also spins backward counter to it trajectory in half the cases, which
is how electron gets its (-1
charge). In the other half of cases a forward spinning positron
emerged of (+1 charge).
A smooth transition from photon to electron, energy to matter, along
the same EM spectrum,
which might from now on be called the (energy/ matter), spectrum as
well as (electromagnetic),
is geometrically demonstrated.
Is there any experimental evidence that electromagnetic waves carry
momentum which can cause
circular motion if 2 forces are at 90 degree angle to each other?
Yes see this:
“Light is an electromagnetic wave that can carry angular momentum by
way of circular
polarization. Transverse waves such as light, can have polarization in
two directions, "left-right",
"up-down" or any combination thereof. As an analogy, you can shake the
end of a slinky up and
down, left to right, or at some arbitrary angle. Linear polarization
occurs when these two
components occur in phase, e.g. you shake the end of your slinky back
and forth along the same
path. When the two components are of equal amplitude but 90 degrees
out of phase, however,
circular polarization is created. This is what happens when you shake
the end of your slinky in a
circular motion.” From website: http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae694.cfm,"
We might extend the above logic base on experimental evidence to
include that two similar
components in the up/down and back/forth or x and y planes of equal
amplitude and 90 degrees
out of phase, may cause circular motion, along the x and y or
(horizontal and vertical) plane, just
as I have suggested. And that when this occurs in all three dimensions
or x-y -z planes, that this
might cause a 3D standing spherical wave. Perhaps experiments along
the same lines as that
mentioned on above web site will bear this out.
Conrad J Countess
cjcountess
before it is considered a match? How many coincidences such as pieces
of a puzzle must fit together to form a picture? All.
Energy = mc^2, h/2pi/2, spin ½, -1charge, all empirically verified,
experimental, mathematical facts, measured points of coincidence, that
fit logically seamlessly together, to form this picture, and can not
statically be considered just coincidence in negative sense of word,
but a complete match.
And what about the picture of electron on you tube?
See this for my interpretation of electron structure
http://gsjournal.net/science/countess.pdf
And this to collaborate it with the latest empirical evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofp-OHIq6Wo&feature=related
Conrad J Countess
Marvin the Martian
> It's a counterclockwise (-1 charge) standing spherical wave
Particles are not waves.
> rotating
> about two axis (spin 1/2) spining at speed of light or c, with angular
> momentum of (h/2pi/2), and (energy = mc^2)
You're confused about "spin".
> I am so surprised that after all this time and all the supporting
> evidence, that people still believe that an electron has no geometrical
> structure that can be visualized, considering it just a point particle
> and probability wave.
It's called "quantum mechanics".
Sam Wormley
> Particles are not waves.
And waves are not particles, at least at the same time.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality
"Wave–particle duality postulates that all matter exhibits both wave and
particle properties. A central concept of quantum mechanics, this
duality addresses the inability of classical concepts like "particle"
and "wave" to fully describe the behavior of quantum-scale objects.
Standard interpretations of quantum mechanics explain this paradox as a
fundamental property of the Universe, while alternative interpretations
explain the duality as an emergent, second-order consequence of various
limitations of the observer. This treatment focuses on explaining the
behavior from the perspective of the widely used Copenhagen
interpretation, in which wave–particle duality is one aspect of the
concept of complementarity, that a phenomenon can be viewed in one way
or in another, but not both simultaneously".
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality#Wave_behavior_of_large_objects
Since the demonstrations of wave-like properties in photons and
electrons, similar experiments have been conducted with neutrons and
protons. Among the most famous experiments are those of Estermann and
Otto Stern in 1929.[13] Authors of similar recent experiments with atoms
and molecules, described below, claim that these larger particles also
act like waves.
A dramatic series of experiments emphasizing the action of gravity in
relation to wave–particle duality were conducted in the 1970s using the
neutron interferometer.[14] Neutrons, one of the components of the
atomic nucleus, provide much of the mass of a nucleus and thus of
ordinary matter. In the neutron interferometer, they act as
quantum-mechanical waves directly subject to the force of gravity. While
the results were not surprising since gravity was known to act on
everything, including light (see tests of general relativity and the
Pound-Rebka falling photon experiment), the self-interference of the
quantum mechanical wave of a massive fermion in a gravitational field
had never been experimentally confirmed before.
In 1999, the diffraction of C60 fullerenes by researchers from the
University of Vienna was reported.[15] Fullerenes are comparatively
large and massive objects, having an atomic mass of about 720 u. The de
Broglie wavelength is 2.5 pm, whereas the diameter of the molecule is
about 1 nm, about 400 times larger. As of 2005, this is the largest
object for which quantum-mechanical wave-like properties have been
directly observed in far-field diffraction.
In 2003 the Vienna group also demonstrated the wave nature of
tetraphenylporphyrin[16]—a flat biodye with an extension of about 2 nm
and a mass of 614 u. For this demonstration they employed a near-field
Talbot Lau interferometer.[17][18] In the same interferometer they also
found interference fringes for C60F48., a fluorinated buckyball with a
mass of about 1600 u, composed of 108 atoms.[16] Large molecules are
already so complex that they give experimental access to some aspects of
the quantum-classical interface, i.e. to certain decoherence mechanisms.
cjcountess
Martin
I am not confused about spin, nor how a wave turns to a particle at
the frequency/wavelength where (E=hf = mc^2), nor why it has angular
momentum and position simultaneously, of (h/2pi/2), which beats the
"Uncertainty Priciple". This model shows a clear geometrical picture
of a counterclockwise spinning (-1charge), as well as clockwise
spinning (+1charge), standing spherical, wave making two rotations, in
order to complete one wave cycle, (spin ½) with the above mentioned
attributes.
As a matter of fact, I am clearer on this than some of the so-called
professionals that don’t have the foggiest idea of the geometry of the
electron, and still think of it as a dimensionless point particle,
probability wave.
Truth is, there is really no such thing as dimensionless point
particles or dimensionless integers devoid of geometry. Empty math
does not rule the universe, geometry in motion does, and as such, all
equations can only be best understood through dynamic geometry.
The true building blocks of the universe are dimensional natural
unites such as c and h and c^2 and h/2pi/2, not dimensionless 1’s,
2’s, and 3’s.
Even “Fermat’s Last Theorem”, which was supposedly proven by Wiles,
and also supposedly dependent on dimensionless integers, could only be
"proven or disproved," according to Wiles and others, through geometry
of modular forms and elliptical curves.
I still don’t think it was proven at all, from the simple fact that,
“there are no dimensionless integers period”, and even though it was
really based on geometry of triangle and the Pythagorean theorem, it
was the dimensionless integer that is used to uphold that theorem, at
least until Wile. Still, I think I can disprove “Fermat's Last
Theorem”, with geometry of electron, but that’s a different story.
Sam
I see your post and a particle "is" a wave, a standing sperical wave,
or composite of these waves, along with binding energy, and at the
same time.
But then you do go on to say something simular in your further
discussion.
Conrad J Countess
herbert glazier
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 16:13:11 -0700 (PDT), herbert glazier
>
> <herbertglazi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 29, 2:58 pm, Kevin <barry196...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> What does an electron look like? If you take a rubber band powered
> >> model aircraft and wind up the rubber band then the rubber band is an
> >> electron... Then you take that rubber band and put it inside an
> >> oscilloscope and you have trapped an electron inside of an
> >> oscilloscope... Well, if that's what it takes to make an atomic clock
> >> but... what does this have to do with the electron spin on...
> >> (whatever element that isn't Neon?)... I don't quite see the
> >> connection. Theoretically, a salt under a microscope should show the
> >> VII column element while the I column element is invisable.
>
> >structure and spin speed. TreBert
>
> Within an atom, 'cloud' is an analogy. Similarly. electron momentum
> is an analogy.
>
> "A spinning zero diameter electron has zero angular momentum, because
> no part of the electron's mass extends beyond a radius of zero."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spin_quantum_number
>
> "The term "electron spin" is not to be taken literally in the
> classical sense as a description of the origin of the magnetic moment
> described above. To be sure, a spinning sphere of charge can produce a
> magnetic moment, but the magnitude of the magnetic moment obtained
> above cannot be reasonably modeled by considering the electron as a
> spinning sphere. High energy scattering from electrons shows no "size"
> of the electron down to a resolution of about 10^-3fermis, and at that
> size a preposterously high spin rate of some 10^32 radian/s would be
> required to match the observed angular momentum."http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/spin.htm
>
> An atom's energy change due to quantized electron-proton distance
> change requires preposterous electron momentum changes. Similarly,
> electron position changes within a cloud also require ridiculous
> electron momentum changes. Therefore, can electron 'cloud' is an
> analogy.
I take spin literally. I give it rate of spin of c and never changes
speed. "It would not be an electron without its spin" O ya TreBert
Marvin the Martian
> Martin
>
> I am not confused about spin, nor how a wave turns to a particle at the
> frequency/wavelength where (E=hf = mc^2), nor why it has angular
> momentum and position simultaneously, of (h/2pi/2), which beats the
> "Uncertainty Priciple". This model shows a clear geometrical picture of
> a counterclockwise spinning (-1charge), as well as clockwise spinning
> (+1charge), standing spherical, wave making two rotations, in order to
> complete one wave cycle, (spin ½) with the above mentioned attributes.
If it was really "spinning", like a ball, then it wouldn't be quantized.
Pick a z-axis, measure the spin of an electron, and you ALWAYS get either
+1/2 or -1/2. Never anything in between if it was a spinning sphere.
This whole clockwise and counter-clockwise thing of yours is a bit
comical.
Further, the "wave" is a probability distribution. You integrate the
probability distribution over a given region to derive the probability of
finding the particle in that region. The particle is NEVER a wave. And
give up the idea that particles are little spherical bodies. The question
of what the 'shape' of a particle is doesn't even make sense in physics.
> As a matter of fact, I am clearer on this than some of the so-called
> professionals that don’t have the foggiest idea of the geometry of the
> electron, and still think of it as a dimensionless point particle,
> probability wave.
Tell everyone how you're going to measure the dimensions of these
particles, given the Heisenberg principle and all that? You can't even
tell where the damned thing IS exactly, much less pin it down on it's
SHAPE.
john
Everything has shape.
Everything is a composite.
Everything has a front and a back, thickness,
width and breadth.
It's a classical world.
Quantum is a lie.
john
cjcountess
Marvin
Maybe it spins like a ticking clock, or maybe its spin can only be
measured by something spinning or moving slower than itself, which
only can get a measurement at these certain intervals.
My model is based on analogy, logic, math, geometry, and statistics,
as I have no means to do experiment, and must rely on what is reported
from experimenters, and what I read of the attributes of electron. It
is interesting to me that the model matches the reported attributes of
“energy =mc^2”, angular momentum of “h/2pi/2”, “spin1/2”, “charge –1,
or +1”, depending on spin direction, giving two solutions just as
Durac’s equation, and the other supporting evidence, such as equations
“E=hf=mc^2”, and Compton wave length equation, which indicate that
electrons emerge from same EM spectrum as photons when “energy =
mc^2”, and this matches my analogy of “c^2” as, (c in the linear
direction, x c in the 90 degree angular direction, creating a 90
degree arc trajectory, which if constant creates a circle of rotating
energy of, “cx2pi”, with angular momentum of “h/2pi”, and if amplitude
is constant, will make two rotations at right angles, (1 to enable the
magnetic moment), in order to make one wave cycle, with angular
momentum of, “h/2pi/2”, and furthermore that this matches recent
picture of electron, by Swedish scientist.
There is statistically too much evidence, seamlessly connected through
a line of unbroken logic and mathematics, and empirically verified
evidence, for this to be just coincidence. It must be correct. And it
is beautiful, except to those that it threatens.
I do not subscribe to the “Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle” which
says that the electron is probability wave distribution to be found in
the wave at highest amplitude at position “x”. at time “t” unless
psi=[x, t,]^2 directly overlays and matches the geometrical E=mc^2 =
E=mc^circled and or sphered, which geometrically shows that psi = E, x
= m, t = c, and when they are squared, as psi=[x, t,]^2 or E=mc^2, the
balance of centrifugal and centripetal force is created from, as I
stated earlier, “c in linear direction, x c in 90 degree angular
direction”, or the particle “x”, in the linear direction, also having
the balance over time “t”, which turns the wave to a particle, as a
standing spherical wave, with dimensions and shape that matches all
the evidence.
“THE HEISEBERG UNCERTAINTY PRICIPLE” has been beaten by (The
Geometrical Interpretation of E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled and or sphered)
It is BEAUTIFUL!!!
Go tell your friends, see if they can refute it.
John
I agree, everything has shape.
The Heisenderg Uncertainty Priciple's, using of stitistical
measurment, is practical because that is all they could do at the
time, but to assert that there will never be any way to visualize or
measure an electron, was a cop out and has intuitively crippled lots
of people.
Well maybe we can save the next generation.
Conrad J Countess
cjcountess
When Psi=[x, t,]^2 coinciddes with and = E=mc^2= E=mc^circled and or
sphered, the probability of finding the particle at "x" position at
"t" time, is "100 percent", as the wave itself becomes a particle by
aquiring rest mass through circular and or spherical rotation. In
other words, the wave becomes a particle when E=hf=mc^2, a standing
spherical wave, through the balence of centripital/centrifugal forces
of c^2 which is c in the linear direction x c in the 90 degree angular
direction.
Special relativity’s "E=mc^2", on quantum level, smoothly transitions
to and = "F=mv^2" "r=GM/r^2" = "h/2pi/2' uniting SR, GR, and QM.
Quantum Gravity, Origin of Rest Mass, Mass Gap Problem, all solved,
through Geometrical Interpretation of E=mc^2
Conrad J Countess
john
>
> - Show quoted text -
And all the electrons are
all sharing the same
rotation (because they are on the
same disc), and they all
share the same precession (because they are on the
same disc), so they all contribute
to the same magnetic field as the disc
sweeps out a sphere.
It is the Galaxy Model for the atom.
Look at how it solves Benzene :
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/Benzenepreview.GIF
john
Marvin the Martian
Quantum mechanics and quantum physics have made many predictions that
have been born out by experiment, which contradicts classical physics.
Sorry you don't like the theory, but that pretty much makes you
irrelevant and unable to discuss the physics.
cjcountess
That is interesting.
Marvin
I know that Quantum Machanics and Quantum Theory has made many
pridictions that are born out of experiment, as stitistical theorys
are better than nothing if you don't have a suitable classical theory.
But still it was not able to capture gravity, and the exiting
classical theory of Special and General Relativity was not able to
capture the quantum wave-particle duality.
But both these theorys failars are due to fauty mathematics of seeing
the inverse square law as leading to infinity on both small and large
end and not to geometrical limits. It is the infinitly small point
particle that leads to Big bang coming from absolute nothingness and
infinitelky small and dense Black Holes swollowing up matter in
classical physics and the uncertainty principle of infinitely large
quantity of momentum at expense of location and infinitelt large
location at expense of momentum.
But if viewed geometricaly, "inverse square law", leads to energy
turning to matter, at the high end of the EM spectrum, which we can
now see is also the energy-matter, as well as the electromagnetic
spectrum. And this is with certain momentum and position of "h/2pi/2,
not infinitely small point particle with infinitely large angular
momentum with uncertainty of h/2pi/2 for either, but not both momentum
and position at same time.
At least they got the "h/2pi/2" right through averaging.
No Marvin, this is no more the blame of Quantum Machanics than it is
of Classical machanics, it is a misinterpretation of the inverse
square law for both.
Conrad J Countess
cjcountess
like.
Quantum Machanics has no answer and further asserts that there is non,
and that is the fallacy of the theory.
It works fine up to that point but fails to go beyond or encourage
others to do so. Thus it is not only incomplete but also stands as an
obstical to further investigation of this question, and that is my
beef with it.
Not that it is not practicle up to a point, but that it throws in the
towel and encourages others to do likewise.
But here is evidence that there is geometrical structure to an
electron and that they were wrong about that. Not that they were wrong
about everything, the latest technology attest to that.
But like I also said, the classical "General Theory of Relativity",
although right about allot of things, also was wrong about infinitely
small point particles, also due to misinterpretation of "inverse
square law", which leads to false infinitys of "Big Bangs" and "Black
Holes", and missing that "NUGGET" that I discovered, "QUANTUM
GRAVITY", which is revealed in the geometrical interpretation of the
inverse square law as applied to c^2 which = G as the ultimate v^2 or
L/T^2 and h/2pi/2 as energy at c in circlar motion, making two
rotations to complete one wave cycle, and thus is the point on the EM
scale where energy attains "Gravity Rest Mass on the Quantum smallest
Quantum level, thus revealing the origin of "Rest Mass", "Quantum
Gravity", the "Mass Gap Solution".
Both theorys had holes in them and the discovery fell through.
Conrad J Countess
Darwin123
> the frequency/wavelength where (E=hf = mc^2), nor why it has angular
> momentum and position simultaneously, of (h/2pi/2), which beats the
> "Uncertainty Priciple". This model shows a clear geometrical picture
> of a counterclockwise spinning (-1charge), as well as clockwise
> spinning (+1charge), standing spherical, wave making two rotations, in
> order to complete one wave cycle, (spin½) with the above mentioned
> attributes.
spin is well characterized mathematically. Experiments demonstrating
the half spin confirm that the mathematical predictions are accurate.
However, the idea of a half spin is very anti-intuitive.
Let me suggest, as a heuristic model, the idea of fermion
particles as Mobious strips. Maybe the field of a fermion isn't moving
in a circle, but is moving on the surface of a Mobious strip. I
conjecture that fermions have a Mobious polarization state, analogous
to the circular polarization state of bosons.
The field vector of the electron, if translated on the surface of
a Mobius strip, ends up on the opposite side of the Mobius strip after
a 360 degree rotation. An additional 360 degrees is needed to bring it
back to the beginning. So the electron can be said to have only half-
spun if it goes 360 degrees around the Mobious strip. This describes
Mobius polarization.
In contrast, a boson can be imagined as a field vector on a
cylinder. The field vector of the photon, if rotated by 360 degrees on
the cylinder, winds up on the same side. Thus the photon can be said
to have one full spin if rotated around 360 degrees. This describes
circular polarization.
I am not trying to replace quantum mechanics or its mathematics
here. I am presenting a heuristic model to help visualize the spin
states of an electron. The heuristic model uses the idea that spin
states are analogous to polarization states.
I
Androcles
"Darwin123" <drose...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:906db8b9-86c5-4faf...@h11g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On May 24, 5:08 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Martin
>
> I am not confused aboutspin, nor how a wave turns to a particle at
> the frequency/wavelength where (E=hf = mc^2), nor why it has angular
> momentum and position simultaneously, of (h/2pi/2), which beats the
> "Uncertainty Priciple". This model shows a clear geometrical picture
> of a counterclockwise spinning (-1charge), as well as clockwise
> spinning (+1charge), standing spherical, wave making two rotations, in
> order to complete one wave cycle, (spin˝) with the above mentioned
> attributes.
There is a conceptual problem with the electrons half-spin. The
spin is well characterized mathematically. Experiments demonstrating
the half spin confirm that the mathematical predictions are accurate.
However, the idea of a half spin is very anti-intuitive.
Let me suggest, as a heuristic model, the idea of fermion
particles as Mobious strips.
========================================
Bwahahahahahaha!
Let me suggest, as a heuristic model, you are a babbling baboon
in a Klein bottle.