Spinning Particles - Since When?

[Wade Jenkins]

I understood that planets, stars and galaxies are orbiting since they were
formed, for whatever reason. However, the particles are in Spinning Mode
since the beginning, be that the Big Bang.

Interestingly, what makes those quantum particles spin? There must be a
flow, a reason, some yet unknown form of energy coming from "outside".

Please remark, this spinning job does not obey Entropy, they apparently
does not get tired, nor ages. Apparently this spinning gives Inertia, and
somehow coincidentally connected to spacetime,

[Wade Jenkins]

Wade Jenkins wrote:

> Please remark, this spinning job does not obey Entropy, they apparently
> does not get tired, nor ages. Apparently this spinning gives Inertia,
> and somehow coincidentally connected to spacetime,

I believe the connection only must be to space, since time is not present
in this configuration.

[kenseto]

I suggest that you read the paper in thefollowing link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011ubiverse
and
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2012unification.pdf

[Wade Jenkins]

kenseto wrote:

> I suggest that you read the paper in thefollowing link:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011ubiverse

What is "ubiverse"?

And your short answer to the particle spinning concern is ... ?

[kenseto]

Sorry the corect link is as follows:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.pdf
If you want to understand what spinning of a particle means in my
theory, you need to read the paper.

[Wade Jenkins]

I better wait till you make a movie out of it.

[Poutnik]

Dne ètvrtek, 9. kvìtna 2013 20:46:52 UTC+2 Wade Jenkins napsal(a):

>
> Interestingly, what makes those quantum particles spin? There must be a
> flow, a reason, some yet unknown form of energy coming from "outside".

Nothing.
Angular momentum ( AM ) does not need energy to be kept.

Personal experience tells otherwise, because of the friction.
But it just transfers AM to other systems.

Subatomic particles does not suffer from friction.

>
> Please remark, this spinning job does not obey Entropy, they apparently
> does not get tired, nor ages.

It does obey entropy. System in equilibrium has its entropy constant.

You could ask as well what keeps electrons moving,
why they finally do not fall on atomic kernels....

You could ask as well why even at absolute zero
the atoms are still moving....

All 3 cases has one thing common,
they have the least stable quantum value of the parameter.

First angular momentum,
second potential energy,
third vibration energy.

[Wade Jenkins]

Poutnik wrote:

> Subatomic particles does not suffer from friction.

They interact with fields, just to say the least. Forget for now the
friction.

[rotchm]

On May 10, 11:10 am, Poutnik <poutnik4n...@gmail.com> wrote:


DONT FEED THE TROOL

This idiot has NO intention to discuss science. He will use any little
psychological trick to lure you into a response... and you fell for
it.

[kenseto]

On May 10, 10:55 am, Wade Jenkins <waj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> kenseto wrote:
> > On May 9, 4:47 pm, Wade Jenkins <waj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> kenseto wrote:
> >> > I suggest that you read the paper in thefollowing link:
> >> >http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011ubiverse
>
> >> What is "ubiverse"?
>
> >> And your short answer to the particle spinning concern is ... ?
>
> > Sorry the corect link is as follows:

> >http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.pdfIf you want to understand

> > what spinning of a particle means in my theory, you need to read the
> > paper.
>
> I better wait till you make a movie out of it.

Just as I thought.....you are a trool.

[Wade Jenkins]

kenseto wrote:

>> > Sorry the corect link is as follows:
>> >http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.pdfIf you want to
>> >understand
>> > what spinning of a particle means in my theory, you need to read the
>> > paper.
>>
>> I better wait till you make a movie out of it.
>
> Just as I thought.....you are a trool.

I disagree, I guess I read your 2011 paper, I am waiting for your 2013
version, where your eventually mistakes are remediable in a understandable
form.

[rotchm]

> Just as I thought.....you are a trool.

WoW, even you figured that out! Just dont respond to him ken.

Anyhow, I am working on limiting his activities on this NG as I have
done for Mitchell Raemsch.
In fact, its possible that its the same person... tbc...

[Poutnik]

Wade Jenkins posted Fri, 10 May 2013 15:27:30 +0000 (UTC)

They do, but the fields are conservative.

--
Poutnik

[Wade Jenkins]

They interact with everything, including friction then.

[Alfonso]

You might consider what is meant by "spin" in the case of a point particle.

[Poutnik]

Wade Jenkins posted Sat, 11 May 2013 07:49:33 +0000 (UTC)

There is no friction at subatomic level.

Electrons in atoms keep their potential and kinetic energy,
as well as orbital and spin angular momenta for billions year,
unless they are forced from outside to change them.


--
Poutnik

[Wade Jenkins]

Your work, as different from learning Physics, LOL, asshat!

[Wade Jenkins]

Poutnik wrote:

> Electrons in atoms keep their potential and kinetic energy, as well as
> orbital and spin angular momenta for billions year,
> unless they are forced from outside to change them.

So you talk about potential and kinetic energy at subatomic scale but
reject friction, hmmm.

For billions of years? What happens then after that??

[Wade Jenkins]

Alfonso wrote:

> You might consider what is meant by "spin" in the case of a point
> particle.

I suppose is still a drift, an action of some kind, disregard the integers
associated to them.

[Poutnik]

>
> On 09/05/13 19:46, Wade Jenkins wrote:
> > I understood that planets, stars and galaxies are orbiting since they were
> > formed, for whatever reason. However, the particles are in Spinning Mode
> > since the beginning, be that the Big Bang.
> >
> > Interestingly, what makes those quantum particles spin? There must be a
> > flow, a reason, some yet unknown form of energy coming from "outside".
> >
> > Please remark, this spinning job does not obey Entropy, they apparently
> > does not get tired, nor ages. Apparently this spinning gives Inertia, and
> > somehow coincidentally connected to spacetime,
> >
>

Particle spin cannot be considered as classical spinning.

Let take for now imagined radius of electron as a maximum size limit
provided by photon-electron scattering measurement.

For such radius and spin angular momentum electrons have,
the tangent surface speed would have to be about 1000 times c.

With such speed, electron rest energy would have to be
many orders higher that it is, even if we do not consider SR.

And, Dirac equation leading to spin property is SR aware.

Spin has to be considered just as
a particle intrinsic quite mysterious way,
how to keep and interchange angular momentum with other atomic and
subatomic particles.

Elementary particles cannot have higher nor lower spin
than they have, only orientation of its vector can change.



--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Wade Jenkins posted Sat, 11 May 2013 08:29:33 +0000 (UTC)

>
> Poutnik wrote:
>
> > Electrons in atoms keep their potential and kinetic energy, as well as
> > orbital and spin angular momenta for billions year,
> > unless they are forced from outside to change them.
>
> So you talk about potential and kinetic energy at subatomic scale but
> reject friction, hmmm.

Sure. But not me. Quantum physics.

By friction an object is loosing energy,
Electrons in atoms at ground energy levels do not loose energy.

And if not at ground energy level,
than they do not loose energy continuously, as object by friction,
but at once, jumping between allowed discrete values,
with probability given by quantum electrodynamics.

>
> For billions of years? What happens then after that??

It depends on universe evolution
and what will happen to atoms from outside.

Atoms can keep the values above for eternity, if it depends on them.
As it is their stable state.

But better would be
to study some quantum physics / quantum chemistry textbook.


--
Poutnik

[Wade Jenkins]

Poutnik wrote:

> Elementary particles cannot have higher nor lower spin than they have,
> only orientation of its vector can change.

I did not took their spin classically, YOU do. Are you aware that you just
told exactly nothing?

[Wade Jenkins]

Poutnik wrote:

> Electrons in atoms at ground energy levels do not loose energy.

This was the question fool, why?

> And if not at ground energy level,
> than they do not loose energy continuously, as object by friction, but
> at once, jumping between allowed discrete values,
> with probability given by quantum electrodynamics.

Whom asked you about this shit?

> It depends on universe evolution and what will happen to atoms from
> outside.
>
> Atoms can keep the values above for eternity, if it depends on them.
> As it is their stable state.
>
> But better would be to study some quantum physics / quantum chemistry
> textbook.

You loose focus, idiot! Try answering the questions ADDRESSED!

[Poutnik]

Wade Jenkins posted Sat, 11 May 2013 08:50:43 +0000 (UTC)

>
> Poutnik wrote:
>
> > Elementary particles cannot have higher nor lower spin than they have,
> > only orientation of its vector can change.
>
> I did not took their spin classically, YOU do.

No, I do not. I have just said how it cannot be taken.

> Are you aware that you just told exactly nothing?

Perhaps nothing you understand, otherwise you would know
it is essential info about boson and fermion spin.


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Wade Jenkins posted Sat, 11 May 2013 08:54:31 +0000 (UTC)

Troll will not be answered.

--
Poutnik

[Wade Jenkins]

Poutnik wrote:

>> You loose focus, idiot! Try answering the questions ADDRESSED!
>
> Troll will not be answered.

So I was right, lost focus, cornered then leaving.

[Wade Jenkins]

Poutnik wrote:

> Perhaps nothing you understand, otherwise you would know it is essential
> info about boson and fermion spin.

Is it something you know for sure, or you read it in a book?

[Poutnik]

Wade Jenkins posted Sat, 11 May 2013 09:09:32 +0000 (UTC)

It is something, that was observed by many experimentators,
theoretized, generalized, tested and written to books,
that not ignorant people, really interested in science usually read.

It is essential nature of quantum physics.

Things, that we are used to be continuous in the world we live,
need not to be continuous in worlds of particles.

E.g. rotation and vibrations are always quantized.
Energy of electron in atom is always quantized.


--
Poutnik

[Wade Jenkins]

Poutnik wrote:

> E.g. rotation and vibrations are always quantized.
> Energy of electron in atom is always quantized.

This is very pretty. Is that spinning job an activity, as different from
not spinning, or is it not?

If former, what keeps them into doing that activity?

[Poutnik]

Wade Jenkins posted Sat, 11 May 2013 09:37:57 +0000 (UTC)

>
> Poutnik wrote:
>
> > E.g. rotation and vibrations are always quantized.
> > Energy of electron in atom is always quantized.
>
> This is very pretty. Is that spinning job an activity, as different from
> not spinning, or is it not?

You have just a while ago claimed you are not taking spin classically..
Why do you take it classicaly now ?

>
> If former, what keeps them into doing that activity?

You must know the 1st Newton motion law
and conservation laws for linear and angular momentum,
that are a backbone of physics.....



--
Poutnik

[Wade Jenkins]

Poutnik wrote:

> Wade Jenkins posted Sat, 11 May 2013 09:37:57 +0000 (UTC)
>> Poutnik wrote:
>>
>> > E.g. rotation and vibrations are always quantized.
>> > Energy of electron in atom is always quantized.
>>
>> This is very pretty. Is that spinning job an activity, as different
>> from not spinning, or is it not?
>
> You have just a while ago claimed you are not taking spin classically..
> Why do you take it classicaly now ?

Activity? Activity is not only classically related to physics Sir. Are
there no activities in QM? You need to be sure!

[Poutnik]

Wade Jenkins posted Sat, 11 May 2013 10:03:44 +0000 (UTC)

Activity is thermodynamical entity defined by equation
mi = mi0 + RT ln a
where mi is chemical potencial in J/mol.

Do you have other activity in mind?
What you mean by activity ?

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Wade Jenkins posted Sat, 11 May 2013 10:03:44 +0000 (UTC)


>

Back to rotation and spin.

In classical and quantum physics,
object keeps angular momentum ( AM ),
unless there is external torsion forcing it to change AM,
passing/taking of part of its AM to/from other object.

This should be obvious as very basics of physics.
There is no need to keep the rotation.
There is external need to change the rotation.

It is direct analogy to 1st Newtom motion law,
what is early intepretation of law of linear momentum conservation.

For angular momentum and quantum physics of microworld,
there comes quantization of angular momentum
and nonzero lowest allowed value of spin angular momentum.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Poutnik posted Sat, 11 May 2013 12:36:07 +0200

>
> Wade Jenkins posted Sat, 11 May 2013 10:03:44 +0000 (UTC)
>

> > Activity? Activity is not only classically related to physics Sir. Are
> > there no activities in QM? You need to be sure!
>

> There is no need to keep the rotation.
> There is external need to change the rotation.

P.S.
Macroobjects are losing their kinetic energy by friction,
in favour of thermal energy - kinetic energy of molecules or atoms,
including translation, rotation, vibration and excitation.

Molecules and atoms do not loose their energy by friction,
they are interchanging this energy. They can pass and get this energy,
but it is not lost by friction.

It can be also converted to other form, like radiation.

Similar for subatomic particles.
They can interchange energy, linear and angular momentum,
but they are not lost by friction.


--
Poutnik

[rotchm]

On May 11, 6:50 am, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> Poutnik posted Sat, 11 May 2013 12:36:07 +0200

<SNIP>

DO NOT FEED THE TROOLS

This idiot has NO intention to discuss science. He will use any little
psychological trick to lure you into a response...

[Wade Jenkins]

rotchm wrote:

> This idiot has NO intention to discuss science. He will use any little
> psychological trick to lure you into a response...

Which part is not physics imbecile. You have a very restricted view of
what Physics is all about.

[Wade Jenkins]

Poutnik wrote:

> Similar for subatomic particles.
> They can interchange energy, linear and angular momentum,
> but they are not lost by friction.

Cant you see you interact particles all the time without weakening their
spin?

[Poutnik]

Wade Jenkins posted Sat, 11 May 2013 15:18:46 +0000 (UTC)

Sure. You cannot ? (sarcasm)


--
Poutnik

[Wade Jenkins]

Poutnik wrote:

>> Cant you see you interact particles all the time without weakening
>> their spin?
>
> Sure. You cannot ? (sarcasm)

So, you interact them by their spin, and cant explain their not weakening!

[Poutnik]

Wade Jenkins posted Sat, 11 May 2013 15:44:50 +0000 (UTC)

> So, you interact them by their spin, and cant explain their not
> weakening!

You are not in a macroworld, Sir.
You cannot mechanically extrapolate its rules to microworld.

Not weakening need not to be explained, it is given by conservation laws.
Weakening needs explanation.
Even more explanation than in macrowords,
as lower spin orbital momentum of particles is not possible.

Same as atoms of solids still have even at T=0K
nonzero vibration energy, as zero vibration energy is not possible.

You interact with their spins by spins of your particles
via spins of virtual photons as gauge bosons of EM interaction.

The norm of their spin vectors has the only value it can have.
All they do is changing orientation.

More will tell you Quantum electrodynamics,
as I do not claim to be expert in QED.


--
Poutnik

[Wade Jenkins]

Poutnik wrote:

> Same as atoms of solids still have even at T=0K nonzero vibration
> energy, as zero vibration energy is not possible.

I would not be that harsh, and not interested in your form of "not
possible". What keeps them spinning was the question. Possibilities and
not possibilities talk with somebody else.

[Poutnik]

Wade Jenkins posted Sat, 11 May 2013 16:19:39 +0000 (UTC)

They are not spinning. What exactly did you mean by claim
you do not take spin classically,
if all you do is taking spin classically ?

Even Newton realized objects do not need anything to keep moving.

Why do not you ask what keeps electrons and atoms moving ?
Why all the matter did not get stopped,
all atoms in frozen rest, and all electrons fallen on atom kernels ?

You insist on mechanical application of macroworld rules
in world people have no personal experience.
Atoms, electrons and particles are not like balls, just smaller.
They obey very different rules.


--
Poutnik

[Wade Jenkins]

Poutnik wrote:

> Even Newton realized objects do not need anything to keep moving.

Interactions change, slowdown, accl and even annihilate motion in Newton.
Read a book.

[Poutnik]

Wade Jenkins posted Sat, 11 May 2013 17:11:31 +0000 (UTC)

Then read more....

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Poutnik posted Sat, 11 May 2013 19:41:56 +0200

>
> Wade Jenkins posted Sat, 11 May 2013 17:11:31 +0000 (UTC)
>
>
> >
> > Poutnik wrote:
> >
> > > Even Newton realized objects do not need anything to keep moving.
> >
> > Interactions change, slowdown, accl and even annihilate motion in Newton.
> > Read a book.
>

They may do that. And thay do not destroy overall motion
as total linear and angular momentum.

No interaction changes norm of electron spin orbital momentum vector.
At least while electron is electron.



--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Wade Jenkins posted Sat, 11 May 2013 17:11:31 +0000 (UTC)


>

> Poutnik wrote:
>
> > Even Newton realized objects do not need anything to keep moving.
>
> Interactions change, slowdown, accl and even annihilate motion in Newton.

What by other words is saying exactly what I have said above...
Objects do not need anything to keep moving.

They are slowing down, only if there is something slowing them down.

There is nothing slowing down motion of atoms within a matter
of the same temperature. Even if typical air molecule
performs up to 10 billions collisions per second.

There is nothing slowing down motion of electrons within atoms.
And even if anything tried it, electrons resist to do that.

Deal with that.


--
Poutnik

[Wade Jenkins]

Poutnik wrote:

> No interaction changes norm of electron spin orbital momentum vector.
> At least while electron is electron.

Yeah, I seen that before, but how come?

[Poutnik]

Wade Jenkins posted Sat, 11 May 2013 18:26:46 +0000 (UTC)

Well, science does not know why nature behaves by its ways.
Science can only discover rules that fit and predict such behaviour.

Quantum physics with probabilistic approach of wave functions
does it well and it the best what we have for it.

Any other approach fails, facing the reality.


--
Poutnik

[Wade Jenkins]

Poutnik wrote:
> Wade Jenkins posted Sat, 11 May 2013 18:26:46 +0000 (UTC)
>> Poutnik wrote:
>>
>> > No interaction changes norm of electron spin orbital momentum vector.
>> > At least while electron is electron.
>>
>> Yeah, I seen that before, but how come?
>
> Well, science does not know why nature behaves by its ways.
> Science can only discover rules that fit and predict such behaviour.

Then use another tool

[Poutnik]

Wade Jenkins posted Sat, 11 May 2013 19:26:40 +0000 (UTC)

Relation ?

--
Poutnik

[altergnostic]

Alfonso <Alf...@duffadd.com> wrote:
> On 09/05/13 19:46, Wade Jenkins wrote:
>> I understood that planets, stars and galaxies are orbiting since they were
>> formed, for whatever reason. However, the particles are in Spinning Mode
>> since the beginning, be that the Big Bang.
>>
>> Interestingly, what makes those quantum particles spin? There must be a
>> flow, a reason, some yet unknown form of energy coming from "outside".
>>
>> Please remark, this spinning job does not obey Entropy, they apparently
>> does not get tired, nor ages. Apparently this spinning gives Inertia, and
>> somehow coincidentally connected to spacetime,
>>
>
> You might consider what is meant by "spin" in the case of a point particle.

You might consider what is meant by "point" or "particle" in point particle

[shuba]

altergnostic wrote:

> You might consider what is meant by "point" or "particle" in
> point particle

Have *you* ever seriously done that? I doubt it, since you don't
appear to have bothered trying to seriously study physics at any
nontrivial level. The concept of a point particle applies to the
physics of contemporary quantum field theory, so the real answers
lie in understanding the formalisms of those models, but reasonable
math-free explanations are possible.

https://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2013/today13-02-15_NutshellReadMore.html


---Tim Shuba---

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"altergnostic" <alterg...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:kmoj9i$ejj$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

=====================

Quite so.

 

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/12/2013 12:25 PM, altergnostic wrote:

>
> You might consider what is meant by "point" or "particle" in point particle
>

do tell.
especially what you think 'particle' means.

[altergnostic]

small part

[Absolutely Vertical]

and this is where the usage of colloquial language definitions in a
context where specialized definitions are called for, leads to trouble.
same for 'spin', 'color', etc.

so when you offer the advice to consider what is meant by 'point' or
'particle' in 'point particle', where the term 'point particle' is
definitely a jargon term, it might be especially sound advice to
consider what meaning is attached to 'particle' in _that_ context.

[altergnostic]

You realize that was a joke, right?
Anywhoo, your point (no pun) happens to be mine as well. Point has (had) a
precise geometrical definition. By itself, it had no value and no content
mathematically. You needed a graph to make it into something usable, and it
was nothing but a coordinate.
A point particle is a term that uses "point" in some other sense,
obviously, since "point" had no physical content whatsoever - it was purely
platonic.
Physically it can *only* be an approximation or simplification, but never a
*definition* of a particle.
In the link shubby posted, you can already see they use other (point?
unspecified) particles around a point particle to describe a point
particle, which is astonishingly circular. From that alone one can already
infer that such an entity is no entity at all, but a consistent
configuration of a sort of medium, which in turn destroys the original
usage of "particle".

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/14/2013 10:34 AM, altergnostic wrote:

>
> You realize that was a joke, right?

actually, i didn't. i asked a serious question, and i had hopes for a
serious attempt at an answer. but it waited until now.

> Anywhoo, your point (no pun) happens to be mine as well. Point has (had) a
> precise geometrical definition.

yes, as well as a different definition in the context of physics. but
anyway....

> By itself, it had no value and no content
> mathematically. You needed a graph to make it into something usable, and it
> was nothing but a coordinate.
> A point particle is a term that uses "point" in some other sense,
> obviously, since "point" had no physical content whatsoever - it was purely
> platonic.
> Physically it can *only* be an approximation or simplification, but never a
> *definition* of a particle.

'point' does not define 'particle' and is in no way part of the
definition of particle. it is a modifier, indicating a particular class
of particles. otherwise 'point particle' would be redundant, like
'mammalian skunk'.

> In the link shubby posted, you can already see they use other (point?
> unspecified) particles around a point particle to describe a point
> particle, which is astonishingly circular.

why is it circular? it's a description, not a definition.

> From that alone one can already
> infer that such an entity is no entity at all, but a consistent
> configuration of a sort of medium, which in turn destroys the original
> usage of "particle".

well, that's an interesting inference. i wouldn't have made it at all.

[shuba]

altergnostic wrote:

> In the link shubby posted, you can already see they use other
> (point? unspecified) particles around a point particle to
> describe a point particle, which is astonishingly circular. From
> that alone one can already infer that such an entity is no entity
> at all, but a consistent configuration of a sort of medium, which
> in turn destroys the original usage of "particle".

You disregarded my preamble: the real answers lie in understanding
the formalisms of quantum field theory. The "original use" of the
term 'particles' *in quantum field theory* is as quanta of fields.
In particular, a particle in this sense is not some sort of small
classical billiard ball surrounded by other such balls. Until you
are able to jettison this erroneous analogy, you will continue to
spin your wheels unproductively and tilt at windmills.

A free electron is associated with an electromagnetic field,
because the electron has a property we call 'charge'. However,
electrons are *not* quanta of the electromagnetic field; that
latter distinction belongs to photons. Similarly, an electron has
another property called 'weak charge', associated with a different
field with separate quanta (W and Z bosons). Electrons themselves
are quanta of their own field. None of this is remotely classical,
and attempts to pigeonhole it as such are doomed to failure.


---Tim Shuba---

[Poutnik]

shuba posted Tue, 14 May 2013 17:43:29 +0000 (UTC)

>
> You disregarded my preamble: the real answers lie in understanding
> the formalisms of quantum field theory. The "original use" of the
> term 'particles' *in quantum field theory* is as quanta of fields.

........

>
> A free electron is associated with an electromagnetic field,
> because the electron has a property we call 'charge'. However,
> electrons are *not* quanta of the electromagnetic field; that
> latter distinction belongs to photons. Similarly, an electron has
> another property called 'weak charge', associated with a different
> field with separate quanta (W and Z bosons). Electrons themselves
> are quanta of their own field. None of this is remotely classical,
> and attempts to pigeonhole it as such are doomed to failure.
>
>
> ---Tim Shuba---

Is there any acceptable non-QFT-formalism interpretation
of this electron field ?

Anything like scalar presence probability field,
as result of superposition of wave functions of all electrons ?



--
Poutnik

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/14/2013 1:45 PM, Poutnik wrote:

>
> Is there any acceptable non-QFT-formalism interpretation
> of this electron field ?
>
> Anything like scalar presence probability field,
> as result of superposition of wave functions of all electrons ?
>

depends on what qualifies in your mind as 'acceptable'.
for nonrelativistic free electrons, schrodinger's equation works pretty
well. for more sophisticated applications, dirac's equation works better
but not as well as qed.

[Jeff Bennett]

No, it was a salad of words. I bet he has no idea about what he said.

[Poutnik]

Absolutely Vertical posted Tue, 14 May 2013 14:01:23 -0500

>
> On 5/14/2013 1:45 PM, Poutnik wrote:
>
> >
> > Is there any acceptable non-QFT-formalism interpretation
> > of this electron field ?
> >
> > Anything like scalar presence probability field,
> > as result of superposition of wave functions of all electrons ?
> >
>
> depends on what qualifies in your mind as 'acceptable'.

Low level of distortion by abandoning high math and formalism.

Some are good, like probability interpretation of wave functions,
some are bad ans presenting electrons as spinning balls.

> for nonrelativistic free electrons, schrodinger's equation works pretty
> well. for more sophisticated applications, dirac's equation works better
> but not as well as qed.

This makes sense.
once I was solving some simple cases for Schr. E,
Dirac one is already out of my league, not speaking about QED.

Fortunately there is popular Strange theory of light
and matter by R. Feynman. :-)

Even if I get idea of integration over histories,
at application of math to solve QED tasks
my brain would jump out of my head.


--
Poutnik

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/14/2013 2:11 PM, Poutnik wrote:
>
> Absolutely Vertical posted Tue, 14 May 2013 14:01:23 -0500
>
>
>>
>> On 5/14/2013 1:45 PM, Poutnik wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Is there any acceptable non-QFT-formalism interpretation
>>> of this electron field ?
>>>
>>> Anything like scalar presence probability field,
>>> as result of superposition of wave functions of all electrons ?
>>>
>>
>> depends on what qualifies in your mind as 'acceptable'.
>
> Low level of distortion by abandoning high math and formalism.

see below.

>
> Some are good, like probability interpretation of wave functions,
> some are bad ans presenting electrons as spinning balls.
>
>> for nonrelativistic free electrons, schrodinger's equation works pretty
>> well. for more sophisticated applications, dirac's equation works better
>> but not as well as qed.
>
> This makes sense.
> once I was solving some simple cases for Schr. E,
> Dirac one is already out of my league, not speaking about QED.
>
> Fortunately there is popular Strange theory of light
> and matter by R. Feynman. :-)
>
> Even if I get idea of integration over histories,
> at application of math to solve QED tasks
> my brain would jump out of my head.
>

the math is not very different at the dirac or qed levels. even with
schrodinger's solutions, you're dealing with partial differential
equations. it is good at this point to switch to an operator-based
formalism, so you can see the connection to pde's, and moreover it gives
you a refresher on the value of hamiltonians. but that's a formalism
learned in classical mechanics, so is nothing really new. this
groundwork lets you deal much more fluidly with dirac's equations, where
the operators become complex and a matrix formalism becomes useful --
adjoints and all that. here it is then useful to re-examine dirac's
equations with a lagrangian formalism, just to lay the ground work of
what's next. when you get to qed, the two big jumps are second
quantization and the integration of complex operators (the famous sum
over all histories). you've already had a taste of complex variables
with dirac operators and states, so then you just have to remind
yourself how to evaluate integrals around complex poles, and you're
done. somewhere in there you also have to deal with various delta
functions: kroneker and dirac.

[shuba]

Poutnik wrote:

> Is there any acceptable non-QFT-formalism interpretation
> of this electron field ?

I doubt it. Electrons are fermions, and fermions have properties
which are not even close to being approximately classical.

> Anything like scalar presence probability field,
> as result of superposition of wave functions of all electrons ?

Fields associated with fermions are spinor fields
( http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SpinorField.html ).

The combined field of two electrons must be antisymmetric under
exchange of the electrons, unlike for bosonic fields which are
symmetric under particle exchange. This means among other things
that the "superposition" of two identical electron fields is no
field at all, i.e. the Pauli exclusion principle. So I would say no
to your question. Spinors do not obey the same kind of composition
properties as do tensors, vectors, and scalars.



---Tim Shuba---

[altergnostic]

If it hasn't dawned on you yet, I don't have much regard for *you*. Have
you noticed I never address your posts or even talk to you?
I would love to talk about this subject with someone with a glimpse of
education, like Vertical, for instance. From the first time I set foot on
this group, you acted like a jerk with utter disrespect for me, while I
treated you with respect. We don't know each other and I have no intention
to. We don't have to like each other. Don't feel obliged to apologize or
start a polite conversation now, since you are already the only member in
this newsgroup for which I have no respect at all. And since I don't like
the bullying culture that is already a paradigm around here, I refuse to
engage in childish name-calling fights. To avoid the urge, I choose not to
talk to you at all, so you don't feel the same urge (again) as well.
I hope I clarified any misunderstandings among us. Peace.

[Poutnik]

shuba posted Tue, 14 May 2013 20:21:07 +0000 (UTC)

>
> Poutnik wrote:
>
> > Is there any acceptable non-QFT-formalism interpretation
> > of this electron field ?
>
> I doubt it. Electrons are fermions, and fermions have properties
> which are not even close to being approximately classical.

Yes, this I am aware. I was not asking about classical approach.

>
> > Anything like scalar presence probability field,
> > as result of superposition of wave functions of all electrons ?
>
> Fields associated with fermions are spinor fields
> ( http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SpinorField.html ).



>
> The combined field of two electrons must be antisymmetric under
> exchange of the electrons, unlike for bosonic fields which are
> symmetric under particle exchange. This means among other things
> that the "superposition" of two identical electron fields is no
> field at all, i.e. the Pauli exclusion principle.

Yes, this I know.

> So I would say no
> to your question. Spinors do not obey the same kind of composition
> properties as do tensors, vectors, and scalars.

What a pity.. :-)
>
> ---Tim Shuba---




--
Poutnik

[Absolutely Vertical]

but you might have done well to read his post carefully. there was a lot
of physics content in it. furthermore i did not see any ad hominem
attacks in any of the above.

[shuba]

altergnostic wrote:

> From the first time I set foot on this group, you acted like a
> jerk with utter disrespect for me, while I treated you with
> respect.

Prompted by your initial postings here, I took initiatives to find
your crank blog and read it with the help of google translate, to
find your history of crackpottery and expulsion from the web forum
physicsforums.com, and to investigate your blatant falsehoods about
having "expertise" in astrophysics. I can understand how stating
the obvious conclusions of those initiatives has led to you
considering me as a jerk, and to avoid direct responses. So be it.

This has almost nothing to do with respect, a term which when used
as you have done is generally a phony red herring, much as it is
traditionally used by convicts in prison.

> I choose not to talk to you at all, so you don't feel the same
> urge (again) as well.

I don't care if you read my responses to your posts or not.

> I hope I clarified any misunderstandings among us. Peace.

You haven't clarified anything, nor did you intend to do so.


---Tim Shuba---

[shuba]

altergnostic wrote:

> From the first time I set foot on this group, you acted like a
> jerk with utter disrespect for me, while I treated you with
> respect.

Prompted by your initial postings here, I took initiatives to find
your crank blog and read it with the help of google translate, to
find your history of crackpottery and expulsion from the web forum
physicsforums.com, and to investigate your blatant falsehoods about
having "expertise" in astrophysics. I can understand how stating
the obvious conclusions of those initiatives has led to you
considering me as a jerk, and to avoid direct responses. So be it.

This has almost nothing to do with respect, a term which when used
as you have done is generally a phony red herring, much as it is
traditionally used by convicts in prison.

> I choose not to talk to you at all, so you don't feel the same
> urge (again) as well.

I don't care if you read my responses to your posts or not.

> I hope I clarified any misunderstandings among us. Peace.

[shuba]

altergnostic wrote:

> From the first time I set foot on this group, you acted like a
> jerk with utter disrespect for me, while I treated you with
> respect.

Prompted by your initial postings here, I took initiatives to find
your crank blog and read it with the help of google translate, to
find your history of crackpottery and expulsion from the web forum
physicsforums.com, and to investigate your blatant falsehoods about
having "expertise" in astrophysics. I can understand how stating
the obvious conclusions of those initiatives has led to you
considering me as a jerk, and to avoid direct responses. So be it.

This has almost nothing to do with respect, a term which when used
as you have done is generally a phony red herring, much as it is
traditionally used by convicts in prison.

> I choose not to talk to you at all, so you don't feel the same
> urge (again) as well.

I don't care if you read my responses to your posts or not.

> I hope I clarified any misunderstandings among us. Peace.

[altergnostic]

Not in the above, and yes, his post was compelling, which is why I said I'd
be happy to discuss it if it was someone else's post, but from previous
experience, I rather not.

[altergnostic]

[altergnostic]

Absolutely Vertical <absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> but you might have done well to read his post carefully. there was a lot
> of physics content in it. furthermore i did not see any ad hominem
> attacks in any of the above.

[altergnostic]

shuba <t...@sh.uba> wrote:
> altergnostic wrote:
>
>> From the first time I set foot on this group, you acted like a
>> jerk with utter disrespect for me, while I treated you with
>> respect.
>
> Prompted by your initial postings here, I took initiatives to find
> your crank blog and read it with the help of google translate, to
> find your history of crackpottery and expulsion from the web forum
> physicsforums.com, and to investigate your blatant falsehoods about
> having "expertise" in astrophysics. I can understand how stating
> the obvious conclusions of those initiatives has led to you
> considering me as a jerk, and to avoid direct responses. So be it.

Prompted by my initial responses, you flat out offended me - slang style.
If you were simply pointing out my background, instead of addressing my
*questions* (since i have no theory of my own) it'd have been a different
story. You were a jerk, I wasn't.

>
> This has almost nothing to do with respect, a term which when used
> as you have done is generally a phony red herring, much as it is
> traditionally used by convicts in prison.

What term would you prefer? manners?

>
>> I choose not to talk to you at all, so you don't feel the same
>> urge (again) as well.
>
> I don't care if you read my responses to your posts or not.

So why do you respond?

>
>> I hope I clarified any misunderstandings among us. Peace.
>
> You haven't clarified anything, nor did you intend to do so.

I did, even if you still don't get it: you were a jerk, leave me alone.

>
>
> ---Tim Shuba---

[altergnostic]

Absolutely Vertical <absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> but you might have done well to read his post carefully. there was a lot
> of physics content in it. furthermore i did not see any ad hominem
> attacks in any of the above.

[space...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 9, 2013 11:46:52 AM UTC-7, Wade Jenkins wrote:
> I understood that planets, stars and galaxies are orbiting since they were
>
> formed, for whatever reason. However, the particles are in Spinning Mode
>
> since the beginning, be that the Big Bang.
>

Spinors and misused spin for fundamental point particles have no orientation.
To spin is to change radius with a constant speed...
Spin is only macro.

Mitchell Raemsch

[space...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 9:16:41 PM UTC-7, space...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 9, 2013 11:46:52 AM UTC-7, Wade Jenkins wrote:

Spin is rotation with changing radius...

[shuba]

altergnostic wrote:

> Prompted by my initial responses, you flat out offended me -

Boo hoo. You came into this unmoderated group already a *very*
committed relativity crank. It's your own responsibility how to
deal with responses about that. I've already suggested more than
once that the Natural Philosophy Alliance may be ideal for you.

>>> I choose not to talk to you at all, so you don't feel the same
>>> urge (again) as well.
>>
>> I don't care if you read my responses to your posts or not.
>
> So why do you respond?

Various reasons. This newsgroup isn't a one-on-one communications
method and others will see it. You are one of the most interesting
and entertaining of the currently active cranks, and I may just
enjoy responding to your never-ending stream of crankery at times.
I have more reasons as well, but the bottom line is that no one
here is able to dictate how anyone else posts.


---Tim Shuba---

[Tom Roberts]

On 5/14/13 5/14/13 - 1:45 PM, Poutnik wrote:
> Is there any acceptable non-QFT-formalism interpretation
> of this electron field ?

This depends on your theoretical context, and what level of approximation you
are comfortable with.

In QED, the electron field is a spin-1/2 Fermion field that couples to the Em
field (aka photons).

In the standard model, the electron field is also a spin-1/2 Fermion field, but
it has couplings to all of the boson fields.

When designing the deflection coils of a CRT, one can neglect all of that and
treat electrons as very tiny charged billiard balls (possibly relativistic ones).

When designing a modern synchrotron light source, one cannot neglect the QED
aspects of the electron.

When designing or analyzing an experiment at a high-energy e+e- collider, one
cannot ignore the standard model aspects of the electron. Though one should
certainly consider effects beyond the standard model....


Tom Roberts

[Elmer Wright]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> When designing or analyzing an experiment at a high-energy e+e-
> collider,
> one cannot ignore the standard model aspects of the electron. Though one
> should certainly consider effects beyond the standard model....

Not understand. Electrons are too small to meet and collide into each
other, the same must be true for their counterpart, the positrons. How
much electrons and positron is needed in order to generate a collision?

[shuba]

shuba wrote:

> I've already suggested more than
> once that the Natural Philosophy Alliance may be ideal for you.

I forgot to mention something. If you hurry, you can probably
submit a paper in time to be published, maybe the crank nonsense
from the "alter's light clock" thread would be a good choice.

http://www.worldnpa.org/site/2013/04/npa-20-call-for-papers/

The deadline for abstracts has passed, but I'd suspect that can be
worked around, especially if you are able to submit a first draft
posthaste. You could be a bona fide *published* crank this year!


---Tim Shuba---

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/15/2013 1:49 PM, Elmer Wright wrote:

> Not understand. Electrons are too small to meet and collide into each
> other, the same must be true for their counterpart, the positrons. How
> much electrons and positron is needed in order to generate a collision?
>

beijing electron positron collider, china:
http://www.ihep.ac.cn/english/E-Bepc/

cern large electron positron collider, switzerland:
http://home.web.cern.ch/about/accelerators/large-electron-positron-collider

frascati ada electron positron collider, italy:
http://www.luisabonolis.it/Bruno_Touschek_files/AdACarloPIP.pdf

kek electron positron collider, japan:
http://legacy.kek.jp/intra-e/research/collider.html

cornell cesr electron positron collider, usa:
https://www.lepp.cornell.edu/Research/AP/CESR/

stanford spear electron positron collider, usa:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/gen/grad/GradHandbook/slac.html

stanford pep electron positron collider, usa:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/gen/grad/GradHandbook/slac.html

stanford slc electron positron collider, usa:
http://www-sldnt.slac.stanford.edu/alr/slc.htm

frascati daphne electron positron collider, usa:
http://www.lnf.infn.it/acceleratori/

novosobirsk vepp electron positron collider, russia:
http://www.inp.nsk.su/activity/old/vepp2m/

desy doris electron positron collider, germany:
http://doris.desy.de/history/index_eng.html

desy petra electron positron collider, germany:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DESY

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/15/2013 12:15 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 5/14/13 5/14/13 - 1:45 PM, Poutnik wrote:
>> Is there any acceptable non-QFT-formalism interpretation
>> of this electron field ?
>
> This depends on your theoretical context, and what level of
> approximation you are comfortable with.
>
> In QED, the electron field is a spin-1/2 Fermion field that couples to
> the Em field (aka photons).
>
> In the standard model, the electron field is also a spin-1/2 Fermion
> field, but it has couplings to all of the boson fields.

whoops. not gluons.

>
> When designing the deflection coils of a CRT, one can neglect all of
> that and treat electrons as very tiny charged billiard balls (possibly
> relativistic ones).

for the purposes of tunneling diodes and simple ccd's, you can treat
them as schrodinger eigenstates too, pretty much. any application where
the pauli exclusion principle is not critical, you don't even need the
dirac equation.

[Elmer Wright]

Absolutely Vertical wrote:

>> Not understand. Electrons are too small to meet and collide into each
>> other, the same must be true for their counterpart, the positrons. How
>> much electrons and positron is needed in order to generate a collision?
>>
>>
> beijing electron positron collider, china:
> http://www.ihep.ac.cn/english/E-Bepc/

Thanks, but those links does not answer the question, which is about how
much and how come. Give a direct link if you have any,

[Absolutely Vertical]

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2012/reviews/rpp2012-rev-accel-phys-colliders.pdf

shows the calculations for designing luminosity specs.

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2012/reviews/rpp2012-rev-hep-collider-params.pdf

shows the results of the calculations, the design parameters.

[Tom Roberts]

On 5/15/13 5/15/13 4:12 PM, Absolutely Vertical wrote:
> On 5/15/2013 12:15 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> In the standard model, the electron field is also a spin-1/2 Fermion
>> field, but it has couplings to all of the boson fields.
>
> whoops. not gluons.

Yes. My error.


Tom Roberts

[space...@gmail.com]

How can spin be in halves?
Does the electron spin half way?
And does it change radius while rotating in order to really spin?

Mitchell Raemsch

[Poutnik]

space...@gmail.com posted Wed, 15 May 2013 20:24:37 -0700 (PDT)

> How can spin be in halves?

Same as can be a half of a metre.

> Does the electron spin half way?
> And does it change radius while rotating in order to really spin?

No. Electron spin is not what you mean.


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Tom Roberts posted Wed, 15 May 2013 12:15:20 -0500

>
> On 5/14/13 5/14/13 - 1:45 PM, Poutnik wrote:
> > Is there any acceptable non-QFT-formalism interpretation
> > of this electron field ?
>
> This depends on your theoretical context, and what level of approximation you
> are comfortable with.
>
> In QED, the electron field is a spin-1/2 Fermion field that couples to the Em
> field (aka photons).
>
> In the standard model, the electron field is also a spin-1/2 Fermion field, but
> it has couplings to all of the boson fields.

I am not sure what to imagine under coupling.
A kind of interaction of fields ?

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

space...@gmail.com posted Tue, 14 May 2013 21:16:41 -0700 (PDT)

>
> Spinors and misused spin for fundamental point particles have no orientation.
> To spin is to change radius with a constant speed...
> Spin is only macro.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch
>

Even in macro, objects with constant radius can spin.
For micro, you have to realize what is meant by spin there.

--
Poutnik

[Tom Roberts]

On 5/15/13 5/15/13 - 10:24 PM, space...@gmail.com wrote:
> How can spin be in halves?

That's not really the right question. Instead you should ask: why is spin
quantized at all? (i.e. the spins of particles are related to each other via
INTEGERS). After all, classically an object can spin with any (real) value of
angular momentum.

It turns out this has a VERY interesting answer, and is directly related to the
misconceptions of all too many people around here.

The spins of particles are related to the irreducible representations of the
Lorentz group -- yes, the same group that is the basis of SR. These
representations are naturally quantized.

As I keep saying that in 4-d a Lorentz transform (aka
"boost") is just a rotation in a space-time plane. Ordinary
rotations are in a space-space plane. The set of all such
rotations forms the Lorentz group (rotations in (3+1)-d).

This is solidly established experimentally, and is another reason why people
knowledgeable about physics simply KNOW that SR is valid. The people around here
that doubt the validity of SR are simply clueless, and have no understanding of
the issues.

> Does the electron spin half way?

Not in any sensible or useful sense. It has a spin angular momentum of 1/2 * h-bar.

> And does it change radius while rotating in order to really spin?

An electron has no measurable radius.


Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 5/16/13 5/16/13 - 1:36 AM, Poutnik wrote:
> I am not sure what to imagine under coupling.
> A kind of interaction of fields ?

Yes, that is precisely what coupling between fields means: an interaction
between them. Fields that are not coupled do not interact.

The Lagrangian is a sum of terms, each of which is the product of a coupling
constant and amplitudes for each of the fields this term is coupling; the value
of the constant indicates how strong the interaction (coupling) is.

In a Feynman diagram, such a term is a vertex (each term in the Lagrangian
corresponds to a vertex that can appear in the diagrams).

Perturbation theory works for QED, because the coupling constant is ~1/137, and
diagrams involving more vertexes raise it to higher and higher powers, making
smaller and smaller contributions. Perturbation theory does not work for QCD at
low energies (e.g. in nuclei), because the coupling constant is > 1. So in QED
one can examine only the topologically simple diagrams, while in QCD one must
take an entirely different approach.


Tom Roberts

[Koobee Wublee]

On May 16, 10:17 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

> The spins of particles are related to the irreducible
> representations of the Lorentz group

Excuse Me. Koobee Wublee smells bullshit. <shrug>

> -- yes, the same group that is the basis of SR.

OK, bullshit is definitely coming whenever an opportunity arrives that
can be pinned on SR. See the connection? Why does the sun rise and
set every day? Because God makes it so. <shrug> Why intrinsic
spin? Because of SR. <shrug>

> These representations are naturally quantized.

How? <shrug>

> As I keep saying that in 4-d a Lorentz transform (aka
> "boost") is just a rotation in a space-time plane. Ordinary
> rotations are in a space-space plane. The set of all such
> rotations forms the Lorentz group (rotations in (3+1)-d).

How does the gamma factor attribute to this quantization? <shrug>

> This is solidly established experimentally,

Bullshit! <shrug>

> and is another reason why people
> knowledgeable about physics simply KNOW that SR is valid.

Yes, people who are knowledgeable know a certain God exists. <shrug>

> The people around here
> that doubt the validity of SR are simply clueless, and have no understanding of
> the issues.

Has it ever occur to Tom that these scholars are less likely to be
mystified like the self-styled physicists? <shrug>

This episode of discussion gives great support to the Orwellian
philosophy indoctrinated in all self-styled physicists:

** FAITH IS LOGIC
** LYING IS TEACHING
** DECEIT IS VALIDATION
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** FICTION IS THEORY
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** WORSHIP IS STUDY
** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
** ARROGANCE IS SAGE
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** SCRIPTURE IS AXIOM
** CONSPIRACY IS PEER
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** HANDWAVING IS REASONING
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE
** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
** CONTRADICTION IS INMATERIAL
** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY
** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION

<shrug>

[altergnostic]

Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> space...@gmail.com posted Wed, 15 May 2013 20:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
>
>> How can spin be in halves?
>
> Same as can be a half of a metre.

Nonsense. Spin (about a central axis) is either clockwise or counter
clockwise, it can't be half clockwise.
Half a meter is still a length, it isn't half length (it isn't going in the
"half" positive x direction). N meters is much like a delta or a magnitude
or a dimension. With spin, a magnitude can be applied to velocity, you
could a rate of spin as well, but that's not what the spin number applies
to at all.
Your comparison with meters is way off. Putting it this way implies that
spin applies to a quantity, but it applies to a property. It isn't like a
spin of 1 is a 360 spin and 1/2 is 180.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/16/2013 1:00 PM, altergnostic wrote:
> Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> space...@gmail.com posted Wed, 15 May 2013 20:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
>>
>>> How can spin be in halves?
>>
>> Same as can be a half of a metre.
>
> Nonsense. Spin (about a central axis) is either clockwise or counter
> clockwise, it can't be half clockwise.
> Half a meter is still a length, it isn't half length (it isn't going in the
> "half" positive x direction). N meters is much like a delta or a magnitude
> or a dimension. With spin, a magnitude can be applied to velocity, you
> could a rate of spin as well, but that's not what the spin number applies
> to at all.
> Your comparison with meters is way off. Putting it this way implies that
> spin applies to a quantity, but it applies to a property. It isn't like a
> spin of 1 is a 360 spin and 1/2 is 180.
>

quantum mechanical spin has nothing whatsoever to do with rotation about
an axis.

[altergnostic]

shuba <t...@sh.uba> wrote:
> altergnostic wrote:
>
>> Prompted by my initial responses, you flat out offended me -
>
> Boo hoo. You came into this unmoderated group already a *very*
> committed relativity crank. It's your own responsibility how to
> deal with responses about that. I've already suggested more than
> once that the Natural Philosophy Alliance may be ideal for you.

That shows how much you don't about me. You took an abandoned blog that no
longer expresses my opinions, and decided that was a good way to judge me.
Then you went to physics forums and saw that I was banned, which raised
another eyebrow, but you don't care about the reason I was banned - it was
a QUESTION that I still DON'T KNOW the answer to, but someone felt I was
trying to sell some preexisting idea I had - which is not the case, and
fortunately I was able to continue the discussion via email and with a
teacher from EMA (Astrophysics School of Sao Paulo), where I attended a few
courses.
You chose to label me a crank even though I have no theory NOR am an
anti-relativist, although bits of it bother me.

>
>>>> I choose not to talk to you at all, so you don't feel the same
>>>> urge (again) as well.
>>>
>>> I don't care if you read my responses to your posts or not.
>>
>> So why do you respond?
>
> Various reasons. This newsgroup isn't a one-on-one communications
> method and others will see it. You are one of the most interesting
> and entertaining of the currently active cranks, and I may just
> enjoy responding to your never-ending stream of crankery at times.

Thanks for the compliment.

> I have more reasons as well, but the bottom line is that no one
> here is able to dictate how anyone else posts.
>

Nor I intend to.
If you regard me as a crank or not, doesn't bother me at all, since I'm
sure I am neither a crank nor a physicist in any important sense, I'm just
a curious person. But i like to be treated with the same respect as i treat
people, even if i disagree with them. I don't see the point in doing
otherwise unless you've been personally attacked, which you know you
weren't.

True, this is an unmoderated group, but that is no excuse for the lack of
manners and common courtesy if it isn't called for.
In any case, if i had offended you, i'd apologize (as i did for androcles
in my first days around here). You may choose to keep the attitude, you are
free to be a jerk if you want to. I think it is a shame, since you do post
stuff that is interesting and i usually prefer to discuss with educated
physicists, since i'm not here to promote my personal views, but to raise
and settle doubts and maybe learn something new and check if my opinions
are based on an incorrect interpretation of some theory.

You see, it is actually possible to disagree and still keep things civil.
Personal offenses are justified when they are justified, but since they
weren't, it just shows the kind of person you are. And instead of having
the humility to acknowledge you went too far and offended me for no reason,
you proudly blab about how this is an unmoderated newsgroup and that you
are free to be a jerk as much as you like. If this is truly how you feel,
we really have nothing to talk about, physics or otherwise.

>
> ---Tim Shuba---

[altergnostic]

shuba <t...@sh.uba> wrote:
> shuba wrote:
>
>> I've already suggested more than
>> once that the Natural Philosophy Alliance may be ideal for you.
>
> I forgot to mention something. If you hurry, you can probably
> submit a paper in time to be published, maybe the crank nonsense
> from the "alter's light clock" thread would be a good choice.

It would, wouldn't it?
And it's amazing how proposing another solution to the lightclock diagrams
is a sign of my lunacy to you, although the analysis does not falsify or
invalidate the LT or the constancy of the speed of light (as it is applied
in the original SR transforms).

Funny that nobody has found a single mistake in my analysis so far. Do you?

[Poutnik]

altergnostic posted Thu, 16 May 2013 18:00:50 +0000 (UTC)

>
> Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > space...@gmail.com posted Wed, 15 May 2013 20:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >> How can spin be in halves?
> >
> > Same as can be a half of a metre.
>
> Nonsense. Spin (about a central axis) is either clockwise or counter
> clockwise, it can't be half clockwise.

No, spin is not clockwise nor counter clockwise.
One of vector componenent of spin angular momentum
is oriented in one or the opposite direction
along the axis of interest.

You are right is cannot be half clockwise.

> Half a meter is still a length, it isn't half length (it isn't going in the
> "half" positive x direction). N meters is much like a delta or a magnitude
> or a dimension. With spin, a magnitude can be applied to velocity, you
> could a rate of spin as well, but that's not what the spin number applies
> to at all.

As Tom already noted, spin 1/2 means 1/2 time h-bar,
what is the vector component of the norm h-bar * sqrt[(s(s+1)]

> Your comparison with meters is way off. Putting it this way implies that
> spin applies to a quantity, but it applies to a property. It isn't like a
> spin of 1 is a 360 spin and 1/2 is 180.

All I wanted to illustrate by a meter was,
that 1/2 is not any magical number,
but a relative value wrt some quantity.


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Absolutely Vertical posted Thu, 16 May 2013 13:11:05 -0500

>
> quantum mechanical spin has nothing whatsoever to do with rotation about
> an axis.

Well, almost nothing....


--
Poutnik