Why against Stern-Gerlach experiment photons are said to be spin 1?
Jarek Duda
inhomogeneous magnetic field their trajectories are modified
accordingly to alignment of its spin axis (Stern-Gerlach experiment).
But as I know, photon's trajectories aren't changed in strong magnetic
fields, what suggests that they should be spin 0...
So I wanted to ask why in 'common knowledge' photons are said to be
spin 1 particles?
I've asked this question a few times in different discussions, like to
Uncle Al
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4c9918f700d3f207/d06e44263601ee9a?lnk=raot
and I didn't get any concrete argument. Attraction/repellence can be
transferred even by waves in water.
The only reasonable argument I know is that while for example electron
deexcitation, spin is changed by one, so spin conservation says that
photon has to carry spin 1...
But let's look at it - electron e.g changes from spin up to spin
down.
Giving photon spin 1 makes that this change is kind of transformation
happening in one line (its spin axis).
But there is also much simpler explanation: that this electron is just
rotated 180 deg - in this case photon doesn't have to carry spin, but
angular momentum, what can be done much simpler - even waves in water
can do it on short range...
???
eric gisse
> Spin corresponds to magnetic dipole moment of particle, so in
> inhomogeneous magnetic field their trajectories are modified
> accordingly to alignment of its spin axis (Stern-Gerlach experiment).
> But as I know, photon's trajectories aren't changed in strong magnetic
> fields, what suggests that they should be spin 0...
The photons aren't the things that are being changed. Go read your modern
physics textbook again.
>
> So I wanted to ask why in 'common knowledge' photons are said to be
> spin 1 particles?
It is explained in particle and quantum physics textbooks.
[snip rest, unread]
Uncle Al
>
> Spin corresponds to magnetic dipole moment of particle,
The aluminum-27 nucleus, 100% natural abundance, has spin 3+. How is
that a dipole moment?
The scandium-45 nucleus, 100% natural abundance, has spin 7/2-. How
is that a dipole moment?
idiot
> so in
> inhomogeneous magnetic field their trajectories are modified
> accordingly to alignment of its spin axis (Stern-Gerlach experiment).
> But as I know, photon's trajectories aren't changed in strong magnetic
> fields, what suggests that they should be spin 0...
Spin-1, jackass, with no dipole anything. Look it up.
> So I wanted to ask why in 'common knowledge' photons are said to be
> spin 1 particles?
>
> I've asked this question a few times in different discussions, like to
> Uncle Al
[snip rest of crap]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_polarization
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Jarek Duda
- I have no problem with their nonzero spin.
As You have said on the linked thread "Photons are inert to electric
and magnetic fields in vacuum to at lest 10^9 gauss, lab on a small
scale (particle accelerators' magnetic and electric detectors) and by
observation of pulsars. "
How to cope it with nonzero spin?
eric gisse - if it's so obvious, please give me one good argument.
Jarek Duda
magnetic structure:
Look at quantum rotation operator for particle with spin - while using
it to make full rotation around spin axis, the phase rotates 'spin'
times - that means on loops around this axis the phase makes rotation.
Quantum mechanical formulation of electromagnetism says that phase
change along path is proportional to integral of electromagnetic four-
potential along this path - so while making loop around this axis - we
see that there is magnetic flux going through it.
Nonzero spin particle's trajectory should be influenced by
inhomogeneous magnetic field accordingly to alignment of this magnetic
flux going trough the particle.
eric gisse
Polarization, and degrees of freedom in general. The number of modes
corresponds to the spin of the particle.
Jarek Duda
made by just rotating it 180 deg - what photon has to do is just to
transmit angular momentum ... imagine lefthanded or righthanded swirl
behind marine propeller ...
Robert Higgins
Spin "up" to spin "down" is usually strongly forbidden, so it has a
low probabliilty of occurance. Typically molar absorptivities for such
a process are 0.01 to 1.
BTW, photons DO transmit angular momentum. There are two types, spin
and orbital, each with different quantum numbers, depending on whether
they are fermion like electrons (halfpin integral spins) or bosons
like photons (integral spins). A simple and important process is the
absorption of a photon (spin=1) to an atom, causing an increase in
orbital angular momentum of 1. The photon is destroyed in the process,
and angular momentum (so long as you realize that spin and orbital
angular momenta can be interconverted) is conserved. These phenomena
are VERY well understood. More complicated processes involve the
coupling of spin and angular momenta.
Robert Higgins
I should have added in my earlier post, that the idea of a spin being
"up" or "down" is a gross simplification. For simplicity, we often
consider just the z-component of the spin angular momentum (Sx), and
the total spin (S^2) agnular momentum, since they commute. By the HUP,
Sx, Sy, and Sz don't commute unless they are all identically 0.
Michael Moroney
eric gisse
No.
Quantum spin does not mean there's a little tiny object rotating.
Jarek Duda
wrote:
> Spin "up" to spin "down" is usually strongly forbidden, so it has a
> low probabliilty of occurance. Typically molar absorptivities for such
> a process are 0.01 to 1.
Situation in excited atom is that there is unpaired electron on some
lower orbital and usually coupled (spin up-spin down) electron on some
higher orbital which will deexcitate - change its spin into opposite
one and drop to the lower orbital.
The question probably is - why it would want to rotate exactly 180
deg?
To answer it question we have first to look at a particle with spin -
quantum phase rotates around its spin axis - what looking at change of
quantum phase in electromagnetic potential makes that there is
magnetic flux going on this axis.
Now fig. 7 in http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.2724 answers why electron
wants to rotate exactly 180deg.
> Violates conservation of angular momentum.
Why?
Take a piece of wood into water and turn it let say 180deg - water
will create waves of corresponding angular momentum and then of
opposite one.
If there would be no viscosity, these waves should go in one line -
kind of travelling twist-like wave.
Robert Higgins
> On Nov 18, 9:05 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:> Spin "up" to spin "down" is usually strongly forbidden, so it has a
> > low probabliilty of occurance. Typically molar absorptivities for such
> > a process are 0.01 to 1.
>
> I have to admit that I don't understand what do You mean.
Take hydrogen with one "up" (ms=1/2) electron in a 1s orbital. Excite
it with a photon to a 2p orbital (Why won't go to 2s?) so that it is
now "down" (ms= -1/2). What is the probability of this occuring? If
you do understand the spin-selection rule, you are not quite in a
position to edit QM. Suppose you change hydrogen to U(+91). Why is the
probability of the same transition much higher?
> Situation in excited atom is that there is unpaired electron on some
> lower orbital and usually coupled (spin up-spin down) electron on some
> higher orbital which will deexcitate - change its spin into opposite
> one and drop to the lower orbital.
Change of spin, whether going up or down, is strongly forbidden.
> The question probably is - why it would want to rotate exactly 180
> deg?
No, the question is "why haven't you learned about selection rules?
> To answer it question we have first to look at a particle with spin -
> quantum phase rotates around its spin axis - what looking at change of
> quantum phase in electromagnetic potential makes that there is
> magnetic flux going on this axis.
> Now fig. 7 inhttp://arxiv.org/abs/0910.2724answers why electron
> wants to rotate exactly 180deg.
>
> > Violates conservation of angular momentum.
I didn't write this. Why do you quote it as if I did?
Y.Porat
wrote:
----------------
well understood ????!!!
little crook like you !!
you are far from 'well understood "!!
because you know a fuck
about
matter structure !!
1
the electron is not a point particle
it is sub built my sub particles
and has a geometric structure
my suggetion is that the electron
as well as all matter
is built as a chain of orbitals
but all of them are 2 dientional
while the dominant aprts of it
are on NONE PLAN!
one plan can can rotate 180 deg
left' of right'
and thatis the spin 1 (
chosen as arbitrary definition )
OTOH
more complicated particles
like Atoms
**are composed in a way that their electrons are not only on one plan
but located on many plans
(say for instance
if you have a matter structure that has the longital axis Z)
the other plans (that include the
other planar electrons on the more complicated structures )
are on the
X Y plans in different directions
now the point is that those XY plans
are not in infinite directions!!
it has a 'quantum character'
ie
only some discrete directions !!
thatom and nuc are not some porrge of particles
that are rushing a bioling' indefinitely
*each subaprticle hasits exact uequivocal
location and ADDRESS
EACH ATOM INCLUDING ITS ELECTRONS ARE NOT RUSHING
RANDOMLY THEY ARE MORE STATIC'
THAN BELIEVED BY THE COMMON THEORY (including the HUP that tells us
that we cant know a definite location
of any subparticles
it is much less a' boiling porridhe' as beleived)
so our strutures are much more settled
in their locations and directions
now definite locations and directions
ARE THE SECRETE OF THE QUANTUM STRUCTURE OF MATTER !!
not any location
AND NOT ANY DIRECTIONS IS POSSIBLE OF EXISTENT !!
somy suggetion is that
the many (but not too many !!)
spin definitions are associated with
definite possible directions of thelecrons
on the structure
so
if a particle can do just say 4 changes
in directions around the Z ' axis
it has the spin 4/2
if it can do only 2 changes in directions
along the Z axis - it has the he spin
2 /2 ie --- 1
if it has 14 DEGREES OF FREEDOM OF ANGLE CHANGES AROUND ONE OF ITS
AXIS
it has the 'spin' 7/2
BTW
in my book(copyrighted 1993)
i started to deal with that
issue at my appendix and i found there
the folowing unprecedented rule:
ISOTOPES WITH ODD NUMBER OF NEUTRONS ON THEIR POLES --
ARE involved with greater number amount
of angular momentum!!!!
(you can see what are 'deutrons on the poles ''--
even in the abstract of my book
that i published on the net for many years
copyright for that suggestion 19-11-2009
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------
etc etc
etc etc
Jarek Duda
quantum phase for particle with nonzero spin - it makes rotation
around spin axis - electromagnetically it denotes that there is
magnetic flux going through loops around this axis.
Particles with nonzero spin has magnetic flux going through it!
It is proportional to the spin.
They don't need charge for that - it's what spin is about.
How photon with twice stronger magnetic flux going through it than for
electron could be unaffected by strong (inhomogeneous) magnetic
field????
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
And what testable predictions does your theory make that differers from
conventional physics?
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
eric gisse
[...]
> 1
> the electron is not a point particle
> it is sub built my sub particles
> and has a geometric structure
Let us remember that the person who wrote this statement has no education in
physics, does not do any experiments to test his ideas, does not read the
literature to see if his ideas are valid, or even considers viewpoints that
do not kiss his ass.
[...]
Y.Porat
wrote:
-------------------
i told you in a BTW remerk:
isotopes that have and even number of deutrons
on their poles are invilved in
high number of angular momentum
now you will ask
how can i find those isotopes ??
with that uneven deutrons on their edges??
for that you need to have my book...
and know bases on it - how to build even other isotope structre
of isiotopes that are not described there...
now again my main ponts above:
the spin and angular properties of particles
are a direct result of the 2D and 3D
unequivocal and steady structure of those particles
another btw remark
allthat CANNOT BE DONE BY SPHERIC
STRUCTURES !!
because a sphere has not 'biased directions'
it has infinite number of directions
therefor a sphser is 'faceless' !
while the real particles have definite 'faces'
not infinite 'faces ''
(left right up down etc etc
and that is the base for its 'quantum character '
2
spin or angular momentum are not
the spin as that of say a gyroscope
it is just a rotation of A PART OF A CIRCLE'
and the the particle is locked by the
field force lines ---that in that locked position
cannot add more 'rotation change' to the specific particle
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------------
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
All that sounds insane pseudoscience.
Y.Porat
----------------------
Gisse shaisse
we had an agreement that you will not bother me
and i will not bother you
if you like to breach it you will have it
little fucker psychopat moron
that thinks that his idiotic parroting
at the age of 25
is knowing physics good enough to teach
every body here physics
not to speak about pioneering physics
a little fucker psychpath like you
never innovated ***anything**
and will not as well do it - in his life except
HIS MUG IN FACE-BOOK..
so little fucker New Napoleon psychopath
go fuck yourself with your boy fried
in case youi will never marry a women
with a mug and' personality' you have
Y.P
-------------------------
Y.Porat
wrote:
the sun rises at the east !!!!
and acid is not good for the teeth !!
how are my innovations in that post ??? (:-)
Moroney seems to be a momentous physicist
(:-)
he is not a moron.NEY. he can parrot anything
you like
provided he didnt steal it from others .....
Y.P
-----------------------
Y.Porat
----------------
so we know what it is not
now a little monkey FACE like you
knows (after all his 'vast education'!!)
WHAT IT IS ???!!!
AND HOW AND WHY IT IS -AS IT IS ??
beside old parroting ??
Y.Porat
-------------------------
Aleph
bccd2a...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, y.y....@gmail.com says...
>
> On Nov 19, 7:38ï¿œam, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Y.Porat wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > 1
> > > the electron is not a point particle
> > > it is sub built my sub particles
> > > and has a geometric structure
> >
> > Let us remember that the person who wrote this statement has no education in
> > physics, does not do any experiments to test his ideas, does not read the
> > literature to see if his ideas are valid, or even considers viewpoints that
> > do not kiss his ass.
> >
> > [...]
>
> ----------------------
> Gisse shaisse
> we had an agreement that you will not bother me
> and i will not bother you
> if you like to breach it you will have it
Is this some sort of vague threat?
The best you can do is post your boilerplate attempt at an insult.
> little fucker psychopat moron
> that thinks that his idiotic parroting
> at the age of 25
> is knowing physics good enough to teach
> every body here physics
Would you like some cheese with that whine?
Your ad hominem does not support your argument.
> not to speak about pioneering physics
Ha haha hahaha...
"pioneering"
Hahahahaha
I think I pee'd my pants a little there.
> a little fucker psychpath like you
> never innovated ***anything**
> and will not as well do it - in his life except
> HIS MUG IN FACE-BOOK..
Owe Noes a facebook lame. How can any one come back on that....
Obviously no one who *really* understands fizzics would get a facebook
page.
> so little fucker New Napoleon psychopath
> go fuck yourself with your boy fried
> in case youi will never marry a women
> with a mug and' personality' you have
Owe Noes 2 - a eebil gayz lame.
You are a pathetic, homophobic, retarded idiot with less than no idea
what you are talking about. Most of the time you are so wrong it becomes
comical that you can even think you are talking the same subject. You
are so wrong, it is impossible to work out where to begin to correct
you.
Simply put you are one gigantic bucket of phail.
Y.Porat
----------------
Ok if so
just go on with your nonpseudo science
and with your Higgs Bosons
to the rest of your life !!
ps
you talk about
'sounds like'
you sound like a little parrot
that is too old to learn something new
Y.P
Y.Porat
> In article <59419b51-bad4-4719-8bae-
> bccd2afc0...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, y.y.po...@gmail.com says...
------------------
speak physics arguments
nasty gangster
you never in your life spoke a **single word **of
sci argument
2
Mr Varney
why dont you come up with your real name !!
a fals name is the **first sign * of a
professional gangster crook !!
who is the idiot that is wasting his money paying you ??
Y.P
---------------------------------
fo rthat ??
Robert Higgins
Most of what you are writing is such nonsense I can't even guess what
you're alluding to. Somewhere in there I think I can make out a
reference to spin-orbit coupling, but that's probably because I know
what I'm talking about and you don't, and I'm trying really hard to
imagine you actually know something..
Robert Higgins
> On Nov 18, 10:05 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 18, 1:46 pm, Jarek Duda <duda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > As I've written - changing electron's spin up to spin down can be also
> > > made by just rotating it 180 deg - what photon has to do is just to
> > > transmit angular momentum ... imagine lefthanded or righthanded swirl
> > > behind marine propeller ...
>
> > Spin "up" to spin "down" is usually strongly forbidden, so it has a
> > low probabliilty of occurance. Typically molar absorptivities for such
> > a process are 0.01 to 1.
>
> > BTW, photons DO transmit angular momentum. There are two types, spin
> > and orbital, each with different quantum numbers, depending on whether
> > they are fermion like electrons (halfpin integral spins) or bosons
> > like photons (integral spins). A simple and important process is the
> > absorption of a photon (spin=1) to an atom, causing an increase in
> > orbital angular momentum of 1. The photon is destroyed in the process,
> > and angular momentum (so long as you realize that spin and orbital
> > angular momenta can be interconverted) is conserved. These phenomena
> > are VERY well understood. More complicated processes involve the
> > coupling of spin and angular momenta.
>
> ----------------
> well understood ????!!!
Obviously, not by you....
>
> little crook like you !!
> you are far from 'well understood "!!
> because you know a fuck
> about
> matter structure !!
Go fuck yourself, nitwit. While you're at it, up your dosage
considerably.
>
> 1
> the electron is not a point particle
> it is sub built my sub particles
> and has a geometric structure
>
> my suggetion
is the rambling of a senile old fool.
> is that the electron
> as well as all matter
> is built as a chain of orbitals
"That's the sound of the men/
Working on the chain gang."
> but all of them are 2 dientional
> while the dominant aprts of it
> are on NONE PLAN!
Is that like the 20 meal plan?
> one plan can can rotate 180 deg
> left' of right'
> and thatis the spin 1 (
> chosen as arbitrary definition )
>
> OTOH
> more complicated particles
> like Atoms
> **are composed in a way that their electrons are not only on one plan
> but located on many plans
> (say for instance
> if you have a matter structure that has the longital axis Z)
How is the symmetry you propose consistent with the properties seen?
Oh, I forgot - you don't know anything about group theory, either.
>
> the other plans (that include the
> other planar electrons on the more complicated structures )
> are on the
> X Y plans in different directions
> now the point is that those XY plans
> are not in infinite directions!!
>
> it has a 'quantum character'
> ie
> only some discrete directions !!
But I've heard that electrons are INDISCRETE. They let everyone know
when they are fooling around with the boss's wife.
> thatom and nuc are not some porrge of particles
> that are rushing a bioling' indefinitely
Winny the Pooh likes porridge. Or is that honey? I get confused.
>
> *each subaprticle hasits exact uequivocal
> location and ADDRESS
427 Main Street.
> EACH ATOM INCLUDING ITS ELECTRONS ARE NOT RUSHING
They are passing - West Coast Offense.
> RANDOMLY THEY ARE MORE STATIC'
> THAN BELIEVED BY THE COMMON THEORY (including the HUP that tells us
> that we cant know a definite location
> of any subparticles
> it is much less a' boiling porridhe' as beleived)
What is this, "Oliver!"?
"Please sir, can I have so more"? "MORE? MORE!"
>
> so our strutures are much more settled
> in their locations and directions
> now definite locations and directions
> ARE THE SECRETE OF THE QUANTUM STRUCTURE OF MATTER !!
> not any location
> AND NOT ANY DIRECTIONS IS POSSIBLE OF EXISTENT !!
> somy suggetion is that
> the many (but not too many !!)
> spin definitions are associated with
> definite possible directions of thelecrons
> on the structure
> so
> if a particle can do just say 4 changes
> in directions around the Z ' axis
> it has the spin 4/2
>
> if it can do only 2 changes in directions
> along the Z axis - it has the he spin
> 2 /2 ie --- 1
> if it has 14 DEGREES OF FREEDOM OF ANGLE CHANGES AROUND ONE OF ITS
> AXIS
> it has the 'spin' 7/2
WTF?
>
> BTW
> in my book(copyrighted 1993)
So you haven't learned anything in 15 years. Good grief.
> i started to deal with that
> issue at my appendix
but then you got appendicitis, and need an appendectomy.
> and i found there
> the folowing unprecedented rule:
"The ruler of a nation can't be 12 inches tall, since then he would be
a foot."
(Don't think this works in metric :-)
>
> ISOTOPES WITH ODD NUMBER OF NEUTRONS ON THEIR POLES
"on their Poles" - is that like the Indy 500?
--
> ARE involved with greater number amount
> of angular momentum!!!!
> (you can see what are 'deutrons on the poles ''--
> even in the abstract of my book
> that i published on the net for many years
>
> copyright for that suggestion 19-11-2009
Who cares about a "copyright" for insane ramblings?
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ----------------
>
> etc etc
> etc etc
etc.
_...@jeff_relf.seattle.invalid
With one breath, you ( Mr. Aleph, a.k.a. T.Wake ? )
imply that I masturbate to Eric Gisse's photo, see:
http://Google.COM/groups?selm=MPG.256e9110446bc3ca98968c%40news.virginmedia.com
In the next breath you ·LAME· ( Shock ! ) Y.Porat with:
“ Owe Noes 2 - a eebil gayz lame. ”.
Apparently, in your little dream world,
your “gay·laming” is OK while Y.Porat's isn't.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Show me how your theory calculates the value of the half life of
unstable isotopes from first principles and I'll take more notice.
Aleph
@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, y.y....@gmail.com says...
> ------------------
> speak physics arguments
So you trying some pathetic combination of an ad hominem, an appeal to
ridcule and a homo homophobic lame is a "physics argument."
You are a retard.
I realise you are senile, so I dont mind repeating myself a few more
times.
For years I made the mistake of trying to correct your phyics and all
you did was descend into babbling, frothing, insults.
Why the fuck should I either demean science by allowing you to think you
are talking about it *or* do anything you demand.
Your crap is as close to physics as jello is to the moon rocket.
> nasty gangster
> you never in your life spoke a **single word **of
> sci argument
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
> 2
> Mr Varney
> why dont you come up with your real name !!
Why dont you? Everyone knows your real name is Herbert Assplucker. Stop
pretending you are called Wiley Poohrat.
> a fals name is the **first sign * of a
> professional gangster crook !!
Lies and nonsense. Prove your name is real.
> who is the idiot that is wasting his money paying you ??
You are.
> Y.P
> ---------------------------------
> fo rthat ??
For what?
Aleph
_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid says...
>
I am impressed Jeff. I hadn't thought it was possible, but you are
infact even more clueless.
Bravo Sir!
> With one breath, you ( Mr. Aleph, a.k.a. T.Wake ? )
While still wrong, a better guess than Porat. Names in USENET might not
mean what you think and email addresses aren't always for life.
> imply that I masturbate to Eric Gisse's photo, see:
> http://Google.COM/groups?selm=MPG.256e9110446bc3ca98968c%4
Well done. You are finally starting to read subtext. Although I did
pretty much spell it out for you.
You make a massive phail though.
> In the next breath you ·LAME· ( Shock ! ) Y.Porat with:
> "Owe Noes 2 - a eebil gayz lame. ".
Not really "the next breath" but I will let that pass.
> Apparently, in your little dream world,
> your "gay laming" is OK while Y.Porat's isn't.
Seriously Jeff. Do you have the reading comprehension of a four year
old?
Lets get this straight (like the pun?), Porat accused Eric of being gay
as an insult. I did not insult *you* for being gay, just for beating off
over Eric's pictures. You can watch all the gay porn in the world - and
I am sure you really enjoy that - just stop stalking people.
Do you see the difference? I lamed you for being a STALKER. Your
stalking of Eric is kind of creepy. Poohrat lamed him for being gay.
There is a huge difference. If you cant see that, you need to stop
worrying about UTF and learn to read. And yes, that is a reading lame.
Well done you.
Y.Porat
> > Ok if so
> > just go on with your nonpseudo science
> > and with your Higgs Bosons
> > to the rest of your life !!
> > ps
> > you talk about
> > 'sounds like'
> > you sound like a little parrot
> > that is too old to learn something new
> > Y.P
>
> Show me how your theory calculates the value of the half life of
> unstable isotopes from first principles and I'll take more notice.
>
> --
> Dirk
>
> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/- A UK political partyhttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe- Occult Talk Show
--------------------
1 i can live without your notice as well
2
my model is a one mans work
and as such
i dould not deal with all the aspects of
the matter structure
3
i do can give you examples in whichi could say
(according the model)
waht will be the maximum number of neutrons
on that nuc
b
waht will bethe max number of
bette emmiters and their exact location
on the nuc
no one ever before could do it
3
since as i remember yiou are a chemist;
how come the a crystall of Na Cl
that asupposed to have just one electron
on its outer shell
makes a cubic crystall
including calculation its specific with
as a reasult of its nuclear and Atomic structure
how is the triple bond of Carbon is done
how is the double bond is done
as a direct resuly of ther Nuclear structure
(extended to their Atomic structure
and how the atomic structure is a direct
**tangible result of the nuclear structure *
how the double bond of Carbon can turn
to the triple bond and calcualtion waht will be **the distance**
between nucs of carbon
in the trippelans double bonds
(that is one of the results of the new findings of
table 2 and 3 of my model
that actually we can build all the crystals
and chemical bons
with just **one electron length **!!!
for all matter structure done by electrons !!
4
the binding enrgies of all nuclear processes
and the stunning finding that all of them
is composed of some more basic units
probably the alleged quarks !!
and that is just of hand from memory
thinking (and writing ....) for about 10 minutes
devoted to you .....
dont you appreciate my 10 minutes devoted especially for you ??
(:-)
btw
you could see some hints about it
in my abstract that i published on the net
if you dont have that abstract i can E mail it
for you privately
keep well and dont judge just by
a superficial glace don by you
it is irresponsible !!
(you see if you talk physics and physics arguments not as some
professional gangsters here )
you get a (semi (:-)) civilized answer )
keep well
Y.Porat
Y.Porat
> In article <c2418ca8-5027-45bb-a270-816a060ba852
who is he idiot that is paying your salary
as a gangster
that never in his life talked physics
arguments
Nazi pigg Goebbels
my name is not Yehiel . Porat
it is y.p (:-)
go fuck yourself with Gisse psychopath
(what a poor living you do !!
after 30 years you will ask youself
what is it that i accomplished in my life??
and you answer will be
i tried unsuccessfully to bother Porat ...
because on the long run
I pissed on you
and sent you to the garbage of the history of science
you cannot cheat every body forever !!!
Y.P
_...@jeff_relf.seattle.invalid
Imitating your hero, Y.Porat, you ( Aleph ) gay·lamed me; see:
http://Google.COM/groups?selm=MPG.256e9110446bc3ca98968c%40news.virginmedia.com
Who's “stalking” who ? Not only do you reply to my every post,
you also reply to everyone I've ever conversed with.
In the past, I “corrected” Eric Gisse for giving me grief.
He's still giving me grief, but I don't respond; see:
http://Google.COM/groups?selm=hddnie$2et$2%40news.eternal-september.org
I only replied to him once, of late, to welcome him to my town.
Apparently, in your little dream world,
YOUR STALKING is OK while my “welcoming” Eric isn't.
I thought Eric's photo was rather goofy looking, so I'm making it
show·up in Google·Images searches ( 4 weeks from now, I hope ).
Jarek Duda
rotation operator makes with particle with nonzero spin...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_operator_%28quantum_mechanics%29
while looking at loop around spin axis, quantum phase makes 'spin'
rotations - doesn't it?
Now look at electromagnetism in quantum mechanics - change of quantum
phase is proportional to integral of electromagnetic four-potential
(A) along this loop - doesn't it? (look at Aharomov-Bohm...)
Combining both previous sentences we get that there is magnetic flux
going through spin axis - doesn't it?
_...@jeff_relf.seattle.invalid
I ( Jeff Relf ) am not “Robert”, nor do I know who “Robert” is.
Although magnetic fields don't alter spin states,
“optical tweezers” imply a localized “magnetic flux”.
Aleph
<_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.2009_Nov19.5.17am.wJ>, _@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid sat
down and wrote:
Wow, you are working hard to lower your public image.
Well done.
> Imitating your hero, Y.Porat, you ( Aleph ) gay·lamed me; see:
This would have been funny if we were both six years old. We arent and it
isnt.
You really must try hard. No, seriously. At least try to join in the
conversation.
As you really do struggle to make sense, I will repost what *you* think is a
gay lame:
"Stalker.
I dread to think what you are doing with your pictures of Eric.... "
Now there are a hundred ways that could be taken. I might have been implying
you were photoshopping pictures of Eric doing deals with Osama Bin Laden.
However, *you* made an assumption and then drew the erroneous conclusion
from that false assumption that I had gaylamed you.
Jeff, like everything in your life, you phail.
>
> Who's “stalking” who ? Not only do you reply to my every post,
> you also reply to everyone I've ever conversed with.
Aha, comprehension phail once more. Lets look at this:
I do not, as far as I know, reply to every post you make. In fact a quick
search shows that there are several I have ignored. Even if I did, so what?
That isnt stalking. I very much doubt I reply to every one you have *ever*
conversed with, unless you have a massively small circle of contacts and
they are _all_ on sci.physics. (Always possible)
I have also posted replies to messages made by people who *arent* you. Isnt
that really out there?
Jeff, you even fail with a stalkerlame.
As a counter point - *you* are posting pictures of Eric. *You* are making
references to meeting up with him. *You* are following his location with
interest. *You* embed images in USENET posts to try and track people's IP
addresses.
*STALKER*
> In the past, I “corrected” Eric Gisse for giving me grief.
OMG !!eleventyone!!
I chuckle at the thought of *you* correcting someone. I bet the reality was
very, very different.
> He's still giving me grief, but I don't respond; see:
Do you blame him?
>
> I only replied to him once, of late, to welcome him to my town.
Stalker.
> Apparently, in your little dream world,
> YOUR STALKING is OK while my “welcoming” Eric isn't.
You see, no matter how you try to project your own failures on others, you
still fail.
> I thought Eric's photo was rather goofy looking, so I'm making it
> show·up in Google·Images searches ( 4 weeks from now, I hope ).
*You* think Eric's picture is "goofy looking" - is that slang for some term
of endearment? You are still stalking him.
Still, we have your picture as a counter point, dont we?
--
Aleph
This message was posted to usenet so please reply that way. Emails to
this account are very likely to be ignored.
Aleph
<_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.2009_Nov19.6.32am.GY>, _@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid sat
down and wrote:
>
> I ( Jeff Relf ) am not “Robert”, nor do I know who “Robert” is.
Yet, you joined in this thread - of which is he is a significant
participant.
Why is that?
Did you post here for the sole reason of getting at me?
Aleph
bb71-65e...@x31g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>, Y.Porat sat down and wrote:
> who is he idiot that is paying your salary
You are. I told you.
You pay my salary.
Are you so senile you forgot it while you were reading the post?
Shame on you, you old fruitcake.
> as a gangster
> that never in his life talked physics
> arguments
Liar, liar pants on fire.
You wouldnt even recognize physics if it gave you a wedgie.
> Nazi pigg Goebbels
Wrong name. Right first initial though (N not G you senile old goat)
> my name is not Yehiel . Porat
Mine isnt Goebbels.
> it is y.p (:-)
No, I know your real name. Stop pretending to be Why Pee.
> go fuck yourself with Gisse psychopath
Does that idea "fire your lasers?"
> (what a poor living you do !!
Nope, I am paid very well thank you. I can always do with more though. Would
you like private tuition?
> after 30 years you will ask youself
> what is it that i accomplished in my life??
It would take me another 30 years to answer that question.
> and you answer will be
> i tried unsuccessfully to bother Porat ...
On the contrary. Your fake name wouldnt come up once. Trust me.
Lets turn this around. When you look back on the last (say) ten years will
you realize you've said the same crap every day, been rebutted the same way
every day and learned not ONE new thing?
That is the saddest thing.
> because on the long run
> I pissed on you
More of your fantasy?
> and sent you to the garbage of the history of science
Erm, nope.
Where is your nobel prize?
> you cannot cheat every body forever !!!
Something you refuse to learn.
Jarek Duda
Not by the number of split beams in kind of Stern-Gerlach?
> “optical tweezers” imply a localized “magnetic flux”.
particles - it's completely ignored, but very important fact, which
automatically explains many phenomenas:
- coupling of opposite spin particles by loop of such lines of
magnetic filed, like Cooper pairs, electrons on orbitals,
- selection rules - to break such loop, the simplest way is to twist
into eight-like shape and reconnect - changing spin of one of them
into opposite one (fig.7 from http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.2724 ),
- magnetic reconnection - "This process is not well understood: once
started, it proceeds many orders of magnitude faster than predicted by
standard models." from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_reconnection
giving these lines energy density per length would give them
additional tendency to shorten and could be what is missing in the
current models...
_...@jeff_relf.seattle.invalid
You ( Jarek Duda ) shouldn't be asking me ( Jeff Relf )
such technical questions... you know far more than I do.
lased·cooper·pairs and super·conductors have coherent spin·states;
they're Bose·Einstein condensates, so:
A. Momentum is known a priori.
B. Few semi-random radiations betray inter·wave times/locations.
( the double·slit experiment is about inter·wave times/locations )
So, you see, it's a matter of what's known/knowable.
Einstein often wrote about how nothing could ever be acausal; i.e. how
apparent semi·randomness is merely semi·measurement, nothing more.
None of us ever had any real choices, all choices are notional.
“Life” ( i.e. anything that consumes ) is notional, not real.
No one can find the meaning of life because it's notional, not real.
Aleph
<_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.2009_Nov19.7.51am.QV>, _@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid sat
down and wrote:
>
> You ( Jarek Duda ) shouldn't be asking me ( Jeff Relf )
> such technical questions... you know far more than I do.
Nearly every one does. (Exceptions for Frazir, of course).
Bizarrely you have insinuated yourself into this thread and now seem to be
objecting to it carrying on. Why dont you just stop posting? We all know you
cant answer.
> <snip>
>
> No one can find the meaning of life because it's notional, not real.
Jeff, all that effort to spout your trademark nonsense. Shame on you.
eric gisse
> On Nov 19, 7:38 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Y.Porat wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > 1
>> > the electron is not a point particle
>> > it is sub built my sub particles
>> > and has a geometric structure
>>
>> Let us remember that the person who wrote this statement has no education
>> in physics, does not do any experiments to test his ideas, does not read
>> the literature to see if his ideas are valid, or even considers
>> viewpoints that do not kiss his ass.
>>
>> [...]
>
> ----------------------
> Gisse shaisse
> we had an agreement that you will not bother me
> and i will not bother you
> if you like to breach it you will have it
Like your competence in physics and English, this agreement is entirely
imagined.
>
> little fucker psychopat moron
> that thinks that his idiotic parroting
> at the age of 25
> is knowing physics good enough to teach
> every body here physics
To be fair, I know more about physics than pretty much everybody here.
>
> not to speak about pioneering physics
> a little fucker psychpath like you
> never innovated ***anything**
> and will not as well do it - in his life except
> HIS MUG IN FACE-BOOK..
Ease up on the stalkersauce, champ.
>
> so little fucker New Napoleon psychopath
> go fuck yourself with your boy fried
> in case youi will never marry a women
> with a mug and' personality' you have
>
> Y.P
> -------------------------
The person I'm thinking of is definitely a woman, but a closer inspection
never hurts.
eric gisse
> In article <_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.2009_Nov19.3.44am.dC>,
> _@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid says...
>>
>
> I am impressed Jeff. I hadn't thought it was possible, but you are
> infact even more clueless.
>
> Bravo Sir!
>
>> With one breath, you ( Mr. Aleph, a.k.a. T.Wake ? )
>
> While still wrong, a better guess than Porat. Names in USENET might not
> mean what you think and email addresses aren't always for life.
>
>> imply that I masturbate to Eric Gisse's photo, see:
>> http://Google.COM/groups?selm=MPG.256e9110446bc3ca98968c%4
>> 40news.virginmedia.com
>
WHAT THE FUCK?
> Well done. You are finally starting to read subtext. Although I did
> pretty much spell it out for you.
>
> You make a massive phail though.
>
>> In the next breath you ·LAME· ( Shock ! ) Y.Porat with:
>> "Owe Noes 2 - a eebil gayz lame. ".
>
> Not really "the next breath" but I will let that pass.
>
>> Apparently, in your little dream world,
>> your "gay laming" is OK while Y.Porat's isn't.
>
> Seriously Jeff. Do you have the reading comprehension of a four year
> old?
>
> Lets get this straight (like the pun?), Porat accused Eric of being gay
> as an insult. I did not insult *you* for being gay, just for beating off
> over Eric's pictures. You can watch all the gay porn in the world - and
> I am sure you really enjoy that - just stop stalking people.
>
> Do you see the difference? I lamed you for being a STALKER. Your
> stalking of Eric is kind of creepy. Poohrat lamed him for being gay.
>
> There is a huge difference. If you cant see that, you need to stop
> worrying about UTF and learn to read. And yes, that is a reading lame.
> Well done you.
Great.
It looks like Relf is continuing being a creppy and obsessive freak about
me, Porat continues to attempt to wield my facebook page like a club, and
Juan R. is archiving my photos.
I'm now a bit upset I sold my guns.
eric gisse
[...]
> Jeff, you even fail with a stalkerlame.
>
> As a counter point - *you* are posting pictures of Eric. *You* are making
> references to meeting up with him. *You* are following his location with
> interest. *You* embed images in USENET posts to try and track people's IP
> addresses.
Yeah, nothing like starting the day with wondering where I could get a Sig
or a .45 for cheap.
[...]
Aleph
To be fair, its relf we are talking about. A strong torch would probably
suffice...
Aleph
september.org>, eric gisse sat down and wrote:
> Great.
>
> It looks like Relf is continuing being a creppy and obsessive freak about
> me, Porat continues to attempt to wield my facebook page like a club, and
> Juan R. is archiving my photos.
>
> I'm now a bit upset I sold my guns.
You mean you *dont* like your fanbois :-)
Aleph
september.org>, eric gisse sat down and wrote:
> Y.Porat wrote:
>
[...]
>>
>> little fucker psychopat moron
>> that thinks that his idiotic parroting
>> at the age of 25
>> is knowing physics good enough to teach
>> every body here physics
>
> To be fair, I know more about physics than pretty much everybody here.
Although this is news://sci.physics, I am continually amazed there are more
than two posters a year who can spell physics, let alone understand it.
>> not to speak about pioneering physics
>> a little fucker psychpath like you
>> never innovated ***anything**
>> and will not as well do it - in his life except
>> HIS MUG IN FACE-BOOK..
>
> Ease up on the stalkersauce, champ.
It gets a bit scary, doesnt it.
>> so little fucker New Napoleon psychopath
>> go fuck yourself with your boy fried
>> in case youi will never marry a women
>> with a mug and' personality' you have
>>
>> Y.P
>> -------------------------
>
> The person I'm thinking of is definitely a woman, but a closer inspection
> never hurts.
ROTFLMAO.
Igor
> Spin corresponds to magnetic dipole moment of particle,
This is not true if a particle has no internal charge distribution.
So your initial statement is false for a photon.
Besides, you've gotten it backwards. The magnetic dipole moment
depends on spin and charge. You need a current loop.
Y.Porat
-----------------
if Robert Higgins is a Professor of anything
i am the pope of Rome (:-)
he is at most - a fish merchant in the fish market and a cheap
gangster
Y.P
-----------------------------
Aleph
faf299...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Y.Porat sat down and wrote the
following words of wisdom:
> <snip>
>
> if Robert Higgins is a Professor of anything
> i am the pope of Rome (:-)
> he is at most - a fish merchant in the fish market and a cheap
> gangster
And once more, Porat has no option but to resort to ad hominem and a (rather
pathetic) appeal to ridicule.
BTW: Being a fish merchant in the fish market seems like a good proposition.
Jarek Duda
So what about neutrons?
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v96/i6/p1546_1
Charge and spin are completely separated different properties - spin
isn't made of spinning charge!
Jarek Duda
it's the other way...
Look at the most fundamental, lightest particles - leptons: there is
'pure spin' particle (neutrino), but there is no pure charge one ...
How to add charge to spin to create electron? Look at fig. 9 of
http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.2724
Y.Porat
> On Thursday 19 November 2009 12:50, in <5ae49672-789b-4c4e-
-------------------
Pigy
what was your previous name
and what will be soon your new name ??
you dont have a respect even to youself
socertainly most people here piss on you
2
who is the idiot that is paying your salary as gangster
it cant be me becuse i live fortunately in another country than you
any way
even that idiot is going to realize very soon
that he is wasting his money on you
may be you live on your wife s money ?? (:-)
only God knows how is she making her money (:-)
......
Y.P
--------------------
Y.Porat
--------------
Hi parrot
you speak about spin
while you dont know ***and dont mind***
how and why it is done
you could as well say that it is done by
witches on brooms
the same with your Higgs Bosons
Y.P
--------------------------
Aleph
37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, y.y....@gmail.com says...
> Pigy
Ah, a new nickname from the homo homophobe stalker.
> what was your previous name
Erasamus Danilhof.
> and what will be soon your new name ??
I was thinking of calling myself Y Porat, but then I realised I could
never make crazy enough posts to carry it off.
Why are you obsessed about names? Is it, (cue sharp intake of breath) a
pathetic attempt to distract from your nonsense and the hard questions
you've avoided?
Heaven forbid....
> you dont have a respect even to youself
You have no idea how much self respect I have.
> socertainly most people here piss on you
Look, I am as broadminded as the next person but this little fetish of
yours is really something better kept personal. If you really need a
fix, fire up your P2P software and download some 90s German p0rn
(Uromania would float your boat...)
I am sure most people here dont have your water sports fetish.
> 2
> who is the idiot that is paying your salary as gangster
You are. Seriously, do you have a reading comprehension issue?
> it cant be me becuse i live fortunately in another country than you
What country do you think I live in? As a clue, you will be wrong.
> any way
> even that idiot is going to realize very soon
> that he is wasting his money on you
I doubt it. Very soon it will be realised I am worth a lot more and will
get a suitable rise. Trust me on this.
> may be you live on your wife s money ?? (:-)
No, she earns enough to contribute to our joint household. Thanks for
asking and it is comical that you live in the dark ages, apparently
thinking that there is something to be ashamed of if my wife was the
larger earner in our family.
You are homo-homophobic and sexist. Well done.
> only God knows how is she making her money (:-)
Really? I think her accountants know as well. Oh, I get it. This is some
childish attempt to imply she is a prostitute. Wow, Wiley Poohrat you
really have got your mind in the gutter. Shame on you for being a
pathetic dirty old pervert.
The comical thing is my wife earns more than you and is a better
scientist. She would pity you if she met you.
Now, go back to your little stalker fantasy about young boys and water
sports. You are revolting.
Igor
> On Nov 19, 6:14 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 18, 10:55 am, Jarek Duda <duda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Spin corresponds to magnetic dipole moment of particle,
>
> > This is not true if a particle has no internal charge distribution.
> > So your initial statement is false for a photon.
>
> > Besides, you've gotten it backwards. The magnetic dipole moment
> > depends on spin and charge. You need a current loop.
>
> So what about neutrons?http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v96/i6/p1546_1
Neutrons have both spin and internal charge distribution, hence they
have magnetic dipole moments, albeit without net charge.
> Charge and spin are completely separated different properties - spin
> isn't made of spinning charge!
I never said it was. I said you needed both in order to have a
magnetic dipole moment.
Igor
Crawl back under your rock and let the big insects discuss physics.
Jarek Duda
> magnetic dipole moment.
Robert Higgins
Hello, Holy Father!
BTW, the people here who have actually passed math, chemistry, and
physics courses can assess my knowledge or lack thereof far beeter
than you can.
> he is at most - a fish merchant in the fish market and a cheap
> gangster
I like fish, but I am not in the fish business. I especially like
things that smell like fish, though. Does that qualify?
>
> Y.P
Why pee? Because you can't hold it?
> -----------------------------
Robert Higgins
"Quantum mechanics (QM) is probabilistic theory - it can predict only
probability of events." Wrong. Take particle with wavefunction exp(i2
phi). There is nothing at all "probabilistic" about its z-component of
angular momentum - it is definitely 2 h_bar.
"The strongest argument are Bell's inequalities". Lack of subject verb
agreement.
"The source of the problem are the squares in formulas for
probability..." Lack of subject verb agreement.
BURT
the photon in?
The photon was doubted by Einstein in the end. He said he could not
reconcile it with the wave. He was right. He won the Nobel Prize for
something wrong. He deserved it for another reason.
Spin is for a skater pulling in her arms.Steady rotation speed changes
sizes in spin in the aether. A particle would have to have a direction
of spin orientation and rate of spin. The particle does not spin and
better it does not rotate. It has no orientation.
Mitch Raemsch
Jarek Duda
it probabilistic theory - a tool to estimate probabilities over some
most probably deterministically evolving system which we cannot fully
measure.
In sections 1,2,3 I'm trying to convince that physics is deterministic
but it's not for this thread, about spin/charge is section 4 also with
general properties like the figures I'm referring - let's focus on it.
> How can a point particle rotate? What wave the Electric or Magnetic is
> the photon in?
> The photon was doubted by Einstein in the end. He said he could not
> reconcile it with the wave. He was right. He won the Nobel Prize for
> something wrong. He deserved it for another reason.
I think that photon is overestimated in modern physics - for example
try to imagine that electron goes around proton because of constant
exchange of spin 1 photons ...
If photon could carry spin, it would split in stern-Gerlach ... and
had mass ...
The only what these fundamental excitations of each field theory have
to carry is attraction/repellence/angular momentum - what we call its
spin looks to be only angular momentum.
BURT
Spin is a misused term. Rotation is right. What wave of the two waves
in light; the E and M; is the photon in?
Mitch Raemsch
_...@jeff_relf.seattle.invalid
Mr. Aleph is Phineas T Puddleduck, Art Deco's / T. Wake's buddy.
“ Re: Why would someone bugger me, Mike PuddleDrip? ” ―― April 2007
http://Google.COM/group/sci.physics/msg/e2763bee2e3c4a27
Y.Porat
> In article <a6ba690b-ab7f-4d69-a946-24718b0f4e76@
-------------------
i have a little tp people whouse a nick name thoughi dont admire their
integrity there fore their physics judgment
a decent scientist
will ahve no problem to come here with his real name
2
i have much more against
PROFESSIONAL CROOKS
THAT CHANGE HEIR NAME AGAIN AND AGAIN
that is a mathemetical proof
of someone that is a crook
withpersonal politics motivation
such a fucker gangster will never contribute
anything new to science
if you what to do on living withyour
Higgs Boson theories wellcome
3
by disturbing here creative people
you and others like you
WILL TURN THIS NG TO A DESERT !!! (of little parrots
4
you cant cheat evry body
forever !!
by that behavior you will never be able to be proud of yourself
unless you are a psychopath
just keep it in your psychopathic
distorted mind
Y.P
----------------
Jarek Duda
> in light; the E and M; is the photon in?
Yes - rotation of quantum phase around spin axis - its what spin is -
topological singularity.
Charge is also topological singularity but of different type - Gauss
law allows to count then number of practically point-like charges (e)
inside some volume.
Photons can be traveling clockwise/anticlockwise twist-like wave - but
its angular momentum not spin.
Y.Porat
just think about it a bit more seriusly and responsibly
(provised you ever heared about responsible behavior
if you are a serious scientist!!
by disturbing new ideas and findings
even if not all of them might be 100 percent right -
you tern this ng
to a desert of parrots !!
if it is OK for you welcome
is your physics is of Higgs Bosons
or 3 quarks that make the Proton
with 90 percent of it as GLUEONS ..
IS THAT PHYSICS OK FOR YOU ???
if yes
just live with it to the rest of your life !!
and be happy like the fools in the paradise of fools
Y.P
-----------------------------
Y.P
---------------------------
Y.Porat
------------------
(:-)
you have some greetings from your
Higgs Bosons
and from your 3 quarks per Proton
and every day another quark story etc
got is IMBECILE MATHEMATICIAN crook PARROT ???!!
you cant cheat every body forever !!
Y.P
-----------------------
Y.P
--------------------
Aleph
@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Fri, 20 Nov 2009
00:03:08 -0800 (PST), Y.Porat <y.y....@gmail.com> imparted these words
of wisdom:
I have less than no idea what that is supposed to say. I am sure it
sounded better in your head, but if you want to try and insult me at
least try to be coherent.
Your stalker-like obsession with knowing people's "real names" on USENET
is comical. It is a sign that you have nothing with which to defend
your, ahem, ideas. When challenged the best you can hope to do is insult
and rant. You are as pathetic now as you were half a decade ago.
Why you pretend to be called Y.Porat, when your real name is Thaddeus T
Humperdick is beyond me. Why you think any "name" someone has on USENET
carries any validity is also beyond me.
I can only assume it is all part of your truly fucked up brain and,
regrettably, USENET is not the place for you to get the mental health
treatment you need. See a doctor and get meds. Now.
> 2
> i have much more against
> PROFESSIONAL CROOKS
So do I. Unlike you, I have, in the course of my life, seen a few locked
up.
You, being an unprofessional k00k, simply fr0th on USENET without having
the first clue what you are talking about.
> THAT CHANGE HEIR NAME AGAIN AND AGAIN
"Again and again"
I have been on USENET since 1996 and have changed my nym (not my name)
once.
You are a lying, whining, fucked up old pervert. Shame on you.
> that is a mathemetical proof
Really? I think you are making this up because you think it sounds good.
Have you been sleeping with George Hammond again?
> of someone that is a crook
> withpersonal politics motivation
> such a fucker gangster will never contribute
> anything new to science
Blah, whine, blah, whine. You are a broken record, Poohrat.
You have never, and will never, contribute anything new to science
because you are too stubborn to bother learning anything. Making shit up
and then insulting anyone who disagrees is not a contribution to
science... (If it were, TJ Frazir and Relf would be Noble Prize winners
- even in the k00k league you are a runner up)
> if you what to do on living withyour
> Higgs Boson theories wellcome
What?
> 3
> by disturbing here creative people
Creative? You? Hahahahha.
> you and others like you
>
> WILL TURN THIS NG TO A DESERT !!! (of little parrots
ORLY?
I dont think you leaving sci.physics will cause many problems. It
certainly wont downgrade the amount of science discussed here.
Your contributions have nothing more than comedy value.
> 4
> you cant cheat evry body
> forever !!
> by that behavior you will never be able to be proud of yourself
> unless you are a psychopath
Incorrect conclusion drawn from two false assumptions. Asserting
something doesn't make it true.
This is what is wrong with your childish attempts at science.
> just keep it in your psychopathic
> distorted mind
At least you have dropped your water sports fantasies.
--
Aleph
This article was posted to USENET, please reply in that manner. Emails
to this account will be ignored.
Aleph
sci.physics on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:01:43 +0000 (UTC),
_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid <_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid> imparted these
words of wisdom:
>
>
> Re: Why would someone bugger me, Mike PuddleDrip? April 2007
> http://Google.COM/group/sci.physics/msg/e2763bee2e3c4a27
Aww Jeff, how cute.
I challenge your claims and ask you questions - do you answer no. You
try to lame me and I respond, again challenging you to justify your
ideas or at least present a coherent argument for any of them. Do you
answer, no.
What do you do?
You try to stalk me. You spend God knows how long trawling through
google to find someone who has said something similar to something I
have said so you can try to out me on a news group. Even then you fail.
You are a monumental failure. You cant even stalk someone properly.
Seriously Jeff, I can see why you think that trying to "out" me as
someone else will distract from your *monumental* inability to answer
any questions, but it isnt working.
You should know my IP address and browser by now as I have visited your
site a few times. That should tell you what country I am in. Can't you
take it from there StalkerBoi? Or are you too busy trying to groom poor
Eric?
Robert Higgins
It seems from a quick Google search that you academic affilitation
puts you in a Department of Computer Science. Is this true? What is
your level of education in physics or chemistry?
_...@jeff_relf.seattle.invalid
photon·photon collisions can produce electrons and positrons.
That's called pair·production. WikiPedia says:
“ Photon-nucleus pair production can only occur if the photons have
an energy exceeding twice the rest mass (me) of an electron (1.022 MeV),
photon-photon pair production may occur at 511 keV; ”
From this, one can deduce that
the resulting electron·positron pair is just “accelerated photons”.
Jarek Duda
backgrounds, but if You need to know I have 3 master degrees: computer
science, math and physics (all theoretical) and finishing PhD studies
in cs and physics.
> From this, one can deduce that the resulting electron·positron pair is just “accelerated photons”.
No - they have mass and charge/spin. Look here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_defect
how topological defects having mass decay into nontopological
excitations - photons. Playing it backward You get particle-
antiparticle creation.
Y.Porat
-------------------
right!!
but i dont agree with your assertion that
say the electron is a point particle
(if that is waht you said )
because a point has no specific directions
while the lectron does
the ver fact that it has 'spin'
is a prove for it
(SINCE WE ALL AGREED THAT
SPIN IS NOT SOMETHING LIKE
A GYROSCOPE !!)
IE
sin is specific dieaction orientated
so
it is very important to understand
and internalize its application meanings
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------------
Y.Porat
> In article <b68b52bb-d50f-4bd4-8aa3-26304aae7e00
> @v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Fri, 20 Nov 2009
-------------------
Josef
go discuss with Gisse & Co.
and have a good time
and advance science (but not by stealing
from others ....
(actually at the age of internet you cant steal...anything not today
not in 20 years ahead ...)
BYE
Y.P
---------------------
Jarek Duda
but also to read what the second side want to tell ... You would know
that no - I don't think that electron is point-like! Pleas look at
fig. 9 in my paper to see how to add charge to spin to create electron.
Aleph
<_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.2009_Nov20.3.33am.d0>, _@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid sat
down and wrote the following words of wisdom:
ORLY? Are you sure you read this right? Do you think you understood it?
How accelerated are the photons? What affect do you think this acceleration
would have?
Electrons != photons.
By the way - I have just had another look at your website and it is still
stuck in the 1980s. You really need to modernize your web presence.
BURT
Point particles do not rotate. Spin is misused for rotation. Point
particles in math can have no orientation of rotation or rotation
speed.
Mitch Raemsch
_...@jeff_relf.seattle.invalid
Do you ( Aleph, my stalker/gay·lamer ) know that
a change in direction ( not velocity ) is “acceleration” ?
Q. What happens when two 511 keV photons collide,
forming an electron·positron pair ?
A. They accelerate; electrons are “accelerated photons”.
P.S. I'm glad you're enjoying my web·site ( www.JeffRelf.F-M.FM ),
do come back often.
P.P.S. Have you learned what “Valid HTML” means yet ?
Aleph
sci.physics on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:37:19 +0000 (UTC),
_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid <_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid> imparted these
words of wisdom:
>
>
Its funny that you are going round posting about how Eric looks like
Avril Lavigne and still call *me* a stalker. If you werent such a retard
you'd get the jokes as well.
As for the gaylame, well, we discussed that and you were wrong. As
always.
> a change in direction ( not velocity ) is "acceleration" ?
Well, you are sort of right - which shows how great Wikipedia can be,
because you have no other source of education. I would have agreed you
were correct but you are obviously trying a Pedant-lame, so I might as
well join in.
Do you, gay-stalker-of-young-boys, know why what you have written is
only *partly* correct?
> Q. What happens when two 511 keV photons collide,
> forming an electron positron pair ?
>
> A. They accelerate; electrons are "accelerated photons" .
Its ok, you can say "I dont know" - there is no shame. Electrons arent
accelerated photons. Go back to wiki and look up bosons and leptons.
> P.S. I'm glad you're enjoying my web site ( www.JeffRelf.F-M.FM ),
> do come back often.
You obviously have a different meaning of the word enjoying than I do. I
do visit it often though (through the miracle of curl) but only to let
it demonstrate the way you can go *badly* wrong with websites.
> P.P.S. Have you learned what "Valid HTML" means yet ?
Yes. You are going senile. We discussed this previously and, as always,
when proven wrong you went quiet on the topic.
You are clueless in so many topics, it is quite impressive.
_...@jeff_relf.seattle.invalid
Seeing as you ( Aleph ) used cURL to “copy” my website,
one of your IP·Addresses must be “ 89.149.242.243 ”.
i.e. you contract for netDirekt.DE; see:
www.netdirekt.de/c/cms/front_content.php?idcat=23&lang=3
Aleph
sci.physics on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:41:51 +0000 (UTC),
words of wisdom:
Jeff you need MUCH more practice stalking.
> Seeing as you ( Aleph ) used cURL to "copy" my website,
Its a good job you use quotes there. Do you think my use of Curl is more
"copying" than using Firefox (which I have also used to view your
pages)?
Will you ever answer my questions?
> one of your IP Addresses must be "89.149.242.243".
>
> i.e. you contract for netDirekt.DE; see:
> www.netdirekt.de/c/cms/front_content.php?idcat=23&lang=3
Oh Jeff, you were so close but you miss again. As a clue, I visited your
page and then went to your torturous x.txt file yesterday using a Mac.
Want to try again?
_...@jeff_relf.seattle.invalid
un·like cURL, FireFox doesn't copy the entire page, links and all.
cURL AUTOMATICALLY downloaded each “local to the web·site” link,
no user·clicks required.
Aleph
sci.physics on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:35:16 +0000 (UTC),
words of wisdom:
>
>
Really? Have you looked at your firefox cache lately? Even without
considering extensions, a web browser sees the whole page in the same
way as curl does. The difference is where it ends up and how easy (or
hard) it is to spoof your referrer URL and IP address....
> cURL AUTOMATICALLY downloaded each "local to the web·site" link,
> no user·clicks required.
I am not sure what you think this says, but I read it as you implying
that curl follows links without user intervention. This is not true.
For example when I use
$ curl http://www.example.com/ > example.txt
I get the default page sent to me by the server at exampl.com saved as a
local text file. I dont get every page that it links to saved. Curl is a
fantastic tool - you should get to know it a bit better.
_...@jeff_relf.seattle.invalid
Oops, c·URL isn't recursive ( i.e. it doesn't follow links ).
FireFox isn't recursive either, you have to click the links.
The “netDirekt” dude, whoever he was ( Ray Banana ? ),
must've used “ wget -recurs ” ( or some such ).
Robert Higgins
What the fuck does this have to do with the Stern-Gerlach Experiment?
You seem to have way too much interest in bananas .....
Aleph
sci.physics on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:14:57 +0000 (UTC),
words of wisdom:
>
>
Unlike, apparently, you, I know how curl works. Thanks.
> FireFox isn't recursive either, you have to click the links.
Who said it was recursive? I said that using curl would get me the same
results as firefox (with a significant difference)
> The "netDirekt" dude, whoever he was ( Ray Banana ? ),
> must've used "wget -recurs" ( or some such ).
Why? You implied in your last post that you had identified me (wrongly)
as a result of a visit to your site by something using curl in its UA
string - now you are saying it was a wget UA string?
If someone has whacked your site with wget in the style of running
$ wget -r http://www.example.com
Then it would have been trivial for them to have used
$ wget -r U Mozilla htt://www.example.com
and you wouldnt know what you were looking for.
I feel sorry for you, so I will give you a clue - all my visits to your
"site" have come from a masked UA.
Michael Moroney
> Q. What happens when two 511 keV photons collide,
> forming an electron positron pair ?
>
> A. They accelerate; electrons are "accelerated photons".
1) Photon-photon interaction is extremely rare. Photons act on charged
particles, but are not themselves charged, thus they "shouldn't" interact
at all.
I believe the photon-photon interaction, when it does happen, really
happens as follows: One photon becomes a virtual electron-positron pair,
but before they re-annihilate back into the photon, the other photon
interacts with one of the virtual particles, giving them energy and they
become real. It takes an extraordinary coincidence, thus the rarity of
the interaction.
2) Electrons are charged, photons aren't. Electrons have mass, photons
don't. Electrons are fermions, photons are bosons. A statement like
"electrons are 'accelerated photons'" is completely ignorant of physics.
Aleph
Nov 2009 16:43:36 +0000 (UTC), Michael Moroney
<mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> imparted these words of wisdom:
Your last five words sum Jeff up completely.
Michael Moroney
>In article <he95bo$qft$1...@pcls6.std.com>, sent to sci.physics on Sat, 21
>Nov 2009 16:43:36 +0000 (UTC), Michael Moroney
><mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> imparted these words of wisdom:
>>
>> 2) Electrons are charged, photons aren't. Electrons have mass, photons
>> don't. Electrons are fermions, photons are bosons. A statement like
>> "electrons are 'accelerated photons'" is completely ignorant of physics.
>Your last five words sum Jeff up completely.
But amazingly (for him), he actually made an on-topic post to sci.physics.
_...@jeff_relf.seattle.invalid
I never told you ( Aleph )
what the “wget -recurs” dude's “User-Agent:” line was.
How did you get so detached from reality ?
You make TJ look positively grounded.
Is Eric Gisse doing meth ( or doctor·prescribed drugs ) ?
Either way, he's detached from reality.
He wants to kill me for what ? because I welcomed him to Seattle ?
Because I promoted his mug shot ( as I promoted my own ) ?
It makes no sense. My mug·shot is scary·ugly, I know that, and
Gisse's mug ain't much better... so cut the gay·lames, stalker.
Lay off the drugs, guys, you're acting like meth addicts.
Your need for anonymity stems directly from your drug·induced insanity;
Eric and TJ are more balanced than you'll ever be, Aleph.
Aleph
Nov 2009 23:47:18 +0000 (UTC), Michael Moroney
>
> Aleph <Usene...@gishpuppy.com> writes:
>
> >In article <he95bo$qft$1...@pcls6.std.com>, sent to sci.physics on Sat, 21
> >Nov 2009 16:43:36 +0000 (UTC), Michael Moroney
> ><mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> imparted these words of wisdom:
> >>
> >> 2) Electrons are charged, photons aren't. Electrons have mass, photons
> >> don't. Electrons are fermions, photons are bosons. A statement like
> >> "electrons are 'accelerated photons'" is completely ignorant of physics.
>
> >Your last five words sum Jeff up completely.
>
> But amazingly (for him), he actually made an on-topic post to sci.physics.
LOL - good point. I suppose even a broken watch can be right twice a day
:-)
Aleph
sci.physics on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:25:36 +0000 (UTC),
words of wisdom:
Jeff, let me start with kudos for your outrageous projectionism here.
> I never told you ( Aleph )
> what the "wget -recurs" dude's "User-Agent:" line was.
No, you didnt. Please take a moment to go back and look at what *I*
wrote, rather than what the voices in your head tell you sounds good.
They are not the same. You certainly implied that the UA string was curl
then wget.
After I told you that I had visited your site using curl, you thought
you had identified me working for some German company.
The only rational assumption was that you had found a curl UA line in
your logs and assumed it was me. Now, you seem to be saying you picked a
random person and decided it was me - all while accusing me of acting
irrationally.
Is your brain still functional enough to see the crazy in this?
Are you now saying that this person from the German company didn't even
have a wget UA string, but you have assumed he has used a recursive wget
on your site? If it doesnt say wget in the UA string, how do you *know*
it was wget. There are other way of recursively indexing a website, but
I realise you are too clueless to learn new things.
> How did you get so detached from reality ?
Pot, kettle, etc.
> You make TJ look positively grounded.
Hahaha. Has he paid you yet?
> Is Eric Gisse doing meth ( or doctor prescribed drugs ) ?
Why? Are you trying to find a way of getting leverage on him? Are you
hoping he will be desperate enough to give in to your approaches?
Shame on you Jeff.
> Either way, he's detached from reality.
Like you have a working frame of refernce to tell.
> He wants to kill me for what ? because I welcomed him to Seattle ?
When did he say he wanted to kill you?
> Because I promoted his mug shot ( as I promoted my own ) ?
Any court in the world would find that justifiable grounds.
> It makes no sense. My mug shot is scary ugly, I know that, and
We agree on something.
> Gisse's mug ain't much better... so cut the gay lames, stalker.
Again, you use words without understanding them.
I have not gay lamed you - you fail to understand what it means or
involves. If you feel insulted by my pointing out that you have a
mancrush on poor Eric, well thats your issue. Being gay is nothing to be
ashamed off Jeff.
As for stalking - ha. You are the one trying to find out where I live,
what my real name is, where Eric is, everyone's IP addresses etc.
Stalker know thy name.
> Lay off the drugs, guys, you're acting like meth addicts.
Projectionism again.
> Your need for anonymity stems directly from your druginduced insanity;
ORLY?
You are objecting to my "need" for anonymity because it impacts your
ability to stalk me.
Wonderful "logic"...
> Eric and TJ are more balanced than you'll ever be, Aleph.
Good. Remind me why I should care?
Jarek Duda
change ...
.. but still quantum phase makes topological singularity around the
spin axis - it's not like earth's rotation which is angular momentum.
What quantum phase makes around spin axis is:
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/SeparationOfTopologicalSingularities/
How to translate this phase change along a loop around the axis into
electromagnetic field?
While taking limit of charges going to zero, we see that
electromagnetic four-potential should go to infinity...
And I completely agree that spin cannot be just pointlike - in the
center cannot be chosen any phase - it should somehow deform in
continuous way to be able to finally forget about directions in the
center.
In my paper it's made by ellipse field mechanism - they prefer some
shape (radiuses), but are able to deform finally into circle to not
emphasize any direction in the center. This enforced deformation cost
some energy - giving them mass (see fig. 8 in the paper)
Y.Porat
wrote:
--------------------
the fucken mother that gave you birth
IS VIRTUAL!!
including your fucken Higgs bossons
if you dont know and dont understand
than fuck of and say -you dont know
no one is intersted in your parroting
no one needs your parroting because we have enough idiotic dumb
crooks parrots all around !! without you
your fucken head has no mass
the photon HAS MASS
got it imbecile crook thief ??
if you dont the others will get it very soon
Y.P
---------------------------