Particle Spin
KenMagel
actual situation is a quantum mechanical one.
Basically, assuming only the classical, pre-20ieth century physics, what would
the spin be for a proton? If that spin were converted into linear velocity,
what would the resulting velocity be?
Thank you very much.
@tshankha Dave Thomson
news:20031226191044...@mb-m26.aol.com...
The speed of light.
Dave
Jet Red
and its resultant non-degenerative energy shift... Bottom line its very
small - and reveils the fine structure of atoms.
"Dave Thomson .com>" <news3 @ tshankha<no spam> wrote in message
news:Vp6Hb.42$jH5....@news.uswest.net...
@tshankha.nospam.com Dave Thomson
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Ken was talking about subatomic particles, not
atoms. Also, the fine structure has nothing to do with the Lamb Shift.
How does your reply answer the question of the angular velocity of proton
angular momentum?
Dave
"Jet Red" <wolf51...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uwgHb.11621$JD6.2404@lakeread04...
Jet Red
atoms but is due to the electron spin orienation relative to an external B
field.
The energy delta associated with different electron spin states can be
measured by placing the "system" into a magnetic field... this removes the
degeneracy normal not seen in a non-magnetic enviroment. For the hyfrogen
atom consider: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/lamb.html
In a relativistic quantum field particle spin evolves due to mathematical
necessity. Lorentz invariance demands additional internal degrees of freedom
(which we've unfortunately called spin because now folks think that
something is rotating!) not necessary related to angular velocity at all
(although this makes for a nice comparison to our 'classical' world)... in
fact angular velocity implies that elementary particles have a spatial
dimension...
enter the String Theories stage right... :-)
"Dave Thomson" <news3 @ tshankha.no spam.com> wrote in message
news:H5hHb.6$Ke6....@news.uswest.net...
Jet Red
@tshankha.nospam.com Dave Thomson
> Atoms or elementary particles same applies... true lamb shift occurs in
> atoms but is due to the electron spin orienation relative to an external B
> field.
I can agree with that interpretation of the Lamb Shift, but more precisely,
the Lamb Shift is the precession of the electron spin, which is truly an
angular velocity.
> In a relativistic quantum field particle spin evolves due to
mathematical
> necessity. Lorentz invariance demands additional internal degrees of
freedom
> (which we've unfortunately called spin because now folks think that
> something is rotating!) not necessary related to angular velocity at all
> (although this makes for a nice comparison to our 'classical' world)... in
> fact angular velocity implies that elementary particles have a spatial
> dimension...
Without resorting to String Theory, I have produced an alternative model to
the Standard Model that shows electrons are indeed spatial. In fact, you
should be able to determine that directly from the dimensions of the
particle's angular momentum. If you look at the dimensions of angular
momentum for the subatomic particles (as opposed to a two body system),
there is a line with mass (I suppose you could call that a string), that is
moving sideways at an angular velocity.
The area scanned by this line of mass coincides with the strong charge
(responsible for magnetism) in the particle. This sideways movement of the
line of mass is aptly called spin. Look at it this way...
There is a constant of conductance for free space that can be derived from
Coulomb's constant, permeability constant, permittivity constant, and the
speed of light.
Cd = k.c * e.0 / c * u.o
The angular momentum of the electron times the conductance constant is equal
to the strong charge...
e.emax^2 = h * Cd
where e.emax^2 is the strong charge of the electron.
The relationship of strong charge to the elementary charge is...
e^2 = e.emax^2 * 8 * pi * a
where e is the elementary charge, and a is alpha the fine structure constant
of the electron. From this equation we can see that e^2 is spherical in
nature since it is equal to 4pi. We can also see that strong charge has
half spin, the same as the electron angular momentum, as the strong charge
needs to be multiplied by 2 in order to equal the one spin elementary
charge. We can also see that strong charge is much larger than elementary
charge since it needs to be reduced by the fine structure constant to equal
the elementary charge. To visualize the general geometry of the subatomic
particle produced by this theory you can view the graphic at
http://www.tshankha.com/charge.htm
Although the elementary charge appears to be close to the geometry of a
point, the strong charge of the electron is clearly spatial in nature.
Dave
Jet Red
would appear to be that volume of space surrounding the electron where
interactions between the vacuum field and the electron itself... it is these
interactions that define the object that we so comfortably call the
electron. I agree these interactions take place over an extension in space.
You are defining the size of the electron based on its interactions with the
vacuum field... The physical properties of space that you use in your
agrument are very important numbers and must derivable from a basic
theory... but to get there we must understand whats inside... the bare
electron... not the set of interactions we observe...
These virtual and real interactions with elementary particles indeed
manifest themselves over measurable volumes/lengths in space but shouldn't
be confused with the 'size' of the particles themselves...
So whats in the center of that totsy roll pop? :-)
"Dave Thomson" <news3 @ tshankha.no spam.com> wrote in message
news:wSmHb.27$Ke6....@news.uswest.net...
@tshankha.nospam.com Dave Thomson
> Dave - the 'spatial' nature of the electron as you outline in your
thread
> would appear to be that volume of space surrounding the electron where
> interactions between the vacuum field and the electron itself... it is
these
> interactions that define the object that we so comfortably call the
> electron. I agree these interactions take place over an extension in
space.
What I'm showing is not an extended space. It is the complete space of the
electron. Consider that my model shows the electron is a toroid. The
lesser radius is equal to the Classical Electron Radius and the greater
radius of the toroid is equal to the Bohr Radius.
http://www.tshankha.com/particle_radii.htm
> You are defining the size of the electron based on its interactions with
the
> vacuum field... The physical properties of space that you use in your
> agrument are very important numbers and must derivable from a basic
> theory... but to get there we must understand whats inside... the bare
> electron... not the set of interactions we observe...
The electron, it would appear, is entirely an interaction. There is no
physical particle that can be pointed to where someone could say, "there it
is."
> These virtual and real interactions with elementary particles indeed
> manifest themselves over measurable volumes/lengths in space but shouldn't
> be confused with the 'size' of the particles themselves...
What really needs to be avoided is calling the electron or proton a particle
in the sense that it is a tiny piece of matter. Electrons and protons are
characterized by their angular momentum, so that must represent what the
"particle" really is. There is no chunk of matter that we can call a
subatomic particle. If it were so, then subatomic particles would not
appear as both matter and waves in experiments.
But the fact that they do appear as both matter and waves, depending on the
experiment, is evidence that the particle is really a different form of
existence which is described as angular momentum. I call it primary angular
momentum to differentiate it from the two-body type angular momentum.
> So whats in the center of that totsy roll pop? :-)
:-) I can't help the way the math comes out.
BTW, the graphic is a simplified view of the subatomic particle geometry as
that was the best I could get someone to do. I don't have the software
necessary to produce the graphics that fully represent the geometry of the
subatomic particles.
Dave
Andr? Michaud
> I just want to see what the answer would be in the classical world. I
> know the actual situation is a quantum mechanical one.
There is no answer to your question in the classical world. The notion
of particle spin is totally meaningless in classical physics.
The quantum mechanical notion of spin for an elementary particle can
have only two states, and was proposed to address a problem that has
no equivalent in classical physics.
If you would like to assign a "classical spin" to a "classical particle",
you could always imagine a small sphere of size as arbitrarily small as
you wish, assign mass to it, give it an arbitrary surface rotation speed
which would match exactly the linear velocity that you want to represent,
but this would in no way represent what real particle spin is.
Particle spin is not a reflection of any rotating velocity of real particles.
Despite the confusion that the word induces, it is only a representation
of the relative magnetic orientation of particles.
> Basically, assuming only the classical, pre-20ieth century physics, what
> would the spin be for a proton? If that spin were converted into linear
> velocity, what would the resulting velocity be?
Even before the 20th century, particles were the same as today. We just
knew less about them. The existence of protons in particular had not
yet been conceived of, even though they obviously already existed.
Their spin could then no more be converted to linear velocity than today.
André Michaud
@tshankha.nospam.com Dave Thomson
news:562f286c.03122...@posting.google.com...
> kenm...@aol.com (KenMagel) wrote in message
news:<20031226191044...@mb-m26.aol.com>...
> > I just want to see what the answer would be in the classical world. I
> > know the actual situation is a quantum mechanical one.
>
> There is no answer to your question in the classical world. The notion
> of particle spin is totally meaningless in classical physics.
To qualify your statement, the notion of particle spin is totally
meaningless in Classical Mechanics when viewed from the Standard Model of
physics.
You leave out the possibility that in other system of physics that spin does
occur in Classical Mechanics terms.
> The quantum mechanical notion of spin for an elementary particle can
> have only two states, and was proposed to address a problem that has
> no equivalent in classical physics.
A two state spin is perfectly consistent with Classical Mechanics when
quantum length and time are considered. A subatomic particle can only move
the quantum length in the quantum time (speed of light) and due to the
curved nature of spacetime with three length dimensions and two time
dimensions. To understand spin in terms of Classical Mechanics does require
a new physics model, which is what I have discovered. To get a better idea
of how spin works as a result of the time dimensions you can read my
discrete physics page at...
http://www.tshankha.com/discrete.htm
Sometime soon I'll write a page that focuses more on spin and its
relationship to time.
> If you would like to assign a "classical spin" to a "classical particle",
> you could always imagine a small sphere of size as arbitrarily small as
> you wish, assign mass to it, give it an arbitrary surface rotation speed
> which would match exactly the linear velocity that you want to represent,
> but this would in no way represent what real particle spin is.
Applying physics to false geometrical models is exactly how the Standard
Model got off-track to begin with. If you want to understand subatomic
particle spin, you won't try to give it a spherical geometry.
> Particle spin is not a reflection of any rotating velocity of real
particles.
Particle spin has an angular velocity, but not of real particles. It is the
angular momentum of
> Despite the confusion that the word induces, it is only a representation
> of the relative magnetic orientation of particles.
It is a representation of both the angular momentum AND the relative
magnetic orientation of the particles.
> > Basically, assuming only the classical, pre-20ieth century physics, what
> > would the spin be for a proton? If that spin were converted into linear
> > velocity, what would the resulting velocity be?
Electrons, protons, and neutrons all have half spin because the half spin
nature is imparted by the Aether that maintains those particles.
Dave
Gordon D. Pusch
> kenm...@aol.com (KenMagel) wrote in message
> news:<20031226191044...@mb-m26.aol.com>...
>
>> I just want to see what the answer would be in the classical world.
>> I know the actual situation is a quantum mechanical one.
>
> There is no answer to your question in the classical world. The notion
> of particle spin is totally meaningless in classical physics.
Uh, not quite correct. Quite a few authors have studied the possibility that
"classical" point particles might posses an "intrinsic" angular momentum,
and found no contradiction with either Newtonian or Einsteinian kinematics.
The most elegant treatment I've seen are those of Assim Barut and his
collaborators, with that of Sudarshan and Mukunda running second.
The _possibility_ of an "intrinsic angular momentum" is inherent in the
very structure of the galileo and poincare groups, even classically ---
it does _not_ depend on the commutation relations of quantum operators.
What _does_ depend on the commutation relations is what used to be called
"space quantization of spin" --- i.e., that quantum mechanically, S^2 and
S_z may only have certain discrete eigenvalues, and that S_z must have
either an "integer" or "half-odd integer" spectrum.
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
Andr? Michaud
I see.
Thanks for the info.
André Michaud
Y.Porat
>
> > kenm...@aol.com (KenMagel) wrote in message
> > news:<20031226191044...@mb-m26.aol.com>...
> >
> >> I just want to see what the answer would be in the classical world.
> >> I know the actual situation is a quantum mechanical one.
> >
> > There is no answer to your question in the classical world. The notion
> > of particle spin is totally meaningless in classical physics.
>
> Uh, not quite correct. Quite a few authors have studied the possibility that
> "classical" point particles might posses an "intrinsic" angular momentum,
> and found no contradiction with either Newtonian or Einsteinian kinematics.
i am not an expert for spin
anyway imho
point particle' and 'intrinsic spin' cannot go together1!
it is a nonstarter. or else.....
there is nothing like 'point particles'
all 'point particles that we know and talk about are not point
they have some geometric structue (unknown yet)
and more important :
they cannot have an inner structure unless,,,
they are composed of *subparticles*
a mathematician has a difficulty in understanding that !
start thinking physially as well
mahematica alone will not bring salvation to our physics.
oh yes .. once again it is just my very humble idea...
all the best
Y.Porat
-----------------------