Coulomb law does charge; Ampere law does spin Chapt13.4.03 Charge and spin #1025 New Physics #1145 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Well, I had too much to eat for Thanksgiving. I saved up some special
for dinner tonight and ate too much. So looks like I will try to eat
just cereal for the next two days. I want to try to maintain my 137
lbs weight that I had in High School, so that means some days of near
fasting. But enough of that, lets get to important things.

I had to make a detour into the electric motor, the rotor and thanks
to Tim's responses, I am pretty sure the problem is with the
Schrodinger Equation gives inaccurate descriptions of the "s"
orbitals. The Schrodinger Equation gives spherical orbitals to the
"s", but we all know the Dirac Equation relativizes the Schrodinger
Equation. It puts the Schrodinger Equation into motion, so that the
sphere is no longer a adequate description of the "s" orbital. So what
happens when you put a sphere into motion? What figure comes out?
Well, easily that a sphere produces when in motion is a cylinder
shape.

So the "s" orbitals of chemistry should really look like a cylinder
rather than a sphere. Now the Schrodinger Equation gets a lot of
elongated ellipses for the p, d, f orbitals. And if we put those into
the Dirac Equation, it elongates them even more so. The Dirac Equation
makes orbitals more like wire loops around the nucleus of an atom.

Now I had to be sure that no electric motor or rotor thereof was a
sphere shaped wire loop. Now I am not saying such a object cannot
exist or is nonexistent. I am saying that the basic principle of an
electric motor is based on the cylinder shape.

Now I am getting closer to my goal of relating charge with spin. I am
centimetering my way there, rather than millimetering my way there.

Since the theme of New Physics is that the Maxwell Equations derives
all of physics, that the concept of charge and spin must be begotten
out of the Maxwell Equations. Charge and spin can be primitive
notions, but then the Maxwell Equations would define charge and spin
from the laws of the Maxwell Equations.

And that amounts to basically Coulomb law defining charge and the
Ampere law defining spin.

And the way that works is that the Coulomb law would be a geometry
effect of opposite charges fitting inside one another as the inverse
square of distance, whereas like charges repel and cannot fit inside
one another. So that a proton and electron are nested, concentric
spheres radiating from the center of an atom, and the electron matches
every concentric sphere of the proton by composing the inside of that
sphere surface.

So charge is geometry, of the three types of geometry, Euclidean,
Elliptic and Hyperbolic.

That leaves us with spin. Spin in essence is the Ampere law which says
that parallel currents attract one another. It is this law that makes
electrons pair up in suborbitals and yields the Hund's rule. It is
spin that creates the 3 p suborbitals of paired electrons. When
electrons flow in parallel, they attract and thus pair up and cause a
suborbital of two electrons.

So the Coulomb law describes charge and the Ampere law describes spin.

The charge is geometry for the proton is elliptic and the electron is
hyperbolic, where the proton is the outer surface of a sphere and the
electron is the inner surface of the same sphere with its poles and
equator missing.

So what is spin in terms of geometry? Well, since it is the Ampere
law, the geometry involved is a choice of direction of motion of the
two electrons. If the electrons are in parallel motion they attract,
if antiparallel they repel.

So for charge there are 3 possible values for charge, -1,0,+1 and for
spin there cannot be more values, more possibilities than charge.
There can only be 3 possible spins, -1/2, 0, +1/2. If the spins are
parallel they are +1/2 with -1/2 equalling 0; if they are
antiparallel the spins repel and do not form a permanent structure,
with a net spin overall.

Now in ferromagnetism, we have electrons of unfilled suborbitals and
this large collection of electrons of unfilled suborbitals have a
parallel overall spin and that yields an overall attraction force and
we see it as ferromagnetism.

So what is the relationship of charge to spin? Well, it is the
relationship of Coulomb's law compared to Ampere's law. In effect
those two laws are independent since they are required in the Maxwell
Equations. So I cannot tie or connect them any more than I can tie
Coulomb's law to Ampere's law.

Google's New-Newsgroups censors AP posts and halted a proper
archiving 
of author, but Drexel's Math Forum does not and my posts
in archive 
form is seen here: 
http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Nov 23, 1:57 am, Archimedes Plutonium

Now the above makes an important distinction between spin and charge.
Charge is a basic property of a particle for it is the geometry of the
particle. But the direction of motion in terms of spin is not a
fundamental property of a particle, but is rather a effect due to the
other particles in the vicinity.

The Coulomb law is the charge law and it is there no matter what other
particles are nearby.

The Ampere law is the spin law, and it is about "direction" of a
particle relative to other particles in the vicinity. Spin is not
inside the particle in question, but is there when there are two
electrons and the question then becomes, what direction are they
moving relative to one another. So spin is a group effect, not an
intrinsic characteristic. So that if two electrons are moving in
antiparallel motion or in parallel motion then they each have a spin
because their motion demands a spin. But if electrons are in isolation
of one another, they have no spin, for they do not attract or repel
each other.

So charge brings the Coulomb law into existence, not the other way
around. And where Ampere's law brings spin into existence, and not the
other way around.

For example, if we bring two water molecules close together, they have
residual charges to affect one another, but they do not have residual
spins to affect one another.

So when we talk about the photon or electron or proton or neutrino and
ask for the spin, is a rather ridiculous question to ask since neither
of those particles is in a state of motion surrounded by other
particles to make a Ampere law thereof. An electron by itself can have
a spin of +1/2 or -1/2 or 0 spin, but when in a special setting of an
electron in a helium atom, then it is an electron in parallel motion
and thus has a spin.

So charge is a basic property of a particle but spin is a conglomerate
affect on a particle.

[Roland Franzius]

Am 23.11.2012 08:57, schrieb Archimedes Plutonium:
> Well, I had too much to eat for Thanksgiving. I saved up some special
> for dinner tonight and ate too much. So looks like I will try to eat
> just cereal for the next two days. I want to try to maintain my 137
> lbs weight that I had in High School, so that means some days of near
> fasting. But enough of that, lets get to important things.
>
> I had to make a detour into the electric motor, the rotor and thanks
> to Tim's responses, I am pretty sure the problem is with the
> Schrodinger Equation gives inaccurate descriptions of the "s"
> orbitals. The Schrodinger Equation gives spherical orbitals to the
> "s", but we all know the Dirac Equation relativizes the Schrodinger
> Equation. It puts the Schrodinger Equation into motion, so that the
> sphere is no longer a adequate description of the "s" orbital. So what
> happens when you put a sphere into motion? What figure comes out?
> Well, easily that a sphere produces when in motion is a cylinder
> shape.
>
> So the "s" orbitals of chemistry should really look like a cylinder
> rather than a sphere. Now the Schrodinger Equation gets a lot of
> elongated ellipses for the p, d, f orbitals. And if we put those into
> the Dirac Equation, it elongates them even more so. The Dirac Equation
> makes orbitals more like wire loops around the nucleus of an atom.

Thats of course not what you will find in text books.

The s=1/2, L=0, j=1/2 orbitals of hydrogen are spherical symmetric but
are carrying an intrinsic spin-induced electric current (see eg. Gordon
decomposition of current in Landau/Lifshitz).

What is not possible for a spherical symmetric spin 0 field - current is
an effect of the field gradient - is the normal case for a vector field:

Alle the spherical symmetric charge densities carry a fixed electric
current per sphere shell around an axis, resulting from the algebraic
imprinted vector current. It needs no field gradient.

This is the reason why these currents and their magnetic fields are
intrinsic and cannot slow down.

A ground state with vanishing current distributions does simply not exist.

Since spin and angular momentum are not distinguishable in not so
symmetric cases, it is much easier to say - in a quasiclassical
approximation, that for a spinor field the observable densities
current density "c gammma" and local angular momentum
"J = L + 1/2 sigma" never vanish.

--

Roland Franzius

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Hi Roland, your above post matches the same time as mine #1026 as time
2:44 am. I mention that because I believe I addressed your reply above
with mine of #1026.

If my memory is correct, it was in the history of physics that for
about a decade of time, no-one needed the m_s spin quantum number. It
was not essential as the angular momentum quantum numbers were
essential.

So if spin is just really the result of Ampere's law on subatomic
particles inside atoms, then spin is not a fundamental property of
particles.

Spin would be a feature that a particle inherits from the
circumstances that surround the particle.

Charge would be fundamental, like a head on a person that every person
would carry a head with them. Spin would be circumstantial property,
like wearing a hat or wearing sunglasses.

Charge would cause the Coulomb law. Spin would be a result of the
Ampere law and not a cause of the Ampere law.

To talk of spin of an electron that is in isolation of other electrons
is just nonsense, since you need other electrons for the Ampere law to
deliver a spin to a particle.

I think it was a decade before the physicists of the 1920s accepted a
m_s spin and did without until then.

But Roland, the reason why the above makes more sense than current
textbooks is because no current textbook in physics or chemistry ever
explains to any student, that why electrons form structures of
electons only when they have like charges and repel one another. The
only reasonable explanation is that although like charges repel, the
Ampere law allows like charges that are in parallel motion to attract
and that attraction is greater than the Coulomb repulsion.

So show me any modern day textbook of physics or chemistry that
explains why atoms have vast electron structures around a nucleus and
why they do not fly apart? And why electrons go so far as to pair up
in suborbitals when the Coulomb law would have disallowed either one
to take place. So the only reasonable explanation is that the Ampere
law intercedes the Coulomb law when like charges are in parallel
motion.