Re: Why against Stern-Gerlach experiment photons are said to be spin 1?
Y.Porat
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 ????!!!
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:
> Jarek Duda <duda...@gmail.com> writes:
> >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 ...
>
-------------------------
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
> Jarek Duda 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 ...
>
>
> Quantum spin does not mean there's a little tiny object rotating.
----------------
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.
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.
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
> 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.
--------------
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
Crawl back under your rock and let the big insects discuss physics.
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?
> -----------------------------
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
--------------------
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
> 00:03:08 -0800 (PST), Y.Porat <y.y.po...@gmail.com> imparted these words
> of wisdom:
> 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
>
> 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
>
>
> 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
>
> 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
>
>
> 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
>
>
> > 3
> > by disturbing here creative people
>
>
> > you and others like you
>
> > WILL TURN THIS NG TO A DESERT !!! (of little parrots
>
>
> 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
>
> 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
>
>
> --
> Aleph
>
> This article was posted to USENET, please reply in that manner. Emails
> to this account will be ignored.
-------------------
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.
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
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)
Igor
Just another boring attack from an imbecile. Nothing of susbstance
here. If you want to attack the foundations of modern physics, you
could at least be more creative in your pathetic attempts. Reading
one of your posts is a lot like eating vanilla ice cream while
watching Ozzie and Harriet.
cjcountess
spectrum, which is not only the electromagnetic, but the energy/matter
spectrum, where (E=hf/c^2) = (E=mc^2), or as deBroglie stated,
(E=hf=mc^2).
See:http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dsn5q6f_101hgtjv9fb&hl=en
Conrad J Countess
Uncle Al
>
> Electrons ARE "accelerated photons".
Four words, three empirical errors.
idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Jarek Duda
Magnetic field can be created by 'going around' or 'spinning' charges
but neutrino is believed to have magnetic moment, but it clearly
doesn't apply to these categories.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0601113
The simplest/lightest fermion - neutrino is kind of 'pure spin', but
we have no such 'pure charge' particle - electron is much heavier and
requires also spin.
That suggest that maybe it's not charge what is fundamental, but
rather spin ... and neutrino suggest that this spin goes with
(extremely weak) magnetic field - it's third, separate way.
What is spin?
I see there is large confusion of it with angular momentum.
Quantum rotation operator says that spin means that quantum phase
makes topological singularity of 'spin' degree around spin axis, like
in this demonstration
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/SeparationOfTopologicalSingularities/
Property of waves to carry angular momentum is something different -
it makes it twist-like traveling wave.
For example tornado/swirl carries angular momentum, but doesn't need
topological singularity - it's just rotation around the center.
Igor
Wow! That's pretty amazing! Merely by accelerating a massless
particle, we're able to provide it with both mass and charge. Your
post is just plain ridiculous.
cjcountess
You speak to fast, look at the evidence.
Planck discovered E=hf, for photons
Einstein discovered E=mc^2, for electrons / matter
deBroglie discovered E=hf=mc^2, at level of electron, which has -1
charge and that electron is also a wave. This indicates a smooth
transition from energy to matter, along the same EM spectrum, which
can also be considered the energy/matter spectrum, as well as the
electromagnetic spectrum.
Bohr discovered that wavelength of electron is equal to circumference
of circle, with an angular momentum of a multiple integer of h/2pi.
Therefore it follows from this and geometrical evidence that I
presented that, (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled) and c = (sqrt -1)
So yes, accelerate a photon, like letting it fall into a strong enough
gravity well, and it should gain enough energy to attain rest mass,
and yes -1 charge.
We already know that photons gain energy and higher frequency as they
inter a gravity field. I am suggesting that, if this gravity field is
strong enough, it will produce electrons from those photons.
Conrad J Countess
Igor
> Igor
>
> You speak to fast, look at the evidence.
>
> Planck discovered E=hf, for photons
>
> Einstein discovered E=mc^2, for electrons / matter
>
> deBroglie discovered E=hf=mc^2, at level of electron, which has -1
> charge and that electron is also a wave. This indicates a smooth
> transition from energy to matter, along the same EM spectrum, which
> can also be considered the energy/matter spectrum, as well as the
> electromagnetic spectrum.
You're good to here, providing you actually understand what you've
just said. I have my doubts.
> Bohr discovered that wavelength of electron is equal to circumference
> of circle, with an angular momentum of a multiple integer of h/2pi.
This was an ad hoc model for the hydrogen atom which was superseded by
Schroedinger's wave mechanics and Heisenberg's matrix mechanics, which
essentially form the basis for modern quantum theory. No one uses the
Bohr model anymore.
> Therefore it follows from this and geometrical evidence that I
> presented that, (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled) and c = (sqrt -1)
Circled? This is a joke, right?
> So yes, accelerate a photon, like letting it fall into a strong enough
> gravity well, and it should gain enough energy to attain rest mass,
> and yes -1 charge.
And all this time, people have been seriously searching for where mass
comes from. So it's not the Higgs. It's a photon falling through a
gravity well. That's just too stupid for words. Learn some simple
basic physics. You might want to start with conservations laws.
> We already know that photons gain energy and higher frequency as they
> inter a gravity field. I am suggesting that, if this gravity field is
> strong enough, it will produce electrons from those photons.
That's called the gravitational Doppler effect. And unlike your
ridiculous idea, it doesn't violate conservation laws.
Darwin123
> Darwin, thanks You for the answers, but still ...
> Magnetic field can be created by 'going around' or 'spinning' charges
> but neutrino is believed to have magnetic moment, but it clearly
> The simplest/lightest fermion - neutrino is kind of 'pure spin', but
> we have no such 'pure charge' particle - electron is much heavier and
> requires also spin.
> That suggest that maybe it's not charge what is fundamental, but
> rather spin ... and neutrino suggest that this spin goes with
> (extremely weak) magnetic field - it's third, separate way.
>
> What is spin?
with polarization. A photon has a spin which is the angular momentum
associated with circularly polarized light. An electron has a type of
circular polarization, too. Electrons can be described by a fermion
field wave, just as light can be described by a boson field wave.
However, I predict you won't like this "all wave" picture of
spin. You really don't want to picture a wave as a circulating
anything. Even the water waves that you speak about are comprised of
spinning packets of water. However, you will insist on thinking about
the electron as a round ball. Even here, I think I can oblige you.I
present the all particle picture of fermion spin.
There is an explanation in a semiclassical approximation of
quantum mechanics called stochastic electrodynamics (SED). I know SED
can't be 100% accurate. It doesn't reproduce the results of quantum
electrodynamics in the case of three or more photons. However, I think
a picture in SED is about as close to an intuitive picture as one is
likely to offer you.
In the SED approximation of quantum mechanics, the universe is
filled with a background of zero point radiation that is Lorentz
invariant. Electrons are pictures as tiny objects with electric
charge, very much like the ball model in the Lorentz theory of the
electron. The Planck's constant is a multiplicative constant in the
spectrum of the Lorentz invariant radiation background. The relative
phase between different modes of this background radiation are random.
All interactions in this model are classical in the sense of
not involving wave-particle duality. One uses the dynamics of special
relativity, with orces that are Lorentz invariant. There is that
strange feature in SED that the total energy density at every point is
infinite. However, the calculations are performed using generalized
forces.
Most features of quantum mechanics can be reproduced by this
model. In the case of a Coulomb potential, one gets stable energy
states with a very close correspondance to the hydrogen atom. The zero
point radiation just keeps kicking the electron up and down. The
statistical behavior is basically hydrogenic. A generalization can be
made to all harmonic oscillating systems.
One feature that is reproduced is the spin. If you imagine an
electrically charged ball being kicked around by the "classical" zero
point field, you will see that it has an minimum "spin" that averages
to a nonzero value.
So in this approximate model, the spin really is a classical spin.
What keeps the electron "spinning" is the zero point radiation field.
It is angular momentum
> I see there is large confusion of it with angular momentum.
By definition, it is angular momentum. Calculations using a balance
of angular momentum have to include the spin of the electron and the
spin of the atom. I think by angular momentum you are talking about
Orbital angular momentum.
Orbital angular momentum is well known quantity for electrons.
The orbitals in a hydrogen atom have an orbital angular momentum
designated by the quantum numbers l and m.
Less known to most people is the orbital angular momentum of
photons. Yes, photons can have an orbital angular momentum even though
they don't travel in elliptical orbits.
> Quantum rotation operator says that spin means that quantum phase
> makes topological singularity of 'spin' degree around spin axis, like
> in this demonstrationhttp://demonstrations.wolfram.com/SeparationOfTopologicalSingularities/
> Property of waves to carry angular momentum is something different -
> it makes it twist-like traveling wave.
The two models are not very different. You can think of an
electron as being a twist-like traveling wave. The difference between
an electromagnetic wave and an electron wave has more to do with the
way polarization vectors add up.
In quantum mechanics, there is a wave -particle duality.
Therefore, one can explain spin in trms of either waves or particles.
However, either description has to be separately self consistent.
> For example tornado/swirl carries angular momentum, but doesn't need
> topological singularity - it's just rotation around the center.
My intuition suggests to me that the low pressure zone of a
cyclonic disturbance is analogous to a topological singularity. I
strongly suspect that the topological singularity is the limiting case
of a "low pressure" zone.
The low pressure zone is what keeps the tornado together. If there
was no low pressure zone, the tornado would disperse due to
centrifugal force. Uhh, I don't like what I just said, so let me
rephrase. If there was no low pressure zone, the tornado would
disperse due to the absence of a centripetal force.
The topological singularity creates the "suction" that keeps the
electron together. Not only would an electron disperse due to the
absense of centripetal force, it would disperse due to electrostatic
repulsion.
I don't think these super mathematical descriptions of subatomic
particles are completely different from the more conventional
description of macroscopic system. Topology applies to weather just as
much as it applies to fundamental particles.
Jarek Duda
> Water waves are an excellent example that, amazingly, you brought
> up. Water waves contain spinning vortexes of water. According to your
> logic, a magnetic field should split a water wave into two waves going
> in different directions.
And again - just oppositely.
I've used this example to show that waves carrying angular momentum
doesn't have to carry spin!
Ok - I'll try to explain mathematically what is the difference between
spin which is topological singularity and angular momentum carrying
twist-like traveling wave - kind of swing from equilibrum.
I will use vector field in polar coordinates - in point (R,Alfa) on
the plane there is (r,alfa) vector. The center of coordinates is the
center of twist or spin.
Traveling twist-like wave is for example
alfa = Alfa + Pi/2
there is twist-like swing from equilibrium around the center.
It's amplitude can depend on the distance from the center, for example
r ~ (R-1)^2 - 1 for 0<R<2, 0 for R>2
that means in the center there is practically no twist, it grows up to
some radius (1) and drops back to zero to make it localized.
This amplitude of twist can 'travel' along the line going through its
center.
There is no reasons to 'quantify' these waves - size of these waves is
continuous parameter.
This vector field is field of 'swing' from equilibrium position which
is zero vector.
Spin is topological singularity - it requires field of vectors which
don't want to vanish
R ~ const
and it makes rotation while looking at loop around the center
alfa = spin * Alfa
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/SeparationOfTopologicalSingularities/
It's not only a swing from equilibrium, but something much more
serious - it creates topological restrictions - conservation laws - to
destroy such singularity it has to meet with the opposite one.
Now it's not parametrized by a continuous parameter, but has to be
quantized - be integer multiplicity of some basic spin.
Looking for example at magnetic flux quantization in superconducting
ring, let's remind that such phase rotation along a loop correspond to
magnetic flux going through it - spin corresponds to internal magnetic
structure of particle.
There appears two problems - there are spin 1/2 particles and in its
center there cannot be emphasized and direction - fig. 8 in
http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.2724 shows how to simply solve both of them.
I'll try to make a table to sum it up
twist | spin
swing from equilibrium | topological restriction
preferred zero vectors | preferred nonzero vectors
continuous sizes | discrete sizes (quantized)
carry angular momentum | carry magnetic structure
Is the difference clearer now?
We know that photon can be twist.
Why it's also spin?
Jarek Duda
should come some internal stress - some minimal energy - mass of the
particle ... and photons doesn't have it.
It might be nonintuitive that these two kind of phenomenas can appear
simultaneously...
What we need is for example field of vectors which prefers nonzero
length - kind of quantum phase which prefers to choose some phase
(angle) in practically all points. It can have some gauge invariance.
This property allows it to create topological singularities - spins -
for example quantum phase making rotation around spin axis.
Now to make twist-like waves we can also use this rotational degrees
of freedom, but this time as a swing from equilibrium.
For example imagine that all of them are directed in the same way - or
that quantum phase is locally constant. So if there would appear twist-
like perturbation, it would be swing from equilibrium. It also would
have some internal energy, so it couldn't just vanish, but would like
to travel, being localized around it's center.
Interesting fact is that rotational degrees of freedom of such
'quantum phase extended into three dimensions' gives Maxwell's
equations. If we extend it into four dimensions, rotations of such
fourth axis gives additionally Lorentz invariant gravitation (see 5th
section of the paper)
Y.Porat
> On Nov 24, 5:02 pm, Jarek Duda <duda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 24, 10:09 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 23, 10:16 am, Jarek Duda <duda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > According to the Standard Model, the neutrino is a fundamental
> > > > > chargeless particle, so it should not have a magnetic dipole moment.
> > > > > If it ever was discovered that the neutrino has a finite magnetic
> > > > > dipole moment, it would be back to the drawing board.
>
> > > > I've looked at a few papers and they were rather saying something
> > > > different...http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0601113
>
> > > If you notice, that paper doesn't actually say that the neutrino has a
> > > magnetic moment. It only provides a theoretical upper bound based on
> > > the most current observations. It's a lot like similar papers on the
> > > upper limit on photon mass.
>
> > What do You mean? In the paper I've linked there are both upper and
> > lower bounds ...
>
> Yeah, you're correct on that one. Apparently, after re-reading this
> paper, I see that it's based not on the conventional Standard Model,
> but on some sort of extended version of it. That's what I meant when
> I said "it would be back to the drawing board", since the conventional
> SM doesn't predict a magnetic moment for the neutrino. People are
> already anticipating new directions in which to take the SM and this
> paper is a good example.
--------------------
and now you can see some of those shamles crooks
just above that claimed that the experiment described by he op poster
WAS DONE AND ***EXPLAINED** 80 YEARS BEFORE ""
end of "quote ' !!!
and they are supposed to be
teachers of physics!!
not only yhat they are morons
they are shamelsss crooks as well
and as i said before :
a person without persoanl honesty and integrity
CANNOT BE A REAL SCIENTIST!!
because you cant cheat every body forever !!
now some remars to some morons and crooks above
that still steal ideas and relate it to themselves:
1
the electron is not a pint particle
most pepel here realized now
that spinn is not a sort of a spinning Gyroscope
it is some angle rotation around a longitudinal axis
90 deg or 180 deg and then locked at that position
now of you are not an idiot mathematician
you undesrstad imediately that
having a longitudinal axis
IS NOT FOR A POINT PARTICLE!!
(the head of those pompous mathematician
is a blocked forever point particle)
2
it means that a particle that has spin
must be subdivided to smaller orbital particles!!
or be a single orbital that is planar
extending on a plan
(one it is on a plan it has definit directions)
3
the more complicated and sub built is the particle
it has more descret directions
that are done by its sub constituents
and that we have bigger particles with more than
just 1/2 angular momentum
4
see how particles are built
from ligth ones to heavier ones
step by step in my abstract:
and how it is defined unequivocally by its
sub constituents
(it is not a 'porridge of antiparticles as the fucken
crippled current models suggest by their ignorance )
http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-anbstract
(you have to press there on the link 'view' )
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------
Y.Porat
typo:
http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract
hope it is right now
Y.P
------------------------
Igor
> 1
> the electron is not a pint particle
You're right. It actually fills up a whole quart.
> 2
> it means that a particle that has spin
>must be subdivided to smaller orbital particles!!
Even a subatomic particle apparently understands how to make more
money in real estate.
> 3
> the more complicated and sub built is the particle
> it has more descret directions
That particle must be a female. Were it a male, it would never even
ask for directions.
> 4
> see how particles are built
That confims my response to #3.
Y.Porat
--------------------
imbecile mathematician Bolshevik !!
if you cant help
at least dont disturb
Y.Porat
------------------------
Y.P
-----------------
Igor
You're disturbed enough for the both of us. By the way, didn't Sacha
Baron Cohen make a movie about you?
Tom Roberts
> I've used this example to show that waves carrying angular momentum
> doesn't have to carry spin!
Angular momentum is not a well-defined quantity by itself -- its value
depends on the origin one selects. A pointlike object moving inertially
has nonzero angular momentum relative to any point not on its trajectory.
[NOTE: in this post I switch between classical and quantum
models. Any mention of "representation" implies a description
using Quantum Field Theory. Classical models/descriptions are
mentioned explicitly.]
> Ok - I'll try to explain mathematically what is the difference between
> spin which is topological singularity and angular momentum carrying
> twist-like traveling wave
Your attempt fails. Spin need not involve a topological singularity. For
example, a classical circularly-polarized EM wave carries nonzero spin,
but there's no singularity involved.
There are solutions to Maxwell's equations for a plane wave
that is circularly polarized. At every point the E and B
fields rotate in a plane perpendicular to the direction of
propagation. I stress that this is at EVERY point in space,
and hence there can be no topological singularity involved.
The REAL distinction between spin and angular momentum is that spin is
intrinsic to an object and angular momentum is not. In QFT, elementary
particles are modeled with a representation of the Lorentz group having
definite spin; angular momentum is modeled in configuration space by
projecting the wave function onto the angular momentum eigenfunctions
(the Y_lm-s). The spin representation has no dependence on position, the
Y_lm-s do.
The distinction is the same classically -- the earth has nonzero spin
(intrinsic angular momentum), but no topological singularity.
> We know that photon can be twist.
> Why it's also spin?
With "twist" you are attempting to make a distinction without a
difference. Circularly polarized EM waves modeled classically have
nonzero spin, yet they "twist" (in the sense of the fields at a given
point rotate perpendicularly to the direction of propagation; you have
not really defined what you mean by that word). The reason the photon
has spin 1 is that its angular momentum is INTRINSIC. That is, in QFT it
requires a spin-1 representation of the Lorentz group to model a photon
in agreement with experimental measurements.
> Another very important thing is that with topological singularity
> should come some internal stress
But photons have no mass, and hence no "internal stress". But they have
nonzero spin.
In QFT, spin has to do with which representation of the
Lorentz group is used to model the particle, it has NOTHING
WHATSOEVER to do with "something rotating" or "something
twisting" or "something spinning". But it is an intrinsic
quantity that couples to angular momentum in analogy to
the spin of a classical object, hence the name. DO NOT
BE FOOLED BY THE NAME.
I repeat: spin does not imply any sort of topological singularity.
Tom Roberts
Jarek Duda
> I repeat: spin does not imply any sort of topological singularity.
nonzero spin particle.
Tip: look what quantum rotation operator does.
Tom Roberts
You're not listening - go back and READ what I wrote. The "quantum
rotation operator" is a red herring: there is NOTHING rotating in a
photon (or an electron, or...). A photon is spin 1 because we must use a
spin-1 representation of the Lorentz group to model it. The
representation is part of the vertex function, not the propagator -- we
know the photon's spin because of the way photons interact, not from the
way they propagate.
Tom Roberts
Androcles
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:fNudnRbiiah...@giganews.com...
> Jarek Duda wrote:
>> On 26 Lis, 18:14, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> I repeat: spin does not imply any sort of topological singularity.
>> So please describe mathematically behavior of quantum phase around
>> nonzero spin particle.
>> Tip: look what quantum rotation operator does.
>
> You're not listening - go back and READ what I wrote.
Pot - kettle - black.
Jarek Duda
> You're not listening - go back and READ what I wrote. The "quantum
> rotation operator" is a red herring: there is NOTHING rotating in a
> photon (or an electron, or...). A photon is spin 1 because we must use a
> spin-1 representation of the Lorentz group to model it. The
> representation is part of the vertex function, not the propagator -- we
> know the photon's spin because of the way photons interact, not from the
> way they propagate.
probabilities of results of experiments. You are probably talking
about Dirac equation - extension of QM to operate on objects with
something 'spin-like' ... but this mathematical tool is very universal
- should be similar when operating with something 'twist-like' ...
To summarize: Your argument is - in some cases we can use the same
mathematical model for waves carrying ANGULAR MOMENTUM and SPIN so
these properties are equivalent.
It's like saying that we can similarly describe electrostatics and
Newton's gravity, so they are the same ...
Please use a better argument than similarity of our formalisms.
Tom Roberts
> On 26 Lis, 23:15, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> You're not listening - go back and READ what I wrote. The "quantum
>> rotation operator" is a red herring: there is NOTHING rotating in a
>> photon (or an electron, or...). A photon is spin 1 because we must use a
>> spin-1 representation of the Lorentz group to model it. The
>> representation is part of the vertex function, not the propagator -- we
>> know the photon's spin because of the way photons interact, not from the
>> way they propagate.
>
> mathematical model for waves carrying ANGULAR MOMENTUM and SPIN so
> these properties are equivalent.
NOT AT ALL! Go back and READ what I wrote.
Translating what I said into the terms you used here: Since spin is
modeled DIFFERENTLY from angular momentum in QFT, they are different
aspects of a system. As I have said several times, spin is INTRINSIC to
a particle, but angular momentum is not -- that's QUITE DIFFERENT, in
both classical and quantum theories. In QFT, spin is modeled with a
definite-spin representation of the Lorentz group, but angular momentum
is modeled with eigenfunctions of the angular momentum operator --
that's QUITE DIFFERENT.
> It's like saying that we can similarly describe electrostatics and
> Newton's gravity, so they are the same ...
No. It's much more like saying that Newtonian gravity couples to mass
while electrostatics couples to charge, so they are DIFFERENT....
Extending the analogy: both electrostatic and (Newtonian) gravitational
forces affect the trajectory of an object subject to both; both spin and
angular momentum combine to form the total angular momentum of a system.
The combination is not at all simple addition -- Clebsch-
Gordon coefficients are involved. L=1 orbital a.m.
and a spin-1/2 particle combine into four J=3/2 states
and two J=1/2 states.
Note this is QUITE DIFFERENT from the behavior of spin in
classical mechanics (where spin IS angular momentum). AFAIK
there is no good and accurate classical model of spin as
we know it in quantum systems.
Note that this ANALOGY does not capture the similarities and differences
completely....
> Please use a better argument than similarity of our formalisms.
Please actually READ what I write.
Tom Roberts
cjcountess
In your attempts to sound intelligent you sound so dumb? I don’t
know, maybe that’s not the right word.
So what, if this was an “ad hoc”, model for the hydrogen atom, which
was superseded by
“Schroedinger's wave mechanics and Heisenberg's matrix mechanics”,
which
essentially form the basis for modern quantum theory.
Still the Bohr model provided the foundation, and some lasting
aspects, as is evident by “h/2pi”, which includes “pi, a circle
constant”.
The Schroedinger's wave mechanics and Heisenberg's matrix mechanics,
are somewhat “ad hoc” too, as they have not solved the “quantum
gravity, ruining coupling constants, or the renormalization problem,
while the model of the wavelength of electron, being equal to
circumference of circle, with angular momentum of a multiple integer
of “h/2pi”, coupled with my geometrical interpretation of “E=mc^2”
does.
My theory, which uses Bohr's model as collaboration, brings “sqrt-1”,
out of imaginary real, into the real realm of natural unite, and
reveals “h/2pi/2”, as limit on uncertainty, to actually be the limit
on the “certainty of the existence of the particle”, bringing
certainty to the uncertainty principle.
And its in part because, you and your colleagues could not see the
geometrical reality of Einstein’s, “E=mc^2”, or Bohr’s “wavelength =
circle = multiple integer of h/2pi”
As to
> So yes, accelerate a photon, like letting it fall into a strong enough
> gravity well, and it should gain enough energy to attain rest mass,
> and yes -1 charge.
And all this time, people have been seriously searching for where
mass
comes from. So it's not the Higgs. It's a photon falling through a
gravity well. That's just too stupid for words. Learn some simple
basic physics. You might want to start with conservations laws.
Isn’t that something, all this time, people have been seriously
searching for where mass
comes from and no, it is not the Higg’s it is Rest mass comes from the
kinetic energy of energy in circular and or spherical motion just as
described in my theory.
And as for
> We already know that photons gain energy and higher frequency as they
> inter a gravity field. I am suggesting that, if this gravity field is
> strong enough, it will produce electrons from those photons.
That's called the gravitational Doppler effect. And unlike your
ridiculous idea, it doesn't violate conservation laws.
If their “gravitational Doppler effect”, doesn’t violate conservation
laws, than my idea of photons gaining enough energy to attain rest
mass, by entering strong enough gravity field, doesn’t either, because
they are essentially saying the same thing.
P.S. But if it does violate "the laws of conservation", as presently
written, than they are written wrong, because the theory is correct.
Conrad J Countess
cjcountess
I have so many bits of already established and proven evidence, that
fits together like pieces of a puzzle, or points connected through a
line of logic, so seamlessly, revealing such a clear picture, that
matches empirical evidence, that it would be highly improbable, almost
impossible that it is not correct.
Planck’s equation ,Einstein’s, deBroglie’s, Bohr’s, Compton’s,
Swartzchild’s, Einstein and Minkowskie’s and Hiesenburg’s equations
all support this theory.
Also, analogy, logic, mathematics, geometry, statistics also support
this.
Anyone who cannot see this is either lacking vision or liying to
themselves or the public because they are more interested in who is
right and gets credit for it, “as there is lots of money and prestige
involved”, than who is right.
Just remember this. The more one claims to know, the more one reveals
what one does not know or want the public to know, and THE WORLD is
WHATCHING.
I will put it all on the line and challenge anyone “your champion”, to
a public debate and demonstration.
If I am wrong, I will go away, but if I am correct,you will
acknowledge it.
I am an independent self taught researcher, and did what all the
academics with all their education, numbers of team members and
expensive equipment could not . Solved the “QUANTUM GRAVITY ORIGIN of
REST MASS”, Problem.
Conrad J Countess
Electrons ARE "accelerated photons". They are the high end of the EM
spectrum, which is not only the electromagnetic, but the energy/
matter
spectrum, where (E=hf/c^2) = (E=mc^2), or as deBroglie stated,
(E=hf=mc^2).
See:http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dsn5q6f_101hgtjv9fb&hl=en
This is just some of the evidence, but there is a lot more on my other
post that I can employ if necessary
Conrad J Countess
Uncle Al
[snip crap]
> My theory, which uses Bohr's model as collaboration, brings �sqrt-1�,
> out of imaginary real, into the real realm of natural unite, and
> reveals �h/2pi/2�, as limit on uncertainty, to actually be the limit
> on the �certainty of the existence of the particle�, bringing
> certainty to the uncertainty principle.
[snip rest of crap]
Uncle Al
[snip crap]
> I am an independent self taught researcher,
Your teacher is a jackass.
> and did what all the
> academics with all their education, numbers of team members and
> expensive equipment could not . Solved the �QUANTUM GRAVITY ORIGIN of
> REST MASS�, Problem.
[snip more crap]
Calculate Netwon's G to six significant figures.
idiot
> Electrons ARE "accelerated photons".
[snip rest of crap]
Conservation of spin, charge, mass-energy; fermions vs. bosons;
Lorentz invariance.
fucking imbecile
Salmon Egg
Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> idiot
C'mon Uncle Al. I used to think of you as Cyrano de Bererac with sharper
rapiers than a mere "idiot."
Bill
--
An old man would be better off never having been born.
Mark Thorson
>
> In article <4B11844D...@hate.spam.net>,
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> > idiot
>
> C'mon Uncle Al. I used to think of you as Cyrano de Bererac with sharper
> rapiers than a mere "idiot."
I'm afraid the OP did not rise to the level
which deserved the talents of Uncle Al.
If we had a better class of adversaries, we'd
see Uncle Al in full flower.
cjcountess
I knew that would get someone fired up.
All I want is for my work to be examined objectively, without the
preconceived notions that has you stuck in a rut.
Calculate Newton’s G to six figures!! Come on man, you're not going to
solve quantum gravity, or the origin of mass, with these complex
mathematical gymnastics. And while you may demonstrate your
mathematical agility, expertise, and extensive knowledge, with this
kind of demonstration, you also miss the point by a correspondingly
large amount.
Simply because the answer is found in the simplicity of the quantum
relationship, not the complexity. Namely it is found in the
geometrical interpretation of the simple equation “E=mc^2”. And guess
what, it took a simple minded, thoughtfulness to figure this out.
Simplicity beat complexity on this one Al,
the outside of the box thinker beat the rigidity trained mathematician
and physicist on this one “Al”.
I beat you on this one, “AL”.
Let this be a lesson to all who are truly concerned about what is
right over who is right and gets credit for it.
The answer to some of the most seemingly complex problems may very
well indeed be observing the evidence in the simplest manner and let
the truth speak for itself.
Conrad J. Countess
Your new teacher Al, whether you like it or not
Uncle Al
>
> Hey Al,
>
> I knew that would get someone fired up.
"uachdar muc garadh"
> All I want is for my work to be examined objectively,
[snip crap]
Your "work" is shit. You are profoundly ignorant, refractorily
ineducable, and empirically loathsome. You are too stooopid to smell
your own stink.
Uncle Al
>
> In article <4B11844D...@hate.spam.net>,
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> > idiot
>
> C'mon Uncle Al. I used to think of you as Cyrano de Bererac with sharper
> rapiers than a mere "idiot."
Don't use a thermonuke when a whooppee cushion will suffice. Recycle!
Uncle Al, which is to say "CURRENT RESIDENT," received a vital missive
from the Irvine Unified School District. Massive renovation of
woefully obsolete middle school facilities would be borne upon a
deluge of taxpayer wallets. Perhaps a City Councilcritter wanted a
new Cadillac SUV Cumshaw with extra bloat. Adjacent residents' brief
inconvenience - forty years of construction traffic, smoke by day,
fire by night, and window-cracking recorded salsa on weekends
commencing at 0600 hrs - was granted a special variance by the City of
Irvine. The letter said it was all OK. A thousand or three peripheral
residents could complain by letter if it were not OK.
Dear Sir:
I received IUSD's 24 November "CURRENT RESIDENT" letter bearing $0.44
postage, an envelope, two sheets of paper, and a staple plus labor
costs and amortized overhead (cc: 33 congenitally inconsequential
poobahs and the "Irvine World News" requiring that second page). IUSD
burned my tax money. Send postcards.
IUSD is a politicized excrescence. IUSD hemorrhages bureaucratic
process and bloated cynosure employment while disgorging product
scarcely fit to flip burgers. IUSD prattles equal opportunity and
diversity, sparing no taxpayer expense to coddle genetic, somatic, and
behavioral garbage. The Severely and Profoundly Gifted are crushed,
disseminated amidst bovine confreres, and dissipated.
Rather than foster brilliance, IUSD allocates for its suppression.
IUSD is a confluence of overwhelming ignorance with overweening
arrogance. I am intolerant of those who proudly perpetuate rigorous
characterization of the topology and function of cluelessness.
"...creating the best possible learning environment for our
students..." My expectations for fresh tiger striping, Braille water
fountains, and Web-interfaced hydraulic wheelchair lifts with
quarterly statistical other-ablement compliance reportage are very
high.
IUSD process fluid is chiefly Caucasian, Asian, and East Indian. Do
something useful with it other than warehousing potential organ
donors.
Cordially,
1) East Indians are obviously porcine not bovine. Cultural
sensitivity matters!
2) USPS adhesive undergoes cryogenic failure, Tg and all that. It
was worth sending via the uncancelled stamp from another letter.
3) idiots
Mark Thorson
>
> IUSD process fluid is chiefly Caucasian, Asian, and East Indian. Do
> something useful with it other than warehousing potential organ
> donors.
You're losing your edge in your old age.
Time was when you'd give them a devastating reply.
> 2) USPS adhesive undergoes cryogenic failure, Tg and all that. It
> was worth sending via the uncancelled stamp from another letter.
Did you examine it under UV? For reasons that escape me,
stamps are often marked with a UV-fluorescent ink.
I suppose to catch people who re-use seemingly
uncancelled stamps.
Now that they've got you on the hook for 15 years
in federal prison, maybe you'll be more pliable.
Salmon Egg
Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> IUSD is a politicized excrescence. IUSD hemorrhages bureaucratic
> process and bloated cynosure employment while disgorging product
> scarcely fit to flip burgers. IUSD prattles equal opportunity and
> diversity, sparing no taxpayer expense to coddle genetic, somatic, and
> behavioral garbage. The Severely and Profoundly Gifted are crushed,
> disseminated amidst bovine confreres, and dissipated.
We have our Uncle Al back! I sure miss the old Al Bundy.
Igor
Your response is an incoherent mess. Good luck in your ignorance.
cjcountess
Planck discovered E=hf, for photons
Einstein discovered E=mc^2, for electrons / matter
deBroglie discovered E=hf=mc^2, at level of electron, which has -1
charge and that electron is also a wave. This indicates a smooth
transition from energy to matter, along the same EM spectrum, which
can also be considered the energy/matter spectrum, as well as the
electromagnetic spectrum.
Bohr discovered that wavelength of electron is equal to circumference
of circle, with an angular momentum of a multiple integer of h/2pi.
Therefore it follows from this and geometrical evidence that I
presented that, (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled) and c = (sqrt -1)
c^2 or c in linear direction x c in 90 degree angular direction
creates a 90 degree arc trajectory, which if constant creates a circle
of energy, with an angular momentum = (h/2pi, and wavelength being
inversely proportional, = (hx2pi).
Furthermore, if the amplitude is constant along the EM spectrum, for
single waves, than the wave would make 2 rotations (spin1/2), at 90
degree angle to each other, in order to complete 1 wave cycle,
creating a standing spherical wave of angular momentum( h/2pi/2) whose
spherical diameter = radius of circle = c = h = sqrt-1 = reduced
Compton wavelength = Swartzchild radius.
Sense wave cease to propagate at wavelength equal to or smaller than
inter granular space of material of medium, this also agrees with
Einstein and Minkowskie’s (c x sqrt-1) and /or (ct x sqrt-1), as
measurement of quantum of space-time.
Again I say, the way all this evidence fits together so seamlessly, to
give emergence to such a clear geometrical picture, cannot be
coincidence. It would be statistically very improbable, or perhaps
even impossible for this theory not to be correct
I am tempted to rest my case as I do know that my evidence is
sufficient.
I do not particularly enjoy beating up on bitter old washed up
fighters like Al. I am not that young myself but at least I discovered
something. Al is bitter and angry because I beat him
“Al” you say calculate Newtons G to six SIGNIFIGANT figures. That is
really easy, why don’t you try, and if you cannot, I will show you.
Remember now, it should be as simple and efficient as possible,
without leaving anything significant out. This is because, just as
with computers and the human mind, efficiency saves storage space,
memory space, and speeds up processing time, so don’t just try to show
off your mathematical agility or you may make yourself continue to
look stupid.
And on top of that, you seem to have a few stupid followers you you
may lead down the wrong path. That is, unless that poster Mark
Thorson, was joking. A better class of adversaries!! You got to be
joking!! This clown may have you fooled, but I know and he knows, hes
about as dumb as they come.
Conrad J Countess
Igor
> Planck discovered E=hf, for photons
> Einstein discovered E=mc^2, for electrons / matter
> deBroglie discovered E=hf=mc^2, at level of electron, which has -1
> charge and that electron is also a wave.
Everything you've just stated is correct, although I know you fail to
understand what it actually means.
> This indicates a smooth
> transition from energy to matter, along the same EM spectrum, which
> can also be considered the energy/matter spectrum, as well as the
> electromagnetic spectrum.
Yes, and...?
> Bohr discovered that wavelength of electron is equal to circumference
> of circle, with an angular momentum of a multiple integer of h/2pi.
> Therefore it follows from this and geometrical evidence that I
> presented that, (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled) and c = (sqrt -1)
> c^2 or c in linear direction x c in 90 degree angular direction
> creates a 90 degree arc trajectory, which if constant creates a circle
> of energy, with an angular momentum = (h/2pi, and wavelength being
> inversely proportional, = (hx2pi).
This is hilarious. What about mc^triangled? At least it would have a
more solid mathematical base. How do you circle a number, nitwit?
And the rest of is even more bizarre. Learn some actual physics. I
told you to study conservation laws. Apparently, you didn't learn
anything and so you're cursed to repeat your same ridiculous
mistakes.
Uncle Al
>
> In article <4B11844D...@hate.spam.net>,
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> > idiot
>
> C'mon Uncle Al. I used to think of you as Cyrano de Bererac with sharper
> rapiers than a mere "idiot."
Don't use a thermonuke when a whooppee cushion will suffice. Recycle!
Uncle Al, which is to say "CURRENT RESIDENT," received a vital missive
from the Irvine Unified School District. Massive renovation of
woefully obsolete middle school facilities would be borne upon a
deluge of taxpayer wallets. Perhaps a City Councilcritter wanted a
new Cadillac SUV Cumshaw with extra bloat. Adjacent residents' brief
inconvenience - forty years of construction traffic, smoke by day,
fire by night, and window-cracking recorded salsa on weekends
commencing at 0600 hrs - was granted a special variance by the City of
Irvine. The letter said it was all OK. A thousand or three peripheral
residents could complain by letter if it were not OK.
Dear Sir:
I received IUSD's 24 November "CURRENT RESIDENT" letter bearing $0.44
postage, an envelope, two sheets of paper, and a staple plus labor
costs and amortized overhead (cc: 33 congenitally inconsequential
poobahs and the "Irvine World News" requiring that second page). IUSD
burned my tax money. Send postcards.
IUSD is a politicized excrescence. IUSD hemorrhages bureaucratic
process and bloated cynosure employment while disgorging product
scarcely fit to flip burgers. IUSD prattles equal opportunity and
diversity, sparing no taxpayer expense to coddle genetic, somatic, and
behavioral garbage. The Severely and Profoundly Gifted are crushed,
disseminated amidst bovine confreres, and dissipated.
Rather than foster brilliance, IUSD allocates for its suppression.
IUSD is a confluence of overwhelming ignorance with overweening
arrogance. I am intolerant of those who proudly perpetuate rigorous
characterization of the topology and function of cluelessness.
"...creating the best possible learning environment for our
students..." My expectations for fresh tiger striping, Braille water
fountains, and Web-interfaced hydraulic wheelchair lifts with
quarterly statistical other-ablement compliance reportage are very
high.
IUSD process fluid is chiefly Caucasian, Asian, and East Indian. Do
something useful with it other than warehousing potential organ
donors.
Cordially,
1) East Indians are obviously porcine not bovine. Cultural
sensitivity matters!
2) USPS adhesive undergoes cryogenic failure, Tg and all that. It
was worth sending via the uncancelled stamp from another letter.
3) idiots
Uncle Al
>
> Hey Al,
>
> I knew that would get someone fired up.
"uachdar muc garadh"
> All I want is for my work to be examined objectively,
[snip crap]
Your "work" is shit. You are profoundly ignorant, refractorily
ineducable, and empirically loathsome. You are too stooopid to smell
your own stink.
--
Jarek Duda
> Translating what I said into the terms you used here: Since spin is
> modeled DIFFERENTLY from angular momentum in QFT, they are different
> aspects of a system. As I have said several times, spin is INTRINSIC to
> a particle, but angular momentum is not -- that's QUITE DIFFERENT, in
> both classical and quantum theories. In QFT, spin is modeled with a
> definite-spin representation of the Lorentz group, but angular momentum
> is modeled with eigenfunctions of the angular momentum operator --
> that's QUITE DIFFERENT.
Yes - that's quite different.
Does free (not moving) electron have angular momentum? I don't think
so ...
Photons created while deexcitation usually have angular momentum ...
but is it so for all photons?
Could You really imagine that interacting with electric field is
really made by continuous stream of photons having angular momentum?
If I would only looked at the cited text, I would think that we agree
- photons can carry angular momentum (twist of continuous parameter),
while electrons have spin (being integer multiplicity) ...
Darwin....
Intuitively, topological point of view is distinguishing objects only
when they cannot be continuously deformed one into another.
For example Mobius strip You mentioned ... imagine such strip which
makes the whole internal rotation, not half like Mobius strip - these
two structures would be topologically distinguishable.
We see that for topology there are characteristic integer
multiplicities, like the number of internal half-rotations.
Another characteristic properties are conservation laws - for
examample such strip with multiple internal half-rotation can deform,
but this integer number has to remain unchanged. We can meet precisely
this example in prokaryota DNA - there is used special enzyme
(topoisomerase) to release such internal stress.
Returning to the field of nonzero vectors, only looking at spin/charge
conservation, that to destroy one it has to meet with opposite one,
that they appears in integer multiplicities ... strongly suggests that
they have topological nature ...
Jarek Duda
> modeled DIFFERENTLY from angular momentum in QFT, they are different
> aspects of a system. As I have said several times, spin is INTRINSIC to
> a particle, but angular momentum is not -- that's QUITE DIFFERENT, in
> both classical and quantum theories. In QFT, spin is modeled with a
> definite-spin representation of the Lorentz group, but angular momentum
> is modeled with eigenfunctions of the angular momentum operator --
> that's QUITE DIFFERENT.
Yes - that's quite different.
Tom Roberts
> On 27 Lis, 17:31, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Translating what I said into the terms you used here: Since spin is
>> modeled DIFFERENTLY from angular momentum in QFT, they are different
>> aspects of a system. As I have said several times, spin is INTRINSIC to
>> a particle, but angular momentum is not -- that's QUITE DIFFERENT, in
>> both classical and quantum theories. In QFT, spin is modeled with a
>> definite-spin representation of the Lorentz group, but angular momentum
>> is modeled with eigenfunctions of the angular momentum operator --
>> that's QUITE DIFFERENT.
>
> Yes - that's quite different.
> Does free (not moving) electron have angular momentum? I don't think
> so ...
Of course it does. The value of angular momentum depends on the point
around which you calculate it; classically any moving object has nonzero
angular momentum around any point not directly in line with its
velocity. Quantum mechanically, a free electron is modeled as a plane
wave, which when expanded in terms of angular momentum eigenfunctions
has a nonzero amplitude for every term in the infinite series (this is
true for any point used as the origin, and for any value of momentum,
including zero).
> Returning to the field of nonzero vectors, only looking at spin/charge
> conservation, that to destroy one it has to meet with opposite one,
> that they appears in integer multiplicities ... strongly suggests that
> they have topological nature ...
Whether or not elementary particles are related to topological defects
is an open question that is directly related to modern attempts to
formulate a theory of quantum gravity. No success so far. But the
"topological defect" due to spin would be a line, not a point, and is
not observed for particles. There is more going on than just spin....
Tom Roberts
Y.Porat
the electron is not a point and not a line!
you have to do one step forwards:
it is planar !!!
Y.Porat
--------------------------------
cjcountess
Just look at the evidence it speaks for itself. c in liniear direction
x c in 90 degree angular direction creates a 90 degree arc which if
constant creates energy in circular rotation and a balence of
centripital and centrifugal forces.
All discoveries do not follow mathematical logic as is already
established. Somethings follow a certain incite, which can only be
understood geometrically. Square root -1 is an example of this, not
only my discovery of c as the natural unit square root of the natural
unit -1, but also the one I referenced:
An Imaginary Tale: The Story of the Square Root of -1
by Paul J. Nahin
page 53 paragraph 2:
“square root of -1 is directed line segment of length 1 pointing
straight up along the vertical axis
or at long last, [i = = 1 ∠ 90 degree angle]
This is so important a statement that it is the only mathematical
expression in the entire book that I have enclosed”
page 54 paragraph 2:
“multiplying be square root of -1 is geometrically, simply a rotation
by 90 degrees in the counterclockwise sense
Because of this property square root of -1 is often said to be rotator
operator, in addition to being an imaginary number.”
page 104 paragraph 2:
“In a revealing article criticizing Einstein's and Minkowski's c , a
national bureau of Standards physicist admitted that
Square root of -1 has a legitimate application in pure mathematic,
where it forms a part of various ingenious devices for handling
otherwise intractable situations”
Still, I thought I pointed out how (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled) and (c=i)
very well, and if you cannot see it, maybe you lack a certain vision.
No need to get upset and call names, it will not do you any good or
support your argument.
As for your statement
"And the rest of is even more bizarre. Learn some actual physics. I
told you to study conservation laws. Apparently, you didn't learn
anything and so you're cursed to repeat your same ridiculous
mistakes."
If the laws of conservation as they now are written, is not in
agreement with this, than perhaps they need to be reexamined.
Conrad J Countess
Jarek Duda
> > Yes - that's quite different.
> > Does free (not moving) electron have angular momentum? I don't think
> > so ...
>
> Of course it does. The value of angular momentum depends on the point
> around which you calculate it; classically any moving object has nonzero
> angular momentum around any point not directly in line with its
> velocity. Quantum mechanically, a free electron is modeled as a plane
> wave, which when expanded in terms of angular momentum eigenfunctions
> has a nonzero amplitude for every term in the infinite series (this is
> true for any point used as the origin, and for any value of momentum,
> including zero).
Electrons are mass particles - has velocities smaller than c - we can
choose coordinates in which its not moving, just saying in one point.
Does such electron (in its ground state) has angular momentum?
> Whether or not elementary particles are related to topological defects
> is an open question that is directly related to modern attempts to
> formulate a theory of quantum gravity. No success so far. But the
> "topological defect" due to spin would be a line, not a point, and is
> not observed for particles. There is more going on than just spin....
Why do You think we don't observe them?
For me they can give simple explanation of fermion coupling (like
Cooper pairs, electrons in orbitals) or atomic selection rules (7th
fig. in http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.2724 )
Threating them seriously could be also a reason that we don't fully
understand magnetic reconnections
"This process is not well understood: once started, it proceeds many
orders of magnitude faster than predicted by standard models."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_reconnection
Y.Porat
-----------------
you can know if some mass has angular momentum
only through movement
because that is the only way to test it !!!
Y.Porat
--------------------------
Jarek Duda
> you can know if some mass has angular momentum
> only through movement
> because that is the only way to test it !!!
too much sense...
What it has is spin ... and so it's not made by rotating charge
(neutrino...) - spin is something simpler and so more fundamental than
charge!
And what photon can have is just angular momentum - traveling twist-
like excitation of the field - and there is no spin or charge needed
for that.
Photons are basic, nontopological excitations of all field
theories ... their eventual angular momentum is continuous parameter,
while spin is discrete one.
Tom Roberts
> On 6 Gru, 17:59, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> Does free (not moving) electron have angular momentum? I don't think
>>> so ...
>> Of course it does. The value of angular momentum depends on the point
>> around which you calculate it; classically any moving object has nonzero
>> angular momentum around any point not directly in line with its
>> velocity. Quantum mechanically, a free electron is modeled as a plane
>> wave, which when expanded in terms of angular momentum eigenfunctions
>> has a nonzero amplitude for every term in the infinite series (this is
>> true for any point used as the origin, and for any value of momentum,
>> including zero).
> I've written - not moving.
> Electrons are mass particles - has velocities smaller than c - we can
> choose coordinates in which its not moving, just saying in one point.
> Does such electron (in its ground state) has angular momentum?
Yes, as I said before. In non-relativistic quantum mechanics, an electron with a
definite momentum p_u has a plane-wave wavefunction ~ exp[-i hbar p_u x^u].
Putting p_i=0 (i=1,2,3) means the wavefunction ~ exp[-i hbar E t]. Projecting
that onto the angular momentum eigenstates {Y_lm} gives a nonzero amplitude for
every one.
[As is well known, such plane-wave wavefunctions are not
normalizable.]
In QFT things are more complicated, but still the states with nonzero angular
momentum have nonzero amplitudes.
>> Whether or not elementary particles are related to topological defects
>> is an open question that is directly related to modern attempts to
>> formulate a theory of quantum gravity. No success so far. But the
>> "topological defect" due to spin would be a line, not a point, and is
>> not observed for particles. There is more going on than just spin....
> Why do You think we don't observe them?
Because we observe no line-like structure related to elementary particles,
nuclei, or atoms.
> saying that pure electron has angular momentum doesn't have
> too much sense...
It most definitely does in non-rel QM (see above). Ditto for QFT.
> What it has is spin
That, too.
> spin is something simpler and so more fundamental than
> charge!
Hmmm. Spin is a representation of the Lorentz group, charge is an integer. I'm
not sure "simpler" applies, but if it does I think an integer is "simpler".
Note the integers for charge actually enumerate representations
of the group U(1)....
> And what photon can have is just angular momentum - traveling twist-
> like excitation of the field - and there is no spin or charge needed
> for that.
Spin 1 is NECESSARY to model photons in agreement with experiments. So is charge
0. Both are determined experimentally to extremely high accuracy.
I repeat: spin is not angular momentum. See my earlier postings for what they
actually are, in our best models of EM and quantum phenomena.
Tom Roberts
Jarek Duda
> Yes, as I said before. In non-relativistic quantum mechanics, an electron with a
> definite momentum p_u has a plane-wave wavefunction ~ exp[-i hbar p_u x^u].
> Putting p_i=0 (i=1,2,3) means the wavefunction ~ exp[-i hbar E t]. Projecting
> that onto the angular momentum eigenstates {Y_lm} gives a nonzero amplitude for
> In QFT things are more complicated, but still the states with nonzero angular
> momentum have nonzero amplitudes.
You focus on wave nature of particles, but there is also corpuscular
one.
I think about quantization procedure - going into Fock space, as a
tool for perturbatve approximation.
Let's focus on nonperturbative picture - in which electron is a
corpuscle of nonzero radius - and so with some internal structure.
Formalism You written usually forgets about this internal structure.
It is taken into consideration in fitted abstract expansion terms in
some abstract potential... but these terms only describes some
parameters of the particle ... they don't answer to the most important
question here: WHAT IS PARTICLE'S INTERNAL STRUCTURE?
exp[-i hbar E t] formulation again completely ignores its internal
structure. Better approximation of behavior is given by quantum
rotation operator for spin particles and it says that there is made
topological singularity there ...
OK .. how to experimentally prove/disprove electron's internal angular
momentum?
Maybe through annihilation ... how does electron + positron
annihilation results depends on their polarization?
But my intuition suggests that before collision they should align
their spins correspondingly - always in the same way...
?
> Because we observe no line-like structure related to elementary particles,
> nuclei, or atoms.
What would You expect? Shining lines? :)
They would be extremely small, very stable and so they could
practically not affect photons ...
If they would have energy density per length, while reconnecting this
energy would be released ... what can be what is missing in current
models of magnetic reconnections... which are far form observed in
Sun's corona ...
But generally in lower temperatures they would prefer to be very short
- for example making loop joining two particles and explaining why
they prefer to couple on atom orbitals or as Cooper pairs ...
Do You have a better explanation for Cooper pairs? Collective
deformation waves of the lattice is not enough to hold two repelling
electrons together ...
This picture also explains why while deexcitation spin is usually
changed by one - topologically to break such loop, the simplest way is
to twist one electron 180 deg and reconnect (fig. 7 I wanted You to at
least to look at ... )
You will probably say that it can be also explained by that there is
some usually conserved abstract mathematical property - parity ...
but ... why?? do You really have not mathematical, but physical
intuition about this property?
> > spin is something simpler and so more fundamental than
> > charge!
>
> Hmmm. Spin is a representation of the Lorentz group, charge is an integer. I'm
> not sure "simpler" applies, but if it does I think an integer is "simpler".
You have to think about spin through Dirac equations ... but they are
only some general tool to operate on something spin-like ...
They again don't see particle's internal structure!
Particle is a corpuscle also ... especially when it just stays in one
place and don't move ...
> Spin 1 is NECESSARY to model photons in agreement with experiments.
Which experiment do You refer????
The reason of this thread was to hear answer for that question ... and
after 200 posts I still didn't heard any concrete experimental
argument...
> I repeat: spin is not angular momentum (...)
I agree ... and do You agree that photons can carry angular momentum?
If yes - how to cope these two sentences? ...
Generally I apology for not referring to Your whole posts - I read
them all, but I see the standard picture I know well and which after a
lot of thinking brought me to more and more doubts I try would like to
understand - I ask because standard answers don't satisfy me.
best, jarek
Tom Roberts
> On 8 Gru, 18:15, Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Yes, as I said before. In non-relativistic quantum mechanics, an electron with a
>> definite momentum p_u has a plane-wave wavefunction ~ exp[-i hbar p_u x^u].
>> Putting p_i=0 (i=1,2,3) means the wavefunction ~ exp[-i hbar E t]. Projecting
>> that onto the angular momentum eigenstates {Y_lm} gives a nonzero amplitude for
>> every one. (...)
>> In QFT things are more complicated, but still the states with nonzero angular
>> momentum have nonzero amplitudes.
>
> You focus on wave nature of particles, but there is also corpuscular
> one.
Hmmm. I described this in terms of non-rel QM, and mentioned how it extends to
QFT. Your concept of there being "wave" and "corpuscular" descriptions is not
contained in either of them. You need to get a real QM/QED textbook, not a comic
book.
> I think about quantization procedure - going into Fock space, as a
> tool for perturbatve approximation.
Those are words of the technical vocabulary, but they don't really go together
like that. Get a real textbook. Study it.
You ask
> WHAT IS PARTICLE'S INTERNAL STRUCTURE?
In non-rel QM the electron has no structure. In QED the bare electron has no
structure, and the dressed particle's structure is described in the perturbative
approximation by summing the appropriate diagrams to all orders.
>> Spin 1 is NECESSARY to model photons in agreement with experiments.
> Which experiment do You refer????
> The reason of this thread was to hear answer for that question ... and
> after 200 posts I still didn't heard any concrete experimental
> argument...
You have to ask the question to get an answer; until now you haven't asked this
particular question.
All of atomic spectroscopy, including its transition rules, directly implies
that emitted photons must have spin 1. There are literally zillions of
experiments summarized in that one sentence.
The angular dependence of pair production implies the photon has spin 1.
The angular dependence of Compton scattering implies the photon has spin 1.
For essentially every decay or interaction of an elementary particle, if the
photon had no spin there would be no selection rule preventing the emission of
an arbitrary number of photons in addition to the other decay products. This is
not observed.
Those are what comes to mind in a minute or two. There are surely others....
Spin is pervasive, essential, and subtle. You cannot expect to understand it
without a serious study of QM, QED, and QFT.
Tom Roberts
Jarek Duda
> Hmmm. I described this in terms of non-rel QM, and mentioned how it extends to
> QFT. Your concept of there being "wave" and "corpuscular" descriptions is not
> contained in either of them. You need to get a real QM/QED textbook, not a comic
> book.
So in Your picture for example while electron-position creation, there
appears (come from where? another dimension or something?) two points
of infinite energy density ... with some magical labels containing
their commutation relations ?
I agree that one of us should return to reality ...
No - we have only 4 dimensions of some field which has some special
local solutions - particles. They have finite energy density and so
nonzero radius. So they have some internal structures which results in
their mathematical parameters.
> Those are words of the technical vocabulary, but they don't really go together
> like that. Get a real textbook. Study it. (...)
> In non-rel QM the electron has no structure. In QED the bare electron has no
> structure, and the dressed particle's structure is described in the perturbative
> approximation by summing the appropriate diagrams to all orders.
These theories are not physics, but some APPROXIMATIONS - mathematical
models which allow us to calculate some properties, estimate some
probabilities ...
You cannot just blindly recite holy words of physics, but You
sometimes also have to think in self-aware, critical way ... and in
discussions at least looking at the second side's arguments would be
nice, even if they are inconvenient to Your faith ....
> All of atomic spectroscopy, including its transition rules, directly implies
> that emitted photons must have spin 1. There are literally zillions of
> experiments summarized in that one sentence.
If You would try sometimes also to look at my posts, You would realize
that in half of them I'm referring to this argument ...
These rules says that spin up electron is changed into spin down - it
can be done not only by magically transforming Your magical points,
but also by just rotating them 180 deg and in this case photon has
only to carry angular momentum!
> The angular dependence of pair production implies the photon has spin 1.
Yes - that one have one angular momentum and the second opposite
because of momentum conservation ...
> The angular dependence of Compton scattering implies the photon has spin 1.
It only says that this process depends on photon's angular
momentum ...
> For essentially every decay or interaction of an elementary particle, if the
> photon had no spin there would be no selection rule preventing the emission of
> an arbitrary number of photons in addition to the other decay products. This is
> not observed.
So these processes comes in a few quick steps and each of them is
'summarized' by produced photon to fulfill conservation laws.
I agree that photons (don't have to, but) can carry angular momentum.
Please explain how these experiments shows that they also need to
carry spin?
Tom Roberts
> On 10 Gru, 21:04, Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Hmmm. I described this in terms of non-rel QM, and mentioned how it extends to
>> QFT. Your concept of there being "wave" and "corpuscular" descriptions is not
>> contained in either of them. You need to get a real QM/QED textbook, not a comic
>> book.
>
> So in Your picture for example while electron-position creation, there
> appears (come from where? another dimension or something?) two points
> of infinite energy density ... with some magical labels containing
> their commutation relations ?
Whatever makes you say that?
The electron-positron pair is created, from the energy in the photon. They are
"brand new", and "came" from nowhere -- they were CREATED, which is why they
come in pairs with all their additive quantum numbers having exactly opposite
values. And "energy density" is not infinite -- these are QUANTUM OBJECTS (they
don't have sharp positions). The intrinsic properties of the e+ and e- are part
and parcel of them, including properties modeled by commutation relations.
> I agree that one of us should return to reality ...
No hope -- neither you nor I know what "reality" is, so a "return" is not
possible. All we have are MODELS. And yes, those models are not complete.
> These theories are not physics, but some APPROXIMATIONS - mathematical
> models which allow us to calculate some properties, estimate some
> probabilities ...
Your first statement is wrong, as physics _IS_ constructing models of the world,
which necessarily involve approximations.
> [...]
> I agree that photons (don't have to, but) can carry angular momentum.
Photons with definite momentum have non-zero angular momentum in any basis and
relative to any origin. They are QUANTUM OBJECTS, not pointlike classical
particles as you seem to think. They don't have sharp locations, which is why
the projection of their wavefunction onto angular momentum eigenfunctions has
nonzero amplitude for every one (when they have a definite momentum, as was the
case being discussed).
> Please explain how these experiments shows that they also need to
> carry spin?
The angular dependence of photon interactions directly implies they are spin 1.
I repeat: you need to STUDY QM and QFT before you have any hope of understanding
spin. Or why the wavefunction for quantum objects with definite momentum has
nonzero amplitude for all possible angular momenta.
This is getting overly repetitive. Don't expect me to respond
unless you actually LEARN something about the subject.
Tom Roberts
Y.Porat
--------------
youtalked a lot sansaid nothing!!
tghe only reasonable things you said
are the words od doubt!!
good for you
after decades of pompous self confdece
some cracks of doubt came even to a pompous crook that speaks his
magic (empthy )words lke quantum
and farthing 'quantum numbers '
anyway
that is good toimpress your innocent
students
**it is **not** good enough to impress
people who know some more physics
*you cant cheat every one forever **!!
Y.Porat
---------------------