charge is geometry and spin is fitting together two funnel shapes Chapt13.4.03 Charge, Rest-mass, Spin, Speed, Geometrical-Size of particles from DTW #1015 New Physics #1135 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Alright, I am back to this physics book and learned something from the
math book (Correcting Math) that the funnel shape is Hyperbolic
geometry, only it need be a hemisphere of a sphere with its poles and
equator deleted.

The funnel need not have a spout or spigot, but just simply the hole
in the pole.

What this information brings me, is a chance to unify charge with spin
or brings those two in a closer relationship of one another.

Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.physics.electromag, sci.math, sci.chem
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 00:45:42 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Nov 2 2012 1:45 am
Subject: charge is geometry and spin is fitting together two funnel
shapes Chapt13.4.03 Charge, Rest-mass, Spin, Speed, Geometrical-Size
of particles from DTW #1014 New Physics #1134 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Alright, back with the book!
I hit a snag and to relieve myself I went and did math in the interim
and it came to me, how to overcome the problem the snag.
Charge comes in only 3 types, -1,0,+1 and those values correspond
to the fact that Geometry comes in only 3 types, the hyperbolic which
is a funnel shape, and Euclidean which is the hyperbolic unioned with
elliptic, and the +1 which is elliptic or a ball shape.
My snag or problem was to find how there can be 3 and only 3 types of
spin. Spin can be -1/2, 0, +1/2.
For the photon and neutrino, the spin is 0, contrary to the Standard
Model of Physics which has values of 1 and 3/2. The Standard Model
assigns the photon with spin 1 and the neutrino with spin 1/2. In New
Physics where the Maxwell Equations are the axioms of physics which
gives light-waves as double-transverse waves and that theory of DTW
makes the photon a spin of 0 and the neutrino a spin of 0.
So what was the inspiration that lifted me up from the snag the
quagmire? The inspiration is the shape of hyperbolic geometry which
is
a funnel shape.
So that electrons have hyperbolic geometry and are funnel shaped, not
ball shaped.
When electrons are funnel shaped, you can join two of them together
to
form a ball shape.
ASCII art is rather limited on Usenet but let me try to draw a
picture
of a electron as a funnel shape:
\ /
\/
||
now if you put a electron with spin opposite as pictured as this:
||
/\
/ \
And when the two are combined by the Maxwell Equations gives two
electrons looking like this:
----
| |
| |
----
I cannot draw a ball or elliptical shape with ascii art but two
funnels with opposite spin would join to form elliptical.
Now when two electrons both have spin up they do not share
a suborbital, and although they do not repel each other, they
do not join to form a elliptical ball shaped pair.
In a sense, the two funnels when they join form a closed loop wire
shape whereas two funnels of the same spin form a open wire like
this:
| |
/\/\

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

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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Alright, I do not need funnels with spouts on them. All I need is a
hemisphere that has missing the pole points.

So I have a charge of +1 for proton and the proton is a sphere
surface, the outer sphere surface. On the inside of the sphere we can
fit two of those hemisphere funnels since the poles were missing and
the equator is missing.

So that in the Maxwell Equations, when we combine spin up 1/2 and spin
down 1/2, what we are combining is two hemispheres, the inside of the
sphere with its poles missing and its equator missing.

So I managed to get the theory that far. Now let me see if I can thus
bring charge and spin together in a more unified theory.

What I have so far is that an electron is a hemisphere of spin 1/2 and
charge -1 and two electrons can fit together to form the inside of a
sphere albeit with poles and equator deleted. And where the outer-skin
of this two electron sphere is a full sphere of a proton with charge
+1.

There is a major problem so far with that picture in that there are 2
electrons to 1 proton, unless, however I make the proton a hemisphere
also. A proton hemisphere that has the poles and equator intact.

Now all of that seems a bit awkward at the moment. But there is one
data that comes from experimental physics that weighs in favor of what
I wrote above. And that data is the fact that the probability of
finding the electron is greatest at the center of each atom. So the
very center of each atom is the center inside of a proton.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Alright, I spent most of the day thinking of how to resolve this
problem. I was thinking of the helium atom for a solution. The problem
is quite easily stated that the proton is Elliptic geometry, the
outside surface of a sphere, whereas the electron is Hyperbolic
geometry, the inside layer of the sphere with the poles and equator
deleted. So that one electron is a hemisphere, an inward hemisphere.

That solves the problem of two electrons filling a suborbital with one
spin up and the other spin down. So if we had a sphere surface, it
would be the proton, and inside the inner wall would be two electrons,
one hemisphere apiece.

Now that is allowed so far, because the majority of the electron's
time is spent in the center of the nucleus, or, inside a proton.

The Trouble was: well, it should be obvious what the problem is, in
that if two electrons fit inside a single proton, then where and what
is the other proton doing, in the helium atom.

A solution came to me, only I will have to renege an earlier comment
that the neutrino has spin 0. The neutrino maybe a solution.

The proton would hold one electron as occupying a hemisphere and the
neutrino would occupy the other hemisphere.

And that would also destroy the idea that two electrons occupying an
orbital are like two hemispheres put together. Instead it is the one
hemisphere of the electron with the other hemisphere as a neutrino.

Have to think some more..

[Timothy Sutter]

ooooooo

[fixed width text]

_+m"m+_
Jp qh
O O
Yb dY
"Y5m2Y"


3333333333
333 333
33 33
3 3
3 3
33 33
333 333
3333333333





3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
3333333333333 3333333333333
33333333 33333333
33333 33333
333 333
33 33
3 3
3 3
33 33
333 333
33333 33333
33333333 33333333
3333333333333 3333333333333
3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333



3333333333333333333338333333333333333333333
3333333333333 3333333333333
33333333 33333333
33333 _+m"m+ 33333
333 Jp qh 333
33 O O 33
3 Yb dY 3
3 "Y5m2Y" 3
33 33
333 333
33333 33333
33333333 33333333
3333333333333 3333333333333
3333333333333333333338333333333333333333333

[Timothy Sutter]

https://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/558caaa739631689?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect


> ooooooo

> [fixed width text] <======

[Timothy Sutter]

anyway, you can play with those figures
to get them to look right in avariable width font,
i just haven't felt like messing with it.

[Timothy Sutter]

> anyway, you can play with those figures
> to get them to look right in avariable width font,
> i just haven't felt like messing with it.

> > > [fixed width text] <======
> > >
> > > _+m"m+_
> > > Jp qh
> > > O O
> > > Yb dY
> > > "Y5m2Y"

yes, i swiped the circle from somebody in ascii art,
but i forgot who it was so i can't cite them.

oh, no, here;

http://incredibleart.org/links/ascii/new_faq.html

i made the ellipes myself

they're fibonachi sets...

[Timothy Sutter]

> > anyway, you can play with those figures
> > to get them to look right in avariable width font,
> > i just haven't felt like messing with it.
>
> > > > [fixed width text] <======
> > > >
> > > > _+m"m+_
> > > > Jp qh
> > > > O O
> > > > Yb dY
> > > > "Y5m2Y"

this one should be a variable width ellipse...

8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
8888888888888 8888888888888
88888888 88888888
88888
88888

888
888

88
88

8
8

8
8

88
88

888
888
88888
88888
88888888 88888888
8888888888888 8888888888888
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

[Timothy Sutter]

> > > anyway, you can play with those figures
> > > to get them to look right in avariable width font,
> > > i just haven't felt like messing with it.
> >
> > > > > [fixed width text] <======
> > > > >

> > > > > _+m"m+_
> > > > > Jp qh
> > > > > O O
> > > > > Yb dY
> > > > > "Y5m2Y"

> this one should be a variable width ellipse...

9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999 9999999999999
99999999 99999999
99999 99999
999 999
99 99
9 9
9 9
99 99
999 999
99999 99999
99999999 99999999
9999999999999 9999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999


now you see why i don't feel like messing with it...

> > yes, i swiped the circle from somebody in ascii art,
> > but i forgot who it was so i can't cite them.
> >
> > oh, no, here;
> >
> > http://incredibleart.org/links/ascii/new_faq.html
> >
> > i made the ellipes myself
> >
> > they're fibonachi sets...
> >

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Nov 21, 9:23 am, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com-> wrote:
> > > > anyway, you can play with those figures
> > > > to get them to look right in avariable width font,
> > > >  i just haven't felt like messing with it.
>
> > > > > > [fixed width text]   <======
>
> > > > > >             _+m"m+_
> > > > > >            Jp     qh
> > > > > >            O       O
> > > > > >            Yb     dY
> > > > > >             "Y5m2Y"
> > this one should be a variable width ellipse...
>

equator for electrons is deleted

> 99999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999

>  9999999999999                                 9999999999999
>   99999999                                                    99999999
>   99999                                                                99999
>   999                                                                        999
>   99                                                                            99
>   9                                                                                9

poles for electron

>   9                                                                                9
>   99                                                                            99
>   999                                                                        999
>   99999                                                                99999
>   99999999                                                    99999999
>  9999999999999                                 9999999999999
> 9999999999999999999999 999999999999999999999
>
> now you see why i don't feel like messing with it...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > yes, i swiped the circle from somebody in ascii art,
> > > but i forgot who it was so i can't cite them.
>
> > > oh, no, here;
>
> > >http://incredibleart.org/links/ascii/new_faq.html
>
> > > i made the ellipes myself
>
> > > they're fibonachi sets...
>
> > > > > > 3333333333
> > > > > > 333    333
> > > > > > 33      33
> > > > > > 3        3
> > > > > > 3        3
> > > > > > 33      33
> > > > > > 333    333
> > > > > > 3333333333

Hi Tim, thanks for that ascii art, it is very helpful and useful to
newcomers for ideas.

Since yesterday, I have an improvement. What I am heading for is a
relationship of charge to spin. In Old Physics, charge and spin had no
relationship whatsoever, but totally independent.

And, in Old Physics, one can immediately see that their spin was
incorrect because they had more than three types of spin whereas they
had only three types of charge in total. If you know anything about
quantum mechanics, you should be at least smart enough to realize that
charge cannot be smaller of a system type than that of the last
quantum number m_s of spin. If the world of physics has but only three
types of charge, then the world of physics has but only three types of
spin. A smart physicist would eventually know this, but there were few
smart physicists in the past 112 years.

I have overcome this problem of the two protons and two electrons
where one forms a hemisphere and the other a sphere. By hemisphere, I
mean semi-sphere, or half a sphere. The electron is a Hyperbolic
geometry and forms a hemisphere with the pole deleted and the equator
deleted.

The problem yesterday was that the proton was a full sphere, the
electron a hemisphere with pole deleted and equator deleted. And I
thought that the two electrons in helium become the undersphere of 1
single proton. So the two electrons fit inside 1 sphere that was 1
proton.
So I had to overcome that problem. And what I thought was a solution
is that the electron and electron neutrino fit inside the sphere that
was the proton.

But that causes there still to be a huge problem, because the proton
has spin 1/2 also and so why should the proton be a full sphere if the
electron is but a semisphere? Well it has to be a full sphere because
it is Elliptic geometry whereas the electron is Hyperbolic geometry.

Now we can still have the electron be a full sphere with parts deleted
and still by Hyperbolic geometry.

And that is the solution to this vexing problem, where the full
electron is a sphere with poles and equator deleted resting inside a
proton sphere. For the highest probability of finding an electron in
an atom is smack in the center of the nucleus-- inside a proton.

But it causes another problem in how, how, two electrons can form a
spin up and spin down pair in a suborbital. Almost as if a electron
resides inside a proton as a pair of charges of -1 with +1. So, having
removed one problem I find myself challenged by another problem. How
do electrons pair in suborbitals such as the s orbital or the 3
suborbitals of the p orbital?

I am guided by a fact of Chemistry that is very obvious to anyone who
has studied chemistry but which is rather hidden from perception until
someone needs this sort of fact. One can take a poll of all chemistry
teachers and find that all of them knew this hidden fact but was never
able to draw upon it. The fact I speak of is the fact that helium is
one of the inert gases and helium is oddball to the inert gases
because helium is a s orbital while the other inert gases are a p
orbital. Helium is the most stable element but the inert gases are the
most stable configuration. This fact gives us the clue as to how two
electrons can form a pair, much like what a electron and proton form a
pair by having the electron inside a proton.

I am millimetering closer to the goal of establishing a relationship
between charge and spin.

Google's New-Newsgroups censors AP posts and halted a proper archiving
of author, but Drexel's Math Forum does 
not and my posts in archive

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Nov 21, 2:34 pm, Archimedes Plutonium

Well I tampered too much with the one ascii art of the electron by
deleting the poles and deleting the equator.

But I think any reader can understand those words with a mental
picture thereof.

So let me get to this chemistry and physics of the spin 1/2 for
electron and proton and how the helium atom can be an inert gas while
the remaining inert gases are p orbitals instead of s orbitals. The P
orbitals are distended or elongated ellipses not spheres as the s
orbital is a sphere.

So we have to find out why the electrons are no longer spherical in
form but are distended ellipsoids in form from S orbital to P orbital.

The charge of Physics is well known to be only -1, 0 and +1.

So the spin of particles of physics can only come in three types also.
Whether those three types are -1/2, 0, +1/2

or possible this combination, 0, 1/2, 1.

Charge is fully that of geometry and there are three and only three
types of geometry, Euclidean, Elliptic and Hyperbolic. So the issue
and questions of charge are settled. That leaves me with the issues
and questions of spin.

If I had my guesses, they would be that spin is -1/2, 0, +1/2 and that
the spin of the photon and neutrino is that of spin 0. The spin of a
proton or electron can be either -1/2 or +1/2.

In the Double Transverse Wave theory the photon looks like this:

E-
M+ M-
E+

while the electron and proton have an E missing.

The neutrinos look like this:

M-
M+ M-
M+

and like this:

M+ M-

Since they are symmetrical, they have spin 0.

So that if two electrons share a suborbital in the P orbital, with one
electron spin up and another spin down
would that cause the transformation of the spheres into being
distended ellipsis?

This is tough stuff, for I have to millimeter my way to the end goal.

[Timothy Sutter]

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> For the highest probability of finding an electron in an atom
> is smack in the center of the nucleus-- inside a proton.

this stuff is pretty funny.

you'd think that the highest probability of where
a steelie electron charged -1 would be is right
at the nucleus charged +1, but, the prton, though not a "lepton"
is still fairly solid and not a cloud of 10^ mini-particles.

so, there's no way for a steelie "lepton" which
is the electron, to get -inside- of the proton.

no, not exactly, what it does do, is sort of bounce
off and around the perifery of the proton's personal
private space almost like two spinning tops.

but there must be some reason, why, the two particles
one +1 and one -1 don't just attach themselves like glue

but they don't.

see, if you though of the proton and the electron
as if they were like the earth and the moon, what
you may see, is

that, though the real earth and moon are very big and
don't have much of an electronic interaction

the proton and electorn, may very well have a tiny miniscule
gravitational interaction, only, it's really weak and the
tendency for two partcicals that size would be to fly apart
if -only- gravity were at work.

but, if the electronic effect is -just- large enough
to balance out with the gravitational effect, then there's
a tendency for the two particles to, both, fly apart,
and a tendency for the two particles to smash together.

and those two particles are trapped in a harmonic oscillation dance.

flying apart and smashing together but never quite flying all
the way apart and never quite ever smashing together.

as if they were stuck together on an invisible slinky spring

and the electron is flying away, and just as it is about to get away,
the elctronic effect yanks it back towards the proton but the elctron
just whizzes past on its trajectory and passes right by the proton
and wants to keep going out away again and does keep going until
the elctronic effect just catches up with it and yanks it back again.

and for the 1s orbital, you place the proton at the very center,
and the elctron s wobbling around in a sphere that is about a
million times the size of the proton, and its flight pattern,
is actually very nice neat little sign wave patterns

as the elctron flies away from the center and then
is pulled back to the center

you can almost hear it wah-wah-wah-wah-wah-wah

and it may interest one to note, that, this relationship
has -only- been solved exactly for a single proton and
a single electron, and, in fact, you -can't- solve it
exactly for any more particles.

you can only estimate the behavior based on a few theoretical
options which usually tend to require extensive matrix algebra.

but there are, actually, people who do strange
theoretical calculation on oddball ions

like, for instance, potassium 18+ ion, which just
happens to be 19 protons several neutrons and ONE electron.

and so, one may presume, that the entire nucleus, protons
and neutrons are treated as a single entity and they
try and solve for the shapes of the orbitals which
are -not- "hydrogen-like" orbitals

and, as you may very well expect, the -shapes are
not exactly the same as the shapes of the
hydrogen-like orbitals.

but, what you -don't- say, is that the electron,
is flying in and out of the nucleus

but you may wonder why that little -1 charge is
not sucked in to the area of the massive 18+ charge

and there's probably a reason for that.

why doesn't the whole atom just collapse?

why are negatively charged particles seeming
to fly -away- from postively charged nucleus.

that's what you're wondering right?

well, go back and think of what would happen
if the moon were about 1% of it's present size.

there may be some tendency for the moon's
orbit to race -away- from the earth.

only, there'd be nothing to yank it back and it
would just run off after the sun or venus or mercury
and smash in to one of them maybe, or it -could-
run out and smash i to jupiter.

you seem to have -some- inkling of a bit of
an understanding of this and a -lot- of
interest in it so, you'r posts are
sometimes sort of funny.

but that's ok.

i haven't read many of them, but i tried
to parse through some of this one.

do yourself a favor, don't concentrate too much on the
idear that the electron is 10^40 particles scattered
through out the orbitals.





now, see if you can comprehend this;

==
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/kullander/

Refined measurements of the size of the electron using
electron-positron colliders have shown that the charge
of the electron is confined to dimensions at least
1,000 times smaller than the size of the proton...
==

see, this suggests that the charge of the electron
is =confined= to physical dimensions smaller that
the size of the proton.

'kay?

==
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton

The proton is about 1.6–1.7 fm in diameter.
==

now, i femtometer is equal to 10-15 meters.


here we see the general radius of
the various hydrogenlike electronic orbitals.

==
http://www.chm.davidson.edu/vce/atomicorbitals/size.html

n Shell radius
(angstroms) Nbr. Electrons
1 K 1.4 2
2 L 4.8 8
3 M 10.3 18
4 N 17.8 32
==


as you see, the orbitals are on the order
of "angstroms" or 10^-10 meters

so, what we have, is a particle, the electron,
whose charge is confined to dimensions on
the order of 10^-15 to 10^-16 meters

wandering about in an orbital schmear
that is on the order of 10^-10 meters.

which is to say that the spacial region which
encapsulates the chargeed particle is over
5 orders of magnitude the size of
the particle itself.

with me so far?

this means that the orbital is about 100000 times
larger than the -charge- confinement of the particle,

and so, we do not have a diffuse band of
smithereenies in a cloud the size of a given orbital

but a rather -small- solid object wandering
about in a balloon of space that is upwards
of 100000 times as large as the particle itself.

the "cloud" does -not- speak of a smithereenied electron

but that the most _likely_ =neighborhood= where we
may find this object, is upwards of 5 orders
of magnitude the size of the object itself,
and all we can say is;

"=it= is -in- there somewhere"


'kay?



oh, excuse me, i wasn't paying attention,

the electron charge is confined to
a space on the order of 10^-18 meters.

not 10^-15 meters.

and the orbitals are in the 10^-10 region,

so, teh electron is wandering about in a balloon
about 10 million times as large as teh electron itself.

sort of like a person who is six feet tall

swimming in an ocean way larger than the entire earth.

and all you can say is the guy is somewhere in the vast ocean...

gimme numbers, that ocean may be from hear to the moon


mean distance from earth to moon is 384,400 km

this ocean would be in the millions of kilometers

so, there's maxwells demon, about 6 feet rtall

swimming in an ocean from here to the moon and beyond


and yet, maxwell's deamon is known to be confined
to that six feet and is -not- schmeared
all throughout tha ocean.


=now= do we see?


mawell's deamon is swimminhin a very very large cloud


and you can't -see- the daemon, but, you
can say that he's in that cloud bank somewhere.


'KAY?


good, fine, now i get it....

[Timothy Sutter]

Timothy Sutter wrote:

> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> > For the highest probability of finding an electron in an atom
> > is smack in the center of the nucleus-- inside a proton.

> this stuff is pretty funny.

> you'd think that the highest probability of where
> a steelie electron charged -1 would be is right
> at the nucleus charged +1, but, the prton, though not a "lepton"
> is still fairly solid and not a cloud of 10^ mini-particles.

of course, in -real- life, the two objects,

the proton and the electron, are whizzing past each other,

both going back and forth and neither is fixed in space.

like two bungees jumpers attached in outer space only a lot faster.

and they never actually crash in to each other they just whiz
back and forth to the limits of the escape velocities
and electromagnetic attraction.

but =YOU= wanna tie spin and charge together.

as if one either causes the other or
if both are entailments of each other.

i.e spin causes charge or charge causes spin
or spin and chrge ar intimately tied together.

=YOU= probably wouldn't want to say that spin caused charge

because types of spin and types of
charge seem indifferent to each oher.

i.e. an electron doesn't become a positron
when it is spin down as opposed to spin up.

does it?

no, doesn't seem to.

ok, fine.

does charge cause spin?

well, if it does then the nature of the charge,

positive or negative, doesn't seem to matter,

but only charge in and of itself

but, you may be ale to convince yourself

that neutrons ...spin


do neutrons spin?

some seem to think they do...spin

ok, but, did the neutrons whiz past a proton

and pick up sme spin from that?

and do they keep on whizzing around with
protons and bleed off some excess spin from them?

what sort of experiment would you design to find ths out?


"well, maybe i'll just twiddle my thumbs

and deduce an answer from the aether"


yeah, that -might- work

but, it will be difficult to demonstrate this

past the demonstration of the thumb twiddling...


so, where was i?

oh, do spin and charge simultaneously come in to existence?

which is to say, is it impossible to have one without the other?

like, the very moment you get spin, you get charge as well...


so what? SO WHAT? you're asking -ME- SO WHAT?



well, lemme tell you.


hold on, i'm pondering....

[Timothy Sutter]

> i.e. an electron doesn't become a positron
> when it is spin down as opposed to spin up.

but, in this event, nothing has realy changed about the electrons


which is to say, all electrons spin in a right handed fashion

which is to say, if you look at your right hand, and the
thumb is pointing up the fingers spin in your direction

that's spin up,

now, if you point your thumb down, the same electron
is spinning in what is -apparently- the opposite direction

only, just like your hand, it's really moving in the
same direction it was always moving, only your thumb
is pointing down.

and all of this spin up and spin down business
is just a matter of packaging

as far as anyone can tell, =all= electrons are identical

but, they all seem to have a microscopic thumb

and when one electron is in the balloon all by itself,
they just -say- it's "spin up" by convention

and when a second electron is placed in the balloon,
they just =say= it is spin down, by convention.

when the only thing for certain, is, that
when two electrons are in the ballon

they tend to align themselves

spin up and spin down

because ....


now look, if you had your left hand and right hand

and you made your right hand thumb up

and your left hand thumb down

guess what?

yeah, that's right, they'd both be

spinning in the same direction...


so, isn't that strange?


zzzzzz


ohm excuse me, i dozed off for a moment.

where was i?

[Timothy Sutter]

> now look, if you had your left hand and right hand
> and you made your right hand thumb up
> and your left hand thumb down

> guess what?

> yeah, that's right, they'd both be

> spinning in the same direction...

> so, isn't that strange?

but it sure seems like they're spinning
in the opposite direction when the fingers
pass each other...

you'd almost think the fingers would interlock.

but, electrons don't have fingers.

-just- that microscopic thumb.

but still, if the electrons are right handed -and- left handed

when they're both spin up, they're spinning in the opposite direction

but then, you'd -think- that you had two different types of electrons

only, there's no way to determine this.


and then, someone may just want to say;

"ay, there are two totally different types of electorns

a right handed type and a left handed type..."


but, seeing as how they're just round little
bowling balls with no fingers and no wrists

there's really no way to draw such a distinction


so, if you took a pool cue, or an eight ball and a seven ball

and spun one with your right hand and one with your left hand


there would be no tendency for one to immediately change
its spin state just because they got close to each other


or, if you spun both with your right hand

still, no tendency for proximity to change spin states.


but, apparently, it's =totally= different when

the pool balls get really really tiny...


and -this- could have -something- to do with

the -charge- on the particles.


what?

[Timothy Sutter]

> the pool balls get really really tiny...
> and -this- could have -something- to do with
> the -charge- on the particles.

> what?

but, the one thing that i'm sure of,
even though i can't quite -show- you this

is, that, the electron's spin is not
at all like the way the earthspins

the earth spins exclusively on it's
axis with an equator and poles

the electrons spin is sooo fast, that the precession
of its equinoxes and north pole south pole shift is
sooo fast, that the equator is constantly shifting to
the point where there is no real equator at all to speak of.

now, when protons are attached to other atoms,
like when hydrogen atoms are attached to larger molecules


they are more stuck in place, but, when you place
them in a magbneetic field, they align with the magnet,
and then, when you turn off the magnet, the protons
"relax" back to their orininal happhazzard state,
and you get TWO time sequences

one for the total proton relaxing

and one for....the precession of its equinoxes.

so, =precession= is an intrinsic behavior

of these spinning objects.

they all "wobble" as -if- they were slowing down.


but what does this have to do with charge?


it's not like the electrons were running on electricity

like they had little electric motors inside of them

and you had to charge them up to get them to spin...


or is it?


no, they claim that the spin is "intrinsic"


and that tends to mean that they'd be spinning -anyway-


but, if you were at absolute zero


all motion should stop...

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Nov 21, 5:41 pm, Timothy Sutter <a202010202...@lycos.com-> wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > For the highest probability of finding an electron in an atom
> > is smack in the center of the nucleus-- inside a proton.
>
> this stuff is pretty funny.
>
> you'd think that the highest probability of where
> a steelie electron charged -1 would be is right
> at the nucleus charged +1, but, the prton, though not a "lepton"
> is still fairly solid and not a cloud of 10^ mini-particles.
>
> so, there's no way for a steelie "lepton" which
> is the electron, to get -inside- of the proton.
>

Hi Tim,

Charge is geometry and there are three types of geometry possible. I
do not know if you ever studied mathematics in your formal education.
But the Parallel Postulate allows there to be 3 independent geometries
of Euclidean, Elliptic and Hyperbolic, each depending on whether the
angle sum of a triangle is equal to 180, greater than 180 or less than
180.

So Charge is geometry for there are only three charges possible, -1,
0, +1.

In a similar manner we need to construct what spin is in terms of
geometry. It is not the spinning of Earth on axis nor the spinning of
a top on a table.

So what could it possibly be? Could it be a direction? In that each of
those geometries would need a direction choice made. If Space were all
Euclidean there is no direction , and any direction is as good as
another so we need a 0 to mark Euclidean. But when you have Elliptic
and Hyperbolic as sphere surfaces or under-surface, you have a choice
of direction. You have either clockwise or counterclockwise or up or
down. You have those two choices because the geometry is closed
whereas in Euclidean it is open.

So when talking about spin in quantum mechanics we are likely to be
talking about a direction within geometry. And since geometry comes in
only three types in total, we can expect that spin has no more than 3
types in total. So that a spin of -1/2 or 0 or +1/2.

Now I need to also correct myself or add an addendum to the post of
folding a 2nd dimension graph of points in Euclidean to fold that into
Elliptic of a sphere surface. In the folding or origami, the origin
point (0,0)
is connected to the other three points of (0,10^603) and (10^603, 0)
and
(10^603, 10^603). So that in the correspondence, three of the total
points of Euclidean geometry get lost in the folding for those three
points become (0,0). So there is not a direct 1-1 Correspondence of
points of Euclidean geometry but a loss of three points when Elliptic
geometry is formed. Now in Hyperbolic geometry, even more points are
lost for the poles are deleted and the entire equator line is deleted.
But one nice consolation fact is that we know exactly all the 10^1206
points of the equator line, whereas in Old Math, you had to say-- an
infinity of points, whereas in New Math we can list all those points
or focus on particular ones.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Nov 21, 7:30 pm, Timothy Sutter <a202010202...@lycos.com-> wrote:

> so, =precession= is an intrinsic behavior
> of these spinning objects.
> they all "wobble" as -if- they were slowing down.
> but what does this have to do with charge?
> it's not like the electrons were running on electricity
> like they had little electric motors inside of them
> and you had to charge them up to get them to spin...
> or is it?
> no, they claim that the spin is "intrinsic"
> and that tends to mean that they'd be spinning -anyway-
> but, if you were at absolute zero
> all motion should stop...

Hi Tim,
Now notice the helium atom belongs to the s orbital whereas the other
inert gases belong to the p orbital. And s orbitals are fully
spherical whereas p orbitals (whether you can do a ascii of a p
orbital?) is elongated elliptical shaped.
Now we know from the Maxwell Equations, the Ampere law says that
parallel currents attract one another.
And if we draw the p suborbital do we not get a sort of figure 8
shape
whereas a s suborbital is a O shape.
So the only two real shapes in all of atomic physics of the chemical
elements is really what? Is it really just O shape for the "s"
orbitals and
8 shape for the p, d, f et al orbitals?
Helium is the most stable element yet it has a s orbital the same as
the lithium and beryllium columns or families. And those alkali
metals
are not stable at all. Whilst the last column of the p orbital ends
with a inert gas or Noble Gas element.
So, is that stability directly related to Ampere's law of parallel
currents attract.
A spin up and spin down in a "s" suborbital, filling the suborbital
is
a form of Maxwell EM attraction, but is there more of an attraction
in
the p, d, f
suborbitals in that the geometry of those elongated ellipses are
following Ampere's law of parallel currents attract?
So that in the inert gases of neon, argon, they are exceptionally
stable because not only have they filled their suborbitals of p but
given extra stability because the p suborbitals are in parallel for
added attraction.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Alright, in my previous post I was talking about the shape of the "s"
and "p" orbital and why helium is the ultimate stable element yet the
p orbital is the inert gases.

And I talked about how the sphere shaped s orbital and the elongated
elliptical p orbital could maximize the Ampere law via spin of
electrons.

So let us say you had 2 electrons to fill a suborbital, with one spin

up and the other spin down.

Now they must be spin up and spin down for if they were both up or
both down, then they would not be currents in parallel to satisfy
Ampere law that parallel currents attract one another.

So now, how do we get the helium s orbital to have 2 electrons, be
spherical in overall shape and obey the Ampere law?

Can we manage to divide a sphere into two smaller sphere shapes so
that the Ampere law can be upheld? Can we manage some form of a figure
8 for two electrons so that the 8 looks more like a O than a 8 ? And
can we do some sort of experiment on helium atoms to tell us whether
the s orbital is more like a O than a 8 figure?

Now as for the inert gases of neon, argon, krypton, we expect them to
have a elongated 8 figure for their suborbitals of the p orbit,
because the more elongated the more we have Ampere's law of parallel
currents attract, lending the stability of the inert gases.

But we should not stop there, because other elements have the
characteristics of stability of the Ampere law, such as tin or lead
with their even number of electrons and their elongated p suborbitals.

So, the interesting question here is, whether the spherical orbit of s
orbit in helium is really a figure 8 shape of two electrons, where one
is spin up and the other spin down in order for them to be parallel
currents.

[Timothy Sutter]

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> Timothy Sutter wrote:

> > so, =precession= is an intrinsic behavior
> > of these spinning objects.
> > they all "wobble" as -if- they were slowing down.
> > but what does this have to do with charge?
> > it's not like the electrons were running on electricity
> > like they had little electric motors inside of them
> > and you had to charge them up to get them to spin...
> > or is it?
> > no, they claim that the spin is "intrinsic"
> > and that tends to mean that they'd be spinning -anyway-
> > but, if you were at absolute zero
> > all motion should stop...

> Hi Tim,
> Now notice the helium atom belongs to the s orbital whereas the other
> inert gases belong to the p orbital. And s orbitals are fully
> spherical whereas p orbitals (whether you can do a ascii of a p
> orbital?) is elongated elliptical shaped.

i just have one thing right now off the top
of my head that bothers me a small bit.

you say "stable" and i'm not sure you mean "chemically inert"

because lithium and boron have no radioactive isotopes, right

just like helium has no radioactive isotopes.

there may be some more elements with no radioactive isotopes

but, for now, lithium and boron will suffice.


as far as the =nuclear= chemistry/physics is concerned,
litium and boron are =stable= in all of their isotopes

hydrogen does have one unstable isotope

and beryllium has two

Be 7 ---> disintegrates to lithium 7
Be 10 --> disintegrates to Boron 10.

but Be 9 is essentially a stable nucleus.


what lithium and beryllium and boron do do is react
chemically to form compounds with other elements
which Helium doesn't do.

but argon, has a radioactive isotope that does
disintegrate to chlorine and a range of potassium nuclei


anyway, i'd probably say that litium and boron were
just as -stable- as far as nuclear disintegration
as is helium

but that lithium and boron form chemical
compounds and helium does not.


here's a real good periodic table that

you could have hours of fun with.

nice available pictures and everything.

http://www.ptable.com/

[Timothy Sutter]

from this place;
===
It is possible to produce exotic helium isotopes, which rapidly decay
into other substances. The shortest-lived heavy helium isotope is
helium-5 with a half-life of 7.6�10-22 s. Helium-6 decays by emitting
a beta particle and has a half-life of 0.8 second. Helium-7 also emits
a beta particle as well as a gamma ray. Helium-7 and helium-8 are
created in certain nuclear reactions.[5] Helium-6 and helium-8 are
known to exhibit a nuclear halo.[5]
===

some strange helium isotopes are not "stable"

[Timothy Sutter]

> > here's a real good periodic table that
> >
> > you could have hours of fun with.
> >
> > nice available pictures and everything.
> >
> > http://www.ptable.com/
>
> from this place;
> ===
> It is possible to produce exotic helium isotopes, which rapidly decay
> into other substances. The shortest-lived heavy helium isotope is
> helium-5 with a half-life of 7.6�10-22 s. Helium-6 decays by emitting
> a beta particle and has a half-life of 0.8 second. Helium-7 also emits
> a beta particle as well as a gamma ray. Helium-7 and helium-8 are
> created in certain nuclear reactions.[5] Helium-6 and helium-8 are
> known to exhibit a nuclear halo.[5]
> ===
>
> some strange helium isotopes are not "stable"

and this;

===
Helium can form unstable compounds, known as excimers,
with tungsten, iodine, fluorine, sulfur and phosphorus
when it is subjected to an electric glow discharge,
to electron bombardment, or else is a plasma for
another reason. The molecular compounds HeNe, HgHe10,
and WHe2, and the molecular ions He+2, He2+
2, HeH+, and HeD+ have been created this way.
HeH+ is also stable in its ground state,
but is extremely reactive�it ...
===

[Timothy Sutter]

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> Timothy Sutter wrote:

> > so, =precession= is an intrinsic behavior
> > of these spinning objects.
> > they all "wobble" as -if- they were slowing down.
> > but what does this have to do with charge?
> > it's not like the electrons were running on electricity
> > like they had little electric motors inside of them
> > and you had to charge them up to get them to spin...
> > or is it?
> > no, they claim that the spin is "intrinsic"
> > and that tends to mean that they'd be spinning -anyway-
> > but, if you were at absolute zero
> > all motion should stop...

> Hi Tim,
> Now notice the helium atom belongs to the s orbital whereas the other
> inert gases belong to the p orbital. And s orbitals are fully
> spherical whereas p orbitals (whether you can do a ascii of a p
> orbital?) is elongated elliptical shaped.

hee, don't say i never did anything nice for you...

[fixed width font]

66666 66666
666 666
66 66
6 e 6
6 6
66 66
666 666
66666 66666
66666 66666
666 666
66 66
6 6
6 e 6
66 66
666 666
66666 66666

[variable width font]


66666 66666
666 666
66 66
6 e 6
6 6
66 66
666 666
66666 66666
66666 66666
666 666
66 66
6 6
6 e 6
66 66
666 666
66666 66666

[Timothy Sutter]

> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:


> > Now notice the helium atom belongs to the s orbital whereas the other
> > inert gases belong to the p orbital. And s orbitals are fully
> > spherical whereas p orbitals (whether you can do a ascii of a p
> > orbital?) is elongated elliptical shaped.

https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.electromag/msg/729774d6da33bc70?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect

the variable width font could use more tweaking...

> here, don't say i never did anything nice for you...

[Timothy Sutter]

Timothy Sutter wrote:

> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> > Hi Tim,
> > Now notice the helium atom belongs to the s orbital whereas the other
> > inert gases belong to the p orbital. And s orbitals are fully
> > spherical whereas p orbitals (whether you can do a ascii of a p
> > orbital?) is elongated elliptical shaped.

> i just have one thing right now off the top
> of my head that bothers me a small bit.

> you say "stable" and i'm not sure you mean "chemically inert"

not -to- get you way off of -your- track, but,
the reason i mention this is so you -don't- get all
obsessive about some 'majikal' quality of -helium-
that is not a quality possessed by most all of the 98
naturaly ocurring elements.
all 98 of these things have =stable= isotopes.

which means all 98 have -nuclei- which

are just as stable a helium.

well, just say =stable=

yes, a totally filled up aufbau like outer valence
compartment makes an element more chemically inert

like, you have to go to a lot of trouble to get gold
ionized into solution and even the, you tend to
get these "colloids"

gold may even be called an "inert metal"

there is a stability to filled "shells"


but you have this traid of things that is ...obsessing you


charge spin and geometry...


but, the geometry of the orbitals does not say much

at all about the =flight paths= of the electrons.


and the =flight paths= would be tracing out the true geometry


but you don't get to see this...


it's "cloudy" =every= day and the plane is flying

through a huge cloud bank of uncertainty


but the plane is still considered to have

a very definitite flight path

and -that's- what you'd have to 'deduce from the aether'


even if "the aether" is not necessary for the propgation of

EMR[electromagnetic radiation]

you still may be able to deduce things from it...


etc.

just remember, the 'higher' elements have a helium core ...


don't obsess over helium too much...

[Timothy Sutter]

> charge spin and geometry...

> but, the geometry of the orbitals does not say much

> at all about the =flight paths= of the electrons.

just for a second, when a nucleus -is- 'smashed'

the parts go boioioioing in to a sort of photographic emulsion

and you can -see- a distinct "flight path" of subatomic particles

i mean, every time it is smashed, you see the same
curclyQ patterns over and over again and that's why
they give those -flight paths- =NAMES=


now, if -only- you could squeeze the photographic emulsion

in to an atom and see the "flight path" of the electrons...


chances very are likely that you would -not-

see a sphere or a dumbell shaped "flight path"

but something more along the lines of

these curlyQ thingamahjiggies...

and it is this "geometry" traced out by
the flight paths that would be of interest


trouble is, 'we' can't just squish a photographic
emulsion into the atomic structure electrons and all.


so, it's not the 'shape' of the cloud of uncertainty
that the little electron-plane is flying through
that is of greatest interest


but the flight paths of the little whizzers


and, it really does seem as if


the little whizzers =DO= -have- "flight paths"


and that they are -not- simply in

10000000000000000000000000000000000000000

places at the same time....

[Timothy Sutter]

> so, it's not the 'shape' of the cloud of uncertainty
> that the little electron-plane is flying through
> that is of greatest interest

> but the flight paths of the little whizzers

> and, it really does seem as if

> the little whizzers =DO= -have- "flight paths"

> and that they are -not- simply in

> 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000

> places at the same time....

but -these- "flight paths" are not just

gravitational/thrust generated flight paths

but these strange quantum-gravito-electromagnetic flight paths


so, it's not just "what goes up must come down"

parabolic ballistic paths


and it's not waldo pepper doing the outsie loop,

and failing miserably


it's something else, but that something else -would- be =reproducible=

and we could 'see' the same flight path over and over and over again

-if- the cloud bank of uncertainty weren't occulting the image...


albeit, there are a -lot- =more= varieties of flight paths for
a lot more varieties of electronic states that just the several
flight paths that we do see images of in the photographic
emulsions of a atom smasher.


and i mean way more beautiful than spirograph...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirograph

[Timothy Sutter]

> and, it really does seem as if
> the little whizzers =DO= -have- "flight paths"
> and that they are -not- simply in
> 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000
> places at the same time....

just look at these images...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Various_Spirograph_Designs.jpg


see, you don't just see the cloud of uncertainty

you see distinctly flight paths...


does this mean that the images made by spirograph

-are- these electronic flight paths?


well;

"we see through a glass and darkly"

but;

"some day we shall see as we are seen"


etc.

[Timothy Sutter]

> > and, it really does seem as if
> > the little whizzers =DO= -have- "flight paths"
> > and that they are -not- simply in
> > 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000
> > places at the same time....

> just look at these images...

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Various_Spirograph_Designs.jpg

oh, the chances of -me- using ascii art to do

a spirograph image is nil at this time,

but, someone probably could manage to get something

that looked sort of like it in a fixed width text font.

so, NNTP meet HTTP

[Timothy Sutter]

> so, NNTP meet HTTP


yeah yeah yeah, i know, some uselessnet "purists" just will not

mix NNTP with HTTP and this does present a difficulty in some ways.

"i don't goto "web pages""

which tends to make it difficult to set up a bunch of =rules=

and place them on "web pages" and expect someone who

never goes to "web pages" to abide by =rules=

that never get seen on NNTP.


etc.

[Timothy Sutter]

> > and, it really does seem as if
> > the little whizzers =DO= -have- "flight paths"
> > and that they are -not- simply in
> > 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000
> > places at the same time....

> just look at these images...

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Various_Spirograph_Designs.jpg

> see, you don't just see the cloud of uncertainty

> you see distinctly flight paths...

the thing about the spirograph images is that they are =flat=

and the atom travails in -volume- and so, 3D images

and you really would wonder if the shapes of snowflakes -are-

sort of like the shapes of certain electronic flight paths...

"but isn't i true that no two snowflakes are alike?"


have you really looked at all of them?


STOP