Author 
Message 
Edward Green science forum addict
Joined: 21 May 2005
Posts: 95

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:44 am Post subject:
Re: Magnetic Idyll



mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
Quote:  In article <1152742613.731366.126180@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> writes:

<...>
Quote:  A few details remain to be worked out. ;)
Please carry on, this one is shaping up quite nicely.

Well, thanks. I didn't know the whole story I wanted to hypothesize
before I started the thread. I guess that's what collegial discussions
are for! But even I must admit I've probably wrung most of the juice
out of two simple equations and some buzz words. Homework is necessary
to proceed. If one wants to understand the magnetic field as an
analogue of frame dragging in an analogue of GR, one must as a starting
condition be able to make quantitative statements in the prior theory. 

Back to top 


mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu science forum Guru
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 434

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:49 am Post subject:
Re: Magnetic Idyll



In article <1152841460.339891.86870@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, "Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> writes:
Quote:  mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1152742613.731366.126180@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> writes:
...
A few details remain to be worked out. ;)
Please carry on, this one is shaping up quite nicely.
Well, thanks. I didn't know the whole story I wanted to hypothesize
before I started the thread. I guess that's what collegial discussions
are for! But even I must admit I've probably wrung most of the juice
out of two simple equations and some buzz words. Homework is necessary
to proceed. If one wants to understand the magnetic field as an
analogue of frame dragging in an analogue of GR, one must as a starting
condition be able to make quantitative statements in the prior theory.
Yes, certainly. Hand waving will carry things for a bit, nowadays 
Power Point may carry them a bit further, but eventually one must get
into the details. Something that I'm not at liberty to do, at the
moment, having my plate full as it is. But, at least I enjoy reading
the discussion.
Mati Meron  "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu  chances are he is doing just the same" 

Back to top 


Edward Green science forum addict
Joined: 21 May 2005
Posts: 95

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:56 am Post subject:
Re: Magnetic Idyll



Daryl McCullough wrote:
Quote:  In article <1152400330.145973.161020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Edward Green
says...
The formal simularity of the Coriolis force and the Lorentz force law
2w x v vs. qB x v
suggests that the magnetic field may correspond to a local rotation of
space (inertial coordinate system) as seen by charge vs. that seen by
mass.
I'm not sure about that, but there is a sense in which Lorentzlike
forces should be expected, in the lowvelocity limit.
Let L be an arbitrary lagrangian for a pointmass written in terms
of spatial coordinates and spatial velocities. Assume that the velocities
are not too large, so that L can be expanded as a power series in velocity.
Taking the first few terms, we have
L = A + B_i V^i + C_ij V^i V^j + ...
where A, B_i and C_ij are functions of the coordinates (but are
independent of velocity).
Whatever the origin of the terms A, B_i, and C_ij, we can make
the following interpretations
A = scalar potential, which gives rise to gradient forces
proportional to d/dx^i A
B_i = vector potential, which gives rise to Lorentz forces
(as well as Coriolis forces), which are proportional to
curl(B) x V
C_ij = tensor potential, which gives rise to centrifugal force
(as well as the usual kinetic energy term 1/2 mv^2).
Two contributions to B_i are the following:
1. If the particle is charged and there is an electromagnetic
vector potential A_i, then there is a contribution to B_i of
the form q A_i. This is what gives rise to the Lorentz force.
2. If you are using noninertial coordinates, then there is
a contribution to B_i of the form m g_0i, where g_uv is the
metric tensor. This is what gives rise to the Coriolis force.

Thanks for the very illuminating general development. I never thought
to ask if "vector potential" and "scalar potential" could be put on the
same page  suffering, in my mind, from the repetitive disease whereby
familiarity numbs curiosity.
I have a semantic quibble with the sense of "gives rise to", though.
This sounds like "explains". In a sense you have explained the various
forms a force could take, by systemization in terms of an expansion.
In another sense I'm not sure we've exhausted the sense of "explains"
by this catalogue.
If we examine the geometry of the cross product in a naive 19th century
kind of way (my specialty), we may gain the impression that it has a
special affinity for things rotating. Considering X x Y as a rule for
generating vectors Z(X) for a fixed Y, we express the rule by saying
"create a third vector tending to rotate X about Y in a plane
perpendicular to Y, the magnitude of which third vector is the product
of the magnitude of Y times the magnitude of the projection (moment
arm) of X into said perpendicular plane".
That certainly _sounds_ like Y can be considered an axis of rotation.
Wherever X points, the new vector X x Y tends to rotate X around Y in a
given sense, and about no other axis, and the strength of the effect is
proportional to the moment arm of X  the component perpendicular to
Y. We may have gained an additional insight into forces of this
description by demonstrating their correspondence with a second term in
an expansion of a velocity dependent Lagrangian, but not, I think, an
"Oh, it's just..." subsuming insight.
The form of the term curl(B) x V is informative. The curl of a vector
field is just what gives what we would consider an intrinsic rotation
of the field at each point (the curl of the velocity field of a rigid
body, as I recently discovered, is just its instantaneous angular
velocity vector). So the necessity of considering terms looking
exactly like the Coriolis force arises out of a general expansion of
the velocity dependent Lagrangian? Heavy, man. And apparently
this is the _only_ form of velocity dependent force consistent with the
Lagrangian formulation? I'm not sure what that means. 

Back to top 


PD science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:59 pm Post subject:
Re: Magnetic Idyll



Edward Green wrote:
Quote:  If we examine the geometry of the cross product in a naive 19th century
kind of way (my specialty), we may gain the impression that it has a
special affinity for things rotating. Considering X x Y as a rule for
generating vectors Z(X) for a fixed Y, we express the rule by saying
"create a third vector tending to rotate X about Y in a plane
perpendicular to Y, the magnitude of which third vector is the product
of the magnitude of Y times the magnitude of the projection (moment
arm) of X into said perpendicular plane".
That certainly _sounds_ like Y can be considered an axis of rotation.
Wherever X points, the new vector X x Y tends to rotate X around Y in a
given sense, and about no other axis, and the strength of the effect is
proportional to the moment arm of X  the component perpendicular to
Y. We may have gained an additional insight into forces of this
description by demonstrating their correspondence with a second term in
an expansion of a velocity dependent Lagrangian, but not, I think, an
"Oh, it's just..." subsuming insight.

I've been following this thread with interest, precisely because of the
"intuition" associated with the cross product and the curl.
I guess I come from a slightly different perspective. I think of a
force that involves a cross product with velocity as being one that
does not contribute mechanical work (by definition, almost), which is
how it distinguishes itself from a force derived from a scalar
potential.
Secondly, I constantly have to remind myself that a field with non zero
curl does not necessarily imply that the field exhibits rotation in the
naive 19th century sense. As a simple example, consider the vector
field F(x,y) = x j. This field has nonzero curl in most places but is
a unidirectional field.
PD 

Back to top 


Edward Green science forum addict
Joined: 21 May 2005
Posts: 95

Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 1:43 pm Post subject:
Re: Magnetic Idyll



Edward Green wrote:
Quote:  curl(B) x V ... apparently ... is the _only_ form of velocity dependent
force consistent with the Lagrangian formulation?

I should have written "the only linearly velocity dependent force".
As to what this means, it apparently means in part that we have built
the assumption of conservative forces into our derivation. I'm not
sure where that slipped into Daryl's assumptions, and I'm not sure if
that alone implies the use of curl(B) vs. some arbitrary plain old B. 

Back to top 


Edward Green science forum addict
Joined: 21 May 2005
Posts: 95

Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 2:12 pm Post subject:
Re: Magnetic Idyll



PD wrote:
Quote:  I've been following this thread with interest, precisely because of the
"intuition" associated with the cross product and the curl.
I guess I come from a slightly different perspective. I think of a
force that involves a cross product with velocity as being one that
does not contribute mechanical work (by definition, almost), which is
how it distinguishes itself from a force derived from a scalar
potential.

Aha. I just remarked on that. So a force involving a cross product
with velocity is one which does no work, or else one which strongly
implies a local sense of rotation. I wonder if these are the same
insight struggling to get out. And how about the terms with higher
order dependence on v?
Quote:  Secondly, I constantly have to remind myself that a field with non zero
curl does not necessarily imply that the field exhibits rotation in the
naive 19th century sense. As a simple example, consider the vector
field F(x,y) = x j. This field has nonzero curl in most places but is
a unidirectional field.

I was hoping that someone would object to my characterization of
sources of magnetic field as all showing "circulation/angular momentum
of charge" by asking "What about a long straight current carrying
wire?"
I was then going to demolish the infidel by suggesting we consider a
loop consisting of a segment of the wire, two radial line segments, and
a closing line segment parallel to the wire. Transversed continuously
such a loop has a nonzero average current. Or, if the victim didn't
like that one, one could simply point out that off the axis of the
wire, passing charge has angular momentum with respect to the observer.
Finally, one could draw the analogy between a straight current
carrying wire and a fluid jet traversing a stagnant region. In this
case, given viscosity, the angular momentum of the jet relative to
locations offaxis is not merely implied, but visible in vortex
shedding. And in fact, this is exactly what the magnetic field of a
long straight wire looks like  a map of (dare I say) vorticity
surrounding the wire, in the just the sense suggested by the analogy.
Moral of the story: not everything which implies rotation shows obvious
patterns of circulation. I like your extension of the epithet "19th
century" to include naive ideas about rotation, though. 

Back to top 


Bilge science forum Guru
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 2816

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 7:29 am Post subject:
Re: Magnetic Idyll



Edward Green:
Quote:  Aha. I just remarked on that. So a force involving a cross product
with velocity is one which does no work, or else one which strongly
implies a local sense of rotation.

W = \integral F.dl
Since dl is in the direction of the path of the moving object,
dl is in the direction of the velocity. So, for example,
F.dl = q(v x B).dl = 0
Quote:  I wonder if these are the same insight struggling to get out.
And how about the terms with higher order dependence on v?

Why?
[...]
Quote:  Finally, one could draw the analogy between a straight current
carrying wire and a fluid jet traversing a stagnant region. In this
case, given viscosity, the angular momentum of the jet relative to
locations offaxis is not merely implied, but visible in vortex
shedding. And in fact, this is exactly what the magnetic field of a
long straight wire looks like  a map of (dare I say) vorticity
surrounding the wire, in the just the sense suggested by the analogy.

How about this one: The electron has a magnetic moment, even in
its own rest frame. The magnetic moment cannot be due to moving
charge, since the upper limit on the electron charge radius is
about 5 x 10^18 m.
Quote:  Moral of the story: not everything which implies rotation shows obvious
patterns of circulation. I like your extension of the epithet "19th
century" to include naive ideas about rotation, though.

I have a suggestion for a textbook that would be ideal for you:
``Clifford Algebras and Spinors,'' Lounesto, P. 

Back to top 


Edward Green science forum addict
Joined: 21 May 2005
Posts: 95

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 12:05 pm Post subject:
Re: Magnetic Idyll



Bilge wrote:
Quote:  Edward Green:
Aha. I just remarked on that. So a force involving a cross product
with velocity is one which does no work, or else one which strongly
implies a local sense of rotation.
W = \integral F.dl
Since dl is in the direction of the path of the moving object,
dl is in the direction of the velocity. So, for example,
F.dl = q(v x B).dl = 0

Yes, er... Bilge. I know it is difficult to precisely fix a poster's
level of ignorance, but I was aware of this. It just slipped my mind.
Quote:  I wonder if these are the same insight struggling to get out.
And how about the terms with higher order dependence on v?
Why?

Huh?
What I meant was, what about the ability of the associated force to do
work? We have zeroth order terms in velocity, work against a
potential; first order terms in velocity, no work; higher order
terms...?
Quote:  [...]
Finally, one could draw the analogy between a straight current
carrying wire and a fluid jet traversing a stagnant region. In this
case, given viscosity, the angular momentum of the jet relative to
locations offaxis is not merely implied, but visible in vortex
shedding. And in fact, this is exactly what the magnetic field of a
long straight wire looks like  a map of (dare I say) vorticity
surrounding the wire, in the just the sense suggested by the analogy.
How about this one: The electron has a magnetic moment, even in
its own rest frame. The magnetic moment cannot be due to moving
charge, since the upper limit on the electron charge radius is
about 5 x 10^18 m.

I didn't wish to get into a discussion whether an elementary particle
with nonzero spin is "rotating". Presumably, such a discussion would
be laden with many expressions like "naive", "19th century", "no
classical analogue", and etc. It was to sidestep such discussion that
I phrased my condition "circulation/angular momentum of charge". The
electron, equipped with its mysterious spin, certainly shows an angular
momentum associated with a charge.
Asking whether an electron with spin is spinning is about as productive
as asking whether there is a medium in space. In either case we are
confronted by a concept splitting, and an object which exhibits some,
but not all, the features of the broader concept. Therefore it is just
as naive, 19th century and soforth to insist that there is no medium
and that the electron does not spin as to assert the opposite. The
electron is sort of spinning, and space is sort of a medium.
Quote:  Moral of the story: not everything which implies rotation shows obvious
patterns of circulation. I like your extension of the epithet "19th
century" to include naive ideas about rotation, though. ;)
I have a suggestion for a textbook that would be ideal for you:
``Clifford Algebras and Spinors,'' Lounesto, P.

Heh. He used to post here, you know. I wonder if you suggest this
because it would open new profound intellectual vistas for me, or
because, judging from this thread, you have typecast me as some kind
of rotation crank. 

Back to top 


FrediFizzx science forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 774

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:27 pm Post subject:
Re: Magnetic Idyll



"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:1153051558.306554.63290@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Quote:  Bilge wrote:
Edward Green:
Aha. I just remarked on that. So a force involving a cross
product
with velocity is one which does no work, or else one which
strongly
implies a local sense of rotation.
W = \integral F.dl
Since dl is in the direction of the path of the moving object,
dl is in the direction of the velocity. So, for example,
F.dl = q(v x B).dl = 0
Yes, er... Bilge. I know it is difficult to precisely fix a poster's
level of ignorance, but I was aware of this. It just slipped my mind.
I wonder if these are the same insight struggling to get out.
And how about the terms with higher order dependence on v?
Why?
Huh?
What I meant was, what about the ability of the associated force to do
work? We have zeroth order terms in velocity, work against a
potential; first order terms in velocity, no work; higher order
terms...?
[...]
Finally, one could draw the analogy between a straight current
carrying wire and a fluid jet traversing a stagnant region. In
this
case, given viscosity, the angular momentum of the jet relative to
locations offaxis is not merely implied, but visible in vortex
shedding. And in fact, this is exactly what the magnetic field of
a
long straight wire looks like  a map of (dare I say) vorticity
surrounding the wire, in the just the sense suggested by the
analogy.
How about this one: The electron has a magnetic moment, even in
its own rest frame. The magnetic moment cannot be due to moving
charge, since the upper limit on the electron charge radius is
about 5 x 10^18 m.
I didn't wish to get into a discussion whether an elementary particle
with nonzero spin is "rotating". Presumably, such a discussion would
be laden with many expressions like "naive", "19th century", "no
classical analogue", and etc. It was to sidestep such discussion
that
I phrased my condition "circulation/angular momentum of charge". The
electron, equipped with its mysterious spin, certainly shows an
angular
momentum associated with a charge.

Mother nature is tricking Bilge. And he doesn't realize it. There
is nothing mysterious at all about electron spin once you realize what
is going on with quantum objects. Circulation in a "string" due to
quantum "vacuum" and relativistic effects. An electron is both a
pointlike "particle" and an extended object due to these effects. It
all depends on how you try to observe an electron to what you will
measure. Basically, at high energies you will get the pointlike
object; low energies an extended object.
Quote:  Asking whether an electron with spin is spinning is about as
productive
as asking whether there is a medium in space. In either case we are
confronted by a concept splitting, and an object which exhibits some,
but not all, the features of the broader concept. Therefore it is
just
as naive, 19th century and soforth to insist that there is no medium
and that the electron does not spin as to assert the opposite. The
electron is sort of spinning, and space is sort of a medium.

In a quantum "vacuum" relativistic medium viewpoint the medium and
fermion spin are linked together. IOW, without the relativistic medium,
fermions would have no spin. And not many other physical properties
either. The big question is what is a bare fermion? Are bare quarks
the same as bare leptons? IMHO, yes. But I could be wrong. Mother
nature could have given us all the spectrum of elementary quantum
objects as unique different entities.
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuumphysics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuumphysics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuumphysics.com 

Back to top 


Edward Green science forum addict
Joined: 21 May 2005
Posts: 95

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 8:59 pm Post subject:
Re: Magnetic Idyll



FrediFizzx wrote:
Quote:  In a quantum "vacuum" relativistic medium viewpoint the medium and
fermion spin are linked together. IOW, without the relativistic medium,
fermions would have no spin. And not many other physical properties
either. The big question is what is a bare fermion? Are bare quarks
the same as bare leptons? IMHO, yes. But I could be wrong. Mother
nature could have given us all the spectrum of elementary quantum
objects as unique different entities.

IMHO, elementary particles are topological defects in the vacuum (that
seems to be the modern way to say "medium"), their fields are the
common distortion associated with the proximity of these defects, and
their conserved quantum numbers are some expression of both the
quantization of defects, and the impossibility of eliminating these
defects unless opposite numbers happen to meet  like a hole
anihilating an interstitial atom. 

Back to top 


Ken S. Tucker science forum Guru
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 1230

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:28 pm Post subject:
Re: Magnetic Idyll



Edward Green wrote:
Quote:  FrediFizzx wrote:
In a quantum "vacuum" relativistic medium viewpoint the medium and
fermion spin are linked together. IOW, without the relativistic medium,
fermions would have no spin. And not many other physical properties
either. The big question is what is a bare fermion? Are bare quarks
the same as bare leptons? IMHO, yes. But I could be wrong. Mother
nature could have given us all the spectrum of elementary quantum
objects as unique different entities.
IMHO, elementary particles are topological defects in the vacuum (that
seems to be the modern way to say "medium"), their fields are the
common distortion associated with the proximity of these defects, and
their conserved quantum numbers are some expression of both the
quantization of defects, and the impossibility of eliminating these
defects unless opposite numbers happen to meet  like a hole
anihilating an interstitial atom.

I'm inclined to think Fred's "relativistic medium"
means the properties of particles are discovered
and understood by their relations with other
particles. So the question arises, does a particle
have absolute characteristics or only relative
characteristics that are measureable only in
relation to other particles?
I tend to favor the later, because energy/mass
is relative, thus depending upon a relation.
However those relations do obey conservation
laws and in those relations we subscribe to
the notion of quantum numbers.
To be quirky, consider the speed of light "c".
It is an invariant, but it is relative because
to measure it requires a relation, and in all
measured measureable relations (relativity)
it proves to be invariant.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker 

Back to top 


FrediFizzx science forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 774

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:15 pm Post subject:
Re: Magnetic Idyll



"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:1153083565.999194.264570@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:  FrediFizzx wrote:
In a quantum "vacuum" relativistic medium viewpoint the medium and
fermion spin are linked together. IOW, without the relativistic
medium,
fermions would have no spin. And not many other physical properties
either. The big question is what is a bare fermion? Are bare
quarks
the same as bare leptons? IMHO, yes. But I could be wrong. Mother
nature could have given us all the spectrum of elementary quantum
objects as unique different entities.
IMHO, elementary particles are topological defects in the vacuum (that
seems to be the modern way to say "medium"), their fields are the
common distortion associated with the proximity of these defects, and
their conserved quantum numbers are some expression of both the
quantization of defects, and the impossibility of eliminating these
defects unless opposite numbers happen to meet  like a hole
anihilating an interstitial atom.

Well, I don't think I would exactly call the elementary quantum objects
"defects". And assuming that by "vacuum" you mean quantum "vacuum".
But your viewpoint seems similar to mine roughly. But what does this
have to do with fermion spin specifically?
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuumphysics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuumphysics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuumphysics.com 

Back to top 


Sue... science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2684

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:39 pm Post subject:
Re: Magnetic Idyll



FrediFizzx wrote:
Quote:  "Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:1153083565.999194.264570@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
FrediFizzx wrote:
In a quantum "vacuum" relativistic medium viewpoint the medium and
fermion spin are linked together. IOW, without the relativistic
medium,
fermions would have no spin. And not many other physical properties
either. The big question is what is a bare fermion? Are bare
quarks
the same as bare leptons? IMHO, yes. But I could be wrong. Mother
nature could have given us all the spectrum of elementary quantum
objects as unique different entities.
IMHO, elementary particles are topological defects in the vacuum (that
seems to be the modern way to say "medium"), their fields are the
common distortion associated with the proximity of these defects, and
their conserved quantum numbers are some expression of both the
quantization of defects, and the impossibility of eliminating these
defects unless opposite numbers happen to meet  like a hole
anihilating an interstitial atom.
Well, I don't think I would exactly call the elementary quantum objects
"defects". And assuming that by "vacuum" you mean quantum "vacuum".
But your viewpoint seems similar to mine roughly. But what does this
have to do with fermion spin specifically?

Gamma radiation moves through a magnetic field in a ~straight~
line. Electrons and positrons spiral in opposite directions.
That doesn't necessarily mean e+ and e has some independent
knowlege how to spiral. The experirment is ?always? near
atomic structures that can establish rotating domains with
their own nuclear spins and orbits.
Is it sufficient for positrons to be rotationally ignorant positive
'clouds' that normally would be bound up in baryons?
They learn their spins from neighboring entities that are
rotatiing? The uncertainty surrounding the interpretation
of SternGerlach might be supportive of this notion.
Sue...
Sue...


Back to top 


Edward Green science forum addict
Joined: 21 May 2005
Posts: 95

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:44 pm Post subject:
Re: Magnetic Idyll



FrediFizzx wrote:
Quote:  "Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:1153083565.999194.264570@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
IMHO, elementary particles are topological defects in the vacuum (that
seems to be the modern way to say "medium"), their fields are the
common distortion associated with the proximity of these defects, and
their conserved quantum numbers are some expression of both the
quantization of defects, and the impossibility of eliminating these
defects unless opposite numbers happen to meet  like a hole
anihilating an interstitial atom.
Well, I don't think I would exactly call the elementary quantum objects
"defects". And assuming that by "vacuum" you mean quantum "vacuum".
But your viewpoint seems similar to mine roughly. But what does this
have to do with fermion spin specifically?

Roughly similar to yours I think yes, which was why I mentioned it. As
for the way you cautiously put "defects" in shudder quotes, I'm not
sure you know what I mean by the term. I think you take it I mean
there is something wrong with them! What I mean is something analogous
to crystal defects. This idea is I think partially old, as there is
something called a "cosmic string", which is a very nasty and large
vacuum defect. What I am proposing is that all quantum particles (at
least those with rest mass) may eventually come to be considered
continuum or topolgical defects  choose your modifier.
As for "vacuum" meaning "quantum vacuum", what's the distinction?
There is only one vacuum. As for what it has to do with fermion spin,
or spin period, I don't know in detail, but maybe you do. 

Back to top 


Sue... science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2684

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:52 pm Post subject:
Re: Magnetic Idyll



Sue... wrote:
Quote:  FrediFizzx wrote:
"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:1153083565.999194.264570@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
FrediFizzx wrote:
In a quantum "vacuum" relativistic medium viewpoint the medium and
fermion spin are linked together. IOW, without the relativistic
medium,
fermions would have no spin. And not many other physical properties
either. The big question is what is a bare fermion? Are bare
quarks
the same as bare leptons? IMHO, yes. But I could be wrong. Mother
nature could have given us all the spectrum of elementary quantum
objects as unique different entities.
IMHO, elementary particles are topological defects in the vacuum (that
seems to be the modern way to say "medium"), their fields are the
common distortion associated with the proximity of these defects, and
their conserved quantum numbers are some expression of both the
quantization of defects, and the impossibility of eliminating these
defects unless opposite numbers happen to meet  like a hole
anihilating an interstitial atom.
Well, I don't think I would exactly call the elementary quantum objects
"defects". And assuming that by "vacuum" you mean quantum "vacuum".
But your viewpoint seems similar to mine roughly. But what does this
have to do with fermion spin specifically?
Gamma radiation moves through a magnetic field in a ~straight~
line. Electrons and positrons spiral in opposite directions.
That doesn't necessarily mean e+ and e has some independent
knowlege how to spiral. The experirment is ?always? near
atomic structures that can establish rotating domains with
their own nuclear spins and orbits.
Is it sufficient for positrons to be rotationally ignorant positive
'clouds' that normally would be bound up in baryons?
They learn their spins from neighboring entities that are
rotatiing? The uncertainty surrounding the interpretation
of SternGerlach might be supportive of this notion.

OOps! I think you answerd that above.
FrediFizzx wrote:
<< In a quantum "vacuum" relativistic medium viewpoint the medium and
fermion spin are linked together. IOW, without the relativistic
medium,
fermions would have no spin. And not many other physical properties
either. The big question is what is a bare fermion? Are bare quarks
the same as bare leptons? IMHO, yes. But I could be wrong. Mother
nature could have given us all the spectrum of elementary quantum
objects as unique different entities. >>
So my question might be cheerleading unless I bungled
the words really bad.
Sue... 

Back to top 


Google


Back to top 



The time now is Wed Jan 18, 2017 3:52 am  All times are GMT

