FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Magnetic Idyll
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 6 of 6 [81 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Author Message
Sue...
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2684

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:15 am    Post subject: Re: Magnetic Idyll Reply with quote

Edward Green wrote:
Quote:
Sue... wrote:

I think we three agreeable ones can make the case for fundamental
particle spin orientation 'inhereted' from the envirionment by
including the neighboring matter in the triple integral sumation
that would predict the magnetic force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral

Let me clarify something -- maybe our views are more similar.

First, I have to make an obligatory and recurring propitiation to the
gods, and say that I realize swapping views like this makes us sound
like the ancient Greek philosophers -- "I think the universe is made
out of water". "I say it is fire". -- though in truth maybe even the
ancient Greeks were smarter than they sound through 2500+ years of the
game of telephone and fragmentary sources. We are saying that "Our
best personal guesses, presented merely in the spirit of friendly
speculation, are that a correct quantitative model of the universe
could be described in these terms without undue violence to words".



The various 'views' are no more philosopical than a bird that says
a house appears to be roofing shingles but the dog says it is
windows and doors. Using names is not to take a vote or assign
guilt. The name Mach tells you something about what will be
considered background and foreground. The name Einstein
will apportion background and forground differently but it
will refer to the same universe.

In the context of this thread, FrediFizzx and KST indicate they
are separating background and foreground slightly differently
and their context or *point* of veiw has be included or some
meaning is lost. Literally their *point* of view represents a point
in space. but instead of a Cartesian point, they see different
background from any arbitrary Cartesian point. Ask them to derive
eps_0 and mu_0, they will arrive at equivalent formula, but
possibly by a different sequence of operations.

Quote:

If I say an electron represents a topological defect in space, then in
a strong sense it inherits its properties in relation to the
surrounding space.

Indeed, this is the concept I was trying to highlight. An
electron is only half of a functional entity. In more cases
than not, we should be paying attention to how its other
half is distributed and what it is doing.

Quote:
At this point I stopped to look up a cluster of
ideas which relate to "Balinese candle dance", and although I can do
the manuver, I can't feel I really understand why it works out this
way. But the fact that spin 1/2 particles apparently return to
themselves after a 4pi rotation, but not 2pi, is another hint that
their properties are determined by their relation to their
surroundings.

A fundamental particle's most important characteristic is
is its coupling to other regions. The fundamental particle
can have an existance only if the coupled regions exactly
balance. (conservation of charge). Half (using the
word to distinguish from your factor 1/2 with pi above) ... half the
fundamental particle's properties are distributed out to remote
spaces, because it is nothing without that coupling. I seem to
have ignored your gyrations with pi. Not to be rude, but because
I don't see how I can do it if I only speak about 2D entities,
electrons and positrons. Does that tell us something about
real-world backgrounds and where the orientation of a spin is
localised to? (orbits an nuclei ? )



A quantum model will invent pseudo-particles, assign them
absurd properties and do all things reasonable and unreasonable
to preserve its claim to fame, the application of probability
and statistics to processes with little or no knowlege of
the process's mechanism. The way one backs up from
the quantum model, to recover some spatial context, places
an imense burded on us to adjust for the unfounded
assumptions QM. Fractional children don't exist but
if want accurately provision an automoble caravan of
children to the planetarium, we assume they do.

If the planetaruim is cold and we pass out fractional
sweaters to the children, then we have taken our
assumptions too seriously.

QED is the premier example, of course. Its photons wear
wrist watches, carry magnetic monopoles and explore
all paths yet it has some legitimate claim to the most
successful theory ever.

Sue...
<<When the body rotates we can transform the equations
of motion to a co-rotating system, in which it is at rest, but
in this system the particles will be affected by a Coriolis force ()
Larmor's theorem teaches us that such a Coriolis force
is equivalent to an external magnetic field. Magnetic fields
are, however, not allowed inside superconductors according
to the Meissner effect. To get rid of the Coriolis forces the
rotation induces surface supercurrents that produce a suitable
compensating magnetic field B. >>
"Circulating electrons, superconductivity,
and the Darwin-Breit interaction "
--Hanno Essen
http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0002096

[coherent matter and London effects]
http://www.citebase.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:physics/0107015
http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/Bizarre/GRAV.htm
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html

Quote:

An experiment or simulation to show your POV someway
needs to test for an intrinsic knowlege of rotation without
imparting a rotation. There is a good body of research
in the field of 'spin flipping' and one anomaly I recall was
the flipping all the electrons in an atom required only
little more energy than a single or pair. I was thinking
Pauli exclusion when I read it but it might be better interpreted
as FrediFizzx described.

If you know of an experiment that convincingly isolates
an electron and demonstrates intrinsic spin orientation,
that would settle the issue. I don't know of one but it
might be derivative of some of the spin flipping
experiments.
Back to top
Sue...
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2684

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:48 am    Post subject: Re: Magnetic Idyll Reply with quote

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Quote:
Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
...
Paul's analysis is a bit ridiculous of charge
self-energization, Purcell is clear on that on
pg 8, charge is essentially relative and a
single charge has no absolute or solitary
existance, anymore than velocity does.
What you can do is use 3 charges in a spatial
configuration like,
(+)
(-)(-)
within a radius of ~10^-18 m and simulate
the characteristics of an electron, I use
a computer simulation to do that.

Ken, it is not quite that simple. It has to be all bound charge
surrounding the (+) otherwise you will have a multipole config.
FrediFizzx

Yes Fred thanks. I reason the electron has intrinsic
spin I'll diagram using (a) and (b) as negative charges,
and cycles like,

(+) (+) (b)(a) (a)(b) (+)...........
(a)(b) (b)(a) (+) (+) (a)(b).........

yielding intrinsic spin and mass, and an
associated characteristic frequency relating
the rate of the spin (a)(b) to (+) that is
the instrinsic spin, because they have a
ratio of 1/2 as in the diagram as you can see.
The "characteristic frequency" is E=h*f.
That also provides the magnetic pole and
the angular momentum, which is a multipole
effect, and is evident in the super-conductive
Cooper pair state.
Fred, I should add that this is my personal
working model that Edward asked about in
his OP, FWIW, but I see no major problem
making it Generally Relativistic based on
the same theory that we posted at your site,

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf

What's unpopular about my approach is the
use of nonsymmetrical metrics to model EM,
but that's how I build an electron Smile, to each
his own.

Ken S. Tucker,
You earlier made a statement to the effect:

~charge is charge, is only in relation to something else~.

That was the basis I used in concluding that Freddi
Sue and KST share the same view of electron/positron
spin. But you are saying something in your GR
shoe-horning that implies self interaction.

I think I avoided "self interaction" by relying
on charge relations.

If you
can apply +GR and -GR for e+ and e- it would remove
self interaction but I couldn't divine that from your
discussion.

There is no +GR vs -GR that I used, unless
you could be more specific.

My POV is that electron/positron spin *number* is
intrinsic to the ~structure~ but the orientation is
a function of the dielectric background.

Yes I agree.

See the spin-orbit comments here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breit_equation

The energy necessary to flip spins in an
ensemble seems to support that notion.

I can't, with any fidelity, translate your ascii
array above to follow your discussion.
It is a valiant attempt however.


<< Just means charges (a) and (b) spin revolve
twice as fast as the charge (+). >>

This is where I 'accuse' Smile you of fence-sitting.
You are using the word 'revolve' perhaps without intending,
to describe a 2D entity. I am taking the position
that a single electron or positron has nothing it
can rotate or revolve. My POV is electron spin
can't be described in terms of an axis through the
particle. We allude to that description for what
might more realistically be described as a motion
of the electron's center established by neighboring
entities which *do* have the spatial definiton to
rotate. If we naievly assume an indivdual electron
is spherical, is looks the same from any angle.
It has no intrinsic axis but it does have a center.

The quantum description imbues the electron
with a pseudo-axis so it can mathematically
represent its environment, even when
mathematically severed from its environment.

Using the term 'orbit' instead of 'revolve' seems
just as incorrect but at least it describes motion
*of* the center as opposed to motion *about* the
center.

You'll point out 'it is all relative anyway' and that
is probably the source of the confusion. Your
~point~ of reference is slightly different and
still retains the ability to assume a pseudo-axis,
inherited from a QM description? ???

If revolve is something between rotate and orbit
then I'll withdraw my charges of fence-sitting.

Quote:

See if this is not a better tool.
http://newton.umsl.edu/~philf/triplet.html

ok

Could we not speak unambiguously about
the spin orientation of an isolated e+ e- pair
but it has less and less definition as
let more charges into the neighborhood?

Well it does get more complicated.

I think FreddiFizzx and Sue are on the same side of
the fence and KST may be sitting on the fence.

Well yeah, science is served by an open mind,
and consideration of many solutions.

That is actually a reasonable posture if the
the little critters remember their angular
momentum but that momentum's existence
and axis is dependent on the existence and
position of their opposite charged siblings.

ok

Indeed, if you are marketing one-legged pants to
all the average families that have 2.5 children,
I can see why your POV might be an unpopular one.
Surprised)
LOL, we got a kick out of that *one*.
((A one legged man in an ass kicking contest Smile)

....or as I applaude most of the posts in these
news groups... one hand clapping. >:-)

Sue...

Quote:

Sue...
Ken
Back to top
Ken S. Tucker
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 1230

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:46 pm    Post subject: Re: Magnetic Idyll Reply with quote

Sue... wrote:
Quote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
...
Paul's analysis is a bit ridiculous of charge
self-energization, Purcell is clear on that on
pg 8, charge is essentially relative and a
single charge has no absolute or solitary
existance, anymore than velocity does.
What you can do is use 3 charges in a spatial
configuration like,
(+)
(-)(-)
within a radius of ~10^-18 m and simulate
the characteristics of an electron, I use
a computer simulation to do that.

Ken, it is not quite that simple. It has to be all bound charge
surrounding the (+) otherwise you will have a multipole config.
FrediFizzx

Yes Fred thanks. I reason the electron has intrinsic
spin I'll diagram using (a) and (b) as negative charges,
and cycles like,

(+) (+) (b)(a) (a)(b) (+)...........
(a)(b) (b)(a) (+) (+) (a)(b).........

yielding intrinsic spin and mass, and an
associated characteristic frequency relating
the rate of the spin (a)(b) to (+) that is
the instrinsic spin, because they have a
ratio of 1/2 as in the diagram as you can see.
The "characteristic frequency" is E=h*f.
That also provides the magnetic pole and
the angular momentum, which is a multipole
effect, and is evident in the super-conductive
Cooper pair state.
Fred, I should add that this is my personal
working model that Edward asked about in
his OP, FWIW, but I see no major problem
making it Generally Relativistic based on
the same theory that we posted at your site,

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf

What's unpopular about my approach is the
use of nonsymmetrical metrics to model EM,
but that's how I build an electron Smile, to each
his own.

Ken S. Tucker,
You earlier made a statement to the effect:

~charge is charge, is only in relation to something else~.

That was the basis I used in concluding that Freddi
Sue and KST share the same view of electron/positron
spin. But you are saying something in your GR
shoe-horning that implies self interaction.

I think I avoided "self interaction" by relying
on charge relations.

If you
can apply +GR and -GR for e+ and e- it would remove
self interaction but I couldn't divine that from your
discussion.

There is no +GR vs -GR that I used, unless
you could be more specific.

My POV is that electron/positron spin *number* is
intrinsic to the ~structure~ but the orientation is
a function of the dielectric background.

Yes I agree.

See the spin-orbit comments here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breit_equation

The energy necessary to flip spins in an
ensemble seems to support that notion.

I can't, with any fidelity, translate your ascii
array above to follow your discussion.
It is a valiant attempt however.


Just means charges (a) and (b) spin revolve
twice as fast as the charge (+).

This is where I 'accuse' Smile you of fence-sitting.
You are using the word 'revolve' perhaps without intending,
to describe a 2D entity. I am taking the position
that a single electron or positron has nothing it
can rotate or revolve. My POV is electron spin
can't be described in terms of an axis through the
particle. We allude to that description for what
might more realistically be described as a motion
of the electron's center established by neighboring
entities which *do* have the spatial definiton to
rotate. If we naievly assume an indivdual electron
is spherical, is looks the same from any angle.
It has no intrinsic axis but it does have a center.

The quantum description imbues the electron
with a pseudo-axis so it can mathematically
represent its environment, even when
mathematically severed from its environment.

Using the term 'orbit' instead of 'revolve' seems
just as incorrect but at least it describes motion
*of* the center as opposed to motion *about* the
center.

You'll point out 'it is all relative anyway' and that
is probably the source of the confusion. Your
~point~ of reference is slightly different and
still retains the ability to assume a pseudo-axis,
inherited from a QM description? ???

If revolve is something between rotate and orbit
then I'll withdraw my charges of fence-sitting.

The assumption of those embracing the simple
point concept for an electron, and then whine
that it has infinite density get what they want,
GR flunks there...duh.
The electron structure can be investigated
by positrons.
Ken
....
Back to top
Sue...
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2684

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:40 pm    Post subject: Re: Magnetic Idyll Reply with quote

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Quote:
Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
...
Paul's analysis is a bit ridiculous of charge
self-energization, Purcell is clear on that on
pg 8, charge is essentially relative and a
single charge has no absolute or solitary
existance, anymore than velocity does.
What you can do is use 3 charges in a spatial
configuration like,
(+)
(-)(-)
within a radius of ~10^-18 m and simulate
the characteristics of an electron, I use
a computer simulation to do that.

Ken, it is not quite that simple. It has to be all bound charge
surrounding the (+) otherwise you will have a multipole config.
FrediFizzx

Yes Fred thanks. I reason the electron has intrinsic
spin I'll diagram using (a) and (b) as negative charges,
and cycles like,

(+) (+) (b)(a) (a)(b) (+)...........
(a)(b) (b)(a) (+) (+) (a)(b).........

yielding intrinsic spin and mass, and an
associated characteristic frequency relating
the rate of the spin (a)(b) to (+) that is
the instrinsic spin, because they have a
ratio of 1/2 as in the diagram as you can see.
The "characteristic frequency" is E=h*f.
That also provides the magnetic pole and
the angular momentum, which is a multipole
effect, and is evident in the super-conductive
Cooper pair state.
Fred, I should add that this is my personal
working model that Edward asked about in
his OP, FWIW, but I see no major problem
making it Generally Relativistic based on
the same theory that we posted at your site,

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf

What's unpopular about my approach is the
use of nonsymmetrical metrics to model EM,
but that's how I build an electron Smile, to each
his own.

Ken S. Tucker,
You earlier made a statement to the effect:

~charge is charge, is only in relation to something else~.

That was the basis I used in concluding that Freddi
Sue and KST share the same view of electron/positron
spin. But you are saying something in your GR
shoe-horning that implies self interaction.

I think I avoided "self interaction" by relying
on charge relations.

If you
can apply +GR and -GR for e+ and e- it would remove
self interaction but I couldn't divine that from your
discussion.

There is no +GR vs -GR that I used, unless
you could be more specific.

My POV is that electron/positron spin *number* is
intrinsic to the ~structure~ but the orientation is
a function of the dielectric background.

Yes I agree.

See the spin-orbit comments here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breit_equation

The energy necessary to flip spins in an
ensemble seems to support that notion.

I can't, with any fidelity, translate your ascii
array above to follow your discussion.
It is a valiant attempt however.


Just means charges (a) and (b) spin revolve
twice as fast as the charge (+).

This is where I 'accuse' Smile you of fence-sitting.
You are using the word 'revolve' perhaps without intending,
to describe a 2D entity. I am taking the position
that a single electron or positron has nothing it
can rotate or revolve. My POV is electron spin
can't be described in terms of an axis through the
particle. We allude to that description for what
might more realistically be described as a motion
of the electron's center established by neighboring
entities which *do* have the spatial definiton to
rotate. If we naievly assume an indivdual electron
is spherical, is looks the same from any angle.
It has no intrinsic axis but it does have a center.

The quantum description imbues the electron
with a pseudo-axis so it can mathematically
represent its environment, even when
mathematically severed from its environment.

Using the term 'orbit' instead of 'revolve' seems
just as incorrect but at least it describes motion
*of* the center as opposed to motion *about* the
center.

You'll point out 'it is all relative anyway' and that
is probably the source of the confusion. Your
~point~ of reference is slightly different and
still retains the ability to assume a pseudo-axis,
inherited from a QM description? ???

If revolve is something between rotate and orbit
then I'll withdraw my charges of fence-sitting.

The assumption of those embracing the simple
point concept for an electron, and then whine
that it has infinite density get what they want,
GR flunks there...duh.
The electron structure can be investigated
by positrons.

Indeed... And does the foregoing suggest that our failure
to 'conjure' up particle-pairs in free space, might be beacuse
positve ~stuff~ and negative ~stuff~ has a unique
sub-fermion identity.

Are nuclei really magnetic bottles that keep the positive
~stuff~ away from all the electons that fog up our normal
space. Our particle accelerator knocks the positive
stuff out of one magnetic bottle (the nucleus) and we
catch it in another macro magnetic bottle.

That notion dosen't bode well for possibility of virtual particles
ever 'winking' into existance or the possibility of 'conjuring'
particles pairs in nothingness but the witnesses those
phenomena number about the same as witnesses to detection
of gravity waves. ;-)

Sue...


Magnetic Bottle
http://www.physics.miami.edu/~zuo/class/fall_05/supplement/Figure27_17.jpg

<< Hamiltonian_5 is the magnetic moment spin-spin interaction.
The first term is called the contact interaction, because it is
nonzero only when the particles are at the same position; the
second term is the interaction of the classical dipole-dipole type. >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breit_equation


Quote:
Ken
...
Back to top
Ken S. Tucker
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 1230

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:25 pm    Post subject: Re: Magnetic Idyll Reply with quote

Sue... wrote:
Quote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
...
Paul's analysis is a bit ridiculous of charge
self-energization, Purcell is clear on that on
pg 8, charge is essentially relative and a
single charge has no absolute or solitary
existance, anymore than velocity does.
What you can do is use 3 charges in a spatial
configuration like,
(+)
(-)(-)
within a radius of ~10^-18 m and simulate
the characteristics of an electron, I use
a computer simulation to do that.

Ken, it is not quite that simple. It has to be all bound charge
surrounding the (+) otherwise you will have a multipole config.
FrediFizzx

Yes Fred thanks. I reason the electron has intrinsic
spin I'll diagram using (a) and (b) as negative charges,
and cycles like,

(+) (+) (b)(a) (a)(b) (+)...........
(a)(b) (b)(a) (+) (+) (a)(b).........

yielding intrinsic spin and mass, and an
associated characteristic frequency relating
the rate of the spin (a)(b) to (+) that is
the instrinsic spin, because they have a
ratio of 1/2 as in the diagram as you can see.
The "characteristic frequency" is E=h*f.
That also provides the magnetic pole and
the angular momentum, which is a multipole
effect, and is evident in the super-conductive
Cooper pair state.
Fred, I should add that this is my personal
working model that Edward asked about in
his OP, FWIW, but I see no major problem
making it Generally Relativistic based on
the same theory that we posted at your site,

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf

What's unpopular about my approach is the
use of nonsymmetrical metrics to model EM,
but that's how I build an electron Smile, to each
his own.

Ken S. Tucker,
You earlier made a statement to the effect:

~charge is charge, is only in relation to something else~.

That was the basis I used in concluding that Freddi
Sue and KST share the same view of electron/positron
spin. But you are saying something in your GR
shoe-horning that implies self interaction.

I think I avoided "self interaction" by relying
on charge relations.

If you
can apply +GR and -GR for e+ and e- it would remove
self interaction but I couldn't divine that from your
discussion.

There is no +GR vs -GR that I used, unless
you could be more specific.

My POV is that electron/positron spin *number* is
intrinsic to the ~structure~ but the orientation is
a function of the dielectric background.

Yes I agree.

See the spin-orbit comments here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breit_equation

The energy necessary to flip spins in an
ensemble seems to support that notion.

I can't, with any fidelity, translate your ascii
array above to follow your discussion.
It is a valiant attempt however.


Just means charges (a) and (b) spin revolve
twice as fast as the charge (+).

This is where I 'accuse' Smile you of fence-sitting.
You are using the word 'revolve' perhaps without intending,
to describe a 2D entity. I am taking the position
that a single electron or positron has nothing it
can rotate or revolve. My POV is electron spin
can't be described in terms of an axis through the
particle. We allude to that description for what
might more realistically be described as a motion
of the electron's center established by neighboring
entities which *do* have the spatial definiton to
rotate. If we naievly assume an indivdual electron
is spherical, is looks the same from any angle.
It has no intrinsic axis but it does have a center.

The quantum description imbues the electron
with a pseudo-axis so it can mathematically
represent its environment, even when
mathematically severed from its environment.

Using the term 'orbit' instead of 'revolve' seems
just as incorrect but at least it describes motion
*of* the center as opposed to motion *about* the
center.

You'll point out 'it is all relative anyway' and that
is probably the source of the confusion. Your
~point~ of reference is slightly different and
still retains the ability to assume a pseudo-axis,
inherited from a QM description? ???

If revolve is something between rotate and orbit
then I'll withdraw my charges of fence-sitting.

The assumption of those embracing the simple
point concept for an electron, and then whine
that it has infinite density get what they want,
GR flunks there...duh.
The electron structure can be investigated
by positrons.

Indeed... And does the foregoing suggest that our failure
to 'conjure' up particle-pairs in free space, might be beacuse
positve ~stuff~ and negative ~stuff~ has a unique
sub-fermion identity.

Yes, I think that's a reasonable hypothesis.

Quote:
Are nuclei really magnetic bottles that keep the positive
~stuff~ away from all the electons that fog up our normal
space. Our particle accelerator knocks the positive
stuff out of one magnetic bottle (the nucleus) and we
catch it in another macro magnetic bottle.

Nuclear physics is much more accessible
to measurement than electron or proton
structure and is a complex of those, so I
think we're deviating.

Quote:
That notion dosen't bode well for possibility of virtual particles
ever 'winking' into existance or the possibility of 'conjuring'
particles pairs in nothingness but the witnesses those
phenomena number about the same as witnesses to detection
of gravity waves. Wink

Yeah,
I think "virtual particles" is a mathematical
interpretation that allows the concept of a
field to exist...and that LIGO has been too
quiet.

Quote:
Sue...

Magnetic Bottle
http://www.physics.miami.edu/~zuo/class/fall_05/supplement/Figure27_17.jpg

Hamiltonian_5 is the magnetic moment spin-spin interaction.
The first term is called the contact interaction, because it is
nonzero only when the particles are at the same position; the
second term is the interaction of the classical dipole-dipole type.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breit_equation

Thank you for the refs, did you want a naive
comment?
KST
Back to top
Sue...
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2684

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:39 am    Post subject: Re: Magnetic Idyll Reply with quote

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Quote:
Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
...
Paul's analysis is a bit ridiculous of charge
self-energization, Purcell is clear on that on
pg 8, charge is essentially relative and a
single charge has no absolute or solitary
existance, anymore than velocity does.
What you can do is use 3 charges in a spatial
configuration like,
(+)
(-)(-)
within a radius of ~10^-18 m and simulate
the characteristics of an electron, I use
a computer simulation to do that.

Ken, it is not quite that simple. It has to be all bound charge
surrounding the (+) otherwise you will have a multipole config.
FrediFizzx

Yes Fred thanks. I reason the electron has intrinsic
spin I'll diagram using (a) and (b) as negative charges,
and cycles like,

(+) (+) (b)(a) (a)(b) (+)...........
(a)(b) (b)(a) (+) (+) (a)(b).........

yielding intrinsic spin and mass, and an
associated characteristic frequency relating
the rate of the spin (a)(b) to (+) that is
the instrinsic spin, because they have a
ratio of 1/2 as in the diagram as you can see.
The "characteristic frequency" is E=h*f.
That also provides the magnetic pole and
the angular momentum, which is a multipole
effect, and is evident in the super-conductive
Cooper pair state.
Fred, I should add that this is my personal
working model that Edward asked about in
his OP, FWIW, but I see no major problem
making it Generally Relativistic based on
the same theory that we posted at your site,

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf

What's unpopular about my approach is the
use of nonsymmetrical metrics to model EM,
but that's how I build an electron Smile, to each
his own.

Ken S. Tucker,
You earlier made a statement to the effect:

~charge is charge, is only in relation to something else~.

That was the basis I used in concluding that Freddi
Sue and KST share the same view of electron/positron
spin. But you are saying something in your GR
shoe-horning that implies self interaction.

I think I avoided "self interaction" by relying
on charge relations.

If you
can apply +GR and -GR for e+ and e- it would remove
self interaction but I couldn't divine that from your
discussion.

There is no +GR vs -GR that I used, unless
you could be more specific.

My POV is that electron/positron spin *number* is
intrinsic to the ~structure~ but the orientation is
a function of the dielectric background.

Yes I agree.

See the spin-orbit comments here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breit_equation

The energy necessary to flip spins in an
ensemble seems to support that notion.

I can't, with any fidelity, translate your ascii
array above to follow your discussion.
It is a valiant attempt however.


Just means charges (a) and (b) spin revolve
twice as fast as the charge (+).

This is where I 'accuse' Smile you of fence-sitting.
You are using the word 'revolve' perhaps without intending,
to describe a 2D entity. I am taking the position
that a single electron or positron has nothing it
can rotate or revolve. My POV is electron spin
can't be described in terms of an axis through the
particle. We allude to that description for what
might more realistically be described as a motion
of the electron's center established by neighboring
entities which *do* have the spatial definiton to
rotate. If we naievly assume an indivdual electron
is spherical, is looks the same from any angle.
It has no intrinsic axis but it does have a center.

The quantum description imbues the electron
with a pseudo-axis so it can mathematically
represent its environment, even when
mathematically severed from its environment.

Using the term 'orbit' instead of 'revolve' seems
just as incorrect but at least it describes motion
*of* the center as opposed to motion *about* the
center.

You'll point out 'it is all relative anyway' and that
is probably the source of the confusion. Your
~point~ of reference is slightly different and
still retains the ability to assume a pseudo-axis,
inherited from a QM description? ???

If revolve is something between rotate and orbit
then I'll withdraw my charges of fence-sitting.

The assumption of those embracing the simple
point concept for an electron, and then whine
that it has infinite density get what they want,
GR flunks there...duh.
The electron structure can be investigated
by positrons.

Indeed... And does the foregoing suggest that our failure
to 'conjure' up particle-pairs in free space, might be beacuse
positve ~stuff~ and negative ~stuff~ has a unique
sub-fermion identity.

Yes, I think that's a reasonable hypothesis.

Are nuclei really magnetic bottles that keep the positive
~stuff~ away from all the electons that fog up our normal
space. Our particle accelerator knocks the positive
stuff out of one magnetic bottle (the nucleus) and we
catch it in another macro magnetic bottle.

Nuclear physics is much more accessible
to measurement than electron or proton
structure and is a complex of those, so I
think we're deviating.

Speak for youself. I may be a little kinky but your the first to
call me a deviant. Surprised) Are hydrogen atoms deviants too?
Quote:

That notion dosen't bode well for possibility of virtual particles
ever 'winking' into existance or the possibility of 'conjuring'
particles pairs in nothingness but the witnesses those
phenomena number about the same as witnesses to detection
of gravity waves. ;-)

Yeah,
I think "virtual particles" is a mathematical
interpretation that allows the concept of a
field to exist...and that LIGO has been too
quiet.

The Coulomb field can exist without them.
and you can illuminate mirrors better that
way too.

Quote:

Sue...

Magnetic Bottle
http://www.physics.miami.edu/~zuo/class/fall_05/supplement/Figure27_17.jpg

Hamiltonian_5 is the magnetic moment spin-spin interaction.
The first term is called the contact interaction, because it is
nonzero only when the particles are at the same position; the
second term is the interaction of the classical dipole-dipole type.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breit_equation

Thank you for the refs, did you want a naive
comment?

No... Let's gaze at pretty pictures instead.
<< Theoretical estimates of the electron density for the
first few hydrogen atom electron orbitals shown as
cross-sections with color-coded probability density >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

Sue...

> KST
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 6 of 6 [81 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:34 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Computer Modelling of electro magnetic fields in Electros... bernard_stan@yahoo.com Physics 0 Sat Jun 24, 2006 8:34 pm
No new posts Tokomak and magnetic fields TQJDM Particle 1 Sat Jun 17, 2006 5:02 am
No new posts Magnetic Anyon Generators for Advanced Warp Propulsion? Jack Sarfatti Math 0 Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:18 pm
No new posts Neutrino magnetic moment absent David Jonsson Particle 0 Sat May 27, 2006 8:21 pm
No new posts Photo-electro-magnetic forces chemguy Electromagnetics 0 Wed May 17, 2006 12:20 am

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 1.5498s ][ Queries: 16 (1.4658s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]