Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

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

Replies: 3   Last Post: Nov 23, 2012 4:15 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com

Posts: 10,048
Registered: 3/31/08
Coulomb law does charge; Ampere law does spin Chapt13.4.03 Charge
and spin #1025 New Physics #1145 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Posted: Nov 23, 2012 2:57 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.