
Charge is fundamental to a particle but spin is a consequence of motion Chapt13.4.03 Charge and spin #1026 New Physics #1146 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Posted:
Nov 23, 2012 3:44 AM


On Nov 23, 1:57 am, Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. >
Now the above makes an important distinction between spin and charge. Charge is a basic property of a particle for it is the geometry of the particle. But the direction of motion in terms of spin is not a fundamental property of a particle, but is rather a effect due to the other particles in the vicinity.
The Coulomb law is the charge law and it is there no matter what other particles are nearby.
The Ampere law is the spin law, and it is about "direction" of a particle relative to other particles in the vicinity. Spin is not inside the particle in question, but is there when there are two electrons and the question then becomes, what direction are they moving relative to one another. So spin is a group effect, not an intrinsic characteristic. So that if two electrons are moving in antiparallel motion or in parallel motion then they each have a spin because their motion demands a spin. But if electrons are in isolation of one another, they have no spin, for they do not attract or repel each other.
So charge brings the Coulomb law into existence, not the other way around. And where Ampere's law brings spin into existence, and not the other way around.
For example, if we bring two water molecules close together, they have residual charges to affect one another, but they do not have residual spins to affect one another.
So when we talk about the photon or electron or proton or neutrino and ask for the spin, is a rather ridiculous question to ask since neither of those particles is in a state of motion surrounded by other particles to make a Ampere law thereof. An electron by itself can have a spin of +1/2 or 1/2 or 0 spin, but when in a special setting of an electron in a helium atom, then it is an electron in parallel motion and thus has a spin.
So charge is a basic property of a particle but spin is a conglomerate affect on a particle.
Google's NewNewsgroups 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 electrondotcloud are galaxies

