Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
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




Re: Coulomb law does charge; Ampere law does spin Chapt13.4.03 Charge and spin #1027 New Physics #1147 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Posted:
Nov 23, 2012 4:15 AM


On Nov 23, 2:44 am, Roland Franzius <roland.franz...@uos.de> wrote: > Am 23.11.2012 08:57, schrieb Archimedes Plutonium: > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > Thats of course not what you will find in text books. > > The s=1/2, L=0, j=1/2 orbitals of hydrogen are spherical symmetric but > are carrying an intrinsic spininduced electric current (see eg. Gordon > decomposition of current in Landau/Lifshitz). > > What is not possible for a spherical symmetric spin 0 field  current is > an effect of the field gradient  is the normal case for a vector field: > > Alle the spherical symmetric charge densities carry a fixed electric > current per sphere shell around an axis, resulting from the algebraic > imprinted vector current. It needs no field gradient. > > This is the reason why these currents and their magnetic fields are > intrinsic and cannot slow down. > > A ground state with vanishing current distributions does simply not exist. > > Since spin and angular momentum are not distinguishable in not so > symmetric cases, it is much easier to say  in a quasiclassical > approximation, that for a spinor field the observable densities > current density "c gammma" and local angular momentum > "J = L + 1/2 sigma" never vanish. > >  > > Roland Franzius
Hi Roland, your above post matches the same time as mine #1026 as time 2:44 am. I mention that because I believe I addressed your reply above with mine of #1026.
If my memory is correct, it was in the history of physics that for about a decade of time, noone needed the m_s spin quantum number. It was not essential as the angular momentum quantum numbers were essential.
So if spin is just really the result of Ampere's law on subatomic particles inside atoms, then spin is not a fundamental property of particles.
Spin would be a feature that a particle inherits from the circumstances that surround the particle.
Charge would be fundamental, like a head on a person that every person would carry a head with them. Spin would be circumstantial property, like wearing a hat or wearing sunglasses.
Charge would cause the Coulomb law. Spin would be a result of the Ampere law and not a cause of the Ampere law.
To talk of spin of an electron that is in isolation of other electrons is just nonsense, since you need other electrons for the Ampere law to deliver a spin to a particle.
I think it was a decade before the physicists of the 1920s accepted a m_s spin and did without until then.
But Roland, the reason why the above makes more sense than current textbooks is because no current textbook in physics or chemistry ever explains to any student, that why electrons form structures of electons only when they have like charges and repel one another. The only reasonable explanation is that although like charges repel, the Ampere law allows like charges that are in parallel motion to attract and that attraction is greater than the Coulomb repulsion.
So show me any modern day textbook of physics or chemistry that explains why atoms have vast electron structures around a nucleus and why they do not fly apart? And why electrons go so far as to pair up in suborbitals when the Coulomb law would have disallowed either one to take place. So the only reasonable explanation is that the Ampere law intercedes the Coulomb law when like charges are in parallel motion.
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



