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.independent

Topic: reconciling Spin with photon, electron, neutrino; Experiment #1261
New Physics #1381 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List  
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com

Posts: 9,406
Registered: 3/31/08
reconciling Spin with photon, electron, neutrino; Experiment #1261
New Physics #1381 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Posted: Feb 27, 2013 2:11 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Reconciling Spin with photon and electron and neutrino.

Half the battle in science is knowing what one is dealing with, the
other half is filling in and fixing the details.

So I have rest mass as the leading edge of a single transverse wave
curling back around to form a circle or closed loop for the electron
or a closed surface area or volume for a proton. A photon has no rest
mass because its front edge of the wave cannot be made to curl around
to form a closed loop. And the numerical value of rest-mass, electron
0.5 MeV and proton 938 MeV is because the closed loop has those many
ridges and troughs when counted up.

Now Spin is very easy also to explain, as the Right-hand-Rule. Let me
make a teaching lesson for future physicists. In that if you have a
situation where you have a teaching device in physics, that seems to
always work, then, the chances are, is that the device is far more
than just a special aid to human beings learning about physics.
Chances are, that the device is a fundamental aspect of physics
itself. So that the Right-hand-Rule for the Maxwell Equations is far
more than just a aid and helper for learners of physics but is
actually a part of true physics itself.

So I have the Spin, the quantum number m_s as the Right hand Rule of
physics. Now for the messy part, the details.

In Old Physics, they had spin as something out of this world,
something incomprehensible for they said spin was two 360 degree
rotations (720 degrees) with inside of 360 degrees.

Well, now, if you look at the Right Hand Rule and the Left hand Rule,
you can see that you can have two 360 degrees within 360 degrees. In
fact you can have combinations of say two Right hands and one Left
hand (1080 degrees) all inside 360 degrees.

You see, when the Right Hand Rule is seen as spin of quantum
mechanics, you can have superposition of Right and Left Hand Rules
form one single overall spin. And so, where Old Physics made spin some
incomprehensible impossible topic, New Physics reveals spin as
something easily grasped.

So now I need to find the messy parts of spin and that means how does
spin govern the motion of the photon, electron and neutrino as waves.

Now the Photon is a double transverse wave and this must be true
because if not true then you cannot have Special Relativity where a
radio wave is the same speed of light as a gamma ray. So what is the
spin of the photon? In Old Physics, they were so stupid that they had
the photon as a single transverse wave of E and B fields, and
violating Special Relativity. The photon in Old Physics looked like
this:

E
B


In New Physics the photon is shaped like this as a wave of E-, E+, M-,
M+ fields:

E-
M+ M-
E+

Now the spin in New Physics for the photon would have to be the spin
of these two single waves:

E-
M+

and

E+
M-

Now those spins are Right hand rule and Left hand rule where the
thumbs are in the same direction as the motion forward of the photon
and with spins opposite and canceling one another for an overall spin
of 0.

The electron and proton both have spins of either +1/2 or - 1/2, and
both are always Right Hand Rules and the sign tells whether the thumb
is up or down.

Now neutrinos are the only waves that are always Left Hand Rule, or
that their chirality is always left handed. Neutrinos are depicted as
these:

M-
M+

And they have no E component. Neutrinos are longitudinal waves, but
peculiar longitudinal wave for they are coherent waves, like a laser
beam coherent. Remember the slinky toy of wound up coil of steel and
when we compress and let go of the end it is a longitudinal wave along
that coil.

So now, how do we get spin for electrons in the 5 d suborbital of iron
where it is 3d6, meaning that 2 electrons fill one of the five
suborbitals, leaving 4 electrons unpaired (Hund's rule) and those 4
electrons forming a permanent bar magnet.

In the paired suborbital the Right Hand Rule of spin up and spin down
cancel one another, but not a cancellation as a photon where the
overall spin is 0. Instead, it is a cancellation that the two
electrons form a new closed loop.

Now for the interesting electrons of the unfilled 4 suborbitals of
iron. All 4 electrons are Right Hand Rule. Meaning that they reinforce
one another in that some energy is emitted out of the iron atom of 4
thumbs. In Faraday's or Ampere's law, the energy of the thumb is the
electric current flow. In the case of iron permanent bar magnet, what
the energy of the thumb in the Right hand rule is that of two magnetic
monopoles:

M+
M-

Unlike the neutrino, though, it is a single transverse wave for the 4
unpaired electrons in the 3d6 suborbital of iron.

This may be confusing, so let me try to straighten it out. The photon
must be double transverse in order to preserve Special Relativity.
When we break the photon apart into two single transverse waves we get
a electron and positron (if they have enough energy). The photon is 0
spin with both Right hand and Left hand rule (destructive
interference), but when broken apart the electron and proton both end
up with a Right Hand Rule.

When two electrons fill a suborbital their Right Hand Rules forces
them to make a new closed loop. When unpaired electrons align
themselves, they amplify their thumb energy of the Right Hand Rule
causing perpetual motion of macroscopic magnetism.

Now all of this is mostly talk, but it is based on one very important
experiment. An experiment that should have been done in the 1930s, but
there was no great logical physicist other than Dirac in the 1930s and
beyond. The experiment I speak of makes most physicists of the 20th
century look like dunces of physics, for it is simple and demands a
answer.

Experiment: taking one atom of iron as a permanent bar magnet. We can
increase it to any number quantity of iron atoms. Call the experiment
the quantification of electrons for magnetism versus electrons for
electric current in the Faraday law. The name itself tells us what the
experiment seeks to find out. The question of the Experiment, is that
a single atom of iron has 4 electrons unpaired to make a permanent bar
magnet. If we place that single atom into a closed loop of wire in
Faraday's law, will those 4 electrons of a magnet cause 4 electrons of
the closed loop wire to move as a electric current? Now we obviously
cannot set up the experiment with a single atom of iron. So we must
use an Avogadro number of iron atoms and an Avogadro number of atoms
of copper in the closed loop. And the question remains, does the
magnetic energy of each electron of the 4 unpaired in iron cause 4
electrons of copper
to flow as current.

Now if Dirac were alive today, and answering the question above, then
according to his book Directions in Physics, he would likely answer
that just one electron of the iron magnet causes 137/2
of the electrons in the copper wire to flow as current.

I would answer that every iron electron as magnet causes 1 single
electron in the copper wire to flow.


--

Google's searches and archives are top-heavy in hate-spew from search-
engine-bombing. And recently Niuz.biz (Docendi.org) threatens to harm
your computer if opening a post of mine.
Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple and fair
archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years as 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.