Re: magnetic propeties from spinning electric field
From: Lady Chatterly (not-bot_at_catcher.in.the.rye)
Date: 03/24/05
- Next message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: h bar and Lorentz transformation"
- Previous message: Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com: "Re: magnetic propeties from spinning electric field"
- In reply to: Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com: "Re: magnetic propeties from spinning electric field"
- Next in thread: Guy Gordon: "Re: magnetic propeties from spinning electric field"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 5:39:44 GMT
In article <1111640210.521805.120500@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>The magnetic properties is said to be caused by spinning
>electrons... But since electrons don't really spin
>literally, where do the magnetic properties really
>come from??
We have a problem with spoofing is if you do not know what you are
not.
>COMMENT:
Go on shooooo.
>I presume something or other "in" the electron is indeed spinning
>"literally." A magnetic field in physics is understood to be merely a
>relativistic effect (ie, view) of moving charge. If the non-translating
>electron is observed to still possess a magnetic field, its charge must
>still somehow, or in some way, still be moving. And there's only one
>direction for that to happen if the whole thing doesn't move, and
>that's round and round. Q.E.D., no pun intended.
Whether it was a period of more intense bombardment peaking between
5000 and 3000 years before the present and tailing off as recently as
the 6 th century Ad.
>There's a certain amount of cognitive dysonance here, of course. With
>the proton or neutron, when you bring up the matter of the intrinsic
>magnetic field, physicists wave their hands and say "no problem." It's
>easily explained by the circular motions of the internal charged
>quarks.
I am not sure I understand the question.
>But when it comes to leptons, physicists get all mystical, because they
>haven't yet posited any internal structure of the things to give this
>same kind of explanatory power.
>But that's not to say there isn't any such structure. Just that, so
>far, the magnetic moment of the leptons is the only evidence for it.
>And physicists want some other evidence of scale before they'll commit.
End of the internet.
>But there's another fascinating fact, and that is that the measured
>magnetic moment ratios of electrons and muons stand almost precisely in
>ratio of their masses. That cannot be a coincidence (anybody want to
>argue that it is?). And yet, as a fact it's hard to explain *except* as
>being due to the fact that muons are simply "smaller" or less radially
>extended in space than are electrons, by simple virtue of being more
>massive and therefore better localized as wave-functions. So this is
>fishy.
Security is only one thing, and I Will not be a hassle.
>Now, physicists have also hesitated to connect an electron's magnetic
>field with moving charge, because the electron's spin field is too
>strong for its charge to cause it relativistic/classically, unless the
>electron is *either* much larger than the minimum it has been measured
>to be (by scattering), or *else* is spinning much faster than c. Since
>this seems a contradiction, it's simply been tabled.
Has made a simple four word answer save social security first.
>I think some new thinking is required. The time has come to open our
>minds, as Oppie once said. Very well. Let us assume there are no
>contradictions in nature, and the electron really is smaller than the
>mimimal scattering radius for it. Something less than 10^-20 m. Perhaps
>the electron is a string or some other simple extended geometrical
>object (you pick one). That implies that if its spin magnetic field is
>made in the usual relativistic way, that the electron substance spins
>faster than c.
Again, do not know what you are a fart.
>And now I want to ask: so what? **Why the hell not**?? As far as I
>can see, there's no problem with things going faster than c in physics,
>so long as nothing comes of it by virtue of transmitting information,
>which is to say that causal effects are forbidden to be transmitted
>from "here" to "there" in such a way as to exceed c. But spin doesn't
>do that, anymore than supraluminal phase velocities of waves do. So why
>not?
But I do not know what you are not.
>Eh?
For example, these are peano 's axioms for number theory.
>SBH
There's a lot out there that I've read and *get* the idea but *do not*
agree with. So?
-- Lady Chatterly "is there someone actually posting as Lady Chatterly, or is this all some kind of elaborate sock? i'm not getting them." -- ronin
- Next message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: h bar and Lorentz transformation"
- Previous message: Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com: "Re: magnetic propeties from spinning electric field"
- In reply to: Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com: "Re: magnetic propeties from spinning electric field"
- Next in thread: Guy Gordon: "Re: magnetic propeties from spinning electric field"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
