Re: Detecting Space-Time

From: jahn (susysewnshow_at_yahoo.com.au)
Date: 11/15/04 

Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:03:56 -0000

    [snip]
http//farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node60.html
 cgs u0 = 4Pi x 10^-7 henry per meter.
Yes, but what does
this have to do with spinning electrons? Absolutlely
nothing. It is pure concidence that the poles of an
electron *seem* to always correspond to the poles of a
solenoid wrt the charge's direction of motion. What poles
of an electron? The ones that exclude Wolfgang from the
theatre? My Floridian girlfriend happens to be of Polish
descent. It's not her fault. involving the electron spin.
MR imaging and MR spectroscopy rely on the resonant
behaviour of the atomic nucleus in an external magnetic
field. A similar phenomenon occurs with the electron.
Although most electrons exist in pairs with no net spin,
electron spin resonance may be observed from the unpaired
electrons that exist, for example, in free radicals.The
ESR phenomenon occurs at much higher frequencies than the
NMR phenomenon, and therefore the technique is inherently
 more sensitive than its nuclear equivalent. In principle,
 the methods of MR imaging can be applied to ESR, but
such experiments are hampered by very short relaxation
times, typically in the microsecond range. An alternative
approach is to administer free radicals such as
nitroxides and, by the Overhauser effect, enhance the
proton polarization in a proton/electron double resonance
experiment. Such experiments have been proposed for very
low field imaging. PS The Encyclopaedia of Medical
Imaging Volume I

http//www.amershamhealth.com/medcyclopaedia/medical\
/volume%20I/ELECTRON%20SPIN%20RESONANC\
E%20%20ESR%20.ASP

Note that free electrons
in conductors, accelerators CRT's etc are "unpaired"
------ Yeah yeah.. and note that we orginally
began with light traversing nothing. Yes... and
you are protesting because I say it behaves differently
travsering nothing than in traversing something.
Well, we know it traverses something at a fixed velocity
 depending on the something and relative to the
something. I'm not disputing that. Refraction is the
evidence. If there is any disagreement between us it is
the different speeds it can traverse the nothing. You
seem to be upholding all the "something" evidence to
support your PoV, and not addressing the "nothing"
evidence. Only because the vacuum evidence doesn;t exist.
Even if you achieve a hi quality vacuum the emitter,
detector and envelope if required is an electrostatic
impurity.
http//www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/actual_data.htm
 Surely you realize that with more than one speed in the
nothing, permeability and permitivity of free space
become meaningless? That is like saying the coverage of
the inside of a sphere depends on the nozzle velocity.
Unless the paint can reflect back into the container then
the coverage is 100%. EM waves don't return to the
emitter unless reflected by matter. You may be looking at
the SI definitions which incorporate SR. The cgs values
are from the properties of a sphere. You'll recognize 12
pi from spherical geometry. It is due the Hilbert
Jackpot function. Millions of observations have shown
this relationship but it is surely random chance running
afoul. ;-) It works for light years just the same as for
millimeters. There is no requirement for the electrons in
the conductor to spin. What happens when they stop?
{rhetorical) I'll give a rhetorical reply. Would there
still be years if the Earth kept one face to the Sun as
the Moon keeps one face to the Earth? How about if it
kept the same orientation with respect to the stars? That
is a rectal reply. The earth will still have it's
identity as a planet. The electoron will shine itself
away as gamma radiation. Didn't know the elector Ron had
a vote. We know that Mr Positron and Miss Electron will
elope when married, giving birth to a pair of wayward
gamma children inheriting DNA from both parents, but I
STILL don't see why you are putting spin on it before the
dance begins. So thick black smoke won't pour out of the
ESR machines that your local radiologist just aquired.
Besides... ya don't want to mess with the ghost of
anybody named "Wolgang". Something makes light traverse
nothing. I still say that is an E-field alternating with
a B-field, so there! It is a fine, but important point.
At this level it is hard to say an electron is matter or
energy. Hard to say magnetism is a field, or a
perturbation of a field. One way to break the deadlock is
to try and explain the electric field in terms of of a
magnetic field. I think you find it gets extremely
complicated. Generator. Transformer. Dynamo.
Phase shift. Power factor correction capacitor R +j0
...don't see too much stuff like that in free space tho.

    Oh, I think generators will still work on the Moon's
surface. Albedo is quite good, too.

     I am not attempting to explain how or why a
changing magnetic field produces an electric field,
anymore than I'm attempting to explain why an apple
falls. It does! That's observation. Nature likes
sphere's 'cause she only has one number to remember.
Tom will confirm... that is all the RAM she has left
afer Einstein's field equations are loaded. ;-)
Nature doesn't use parabolic mirrors either, but she
responds to them in a predictable manner. We don't know
the exact mechanism by which an electron will change
state and release a photon, quantum theory doesn't
prevent an infinite spectrum.

By atomic emission. !!!

> Vague. We know light is emitted. We know matter is made
of atoms. All you've said is the equivalent of
photographs are taken by cameras!!! Only the spectrum
of a number of elements display fixed frequencies.

Oh? Which ones?
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/AtData/pt?optionslist=XXT1
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/AtData/main_asd

NIST Atomic Spectra Database Lines Data (Wavelength Ordered)
Wavelength=589 nm, ± 30 Na
8 Lines of Data Found

Spec. Observed Air (nm) Ritz Air (nm)
              Rel. Int. Aki ( 108 s-1 ) Acc.

Na I 568.2633 568.2633 280 1.03e-01 C
Na I 568.8193 568.8193 70 2.1e-02 D
Na I 568.8205 568.8205 560 1.2e-01 C

Na I 588.9950 588.9950 80000 6.22e-01 A <-----
Na I 589.5924 589.5924 40000 6.18e-01 A <-----

Na I 615.4225 615.4225 120 2.6e-02 C
Na I 616.0747 616.0747 240 5.2e-02 C
Na II 617.525 60

> Using the Bohr model (and recall it is only a model) of
the atom, how far does the electron move around the
nucleus as the photon is released? What direction does
the photon take? circular polarization Vague.

Indeed... it is usually eliptical.

     If we play with spirographs we start with a circle
(one centre) then an elipse (two foci), so three and
four foci and so on are not only possible but probable.
The Moon's orbit about the Sun is a 13-sided circle,
for example, in the same sense that a simple ellipse is
a 2-sided circle. For a photon release, there has to be
finite time of release (recall frequency) and finite
movement of the electron around some part of its orbit
(wavelength, perhaps) and the two combined produce the
characteristic velocity c, maybe. After that, the
energy is on its own to be affected by other atoms it
passes in the vicinity of. I'll assume you really mean
it is insignificant in the examples below. Nuclear spin
is significant however. The Sun spins. Being a fluid, not
all latitudes spin at the same rate. I have yet to see
any proof that the nucleus of the hydogen atom is
spinning, though. How fast does a deuterium nucleus spin,
and which axis does it spin on? Does this affect the
field, producing Lagrange points now that we have three
bodies, Electron, Neutron and Proton? Does deuterium have
any magnetic properties that differ from hydrogen?
tritium) nucleus and usually yields sharp signals. Even
though its chemical shift range is narrow, its sharp
signals make proton NMR very useful.
http//drx.ch.huji.ac.il/nmr/techniques/1d/row1/h.html
What did your search engine die of, atrophy?

> I don't rely on search engines, they destroy brain
cells with the dumb ideas of others. What did your
capacity to think die of, atrophy?

[eyes a'rollin]

    A beam in the TV tube is a current and is deflected
by magnetic attraction and repulsion. Lorentz force
perhaps ? I don't care what names you give it. The
deflection is real. But Lorentz force is between massive
entities not the divine guidance of space faries. If you
leave a hole like that some philosopher will try to drive
a truck thru it... in reverse gear. They are your fae.
Similar deflection by the charged plates of an
oscilloscope cannot be magnetic. Deflection by the
magnetic yoke of a TV tube has to be. Yes, I know there
are coils to produce the field, but I'm talking about the
field itself. How it gets there is irrelevant. It exists
in a vacuum. But does it exist absent a moving charge?
Does an electric field exist absent a moving flux? YES!
Good. So a magnetic field can exist without a moving
charge too. We shouldn't exclude the possiblily 'cause
how could four generations of Minkowski etherians
possibly be wrong? OTOH... they might be wrong about a
lot of things. Ditching SR doesn't fix Maxwell. Something
makes light traverse nothing. I still say that is an
E-field alternating with a B-field, so there! Sigh...
whenever we study how something fundamental works,
there is always something more fundamental to learn.
;-) Exactly. That is what I'm attempting to do. We
do not yet have all the answers, but do we have some
wrong ones. Constant speed of light in all frames of
reference is one of them. It is just a lame excuse to
take the clock apart and see how it works. Permittivity
and permeability of free space is another. E and B
fields in phase is a third. I don't have the answers
either. Help me out instead of fighting me. I'm not
fighting ya. Try threading a needle with the hole L to R.
It should produce howls of laughter as your mate see you
miss by centimeters.

> The same howls I emanate while thinking of
"permeability of free space"?

Set the speed of light = 0 and it won't seem so
funny as your dinner rases your body temperature
to several thousand degrees.

Fortunately for you a 377 ohm resistor is absorbing the
energy far from your body.

SEE! This is what a canary looks like.
http://imagers.gsfc.nasa.gov/ems/ircat.gif
http://www.all-the-inter.net/5032.gif

http://imagers.gsfc.nasa.gov/ems/infrared.html

----------

 cgs u0 = 4Pi x 10^-7 henry per meter.
Henry:
The inductance in which 1 volt is produced by a currrent changing at the
rate of 1 ampere/second
Ampere:
The constant current which when flowing through two parallel wires 1 m apart
would produce in vacua a force of 2 x 10 -7 N/m
Newton:
A 1 newton force will accelerate 0.1 kilograms with an acceleration of 10
meters per second squared.

SO !!!
Is it pi you are doubting or the mass of an electron ?

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/ampere.html
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?kgu

-----------

    ---- Charge two capacitor plates with a battery.
Measure the force between them with a fish scale. Remove
the battery. What does the scale do when the battery is
removed? Measure the current through the disconnected
battery or the disconneted capacitor (they should be the
same) and compute the force using Amperes law. Compare
your result with the scale's indication. Again... My
fridge has magnets attached. No current inside the
magnet, Yes there is. A charge in motion is a current.
Something makes light traverse nothing. I still say that
is an E-field alternating with a B-field, so there! Oh!
That's easy While spin fairies and tick faries are pure
 mythology, the tote faries are not. When you see an
action in one region of space affect matter in another
region of space, it is the dedicated work of the tote
faries. They have little tool boxes in one hand an
copies of MTW and Griffiths under their arms so they
can move things about according to the experimenter's
expectations. They get confused sometimes tho when two
people are watching. Usually they will please the
observer with the fattest purse. LOL! Yes, you could
well be right. and it is NOT a
superconductor. It is not a glass of chablis either.
  You're a refrigerator abuser aren't cha? I
keep beer in it. Chardonnay, Beaujolais and Champignon
 are for fungus eating visitors. The odd truffle is
okay. Well, you're gonna have to be more generous
with whatever it is if you want me to go along with
this spin fairy notion of yours. Bribery will get you
 anywhere. A chocolate-coated crunchy tote fairy
(dead of course), perhaps? I'm all out of mashed
strawberries and cream on frog legs and I planned on
the pickled onions and icecream for myself. Yuck!
Betcha I can measure the force without using fish, and it
is more than your wimpy capacitor can manage. You manage
a few scraps of paper, I can suspend a human being on a
permanent magnet. Add up the Lorentz force of all the
co-moving charges in the magnet and you'll see why.
http//www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=orbital+nickel+cobalt+iron&btnG=Google+
 Search Does mass exist? What do we mean by "existence"?
Whadday mean "WE" Kimosabe?
http//www.planetmike.com/jokes/misc/the_lone_ranger_and_tonto.shtml
 The electron ceases to exist AFAIK when it shines away
as a gamma. So does water when you cook it. We call that
change of state. Where does the electron's gravity go?
B-field. Big time force. E-field. Not so big. G-field.
Wimpy. A lumpy magnet I can carry in one hand can outpull
the entire Earth, and you are saying that's because of
some tiny spinning electrons that can barely manage to
lift a scrap of paper. Electric repulsion is what keeps a
Blacksmith's anvil from touching the floor and you have
never seen magnets get close enough to overcome that
force. http//www.almaden.ibm.com/vis/stm/gallery.html
http//www.almaden.ibm.com/vis/stm/library.html I can put
your puny litle anvil on this.
http//www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993153 Na
nah nana nah. That's cheatin'. I'm tellin! [wrap crap
zap!] I never made then up in the first place, you did.
Permeability of free space and her little sister,
Permittivity. A right pair of fairies, they are. Removing
the mass component of the electron, we then have moving
(set of) E-fields producing a magnetic field. Massless
charges Eh? Are they sold by the dozen? Yep. 12 neutrinos
+ 12 photons per dozen, non-negotiable. Using conductors
once again, the windings in an electric motor should be
spreading apart, so we use a glue to stick them together
and pack them tightly in the (straight) slots. That is my
PoV that you are having so much difficulty with. Are you
saying that Amperes long wire law is backward? I'm saying
gold leaf electroscopes separate when you charge them
with one of those E-fields that exist without a magnetic
field. Fair enough. So in a world where the best man gets
the most votes in the electronic college you think the
man with a magnetic personality should fare as well.
Sadly Virginia... there is eeveeil in this world so
things are seldom equitable.
http//www.sorryeverybody.com/ Note the force when q = 0
http//scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/limg801.gif From

    http//scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/LorentzForce.html
 I am still unable to understand your PoV that the
electron has to spin. It is part of it's mechanism to
contain it's 0.511 MeV. odd integer) there is no simple
"single particle" way to understand where the gap comes
from. We now understand that these QHE's are spectacular
signatures of complex many-body states whose existence
relies totally on the Coulomb interaction between
electrons. > http//www.cmp.caltech.edu/~jpe/fqhe.html
Again, I do not see "spin" in your quotation. Your PoV,
as I understand it, is that electron spin creates a
magnetic field. Now you are talking about half a million
electron volts. What IS it you are trying to say? No ...
Relative moviing charges experience a Lorentz force.
Unless their motion maintains their proximity, the force
will diminish quickly. Wasn't it 1/ d ^3 or 1/ 4pi d^2
for a loop? I fergit. Me too. Note that the effect of
this definition is to fix the permeability of vacuum at
exactly 4pi x 10-7 H · m-1.
http//www1.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter2/2-1/2-1-1/ampere.html
 I note that the property you assign to nothing is
actually a property of the field, not the nothing. You
seem to be quite happy that nothing has properties, but
unable to accept that fields can exist unless caused by
spinning matter. If the nothing has properties of its
own, why can't a field? "Nothing" only has geometrical
properties. Ya care to gusess how they know the value
isn't really 3.9999999999 pi ? Lobachevsky, last I heard.
Reimann's value is 2.99999999. They took a spray can
inside of a sphere and counted droplets. ;-) Nah. that's
4pi.(r^3)/3 Why didn't put that 30 lines ^ up where we
needed it. http//www.mathstutor.com/Volume.html 'Twas
you, I recall who pointed out a sphere only has an axis
if it spins. Yep. If all the magnetic fields we can
observe are associated with a moving charge, I see no
moving charges in my fridge magnets. Why do insist there
are? Because I can put a coil of wire around them and
make them fall off by moving an equivalent amount of
charge in the opposite direction. Ah.... so
a spinning helicopter rotor is an anti-gravity device.
 Why do I have this strange idea that when your coil
runs out of energy my magnets will will jump right
back on again? Superconducting coils won't run out of
energy. Na nah nana nah. Drat. Got me... (almost).
 It's the permanent magnetic field that makes your spin
fairies dance. SAY AUNTIE ! ROFL o)

    it is no small assumtion that some unknown property
of space will substitute for the spinning (circulating,
orbiting) entities when an EM wave is propagating far
from any matter. There seems to be an intuitve rejection
of Huygen principle resulting from similar reasoning.
every point on a propagating wavefront serves as the
source of spherical secondary wavelets, such that the
wavefront at some later time is the envelope of these
wavelets. >
http//www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae471.cfm
Antenna radiate in circles. I agree with Huyghens. The
generated E-field, like the cork bobbing on water, is
stationary with respect to the source. I agree with
Huyghens. The magnetic field travels radially, like the
ripples on water. I agree with Huyghens. I do not agree
with you that the radiation is caused by millions of
corks on the water spinning to make it happen. So we
don't need millions of spin fairies. They are your fae,
not mine. I do not believe it because you have yet to
provide any evidence to support it, and I'm a stickler
for evidence and abhor assumption. It is you that has to
provide a Lorentz force, absent a charge. Not so. See
Lorentz, it's not my force. Burden of proof is upon the
claimant. Hmmm I tho't it was on the one with the biggest
lawyers and the most money. ;-) That's cheating.
Wahhh....... Consider this Huygens and Feynman both
produce good answers but are logical nonsenese.
Mathematically either is easier to model than
perturbations of E lines of force because the wave model
ensures conservation of mass and charge, on paper.
Coloumb lines can reach out just like gravitational lines
to convey a reaction force with any charged matter to
establish a speed of light dependant on the matter
density of the region. ... exactly the behavior we
observe between sea-level and 30,000 km or most of the
solar system actually. ------ Imagine one of these things
 http//www.magnet.okayama-u.ac.jp/magword/light/eh1.gif
where the H decays but the E builds in the first few
wavelengths. Imagine a bright green flying elephant. Then
imagine the revese process in the last few
aperture-lengths. Then imagine it laying and egg there is
stored energy. (The complex radiation field equations
have imaginary terms indicating reactive power.) Figure 4
shows normalized power density for three different
illuminations. https//ewhdbks.mugu.navy.mil/ANTNRFLD.HTM
There is oodles of stored energy at the point where the
rock hits the water, where the amplitude is at its
greatest. "Reactive" is the key word. Also called
"Apparent Power". As you know, only near sighted
mathematicians will complain if we "apparently" violate
c, conservation of energy or charge. (-1)^(-2) sprinked
over Maxwell's equations might even make them work
without fiddling with your watch. [Stump speech] Does
this not remove some of the magic in Feynman's sum over
paths technique? Does this not eliminate the need for
retarded potential and displacement current? Does this
not explain the near-field H predominance ? Answered
above. Yep. It looks like we are proxys for a
Feynman-Huygens duel. Nope. Bottom line, light propagates
in nothing by an alternating B field and E-field 90
degrees phase shifted, That's how it leaves the antenna
and *that's how it drives the next one. * Yep. In the
near field or the far field? Ya can't have both without
spin faries. (ether) Why not? The near field shows one
E/H ratio, the far-field shows another, but reversing Tx
and Rx positions, doesn't swap the near space for far
space behavior. So if there are spin faires, they
apparently favor hanging out around radiators and
absorbers. ... perhaps because spinning entities can be
found there to help with the ambitious work load that
Maxwell has set for them? Weirder stuff happens when
there is a medium involved (i.e. air, shape of antenna,
and I'll leave you to nitpick the details of that. -)
Faraday rotation is probably the best example. How do
your vacuuoophilic spin faries know to alternate the B
field for H and V polarizations the same as in media...
But leave the CW and CCW polarizations untouched? Like
I said, I don't know why the E-field is at right-angles
to the B-field, and probably never will. Well *IF* B
fields can only exist in the presence of matter, then you
can and do know.

    ELSE /* ? */
 int main( void )
{
  test_derived null();
  (const char *) 0x0;
}

    Also you may have a clue why we haven't been able to
conjure up a pair of leptons from a pair of gammas.

    Sure I do.
http//www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~apod/apod/ap031026.html That
dust collects gammas and makes whole atoms, not just
leptons. It has to come from somewhere. We are just not
yet in tune with how Nature does it.

http://silis.phys.strath.ac.uk/uilnps/Research/medicalisotopeproductionPET.h
tm

Just like this thread collects <<< and ::: the casuaal
observer would never guess it began as straight lines.
Sue...

     I do know that I can build an electric motor,
though, and my vacuum sucks up your spin fae better than
it does dust under my bed. It's the tote faries ya don't
wanna mess wid. MTW feels like 2430 pages if a tote fariy
hits you with a copy. Sue... [snip]

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Detecting Space-Time
    ... but what does this have to do with spinning electrons? ... It is pure concidence that the poles of an electron ... the electron spin. ... behaviour of the atomic nucleus in an external magnetic field. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Detecting Space-Time
    ... but what does this have to do with spinning electrons? ... What poles of an electron? ... : the electron spin. ... behaviour of the atomic nucleus in an external magnetic field. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Where is the mathematical beauty of relativity !!!
    ... Then, gradually, the deposit became visible, showing a beam separation ... not a discrete spin. ... structured spacetime which relativity theory takes only part way. ... allow electron spin to be relegated as a generic feature. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Various questions
    ... concept of "size" does not apply to the electron. ... spin and charge density of an electron, has been so for over 50 years. ... a state with n+1 particles is ... non-relativistic theories allow fermions to have ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: What keeps an electron from being "absorbed" by a proton?
    ... to form a neutron? ... Spin two opposite charges the same way, ... that the "the" electron is in the nucleus. ... The Galaxy Model indicates that the electron is ...
    (sci.physics)