Re: the funny electron
- From: dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bilge)
- Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 05:59:18 GMT
Jerry T:
>
>Bilge wrote:
>> xxein@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>> >
>> >
>> >Larry A wrote:
>> >> when we still say that an atom has only one
>> >> electron or whatever, it means that the electron,
>> >> as an distinct described entity, is fooling around
>> >> the nucleus in an so called electron cloud
>> >>
>> >> now, an incident sharp monochromic EM needs
>> >> to be combined with the frequncy comming from the
>> >> electron
>> >>
>> >> how fast is the electron rotating or whatever
>> >
>> >xxein: This is what we do not know.
>>
>> Why don't you calculate how fast it would have to be ``rotating''
>> if ``spin'' really meant rotating? It's rather easy. Just treat
>
>would mind showing how to do thank you very much
Write down the equation for the magnetic dipole moment of a current
loop.
>
>> the rotating charge the same way you would any rotating charge,
>> as current loops. Obtain the expression for the dipole moment and
>> see what you have to do to make it match the measured value. If you
>> need a radius smaller than e^2/mc^2, you'll have to explain how that
>> could be physical. It would be a rather enlightening experience,
>
>you seems you did it before, just cut and paste her please thank you
>very much
>
>> but I doubt you'll make the effort as it might replace a little
>> of the mystique you like to peddle with a numerical result.
>
>i don know how ta begin, show me tha first equation
>
>do we need equations? how many?
>
>>
>> >Is an electron dipolar to make a spin important? Is spin just a
>> >word that we use to convey some association to other elementary
>> >particles?
>>
>> I know you believe relativity and quantum are just equations
>> pulled out of the air by physicists who intentionally set out
>> to obscure physics and frustrate your vision, but intrinsic spin
>> is a simple consequence of the fact that electons and other
>> elementary particles are relativistic, quantum mechanical objects.
>
>no, they are not objects
>objects are well defined existing finite entities
>
>quantum mecannins is just a theory making up the "classes" or the
>templatest they want the "objects" meaning to express
>
>> If you solve for the energy using the wave equation, E = a.p + bm,
>> rather than E^2 = p^2 + m^2, it falls right into one's lap via the
>> matrices for a and b that solve that equation.
>
>please do more arithmetics ta me,
>have you a link to your homepage?
>
>i cant read formulas in assci, i need to see the as they are
>in books
>
>i need altso the detailed descriptions for the symbols you use,
>otherways how would i know what you ment
>
>>
>> >In light of my previous post on this thread, we simply don't know.
>> >
>> >Ah! Frequency. As if a singular electron had one for itself. We
>> >don't know this. We don't know if it is just a field artifact wrt its
>> >bound state. Is it an on-off frequency determined by its movement in a
>> >sea of photons? Does it really have a physical spin that shows up as a
>> >dipolar?
>>
>> Spin doesn't mean ``spinning.''
>
>please do more answer to me
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: the funny electron
- From: chip
- Re: the funny electron
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: the funny electron
- References:
- Re: the funny electron
- From: Bilge
- Re: the funny electron
- Prev by Date: Re: Space-time curvature
- Next by Date: definition of simultaneity and on the relativity of lenghts and times by a. einstein
- Previous by thread: Re: the funny electron
- Next by thread: Re: the funny electron
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|