Re: Spin
- From: PD <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:01:25 -0800 (PST)
On Feb 14, 6:05 am, Albertito <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 14 feb, 11:47, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 14, 12:14 am, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi NG
In "electrons and uncertainty" I have tried to describe my dodgy modell.
Its mainly a fluid-like spacetime and any event is connected to a describing
quaternion. The main feature of quaternions are rotations. And they form a
skew-symmetric structure.
A particle in this picture is mainly a pattern of excitations of this
four-dimensional structure.
There excist two directions of rotation in respect to time: one is within
time direction and one is perpendicular to timely 'movement'. The timestable
part of this pattern is twisting in time direction, that is not kommutativ
(skew-symmetric). It takes two rounds to return to the origin. Perpendicular
is space. Spacelike 'movement' is not skewsymmetric and requires only one
round to return. Other directions are not possible. This gives spin 1/2 for
matter and spin 1 for radiation.
Thomas Heger
Where is the mathematics?
Pathetic!
So, if there is no mathematics there is no physics?
Pathetic!
In a way, yes. The fundamental principles of a physical theory can
usually be stated without mathematics. But a physical theory is
useless without *quantitative* confrontation with experiment. This is
central to physics, and to science in general. Being able to
*qualitatively* account for phenomena is a feature that is so much a
commodity that it is practically worthless. The way that one model
becomes favored over another is not on the basis of qualitative
agreement, or on plausibility, or even on elegance or simplicity. The
deciding factor is whether it gets *measurable* values predicted more
accurately than a competing model. To get this quantitative prediction
of the *value* of a measurable phenomenon requires mathematical
development of the principles in such a way that it can generate
numerical results. There is no other option.
This is a hard reality of doing science, and of physics in particular.
If you don't like it, then you are exploring the wrong field.
PD
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Spin
- Next by Date: Re: Eric Gisse has no any diploma
- Previous by thread: Re: Spin
- Next by thread: Re: Spin
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
