Re: Where is the mathematical beauty of relativity !!!

On Jul 15, 3:10 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 15, 1:27 pm, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"

<tttppp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]



I'm not so sure that we just want to recover Maxwell's equations in a
new form.

They don't model London forces AFAIK so no harm in reaching
for the stars.

They were built on a premise of raw charge but what we
observe is that the raw charge carries a magnetic moment inherently.
Maxwell's equations are clean. Still, I think it is safe to state that
a unified approach denies standard electromagnetism. The raw
stationary charge (though it is tough to make an electron stand still)
supposedly carries a magnetic moment and this is not supported by
standard electromagnetism. Physics circa Y2K simply tacks on the spin
as Dirac constructed it. This supposedly binary quality is not
actually so clean as the textbooks make it out to be.

Welll.... That is because physics students have to study for banal
mathematics examinations leaving no time to get their own house in
order. :o)

I've pointed you
to the troubles in the past Sue with the spin polarized beam purity
maxed out near 80%, when according to Stern and Gerlach all that is
needed is an inhomogeneous magnetic field to strip out half the beam.
Spin is not a binary quality. It is continuous. Most importantly it is
possible to see that electromagnetic behavior is a property of
spacetime thanks to the electron spin; hence a generic form of
'particle' can exist whose dynamics are partially due to spacetime
behavior. Informationally we should shift some complexity into
spacetime and remove it from matter.

e+ e- annhilation does tend to suggest something like that must
be hidden somewhere in the debrisless debris.



The polysign progression does
this for us while generating natural spacetime support.

I feel drawn to achieving a stability criteria whereby an electron
will merely be a stable form. The electromagnetic tensor can be
reduced informationally into a tatrix (triangular matrix) form
a11
a21 a22
a31 a32 a33
and even the zeros can be accomodated if we up the form one level to
a41 a42 a43 a44
where these are a progressive polysign dimensional construction
including time.
Now we see a 10 component scalar structure of six dimensions, split at
three dimensions, those 10 scalars reducing if we render to six
geometrical dimensions in a subbrane configuration. It's all extremely
closely linked yet I do not have the motive quite right. I suspect
that there is a new math like calculus but slightly more primitive
that will work out on the polysign numbers. If that is the case then
it will be more like listening to that new math rather than forcing a
rabbit to wear a hat.

There are plenty of signals here that line up nicely, but if the old
reliance on the real number is wrong then twenty layers out from that
core should we really hope to have a clean morphing? This may be a
problem for the pure mathematician rather than those steeped in modern
physics. Physicists typically treat mathematics as something to be
used loosely. At a theoretical level this is a weakness. Modern theory
is a collage of math constructions. The physicist comfortably takes
freedoms that the anal mathematician balks at. I balk at the real
number which both seem posessed by. The continuous/discrete paradigm
has a new interpretation in number theory now. It ties directly to
geometry and satisfies time behavior naturally. I suppose we are
overlooking some fundamental mathematics still. Modern practice is to
work out on the branches of the tree yet there is something in the
core that is still invisible to humans. I think it lays near calculus
and especially the interdimensional nature of calculus. For instance
when we integrate a 1D curve we get a 2D area. A simplistic n+1
relation is also what the progressive polysign basis relies upon. This
seems childishly simple to spend any energy on but that is the sort of
thing we should see at the base.

It is starting to sound a bit "stringy" to me. Something
only a mathematician can apprciate. So far you seem
to be making some good progress finding some things in
your space-time that line up with our banal and archaic
physics. :o)

If you are "slumming" on usenet it must mean you
devoured all the papers I didn't get around to reading.


So here are a few more.

<<The new quantum mechanics of Heisenberg, Shrödinger,
and Dirac (1926-1928) showed that the orbital angular
momentum of the silver atom in the ground state is actually zero.
Its magnetic moment is associated with the intrinsic
spin angular momentum of the single valence electron
the projection of which has values of ± h/2, consistent
with the fact that the silver beam is split in two. If
Stern had chosen an atom with L = 1, S = 0, then the beam
would have split into three, and the gap between the m=+1
and m=-1 beams would have been filled in, and no split
would have been visible! Vol. II, chapters 34 and 35, and Vol. III,
chapters 5 and 6 of the Feynman Lectures gives a lucid
explanation of the quantum theory of the Stern-Gerlach experiment.
Platt (1992) has given a complete analysis of the experiment
using modern quantum mechanical techniques. Here we present
an outline of the essential ideas.
http://web.mit.edu/8.13/www/JLExperiments/JLExp_18.pdf

This link says:
"Stern predicted that the effect would be be just barely observable.
They had difficulty in
raising support in the midst of the post war financial turmoil in
Germany. The apparatus,
which required extremely precise alignment and a high vacuum, kept
breaking down. Finally,
after a year of struggle, they obtained an exposure of sufficient length
to give promise of an
observable silver deposit. At first, when they examined the glass plate
they saw nothing.
Then, gradually, the deposit became visible, showing a beam separation
of 0.2 millimeters!"

After this they go into cigar smoke with sulfur content which I had
not heard about before, but another interesting detail is that the
aperture did not work when it was circular. They were getting dim
results and what results they had showed a more continuous image. They
had to go to a rectangular aperture which widened the image. I read
this account from a small book covering some experimental physics
though I can't recall the title and author.

I think it is also interesting that so much attention is put to the
velocity of the stream of atoms without any regard for their
rotational content. This relates to thermodynamics which I have some
fundamental criticism of. The rate of propagation of heat in a solid
is far slower than the propagation of sound and so the interpretation
of heat in materials being vibrational is a misnomer. It must be that
the heat energy is in rotational form and that the resultant torque
interaction is very slight. Without entering higher dimensional
solutions this seems to be the only option. Therefore to overlook such
rotational features will be misleading.

Do modern Stern-Gerlach type experiments use a circular final
aperture? I did spend some time hunting this back in time but found
very little. The original image that I remember shows not two distinct
bars on the glass. It shows them weeping toward each other a bit.
Skinny down the aperture and they'll bleed together. This would be
support for a continuous phenomenon, not a discrete spin.

It seems that this experiment does use slits as described under the
Oven section. How conveniently the aperture has been subsumed into the
oven. Anytime apertures are used special attention ought to be given
to them since their effects are far from the intuitive notion of a
clean shadow path filter. I do like this link and especially the
stereo image, but where is a skeptical review of this experiment?


Confirmation of 99.9% proton spin-flipping at high energy by a small
rf-dipolehttp://www-spin.physics.lsa.umich.edu/html_meeting/cosy.protFlipApr04...
As I study this article I wind up at
http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/e00/PAPERS/MOP4B19.pdf
which for COSY proton beams exposes the same 80% limit as I have seen
for the electron beams from GaAs plane emissions, and again with the
more conservative 75% figure noted. This is a magic number! Much more
straightforward than other magic numbers. How your link's team can
claim such a high spin flip efficiency off of such a poor beam purity
is beyond me. Their lack of discussion of beam purity again is
frustrating. Nobody wants to talk about this problem. We humans are
subject to the Peter Pan principle.


Chiral Quark Description of the Proton Spin and Magnetic Momenthttp://psroc.phys.ntu.edu.tw/cjp/download.php?d=1&pid=485

It almost looks as if this one is generating an explanation of poor
beam purity from the quark sea but I haven't really read it very
closely. Anyhow no discussion of the lack of ability to control beam
purity seems to enter the language directly. Sorry I'm being a bit
stuck on beam purity but I do think it is a strong argument for
reinterpretation of discrete spin.


BTW I think most people read too much into the term "spin"
in the microatomic realm. In magnetics identifiable charges
are moving but with subatomic particles, something is
behaving magnetically as-tho something is spinning.

I may be repeating myself, or repeating you or
perhaps someone just as honorable and intellegent as
you or I. :o)

That's a nice complement to both of us. Thanks for the new links. We
perhaps should not even be using the term 'spin' but just magnetic
moment instead. The term came as a means of decoupling orbital
magnetic contribution within a raw charge interpretation. The modern
construction glues the magnetic moment on top of the naked charge. I
tend to just focus on the electron but you're making me look at the
proton too. Thanks. Almost all of the literature is operating on the
assumption that the spin model is correct, yet the contortions that
people accept are beyond reason. Beam polarization purity is a simple
attack on this theory which takes us back to the Stern-Gerlach level.
This discrete attribute can be recovered via proper/improper
transformation on a continuum. This is essentially allowing the
electron to turn itself inside out which is a dimensional and
geometrical feat. This suggests a spin-neutral intermediate on a
continuum. The probability of finding such a charged particle is low
especially if you accept that it is n-1 dimensional; flat as a
pancake. Such dimensional phenomena take us over to superconductors
and FQHE, which you've introduced me to in the past. So it's probably
a good idea to keep an eye out for those sorts of detail. Cooper pairs
as inverse spin matching could be a pretty clean interpretation. The
sweetest way around all of this would be to derive a stable charge.

- Tim
.

Relevant Pages

  • 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: 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)
  • the science of spin
    ... One would imagine that if spin were a truly binary property of direct ... opposites that the ability to purify an electron beam into a purely ... spin up beam would be a trivial pursuit. ... into x,y,z,t spacetime is the first instance of structured spacetime. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Detecting Space-Time
    ... :> What poles of an electron? ... magnetic resonance phenomenon involving the electron spin. ... So a magnetic field can exist without a moving charge too. ... :> My fridge has magnets attached. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Detecting Space-Time
    ... :> Neither depends on spin. ... that we have three bodies, Electron, Neutron and Proton? ... component of an electrons charge must have a very tiny diameter. ... :>: magnet each directly act on the other objects. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)