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

On Jul 19, 1:08 pm, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"
<tttppp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 18, 2:52 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 18, 10:32 am, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"<tttppp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]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.

I don't see why they wouldn't be round. Manhole covers are round
everywhere but Ohio where King Soloman's value for pi is the law
of the land. :o)

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?

It is lurking in some professor's to-do box waiting to pounce
on an unsuspecting grad student. :o)

Confirmation of 99.9% proton spin-flipping at high energy by a small
rf-dipole

http://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.

I think Siberian Snakes and composite particles may have something
to do with the high purity.http://www.bnl.gov/discover/Winter_06/spin.asp

I can accept that what they are doing helps them to steer the beam.
But a claim of flipping 99% of a beam that is only 75% polarized is
troublesome.
Anyway, what it even means to have a 75% pure beam is an open problem
to me.
On the one hand we are supposed to believe that the binary property of
spin being either up or down would mean that 25% of the beam is spin
down while 75% of the beam is spin up right? Or is it that we are
really looking at an axial magnetic moment and playing with the
orientation of that axial in space continuously? The inhomogeneous
magnetic field affecting the electrons differently spatially makes
this continuum concept pretty sound. Regardless of the interpretation
the 75% limit points to a misunderstanding.

If you think in terms of a macro-atomic object like a toy
gyroscope is does indeed appear suspicious. That sort
of machine has a tight coupling to ~the rest of the univese~
or ~the gravio inertial field~ what ever you choose to
call it.

The micro-atomic object has a greater coupling to
its neighbors. Each spin you flip, makes the
neighboring spins easier to flip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeeman_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle


The opening that I would like to consider is based on consideration of
structured spacetime which relativity theory takes only part way. Its
reliance upon the tensor denies it going much further. Anyway
electromagnetism can be taken as a feature of spacetime. The
propagation of light has limiting factors in existing theory which are
attributed to spacetime. Thus by providing more spacetime structure we
may see electromagnetism as an emergent phenomenon. This then should
allow electron spin to be relegated as a generic feature. In some ways
this is turning physics into geometry. Geometry in the polysign
numbers already comes with spacetime support including unidirectional
zero dimensional time. This has been the motivating principle that has
taken me back to this reinterpretation of electron spin.

Maxwell's theory is fine but it requires isotropic space. What if
space is not isotropic? Under the modern paradigm we accept that
spacetime is unified. Already the isotropic claim is lost due to
unidirectional time. It's readily apparent that the Minkowski metric
has structured spacetime somewhat. Relative reference frames can work
on top of a structured basis. If we had to declare the Minkowski
structure one simplistic way to do it would be
1D 3D
the first part being time and the second part being space. This is not
a natural construction. Why this breakdown? Instead by breaking
spacetime down as
0D 1D 2D

Two opbjects and their associated fields cannot occupy the
same space. That is a false statement in our world.

It only requires one more dimension to express
the world as we know it.

Two opbjects and their associated fields cannot occupy the
same space at the same time.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law
(Yes...The speed of light is not mentioned on
that page but you know where it applies.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_integral#Some_practical_applications

Then some allowance for the finte speed of light.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html



we see that unidirectional time is satisfied, 3D space is satisfied,
and the ability to yield electromagnetic behavior is structurally
built in.

Hmmm.... I am not sure that triple integral is "built in"

We are still free to use relative reference frames on such a
space. Spin is a natural frame reference. The structure is progressive
and less arbitrary than the Minkowski version.

I'm fairly certain that the word isotropic in not even valid. 'Same in
all directions' has been the simplest terminology I think. If you've
got something that is truly the same in all directions then you've
constructed a blank space. Space is not blank. Space is structured.

For sure! Dielectric material is always found where light radiates
away from an an EM emitter. 377 ohms.

Dielectric material surrounds the space craft
which does not move the instant its rockets fire, but some time
later. F = ma


Even to accept the Minkowski metric alone is enough to prove that
space is structured. Have a look around you and you will not see the
same thing in all directions, except perhaps as a prisoner of
conscience in solitary confinement at Guantanamo. Darkness is all that
you would have. Even for the ultimately local electron so long as you
are willing to grant it a magnetic moment then it is granted a
specific reference frame directly tied into its behavior.

When I push a car, it pushes back, *instantly*.

Air molecules are the only thing close enough to act instantly
so they have to be the culprit. ;-)

They are certaintly up to the task.

<<Assuming that the net charge resides at the
points of the spheres most distant from each
other because of the charge repulsion, we can
set the force of repulsion equal to the weight
of a sphere. The radius of a one cm3 sphere
is 0.62 cm, so we will treat the force as that
between two point charges 2.48 cm apart
(i.e., twice the sphere diameter apart).
Using Coulomb's law, this requires a charge
of 7.8 x 10-8 Coulombs. Compared to the total
mobile charge of 13,600 Coulombs, this amounts
to removing just one valence electron out of
every 5.7 trillion (5.7 x 1012) from each
copper sphere. The final result is that the
removal of just one out of roughly six trillion
of the free electrons from each copper sphere
would cause enough electric repulsion on the
top sphere to lift it, overcoming the g
ravitational pull of the entire Earth! >>
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html

Copyrighy C.R. Nave, Georgia State University
If you want a CD version:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

[...]
Well... something holds the particles together.
We tend to think of spinning things flying
apart. But if inertia is a macroatomic
effect, spinning things might crowd
together in the subatomic realm.


[...]

You just made me realise that an inertial field which vanishes in
the subatomic, makes a lot of spinning things in atoms look better.

Glad I sparked something for you.

Such an inertial field has a toy model you probably recall.http://arxiv..org/abs/physics/0107015v6
...But it is a bit too Higgsless for the mainstream.

Not too Higgsless for me. What is locally in phase cannot be in phase
globally. Could this be consistent with dark matter trouble?

If macroatomic spinning objects fly outward and microatomic
spinning objects fly inward, which axis of that 4 spine sea
urchin do they go on?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/spinc.html#c4

Sue...


- Tim

.

Loading