Re: Spinors
- From: Oz <Oz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 08:25:29 +0000 (UTC)
gp <pajer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
>Maybe: think of the "energy flow streamlines" as being attached to 1.)
>the electron and 2.) infinity (ie, boundry conditions at infinity). If
>you don't want to have to disturb the "energy flow field" at infinity,
>then perhaps it takes a 4*pi rotation to undo the tangling of "field
>flow lines", just as it takes 4*pi rotation to undo the tangling of bits
>of twine.
I'm not quite sure if this works for a hairy object with hairs all
attached at infinity, spherically so to speak. Intuitively I would think
so.
So if one imagines lines of force (say) being rigidly attached to the
surface of a (simplified) charged sphere representing an electron then
that would be a 'nice' model.
Unfortunately I don't think simple columbic charge ought to work that
way, although a magnetic field might (and probably does).
But I was once shown that spin must be an intrinsic property of any
particle in a consistent 3+1D spacetime. There is perhaps, then, an
implication that a 3+1D spacetime requires some distant hairy
connection, possibly at infinity. Exactly how one would define a 3D
infinity in a 3+1D spacetime is unclear to me.
However this thread has somewhat clarified some of the concepts for an
ignorant like me. It no longer seems strange, mostly because its been
demystified.
--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Use oz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [ozacoohdb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx functions].
BTOPENWORLD address has ceased. DEMON address has ceased.
.
- Prev by Date: Entropy and Gambler's Ruin
- Next by Date: Re: use of real numbers in mathematics and physics
- Previous by thread: Re: Spinors
- Next by thread: Re: Spinors
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|