Re: Relation between spinning and precession frequencies of a particle

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:02:18 -0500, "Old Man" <nomail@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

"Traveler" <traveler@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:cuu4429066ugvs8731374p92she80aj45q@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 11:27:39 -0500, "Old Man" <nomail@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Elementary particles exhibit spin angular
momentum, but have no structure or size.

If they have no size (which is correct), then speaking of angular
momentum is pure crackpottery. Truth is, all particle properties
(including position) are intrinsic and are related to one or more of
the four dimensions (degrees of freedom) of the universe. No need to
invoke any of the principles of classical macro-physics at the micro
level.

The field energy surrounding an elementary particle has finite extent
and can possess angular momentum. In QED and QFT, the angular
momentum of that field energy is quantized.

Look, Old Man. You strike me as one of those people who believes in
anything that is handed down to you from on high. This is the mark of
what I've been calling an ass kisser. Stop being an ass kisser and you
shall know the truth the truth shall set you free. ahahaha...

Having said that, let me come right out and say that the idea that the
field surrounding, say, an electron, has an angular momentum is pure
stupidity and utter crackpottery. And I don't care who came up with
it. The very fact that this supposed angular momentum is quantized
should be a clue that that there is no angular momentum in the
classical sense.

First off, angular momentum is a classical concept that has no place
at the quantum level. The reason that physicists use angular momentum
is because the interactions remind them of the effects of a spinning
billiard ball when it collides with another ball. This is lame to an
absurd degree. Applying billiard ball physics to fundamental processes
is just plain dumb. The quantum physicist should instead explain how
fundamental interactions give rise to classical observations.

Second, an electron is continually emitting a huge stream of photons
radially (forget about the source of these photons for now, since
physicists have no clue as to how and where they're being created,
ahahaha...). This radial emission (the electrostatic field) is the
reason for Coulomb's inverse square distribution. We already know that
the electrostatic field has no "angular momentum" since the direction
of the electrostatic force is radial.

That leaves us with the magnetic field which only arises when an
electron is moving. In order to have an angular momentum, the photons
that comprise the radiating magnetic field would have to be revolving
around the electron such that their orbiting plane is perpendicular to
the direction of motion. This would mean that it would take much
longer for them to travel from the electron to any radial distance
from it than they would if they were moving in a straight line along
the radius. The problem is that this is not observed. We know
empirically that the radial speed of EM radiation is c.

It is much more plausible that the photons comprising the moving
electron's magnetic field have intrinsic properties that cause them to
exert a force on charged particles at a right angle to their direction
of motion. This is already obvious to anybody who has ever played with
coils and magnets. And this is the reason for the right hand rule (for
finding the direction of magnetic force given an electric current)
that we all learn in physics 101.

Since electrons and other particles have multiple "spin" directions
(states), one can further extrapolate multiple types of photons, one
for each state. In my own model, I hypothesize the existence of four
types of photons but that's another story.

Louis Savain

Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.

Relevant Pages