The Science Forum Dilemma: Nutcases on Physics and Chemistry Forums

[elas]

selfAdjoint selfAdjoint has missed the point of my theory. I do not challenge those effects that GR has demonstrated successfully but, seek to explain those things that GR cannot explain or cannot explain without the introduction of yet another questionable entity, namely ‘dark mater.
Neither do I challenge the well proven predictions of QP but rather seek to explain the science that underpins the philosophy.
GR does not explain the origin of mass, Vacuum Theory (VT) does.
GR claims that mass moves and drags gravity along with it. VT claims that the vacuum field moves and drags or adjusts the force carrier.
GR states that gravity is a distortion of ‘spacetime’, but the term ‘gravity’ was thought up by Newton to describe a force that he could not define. VT states that there is no need to create an undefined new entity (gravity) because the fore involved is the force of vacuum that creates particle/fields we know as gravitons. The evidence for this lies in the experiments of Laithwaite and Yakahaka which cannot be explained by GR but can be explained by VT.
Neither GR or QP attempt to explain the creation of fundamental particles in detail but state that fundamental particles ‘condense out’ of plasma at certain temperatures. VT has no argument with these temperatures but adds a detailed mathematical explanation of how the particles form and how there particular properties are determined by the internal wave structure. VT goes even further it explains mathematically, how field elasticity and the distribution of force carrier within the field, are responsible for the creation of the wave structure. But as it is not possible to observe activity within the plasma this must remain an unproven part of VT theory. Having produced fundamental particles that are the same as those used to measure QP movement it is only logical to conclude that VT movement will produce the same result. However look deeper at this and it will be realized that VT explains the act of movement in a way that explains the observed different forms of movement. QP does not do this.
QP accepts that particles move according to the mathematics of wave movement but cannot explain why or even whether the wave actually exists. VT defines the cause of waves and there relationship with the vacuum field and proves this relationship using TFQHE.
So what can VT predict that is different from GR and QP. Firstly that the graviton is its own antiparticle and therefore there is no anti-gravity but only the artificial gravity found by Laithwaite and Yakahata. Secondly that ‘C” is the maximum observable speed and not a constant. The first is I suggest already proven and the second will have to await the discovery of a method of measuring the speed of light in a graviton field without the presence of an electromagnetic wave. At present we have no idea as to how that can be done.
I would like to expand this reply but I have to get my wife’s breakfast ready!
Regards
elas

 

[markci]

>>> If PF theory development manages to foster one significant development in 50 years. I would consider it to be a smashing success.

If it manages to foster one insignificant development in 1000 years it would have to be a ****ing miracle.

 

[Nereid]

elas wrote: Stars are observed to orbit in the outer regions of galaxies, at 5 to 6 times their escape velocity predicted by Relativity. This can be accounted for only if there are vast quantities of dark matter. The latest articles indicate that there is insufficient dark matter to account for the observed stellar speeds.

As far as I know, the discrepancy has nothing to do with Relativity, except in the sense that Relativity encompasses Newton.

The stars (and other matter, e.g. gas clouds) in the outer regions of some galaxies (e.g. spirals) appear to be moving about the galactic centres. If you plug in the mass - closer to the galactic centres than those stars - required for them to move at their observed speeds (using Newtonian physics), you get numbers that are greater than what the observed light emissions would suggest that mass should be (a great deal of observational work has gone into this simple summary). None of the objects is moving at anywhere near relativistic speed, no need for SR or GR.

Perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying, but it seems to me that if your ideas are consistent with GR (and Newton), then the galactic rotation curves are just as much a problem for your VT ideas as they are for GR (and classical physics)!

Of course, if you've done some calculations which show that VT can account for the observed galactic rotation curves, please say so! There is already one interesting alternative theory getting serious airtime - MOND, and it does a very creditable job of matching the observed data (it fails in other respects, and its author is clear about its limitations).

A suggestion: now is the time to really make a mark in physics - predict the mass of the Higgs, the rest mass of all neutrino flavours, the lighest superparticle, ... the list is long ... and likely within five years you could be truly famous.

 

[elas]

Perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying, but it seems to me that if your ideas are consistent with GR (and Newton), then the galactic rotation curves are just as much a problem for your VT ideas as they are for GR (and classical physics)!

The article I read showed in diagram form that according to both Newton and Einstein the gravitational force between two galaxies (in a group of galaxies) should decrease with distance from the centre of each galaxy. But by calculating the gravitational force from observed rotations of the galaxies it is found that there is no decrease.
My proposal suggest that the solution lies in looking at the effect that vacuum has on fields where the number of particle/fields in infinity is constant and the quantity of vacuum in each field is constant; but the quantity of force carrier within each field is variable although the total quantity of force carrier in infinity is, of course, also constant.
This creates a universe that has one force (vacuum) and one force carrier. My proposal is that we do not need to invent any other entities in order to explain the universe.
The diagrams on my web page show the relationship between particles produced using vacuum field theory and the QP predictions for the mass of quarks and the standard electron. You will see that the graviton is included in the vacuum theory particle diagram and not in the QP diagram. This is what QP cannot predict and explains why QP and relativity cannot be combined. In vacuum theory they are combined.
Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong and Weak forces are all names invented to cover the cause of observations where the cause itself cannot be defined.
My proposal is that they can all be defined as variations of the relationship between vacuum force and vacuum force carrier. That is to say that we can at last define what the forces are instead of just being able to predict what they do.

 

[Nereid]

Source please?

elas wrote: The article I read showed in diagram form that according to both Newton and Einstein the gravitational force between two galaxies (in a group of galaxies) should decrease with distance from the centre of each galaxy. But by calculating the gravitational force from observed rotations of the galaxies it is found that there is no decrease.

Could you please supply a reference to this article? AFAIK, the observations of galaxy redshift (in clusters) are consistent with them being in a gravitational well which comprises the galaxies themselves plus some IGM (inter-galactic medium) plus dark matter. The radial distribution of mass - and esp dark matter - in a big cluster has recently been determined in some detail, using gravitational lensing. See:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0307/0307299.pdf

 

[Nereid]

VT predictions should be easy then!

elas wrote: Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong and Weak forces are all names invented to cover the cause of observations where the cause itself cannot be defined. My proposal is that they can all be defined as variations of the relationship between vacuum force and vacuum force carrier.

Unless I am mistaken, you should be able to determine measurable quantities such as:
- Higgs particle mass
- neutrino rest masses.

These calculations should be easy for you to do, and would catapault you onto the front pages if subsequent observations showed you were right.

Another thing which I hadn't appreciated until now: under your proposal, ALL new forces can be derived from first principles! Alternatively, you can prove conclusively that there are only four fundamental forces.

Could you please give us the number of new fundamental forces which remain to be discovered? If one of them is similar to what physicists call supersymmetry, please tell us what the mass of the lightest such particle is, and sketch its properties.

 

[elas]

Nereid

Will try and find reference requested.

Higgs boson is something I cannot predict, but note that all fundamental particles except the lightest are short life particles. As Higgs boson is expected to have a large mass I expect it to have an equally short life.
Standard Model starts with a primeval atom containing the mass of the universe. Clearly then we can go on creating ever more massive particles until we reach the primeval atom or the limit of our abilities.
Personally I find the whole proposal to be to preposterous to be worthy of intelligent consideration, preferring to believe that creation starts from or near absolute nothing and builds up from their. For that reason I am more interested in searching for a lighter particle (graviton)than the heavier Higgs boson.
If this makes me something of a nutcase then let it be, it is a position that I find more believable and one that I am happy to pursue.

 

[elas]

Nereid
Ten hours of contemplation and I realize my last reply was far to pessimistic. Your suggestion has inspired a whole new way of extending vacuum theory and I will write at length later today.
regards
elas

 

[ranyart]

Originally posted by elas
Nereid
Ten hours of contemplation and I realize my last reply was far to pessimistic. Your suggestion has inspired a whole new way of extending vacuum theory and I will write at length later today.
regards
elas

I suggest you go here first:http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0311199

And then here:http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0311197

Alternatly you can fluctuate here:http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311412

 

[elas]

Unless I am mistaken, you should be able to determine measurable quantities such as:
- Higgs particle mass
- neutrino rest masses

It depends on whether or not the particles are ZP field particles, as are all fundamental particles; or whether like the photon they are parasite particles without there own ZP. I will attempt to predict a mass for the Higgs which could be either, using graphs 39.4 and 39.5; but not the neutrinos that are definitely parasites.

But if one end of the graph can be extended why not the other more promising end? Going beyond the graviton shown on the graphs and associated tables would create a series of particles on the gravity spectrum. There is no need to stop until the predicted speed of the boson associated with the particle is C squared; This would give the cause of Einstein's constant.
Now compare this with String Theory where there are a number of weird parallel universes. In Vacuum theory there is the possibility of just two interlocking non-parallel universes, one on each spectrum. We are in both universes but can only detect one. Should we cease to exist in the observed universe we do not necessarily cease to exist in the other gravity spectrum universe, but simply detach ourselves from the electromagnetic spectrum universe.
No weird dopplegangers just a straightforward but undetectable particle seperation.
If this is science fiction then so is String Theory, it is a case of either both are acceptable theories or neither is acceptable. But if I am right then we can abandon all the weirdness of String Theory and religous doctrines and get down to a serious debate on the sociology of eternity.

In conclusion then, Vacuum theory holds out the possibility of matching the prediction of the Higgs particle found in QP, finding the cause of Einstein's constant in Relativity, and providing an alternative to the multi-dimensional weirdness of current developements of the Standard Model (in the form of String Theories).

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by markci
Why is it about physics forums always bring out such nutjobs?

Back to the original question: it is not Physics Forums that atracts nut cases, it is physics itself. All physicists and physics professors are constantly approached by nutcases with whacky theories. There was actually a show about this phenomenon on PBS or Discovery about ten years ago: it is not possible to have your name published in connection with physics in the popular media without attracting a horde of nutjobs claiming to have thought of the same thing, to have thought of something better, or to have revolutionary ideas about something else they're sure will impress you.

I believe the reason this type of person is attracted to physics is because of the iconographic image of Einstein as "the smartest man who ever lived". These people want to be compared to him or to be called greater than him, because he was "the smartest". It's as simple as that.

 

[elas]

I believe the reason this type of person is attracted to physics is because of the iconographic image of Einstein as "the smartest man who ever lived". These people want to be compared to him or to be called greater than him, because he was "the smartest". It's as simple as that.

In ten years who will remember me? In a million years who will remember Einstein? What matters is not who did this or that but that the search for truth and progress continues.
Many of the so called greats such as Bell and Marconi actually stole the knowledge of someone else. An Italian count flew a proper figure of eight test flight the day before the Wright brothers glided downhill for a few seconds. Let them have there ill deserved fame be satisfied that we have telephones, radios and can fly.
At least Einstein acknowledged his debt to others by requesting that his Relativity paper be published without an author. Only an error at the printers caused Einstein to get the credit.
Most physicist are I believe, willing to acknowledge that they seek only to make their small contribution to a grand edifice. The joy of trying to succeed and the delight of success, is an inner joy that is far more important than any tempory fame.

 

[Nereid]

neutrinos, dark energy, ...

elas wrote: I will attempt to predict a mass for the Higgs which could be either, using graphs 39.4 and 39.5; but not the neutrinos that are definitely parasites.

In what sense are neutrinos 'parasites'?

Another thing I forgot to mention, dark energy. As you know, the observational evidence for the existence of dark energy has gone from zero (we knew nothing about it) to strong in only a few years. However, we're definitely lacking in understanding of what it is! Perhaps your VT idea predicts its properties?

In conclusion then, Vacuum theory holds out the possibility of matching the prediction of the Higgs particle found in QP, finding the cause of Einstein's constant in Relativity, and providing an alternative to the multi-dimensional weirdness of current developements of the Standard Model (in the form of String Theories).

Proving that VT is consistent with the experimental results of the past hundred years or so is something you also have to do before the possibility can become reality.

 

[elas]

In what sense are neutrinos 'parasites'?

Perhaps the wrong word. I intended to imply that bosons do not have their own vacuum fields, they pass through the fields of other particles. Leptons and baryons always have their own vacuum fields. Therefore one can have a quantum only with a ZP, not without.

Dark matter arises only because Newton and Einstein failed to accurately describe gravity; they got the local maths right but not the description or the deep space maths. Hence the galatic gravity problem and the universal expansion problem.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by elas
In what sense are neutrinos 'parasites'?

Perhaps the wrong word. I intended to imply that bosons do not have their own vacuum fields, they pass through the fields of other particles. Leptons and baryons always have their own vacuum fields. Therefore one can have a quantum only with a ZP, not without.

Er, neutrinos are leptons, so their rest mass(es) should be derivable from your VT idea, the same way e, u, d, s, c, t, b are (from your website). Further, they should be much easier to derive than the rest mass of the Higgs.

BTW, how does your VT idea account for neutrino oscillations?

Originally posted by elas Dark matter arises only because Newton and Einstein failed to accurately describe gravity; they got the local maths right but not the description or the deep space maths. Hence the galatic gravity problem and the universal expansion problem.

Could you please give us some calculations of the rotation curves of well-observed galaxies, according to your VT idea? That way we can see for ourselves how well VT predictions match the actual observations.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Nereid
Another thing I forgot to mention, dark energy. As you know, the observational evidence for the existence of dark energy has gone from zero (we knew nothing about it) to strong in only a few years. However, we're definitely lacking in understanding of what it is! Perhaps your VT idea predicts its properties?...
...Proving that VT is consistent with the experimental results of the past hundred years or so is something you also have to do before the possibility can become reality...
...BTW, how does your VT idea account for neutrino oscillations?
...Could you please give us some calculations of the rotation curves of well-observed galaxies, according to your VT idea? That way we can see for ourselves how well VT predictions match the actual observations.

Is it not too much for a one person?

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Is it not too much for a one person?

Well, look at elas' claims! A theory which claims to encompass gravitation, GR, the Standard Model, and more; is more fundamental than any physical theory to date; complete (in the sense that ALL fundamental forces - the four known to date, PLUS any and all as-yet-undiscovered fundamental forces); ... if indeed VT does all these things, then elas should be able to at least outline how (in principle) one could go about getting the predictions I listed.

Have you read the material which elas has published on his (her?) website?

 

[elas]

NEreid
Er, neutrinos are leptons,

Sorry this is what happens when I dash off a reply without thinking.


Michael
Well, look at elas' claims! A theory which claims to encompass gravitation, GR, the Standard Model, and more; is more fundamental than any physical theory to date; complete (in the sense that ALL fundamental forces - the four known to date,

You make it sound grander than it really is by ignoring the simple method I have adopted. Which is to start with nothing and not create another entity until forced to.To date I have done no more than outline the possibilities of vacuum, I think the lengthy piece I wrote on this forum explains exactly what and why I am trying to acheive, by comparing my aims with the Standard model.

So far I have shown, clearly I believe, how the structure of the fundamental particles can be explained by vacuum theory. Efforts to go beyond this have not achieved the same degree of clarity. But only this morning I saw a diagram that gave me an idea that might at last allow me to achieve greater clarity in respect of the elements.
Combining this with my explanation of the cause of EM wave structure (off web at present) does I believe lay a solid foundation for a Vacuum Theory, I stress the word 'foundation'.
I would not be so brave as to claim anything more than to have found something worthy of further investigation.

I am now going to take a break from PF and get my website up to date with new diagrams and hopefully a successful way of explaining some aspects of electromagnetism in Vacuum Theory terms. That I regard as a start (nothing more than a start)to explaining the forces in a creditable vacuum manner.

With many thanks for all your help and advise,
regards
elas

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by elas
Michael
Well, look at elas' claims! A theory which claims to encompass gravitation, GR, the Standard Model, and more; is more fundamental than any physical theory to date; complete (in the sense that ALL fundamental forces - the four known to date,...

You make it sound grander than it really is by ignoring the simple method I have adopted...

You have mixed something elas. You have answered reply Nereid instead of my one. Nevertheless, I wish you successes in your researches. Good luck!

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by elas
[You make it sound grander than it really is by ignoring the simple method I have adopted. Which is to start with nothing and not create another entity until forced to.[/B]

Sorry, but you quite simply don't have that prerogative. Enough is known about the topics you are theorizing about that a lot of extension can be done right away and compared to the existing theories. As a result, the validity of your theory can be examined based on its implications regardless of whether or not you've examined those implications.

To try to limit the scope of your theory is a cop out - it shows that you KNOW its flawed but are hoping to avoid scrutiny of the flaws. Cute, but no - can't do that.

 

[andrewgray]

Why is it about physics forums always bring out such nutjobs?

I just wanted to point out that when Einstein first came out with his postulates of special relativity, the establishment tried to fight him for years. So in essence, Einstein himself was a nutcase for a few years in the eyes of the consensus establishment.

Also, Einstein himself never accepted quantum reality as anything but statistical mechanics-like physics. Einstein said of quantum mechanics

The more success it has, the sillier it looks.

Just get on Google and search for Einstein and sillier. So Einstein himself thought all of you quantum theorists were nuts.

Here is a quote from the great P.A.M. Dirac about the use of "renormalization":

I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because this so called good theory does involve neglecting infinities which appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small - not neglecting it just because it is infinitely great and you do not want it!

Next, here is what Feynman himself said about "renormalization":

But no matter how clever the word, it is what I call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self consistent.

I suspect that renormalisation is not mathematically legitimate.

I also have noticed that there are many criticisms that certain "nut-like" theories are "not self-consistent" and "do not follow the scientific process". Care to take a look in the mirror?

Here are a few new quantum inconsistencies that I have discovered while doing my own new theoretical work.

1) The photoelectric effect is assumed to be an inelastic absorption of a "photon" by an electron.[/color] All the kinetic energy of the "photon" is assumed to be transferred to the electron. The inconsistency here is that in an inelastic collision, it is always momentum that is conserved, not kinetic energy. Saying that all the kinetic energy is transferred in an inelastic absorption contradicts definition and is never seen. (Look up the definition of inelastic collision or absorption in an elementary physics textbook).

2) The momentum paradox continues for Bremsstahlung cutoff frequency experiments.[/color] The usual explanation for the xray Bremsstralung cutoff frequency is that all the electron's kinetic energy is completely converted into a high frequency xray "photon". This seems unlikely because this limiting frequency is emitted in all directions, making conservation of momentum impossible, especially for "photons" emitted at 90 degrees with all the kinetic energy. (Why hasn't anyone noticed this discrepancy before?)

3) The electron acts like a point all the way down to 10E-15 cm.[/color] Did most of you know that it is impossible to concentrate a 1/2 quanta of angular momentum into this volume without something exceeding the speed of light? I did not know this a few years ago. Consequently, quantum theorists had to pedagogically announce that "electron spin" is not "something spinning" (too many paradoxes). Electron spin is now simply the eigenvalue of the spin operator, and is not thought of as "something spinning". I repeat: electron spin is NOT something spinning.

4) Inconsistency: In the photoelectric effect, an [/color]inelastic photon-electron collision is used. In the Compton effect, an [/color]elastic collision is assumed.[/color] In between visible light and x-ray frequencies, semi-elastic collisions are assumed.

5) It is possible to view xrays as visible light and visible light as xrays with a simple velocity boost.[/color] If one views visible light as xrays, will these "photons" have "elastic collisions" with electrons in this frame?


Old Chinese moral: People who live in glass houses should not throw stones too strongly[/color].

Another Chinese moral: Can we all be just a little more courteous and just helpful in this crazy world[/color]?

Andrew Gray
andrewgray AT modelofreality.org

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by andrewgray

1) The photoelectric effect is assumed to be an inelastic absorption of a "photon" by an electron.[/color] All the kinetic energy of the "photon" is assumed to be transferred to the electron.

No, that is not assumed. What is assumed is that the most energetic[/color] electrons are those that have received all the kinetic energy of a single photon.

2) The momentum paradox continues for Bremsstahlung cutoff frequency experiments.[/color] The usual explanation for the xray Bremsstralung cutoff frequency is that all the electron's kinetic energy is completely converted into a high frequency xray "photon". This seems unlikely because this limiting frequency is emitted in all directions, making conservation of momentum impossible, especially for "photons" emitted at 90 degrees with all the kinetic energy. (Why hasn't anyone noticed this discrepancy before?)

You're right, it is unlikely that any given electron will give all its KE to the creation of a photon. That is borne out experimentally by the smaller signal near the cutoff frequency. Actually, the signal is zero at the cutoff frequency, so I don't see any discrepancy at all.

3) The electron acts like a point all the way down to 10E-15 cm.[/color] Did most of you know that it is impossible to concentrate a 1/2 quanta of angular momentum into this volume without something exceeding the speed of light?

Yes, that is a calculation that every beginning student of modern physics is asked to do.

I did not know this a few years ago. Consequently, quantum theorists had to pedagogically announce that "electron spin" is not "something spinning" (too many paradoxes). Electron spin is now simply the eigenvalue of the spin operator, and is not thought of as "something spinning". I repeat: electron spin is NOT something spinning.

Boy, have you got the wrong idea. You seem to think that this interpretation of quantum mechanical spin is needed as an ad-hoc extension to the theory, once it is realized that nothing that small could actually be "spinning". Anyone who knows quantum mechanics (like me) can tell you that that is patently false. Once the theory was developed, it could easily be inferred that spin does not correspond to "spinning" because of the multivaluedess of the rotation operator.

Specifically for spin-1/2 operator acting on a general spin state |a>, we have:

D(θ=2p,z)|a>=exp(-iS_z(2p)/(hbar))=-|a>

Since the state |a> picks up a minus sign after a 2p rotation, we know that quantum mechanical spin is not associated with "spinning", even before considering the size of the particle.

4) Inconsistency: In the photoelectric effect, an [/color]inelastic photon-electron collision is used. In the Compton effect, an [/color]elastic collision is assumed.[/color] In between visible light and x-ray frequencies, semi-elastic collisions are assumed.

That is not an inconsistency, and it is really rather obvious why the former is inelastic and the latter is not.

In the photoelectric effect, the photon ejects an electron from a material in which there is an effective binding potential. The KE cannot be conserved, because some energy must be used to overcome that binding.

In the Compton effect, the electron is free, and no such binding potential is present.

5) It is possible to view xrays as visible light and visible light as xrays with a simple velocity boost.[/color] If one views visible light as xrays, will these "photons" have "elastic collisions" with electrons in this frame?

Obviously that will depend on whether there are attractive EM forces acting on the electron.

Old Chinese moral: People who live in glass houses should not throw stones too strongly[/color].

Another Chinese moral: Can we all be just a little more courteous and just helpful in this crazy world[/color]?

New American Moral: Go and learn some physics before trying to rewrite it.[/color]

edit: fixed quote bracket

 

[andrewgray]

New American Moral: Go and learn some physics before trying to rewrite it.[/color]

OK.



Now, for reply:

1) The photoelectric effect is assumed to be an inelastic absorption of a "photon" by an electron. All the kinetic energy of the "photon" is assumed to be transferred to the electron. [/color]

No, that is not assumed. What is assumed is that the most energetic electrons are those that have received all the kinetic energy of a single photon.

OK. OK. What I was referring to, of course, were the electrons that emerge with the maximum kinetic energy. And of course, we are not forgeting the small "work function" energy, either. The main point is that the electrons that emerge with the maximum kinetic energy are assumed to have "absorbed" the entire kinetic energy of the "photon", (and to have lost a bit to the surface "work function"). THESE electrons contradict the very definition of inelastic absorption where the entire KE of one particle is given to another. Again, it is the entire MOMENTUM that is given to the other particle, NOT kinetic energy, according to the definition for "inelastic collision" for particles. Also, if you further study the photoelectric effect, these maximum kinetic energied electrons also emerge at 90 degrees to the light beam, perhaps yet another problem for conservation of momentum.

The momentum paradox continues for Bremsstahlung cutoff frequency experiments.[/color]

You're right, it is unlikely that any given electron will give all its KE to the creation of a photon. That is borne out experimentally by the smaller signal near the cutoff frequency. Actually, the signal is zero at the cutoff frequency, so I don't see any discrepancy at all.

Well, take for example the xray signal at 99.999999999% of the maximum frequency. There are plenty of xrays here, as the the dropoff is quite abrupt (see for example the diagram at www.modelofreality.org/Sect5_3 ). Now consider that these xrays were emitted at 90 degrees to the flight of the electrons hitting the aluminum target. You still cannot resolve the momentum problem with THESE xray "photons".

Since the state |a> picks up a minus sign after a 2p rotation, we know that quantum mechanical spin is not associated with "spinning", even before considering the size of the particle.

OK. I was just trying to identify inconsistencies in quantum theory so maybe we can realize that we need to cut some slack to people just trying to participate in physics forums. There is no doubt in my mind that the inventors of electron spin, Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck, intended electron spin to be "something spinning". Using all the mathematics of "spinning" to develop a theory, then reversing direction and now claiming that it is not actually "something spinning" seems inconsistent to me. Why would one person with a higher knowledge of something want to be anything other than encouraging to other people who want to learn about physics, even if their direction might seem a little inconsistent?


Andrew Gray
New American Tradition: More Courteous, Just Helpful in this crazy world.[/color]

 

[heumpje]

That's not inconsistent, andrew. It's the way real science develops. I had my education at the University of Leiden (where Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit also had their education. As a matter of fact I got my Master degree doing research in the same Lorentz insitute) where the idea of spin was developed. It is not an inconsistency... I'm not sure but from your posts it seems that you missed out on angular momentum (generally associated with the spinning). The electron has both angular momentum and spin (=magnetic moment) and therefore there is nothing inconsistent (that is: they were never thinking about spinning things).

I think it might help a bit to read this:
http://www.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/history/spin/spin.html
to start with (gives a hint about how things work in science).

More important, since it precisely shows how discoveries are made and more specifically how electron spin was discovered, You can read his own story (quite a nice one) here

http://www.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/history/spin/goudsmit.html

Goudsmit did NOT intend to describe something "spinning". He intended to clarify an experimental observation and worked and thought really hard about it.

I copied a small piece from the article since it might contribute to the current discussion:

And this, of course, is something I want to say again; people don't believe it. In the beginning when you do something you never know whether it is important or not, and we absolutely had no idea that a new interpretation of the hydrogen spectrum was important. Therefore, this was published in "Physica", in Dutch [5]. We also had an article about those quantum vectors L and S, the coupling of quantum vectors, all that tommy rot, I don't know how you call it, and that was sent off to the "Zeitschrift für Physik". Do you note the difference? We did not know what was important. Everyone worked on those quantum vectors and that was published in the "Zeitschrift für Physik". The hydrogen spectrum was published in "Physica", but you note, this spectrum pointed in the right direction

The difference between these guys and "nutcases" (I actually prefer something less offending but only know a dutch word for it...)
is that they come with something brilliant and before bothering other people with it, genuinly think about where and if there are flaws in their arguments. More important: they generally don't seem to find their own discoveries very important (untill they retire that is. After retirement they are allowed to boast about it)

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by heumpje
It is not an inconsistency... The electron has both angular momentum and spin (=magnetic moment) and therefore there is nothing inconsistent (that is: they were never thinking about spinning things).

Sceintists are just weird - I mean, "up," "down," "charm," and "strange" quarks? What the heck is that?

 

[andrewgray]

It is not an inconsistency... The electron has both angular momentum and spin (=magnetic moment) and therefore there is nothing inconsistent (that is: they were never thinking about spinning things).

You say that the electron spin not spinning is not an inconsistency.

OK then.

So the inconsistency is that the electron's magnetic moment is not a "moment"?[/color]

moment n. The product of a quantity and the distance to a particular axis or point.

 

[heumpje]

One of the properties of an electron is that it has a magnetic moment...
What is inconsistent about that?

You do an experiment involving a magnet and an electron beam. It turns out the electrons react to the field. They want to line up to it due to their mag. moment (i.e. they experience a torque). I don't see the inconsistency in that.
Perhaps I'm not catching what you mean by inconsistent...

To refer to feynman: "We thought about it, very hard. I can tell you what we found. You don't like it? Tough. Go somewhere else, to a different universe where the rules are simpler, or nicer or more philosophical"

(quote taken from the video taping of his QED lectures in Auckland, New Zealand, first lecture. Haven't seen them before?...it's a must)
http://www.vega.org.uk/series/lectures/feynman/index.html

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by heumpje
video taping of his QED lectures in Auckland, New Zealand, first lecture. Haven't seen them before?...it's a must)
http://www.vega.org.uk/series/lectures/feynman/index.html

Thanks. Great stuff.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by andrewgray
You say that the electron spin not spinning is not an inconsistency.

OK then.

So the inconsistency is that the electron's magnetic moment is not a "moment"?[/color]

moment n. The product of a quantity and the distance to a particular axis or point.

No, I think (I'm a little thin on this one) that an electron has a magnetic moment AND a property called "spin." They are two different properties.

 

[heumpje]

Auch... That IS sort of a miss there russ. The spin IS the magnetic moment.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpinMagneticDipoleMoment.html

 

[heumpje]

Originally posted by pelastration
Thanks. Great stuff.

Yes, amazing isn't it. That you can find this sort of stuff on the web for free...let's just say I tought that, that only applied to porn

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by heumpje
Auch... That IS sort of a miss there russ. The spin IS the magnetic moment.

D'oh.

 

[Loren Booda]

Isn't the measured magnetic moment predicted here by Dirac (accurately but approximately) proportional to (not the same as) the spin?

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
Isn't the measured magnetic moment predicted here by Dirac (accurately but approximately) proportional to (not the same as) the spin?

Yes, that's right. The magnetic moment is not identical to the spin. A particle with spin has a magnetic moment because it also has a charge.

 

[russ_watters]

So then I wasn't completely wrong?

 

[heumpje]

To be completely, entirely clear on this:

(mu)_S=-g_s*(mu)_BS/hbar

So, the magnetic moment of an electron is proportional to the spin S, with in the proportionality factor g_s=2 (the gyromagnetic ratio), [mu]_B=9.2*10^-24 A*m² the Bohr magneton and hbar Planck's constant divided by two pi. (BTW: somehow you can't do math symbols anymore...The mag. moment and the spin are vectors)

Although the Spin points in the opposite direction as the mag. moment (observe the minus sign) I called it equal since there are only some constants as proportionality factors...

 

[andrewgray]

You say that the electron spin not spinning is not an inconsistency.

OK then.

So the inconsistency is that the electron's magnetic moment is not a "moment"?[/color]

moment n. The product of a quantity and the distance to a particular axis or point.

One of the properties of an electron is that it has a magnetic moment...
What is inconsistent about that?

You do an experiment involving a magnet and an electron beam. It turns out the electrons react to the field. They want to line up to it due to their mag. moment (i.e. they experience a torque). I don't see the inconsistency in that.
Perhaps I'm not catching what you mean by inconsistent...[/color]

Reply:

Well, in addition to the impossibility of concentrating angular-momentum inside an electron's volume to make electron "spin", there is no room inside an electron for any electric current to have a large enough "moment" to make up a "1/2 quanta of magnetic moment".

Therefore, the electron's magnetic "moment", if it exists, is not a "moment".

Seems inconsistent to me.[/color]

P.S. You cannot do your experiment with a magnet and an electron beam (the Stern-Gerlach experiment). This experiment can only be done with electrically neutral particles. In addition, we have proposed a "Stern-Gerlach Killer Experiment" that allows the recovery of the continuous (non-quantized) nature of microscopic angular momentum. See www.modelofreality.org/Sect8_1.html


andrewgray AT modelofreality.org