Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: talanum1 on 16/04/2021 19:09:10
-
My model of the electron seems to suggest "Yes".
Is it possible that the electron magnetic moment oscillates at a very rapid rate?
-
I think you'll need to define what you mean by an oscillating magnetic moment. However, neutrinos also have a spin of 1/2 and, so far as I know, don't have a magnetic moment at all.
-
I think you'll need to define what you mean by an oscillating magnetic moment.
I mean it starts from a finite, nonzero value a rises to a+b, goes down again to a then goes down to a-c > 0, then rises again to a.
Neutrinos can have oscillating isospin moment.
-
Is it possible that the electron magnetic moment oscillates at a very rapid rate?
No.
Because, if it did, I could put one near a coil of wire and get it to generate free energy.
-
Magnetic Resonance Imaging makes use of the fact that protons (hydrogen nuclei) will line up with an external magnetic field, and will precess around this magnetic field lines while lining up and when relaxing. This produces radio-frequency signals that can be processed into images of your body.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance
The same effect occurs for unpaired electrons. But because the mass of an electron is much lower than a proton, the precession frequency is much higher.
for a magnetic field of 3350 Gauss, spin resonance occurs near 9388.2 MHz for an electron compared to only about 14.3 MHz for 1H nuclei.
One reason that electron resonance imaging has not been used for medical imaging is that your soft tissue is full of hydrogen nuclei with unpaired protons (eg in water and organic chemicals), while most stable organic molecules have paired electrons.
- Plus, 10GHz does not penetrate your body nearly as well as 14MHz
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance
it starts from a finite, nonzero value a rises to a+b, goes down again to a then goes down to a-c > 0, then rises again to a.
Algebraic salad.
-
I mean it starts from a finite, nonzero value a rises to a+b, goes down again to a then goes down to a-c > 0, then rises again to a.
A spontaneously changing spin sounds like it would violate conservation of angular momentum.
-
A spontaneously changing spin sounds like it would violate conservation of angular momentum.
Not in my model: the circle with mass on it rotates steadily while the circle with electric charge rotates faster and slower in an oscillatory fashion.
My model does allow for a non varying magnetic moment, but then the mass charges must be correct. My model requires the electron to be orders of magnitude bigger than the Planck Length.
-
electric charge rotates faster and slower in an oscillatory fashion.
That's an oscillating charge and will emit EM radiation.
It can't do that without breaking the conservation laws.
So you need a better model- one which is not actually impossible.
-
What would you say if I say my model must allow the mass charge circle to rotate slower and faster?
-
I can keep the mass circle spinning smoothly and let the charge circle rotate at half the angular speed. In order for the electron to look the same after two mass circle rotations.
-
Not in my model
Then your model is inconsistent with the laws of physics.
-
What would you say if I say my model must allow the mass charge circle to rotate slower and faster?
I'd ask why you were still dragging the dead corpse of your idea around.
It's not going to come back to life.
-
Then your model is inconsistent with the laws of physics.
The Laws of Physics that imply particles are points are wrong at small distances from the particle.
I'd ask why you were still dragging the dead corpse of your idea around.
It was never dead: see above.
-
The Laws of Physics that imply particles are points
No law of physics makes any such implication.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 21:57:42
I'd ask why you were still dragging the dead corpse of your idea around.
It was never dead: see above.
It is dead.
See above.
-
The Laws of Physics that imply particles are points are wrong at small distances from the particle.
What law of physics states that?
-
What law of physics states that?
Irrelevant since:
No law of physics makes any such implication.
It is dead.
You haven't even seen the entire model.
-
You haven't even seen the entire model.
I don't need to.
This bit of it is wrong, so the whole thing is wrong.
Is it possible that the electron magnetic moment oscillates at a very rapid rate?
No.
Because, if it did, I could put one near a coil of wire and get it to generate free energy.
-
Irrelevant since:
Did you really not understand that Kryptid and I were making the same point.
You said
The Laws of Physics that imply particles are points are wrong at small distances from the particle.
And we both pointed out that no such law of physics exist.
So your "argument" is based on a false premise so it is wrong.
That's it.
Your idea is dead.
Why are you still dragging the corpse around?
-
What law of physics states that?
Irrelevant since:
No law of physics makes any such implication.
You're contradicting yourself, because you said:
The Laws of Physics that imply particles are points are wrong at small distances from the particle.
You haven't even seen the entire model.
The part that violates a law of physics is dead, at least. Angular momentum doesn't spontaneously appear and disappear.
-
You're contradicting yourself, because you said:
Quote
The Laws of Physics that imply particles are points are wrong at small distances from the particle.
No, I'm simply taking his word for it.
The part that violates a law of physics is dead, at least
Yes, it's dead. The post of 17/04/2021 20:11:27 super-seeds the post of 17/04/2021 20:04:00.
-
No, I'm simply taking his word for it.
Whose word?
Yes, it's dead. The post of 17/04/2021 20:11:27 super-seeds the post of 17/04/2021 20:04:00.
I can keep the mass circle spinning smoothly and let the charge circle rotate at half the angular speed. In order for the electron to look the same after two mass circle rotations.
That still breaks the conservation laws for the same reasons as before.
That's what I mean by
still dragging the corpse around?
-
That still breaks the conservation laws for the same reasons as before.
How does it violate a conservation law? The electric charge circle rotates at 1/4 x the speed of the mass charge circle, but only the mass charge generates spin angular momentum. The electric charge circle does not carry mass charge so does not add or subtract spin angular momentum.
I don't see it breaking any conservation laws.
-
I don't see it breaking any conservation laws.
Yes, but that's because you refuse to learn, isn't it?
The reason hasn't changed.
It breaks the energy conservation law for the same reason it always did..
Is it possible that the electron magnetic moment oscillates at a very rapid rate?
No.
Because, if it did, I could put one near a coil of wire and get it to generate free energy.
And, in terms of real physics, it breaks the angular momentum conservation laws too.
-
So, come up with a better model. How are you going to define something that doesn't look the same after one rotation without postulating internal change that depends on radians.
I have abandoned varying magnetic moment. I need the details of the perceived violation of Energy conservation.
-
So, come up with a better model.
OK,
I will come up with... the usual model you find in the text books.
It may not be perfect, but at least it is not clearly impossible like yours.
So, the question is, why are you still clinging to a long dead model?
-
It's not dead. You can't give the details of how it violates Energy Conservation.
The textbooks cannot give a reason why the electron don't look the same after one rotation.
-
The textbooks cannot give a reason why the electron don't look the same after one rotation.
It's not really a rotation, so why would they look the same?
The electric charge circle rotates at 1/4 x the speed of the mass charge circle
Looked at from the side, a rotation looks like an oscillation and an oscillating charge emits EM radiation.
I already said that.
Seriously, if you learn some science it will save both of us a lot of time.
Are you too lazy, or not bright enough?
-
Looked at from the side, a rotation looks like an oscillation and an oscillating
It's not really an oscillation. Looking at it isn't going to make it decide it's oscillating. Rotating charge is necessary for it to have a magnetic moment.
-
Looked at from the side, a rotation looks like an oscillation and an oscillating
Rotating charge is necessary for it to have a magnetic moment.
That’s not true. There is no requirement for the charge to rotate physically. As @Bored chemist says, spin is a word to describe a property not an actual motion.
Do you think quarks are painted in different colours?
-
Looking at it isn't going to make it decide it's oscillating.
No, but looking at it might convince YOU that it is oscillating and thus will emit EM radiation.
Again, the problem is your refusal to think.
-
There is no requirement for the charge to rotate physically.
That's just what they tell you on order that they can claim the particle is a point. You must then come up with another explanation for the magnetic moment. My model explains it explicitly.
.
No, but looking at it might convince YOU that it is oscillating and thus will emit EM radiation.
It doesn't matter if I see it oscillating, it matters how it really is.
-
There is no requirement for the charge to rotate physically.
That's just what they tell you on order that they can claim the particle is a point. You must then come up with another explanation for the magnetic moment. My model explains it explicitly.
.
No, but looking at it might convince YOU that it is oscillating and thus will emit EM radiation.
It doesn't matter if I see it oscillating, it matters how it really is.
Yes. And in reality, what oscillating charges do is continuously emit EM radiation.
So your model is wrong, because atoms don't.
-
The textbooks cannot give a reason why the electron don't look the same after one rotation.
It's not really a rotation, so why would they look the same?
One would think Bored chemist can read. If it's not really a rotation wouldn't it always look the same?
-
The textbooks cannot give a reason why the electron don't look the same after one rotation.
It's not really a rotation, so why would they look the same?
One would think Bored chemist can read. If it's not really a rotation wouldn't it always look the same?
Sounds more like a typo to me
-
One would think Bored chemist can read.
Well, yes.
It's not really a rotation, so why would they look the same?
If I had said
"A duck is not really a cabbage, so why would they look the same?",
would you have understood that?
-
If I had said
"A duck is not really a cabbage, so why would they look the same?",
would you have understood that?
Yes, but what does it have to do with this:
The textbooks cannot give a reason why the electron don't look the same after one rotation.
It's not really a rotation, so why would they look the same?
-
The thing called "spin" isn't really spin; why would it look like it?
-
In my model particles really spin. They need to tell you spin is some form in Plato's Forms, i.e. spin isn't really spin in order to claim particles are points.
-
Given the experimental upper bound to the size of an electron, and it's apparent angular momentum and mass, please calculate the tangential velocity which your model predicts.
What about the proton?
Do you run into this problem?
http://www7b.biglobe.ne.jp/~kcy05t/spin.html
-
It predicts for the electron: 1*(what the J = mvr formula predicts, with r the maximum charge radius).
The proton model is not sufficiently developed yet.
-
It predicts for the electron: 1*(what the J = mvr formula predicts, with r the maximum charge radius).
The proton model is not sufficiently developed yet.
Would you like to try that again, but with the comprehensibility turned up a bit.
-
For the electron: v = 3.559 x10^10 m/s, so I have that problem. I could just define it's size two orders of magnitude larger.
-
For the electron: v = 3.559 x10^10 m/s, so I have that problem.
Yes, an electron velocity that is 100 times faster than the speed of light does seem to be a problem.
-
My model predicts it being slower than that because the circle with electric charge on it also needs to rotate, so bringing this into consideration may bring the speed down due to the permittivity of free space.
-
Rotating charge is necessary for it to have a magnetic moment.
For the electron: v = 3.559 x10^10 m/s, so I have that problem. I could just define it's size two orders of magnitude larger.
OK, time to lay that idea to rest.
-
My model predicts it being slower than that because the circle with electric charge on it also needs to rotate, so bringing this into consideration may bring the speed down due to the permittivity of free space.
The model predicts why Anyons have e/3 charge.
-
the permittivity of free space.
This is a constant.
-
This is a constant.
Yes, so what?