Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: esquire on 10/08/2019 17:51:16

Title: New Theory: Spin
Post by: esquire on 10/08/2019 17:51:16
We all know that if you would translate the spin of a electron to a 'spinning top' then it would have to spin faster than light, which is a limit for anythings speed. Then we come to this  " In the not-so-recent past we delved into some of the nitty-gritty of vector bosons such as the force particles of the Standard Model. We saw that relativity forces us to describe these particles with four-component mathematical objects. But alas, such objects are redundant because they encode more polarization states than are physically present. For example, a photon canít spin in the direction of motion (longitudinal polarization) since this would mean part of the field is traveling faster than the speed of light. "  https://motls.blogspot.com/2011/10/who-ate-higgs.html

Isn't that argument flawed? That  ' a photon canít spin in the direction of motion (longitudinal polarization) since this would mean part of the field is traveling faster than the speed of light. '

I agree to that a 'spin' can't be ftl, but I find it harder to agree to that a quantum mechanical spin can't take any 'direction/polarization' it want. As this argument seems to state. A quantum mechanical spin has no classical counterpart, as far as I know?

Actually I've been wondering about that before too.

in order for anything to be stable and not to decay, it must spin in all directions simultaneously.
Title: Re: New Theory: Spin
Post by: esquire on 15/08/2019 19:51:04
a massless particle is not subject to forward linear velocity. once a particle gains mass it is subject to forward linear velocity and the speed of light. velocity creates friction which produces a fractional forward momentum linear "spin" which is associated and comparable against with the speed of light.

fermion matter adopts a 1/2 spin as a measure instrument. it is a tool to gauge mass traveling at the speed of light.
hadron and fermion matter are subject to linear vectors, under the auspices of the speed of light.

bosons are measured in whole numbers to approximate their capacity to effect force fields vectors.
gravitational force has a value of 2 for its spin, because it stresses a photon with a spin value of 1.

a photon with a spin value of 1 = unity, it is not subject to a forward vector linear velocity,  but its  internal spin motion is equivalent to the speed of light.

gravitational force has a spin factor of 2, it is also not subject to velocity.  its spin 2 motion factor exceeds that of a spin 1 motion.

whole numbers spin motions in essence are not subject to linear vectors but are vector fields, meaning their motion isnot restricted to a liner forward momentum. anything with a whole number spin motion is spinning with a force of at the least the speed of light in an omnidirectional manner. this spin emanates in a 360 degree pattern. this 360 degree emanation creates a uniformed quantum connectivity.
Title: Re: New Theory: Spin
Post by: esquire on 16/08/2019 01:00:31
Quote from: yor_on
There should be a possibility of just changing the header Chris? But I didn't find it.
Just edit your original post, and the title is editable to change the title of the thread.

Quote from: esquire
fermion matter adopts a 1/2 spin as a measure instrument. it is a tool to gauge mass traveling at the speed of light.
Electrons are spin=1/2 fermions, but they can never be accelerated up to the speed of light, as that would require infinite energy.
Scientists know this, because the LEP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Electron%E2%80%93Positron_Collider) (a predecessor to the LHC, in the same tunnel) managed to accelerate electrons and positrons very close to the speed of light, but could not reach c.


What I said was whole number bosons have a spin motion of light speed.  fermions have a half spin motion to light  speed. that in no way implies that fermion travels at the speed of light.

Quote
gravitational force has a spin factor of 2, it is also not subject to velocity.  its spin 2 motion factor exceeds that of a spin 1 motion.
How do you account for the detection of a neutron star merger, where the gamma rays and gravitational waves arrives almost simultaneously (<2s apart) over a travel time of around 130 million years.

This shows that photons and (hypothetical) gravitons travel at (almost) exactly the same speed.

Note that the alignment here is between the "ringdown" phase of the gravitational waves and the start of the gamma-ray burst.
- The fact that gravitational waves were detected for 100 seconds prior to the merger reflects the fact that these two neutron stars had been circling closer and closer for millions of years.
- It is only in the last 100s before merger that the gravitational wave signal was intense enough for us to detect with current equipment
- It is only in the first 2 seconds after the merger that the gamma ray signal was intense enough for us to detect with current equipment

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW170817

a gravitational wave is no longer a force field vector,  it is a gravitational wave.  its spin value as a gravitational wave still dominants  photonic gamma light wave. however the tensor stress of gravity however loses its 2 to 1 spin ratio over the gamma photonic light spin value. what accounts for this? this possibility comes to mind, the gamma burst strength weakens the gravitational field vector, by pushing it outward beyond where the previous gravitational field concentration existed. the concussive nature of gamma burst compresses the gravitational field; i.e.: higgs fields compressing into higgs fields,  via the concussive driven higgs boson experiments. this concussion of the gravity field  causes  gravity to condense into a condensate, approximately equivalent to a light wave. the condensate gravity adopts a  wave/particle like feature. 
Title: Re: New Theory: Spin
Post by: esquire on 16/08/2019 01:04:49
a gravitational wave is no longer a force field vector,  it is a gravitational wave.  its spin value as a gravitational wave still dominants  the photonic gamma light wave. however the tensor stress of gravity loses its 2 to 1 spin ratio over the gamma photonic light spin value. what accounts for this? this possibility comes to mind, the gamma burst strength weakens the gravitational field vector, by pushing it outward beyond where the previous gravitational field concentration existed. the concussive nature of gamma burst compresses the gravitational field; i.e.: higgs fields compressing into higgs fields,  via the concussive driven higgs boson experiments. this concussion of the gravity field  causes  gravity to condense into a condensate, approximately equivalent to a light wave. the condensate gravity adopts a  wave/particle like feature. 
Title: Re: New Theory: Spin
Post by: alancalverd on 18/08/2019 19:38:09
What a load of meaningless piffle.
Title: Re: New Theory: Spin
Post by: Hayseed on 23/08/2019 01:22:10
Have you ever induced a current in a closed loop with a magnet?  Have you ever rotated the loop, while moving the magnet?  Image the speed needed, for a loop rotating at 1/2 c.

Can you see, how inducement in a rotating loop is much more conditional than inducement in a static loop?  Electrons rotate.  That spin is NOT faster than c. It's 80-95% c.

So, the inducement field must be faster than rotation.  And there is another condition.  And that is the duration of the inducement velocity, must be at least 180 degrees of rotation.

Electrons can act like radio repeaters.  When you induce for 180 degrees, but not enough to set electron at higher energy level( a "quantum" leap), the charge will absorb for 180.....then re-emit for 180....on the second half of rotation. As soon as induction begins, the circumference of the charge starts to shrink.  If the induction is not enough to set next energy circumference, the charge will bounce back out to starting circumference.  Each energy level has it's own size.  Higher energy, means smaller circumference.  Normally, an electron has 400-800X greater circumference than a proton.  This is why electrons are mistaken to rotate protons.  They don't, there are just physically much larger.  And they rotate, but not around the proton.

The quantum steps of charge, are due to geometric symmetry, not energy.  That symmetry comes from the structure.  The electron and the proton have the same energy steps.  But the electron is an compression spring and the proton is a expansion spring.  The electron stays open and low mass, while the proton stays closed and high mass. This is due to handedness.

If we unwind the proton, to the electron energy levels, we have a positron.  If we charge an electron to a proton's energy levels, we have an anti-proton.

The spin of a particle is self powered for 10E~60 years. 

A particle is a spinning charge loop. A rotating, closed, helix. It's current.  An electron runs at about 20 amps.  A proton is about 30,000 amps.....but that's nothing....a proton can charge to 100s of thousands of amps.

Mathematics, without an equal dose of intuition, will always mislead you.




Title: New Theory Spin
Post by: BeJimmiecot on 03/09/2019 14:14:31
Many of your reasons for abandoning quantum mechanics actually do have explanations.  Consider your photoelectric paradox.  The first thing to realize is that this treatment of the photoelectric effect is really a fairly good approximation.  Very complicated interactions are lumped into the work function of the metal. 

Now, how can the photon give such a large momentum to the emitted electron?  Well, momentum is a vector property, and the metal that ejects the electron is quite massive compared to the electron itself.  Hence, a high transverse momentum back the other direction simply means the metal itself is moving forward very slightly, such that the total is the initial momentum of the photon. 

Rather than address every new point, lets ask a question about your new theory: If the electrons electric field pulses on and off this comprises a changing electric field- why doesnt this create radiation? Its not just accelerating charges, its changing electric fields that create radiation. 
                 -Will