[talanum1 (OP)]

My model of the electron seems to suggest "Yes".

Is it possible that the electron magnetic moment oscillates at a very rapid rate?

[Kryptid]

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.

[talanum1 (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[evan_au]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[talanum1 (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[talanum1 (OP)]

What would you say if I say my model must allow the mass charge circle to rotate slower and faster?

[talanum1 (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

Not in my model

Then your model is inconsistent with the laws of physics.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[talanum1 (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Kryptid]

The Laws of Physics that imply particles are points are wrong at small distances from the particle.

What law of physics states that?

[talanum1 (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Kryptid]

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.

[talanum1 (OP)]

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.