Subject:
what spin 1/2 is in physical reality Robertson
versus Philips screwdriver new way of
describing ellipse for math
Date:
Thu, 13 Nov 2003 01:08:09 -0600
From:
Archimedes Plutonium
Reply-To:
NOdtgEMAIL
Organization:
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of
the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Newsgroups:
sci.physics, sci.physics.electromag, sci.math

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

(AaronB) wrote in message news:
(snipped)

If you use two rectangles, I believe you can generate a both a unique
ellipse or circle by connecting their verticies, so long as the
rectangles do not have any identical verticies. I suppose if you were
to take a limit case, you might be able to generate some equation that
would give the result you're looking for.

Eg:
/================/
|-/----------------/-|
| / / |
|-/----------------/-|
/================/

Connect the eight outer verticies, and you get an ellipse. As the
verticies converge on each other, you maintain the ellipse. If you
took the limit as V1 - V1', V2 - V2' etc, you might be able to
generate a single equation for the ellipse in terms of the verticies
of the rectangle(s).


Before I leave this subject momentarily I want to add another topic which
closely relates to the issues above.

The mathematical proof that a Robertson screwdriver is the ultimate in
fastening
for screwdriver design in that the square inscribed inside the circle
provides the maximum torque. The Robertson was discovered the best in
screwing down airplane screws.

A hexagonal gets into trouble in that the increasing of sides becomes
almost a circle itself and thus strip the grip. This is apparent as the
screw becomes smaller and smaller then the hexagonal is almost a circle
itself and with a tiny bit of torque you get a circle inside a circle via
stripping.

The regular screwdriver compared to Robertson can be quantified as per area
of
torquing in that a Robertson is like having about 4 regular screwdrivers
simultaneously torquing 1 screw. I would guess it is between 3 or 4. The
Philips is better than a regular by about twice but that the Robertson is
better than the Philips by about twice.

The intriguing question about the above is that in an AtomTotality since
the entire Universe is a big atom then it has a "spin". Spin of atoms is
not like a spinning top or like an Earth rotating on its axis. Spin is
fundamental characteristic of atoms and no scientist has been able to give
some sort of common day description of what atomic spin may be. But perhaps
the idea that atoms have either a spherical or elliptical geometry and plus
the idea that they may have
internal rectangles that are Forces. Not that there is some Cosmic
Screwdriver that turns the AtomTotality but that the rectangles are seen as
the Robertson or
Philips markings in the Atom geometry and these internal rectangles cause
the atom to spin. Imagine for a moment that you have a screw that is
Philips with its markings but you do not have a screwdriver and those
markings alone cause the screw to rotate or spin. This above may or may not
yield some future fruit, but I give it a low probability.

I think I may have stumbled upon what spin "1/2" is in terms of
physical
reality. We know it is not like a spinning top. And we know it is
fundamental
parameter.
So what is it??

I believe the above dives into what it is. If we think of a subatomic
particle
with 1/2 spin of quantum number. Then, what it is is that every such
particle
has internal parts and these internal parts have dual forces of these
(1)
Coulomb
(2) StrongNuclear paired to WeakNuclear and (3) Gravity paired to
Antigravity.

And these forces take for instance Gravity paired to Antigravity
inside an
electron
with spin 1/2. The insides of that electron has the force of Gravity
and the
paired force of Antigravity where you take the entire electron as a
ellipsoid
or spheroid which can have inscribed 2 rectangular solids each of
these solids
represents either the Gravity Force or the Antigravity force and that
the 2
forces are like a Philips head screwdriver (the crosses of the Philips
head)
and represent the inscribed rectangular solids.

So the entire electron with its 1/2 spin is the ellipsoid and the
ellipsoid
can be broken down into 2 rectangular solids which is the cross in the
Philipshead
screwdriver. And so the ellipsoid is turned or spinned (1/2 spin)
because of
the cross inside the ellipsoid.

Our nightsky of the 231Pu AtomTotality is the inside an electron
(probably the
last 6 electrons) and it must have a spin. And the spin is caused by
the
dualing forces of gravity to antigravity.

And the spin of particles in the Nucleus of atoms would be caused from
the
dual forces of StrongNuclear paired to WeakNuclear.

So in this manner, we can get a mental picture of what the quantum
number of
"spin" is. It is caused by dual forces which create the spin.

If the above is correct in part or whole, then the spin quantum number
of 1/2
should have variations since the forces of Gravity to Antigravity and
StrongNuclear to WeakNuclear are different and an experiment can be
set up
to see variations.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

http://rapfast.petcom.com/~john/Be.GIF
Start a point orbitting a globe at a fixed radius
from the north to the south pole.
At the same time take this circular orbit and
start it precessing at twice the rate at which
the point is travelling within the orbit.
The point will make one complete trip around the globe
in the east-west or west-east direction (whichever
way you precessed it) by the time it gets
to the south pole. Then it will make another
trip around, cutting all the lines of longitude,
on its way back up to the north pole.
Place another point exactly opposite the
first. It follows exactly the same path BUT
it is THE ONLY OTHER POINT which follows that
pathway. Divide the ring into four, then eight, then
sixteen points. You will find that sixteen points
completes the galaxy pattern:
http://rapfast.petcom.com/~john/galaxypattern.gif
Then consider this; growth of rings of 16
can be directly related to the Periodic Table:
http://rapfast.petcom.com/~john/periodicpattern.GIF

THIS is what spin ½ (Alt0189) is in physical reality.
John

Subject:
what spin 1/2 is in physical reality Robertson
versus Philipsscrewdriver
Date:
Sat, 15 Nov 2003 00:46:12 -0600
From:
Archimedes Plutonium
Reply-To:
NOdtgEMAIL
Organization:
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of
the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Newsgroups:
sci.physics, sci.math, sci.physics.electromag


Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:29:33 -0600 John Sefton wrote:

http://rapfast.petcom.com/~john/Be.GIF
Start a point orbitting a globe at a fixed radius
from the north to the south pole.
At the same time take this circular orbit and
start it precessing at twice the rate at which
the point is travelling within the orbit.
The point will make one complete trip around the globe
in the east-west or west-east direction (whichever
way you precessed it) by the time it gets
to the south pole. Then it will make another
trip around, cutting all the lines of longitude,
on its way back up to the north pole.
Place another point exactly opposite the
first. It follows exactly the same path BUT
it is THE ONLY OTHER POINT which follows that
pathway. Divide the ring into four, then eight, then
sixteen points. You will find that sixteen points
completes the galaxy pattern:

Not sure why a nice pattern should have any meaning for physics
itself.


http://rapfast.petcom.com/~john/galaxypattern.gif
Then consider this; growth of rings of 16
can be directly related to the Periodic Table:
http://rapfast.petcom.com/~john/periodicpattern.GIF

THIS is what spin * (Alt0189) is in physical reality.
John

I have seen the Periodic Table placed into a circular pattern and
there
is really
no connection with a geometric figure that has 16 points. One can just
as easily seek out a nice pattern with triangles or trapezoids where a
number of "16" comes into play and then claim that it relates to the
Periodic Table.

No, John, I do not buy your above. But your above does confirm my
suspicions in the way that you need 2 prime movers. You need
"orbiting"
and you need
"precession" and that ties and fits with my need for 2 forces as
represented by
2 rectangles inside a circumscribing ellipse (or the 3rd dimensional
equivalents).

Both of us need 2 entities, better to call them forces.

Yours John is purely a fanciful geometry pattern.

Mine however, is more than geometry but tells of the Prime Mover of
"spin"
in Quantum Mechanics. The prime-mover is that every particle has a
inside or interior where at least 2 forces are diametrical to one
another. Inside an electron which has spin 1/2 there are the two
forces
of Gravity and Antigravity and they can be visualized as a Philips
head
of a cross where one force is one line of the cross and the other
force
is the other line of the Philips cross.

And since forces are "in motion" the Philips head embedded in each
electron
is spinning. Not that there exists the screwdriver to cause the
electron
to turn and spin. But that the interior forces of Gravity and
Antigravity themselves generate the spin motion.

Every particle that has an interior or "insides" has a spin 1/2. Some
would have
spin 3/2 and then you would have a different Philips head pattern
because you have more than 2 diametrically opposing internal forces.

Sorry to say John, yours seems to be no more than a cute mathematical
pattern and nothing of any Physics. At least nothing I can salvage at
the moment.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Electron spin of 1/2 is just a myth invented to fudge over bad physics!!!!!


It is magnetic flux that is quantised. The hydrogen atom in ground state
contains one quantum fluxoid most of which tightly wraps the electrons
orbit. The electrons behaviour is coverned by the laws of induction. In the
next orbital, two fluxoids fill the orbit. Either they both tightlly wrap
the orbit, or one tightly wraps it wit the other free to link with other
fluxoids. So in an experiment to measure the magentic moment, you loose at
least one unit of magnetic moment.

See
http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/ncqt.pdf
And
http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/ClasAtom.htm
which will download its original Mathcad file.


--
regards Bruce

Bruce Harvey

The Alternative Physics Site
http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft



"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
om...
Subject:
what spin 1/2 is in physical reality Robertson
versus Philipsscrewdriver
Date:
Sat, 15 Nov 2003 00:46:12 -0600
From:
Archimedes Plutonium
Reply-To:
NOdtgEMAIL
Organization:
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of
the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Newsgroups:
sci.physics, sci.math, sci.physics.electromag


Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:29:33 -0600 John Sefton wrote:

http://rapfast.petcom.com/~john/Be.GIF
Start a point orbitting a globe at a fixed radius
from the north to the south pole.
At the same time take this circular orbit and
start it precessing at twice the rate at which
the point is travelling within the orbit.
The point will make one complete trip around the globe
in the east-west or west-east direction (whichever
way you precessed it) by the time it gets
to the south pole. Then it will make another
trip around, cutting all the lines of longitude,
on its way back up to the north pole.
Place another point exactly opposite the
first. It follows exactly the same path BUT
it is THE ONLY OTHER POINT which follows that
pathway. Divide the ring into four, then eight, then
sixteen points. You will find that sixteen points
completes the galaxy pattern:

Not sure why a nice pattern should have any meaning for physics
itself.


http://rapfast.petcom.com/~john/galaxypattern.gif
Then consider this; growth of rings of 16
can be directly related to the Periodic Table:
http://rapfast.petcom.com/~john/periodicpattern.GIF

THIS is what spin * (Alt0189) is in physical reality.
John

I have seen the Periodic Table placed into a circular pattern and
there
is really
no connection with a geometric figure that has 16 points. One can just
as easily seek out a nice pattern with triangles or trapezoids where a
number of "16" comes into play and then claim that it relates to the
Periodic Table.

No, John, I do not buy your above. But your above does confirm my
suspicions in the way that you need 2 prime movers. You need
"orbiting"
and you need
"precession" and that ties and fits with my need for 2 forces as
represented by
2 rectangles inside a circumscribing ellipse (or the 3rd dimensional
equivalents).

Both of us need 2 entities, better to call them forces.

Yours John is purely a fanciful geometry pattern.

Mine however, is more than geometry but tells of the Prime Mover of
"spin"
in Quantum Mechanics. The prime-mover is that every particle has a
inside or interior where at least 2 forces are diametrical to one
another. Inside an electron which has spin 1/2 there are the two
forces
of Gravity and Antigravity and they can be visualized as a Philips
head
of a cross where one force is one line of the cross and the other
force
is the other line of the Philips cross.

And since forces are "in motion" the Philips head embedded in each
electron
is spinning. Not that there exists the screwdriver to cause the
electron
to turn and spin. But that the interior forces of Gravity and
Antigravity themselves generate the spin motion.

Every particle that has an interior or "insides" has a spin 1/2. Some
would have
spin 3/2 and then you would have a different Philips head pattern
because you have more than 2 diametrically opposing internal forces.

Sorry to say John, yours seems to be no more than a cute mathematical
pattern and nothing of any Physics. At least nothing I can salvage at
the moment.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

"Bruce Harvey" wrote in message ...
Electron spin of 1/2 is just a myth invented to fudge over bad physics!!!!!


It is magnetic flux that is quantised. The hydrogen atom in ground state
contains one quantum fluxoid most of which tightly wraps the electrons
orbit. The electrons behaviour is coverned by the laws of induction. In the
next orbital, two fluxoids fill the orbit. Either they both tightlly wrap
the orbit, or one tightly wraps it wit the other free to link with other
fluxoids. So in an experiment to measure the magentic moment, you loose at
least one unit of magnetic moment.

See
http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/ncqt.pdf
And
http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/ClasAtom.htm
which will download its original Mathcad file.


--
regards Bruce

Looking at your website, seems as though to me that you are claiming
metaphorically to remove an apple from a basket of apples and then
replacing the removed apple with another apple. So why really bother?
M_s as quantum spin and give it a different name of fluxoid. I may
have missed your point, but it seems to me that all you are doing is
shuffling or replacing and not bringing anything new into the picture.

If someone did not like Forces and replaced them with kinetic-energy,
well, that is do-able but it sheds no new physics, and is just another
replacement scheme. Or someone may like momentum instead of forces.

I do not remember the physics history exactly, only recall that N, L,
M_L were
crucially required and time passed and only later realized that a 4th
quantum number M_s was needed.

I have 2 ideas to tackle what M_s is in physical reality. In the 1990s
decade I had only the AtomTotality where the nightsky is an
electron-cloud and so I asked myself what would M_s be if the nightsky
of galaxies is an electron? Would it be like some spinning top
analogy?

But in the 2000s I came up with the Coulomb Unification of Forces. So
instead of relying only on one theory--- AtomTotality to penetrate the
meaning of M_s spin, I now have 2 theories to try to anchor M_s.

If M_s is the result of internal forces paired off against one another
such as Gravity to Antigravity. If that is the physical meaning of
spin M_s. Then that begs the question of whether N, L, M_L are also
internal forces paired off against each other. So is N the
StrongNuclear Force paired off diametrically to the WeakNuclear
Force??

Perhaps N, L, M_L as the physics-history noted that they are
fundamental but that M_s is not fundamental and a secondary outcome of
N, L, M_L

I am going to have to do more thinking on this and perhaps much more
revisiting before satisfied.

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Subject:
what spin 1/2 is in physical reality Robertson
versus Philips screwdriver
Date:
Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:57:23 -0600
From:
Archimedes Plutonium
Reply-To:
NOdtgEMAIL
Organization:
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Newsgroups:
sci.physics, sci.math, sci.physics.electromag


And if this Philipsheadscrewdriver (btw, I am beginning to like the
habit of
joining words as if it was one word instead of the hyphen and the
screwdriver should be one word).

Anyway, I would need to have to explain spin up and spin down and why
2
electrons fill an orbital. So that the geometrical explanation answers
how
a spin up and spin down fill an orbital.

So if the interior of an electron has two diametrical forces then why
should
4 diametrical forces of the interiors of 2 electrons accomodate one
another in a filled orbital??

The best I can think of at this moment in time is that the Maxwell
Equations are 4 entities. And that EM is satisfied with 4 entities.
And
so, if we can transfer each of the Maxwell Equations as a force in
and of itself and thus say that the interior of 1 electron has only 2
of
the Maxwell Equations Force and another placed in close proximity
have the other 2 Maxwell Equations Force would be inclusive of
all EM forces.

I do not know if anyone has made such a transfer where they take
the 4 Maxwell Equations and replace them as Maxwell Forces. We are
familar with StrongNuclear, WeakNuclear, Gravity and Coulomb forces
but let us also add Antigravity and those make 5 conventional forces.
But let us combine those forces so that they comprise 4, each
corresponding to one of the Maxwell Equations. Whether any physicist
or mathematician has done such an enterprise of locking together the
forces of physics as Maxwell Equations. Obviously the Coulomb force
is already a Maxwell Eq in the Gauss law. But let us say the other 3
Maxwell Equations bundled up the StrongNuclear, WeakNuclear, gravity
and antigravity.

And since the Maxwell Equations offer a complete EM description, or at
least hope to do such, then all I need to do is say that the 2
rectangular
solids inside each electron ellipsoid which would be 4 rectangular
solids
inside 2 electron ellipsoids fill an orbital. (Keep in mind each
rectangular
solid is the analogy of one of the crosses in a
Philipsheadscrewdriver).

Truthfully, I do not like the above, for the picture is not coming
clearer
but more messy and muddy. Perhaps the screwdriverhead analogy is
kaput at about here. But I do like the Maxwell Equation thought path
because it is a limit in that 4 things seem to describe all of EM. And
with a Coulomb Unification of Forces, then a 4 limit would make sense
as to why spin-up and spin-down of 2 electrons fills an orbital.

Experiment: if the above is correct in part or whole, then an
experiment
should reveal that no atomic orbital is spherical but that all of them
are
ellipsoid or distorted spheres because the interiors of
electrons that fill an orbital are never
perfectly balanced by those 4 interior forces.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies