Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
...
Paul's analysis is a bit ridiculous of charge
self-energization, Purcell is clear on that on
pg 8, charge is essentially relative and a
single charge has no absolute or solitary
existance, anymore than velocity does.
What you can do is use 3 charges in a spatial
configuration like,
(+)
(-)(-)
within a radius of ~10^-18 m and simulate
the characteristics of an electron, I use
a computer simulation to do that.

Ken, it is not quite that simple. It has to be all bound charge
surrounding the (+) otherwise you will have a multipole config.
FrediFizzx

Yes Fred thanks. I reason the electron has intrinsic
spin I'll diagram using (a) and (b) as negative charges,
and cycles like,

(+) (+) (b)(a) (a)(b) (+)...........
(a)(b) (b)(a) (+) (+) (a)(b).........

yielding intrinsic spin and mass, and an
associated characteristic frequency relating
the rate of the spin (a)(b) to (+) that is
the instrinsic spin, because they have a
ratio of 1/2 as in the diagram as you can see.
The "characteristic frequency" is E=h*f.
That also provides the magnetic pole and
the angular momentum, which is a multipole
effect, and is evident in the super-conductive
Cooper pair state.
Fred, I should add that this is my personal
working model that Edward asked about in
his OP, FWIW, but I see no major problem
making it Generally Relativistic based on
the same theory that we posted at your site,

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf

What's unpopular about my approach is the
use of nonsymmetrical metrics to model EM,
but that's how I build an electron :-), to each
his own.

Ken S. Tucker,
You earlier made a statement to the effect:

~charge is charge, is only in relation to something else~.

That was the basis I used in concluding that Freddi
Sue and KST share the same view of electron/positron
spin. But you are saying something in your GR
shoe-horning that implies self interaction.

I think I avoided "self interaction" by relying
on charge relations.

If you
can apply +GR and -GR for e+ and e- it would remove
self interaction but I couldn't divine that from your
discussion.

There is no +GR vs -GR that I used, unless
you could be more specific.

My POV is that electron/positron spin *number* is
intrinsic to the ~structure~ but the orientation is
a function of the dielectric background.

Yes I agree.

See the spin-orbit comments he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breit_equation

The energy necessary to flip spins in an
ensemble seems to support that notion.

I can't, with any fidelity, translate your ascii
array above to follow your discussion.
It is a valiant attempt however.


Just means charges (a) and (b) spin revolve
twice as fast as the charge (+).

This is where I 'accuse' :-) you of fence-sitting.
You are using the word 'revolve' perhaps without intending,
to describe a 2D entity. I am taking the position
that a single electron or positron has nothing it
can rotate or revolve. My POV is electron spin
can't be described in terms of an axis through the
particle. We allude to that description for what
might more realistically be described as a motion
of the electron's center established by neighboring
entities which *do* have the spatial definiton to
rotate. If we naievly assume an indivdual electron
is spherical, is looks the same from any angle.
It has no intrinsic axis but it does have a center.

The quantum description imbues the electron
with a pseudo-axis so it can mathematically
represent its environment, even when
mathematically severed from its environment.

Using the term 'orbit' instead of 'revolve' seems
just as incorrect but at least it describes motion
*of* the center as opposed to motion *about* the
center.

You'll point out 'it is all relative anyway' and that
is probably the source of the confusion. Your
~point~ of reference is slightly different and
still retains the ability to assume a pseudo-axis,
inherited from a QM description? ???

If revolve is something between rotate and orbit
then I'll withdraw my charges of fence-sitting.

The assumption of those embracing the simple
point concept for an electron, and then whine
that it has infinite density get what they want,
GR flunks there...duh.
The electron structure can be investigated
by positrons.
Ken
....

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
...
Paul's analysis is a bit ridiculous of charge
self-energization, Purcell is clear on that on
pg 8, charge is essentially relative and a
single charge has no absolute or solitary
existance, anymore than velocity does.
What you can do is use 3 charges in a spatial
configuration like,
(+)
(-)(-)
within a radius of ~10^-18 m and simulate
the characteristics of an electron, I use
a computer simulation to do that.

Ken, it is not quite that simple. It has to be all bound charge
surrounding the (+) otherwise you will have a multipole config.
FrediFizzx

Yes Fred thanks. I reason the electron has intrinsic
spin I'll diagram using (a) and (b) as negative charges,
and cycles like,

(+) (+) (b)(a) (a)(b) (+)...........
(a)(b) (b)(a) (+) (+) (a)(b).........

yielding intrinsic spin and mass, and an
associated characteristic frequency relating
the rate of the spin (a)(b) to (+) that is
the instrinsic spin, because they have a
ratio of 1/2 as in the diagram as you can see.
The "characteristic frequency" is E=h*f.
That also provides the magnetic pole and
the angular momentum, which is a multipole
effect, and is evident in the super-conductive
Cooper pair state.
Fred, I should add that this is my personal
working model that Edward asked about in
his OP, FWIW, but I see no major problem
making it Generally Relativistic based on
the same theory that we posted at your site,

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf

What's unpopular about my approach is the
use of nonsymmetrical metrics to model EM,
but that's how I build an electron :-), to each
his own.

Ken S. Tucker,
You earlier made a statement to the effect:

~charge is charge, is only in relation to something else~.

That was the basis I used in concluding that Freddi
Sue and KST share the same view of electron/positron
spin. But you are saying something in your GR
shoe-horning that implies self interaction.

I think I avoided "self interaction" by relying
on charge relations.

If you
can apply +GR and -GR for e+ and e- it would remove
self interaction but I couldn't divine that from your
discussion.

There is no +GR vs -GR that I used, unless
you could be more specific.

My POV is that electron/positron spin *number* is
intrinsic to the ~structure~ but the orientation is
a function of the dielectric background.

Yes I agree.

See the spin-orbit comments he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breit_equation

The energy necessary to flip spins in an
ensemble seems to support that notion.

I can't, with any fidelity, translate your ascii
array above to follow your discussion.
It is a valiant attempt however.


Just means charges (a) and (b) spin revolve
twice as fast as the charge (+).

This is where I 'accuse' :-) you of fence-sitting.
You are using the word 'revolve' perhaps without intending,
to describe a 2D entity. I am taking the position
that a single electron or positron has nothing it
can rotate or revolve. My POV is electron spin
can't be described in terms of an axis through the
particle. We allude to that description for what
might more realistically be described as a motion
of the electron's center established by neighboring
entities which *do* have the spatial definiton to
rotate. If we naievly assume an indivdual electron
is spherical, is looks the same from any angle.
It has no intrinsic axis but it does have a center.

The quantum description imbues the electron
with a pseudo-axis so it can mathematically
represent its environment, even when
mathematically severed from its environment.

Using the term 'orbit' instead of 'revolve' seems
just as incorrect but at least it describes motion
*of* the center as opposed to motion *about* the
center.

You'll point out 'it is all relative anyway' and that
is probably the source of the confusion. Your
~point~ of reference is slightly different and
still retains the ability to assume a pseudo-axis,
inherited from a QM description? ???

If revolve is something between rotate and orbit
then I'll withdraw my charges of fence-sitting.

The assumption of those embracing the simple
point concept for an electron, and then whine
that it has infinite density get what they want,
GR flunks there...duh.
The electron structure can be investigated
by positrons.

Indeed... And does the foregoing suggest that our failure
to 'conjure' up particle-pairs in free space, might be beacuse
positve ~stuff~ and negative ~stuff~ has a unique
sub-fermion identity.

Are nuclei really magnetic bottles that keep the positive
~stuff~ away from all the electons that fog up our normal
space. Our particle accelerator knocks the positive
stuff out of one magnetic bottle (the nucleus) and we
catch it in another macro magnetic bottle.

That notion dosen't bode well for possibility of virtual particles
ever 'winking' into existance or the possibility of 'conjuring'
particles pairs in nothingness but the witnesses those
phenomena number about the same as witnesses to detection
of gravity waves. ;-)

Sue...


Magnetic Bottle
http://www.physics.miami.edu/~zuo/cl...igure27_17.jpg

Hamiltonian_5 is the magnetic moment spin-spin interaction.
The first term is called the contact interaction, because it is
nonzero only when the particles are at the same position; the
second term is the interaction of the classical dipole-dipole type.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breit_equation


Ken
...

Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
...
Paul's analysis is a bit ridiculous of charge
self-energization, Purcell is clear on that on
pg 8, charge is essentially relative and a
single charge has no absolute or solitary
existance, anymore than velocity does.
What you can do is use 3 charges in a spatial
configuration like,
(+)
(-)(-)
within a radius of ~10^-18 m and simulate
the characteristics of an electron, I use
a computer simulation to do that.

Ken, it is not quite that simple. It has to be all bound charge
surrounding the (+) otherwise you will have a multipole config.
FrediFizzx

Yes Fred thanks. I reason the electron has intrinsic
spin I'll diagram using (a) and (b) as negative charges,
and cycles like,

(+) (+) (b)(a) (a)(b) (+)...........
(a)(b) (b)(a) (+) (+) (a)(b).........

yielding intrinsic spin and mass, and an
associated characteristic frequency relating
the rate of the spin (a)(b) to (+) that is
the instrinsic spin, because they have a
ratio of 1/2 as in the diagram as you can see.
The "characteristic frequency" is E=h*f.
That also provides the magnetic pole and
the angular momentum, which is a multipole
effect, and is evident in the super-conductive
Cooper pair state.
Fred, I should add that this is my personal
working model that Edward asked about in
his OP, FWIW, but I see no major problem
making it Generally Relativistic based on
the same theory that we posted at your site,

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf

What's unpopular about my approach is the
use of nonsymmetrical metrics to model EM,
but that's how I build an electron :-), to each
his own.

Ken S. Tucker,
You earlier made a statement to the effect:

~charge is charge, is only in relation to something else~.

That was the basis I used in concluding that Freddi
Sue and KST share the same view of electron/positron
spin. But you are saying something in your GR
shoe-horning that implies self interaction.

I think I avoided "self interaction" by relying
on charge relations.

If you
can apply +GR and -GR for e+ and e- it would remove
self interaction but I couldn't divine that from your
discussion.

There is no +GR vs -GR that I used, unless
you could be more specific.

My POV is that electron/positron spin *number* is
intrinsic to the ~structure~ but the orientation is
a function of the dielectric background.

Yes I agree.

See the spin-orbit comments he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breit_equation

The energy necessary to flip spins in an
ensemble seems to support that notion.

I can't, with any fidelity, translate your ascii
array above to follow your discussion.
It is a valiant attempt however.


Just means charges (a) and (b) spin revolve
twice as fast as the charge (+).

This is where I 'accuse' :-) you of fence-sitting.
You are using the word 'revolve' perhaps without intending,
to describe a 2D entity. I am taking the position
that a single electron or positron has nothing it
can rotate or revolve. My POV is electron spin
can't be described in terms of an axis through the
particle. We allude to that description for what
might more realistically be described as a motion
of the electron's center established by neighboring
entities which *do* have the spatial definiton to
rotate. If we naievly assume an indivdual electron
is spherical, is looks the same from any angle.
It has no intrinsic axis but it does have a center.

The quantum description imbues the electron
with a pseudo-axis so it can mathematically
represent its environment, even when
mathematically severed from its environment.

Using the term 'orbit' instead of 'revolve' seems
just as incorrect but at least it describes motion
*of* the center as opposed to motion *about* the
center.

You'll point out 'it is all relative anyway' and that
is probably the source of the confusion. Your
~point~ of reference is slightly different and
still retains the ability to assume a pseudo-axis,
inherited from a QM description? ???

If revolve is something between rotate and orbit
then I'll withdraw my charges of fence-sitting.

The assumption of those embracing the simple
point concept for an electron, and then whine
that it has infinite density get what they want,
GR flunks there...duh.
The electron structure can be investigated
by positrons.

Indeed... And does the foregoing suggest that our failure
to 'conjure' up particle-pairs in free space, might be beacuse
positve ~stuff~ and negative ~stuff~ has a unique
sub-fermion identity.

Yes, I think that's a reasonable hypothesis.

Are nuclei really magnetic bottles that keep the positive
~stuff~ away from all the electons that fog up our normal
space. Our particle accelerator knocks the positive
stuff out of one magnetic bottle (the nucleus) and we
catch it in another macro magnetic bottle.

Nuclear physics is much more accessible
to measurement than electron or proton
structure and is a complex of those, so I
think we're deviating.

That notion dosen't bode well for possibility of virtual particles
ever 'winking' into existance or the possibility of 'conjuring'
particles pairs in nothingness but the witnesses those
phenomena number about the same as witnesses to detection
of gravity waves. ;-)

Yeah,
I think "virtual particles" is a mathematical
interpretation that allows the concept of a
field to exist...and that LIGO has been too
quiet.

Sue...

Magnetic Bottle
http://www.physics.miami.edu/~zuo/cl...igure27_17.jpg

Hamiltonian_5 is the magnetic moment spin-spin interaction.
The first term is called the contact interaction, because it is
nonzero only when the particles are at the same position; the
second term is the interaction of the classical dipole-dipole type.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breit_equation

Thank you for the refs, did you want a naive
comment?
KST

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
...
Paul's analysis is a bit ridiculous of charge
self-energization, Purcell is clear on that on
pg 8, charge is essentially relative and a
single charge has no absolute or solitary
existance, anymore than velocity does.
What you can do is use 3 charges in a spatial
configuration like,
(+)
(-)(-)
within a radius of ~10^-18 m and simulate
the characteristics of an electron, I use
a computer simulation to do that.

Ken, it is not quite that simple. It has to be all bound charge
surrounding the (+) otherwise you will have a multipole config.
FrediFizzx

Yes Fred thanks. I reason the electron has intrinsic
spin I'll diagram using (a) and (b) as negative charges,
and cycles like,

(+) (+) (b)(a) (a)(b) (+)...........
(a)(b) (b)(a) (+) (+) (a)(b).........

yielding intrinsic spin and mass, and an
associated characteristic frequency relating
the rate of the spin (a)(b) to (+) that is
the instrinsic spin, because they have a
ratio of 1/2 as in the diagram as you can see.
The "characteristic frequency" is E=h*f.
That also provides the magnetic pole and
the angular momentum, which is a multipole
effect, and is evident in the super-conductive
Cooper pair state.
Fred, I should add that this is my personal
working model that Edward asked about in
his OP, FWIW, but I see no major problem
making it Generally Relativistic based on
the same theory that we posted at your site,

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf

What's unpopular about my approach is the
use of nonsymmetrical metrics to model EM,
but that's how I build an electron :-), to each
his own.

Ken S. Tucker,
You earlier made a statement to the effect:

~charge is charge, is only in relation to something else~.

That was the basis I used in concluding that Freddi
Sue and KST share the same view of electron/positron
spin. But you are saying something in your GR
shoe-horning that implies self interaction.

I think I avoided "self interaction" by relying
on charge relations.

If you
can apply +GR and -GR for e+ and e- it would remove
self interaction but I couldn't divine that from your
discussion.

There is no +GR vs -GR that I used, unless
you could be more specific.

My POV is that electron/positron spin *number* is
intrinsic to the ~structure~ but the orientation is
a function of the dielectric background.

Yes I agree.

See the spin-orbit comments he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breit_equation

The energy necessary to flip spins in an
ensemble seems to support that notion.

I can't, with any fidelity, translate your ascii
array above to follow your discussion.
It is a valiant attempt however.


Just means charges (a) and (b) spin revolve
twice as fast as the charge (+).

This is where I 'accuse' :-) you of fence-sitting.
You are using the word 'revolve' perhaps without intending,
to describe a 2D entity. I am taking the position
that a single electron or positron has nothing it
can rotate or revolve. My POV is electron spin
can't be described in terms of an axis through the
particle. We allude to that description for what
might more realistically be described as a motion
of the electron's center established by neighboring
entities which *do* have the spatial definiton to
rotate. If we naievly assume an indivdual electron
is spherical, is looks the same from any angle.
It has no intrinsic axis but it does have a center.

The quantum description imbues the electron
with a pseudo-axis so it can mathematically
represent its environment, even when
mathematically severed from its environment.

Using the term 'orbit' instead of 'revolve' seems
just as incorrect but at least it describes motion
*of* the center as opposed to motion *about* the
center.

You'll point out 'it is all relative anyway' and that
is probably the source of the confusion. Your
~point~ of reference is slightly different and
still retains the ability to assume a pseudo-axis,
inherited from a QM description? ???

If revolve is something between rotate and orbit
then I'll withdraw my charges of fence-sitting.

The assumption of those embracing the simple
point concept for an electron, and then whine
that it has infinite density get what they want,
GR flunks there...duh.
The electron structure can be investigated
by positrons.

Indeed... And does the foregoing suggest that our failure
to 'conjure' up particle-pairs in free space, might be beacuse
positve ~stuff~ and negative ~stuff~ has a unique
sub-fermion identity.

Yes, I think that's a reasonable hypothesis.

Are nuclei really magnetic bottles that keep the positive
~stuff~ away from all the electons that fog up our normal
space. Our particle accelerator knocks the positive
stuff out of one magnetic bottle (the nucleus) and we
catch it in another macro magnetic bottle.

Nuclear physics is much more accessible
to measurement than electron or proton
structure and is a complex of those, so I
think we're deviating.

Speak for youself. I may be a little kinky but your the first to
call me a deviant. ) Are hydrogen atoms deviants too?

That notion dosen't bode well for possibility of virtual particles
ever 'winking' into existance or the possibility of 'conjuring'
particles pairs in nothingness but the witnesses those
phenomena number about the same as witnesses to detection
of gravity waves. ;-)

Yeah,
I think "virtual particles" is a mathematical
interpretation that allows the concept of a
field to exist...and that LIGO has been too
quiet.

The Coulomb field can exist without them.
and you can illuminate mirrors better that
way too.


Sue...

Magnetic Bottle
http://www.physics.miami.edu/~zuo/cl...igure27_17.jpg

Hamiltonian_5 is the magnetic moment spin-spin interaction.
The first term is called the contact interaction, because it is
nonzero only when the particles are at the same position; the
second term is the interaction of the classical dipole-dipole type.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breit_equation

Thank you for the refs, did you want a naive
comment?

No... Let's gaze at pretty pictures instead.
Theoretical estimates of the electron density for the
first few hydrogen atom electron orbitals shown as
cross-sections with color-coded probability density
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

Sue...

KST

Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
[big snip]...
Nuclear physics is much more accessible
to measurement than electron or proton
structure and is a complex of those, so I
think we're deviating.

Speak for youself. I may be a little kinky but your the first to
call me a deviant. )

Deviant! I saw your pix, you're a 3 sigma.

Are hydrogen atoms deviants too?

That notion dosen't bode well for possibility of virtual particles
ever 'winking' into existance or the possibility of 'conjuring'
particles pairs in nothingness but the witnesses those
phenomena number about the same as witnesses to detection
of gravity waves. ;-)

Yeah,
I think "virtual particles" is a mathematical
interpretation that allows the concept of a
field to exist...and that LIGO has been too
quiet.

The Coulomb field can exist without them.

Ok

and you can illuminate mirrors better that
way too.

Ok

Magnetic Bottle
http://www.physics.miami.edu/~zuo/cl...igure27_17.jpg

Hamiltonian_5 is the magnetic moment spin-spin interaction.
The first term is called the contact interaction, because it is
nonzero only when the particles are at the same position; the
second term is the interaction of the classical dipole-dipole type.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breit_equation

Thank you for the refs, did you want a naive
comment?

No... Let's gaze at pretty pictures instead.
Theoretical estimates of the electron density for the
first few hydrogen atom electron orbitals shown as
cross-sections with color-coded probability density
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

The gyromagnetic ratio is more relevent to this thread,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyromagnetic_ratio
That's what I'm studying, to see if that indicates
a non-point like structure within an electron.
Ken

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
[big snip]...
Nuclear physics is much more accessible
to measurement than electron or proton
structure and is a complex of those, so I
think we're deviating.

Speak for youself. I may be a little kinky but your the first to
call me a deviant. )

Deviant! I saw your pix, you're a 3 sigma.

Are hydrogen atoms deviants too?

That notion dosen't bode well for possibility of virtual particles
ever 'winking' into existance or the possibility of 'conjuring'
particles pairs in nothingness but the witnesses those
phenomena number about the same as witnesses to detection
of gravity waves. ;-)

Yeah,
I think "virtual particles" is a mathematical
interpretation that allows the concept of a
field to exist...and that LIGO has been too
quiet.

The Coulomb field can exist without them.

Ok

and you can illuminate mirrors better that
way too.

Ok

Magnetic Bottle
http://www.physics.miami.edu/~zuo/cl...igure27_17.jpg

Hamiltonian_5 is the magnetic moment spin-spin interaction.
The first term is called the contact interaction, because it is
nonzero only when the particles are at the same position; the
second term is the interaction of the classical dipole-dipole type.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breit_equation

Thank you for the refs, did you want a naive
comment?

No... Let's gaze at pretty pictures instead.
Theoretical estimates of the electron density for the
first few hydrogen atom electron orbitals shown as
cross-sections with color-coded probability density
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

The gyromagnetic ratio is more relevent to this thread,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyromagnetic_ratio
That's what I'm studying, to see if that indicates
a non-point like structure within an electron.

Good onya! That looks like a good effect to
review in the context of particle-pairs to gain some
insight to just what mechanism is in play that appears
as a rotating extended object. I think I'll look for some
pictures that might show a little more that toy tops.

Something more descriptive must have fallen out of
BNL's muon g-2 experiments.


Sue...

Ken