Go Back   Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > Nuclear and Particle Physics

Nuclear and Particle Physics Nuclear and Particle Physics Help Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Dec 24th 2015, 04:53 AM   #21
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Tintagel,.Cornwall, UK
Posts: 48
Electron Spin

PMB,
Hallo and a Merry (nearly) Christmas.

Just had my knees caned by Topsquark for being off-post so I need to be canny with this. Not quite sure why your Post has been sent to me but, seeing as it has ...?

I have never understood why Electrons should be considered as spinning? I assume it has to do with either Relativity Maths or related Maths. But you maay have gathered that I have little sympathy with the modern cult of heiroglyphic worship !

To extend your point: if an Electron is truly a smooth sphere then why should it maatter wherther it spins or curtsies?

In my private srtudies oover the last 60 years I have rid myself of the problem by the heresy of denying the Electron. Makes Life much more simple.

Ken
kengreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24th 2015, 05:51 AM   #22
Pmb
Physics Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,553
Originally Posted by kengreen
PMB,
Hallo and a Merry (nearly) Christmas.
The same to you my friend!

Originally Posted by kengreen
Just had my knees caned by Topsquark ...
Please explain what it means to have one's knees "caned"?

Originally Posted by kengreen
... for being off-post so I need to be canny with this. Not quite sure why your Post has been sent to me but, seeing as it has ...?
I don't understand this either. How did I "send" this to you? Was it in e-mailed to you? Was it PM'd?

Originally Posted by kengreen
I have never understood why Electrons should be considered as spinning?
You should keep in mind that this is a term which was defined as metaphor. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor

When spin was discovered it was through a law of conservation. In this case it was through conservation of total angular momentum.

Originally Posted by kengreen
I assume it has to do with either Relativity Maths or related Maths.
Actually it has to do with a combination of quantum mechanics and particle physics.

Originally Posted by kengreen
But you maay have gathered that I have little sympathy with the modern cult of heiroglyphic worship !
Yes. Why is that? I mean after all it's worked so well for so long shouldn't you at least give it a chance?

Originally Posted by kengreen
To extend your point: if an Electron is truly a smooth sphere then why should it maatter wherther it spins or curtsies?
To save the law of conservation of total angular momentum.

Originally Posted by kengreen
In my private srtudies oover the last 60 years I have rid myself of the problem by the heresy of denying the Electron. Makes Life much more simple.
I see. So this is so physics will be simple to you? Is that what I'm to understand?
Pmb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24th 2015, 02:19 PM   #23
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Tintagel,.Cornwall, UK
Posts: 48
Misc. re your last

Pmb,

To have ones knees caned refers to the ancient belief in administering pain as lasting reminder "not to do [that] again." Result that children rule the world!
Post was deliverd to me as e-mail call to view PM.

I have long pursued the contradictions and false assumptions which I pwrceive in classical physics. For example there are too many "Laws" which in fact are Rules that result from digesting "Data banks". Nature knows niether Laws nor Rules - evrything goes on trial and error and ruthless culling.

The real sticking point for me is the failure to disinguish between the theoretical world (with its precise and linear arguments) and the practical world in which I have spent the last 70 yers where everything is relative, where log scales have niether zero nor max.

I agree heartily with the qualified Physicist who posted recently on the IET forum: "Nobody understands quantum maths."

No . My "new" look at physics was never meant to make physics easy for me. It started as a mischievous spare time endeavour and ended in perplexity, hard work and a version of the physical world which is beyond belief very simple while incorporating most of the modern hypothesese without the need for all this "whooppee" crackpot maths.
Needless to say I am not allowed inside the door I - shoot too many sacred cows!
At the moment Topsquark is considering mw words of wisdom buy he is the first to evn read me since my great friend Allen Bray died some 30 years ago.
Ken
kengreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24th 2015, 03:27 PM   #24
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,403
We're a bit off topic here, but I think the original post has been discussed thoroughly enough.

@kengreen: Surely you have no problems with at least the use of Calculus in Physics? That's been effective since Newton.

What parts of Mathematics do you think are "crackpot?"

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24th 2015, 06:38 PM   #25
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Tintagel,.Cornwall, UK
Posts: 48
Mathematics

Topsquark,

First things first.
Well and truly past midnight and so appropriate to wish you, and all who sail with you, a Merry Christmas with a succesful year to follow.

No indeed, I have no quarrel with the Calculus. That comes under the heading of Pure Maths. In any event I would have to believe in it because I studied in splendid isolation and startled an Instructor in 1st-yr Marths by , unthinkingly, using it to make short work of one of his set problems !

My suspicions rest on the Applied Maths which seem to have the Physics world by the nose and which are used, seemingly, as a substitute for cnnsidered thinking. I had a well-honed writer under my wing who could never manage as much as two paragraphs before he burst into pages of heiroglyphics. I pointed out to him that our "audience" were ordinary folk who held the title of "engineer" as a legacy from the days of Lord Reith. He invariably lost me and so I could not accept his work for publication. Eventually I encouraged him to find another post but, to my great amusement, when I resigned he was accepted back. Someone was impressed.

By "crackpot" I mean those long scribings which are meaningful to only a select few - fellow believers - who invariably abuse the English language with such concepts as "infinity" (meaning "it's beyond me") . They show absolutely no recognition that the natural world with which they are grappling does not deal in absolute values - everything is relative and, forsaking accuracy, depends on given tolerances and all scales are asymptotic..

I lke to pose the question: "Why does everything in Space both spin and move along circular locii?"

In Nature (e.g. Space) there are not any scales of measurement or expression which start at Zero and which may reach a maiximum value

For example, in Botany, you find that the distribution of buds along a new growth of wood follows a logarithmic spiral rule - no zero or max. As it happens this ensures the maximum of foliage wth the minimum of over-shadowing. Plant growth was not designed that way (either with or without the Calculus) it was a free for all with the loser ruthlessly culled.

To see Nature in the raw I would advocate the experimant in which a dozen fertilised eggs are incubated and removed one at a time at regular intervals for dissection. It brings one down with a bump to see that even we become fish before human and that the eustachion tubes (that connect the back of our throats with the nose) start life as gills.

I like to pose the question: "Why does everything in Space both spin and move along circular locii?

Ken
kengreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24th 2015, 07:03 PM   #26
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,403
Originally Posted by kengreen View Post
By "crackpot" I mean those long scribings which are meaningful to only a select few - fellow believers - who invariably abuse the English language with such concepts as "infinity" (meaning "it's beyond me") . They show absolutely no recognition that the natural world with which they are grappling does not deal in absolute values - everything is relative and, forsaking accuracy, depends on given tolerances and all scales are asymptotic..
Ken
Thank you and Merry Christmas to you as well.

Infinity does not mean "it's beyond me." It is a concept that appears in any number of applications of Mathematics. It is not, however, a number which a lot of people seem to believe.

And I suppose you would also say that complex numbers fall into the same category?

Richard Feynman, one of the most popular Science teachers ever (in my humble opinion) essentially said that if we cannot explain it to a kindergartener then we don't really understand it. That means many concepts in my field of study, Quantum Field Theory, are not at all understood. And indeed I am not alone in this belief.

On the other hand, Quantum Electrodynamics is probably the most accurate theories in all of Physics...ever. It involves a large amount of multi-variate Calculus, group theory, and Algebra...all fields which I suspect you would call "crackpot." But even if we don't completely understand why it works it still works. How could you call something like that "crackpot?" I believe you are holding yourself back from any number of beautiful and interesting concepts by saying that.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25th 2015, 06:33 AM   #27
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Tintagel,.Cornwall, UK
Posts: 48
Cracked

Dan,
you are unkind.

I have never said that mathematicvs are crackpot. It's the practitioners (some practitioners) who blast their way through Life (my life ) confident that their beautiful misunderstading carries all before.

Feeynman obviously shares my belief in words ! I can but agree that "infinity" is a concept that appears in ".... any numbers of applications ..." but it belongs in that litle understood kingdom invented by Man for man's understanding. It twerminates a linear scale . In nature scales are logarithmic - they never start and never end?

Your Quantum Field Theory (hypothesis ?) is an example of thatg which I label as crackpot. Probably because, not being a mathematician, I stand not a hope in hell of understanding it ! I POSITIVELY HATE ANYTHING ON WHICH I CANNOT GET A LEVER. I note that you say " ... probably the MOST accurate theories in all of Physics ... "
Well ... is it or is it not?

Algebra also belongs under the grouping of Pure maths. Indeed khgsics is the result of many hours struggling with very-long algebraic expressions where even the smallest glitch would have rendered to waste years of groping. I had thought of seeking advice fron Jacob Bronovski, who was very interested in shapes, but hesitated because I did not know the questions. The day I decided otherwise the BBC announced his death !

On behalf of your penultimate sentence may I remark that Heaviside could not prove his "Operational Calculus" but proceeded to use it nonetheless. His convictions were not proved until jhe wss no more?

But enough - I must reinforce my caffeine habit.

Thanks indeed for your time,

Ken
kengreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29th 2015, 06:23 AM   #28
Pmb
Physics Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,553
Originally Posted by kengreen
I have long pursued the contradictions and false assumptions which I pwrceive in classical physics. For example there are too many "Laws" which in fact are Rules that result from digesting "Data banks". Nature knows niether Laws nor Rules - evrything goes on trial and error and ruthless culling.
All that means is that you don't have a solid understanding of what a Physical Law is, i.e. how its defined. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
A physical law or scientific law "is a theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present." Physical laws are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments and observations over many years and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community. The production of a summary description of our environment in the form of such laws is a fundamental aim of science. These terms are not used the same way by all authors.
...
Several general properties of physical laws have been identified. Physical laws are:
  • True, at least within their regime of validity. By definition, there have never been repeatable contradicting observations.
  • Universal. They appear to apply everywhere in the universe
  • Simple. They are typically expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation.
  • Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them
  • Stable. Unchanged since first discovered (although they may have been shown to be approximations of more accurate laws—see "Laws as approximations" below),
  • Omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them (according to observations).
  • Generally conservative of quantity.
  • Often expressions of existing homogeneities (symmetries) of space and time.
  • Typically theoretically reversible in time (if non-quantum), although time itself is irreversible.
Physical laws are distinguished from scientific theories by their simplicity. Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to be changed as the body of available experimental data and analysis develops. This is because a physical law is a summary observation of strictly empirical matters, whereas a theory is a model that accounts for the observation, explains it, relates it to other observations, and makes testable predictions based upon it. Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory explains why and how something happens
Originally Posted by kengreen
...everything is relative...
That's hardly so. Trivial examples abound. E.g. consider frame S' in which there is a car having two people in it, driver and passenger. The car is moving down the highway at 65 mph as observed from the roads frame of reference S. As observed in S the number of people in the car is also two. Therefore the number of people in the car is not relative contrary to your claim that everything is relative.

Originally Posted by kengreen
I can but agree that "infinity" is a concept that appears in ".... any numbers of applications ..." but it belongs in that litle understood kingdom invented by Man for man's understanding. It twerminates a linear scale . In nature scales are logarithmic - they never start and never end?
The correct definition of the term infinity has to do with limits. I created a glossary of terms under which I made a entry to define "infinity." See http://www.newenglandphysics.org/glo...I/infinity.htm

Last edited by Pmb; Dec 29th 2015 at 06:19 PM.
Pmb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30th 2015, 09:19 AM   #29
MBW
Senior Member
 
MBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bedford, England
Posts: 668
Is spin in any way similar to the everyday concept of spin?
Or is it just a term used to describe a quantum feature of some particles which has nothing to do with the classical feature which uses the same term?
(Like the "color" of a quark).
__________________
You have GOT to Laugh !
MBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31st 2015, 01:33 AM   #30
Pmb
Physics Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,553
Originally Posted by MBW View Post
Is spin in any way similar to the everyday concept of spin?
Or is it just a term used to describe a quantum feature of some particles which has nothing to do with the classical feature which uses the same term?
(Like the "color" of a quark).
I recommend that you read the article that I referenced in post #17, i.e.

What is Spin? by Hans C. Ohanian, Am J. Phys., 54(6), June 1986.

You can download it from:
http://people.westminstercollege.edu/faculty/ccline/courses/phys425/AJP_54(6)_p500.pdf.
The abstract reads:
Abstract: According to the prevailing belief, the spin of the electron or of some other particle is a mysterious internal angular momentum for which no concrete physical picture is available, and for which there is no classical analog. However, on the basis of an old calculation by Belinfante [Physica 6, 887 (1939) ], it can be shown that the spin may be regarded as an angular momentum generated by a circulating flow of energy in the wave field of the electron. Likewise, the magnetic moment may be regarded as generated by a circulating flow of charge in the wave field. This provides an intuitively appealing picture and establishes that neither the spin nor the magnetic moment are "internal"-they are not associated with the internal structure of the electron, but rather with the structure of its wave field. Furthermore, a comparison between calculations of· angular momentum in the Dirac and electromagnetic fields shows that the spin of the electron is entirely analogous to the angular momentum carried by a classical circularly polarized wave.
Please note that part of the abstract which says
However, on the basis of an old calculation by Belinfante [Physica 6, 887 (1939) ], it can be shown that the spin may be regarded as an angular momentum generated by a circulating flow of energy in the wave field of the electron.
I think that answers your question. It's a wonderful paper and definitely worth reading.
Pmb is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > Nuclear and Particle Physics

Tags
electrons, made, spin



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What are gravitational waves made of? oem7110 Special and General Relativity 14 Aug 23rd 2016 05:13 PM
Electromagnetics / EM theory made easy - Textbook review Kamakshi Advanced Electricity and Magnetism 0 Aug 29th 2015 04:02 AM
What are quarks made of? Troll Quantum Physics 20 Dec 12th 2013 11:03 AM
mystery of electron spin(spin??) r.samanta Atomic and Solid State Physics 4 Nov 10th 2009 03:17 AM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed