Unified Field Theory

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes
electrons do spin
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

Did you read your own link?

The term "electron spin" is not to be taken literally in the classical sense as a description of the origin of the magnetic moment described above. To be sure, a spinning sphere of charge can produce a magnetic moment, but the magnitude of the magnetic moment obtained above cannot be reasonably modeled by considering the electron as a spinning sphere.

Originally posted by john_bmth
It's all part of the grand disinfo scheme to lead the public away from the 'true' science performed in space by ninjas

That explains why they hired Haramein as a disinfo agent then, he's doing a pretty good job at making us think he's crazy. I guess he's earning that disinfo paycheck.

edit on 16-3-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

no i didnt i merely was looking for the 1/2 spin,
this just prooves how wrong mainstream science is.
a magnetic moment is caused by spin and electrons arnt spheres there disks

heres an article dubbed electron spin for toddlers
scienceblogs.com...
its so easy to deduce that electrons have a spin,to say that all other particles spin but electrons dont and instead they have a magnetic moment is rediculous,magentism is governed by spin.

for to long has science been in the hands of below par mainstream minds whom seem unable to discern simple truths.

Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes
heres an article dubbed electron spin for toddlers
scienceblogs.com...
its so easy to deduce that electrons have a spin,to say that all other particles spin but electrons dont and instead they have a magnetic moment is rediculous,magentism is governed by spin.

That link also says electrons don't spin:

To summarize, in bullet-point form:
* Electrons are not literally spinning balls of charge, but they do have intrinsic angular momentum.

Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes
Ignore much of standard physics its bogus there lightyears behind me and black ops.

You should be publishing your own papers and helping all these guys along who are light-years behind you, who think the electron doesn't really spin.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Since Here it goes mentioned magnetism, I want to take the time to ask Arb about something I found out.(But later realized it has already been found out previously.)


How come when you apply special relativity to moving electric charges, you come across with an explanation of magnetism?

This has really been bugging me, as it seems to me that more research on this path of thinking would lead to an actual unification of gravity and electromagnetism, which would in turn lead to a unified theory.

Originally posted by binomialtheorem
How come when you apply special relativity to moving electric charges, you come across with an explanation of magnetism?

This has really been bugging me, as it seems to me that more research on this path of thinking would lead to an actual unification of gravity and electromagnetism, which would in turn lead to a unified theory.

I'm not sure I understand your question, but I'll respond with a few comments and see if it can help clarify what you're after with this line of thought.

As you probably know, Einstein probably understood his relativity theories as well or better than anyone, spent much of the remainder of his life trying to develop a unified field theory, and in fact he coined the term, but he never succeeded.

The term was coined by Einstein, who attempted to unify the general theory of relativity with electromagnetism, hoping to recover an approximation for quantum theory.

Classical electromagnetism and special relativity

The theory of special relativity plays an important role in the modern theory of classical electromagnetism. First of all, it gives formulas for how electromagnetic objects, in particular the electric and magnetic fields, are altered under a Lorentz transformation from one inertial frame of reference to another. Secondly, it sheds light on the relationship between electricity and magnetism, showing that frame of reference determines if an observation follows electrostatic or magnetic laws. Third, it motivates a compact and convenient notation for the laws of electromagnetism, namely the "manifestly covariant" tensor form.

Do you see the word that's missing from that description of special relativity?

It's "Gravity".

General relativity of course deals with gravity, but Einstein never reconciled that into a unified field theory, that's what he was trying to do. But I don't see how the special relativity theory leads to a unified field theory since it doesn't talk about gravity.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes
heres an article dubbed electron spin for toddlers
scienceblogs.com...
its so easy to deduce that electrons have a spin,to say that all other particles spin but electrons dont and instead they have a magnetic moment is rediculous,magentism is governed by spin.

That link also says electrons don't spin:

To summarize, in bullet-point form:
* Electrons are not literally spinning balls of charge, but they do have intrinsic angular momentum.

Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes
Ignore much of standard physics its bogus there lightyears behind me and black ops.

You should be publishing your own papers and helping all these guys along who are light-years behind you, who think the electron doesn't really spin.

it does say electrons spin

* Electrons are not literally spinning balls of charge, but they do have intrinsic angular momentum.
* Spin angular momentum is real angular momentum.
* The angular momentum of a spin-1/2 particle like an electron is never zero.
* Rotating the spin of a spin-1/2 particle by 360 degrees doesn't get you exactly the state you started with, in the same way that the climb-and-flip game doesn't get your toddler back exactly the state she started in. * This spin rotation property is one of the weirdest but most important features of the quantum theory of fundamental particles.
* SteelyKid is the cutest toddler in the universe.

Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes
it does say electrons spin

* Electrons are not literally spinning

So that's your interpretation of "Electrons are not literally spinning", that they are literally spinning?

It says they have a property called "spin".

It says they AREN'T literally spinning, unless you have problems with reading comprehension.

reply to post by HeresHowItGoes


Spin truly is based on the illogical ridiculous idea that the atom must be using 2 planes of spin which have no reason for their existence , just like kaku's m theory has no reason for the p and d branes to exist.
Both theories and even appendage theories people have made up like vortex theory originally based on plasma physics in 1980 yet re invented by many, all of these truly have no meaning when geometry applies to atoms attempting any real field unifications.. that is if you want to use logic, which I do.
Now I've found the key to unification, but it's just parameters under projective geometry, but know that projective is the root of all geometries and therefore can have no fault when attempting any explanation of space/time.
Well I could go on for hours there, but in summary I have videos on this on youtube , my channel is mikefromspace. It's easier to tell you that than go into how there was no big bang , what cmbr red shift really is caused from , etc...etc...
but I'll just say one thing; spin/string tension/ photons, it's all replaced by particles that fill all space. The power of motion comes from black holes which eat and make all particles. Strong and weak forces cycle as monopoles inside the carrier wave of the atom as a whole. Each force cycles at a frequency that gives it it's own light, etc... etc...
peace out

Originally posted by binomialtheorem
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Since Here it goes mentioned magnetism, I want to take the time to ask Arb about something I found out.(But later realized it has already been found out previously.)


How come when you apply special relativity to moving electric charges, you come across with an explanation of magnetism?

This has really been bugging me, as it seems to me that more research on this path of thinking would lead to an actual unification of gravity and electromagnetism, which would in turn lead to a unified theory.

you must have something which causes the charges to have repulsion and attraction,you simply cannot explain magnetism without spin as a positive charge must have something different to it than a negative charge.

take a look at webers theory of magnetism

It has been experimentally proven that an electron has a magnetic field about it along with an electric field. The effectiveness of the magnetic field of an atom is determined by the number of electrons spinning in each direction. If an atom has equal numbers of electrons spinning in opposite directions, the magnetic fields surrounding the electrons cancel one another, and the atom is unmagnetized. However, if more electrons spin in one direction than another, the atom is magnetized. An atom with an atomic number of 26, such as iron, has 26 protons in the nucleus and 26 revolving electrons orbiting its nucleus. If 13 electrons are spinning in a clockwise direction and 13 electrons are spinning in a counterclockwise direction, the opposing magnetic fields will be neutralized. When more than 13 electrons spin in either direction, the atom is magnetized. An example of a magnetized atom of iron is shown in figure 1-12.

www.tpub.com...

its cleary demonstrated that opposing spin is the driving force behind positive and negative electric charge in magnetic fields.

to me this is just basic science,spin is clearly the nuclear strong force.

ile get onto something else in another post now,anti gravitational particles.

Originally posted by omegazap
reply to post by HeresHowItGoes

 

Spin truly is based on the illogical ridiculous idea that the atom must be using 2 planes of spin which have no reason for their existence , just like kaku's m theory has no reason for the p and d branes to exist.
Both theories and even appendage theories people have made up like vortex theory originally based on plasma physics in 1980 yet re invented by many, all of these truly have no meaning when geometry applies to atoms attempting any real field unifications.. that is if you want to use logic, which I do.
Now I've found the key to unification, but it's just parameters under projective geometry, but know that projective is the root of all geometries and therefore can have no fault when attempting any explanation of space/time.
Well I could go on for hours there, but in summary I have videos on this on youtube , my channel is mikefromspace. It's easier to tell you that than go into how there was no big bang , what cmbr red shift really is caused from , etc...etc...
but I'll just say one thing; spin/string tension/ photons, it's all replaced by particles that fill all space. The power of motion comes from black holes which eat and make all particles. Strong and weak forces cycle as monopoles inside the carrier wave of the atom as a whole. Each force cycles at a frequency that gives it it's own light, etc... etc...
peace out

there can only be two planes of spin in electrons as they are disk shaped,they have no third dimension.

ho

if my memory serves me correctly arnt two posts missing,one about me being related to the leader and one linking to my poem?

whats the matter scared of a ghost

reply to post by HeresHowItGoes


As you may know, electrons are point particles.

For them to spin they have to be rotating, for it to be rotating it has to be rotating on a point on the electron. This implies that electrons have a finite radius. But this isn't true, an electron has been shown to be a point particle.

Also if an electron wasn't a point particle it would have to be spinning at the speed of light. Thus violating the theory of relativity, and even direct observational evidence.

Originally posted by binomialtheorem
reply to post by HeresHowItGoes

 

As you may know, electrons are point particles.

For them to spin they have to be rotating, for it to be rotating it has to be rotating on a point on the electron. This implies that electrons have a finite radius. But this isn't true, an electron has been shown to be a point particle.

Also if an electron wasn't a point particle it would have to be spinning at the speed of light.

Faster than that, which HeresHowItGoes would know if he read his own links:

Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes
heres an article dubbed electron spin for toddlers
scienceblogs.com...

If we want to say that the magnetic moment of the electron is due to the motion of a spinning ball of charge, then we can easily calculate what the spin rate should be, given what we know about the size of an electron. If you use the maximum size you could possibly associate with the electron, the "classical electron radius", and calculate how fast a sphere of that size would need to be spinning to produce the observed magnetic moment, you find that a point on the surface would need to be moving at a speed several times the speed of light in vacuum, which is impossible. That's also a gross overestimate of the size of an electron-- as far as well can tell, the electron has no physical size. It's a point particle, and thus doesn't have a surface that can be physically rotating.

note: several times the speed of light.

It does raise some interesting questions though. If an electron is really a point and doesn't have physical dimensions, is there an upper limit to how fast it can spin if there's no surface? would a point object create spin if it was spinning?

The problem is that our senses and thought processes are geared to macro objects and the quantum world doesn't operate like the macro world does. That's why we have to rely less on intuition and more on observations, the observations are the one thing we can all agree on regardless of what model you believe. The fact is there is a property called spin, and we observe it, but we may not have a perfect model of how it's created. But any attempt to create a model of something physically spinning fails the math test.

HeresHowItGoes keeps saying the electron spins and keeps citing sources saying it doesn't really spin citing the math problems. At some point I have to question the reading comprehension ability of HeresHowItGoes. We are at that point.

Originally posted by binomialtheorem
reply to post by HeresHowItGoes

 

As you may know, electrons are point particles.

For them to spin they have to be rotating, for it to be rotating it has to be rotating on a point on the electron. This implies that electrons have a finite radius. But this isn't true, an electron has been shown to be a point particle.

Also if an electron wasn't a point particle it would have to be spinning at the speed of light. Thus violating the theory of relativity, and even direct observational evidence.

electrons are not point particles they are disks,this view of them being point particles comes from quantum mechanics which if you believe youve already lost the argument.
if electrons were point particles they would hardly interact with each other as they would have limited dimensions with which to do so.a true point particle is the neutrino,and notice how it hardly interacts as it lacks physical dimensions.

since light is made of up of electrons there is no probelm with an electron spinning at the speed of light as it is light,but anyway if you perscribe to relativity then youve lost again,pions,singularities,quarks all travel faster than an electron.
there is nothing special with an electrons speed,no fundemenetal law that makes the electrons speed special,its just another particle,to say no other particle can travel faster than an electron is bogus,some do they really do.

i posted one link which said it didnt spin and the reason i didnt read it was i was looking for the 1/2 spin interger.

the other link said they do spin.

anyway there is no such thing as point particles which have no physical dimensions,thats just bogus science all particles have dimensions even pions the smallest of particles.

if an electron is a point particle why then does it have mass enough to warp space time extensively?
argument won electrons do warp space time extensively thus have mass and dimensions.

Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes

electrons are not point particles they are disks,this view of them being point particles comes from quantum mechanics which if you believe youve already lost the argument.

Hardly, quantum mechanics has the piles of piles of observational evidence, including that electron thing too, so you are sadly mistaken.

Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes

if electrons were point particles they would hardly interact with each other as they would have limited dimensions with which to do so.a true point particle is the neutrino,and notice how it hardly interacts as it lacks physical dimensions.

Yes you can choose what you want to believe.

Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes

since light is made of up of electrons there is no probelm with an electron spinning at the speed of light as it is light,but anyway if you perscribe to relativity then youve lost again,pions,singularities,quarks all travel faster than an electron.

You have never heard of a Photon?

I haven't seen any news of particles traveling faster than light, can you show me some?

Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes

there is nothing special with an electrons speed,no fundemenetal law that makes the electrons speed special,its just another particle,to say no other particle can travel faster than an electron is bogus,some do they really do.

Yeah ,you have no idea what you are talking about.

Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes
if an electron is a point particle why then does it have mass enough to warp space time extensively?
argument won electrons do warp space time extensively thus have mass and dimensions.

They don't?