Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #598675 > unrolled thread

"Ordinary" Spin

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  "Ordinary" Spin john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 10:48 -0700
    "Ordinary" Spin john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 14:51 -0700
    Re: "Ordinary" Spin moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-29 02:02 +0000
      Re: "Ordinary" Spin Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 19:29 -0700
        Re: "Ordinary" Spin "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 19:41 -0700
          Re: "Ordinary" Spin "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-09-28 20:09 -0700
          Re: "Ordinary" Spin john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 04:26 -0700
            Re: "Ordinary" Spin john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 07:33 -0700
              Re: "Ordinary" Spin moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-29 15:31 +0000
                Re: "Ordinary" Spin john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 08:39 -0700
                  Re: "Ordinary" Spin Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 11:07 -0500
                    Re: "Ordinary" Spin john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 11:07 -0700
                      Re: "Ordinary" Spin Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 13:20 -0500
                        Re: "Ordinary" Spin Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 13:27 -0500
                        Re: "Ordinary" Spin noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 11:27 -0700
                          Re: "Ordinary" Spin noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 20:41 -0700
        Re: "Ordinary" Spin moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-29 03:34 +0000
          Re: "Ordinary" Spin Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 11:03 -0700
    Re: "Ordinary" Spin "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 20:54 -0700
      Re: "Ordinary" Spin john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 23:11 -0700
    Re: "Ordinary" Spin "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 10:14 -0700
      Re: "Ordinary" Spin "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-09-30 11:06 -0700
      Re: "Ordinary" Spin "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 12:09 -0700
        Re: "Ordinary" Spin "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-09-30 12:55 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#598675 — "Ordinary" Spin

The spin of atomic particles is
not spin 'as we know it'.
It is COMBINED SPIN of one part
rotation and 'X' parts precession,
where X does not equal Zero.

But, if you think of it, "ordinary' spin
is also a combined spin. It is
obviously a combination of 
One rotation versus Zero precessions,
because the faster it goes,
the more it locks into zero precessions.

Similarly, the faster you follow a
"Hubius helix", which is a One rotation
versus One precessions (derived from
electron data- Google it),
the more you should lock into that- I
did not consider that a good
candidate because the pathway lies
totally on one hemisphere .

The combined spin that I fancy
for atoms is 1:2.
I use it with a 10 member ring
to do Neon:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/NeonAnimation.GIF

But, yes.
ALL spins are combined spins.
The one we are familiar with is 1:0

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#598716

:ALL spins are combined spins. 
:The one we are familiar with is 1:0 

I want to make a 1:2

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598741

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

<snip crap>

John, you're drooling again.  You have had electron spin explained to you
many times yet you insist on drooling here.

>Similarly, the faster you follow a
>"Hubius helix", which is a One rotation
>versus One precessions (derived from
>electron data- Google it),

Oh look, there's another kook who is obsessed with precessing
spinny things or something!

<snip more drool>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598745

On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 10:02:19 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> <snip crap>
> 
> John, you're drooling again.  You have had electron spin explained to you
> many times yet you insist on drooling here.
> 
> >Similarly, the faster you follow a
> >"Hubius helix", which is a One rotation
> >versus One precessions (derived from
> >electron data- Google it),
> 
> Oh look, there's another kook who is obsessed with precessing
> spinny things or something!
> 
> <snip more drool>

Perhaps, and more likely, you Michael MoreIrony, are the one obsessed
with every post JohnJi writes. Look into a mirror, any mirror.

Wait... what... did I misspell something?! What... for the life of me...

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598749

On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 7:29:14 PM UTC-7, Mahipal wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 10:02:19 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
> > 
> > <snip crap>
> > 
> > John, you're drooling again.  You have had electron spin explained to you
> > many times yet you insist on drooling here.
> > 
> > >Similarly, the faster you follow a
> > >"Hubius helix", which is a One rotation
> > >versus One precessions (derived from
> > >electron data- Google it),
> > 
> > Oh look, there's another kook who is obsessed with precessing
> > spinny things or something!
> > 
> > <snip more drool>
> 
> Perhaps, and more likely, you Michael MoreIrony, are the one obsessed
> with every post JohnJi writes. Look into a mirror, any mirror.
> 
> Wait... what... did I misspell something?! What... for the life of me...
> 
> -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”

Spinning like a top can show you a lot.Spinning like a gyro can show true north WOW. Spin in QM and it could take two spins to go around once. Half spins are even more crazy.Feynmam warned us.Bohr too.  TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598754

"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> Cretin Glazier wrote:
"Spinning is what the <http://tinyurl.com/Recalcitrant-Swine-Glazier>
does as <http://tinyurl.com/Glazier-the-Lying-Swine> -- TreBert.

   

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598779

Bert said
"electrons go around twice"

It's true. In one rotation/two precessions
electrons go around once upright
and once upside down every orbit.

They go around twice.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598783

All spin has a precession component.
In ordinary spin, that component is 0.
It's spin is 1:0.

In photons (and maybe free electrons)
the precession is 1. (Their spin is 1:1)

In atoms, the spin is 1:2.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598785

John, your drool cup is spilling over again.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598786

Michael
Nice reply. You're a thoughtful guy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598789

On 9/29/2016 10:39 AM, john wrote:
> Michael
> Nice reply. You're a thoughtful guy
>

And John, I think it was in kind with the kinds of replies and comments 
you make about physics. Let's see....
"Just. Lost."
"Impossible."
"Zombie. Walking deadbrain."
"Just plain stupid."
"Indoctrinated."

Let's see...what else?
"Not a model because it's not the kind of model I want to see."
"Can't be explained in two paragraphs in plain language, so no 
explanation exists."
"Wrong, because it doesn't follow the laws I think hold."
"Can't draw it, so you have no idea what it is."
"Can't fix world problems, so it's wrong."
"I don't get that so it's nonsense."
"Nothing can't be in a universe with Being, and there is no Smallest 
because the word Smaller, and other things that words demand of nature."
"Movement consumes energy because I say so, and I don't care what Newton 
or Galileo or Joule said about it."

So John, ever given any thought to looking in a mirror?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598810

Odd
Sorry about that.

What do YOU think about the
idea that ordinary spin , as
we know it,
is actually Complex,
or combined spin 
that has a precession of 0,
and so is 1:0 (rotation:precession).

And other complex spins exist at
1:1, 1:2, 1:3, etc?

Baby idea, like Michael implies with
the drool comment?
Or minor epiphany?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598812

On 9/29/2016 1:07 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> Sorry about that.
>
> What do YOU think about the
> idea that ordinary spin , as
> we know it,
> is actually Complex,
> or combined spin
> that has a precession of 0,
> and so is 1:0 (rotation:precession).
>
> And other complex spins exist at
> 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, etc?

If you're talking about the "ordinary spin" of macroscopic objects like 
discs and bricks, then I think your idea is nothing new, and in fact you 
are missing "complex spins" like 1:1.4 and 1:3.53 and 1:0.022 which are 
actually observed in nature.

If you are thinking this has anything to do with quantum mechanical 
spin, though.... no, I don't think this idea is able to demonstrate 
compatibility with observed behavior of atomic systems.

So there's your choice: applies at the macro level but is old news and 
uninteresting; or doesn't apply at the micro level at all.

>
> Baby idea, like Michael implies with
> the drool comment?
> Or minor epiphany?
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598819

On 9/29/2016 1:20 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 9/29/2016 1:07 PM, john wrote:
>> Odd
>> Sorry about that.
>>
>> What do YOU think about the
>> idea that ordinary spin , as
>> we know it,
>> is actually Complex,
>> or combined spin
>> that has a precession of 0,
>> and so is 1:0 (rotation:precession).
>>
>> And other complex spins exist at
>> 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, etc?
>
> If you're talking about the "ordinary spin" of macroscopic objects like
> discs and bricks, then I think your idea is nothing new, and in fact you
> are missing "complex spins" like 1:1.4 and 1:3.53 and 1:0.022 which are
> actually observed in nature.
>
> If you are thinking this has anything to do with quantum mechanical
> spin, though.... no, I don't think this idea is able to demonstrate
> compatibility with observed behavior of atomic systems.
>
> So there's your choice: applies at the macro level but is old news and
> uninteresting; or doesn't apply at the micro level at all.

As an example of the "old news" in macro physics, John, I invite you to 
put a rubber band around a book so that it doesn't open, and then toss 
it in the air in different ways so that it is rotating about the 
different symmetry axes of the book (there are three). You will likely 
observe that two of them have stable rotation but one of them doesn't 
and it starts to wobble in what you would call "complex rotation". At 
this point, you might shout "Aha! Look at that! My complex rotation idea 
is validated!" But then I would invite you to go to the library and 
check out the oldest book you can find that has the classical mechanical 
treatment of the rotation of a rectangular prism like a book. What will 
it tell you if the copyright of that book was somewhere around your 
great-grandfather's birthyear?

>
>>
>> Baby idea, like Michael implies with
>> the drool comment?
>> Or minor epiphany?
>>
>
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598820

check the b00k by Somerville,
who actually gives a keplerian spin, and
he wrote the math for herr doktor-professor E.

now what is the ration of 1/0.022;
if it is really the reciprocal of 0.0222222...,
that is easy

> If you're talking about the "ordinary spin" of macroscopic objects like 
> discs and bricks, then I think your idea is nothing new, and in fact you 
> are missing "complex spins" like 1:1.4 and 1:3.53 and 1:0.022 which are 
> actually observed in nature.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#599198

I know of no direct link between Sommerville and Einstein, but
Lanczos did also treat special rel., in _Variational mechanicS,
Dover pubL., I suppose after being his secretary,
which I only heard of, just a few y.a

> check the b00k by Somerville,
> who actually gives a keplerian spin, and
> he wrote the math for herr doktor-professor E.
> 
> now what is the ration of 1/0.022;
> if it is really the reciprocal of 0.0222222...,
> that is easy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598757

Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> writes:

>Perhaps, and more likely, you Michael MoreIrony, are the one obsessed
>with every post JohnJi writes. Look into a mirror, any mirror.

Nope, I am here because I like to watch all the kooks here get kooky.
Some kooks respond well when poked with pointy sticks.  John here
is a sufficiently entertaining kook, how he fits spinny things everywhere.
And he responds well to pointy stick poking.  So I poke, and I get
entertained with kookiness.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#599053

On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 11:34:44 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >Perhaps, and more likely, you Michael MoreIrony, are the one obsessed
> >with every post JohnJi writes. Look into a mirror, any mirror.
> 
> Nope, I am here because I like to watch all the kooks here get kooky.
> Some kooks respond well when poked with pointy sticks.  John here
> is a sufficiently entertaining kook, how he fits spinny things everywhere.
> And he responds well to pointy stick poking.  So I poke, and I get
> entertained with kookiness.

That's all fine and good Michael. Try find a better hobby, perhaps?
Btw, what are your physics credientials, other than chasing kooks?

There does this exist this time tested proposition that what one will
come to perceive is biased by one's firmly held expectations --
however true, false, or otherwise. It's a self-fulfilling deception.

Consider that there exist such topics as:
Physics for Poets
Physics for Artists
Physics of Sports
Physics for Cooks (Alton Brown, for i.e.)
Physics of Music
Physics for whatever Whatever WHATEVER...
Physics for ...

Given the physics departments and book publishers themselves write
about these topics all of their own accord, there will be feedback
from actual Poets, Artists, Cooks...

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598893

On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 10:48:12 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> The spin of atomic particles is
> not spin 'as we know it'.

  Finally.

> It is COMBINED SPIN of one part
> rotation and 'X' parts precession,
> where X does not equal Zero.

  That's an assumption.

  Calling precession a form of rotation, and adding the energy required to get a rotating object to precess to the energy it took to get it rotating, and calling the sum "combined spins" are valid for macroscopic objects. Both energy transfers require the application of torque the way linear acceleration requires pushes.

  How would you go about proving it valid for an electron?

  Here's a couple of things to take into consideration.

  First, its spin is quantized.

  In macroscopic objects we measure spin angular momentum by multiplying the mass of the object by how rapidly it rotates, but that doesn't work with electrons because they all have the same spin angular momentum and the same mass. It's like buying a toy gyroscope and finding out that you can only get it to rotate in its little cage at 50 rpm, no faster or slower. Worse, all other toy gyroscopes from the same production run, and all of the knockoffs from Taiwan, and all those of other brands with the same mass and dimensions made by other manufacturers, have the same limit. It's simply not possible to make one that can rotate faster or slower without changing one of its parameters, and the parameters of electrons are all the same, always.

  Second, when you make an electron precess by putting it in a magnetic field, its spin axis always precesses at the same angle to the direction of the field no matter how strong the field is. What does change is the rate at which it precesses; the stronger the field, the faster it precesses. Your toy gyroscope obviously doesn't work that way.

  It looks like electrons choose not to follow your proposed rules of addition of angular momentum.

  Good luck arguing with them.


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598921

Mark said
"  Second, when you make an electron precess by putting it in a magnetic field, its spin axis always precesses at the same angle to the direction of the field no matter how strong the field is. What does change is the rate at which it precesses; the stronger the field, the faster it precesses. Your toy gyroscope obviously doesn't work that way. "

Well, I would still like to get some idea
of how you think this 'spin axis' of
yours comes about. In your mind,
what is the electron 'doing' to create it,
and why wouldn't it be a precessional
axis of a more complex spin?

Also, I don't know how my 'toy gyroscope'
WOULD work, actually.
But, since it's rotating in two planes,
instead of one, wouldn't it always move the same
direction no matter WHAT direction it
was pushed?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web