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

Groups > sci.physics > #689933 > unrolled thread

2 #52page Resolving Photon, Magnetic Monopole, Neutrino, TRUE CHEMISTRY, 2018

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  2 #52page  Resolving Photon, Magnetic Monopole, Neutrino, TRUE CHEMISTRY, 2018 Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 16:41 -0700
    is the magnetic monopole an independent particle from the photon and neutrino? //Resolving Photon, Magnetic Monopole, Neutrino Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 21:29 -0700
      is the magnetic monopole an independent particle from the photon and neutrino? //Resolving Photon, Magnetic Monopole, Neutrino Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 23:50 -0700
        is the magnetic monopole an independent particle from the photon and neutrino? //Resolving Photon, Magnetic Monopole, Neutrino john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 06:32 -0700
          is the magnetic monopole an independent particle from the photon and neutrino? //Resolving Photon, Magnetic Monopole, Neutrino john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 08:53 -0700
            circular polarization maybe the Hund's Rule key //Resolving Photon, Magnetic Monopole, Neutrino Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 09:45 -0700
              Maximum Electricity Coil-- is there an advantage in a tokamak being figure 8, a figure 8 torus? //Resolving Photon, Magnetic Monopole, Neutrino Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 10:21 -0700
                Maximum Electricity Coil-- is there an advantage in a tokamak being figure 8, a figure 8 torus? //Resolving Photon, Magnetic Monopole, Neutrino Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 11:36 -0700
                Light waves are chains of figure 8 bent at 90 degrees at intersection point Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 11:44 -0700
            Re: is the magnetic monopole an independent particle from the photon and neutrino? //Resolving Photon, Magnetic Monopole, Neutrino Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-11 14:26 -0500
              Photon as circular polarization as double wave bent figure 8 not as singular o Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 13:56 -0700
                Photon as circular polarization as double wave bent figure 8 not as singular o Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 01:26 -0700
                  solution for Radio Waves, low energy yet large wavelength Re: Photon as circular polarization as double wave bent figure 8 not as singular o Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 10:38 -0700
                    Nexus point in physics, where particles are either Faraday law or Ampere Law Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 18:53 -0700
            Re: is the magnetic monopole an independent particle from the photon and neutrino? //Resolving Photon, Magnetic Monopole, Neutrino moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 18:21 +0000

#689933 — 2 #52page Resolving Photon, Magnetic Monopole, Neutrino, TRUE CHEMISTRY, 2018

#52page

Resolving Photon, Magnetic Monopole, Neutrino

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 01:19:00 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: V=iBL //it is said Earth gets 60 to 80% of its breatheable O2 oxygen
 from the Oceans// TRUE CHEMISTRY textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 08:19:00 +0000


V=iBL //it is said Earth gets 60 to 80% of its breatheable O2 oxygen from the Oceans// TRUE CHEMISTRY textbook

Light waves as Faraday Law demonstration V=iBL 

V, voltage is coil 

B, magnetic field is bar magnet 

Would predict that B is smaller wave than V wave 

The thrusting bar magnet is smaller than coil 

Is there something in Optics that validates that. 

AP


#52page 

Resolving Photon, Magnetic Monopole, Neutrino 

Newsgroups: sci.physics 
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 01:19:00 -0700 (PDT) 

Subject: V=iBL //it is said Earth gets 60 to 80% of its breatheable O2 oxygen 
 from the Oceans// TRUE CHEMISTRY textbook 
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> 
Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 08:19:00 +0000 

Resolving Photon, Magnetic Monopole, Neutrino 

V=iBL //it is said Earth gets 60 to 80% of its breatheable O2 oxygen from the Oceans// TRUE CHEMISTRY textbook 

Light waves as Faraday Law demonstration V=iBL 

V, voltage is coil 

B, magnetic field is bar magnet 

Would predict that B is smaller wave than V wave 

The thrusting bar magnet is smaller than coil 

Is there something in Optics that validates that. 

AP 




Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 13:19:36 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: #52page Resolving Photon, Magnetic Monopole, Neutrino//TRUE
 CHEMISTRY, textbook 2018
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 20:19:37 +0000


Many of my readers are hopeful to be scientists-- some physics. Well, some words of advice to you. If you plan on making Physics your love of life career, then, plan on loving the Electromagnetic theory of physics, for nothing else in physics is as important to do well in physics. EM theory is of course all about atoms. Atomic theory of physics is ruled by EM theory. 

Most physicists of the last century, the 20th, most of those physicists went astray, wandered astray, for they put all their bets into "gravity" as the motor of physics. And we cannot blame them for it was the century we sent a man to the Moon. But only recently are we beginning to see that even gravity is none other than Electromagnetism. 

Why did they go into "gravity" rather than master the Maxwell Equations. Why did they throw away a career in physics by running to General Relativity-- a bogus idea? Why? Well the answer is really simple. Few physicists ever mastered Maxwell theory for it is far far too difficult for most physicists. They do not understand the mathematics, and feel very very uncomfortable with Maxwell Equations. That is why they go to Big Bang, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars and all that assorted garbage and fakery, for Maxwell Equations is too difficult for them. That is why you see in science magazines and journals of science that approximately half the contents are fake physics. Any physicist today, can sit down and write some nonsense about dark matter and have it published, but, only a few physicist today, can set up an experiment with electricity and magnetism and find something and know the mathematics of what he is doing. 

The world of physics as of 2018 is inundated with fakery and hype, because few can master the Maxwell Equations, few can do EM experiments, but all can sit down and write a worthless fake physics paper on Big Bang, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars and have that fakery paper published in a science journal or magazine. 

So, words of advice-- if you love physics and want to make it your life career-- love Maxwell Equations and EM theory, because all of Physics is Atomic theory and the way atoms work is Electricity Magnetism. Are you good in EM ? Well, you will be good in physics. Are you scared of EM ? Then, give it a try, but do not be surprized that you may have to go into a different science then physics. 

Now I need to resolve the issues of this list I gave earlier: 

(1) there must be a smallest size photon which builds all the other photons in a math induction sequence 

(2) are magnetic monopoles a special class of photons with charge-energy, or are, all photons magnetic monopoles? 

(3) If magnetic monopoles are different class than photons, there must be a smallest monopole and all the other monopoles are a math induction derived sequence from the smallest 

(4) how do we build a light-wave as a demonstration of the Faraday Law, where the B-field is the bar magnet and the V-field (there is no E-field in physics for it is the same as the Voltage field) is somehow a Faraday Law coil. This seems immensely difficult but I feel it is easy, for much of it is already in place-- transverse is the same as perpendicular of magnetism to electricity. 

(5) the motion of astronomy where the solar system is moving in space in a helix geometry is the same as the motion of light-waves as a Faraday Law demonstration. 

And I believe I have made some progress here, for in this textbook on Chemistry, I seem to have hugely neglected or neglected altogether the neutrino. I focused solely on the muon and proton, a little bit about the neutron, and almost nothing about the photon and, indeed, of course, nothing about the neutrino. 

Here I have a huge opportunity. 

Almost all of this book so far was the Faraday Law, and a absence of the Ampere Law. What is the Ampere Law? Well, in High School terms, the Ampere Law is a wire with electricity yields a magnetic field around the wire. The Faraday Law was that a bar magnet thrust through a wire loop yields electric current. 

So we see the Faraday Law as sort of a reverse of Ampere, or vice versa. 

So, let us say the Photon is Faraday Law, and then, the Neutrino is Ampere Law. 

So we see a Photon is made up of two independent waves of both being destructive interference, transverse to one another, where the B-field is a bar magnet and the V-field is a coil (wire coil only no rest mass) 

Now we see the Neutrino as a wave, two independent waves, longitudinal of a V-field coil and this V-field creates a B-field. 

Now we begin to make sense of Hund's Rule where muons fill the 2P orbital , first by filling all three 2P_x and 2P_y and 2P_z each with one muon apiece before pairing them up. So Nitrogen has one muon in each suborbital, and along comes Oxygen and starts to pair up 2P_x. 

So what is this Hund's Rule geometrically? 

It is the fact that Muons are Faraday's Law, but, a muon can turn into becoming Ampere's law by making the bar magnet the current and making the coil become the Magnetism, the B-field. 

So, we begin to see that a Neutrino is the same as a Photon, only the job roles are switched. In a photon we do the Faraday Law B field thrust through coil of electricity. In the Neutrino, we do the Ampere law, where we have the coil be B-field and we have the bar magnet be electricity. 

So now we go back to Hund's Rule, and ask, why are the muons singularly in each suborbital and only on last resort, are they wanting to pair up? Why is that? Well, because in 2P, the neon atom has to get three of the muons to change reverse themselves from doing Faraday Law, and now doing Ampere Law. 

More later,,,, 

AP 

On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 5:27:59 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Neutrino as Ampere law, Photon as Faraday Law//Resolving Photon, Magnetic Monopole, Neutrino//

Now let us reduce to lowest terms possible for Reasoning sake. 

We have New Ohm's law V= iBL 

Let us make that into math a rectangle volume of R = LWH for rectangle = length*width*height 


Now as we do a derivative on V=iBL we get V' as Ampere's law 

As we do B = V/i*L we get B' as Faraday's Law 


A difference in terms of mathematical content of where one is straightline linear math, while the other is a division math, involving a cross-product Perpendicularity. 

So the Photon of physics is a Faraday's Law, while the Neutrino of Physics is an Ampere Law. 

AP 

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 15:39:16 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: explaining Hund's Rule as a pairing of Faraday law muon with a Ampere
 law muon// Resolving Photon, Magnetic Monopole, Neutrino
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 22:39:16 +0000


explaining Hund's Rule as a pairing of Faraday law muon with a Ampere law muon// Resolving Photon, Magnetic Monopole, Neutrino

Alright, now, see if I can refine this, where I left off saying the Photon was Faraday's law while neutrino is Ampere's Law. 

And bring in Hund's Rule. 

Earlier in this textbook I said the filling of a orbital like 2S or 2P was that of a full complete torus. When two valence muons pair, their attendant two protons pair also forming a torus, unpaired they are 1/2 a torus, but paired they are a full torus. 

So, how can I visualize that in Hund's Rule, a single muon would be 1/2 torus and doing Faraday's law, and then when a second muon pairs with the single one it is a Ampere's law. 

And the reason that muons of Nitrogen do not pair but are singlets in 2P, is for some reason that in Neon, the 6 muons, 3 of them had to convert over to being Ampere's law to pair with the singlet muon. 

So, some how, Hund's Rule is about 3 muons all doing Faraday law, now we want to pair them, and we have to wait for 3 muons doing the Ampere law in order to pair up and fill the 2P as neon. 

AP 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#689970 — is the magnetic monopole an independent particle from the photon and neutrino? //Resolving Photon, Magnetic Monopole, Neutrino

Alright, I need a count, a tally, a sum of all the parts of Faraday Law and Ampere Law.

Both come from V = iBL, voltage, current, magnetic field, angular momentum

So in Faraday Law we have

1) bar magnet
2) magnet's magnetic field
3) Coil
4) electricity

In Ampere's law we have

1) coil
2) electric current
3) magnetic field

So we seem to have something missing in Ampere's law, or, perhaps we should include mass of coil, since we included mass of bar magnet.

What I am wondering is, whether magnetic monopole is a altogether different and independent particle from a photon or a neutrino. Is a monopole a special type of photon or neutrino, or is it totally independent.

So in Faraday's Law I need

1) muon
2) proton
3) magnetic monopole since it is electricity

If the Hund's Rule is such that muons fill 2P singularly until forced to pair up, can we see that forcing as where 3 muons are reversed from doing Faraday's Law and doing instead Ampere's law. And the forcing mechanism is what Physics calls "charge". So that the magnetic monopole exists to do electricity, but also to alter the geometry of a muon to be Ampere's law, or be Faraday's law, so that muons pair in a orbital.

Many many things to worry about here. But, safe to say we are far far ahead of the pinheads of current physics who see their electron, their proton as just "balls" sitting around with no real function or purpose, and everything has to realize that viewpoint is outright flat wrong and pathetic.

AP

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

#689974 — is the magnetic monopole an independent particle from the photon and neutrino? //Resolving Photon, Magnetic Monopole, Neutrino

Pair production occurs from both a 1 MeV photon or neutrino, implying once again the magnetic monopole is a feature of photons or neutrino, nothing independent.

So, is this special value .5MeV what forces the Faraday law muon into a Ampere law muon to pair up two muons in oxygen atom of 2P_x

Is this the purpose of the magnetic monopole in Hund’s Rule— to prepare a muon to pair up with another muon?

AP

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

#689989 — is the magnetic monopole an independent particle from the photon and neutrino? //Resolving Photon, Magnetic Monopole, Neutrino

AP
“(4) how do we build a light-wave as a demonstration of the Faraday Law, where the B-field is the bar magnet and the V-field (there is no E-field in physics for it is the same as the Voltage field) is somehow a Faraday Law coil. This seems immensely difficult but I feel it is easy, for much of it is already in place-- transverse is the same as perpendicular of magnetism to electricity. ”
Like this:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/sefton/PHOTON.GIF

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

#690006 — is the magnetic monopole an independent particle from the photon and neutrino? //Resolving Photon, Magnetic Monopole, Neutrino

Light is circularly-polarized.
But the polarization reverses every half-cycle.
If you were to watch it coming at you, you would see it continually describing a figure-eight; turning counterclockwise, then clockwise, then counterclockwise.
This is why double-slit goes half-left and half-right

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

#690022 — circular polarization maybe the Hund's Rule key //Resolving Photon, Magnetic Monopole, Neutrino

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:53:08 AM UTC-5, john wrote:
> Light is circularly-polarized.
> But the polarization reverses every half-cycle.
> If you were to watch it coming at you, you would see it continually describing a figure-eight; turning counterclockwise, then clockwise, then counterclockwise.
> This is why double-slit goes half-left and half-right

Thanks John, let me try this out for a while. So now, I have a King of diamonds card, looking at a circle from its edge-on and I rotate the card along the circle as fixed. I think 1/2 of the front side is visible and then 1/2 of the time the backside is visible. Now if the same card were to be in a figure 8.

Let me see if something different happens.

Now, sort of like the Moon that keeps one face always at Earth.

But if in a figure 8, would the Moon give us the other side?

Tough on the imagination.

Will look into this, circular polarization, John.

For I need something that flips a muon from Faraday Law activity, flips it into Ampere Law, this is a key to Hund's Rule, For in Nitrogen all the muons are doing Faraday Law, now comes Oxygen and we need the very next muon to flip over into doing Ampere's Law to pair up and fill the 2P_x. So this circular polarization maybe that very exact key that flips the muon into doing Ampere law and allows the two muons to pair up.

Sorry, I do not do -- look at my website-- for security policy reasons. If it cannot be posted to sci.physics-- sorry, not interested.

AP

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

#690029 — Maximum Electricity Coil-- is there an advantage in a tokamak being figure 8, a figure 8 torus? //Resolving Photon, Magnetic Monopole, Neutrino

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 11:45:16 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:53:08 AM UTC-5, john wrote:
> > Light is circularly-polarized.
> > But the polarization reverses every half-cycle.
> > If you were to watch it coming at you, you would see it continually describing a figure-eight; turning counterclockwise, then clockwise, then counterclockwise.
> > This is why double-slit goes half-left and half-right
> 
> Thanks John, let me try this out for a while. So now, I have a King of diamonds card, looking at a circle from its edge-on and I rotate the card along the circle as fixed. I think 1/2 of the front side is visible and then 1/2 of the time the backside is visible. Now if the same card were to be in a figure 8.
> 
> Let me see if something different happens.
> 
> Now, sort of like the Moon that keeps one face always at Earth.
> 
> But if in a figure 8, would the Moon give us the other side?
> 
> Tough on the imagination.
> 
> Will look into this, circular polarization, John.
> 
> For I need something that flips a muon from Faraday Law activity, flips it into Ampere Law, this is a key to Hund's Rule, For in Nitrogen all the muons are doing Faraday Law, now comes Oxygen and we need the very next muon to flip over into doing Ampere's Law to pair up and fill the 2P_x. So this circular polarization maybe that very exact key that flips the muon into doing Ampere law and allows the two muons to pair up.
> 
> Sorry, I do not do -- look at my website-- for security policy reasons. If it cannot be posted to sci.physics-- sorry, not interested.
> 


Here I have to ask if Circular Polarization is the same as figure 8. Then I have to ask if electricity, can be maximized with a figure 8 tokamak rather than a simple O torus figure.

Any advantages to Electricity production by having 8 rather than o

I am going to guess no.

But,the figure 8 is likely to be the construction of the Light Wave. Before, I always used "destructive interference" but by using "Circular Polarization" I can bypass the destructive-interference concept altogether.

So, for Light Wave, I have B-field transverse to V-field (voltage field for electric field is the V-field)

And if I make the B-field be o and the V-field be o also, but the two joined in one spot makes a figure 8 that is bent in one spot.

So, grab a figure 8 in the plane, and bend it 90degrees at its intersection point. So we have a o in the xy plane and a o in the xz plane both of these "o" s meeting at a intersection point of a bent figure 8.

Could that be Circular Polarization of light? A bent figure 8?

Yes, I think that is what is meant by light being circular polarization, a Bent Figure 8. Good, for that eliminates me from saying "destructive interference" to get circles in light-wave.

Now, could that also give me Hund's Rule for a Muon. One muon doing Faraday's Law, and a second muon wanting to pair up with the first muon, but needs to do a Ampere Law in order to pair up?

Yes, I think this circular polarization will flip the second muon into a Ampere Law so that it can Pair with the first doing a Faraday Law.

Now here we have to explain why and how the Faraday Law is not an infinite progression of energy, since the creation of electric current would then mean more new magnetism, in turn, more new electricity, ad infinitum. Old Physics really never answered that infinite progression, although they tried saying it with Lenz's Law. Is the Lenz Law the completed story of infinite progression, or is the Lenz law just a side independent law of answering the infinite progression.

Another question looms. AC current, is that fully explained due to Circular Polarization, and that would mean the Magnetic Monopole is a photon for sure, because Magnetic Monopole is electricity and electricity for sure is AC or DC, and so if circular polarization is for sure Light Waves, and AC is for sure electricity, then we can safely conclude Magnetic Monopoles are for sure Photons.

AP

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

#690039 — Maximum Electricity Coil-- is there an advantage in a tokamak being figure 8, a figure 8 torus? //Resolving Photon, Magnetic Monopole, Neutrino

Yes Wikipedia shows circular polarization in motion graphics—-

Quoting—-

The electric field vectors of a traveling circularly polarized electromagnetic wave. This wave is right-circularly-polarized, since the direction of rotation of the vector is related by the right-hand rule to the direction the wave is moving; or left-circularly-polarized according to alternative convention.
In electrodynamics, circular polarization of an electromagnetic wave is a polarization state in which, at each point, the electric field of the wave has a constant magnitude but its direction rotates with time at a steady rate in a plane perpendicular to the direction of the wave.

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

#690040 — Light waves are chains of figure 8 bent at 90 degrees at intersection point

Yes now what i need to do is add a B-field wavefront to the V-field so that a cross section would be a figure 8 only bent 90 degrees at the intersection point.

AP

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

#690052 — Re: is the magnetic monopole an independent particle from the photon and neutrino? //Resolving Photon, Magnetic Monopole, Neutrino

On 6/11/2018 10:53 AM, john wrote:
> Light is circularly-polarized.
> But the polarization reverses every half-cycle.
> If you were to watch it coming at you, you would see it continually describing a figure-eight; turning counterclockwise, then clockwise, then counterclockwise.
> This is why double-slit goes half-left and half-right
> 

then why does a flashlight have two lines going through a double slit ?

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

#690081 — Photon as circular polarization as double wave bent figure 8 not as singular o

Alright this probably explains the two lines in double slit.

The photon is not a Semicircle wave front but a figure 8 bent 90degrees at point of intersection. And two of these makes a photon.

If you take 2 of these bent figure 8 join them and place in motion they form a cylinder wire. Anything less forms a screw thread not a cylinder wire. 

So in the Double Slit you separated the two bent figure 8.

AP

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

#690179 — Photon as circular polarization as double wave bent figure 8 not as singular o

Now a double thanks to John Sefton for bringing up the issue of circular polarization for it gives me the key to Hund’s rule by converting Faraday law muons into a Ampere law muon and now able to pair up in 2P_x orbital.

This suggests the function of photons inside of atoms is to convert some muons into Ampere law from Faraday and vice versa.

So then is the neutrino function to convert protons between one law to the other.

This is not to say their only function— law conversion but their main function.

Now tomorrow i am going to try to make papercutouts of figure 8, give them a 90 degree bend at point of intersection (leaving enough paper so not to fall apart) then stack two of them making a figure like this head-on

__|__
    |

For if light wave is configured as such could divulge if it is a Faraday nor Ampere law

Light being a transverse wave while neutrino a longitudinal wave.

AP

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

#690249 — solution for Radio Waves, low energy yet large wavelength Re: Photon as circular polarization as double wave bent figure 8 not as singular o

Now when we come upon counterintuitive in science, we have to spend extra extra time on it to explain it. Counterintuitive means we have the science, not in order, yet.

That means, for Waves, the fact that high energy means short wavelength yet low energy means long wavelength is counterintuitive and requires "more of a science explanation" than usual.

In an earlier chapter of this book, I discuss the Marconi experiment of sending radio Wave in early 1900s from England to Canada and it was thought at the time that it would not go the distance but rather straightline out into space and not follow the curvature of Earth. Here the explanation was given as reflecting the radio waves.

But, reflecting does not explain how you can get a radio wave to be long wavelength yet low in energy, compared to X-rays which is high in energy, yet short in wavelength. Counterintuitive that large wavelength is low energy. And reflecting is not going to answer that.

However, what can answer that counterintuitive is the idea that the Magnetic Monopole is a wave, and carries not rest mass, but carries "charge energy".

So, is a radio wave, a photon wave or is it a magnetic monopole wave.

Here we have two different kinds of waves in Nature, where before, we thought of all these waves as being photon waves of zero rest mass, and zero charge energy.

The conundrum of low energy yet large wavelength is solved, if we also include in a photon the concept of "charge energy". So that the magnetic monopole of .5MeV is a photon with a charge energy. The Radio Wave, a photon with charge energy would solve the low energy, large wavelength.

AP

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

#690365 — Nexus point in physics, where particles are either Faraday law or Ampere Law

Alright, I have a solution that may solve all these vexing problems all at once, and that is how life itself is, we are faced with problems and in search of solutions.

So I have the uncomfortable situation of what is the photon and neutrino and the magnetic monopole and how do they relate to one another.

It is obvious from experiments that photons can be .5MeV magnetic monopoles for that is the proof of Pair Production. That means magnetic monopoles and photons and neutrinos since neutrinos are involved in Pair Production are all the same particles, and charge-energy is a feature.

So .5MeV is a quantized amount of energy that makes Magnetic Monopoles.

So here is the solution to this wilderness of problems. Think of a NEXUS point in Physics, something like the triple point in chemistry between solid, liquid, gas. The Nexus point is .5MeV of charge energy.

So a photon with .5MeV is a magnetic monopole, and if greater in energy than .5MeV it is a Ampere Law photon or neutrino, or magnetic monopole. If it is less than .5MeV, the photon or neutrino particle is a Faraday law photon or neutrino or magnetic monopole.

If a photon or neutrino is less than .5MeV it is doing the Faraday Law, above .5MeV it is doing a Ampere law. This allows the radio wave, a long wavelength yet short on energy, and allows the x-ray or gamma ray to be high in energy yet short on wavelength, because it is more like electricity in a narrow wire, whereas the radio wave is more like magnetism lines of force, spread out.

So the magnetic monopole is either a photon or neutrino and if a particle is greater than .5MeV it is doing Ampere's Law-- wire with electricity producing magnetic field. If less than .5MeV, the particle is doing Faraday's law-- magnetic lines of force thrusting through coil producing electricity.

Now biology, life has a nexus point in single celled plankton, half of them are plants, half are animals depending on where they fit in the spectrum and nexus.

Now it is no fluke that .5MeV is 1/2 and the spin of elementary particles is 1/2. So here we see a connection between spin and charge. That spin is another name for charge. So when we have a +1 positron compared to a -1 particle, we have one spinning in one direction and the other in the opposite direction.

Now spin is whether it is doing Faraday law or doing Ampere Law. So that a photon of 1 MeV that becomes a +1 positron and a -1 particle, the positron is doing either the Faraday or the Ampere and the -1 particle is doing the opposite.

So, it is all boiling down to whether a particle is doing Faraday or doing Ampere and the -1 +1 were numbers that indicate one or the other.

A Nexus point in Physics is where a particle or system of particles converts from one state to a different state.

AP

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

#690260 — Re: is the magnetic monopole an independent particle from the photon and neutrino? //Resolving Photon, Magnetic Monopole, Neutrino

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Light is circularly-polarized.
>But the polarization reverses every half-cycle.
>If you were to watch it coming at you, you would see it continually 
>describing a figure-eight; turning counterclockwise, then clockwise, then 
>counterclockwise.
>This is why double-slit goes half-left and half-right

No John, you're back to pulling stuff out of your butt again. Circularly
polarized electromagnetic radiation remains circularly polarized with
the same helicity, although the helicity reverses upon reflection.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helical_antenna (part about axial mode
antennas, normal mode doesn't apply)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web