More Thoughts on Spin

[bperet]

Nehru wrote:

Now we find that the Quantum theorists have been referring to this basic unit of rotational space as the spin. In addition to the three space co-ordinates spin is trated as a fourth co-ordinate. Thus two different particles can occupy the same location in extension space at the same time if their spin co-ordinates differs.

I have always found this concept to be counter-intuitive; if something occupies the same space and time, then the "spin" should either constructively or destructively interfere. It should not act as a separating co-ordinate, unless there actually is some type of spatial or temporal separation.

We run in to the same thing with electrons in the shells, with the "spin" quantum number, "s".

When working thru the flow diagram for RS2, I ran across this statement by Nehru:

Nehru wrote:

Corollary #10 (multiple dimensions): in the case of the frame-inversion (Corollary #5) of two interacting particles, unless inhibited by special conditions, we end up with six apparently different dimensions, three each of the two T-frames, respectively. Indeed, we require 3n dimensions to represent n particles.

--"Non-Locality in the Reciprocal System"

Based on this corollary, particles (electrons, protons, etc., any single, double-rotating system) have only three dimensions to contend with. But consider... the ATOM is composed of TWO double-rotating systems, namely "two interacting particles", as Nehru describes in this corollary. The logical consequence of that is the atom has SIX different dimensions, three each of the two T-frames, respectively.

What this also means is that each T-frame has a "nuclear" (1-dimensional) and "atomic" (3-dimensional) zone, as Nehru describes in his paper, "The Wave Mechanics in Light of the Reciprocal System". Therefore, the ATOM must consist of TWO such zones, TWO nuclear and TWO atomic zones.

The question I now put forth is: is the sign of the spin (+/-) actually the direction of a spin, or just an indication of which nuclear region the electron is present in? If the latter, it makes more sense for spin to act as a co-ordinate, because it is distinguishing between two, distinct regions within the atom--a separation.

Any thoughts on this?

[Gopi]

Hi

Quote:

The question I now put forth is: is the sign of the spin (+/-) actually the direction of a spin, or just an indication of which nuclear region the electron is present in? If the latter, it makes more sense for spin to act as a co-ordinate, because it is distinguishing between two, distinct regions within the atom--a separation.

The separation part of it makes perfect sense,however there is this point...

If there are these two distinct regions,how do we take into consideration the directional properties of spin?

The original experiment which identified spin was the Stern-Gerlach apparatus,where silver atoms,which have an odd number of electrons,are passed through a magnetic field,which causes the atoms to be split into two streams of particles on either side.

The magnetic field is not uniform perpendicular to the beam direction[see the attached image].If it should signify the nuclear region,then how does it split into two in this fashion?

But the most surprising thing is how the spin seems to have more to do with the atom than the electron!

Cheers,

Gopi

[bperet]

gopiv wrote:

If there are these two distinct regions,how do we take into consideration the directional properties of spin?

There is a difference between "spin" and "rotation"... Nehru points this out in his paper, "Some Thoughts on Spin", showing that spin-1 particles are one-dimensional rotations, and spin-1/2 are two-dimensional (solid) rotations. Now add to that the geometry of the time region--polar geometry, where "rotation" is as natural as translation is, in linear space. The "spin" then, is not something rotating on an axis, but is just the magnetic geometry of the particle.

gopiv wrote:

The original experiment which identified spin was the Stern-Gerlach apparatus,where silver atoms,which have an odd number of electrons,are passed through a magnetic field,which causes the atoms to be split into two streams of particles on either side.

The magnetic field is not uniform perpendicular to the beam direction[see the attached image].If it should signify the nuclear region,then how does it split into two in this fashion?

I did some reading on this experiment. The conclusion reached was:

Quote:

that silver atoms in a magnetic field have only two discrete values of the component of the magnetic moment in the direction of the field strength; both have the same absolute value with each half of the atoms having a positive and a negative sign respectively

This reminds me a lot of the research I did on protons, years ago (see my paper "Sub-Atomic Mass"). Larson never got very close to the mass value of the proton. The flaw was not in Larson's calculations, but in the scientific measurement of the proton. Legacy scientists did not recognize that the proton can exist with or without a charge, so what they were measuring a mass value for was a 50/50 mix of charged and uncharged protons. When I averaged Larson's calculations for the mass of the charged and uncharged protons, I got the observed measurement--right on the nose.

So what does this experiment actually say? There is a 50/50 chance that a silver atom will have a more "north" bias than a "south" one. The claim of "same absolute value" is probably wrong, because their deviation is too low. You won't notice increments of a centimeter, if you are measuring in 1-meter lengths.

Look at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physi ... ure13.html, which is the resulting images from the test. Notice how thin the non-magnetic line is, and how fat the magnetized one is... that indicates a distribution over a range, not a single, quantized value. The range is just fairly narrow.

It would actually support that there may indeed be two nuclear and atomic zones. According to Larson, the magnetic rotations tend to stay within a unit of each other, and in any "odd" structure, that perfect balance would be disrupted in a 50/50 distribution of which "half" would contain the extra rotation, thus making the atom more "north" or more "south".

I learned from protons to question "experiments." With so many unknowns, and so many assumption in physics, what they prove is not necessarily what they proved! Just look at the observed behavior, and do what Larson did... is that behavior a natural consequence of the theory? If not, then there are TWO possible problems: the theory is wrong, OR the observation is wrong. The latter is seldom taken into account, and during the RS2 study, I have discovered just how much illusion goes in to our observations.

gopiv wrote:

But the most surprising thing is how the spin seems to have more to do with the atom than the electron!

Given that astronomers got stellar and galactic evolution totally backwards, we should expect physicists to do the same thing!

[Gopi]

Quote:

Notice how thin the non-magnetic line is, and how fat the magnetized one is... that indicates a distribution over a range, not a single, quantized value.

Aha!!Yes true,that's really significant.

Quote:

According to Larson, the magnetic rotations tend to stay within a unit of each other, and in any "odd" structure, that perfect balance would be disrupted in a 50/50 distribution of which "half" would contain the extra rotation, thus making the atom more "north" or more "south".

It all went over my head.Can you guide me where these things are mentioned?I'll read it up.I read the article on the link you provided too[after seeing the number 13 hanging around pointedly:)]...experiments have a life of their own...

Cheers,

Gopi

[bperet]

gopiv wrote:

It all went over my head.Can you guide me where these things are mentioned?I'll read it up.I read the article on the link you provided too[after seeing the number 13 hanging around pointedly:)]...experiments have a life of their own...

Let's go back to Larson, and his atomic notation of A-B-C, where A and B represent "magnetic" (2d) rotations, and C represents and "electric" (1d) rotation.

Helium, in that system, is 2-1-0. But that is only ONE rotating system--remember the atom is comprised of TWO rotating systems that have the SAME speeds. Thus, helium is actually:

He { 2-1-0 + 2-1-0 }

Hydrogen, originally defined as 2-1-(1) and later refined to 1½-1½-(2) has the structure:

H { 1-1-(1) + ½-½-(1) } (basically, a proton + electron neutrino)

Deuterium, which is considered the first isotope of hydrogen, has the structure:

D { 2-1-(1) + 2-1-(1) }

I think you can see why I consider deuterium to be the first "element", with Z=1 in RS2, because it has the same pattern as the other elements (two, identical double-rotating systems). It is obvious that hydrogen isn't actually a "real" atom, because it only has ONE double-rotating system linked to a sub-atomic particle that sits at the location of where the other rotating system should go.

One of the annoying things about notational systems is that, for the sake of convenience, they lose information.

Silver is 4-3-(7), which is the same as 3-3-11. Quick explanation on why they are the same, if you don't already know: imagine a hunk of silver is sitting on a step of a staircase, with 18 steps (the number of elements in the group). If you stand at the bottom (3-3), you have to count UP 11 steps to get to the silver atom. If you stand at the top (4-3), you have to count DOWN 7 steps to get to the silver. The silver is still sitting on the same step, regardless of where you measure it from. That is why Larson has two possible notations for every atom.

So silver is actually TWO 3-3-11 rotating systems (or, if you prefer, TWO 4-3-(7) or ONE EACH of 3-3-11 and 4-3-(7)... it doesn't matter).

The point being, is that they can act independently, as well as in unison. When a particle, such as a charged, electron neutrino, is absorbed by the atom, it will have to join ONE of these rotating systems. It cannot join BOTH. Electron neutrinos are responsible for isotopic mass. Therefore, since it joins ONE and not BOTH rotating systems, the atom becomes isotopically imbalanced, one half (double-rotating system) having a neutrino mass larger than the other.

I've always said the Universe is a simple place, and particle physics is no different. What happens when a second neutrino enters the atom? Probability says it is random as to which "half" of the atom the neutrino is absorbed into. But common sense says otherwise... Nature tolerates slight imbalances in systems. But when the washing machine starts banging around because the clothes are all stuck on one side during the "spin" cycle, it starts moving around the floor, looking for equilibrium. Same thing happens with atoms. If you get too many neutrinos in one "half" of the atom, it will kick them out, and they will either depart the atom, or move to the other side to seek balance.

Therefore, both the rotating systems within the atom are always close to each other in structure, whether that be neutrinos, rotational speeds, or electron captures.

Silver has an atomic number of 47, and a mass of 107. The isotope-free version of silver would have a mass of 94 (47 x 2), which means that there are, on an average, 13 captured neutrinos in silver. (There's that "13' again!!) Side note... when dealing with quantized systems, you deal with whole integers (Larson, BPOM), so even though the mass of silver is 107.86, you round down to 107, not up to 108 because when adding units, it is "all or nothing".

And though neutrinos tend to pass thru objects... CHARGED neutrinos don't. And since they have a magnetic charge, they will be deflected by a magnetic field.

What I believe this experiment is demonstrating, is the imbalance in isotopic mass between the two rotational systems of an atom, manifesting as north-south deflection.

[Gopi]

A few comments...

bperet wrote:

Thus, helium is actually:

He { 2-1-0 + 2-1-0 }

Thanks for clearing that up.I remember reading it,where Larson divides the notation by two to represent more easily,but it came back to me only after seeing it written separately like this.

bperet wrote:

And since they have a magnetic charge, they will be deflected by a magnetic field.

What I believe this experiment is demonstrating, is the imbalance in isotopic mass between the two rotational systems of an atom, manifesting as north-south deflection.

Ok,this is what I have understood of what you said.Since the 13 neutrinos are to be distributed as symmetrically as possible,if we take the two rotating systems of the atom,we have:

system 1: 6 neutrinos

system 2: 7 neutrinos ......... maybe 'north'.

OR

system 1: 7 neutrinos

system 2: 6 neutrinos............so,'south'.

BUT...why don't ALL the neutrinos cause the same deflection?Since the charge on the neutrino causes just a 'deflection',it should cause one irrespective of whether it is in system 1 or 2.Hence,there should be some fundamental difference between system 1 and 2.What is that?

In a way, my original question remains.The SOURCE of the imbalance was clarified in a different way, by spotting it to be caused by the neutrino-imbalance between the two rotating systems of the atom.But how is one atom different from the other for the magnetic field?

Cheers,

Gopi

[bperet]

gopiv wrote:

Ok,this is what I have understood of what you said.Since the 13 neutrinos are to be distributed as symmetrically as possible,if we take the two rotating systems of the atom,we have:

system 1: 6 neutrinos

system 2: 7 neutrinos ......... maybe 'north'.

OR

system 1: 7 neutrinos

system 2: 6 neutrinos............so,'south'.

BUT...why don't ALL the neutrinos cause the same deflection?Since the charge on the neutrino causes just a 'deflection',it should cause one irrespective of whether it is in system 1 or 2.Hence,there should be some fundamental difference between system 1 and 2.What is that?

In a way, my original question remains.The SOURCE of the imbalance was clarified in a different way, by spotting it to be caused by the neutrino-imbalance between the two rotating systems of the atom.But how is one atom different from the other for the magnetic field?

Remember:

1. The mass is the center of a zone of isotopic stability, therefore there will be silver atoms with 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 neutrinos, depending on the width of the zone (which I don't know offhand). They are not determining the direction of north or south, but the intensity of the field.
2. A magnetic field is a rotational vibration and the charged, electron neutrino is also a rotational vibration.
3. The two time regions are locked in a kind of "bi-rotation".
4. The effect is NON-LOCAL; it is not taking place in space and is therefore a wave function as viewed by the experimenter.

Since we are dealing with a bi-rotating system, let's check on what Nehru already discovered. I refer you to Nehru's paper, The Photon as Birotation, in particular the section on the Zeeman effect (page 301 of his "Collected Writings").
Nehru wrote:

...if the direction of the field lines is parallel to the beam direction, we have the longitudinal Zeeman effect. In this case the original wavelength is replaced by two, one with wavelength slightly greater and the other with wavelength slightless less than the normal [the component speeds change], the beams being circularly polarized in opposite senses.

As I've said... the rules are simple, and the same rules tend to apply at different scales. In this case, we have a "solid bi-rotation" with the original stream of atoms polarizing 1/2 in CW and 1/2 CCW, magnetically deflecting in north and south directions, just as the beam of light splits into two beams. This is probably where the "spin" comes into play.

This is my best understanding at this time. I emphasize that, since I am still doing a re-evaluation of particles and atoms based on this new understanding.

[/]

[Gopi]

Hi,

Bruce wrote:

1. The mass is the center of a zone of isotopic stability, therefore there will be silver atoms with 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 neutrinos, depending on the width of the zone (which I don't know offhand). They are not determining the direction of north or south, but the intensity of the field.

So this is the reason we have the distribution in the Stern experiment,with two bands,instead of lines...an isotopic distribution,with a narrow width.Makes sense.

Bruce wrote:

In this case, we have a "solid bi-rotation" with the original stream of atoms polarizing 1/2 in CW and 1/2 CCW, magnetically deflecting in north and south directions, just as the beam of light splits into two beams. This is probably where the "spin" comes into play.

Yes,I can see it clearer now.The conservation of direction principle applies here,when we represent the rotational vibration,the scalar motion,in our reference system.

Cheers,

Gopi

[Gopi]

I was trying to visualise the double structure of an atom from first

principles... Larson's "Geometric considerations" have bugged me for a

while, here's a major one:

Larson wrote:

Geometrical considerations indicate that two photons can

rotate around the same central point without interference if the

rotational speeds are the same, thus forming a double unit. The nature of

this combination can be illustrated by two cardboard disks interpenetrated

along a common diameter C. The diameter A perpendicular to C in disk a

represents one linear oscillation, and the disk a is the figure generated

by a one-dimensional rotation of this oscillation around an axis B

perpendicular to both A and C. Rotation of a second linear oscillation,

represented by the diameter B. around axis A generates the disk b. It is

then evident that disk a may be given a second rotation around axis A, and

disk b may be given a second rotation around axis B without interference

at any point, as long as the rotational speeds are equal.

I have created a simple representation to help visualise it.

In the image, rotating "disc a" about A or rotating "disc b" about B both

give a sphere, which is 3 dimensional. Now, what does it mean that this

can happen without interference if both have equal speeds?