## Theoretical Physics

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

### Re: An Uncertain Answer

bangstrom » May 16th, 2019, 12:16 pm wrote:Photons have no mass, and always travel at c, so their associated stopwatches circle at constant rotation under all conditions. The calculations are easier and the formula is smaller.

Photon stopwatches do not circle at a constant rate otherwise light could not have different frequencies. As energy values increase, their rotation rates (stopwatches) spin faster and wavelengths grow shorter. λ = hc/E
[/quote]
For any given photon of a fixed wavelength, its de Broglie wavelength will be a constant, since photons don't speed up and slow down. Pardon me for my word choice.

hyksos » May 15th, 2019, 10:00 pm wrote:
Fundamentally, Energy is the chronaxial spin rate of a pinhole in an interval 3-plane.

Sorry, but this isn't going to fly. The clock hands are not even inside of 3D space. They are complex vectors of the eigenbasis vector of the Schroedinger Wave -- which is sort of like the "peak" or "trough" of the wave.

The clock hands are imaginary and analogous to the Schroedinger wave so no one is claiming the clock hands exist in any kind of space so what are you saying “doesn’t fly” ?

We already know what those clock hands are on Feynman's "stop watches". Faradavian pinholes exist in space outside the lightcone, as it were, still in 3D space as he draws them. There is exactly zero verbiage in Faradave's post about his vectors being complex numbers.

hyksos
Active Member

Posts: 1734
Joined: 28 Nov 2014

### Re: An Uncertain Answer

bangstrom » May 16th, 2019, 12:16 pm wrote:
hyksos » May 15th, 2019, 10:00 pm wrote:
Photons have no mass, and always travel at c, so their associated stopwatches circle at constant rotation under all conditions. The calculations are easier and the formula is smaller.

Photon stopwatches do not circle at a constant rate otherwise light could not have different frequencies. As energy values increase, their rotation rates (stopwatches) spin faster and wavelengths grow shorter. λ = hc/E

Pardon my english. For a single given photon whose speed does not change throughout flight, the wavelength is constant. Not so for massive particles which speed up and slow down.

hyksos » May 15th, 2019, 10:00 pm wrote:
Fundamentally, Energy is the chronaxial spin rate of a pinhole in an interval 3-plane.

Sorry, but this isn't going to fly. The clock hands are not even inside of 3D space. They are complex vectors of the eigenbasis vector of the Schroedinger Wave -- which is sort of like the "peak" or "trough" of the wave.

The clock hands are imaginary and analogous to the Schroedinger wave so no one is claiming the clock hands exist in any kind of space so what are you saying “doesn’t fly” ?

Faradavian pinholes are objects in our regular 3D space, even when they are drawn outside the lightcone. There is no verbiage in Faradave's posts about the stopwatch hands being complex vectors. We don't really need an additional interpretation of the stopwatch hands of Feynman, because we already know what they are.

hyksos
Active Member

Posts: 1734
Joined: 28 Nov 2014

### Re: An Uncertain Answer

hyksos » May 16th, 2019, 11:47 am wrote:
For any given photon of a fixed wavelength, its de Broglie wavelength will be a constant, since photons don't speed up and slow down.

Going by the old photon theory, even with single photons, photon spin can speed up or slow down. It is known as red shifting or blue shifting.

hyksos » May 16th, 2019, 11:47 am wrote:
Faradavian pinholes exist in space outside the lightcone, as it were, still in 3D space as he draws them. There is exactly zero verbiage in Faradave's post about his vectors being complex numbers.

The vectors are Pythagorean. They can be considered as complex numbers for special purposes but that would be an unnecessary complication.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 710
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
 Faradave liked this post

### Re: Theoretical Physics

The vectors are Pythagorean.

... "Pythagorean". Alright, man.

hyksos
Active Member

Posts: 1734
Joined: 28 Nov 2014

### Re: Digging a Deeper Whole

hyksos wrote:This is where I'm gonna have to cut you off.

I always stop for school buses.

hyksos wrote:Some caveats and qualifications and clarifications are needed.
We don't really need an additional interpretation of the stopwatch hands of Feynman, because we already know what they are.
Feynman used the word "arrows" he was actually referring to what are called Probability Amplitudes…

Yes, quite! But Feynman doesn't know what 'probability amplitudes' are. So far, I'm the only one who does.

The Character of Physical Law
"…we invent an 'a' which we call a probability amplitude, because we do not know what it means." p.137
"Nobody knows any machinery. Nobody can give you a deeper explanation…no one can go any deeper today… there is probability all the way back…in the fundamental laws of physics there are odds. " p145
"Nobody knows how it can be like that." p.129
"Probability amplitudes are very strange…" p.166

L. Susskind, A. Friedman Quantum Mechanics; Theoretical Minimum
"These [probability amplitudes] are extremely abstract, and it is not at all obvious what their physical significance is. " p.38

Wikipedia
"It is the source of the mysterious consequences and philosophical difficulties in the interpretations of quantum mechanics - topics that continue to be debated even today. "

hyksos wrote:When Feynman said "add up all the arrows" he was actually performing integration. … the Path Integral in textbooks.

He sums arrows as with vector addition, and some rules for reversing arrows (e.g. reflections).

hyksos wrote:You need not chase down and identify the "what object is spinning". We already know what it is. The clock hands on a stopwatch Feynman keeps talking about are actually parts of the Schrödinger Wave.

Again, physics doesn't yet know what the Schrödinger wave is physically. I supply this.

hyksos wrote:They are not real-valued vectors. They are complex numbers (complex vectors) in a Hilbert space.

You're making my point. Physics isn't physics unless its about the physical. Otherwise we're just math-turbating. Hilbert space isn't worth a hill of beans, if it does not have a physical basis. It was invented because those poor souls failed to arrive at Euclidean, interval-time coordinates. Complex coordinates can apply there but it's simpler to consider 2D slices to explain many concepts.

hyksos wrote: The frequency at which this clock hand rotates is directly proportional to the momentum of the particle. λ = h/p = h/mv

That's fine. I don't find that inconsistent with E = hf, where f = ω3/4pi, the frequency of chronaxial spin. Spatial spin projections reflect that frequency. Recall Feynman's mass-energy declaration:
"Because the muon has a mass about 200 times higher than the electron, the ‘stopwatch hand’ for a muon turns 200 times more rapidly than that of an electron." - QED, p.143

hyksos wrote:Photons have no mass, and always travel at c

In addition to what Bangstrom wrote, recall that photons are superfluous. Light quanta typically correspond to the energy difference of orbital transition. After emission, the electron associated with the transition will have a lower chronaxial spin rate (i.e. frequency). My point, in this thread, is to assert all energy is fundamentally chronaxial spin rate.

hyksos wrote:Faradavian pinholes are objects in our regular 3D space, even when they are drawn outside the lightcone.

I need to clarify. Pinholes are real, lightlike objects, replacing photons. Pinholes are available at all spatial locations and in every spatial direction but only at universal speed limit c (thus limited to energy and information). That's the same as saying a pinhole makes a lightlike angle with time in 4D (pinholes arec-dependent). Massive particles make contact through pinholes. Particles are in fact, pinholes with chronaxial spin. That's the fundamental mass-energy link.

Similarly, probability amplitude is a physically real intermediary. It happens to be immeasurable because to do so destroys its status as an intermediary. I provide the example of spin correlation to explain what Max Born never knew about his rule.

"There have been many attempts to derive the Born rule from the other assumptions of quantum mechanics, with inconclusive results. ... probability is equal to the amplitude-squared"
Wikipedia

"How does it [the Born rule] work? What is the machinery behind the law?...No one can explain…We have no ideas about a more basic mechanism from which these results can be deduced." Six Easy Pieces pp.134-5

With 100%the probability of self correlation, probability amplitude (a) is the spin projection on the angle bisector between prepared and subsequently measured spin components. Thus, it cannot be both measured and the angle bisector. Nevertheless, it is physically real. Probability (P) that the sign of the subsequently measured component will correlate is in turn the projection of the amplitude on the measured axis. Thus, the Born rule is born.

Active Member

Posts: 1884
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)

### Re: Theoretical Physics

You're making my point. Physics isn't physics unless its about the physical. Otherwise we're just math-turbating.

That one's a Faradave keeper! LoL.

TheVat

Posts: 7326
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills

### Re: Digging a Deeper Whole

hyksos wrote: The frequency at which this clock hand rotates is directly proportional to the momentum of the particle. λ = h/p = h/mv

That's fine. I don't find that inconsistent with E = hf, where f = ω3/4pi, the frequency of chronaxial spin. Spatial spin projections reflect that frequency. Recall Feynman's mass-energy declaration:
"Because the muon has a mass about 200 times higher than the electron, the ‘stopwatch hand’ for a muon turns 200 times more rapidly than that of an electron." - QED, p.143

I want you to go to a whiteboard in a quiet room and write this equation and ruminate on it.

λ = h/p = h/mv

I want you to imagine what would happen to lambda if v incrementally approached zero, and what this would mean physically. This would be trying to find the wavelength of an electron at complete rest. Contemplate this. Google around on it. Read up and study.

Doing this will lead you down a path to abilities that many consider to be ... unnatural.

hyksos wrote:When Feynman said "add up all the arrows" he was actually performing integration. … the Path Integral in textbooks.

He sums arrows as with vector addition, and some rules for reversing arrows (e.g. reflections).

You are quoting pictures of the book , responding to it like it is a literal description of modern physics, and then pretending like you are "extending" the physics. This is not me harping on your details. This is me responding to the fact that you seem to lack all context of what you are interacting with. What you are doing is neither adult or mature. It is barely sane.

QED by Feynman is a wonderful gem that I love and everyone should have a copy -- but it is NOT a textbook.

On wikipedia , some of the articles say "This article is written at the graduate level. For a non-technical introduction to topic X, please click here." With all due love and respect, the QED book is formally characterized as a gentle introduction to the quantum field theory of the electromagnetic force.

You're making my point. Physics isn't physics unless its about the physical. Otherwise we're just math-turbating. Hilbert space isn't worth a hill of beans, if it does not have a physical basis. It was invented because those poor souls failed to arrive at Euclidean, interval-time coordinates. Complex coordinates can apply there but it's simpler to consider 2D slices to explain many concepts.

"poor souls failed to arrive at Eucliden, interval-time coordinates".

This is barking mad.

hyksos wrote:You need not chase down and identify the "what object is spinning". We already know what it is. The clock hands on a stopwatch Feynman keeps talking about are actually parts of the Schrödinger Wave.

Again, physics doesn't yet know what the Schrödinger wave is physically. I supply this.

Yes, quite! But Feynman doesn't know what 'probability amplitudes' are. So far, I'm the only one who does.

You are not exhibiting growth and greater understanding of physics, and I've known you for a long time. The quality of your output on the internet is in steep decline.

Do not bother responding. I am not going to participate in this thread any further.

hyksos
Active Member

Posts: 1734
Joined: 28 Nov 2014

### Re: Theoretical Physics

TheVat » May 16th, 2019, 8:55 pm wrote:

You're making my point. Physics isn't physics unless its about the physical. Otherwise we're just math-turbating.

That one's a Faradave keeper! LoL.

Physics without geometrical form of objects / particles isn't physics
#
Photon's form is a circle / membrane / disc : c/d=3,14159 . . . .
Moving with constant speed the circle is pressed in its diraction
Photon as every real particle has its own mass.
Moving with constant speed photon doesn't have EM waves
Moving at constant speed photon travels in a straight line (wavelenght is infinite)
===
socrat44
Member

Posts: 427
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: Theoretical Physics

Quantum micro-world as real as macro-world
and quantum particles as real as macro objects.
What is difference?
The macro objects have firm forms, and
quantum micro-particles have elastic forms (SRT)
#
To describe the quantum world it needs to know the
geometrical form of quantum particles other-wise the
philosophy of quantum world is ''beyond the common sense''.
=====
socrat44
Member

Posts: 427
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: Of Particular Concern

socrat44 wrote:...the geometrical form of quantum particles...

"Particle" is the term given to the geometric point at the center of a simple symmetric field. In its rest frame, the field is a 3D ball exhibiting at least long-range gravitation (attraction following the inverse square law). It may also exhibit EM, strong and/or weak aspects, which together, characterize the particle. The exact location of the point is subject to uncertainty.

Active Member

Posts: 1884
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)

### Re: Of Particular Concern

Faradave » May 17th, 2019, 11:11 am wrote:
socrat44 wrote:...the geometrical form of quantum particles...

"Particle" is the term given to the geometric point
at the center of a simple symmetric field.

Electron is ''a point'' at the center of a symmetric field
Particle / electron at the center of a symmetric field
is responsible for EM effect
Electron is a source of an EM waves
#
Exactly as string-particles vibrate and producess waves.
so particle- electrons vibrate / rotate and produce symmetric field
#
Exactly as vibration of string-particles so vibration (spin-rotation)
of electrons solve the quantum problem of ''duality''
=====
socrat44
Member

Posts: 427
Joined: 12 Dec 2015
 Faradave liked this post

### Re: Barking Up the Right Tree

hyksos wrote:I am not going to participate in this thread any further.

As always, come and go as you please. (I certainly do.)
Your posts are candid and intelligent. I particularly value the substantive bits.
I hope you didn't miss my provision of a dual spin axis above. That was especially for you.

hyksos wrote:…trying to find the wavelength of an electron at complete rest…

An isolated electron in its rest frame still has chronaxial spin. That's how it has mass-energy and gravitation. A pinhole with chronaxial spin generates field instances, repeated along its timeline. That yields a field frequency. One can construe a wavelength from that, but it would not be an EM wave. The associated electric field is static. Feynman’s muon-rotation comment referred to mass-energy.

A muon and electron have the same electric charge despite different chronaxial spin rates. (Elaboration upon request.)

Faradave wrote:He sums arrows as with vector addition.

hyksos wrote:You are quoting pictures of the book…

Well, yes... with the text and captions.
"Arrows that represent each possible way an event could happen are drawn and then combined (‘added’) in the following manner: Attach the head of one arrow to the tail of another -without changing the direction of either one- and draw a ‘final arrow’ from the tail of the first arrow to the head of the last one." QED pp.26-27

Seems like vector addition to me, but I don't really care.

hyksos wrote:QED by Feynman is a wonderful gem…but it is NOT a textbook.

Yes, but Feynman is the renowned author of textbooks as well. We can presume consistency if not completeness in his "lesser" works.

Faradave wrote:Those poor souls [physicists] failed to arrive at Euclidean, interval-time coordinates.

hyksos wrote:This is barking mad.

Go to a quiet room and write on a whiteboard the Minkowski metric for a spacelike interval (d).

∆d² = ∆x² – ∆t² (for a 2D slice)

Then, rearrange it to get rid of the minus sign.

∆x² = ∆d² + ∆t²

Then, realizing this adheres to Pythagoras's theorem (which applies exclusively to flat, Euclidean geometry), ask yourself if your new equation suggests the validity of physically real, Euclidean, interval-time coordinates.

Feynman would have appreciated the difference between barking mad and simply irrefutable. Perhaps that only applies to geniuses.

Active Member

Posts: 1884
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)

### Re: Of Particular Concern

socrat44 » May 17th, 2019, 12:40 pm wrote:
Faradave » May 17th, 2019, 11:11 am wrote:
socrat44 wrote:...the geometrical form of quantum particles...

"Particle" is the term given to the geometric point
at the center of a simple symmetric field.

Electron is ''a point'' at the center of a symmetric field
Particle / electron at the center of a symmetric field
is responsible for EM effect
Electron is a source of an EM waves
#
Exactly as string-particles vibrate and produce waves.
so particle- electrons vibrate / rotate and produce symmetric field
#
Exactly as vibration of string-particles so vibration (spin-rotation)
of electrons solve the quantum problem of ''duality''
=====

An Electron: 1897 - 2019
===
In 1897 J.J. Thomson discovered an elementary particle - ''electron'' and
immediately many physicists ( M. Abraham, W. Kaufmann, H. Poincare,
H. Lorentz, . .) went to work trying to make models of the electron

In 1905 Einstein realized that electron can behave as a particle

In 1923 De Broglie wrote that Einstein's electron can be "wave"

In 2005 Volodimir Simulik wrote book " What is the Electron?"
In this book:
'‘ More than ten different models of the electron are presented here.
More than twenty models are discussed briefly.
Thus, the book gives a complete picture of contemporary theoretical
thinking (traditional and new) about the physics of the electron.'’
All of these models of electron are problematical.

In 2015 Brian posted article '' How big is an electron?''
https://gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/ ... -electron/
#
Until today we know electron by what it does, not by what it is
After more than 120 years electron is still remains an abstract, symbolic
construction and therefore you can read '' the quantum theory is weird'',
it is ''beyond common sense'', and therefore all debates about the
essence of ''Quantum Theory'' are ''blah blah blah . . .''
===
Attachments
socrat44
Member

Posts: 427
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: Theoretical Physics

Some Differences in Scientific Theories
===
1 - Difference between Neaton's and Einstein's
theries of gravitation.
a) Newton used two (2) bodies to explain ''gravity''.
b) Einstein used one (1) single body to explain ''gravity''

2 - Difference between Classical and Quantum mechanics.
a) Classical mechanics has models of objects
b) Quantum mechanics doesn't have model of quantum particle.
===
socrat44
Member

Posts: 427
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: Theoretical Physics

socrat44 » May 26th, 2019, 12:48 pm wrote:Some Differences in Scientific Theories
===
1 - Difference between Neaton's and Einstein's
theries of gravitation.
a) Newton used two (2) bodies to explain ''gravity''.
b) Einstein used one (1) single body to explain ''gravity''

2 - Difference between Classical and Quantum mechanics.
a) Classical mechanics has models of objects
b) Quantum mechanics doesn't have model of quantum particle.
===

1 - Einstein used one (1) single body to explain ''gravity''
In the real Universe there is plenty of room for more and
more Einstein's GRT ''single bodies''

2 - Classical objects have many - many different forms, but
Quantum particles must have only one standard geometric
form for everyone particle
===
socrat44
Member

Posts: 427
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: Digging a Deeper Whole

hyksos » May 17th, 2019, 12:12 am wrote:
I want you to go to a whiteboard in a quiet room and write this equation and ruminate on it.

λ = h/p = h/mv

I want you to imagine what would happen to lambda if v incrementally approached zero, and what this would mean physically. This would be trying to find the wavelength of an electron at complete rest. Contemplate this. Google around on it. Read up and study.

I happened upon a "Dragon Slayer" video for a nearly identical problem that explains how and why the equality doesn't work. λ = h/p represents a transformation while h/mv represents a transmission so the two values are like apples and oranges and can’t be equated. There is an error in the derivation of the equations where s times 1/s is equated to 1 but this is in error because the first s is the length of time in seconds and the 1/s is one Hertz or one cycle per second. This obscures the distinction between a transformation and a transmission.

The video also explains why photon particles do not exist and the video at the end explains why light is a particle so take your pick.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 710
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

### Re: Theoretical Physics

By Chance: Biology - Cosmology
===
Can reasonable child be created from zygote during
270 days of woman’s pregnancy by chance?
Does the theory of probability allow to create reasonable child
during 270 days of woman’s pregnancy by chance?
#
Our human body is a multi-cellular organism made up
of perhaps 100 trillion different cells.
Book: '‘ The unity of Nature'‘
‘'The information content in the nucleus of a single human cell
is comparable to that of a library containing a thousand volumes.'’
/ by Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker, page 40 /
Question:
How can 100 trillion different cells (100 trillion libraries with a
thousand volumes in each) create a child ( by the chance )
during 9 months of woman’s pregnancy ?
#
In my opinion this circumstance is similar to the ''Infinite monkey theorem''
''The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys
at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time
will almost surely type any given text, such as the complete works
of William Shakespeare.''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
#
But according to the modern theory of ‘big bang’ the Universe
exist only 14 billion years.
So, monkey's chance to write Shakespeare's Hamlet is zero.
But woman . . . . ?!
A single zygote evolves and develop 100 trillion different cells that
create reasonable child. By chance it is impossible.
It must take time much more than only 270 days of woman’s pregnancy
Maybe it will take time more than 14 billion years.
Then, maybe, before the ‘ big bang’ was a pregnant woman who
gave life to a child who invented the '‘ big- bang '’ theory (?)
======
Attachments
socrat44
Member

Posts: 427
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: Theoretical Physics

How to make Theoretical Physics simple
#
To be simple Theoretical Physics needs
a real geometrical form of quantum particle.
It is impossible to take ''point-particle'' or ''string-particle''
as a real image of the quantum particle.
====
Attachments
socrat44
Member

Posts: 427
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: Theoretical Physics

Psi (Ψ) - in the light of quantum behavior.
The Problem with Quantum Measurements - Psi (Ψ)
The '' measurement problem'' / ''wave-particle collapse''
About one wave measurement of one quantum particle.
#
There isn't electric wave without quantum particle.
The wave-function is result of a real work of quantum particle (h)
The wave-function Psi (Ψ) is derivate form of quantum particle.
The wave-particle collapse problem could be contemplated as
boundary changes of wave and particle simultaneously.
#
When the wave collapses, the pure electric particle (E=h*f)
changes its parameters into negative potential state - Dirac's
virtual / antiparticles (-E=Mc^2) and "disappears " in Zero Vacuum T=0K.
=====
Attachments
socrat44
Member

Posts: 427
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: Theoretical Physics

Take a cat in the Schrodinger wave Psi (Ψ)
The cat exist in the sphere of probability density = |Psi|^2
Find cat when the Schrodinger wave collapses
Then the cat exist in the math method of ''Renormalization''
#
In Maxwell EM waves there is Lorentz electron force
What force exists in the Schrodinger wave Psi (Ψ) ?
========
Attachments
socrat44
Member

Posts: 427
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: Psi Kick

socrat44 wrote:What force exists in the Schrodinger wave Psi (Ψ) ?

An unpaired one. With chronaxial spin, it generates a field of potential force pairs (with other particles).

Active Member

Posts: 1884
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)

### Re: Psi Kick

Faradave » August 23rd, 2019, 10:24 am wrote:
socrat44 wrote:What force exists in the Schrodinger wave Psi (Ψ) ?

An unpaired one.
With chronaxial spin,
it generates a field of potential force pairs (with other particles).

In my opinion:
A quantum particle
with spin h*(bar)
generates the Schrodinger wave Psi (Ψ)
===
socrat44
Member

Posts: 427
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: Having a Round at the h-Bar

socrat44 wrote:In my opinion: A quantum particle with spin h*(bar)

We agree (sort of). Rather than a particle having spin, I see a particle arising from spin. This views a force as an object, an energy conduit. Delivering energy is is exactly what the "force carriers" of the Standard Model are purported to do. A conduit is just a small simplification of that concept, consistent with lightlike phenomena bypassing space & time. (A lightlike interval is defined as when ∆t = ∆x.) A pinhole (particle-interaction wormhole) is the force object which provides direct physical contact. A field is the potential for interval contact. Since contact is always mutual, forces are always observed in pairs (Newton's 3rd).

Allowing that a particle has spatial spin components of ħ/2 = h/4pi, that indicates reduction of h over a solid angular range of 4 pi, which corresponds to spin in a 3-plane. Such spin is consistent with a temporal axis, for "chronaxial spin". As Ψ relates to a 3D wave equation (a volume wave as opposed to a linear or plane wave), it arises naturally from chronaxial spin.

Here are some symbols (including ħ) you can copy and paste in your posts if it's easier.
cωε0μ0βγαλħγΨ–²½³∆°√≈≠≤≥±'∞0ωΦθ∂ωÄÅß÷øēƒΔΛΞΣΨΦΩδξορσφψ¢∑∫

Active Member

Posts: 1884
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)

### Re: Having a Round at the h-Bar

Faradave » August 23rd, 2019, 2:58 pm wrote:
socrat44 wrote:In my opinion: A quantum particle with spin h*(bar)
,
I see a particle arising from spin.

Particle arising from spin of . . .
A spin of what?
Spin is made of . . . . ?
===
socrat44
Member

Posts: 427
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: Theoretical Physics

socrat44 wrote:A spin of what?

Since chronaxial spin (about a temporal axis) is instantaneous, it's only possible for objects with no speed restriction. In this case, it refers to a pinhole (particle-interaction wormhole). Pinholes are a fundamental object replacing "massless particles", such as photons, in the Standard Model. They are velocity dependent, in the sense that they have a lightlike slope (1/c) in 4D. Pinholes may also be described as "null vectors" having zero magnitude and a lightlike direction.

A pinhole (yellow dot) can be represented by a null vector of zero magnitude bypassing equal spans of space and time of any extent. Energy transiting a pinhole experiences zero aging as it crosses zero interval span, perpendicular to time (the aging coordinate).

Lightlike interaction occurs by interval contact (i.e. over zero interval "separation"). Thus a pinhole acts as an energy conduit bypassing space and time of indefinite (but equal) extent. Like any vector, that conduit has direction which can change, and thus, spin.

Active Member

Posts: 1884
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)

### Re: Digging a Deeper Whole

Faradave » May 17th, 2019, 12:08 am wrote:You're making my point. Physics isn't physics unless its about the physical. Otherwise we're just math-turbating. Hilbert space isn't worth a hill of beans, if it does not have a physical basis.

hyksos
Active Member

Posts: 1734
Joined: 28 Nov 2014
 socrat44 liked this post

### Re: Theoretical Physics

Faradave » August 25th, 2019, 11:07 am wrote:
socrat44 wrote:A spin of what?

Thus a pinhole acts as . . . spin.

PINHOLE . . . ?
socrat44
Member

Posts: 427
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: An Early Bird Makes One

socrat44

I've defined and illustrated pinhole (particle-interaction wormhole) several times in this thread (not to mention hundreds of times in other threads). While a pinhole is best considered as an object, it has no more intrinsic mass or energy than a hole in a piece of paper. Like a classical hole, it is defined as the absence of something. And like a classical hole, it has changeable direction (as a hole changes with the direction the paper faces).

Specifically, a pinhole is contact , a 4D generalization of classical 3D spatial contact, which includes time. A pinhole is "zero interval separation", which is the definition of a lightlike spacetime interval. All contact is interval contact. Classical contact is the small subset for which the temporal and spatial interval components are both zero.

"Where light goes from a given point is always separated by a zero interval." Feynman p.99

If you have a specific question, please state it explicitly.

Active Member

Posts: 1884
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)

### Re: Theoretical Physics

Faradave » August 25th, 2019, 10:07 am wrote:
Lightlike interaction occurs by interval contact (i.e. over zero interval "separation"). Thus a pinhole acts as an energy conduit bypassing space and time of indefinite (but equal) extent. Like any vector, that conduit has direction which can change, and thus, spin.

I think I understand what you are saying because you are getting into concepts that were useful and understood in the years before the 1940’s when they were discarded in favor of atomism.
But how can a light like “hole” have “spin” ? Spin is generally thought of as a timely rotation through space. I assume this is not the kind of “spin” you have in mind.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 710
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

### Re: This Time Around

If a hole can have direction at all, there is the potential to change its direction. Spin is a continuous change of direction about a center.

I coined the term "chronaxial spin". It's not yet a recognized in conventional physics. Specifically, chronaxial spin is classical spin about a non-classical axis, time.

Einstein's Relativity considers time as a 4th geometric dimension. In common with spatial dimensions, time is a separator of events (locations in 4D). I assert that if time can support translation (aging is translation along a timeline), then time must also support rotation.

Since chronaxial spin is inherently instantaneous, it is only available to faster-than-light phenomena. As projected contact, a pinhole is among these.

Active Member

Posts: 1884
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)

PreviousNext