I was looking for something I just saw. Everything has opposite and equal reaction with everything (wasn't that Newton?). Except a magnet spins negative particle around it and has no reaction from the reaction. Isn't that what you just showed us in your video? Are you sure CM isn't Center Magnetism? Isn't that what light is? A magnetic spike traveling spinning a plasma of electrons behind the magnetic spike? This is why a photon can eject an electron from it's atomic shell.
It seems an impressive set of vids, i have a question though, this idea of separation of centre of mass and centre of gravity - is it standard accepted theory? i read elswhere i thought, that the electron was considered a point like particle.
The Spinning Particles model, in which the electron continues to be a point like particle BUT with the center of charge rotating around a virtual center of mass, is a theory with strong mathematical background and published in several first line peer reviewed journals
as can be checked in the references page of SpinningParticles. Anyway I must say that the classical model with the center of charge in the center of mass continues to be more widespread.
@SpinningParticle - thank you for the clarification, does this theory make any predictions which the standard model does not ? In short, is it testable/ differentiatable - and has it been tested ?
One of the things is that if it is true, the electron is a clock and its frequency can be measured. A proposal in that direction seems to be plausible and can be found in ArXiv:0809.3635
The other thing is that the kinematical group of the model is larger than the Poincare group. It is a 11-parameter group, The Weyl group W, although the classical model has a larger symmetry group which is wxSO(3)X(R+), which when quantized becomes WxSU(2)xU(1)
@MrMartinchu - thanks for that, even if it is largely gobbledy gook 2 me, i understand what symetry groups are, so i guess the short answer to my question is yes, it is different. I will keep an eye out for its developments with regards to these predictions.
There are only two possibilities for particles: That both points (Center of Mass, CM for short and center of charge CC) are exactly the same point or that they are different. If they are the same is the usual assumption. If they are different, the formalism leads necessarilly to the conclusion that the CC has to move at the speed of light, the particle has spin 1/2 when quantized, has a g=2 gyromagnetic ratio and satisfies Dirac's equation.
@MrMartinchu -Personally, whilst i recognise 'its' usefullness, i deny the reality of the 'real' number system and all connected to it. Particular matters circular, i guess. I believe a discrete math will hold a truer picture. So further developments of understanding in terms of 'freq' of the electron clk are disheartening in a way. I would like to study a property rules based sys. involving only discrete transitions if there be such a sys? Do u have any pointers ?
Hi . You are aware of my general views and something struck me quite recently. If one were to take a ball bearing and accelerate it to a velocity 'v', then the Kinetic Energy is 1/2 M times v squared. Now, according to Einstein,
E=M times c squared. If we say K.E. = E, that is equate Kinetic with Einsteins E, then we can eliminate M and the equation then becomes !/2 times v squared equals c squared. Or v divided by root 2 equals c. The value of c is the RMS of v, sine wave. Thoughts?
how does it "spin" ?? what is the impetus or force creating the spin?? what is a "charge" ?? how does an elementary particle acquire these properties?? i.e. spin, charge, mass etc... is it the size , geometry of the particle determining its properties??
The spin of an elementary particle has a twofold structure. One part is related to the separation between these two points, but other is related to the rotation of the particle. When quantizing the system the spin 1/2 structure depends on this second part. We can say that the spin has two parts: one is a kind of orbital angular momentum related to the motion of the CC around the CM and another related to the angular velocity
Yes, it is a general model valid for fundamental particles with spin. Simply put, it describes the spin as a difference between the position of the center of charge and the center of mass and the properties that derive from this.
It can be generalized to any Dirac particle like a quark. The reason is that when the model is quantized it satisfies Dirac's equation. We can say that the model does not justify the structure of particles which do not satisfy Dirac's equation.
I was looking for something I just saw. Everything has opposite and equal reaction with everything (wasn't that Newton?). Except a magnet spins negative particle around it and has no reaction from the reaction. Isn't that what you just showed us in your video? Are you sure CM isn't Center Magnetism? Isn't that what light is? A magnetic spike traveling spinning a plasma of electrons behind the magnetic spike? This is why a photon can eject an electron from it's atomic shell.
gyro5d 3 days ago
Could someone explain the concept of spin to me, I am completey dumbofunded.
brocq18 6 months ago
I'm high.
HSAdestroy 9 months ago
learn to right hand rule
riorio23 9 months ago
Ok, so that the vectors are dificult with
the time, and if had wrong with time
too have problm w. space.
ads the universe are not homogenius.
999VELAZQUEZ 1 year ago
So cute electron^^!!!! jeje
urlink77 1 year ago
It seems an impressive set of vids, i have a question though, this idea of separation of centre of mass and centre of gravity - is it standard accepted theory? i read elswhere i thought, that the electron was considered a point like particle.
Hythloday71 1 year ago
The Spinning Particles model, in which the electron continues to be a point like particle BUT with the center of charge rotating around a virtual center of mass, is a theory with strong mathematical background and published in several first line peer reviewed journals
SpinningParticle 1 year ago
as can be checked in the references page of SpinningParticles. Anyway I must say that the classical model with the center of charge in the center of mass continues to be more widespread.
SpinningParticle 1 year ago
@SpinningParticle - thank you for the clarification, does this theory make any predictions which the standard model does not ? In short, is it testable/ differentiatable - and has it been tested ?
Hythloday71 1 year ago
@Hythloday71
One of the things is that if it is true, the electron is a clock and its frequency can be measured. A proposal in that direction seems to be plausible and can be found in ArXiv:0809.3635
The other thing is that the kinematical group of the model is larger than the Poincare group. It is a 11-parameter group, The Weyl group W, although the classical model has a larger symmetry group which is wxSO(3)X(R+), which when quantized becomes WxSU(2)xU(1)
MrMartinchu 1 year ago
@MrMartinchu - thanks for that, even if it is largely gobbledy gook 2 me, i understand what symetry groups are, so i guess the short answer to my question is yes, it is different. I will keep an eye out for its developments with regards to these predictions.
Hythloday71 1 year ago
@Hythloday71
There are only two possibilities for particles: That both points (Center of Mass, CM for short and center of charge CC) are exactly the same point or that they are different. If they are the same is the usual assumption. If they are different, the formalism leads necessarilly to the conclusion that the CC has to move at the speed of light, the particle has spin 1/2 when quantized, has a g=2 gyromagnetic ratio and satisfies Dirac's equation.
MrMartinchu 1 year ago
@MrMartinchu -Personally, whilst i recognise 'its' usefullness, i deny the reality of the 'real' number system and all connected to it. Particular matters circular, i guess. I believe a discrete math will hold a truer picture. So further developments of understanding in terms of 'freq' of the electron clk are disheartening in a way. I would like to study a property rules based sys. involving only discrete transitions if there be such a sys? Do u have any pointers ?
Hythloday71 1 year ago
Hi . You are aware of my general views and something struck me quite recently. If one were to take a ball bearing and accelerate it to a velocity 'v', then the Kinetic Energy is 1/2 M times v squared. Now, according to Einstein,
E=M times c squared. If we say K.E. = E, that is equate Kinetic with Einsteins E, then we can eliminate M and the equation then becomes !/2 times v squared equals c squared. Or v divided by root 2 equals c. The value of c is the RMS of v, sine wave. Thoughts?
MrFrancisH 1 year ago
how does it "spin" ?? what is the impetus or force creating the spin?? what is a "charge" ?? how does an elementary particle acquire these properties?? i.e. spin, charge, mass etc... is it the size , geometry of the particle determining its properties??
rickwyant 2 years ago
@rickwyant
You're one of them trouble makes ain't ya, why with askin' so many darn questions.
:D
Spanky00Cheeks 1 year ago
The spin of an elementary particle has a twofold structure. One part is related to the separation between these two points, but other is related to the rotation of the particle. When quantizing the system the spin 1/2 structure depends on this second part. We can say that the spin has two parts: one is a kind of orbital angular momentum related to the motion of the CC around the CM and another related to the angular velocity
MrMartinchu 2 years ago
Simple and elegant model. Worth watching all 13 clips. Can the idea be extended or generalized to other pointlike particles?
ron1616935 2 years ago 2
Yes, it is a general model valid for fundamental particles with spin. Simply put, it describes the spin as a difference between the position of the center of charge and the center of mass and the properties that derive from this.
SpinningParticle 2 years ago
It can be generalized to any Dirac particle like a quark. The reason is that when the model is quantized it satisfies Dirac's equation. We can say that the model does not justify the structure of particles which do not satisfy Dirac's equation.
MrMartinchu 2 years ago
This model is very elegant. It puts a face on negative charges attracting each other.
bluejay4219 3 years ago