Quantum theory and Spin.

[s0cratus]

Quantum theory and Spin.
1
Spin changes 'virtual ' particles into real particles.
2
Spin ( h) creates Inertia ( straight movement)
and therefore spin ( h=1) is equal to speed ( c=1).
3
And another spin (h*=h/2pi) creates rotating movement
of quantum particles and therefore quantum particles
have very high frequency.
4
Spin is also responsible for appearance of mass.
5
Spinning quantum particle can change surrounding local space.
====..
socratus

 

[John_Mann]

And now my head are spinning for trying to read that.

So I didn't grab exactly what's your point.

 

[SLushhYYY]

You have no clue what you're talking about, do you?

 

[DIALECTIC]

Quantum theory and Spin.
1
Spin changes 'virtual ' particles into real particles.
2
Spin ( h) creates Inertia ( straight movement)
and therefore spin ( h=1) is equal to speed ( c=1).
3
And another spin (h*=h/2pi) creates rotating movement
of quantum particles and therefore quantum particles
have very high frequency.
4
Spin is also responsible for appearance of mass.
5
Spinning quantum particle can change surrounding local space.
====..
socratus

Is spin comparable to a bicycle wheel or a fan i.e. creating the illusion of solidity (like matter) ?
What's the difference between the spin of an electron around the nucleus of an atom and the spin of the subatomic particles inside the nucleus of the same atom ?

 

[s0cratus]

Our knowledge about Photon.
‘ All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
but he is mistaken. ‘
/ Einstein 1954 /

Our knowledge about Electron.
1900 – 1905.
Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron: E=h*f.
1916
Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c,
1928
Dirac found two more formulas of electron’s energy:
+E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2.
According to QED in interaction with vacuum electron’s
energy is infinite: E= ∞
Questions.
Why does the simplest particle - electron have five ( 5 ) formulas ?
What is interaction between them?
Why does electron obey five ( 5) Laws ?
a) Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass
b) Maxwell’s equations
c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
d) Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
e) Fermi-Dirac statistics.
What is interaction between them?
Nobody knows.
====…
In the internet we can read hundreds theories about electron
All of them are problematical
We can read hundreds books about philosophy of physics,
but how can we trust them if we don’t know what electron is ?
==.
Quote by Heinrich Hertz on Maxwell's equations:

"One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulae
have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own,
that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers,
that we get more out of them than was originally put into them."

And in 1904 Lorentz proved: there isn’t em waves without Electron
=.
Electron is not as simple as we think and, maybe, he is wiser than we are.
==========..
What is energy of photon ?
The energy of photon is: E=h*f.
What is the energy of electron ?
The energy of an electron is: E=h*f.
What is difference between photon and electron ?
Frequency makes difference between them.
=.
Book " Isaac Newton "
by Soviet academician S. I. Vavilov:
‘ For photons with extremely high fluctuations,
. . . ., in experience was observed the remarkable
phenomenon of transformation them in electrons.
And undoubtedly, a reverse process is also possible.’
/ page 94. /
=..
Frequency is the key to everything
Frequency makes difference between particles.
( in my opinion the frequency is result of the quantum spin-s )
==..
Strings of gravity vibrate at a different frequency than strings of light.
/ Roy H. Williams /
===…
Conclusion from some article:
One of the best kept secrets of science is
that physicists have lost their grip on reality.
========.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
==..

 

[s0cratus]

We know electron by what it does, not by what it is.
The geniuses technology + a comic philosophy = Our modern education.
===…

 

[Etheri]

I'm always lured in by the subjects of your posts, but I can never make anything of them.

Could you perhaps try sentences? :x Whatever you're trying to say, I can't make sense of it. What's wrong with there being serveral equations which can be used to describe an electron as long as they're constistent with one another?

Also, I don't think the wave properties of an electron were known / accepted / suspected until De Broglie's hypothesis that all matter behaves in the same way that light does. Planck and Einstein found that the energy of a photon = E= hv. The photo-electric effect proved the particle nature of photons, not the wave nature of electrons.

1900 – 1905.
Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron: E=h*f.

To add, they theorised the frequency / wavelength of electrons would be related to it's already known energy based on it's particle properties.

That's as far as I could try make some sense. You lost me entirely before and after that. Sorry

 

[s0cratus]

What's wrong with there being serveral equations which can
be used to describe an electron as long as they're constistent
with one another?

What do you mean writing '' to describe an electron as long
as they're constistent with one another '' ?

Does an electron '' consistent '' ( interact ? ) with one another ?
==..

 

[SLushhYYY]

Electrons happen to exist in our universe, this doesn't mean electrons are constant in all that is nature, it is only by chance that the electron exists that we know of

The answer to your question of what an electron is, is simply the anthropic principle, it exists because it needs to exist to produce our existence, as well as the matter that exists in our universe. It does not however exist everywhere else, say if the higgs field in a certain area is too large, too small, if the cosmological constant is too big or zero. It is only by chance that it exists in our specific cosmic environment.

 

[s0cratus]

Electron . . . , it exists because it needs to exist to produce our existence,
as well as the matter that exists in our universe.

I understood you.
Electron exists because it needs to exist to produce our existence,
as well as the matter that exists in our universe by the same reason.

And according to QED by interaction between electron
and matter our existence was created .

I only cannot understand , why Richard Feynman wrote:
‘ The theory of quantum electrodynamics
describes Nature as absurd from the point of view
of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment.
So I hope you accept Nature as She is — absurd. ‘
/ book:
QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter page 10. /

Maybe you can correct Feynman's point of view.
=====..

 

[Etheri]

What do you mean writing '' to describe an electron as long
as they're constistent with one another '' ?

Does an electron '' consistent '' ( interact ? ) with one another ?
==..

You asked why there are serveral equations which describe an electron, I stated that this doesn't matter as long as these equations are constistent with one another.

However, as far as electrons interacting with one another goes : Electrons do indeed self-interfere as part of their wave properties.

 

[s0cratus]

You asked why there are serveral equations which describe an electron,
I stated that this doesn't matter as long as these equations are constistent with one another. .

The problem is that nobody explains how
'' these equations are constistent with one another ''

However, as far as electrons interacting with one another goes :
Electrons do indeed self-interfere as part of their wave properties.

By '' self-interfere '' electron shows its wave properties.
The problem is that nobody explains:
how the process of '' self-interfere '' is going

 

[SLushhYYY]

I understood you.
Electron exists because it needs to exist to produce our existence,
as well as the matter that exists in our universe by the same reason.

And according to QED by interaction between electron
and matter our existence was created .

I only cannot understand , why Richard Feynman wrote:
‘ The theory of quantum electrodynamics
describes Nature as absurd from the point of view
of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment.
So I hope you accept Nature as She is — absurd. ‘
/ book:
QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter page 10. /

Maybe you can correct Feynman's point of view.
=====..

You dont understand why quantum mechanics is absurd and based on probability? Why must the laws of nature so beautifully fit into the humans intuitive understanding? You speak as if humans must be able to understand everything through their common sense, which is not true in the least bit.

Everything in nature is based off probability. The human consciousness is based off probability. The very reason this vacuum region of space is able to support our existence is a probability. There is no common sense explanation for why anything exists, unless you accept probability as common sense. Only the things we see and experiment, can then be viewed as common sense eventually. F=ma was not common sense before Newton, although it is very much so now.

 

[Vrecknidj]

How does the universe manage to give us the impression that our sensory experience requires a four-dimensional spatio-temporal manifold when the universe isn't a spatio-temporal manifold?

The Sun seems to many to rise in the east and set in the west. Some others have a reasonable belief that the Sun neither rises nor sets. Instead, they may say something like "The relationship between the Sun and the Earth is such that some of the Earth's inhabitants have the impression that the Sun appears, to them, to rise in the east and set in the west even though, strictly speaking, this isn't what the Sun is doing."

One could ask "How does the Sun (or the Sun-Earth relationship) give the impression that the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west?" And, understanding Kepler's rules about celestial motions would help explain this.

So, how do electrons give the impression that they spin? That they have mass? That they have charge? Etc.? Or, perhaps better... How does the universe give us the impression that electrons have spin, mass, charge, etc.?

Good questions.

 

[John_Mann]

How does the universe manage to give us the impression that our sensory experience requires a four-dimensional spatio-temporal manifold when the universe isn't a spatio-temporal manifold?

The Sun seems to many to rise in the east and set in the west. Some others have a reasonable belief that the Sun neither rises nor sets. Instead, they may say something like "The relationship between the Sun and the Earth is such that some of the Earth's inhabitants have the impression that the Sun appears, to them, to rise in the east and set in the west even though, strictly speaking, this isn't what the Sun is doing."

One could ask "How does the Sun (or the Sun-Earth relationship) give the impression that the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west?" And, understanding Kepler's rules about celestial motions would help explain this.

So, how do electrons give the impression that they spin? That they have mass? That they have charge? Etc.? Or, perhaps better... How does the universe give us the impression that electrons have spin, mass, charge, etc.?

Good questions.

Now we have a very interesting discussion.

I think the universe don't (purposely) give us impressions, it's seems like a puddle fallacy.

 

[s0cratus]

You dont understand why quantum mechanics is absurd and based on probability?
Why must the laws of nature so beautifully fit into the humans intuitive understanding?
You speak as if humans must be able to understand everything
through their common sense, which is not true in the least bit.

Everything in nature is based off probability.
The human consciousness is based off probability.
The very reason this vacuum region of space is able to support
our existence is a probability. There is no common sense explanation
for why anything exists, unless you accept probability as common sense.
Only the things we see and experiment, can then be viewed
as common sense eventually.
F=ma was not common sense before Newton,
although it is very much so now.

Cause & Effect: Determinism & Probability.
1.
Classical physics.
Between cause & effect the determining principle acts.
Is this principle correct?
The experiments of classical physics say: it is correct.
2
Quantum physics.
Between cause & effect only probabilistic or
statistical principle acts.
Is this principle correct?
The quantum experiments say: it is correct.
3.
Why are they both correct?
What are difference and unity between them ?
What was the cause of the first cause ?
===========.

 

[The Introvert]

Am I correct in presuming the quantum physics implies that matter that we can measure and perceive influences 'matter' (for lack of a better word) in another state that we cannot measure or perceive?

I see it kind of similarly to your spin concept, whereas light, energy, what have you bounces off an object, necessarily in infinitely many directions. These directions which can be nearly inconceivably small or large are therefore immeasurable to us, but directly impact the world around us.

 

[s0cratus]

So, how do electrons give the impression that they spin?
That they have mass?
That they have charge?
Etc.?
Or, perhaps better...
How does the universe give us the impression that electrons
have spin, mass, charge, etc.?

Good questions.

The most incomprehensible thing about the world is
that it is comprehensible.

/ Einstein /

 

[s0cratus]

Now we have a very interesting discussion.

I think the universe don't (purposely) give us impressions,
it's seems like a puddle fallacy.

Where is hidden the '' puddle of fallacies '' ?
In the universe or in our brains ?
==...