How can the subatomic spin and vibrate?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Anti matter and matter cannot be kept together
Next: College Algebra 5E Dugopolski Solutions Manual and test bank is available for purchase at affordable prices. Contact me at allsolutionmanuals11[at]gmail.com to buy it today.
From: BURT on 8 Jul 2010 18:17 On Jul 8, 3:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 8, 4:42 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 8, 1:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 8, 1:37 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 8, 8:51 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 7, 2:28 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 6:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 7:55 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 3:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 4:49 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 2:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 12:56 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 8:43 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 5:01 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 7:17 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 1:43 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Point mass can in no way rotate. Spin is for a changing size of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rotation. Particles never rotate or have changes in size. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But they do vibrate by their quantum aether wave flow push. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nobody ever said a point particle had to rotate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But they say Spin which is even more nonsensical. Spin is for changing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sizes of rotation rate; like an ice skater pulling in her arms. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A body does not need > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be rotating to possess angular momentum. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spin is an operator on a Hilbert space. It has nothing to do with > > > > > > > > > > > > > classical rotation.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. But that makes it nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it doesn't. It means it's a word that you recognize from somewhere > > > > > > > > > > > else that is being used with a new and different definition. So the > > > > > > > > > > > FIRST thing to do is to ask what this new and different definition of > > > > > > > > > > > "spin" is, so that you will not continue to be confused. > > > > > > > > > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > You show me how a mathematical point particle can rotate. > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't. Quantum mechanical spin doesn't involve rotation of any > > > > > > > > > kind. > > > > > > > > > The Nobel Committee told me we don't know what we are measuring when > > > > > > > > we measure spin. > > > > > > > > Mitch, get some food. Your blood sugar is down. > > > > > > > > > Do you know what we are measuring then? > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > No. It doesn't happen. > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > Its an honest question. Point particles don't rotate. > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > Point particles don't wear underwear either. What's your point?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > A point cannot rotate > > > > That's right. > > > > > and spin is a wrong concept. > > > > It's a fine concept. It's clear you don't have the foggiest idea what > > > it means. That doesn't make it wrong. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > If you define spin it is the ice skater pulling in her arms. > > No, that is NOT the definition of quantum mechanical spin. > > This is the problem, you see. You hear "spin" and think "skater", when > it means something completely different in quantum mechanics. > > You need to ask this question: "What does 'spin' mean in quantum > mechanics, if it does not mean the same thing as what a skater does?" > > > > > Particles > > don't change in rotation radius therefore they cannot be caused to > > spin. > > > Spin is a wrong concept in the quantum world. > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Science is using spin when it is the wrong concept. Quantum particles do not change in radius and rotate. That is spin. The ice skater pulling in her arms. The Nobel Committee says we do not know what we are measuring that is being called spin in QM. Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 8 Jul 2010 18:23 On Jul 8, 5:17 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 8, 3:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 8, 4:42 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 8, 1:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 8, 1:37 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 8, 8:51 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 2:28 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 6:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 7:55 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 3:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 4:49 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 2:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 12:56 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 8:43 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 5:01 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 7:17 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 1:43 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo..com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Point mass can in no way rotate. Spin is for a changing size of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rotation. Particles never rotate or have changes in size. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But they do vibrate by their quantum aether wave flow push. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nobody ever said a point particle had to rotate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But they say Spin which is even more nonsensical. Spin is for changing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sizes of rotation rate; like an ice skater pulling in her arms. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A body does not need > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be rotating to possess angular momentum. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spin is an operator on a Hilbert space. It has nothing to do with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classical rotation.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. But that makes it nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it doesn't. It means it's a word that you recognize from somewhere > > > > > > > > > > > > else that is being used with a new and different definition. So the > > > > > > > > > > > > FIRST thing to do is to ask what this new and different definition of > > > > > > > > > > > > "spin" is, so that you will not continue to be confused. > > > > > > > > > > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > You show me how a mathematical point particle can rotate. > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't. Quantum mechanical spin doesn't involve rotation of any > > > > > > > > > > kind. > > > > > > > > > > The Nobel Committee told me we don't know what we are measuring when > > > > > > > > > we measure spin. > > > > > > > > > Mitch, get some food. Your blood sugar is down. > > > > > > > > > > Do you know what we are measuring then? > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > No. It doesn't happen. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > Its an honest question. Point particles don't rotate. > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > Point particles don't wear underwear either. What's your point?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > A point cannot rotate > > > > > That's right. > > > > > > and spin is a wrong concept. > > > > > It's a fine concept. It's clear you don't have the foggiest idea what > > > > it means. That doesn't make it wrong. > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > If you define spin it is the ice skater pulling in her arms. > > > No, that is NOT the definition of quantum mechanical spin. > > > This is the problem, you see. You hear "spin" and think "skater", when > > it means something completely different in quantum mechanics. > > > You need to ask this question: "What does 'spin' mean in quantum > > mechanics, if it does not mean the same thing as what a skater does?" > > > > Particles > > > don't change in rotation radius therefore they cannot be caused to > > > spin. > > > > Spin is a wrong concept in the quantum world. > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Science is using spin when it is the wrong concept. > Quantum particles do not change in radius and rotate. > That is spin. The ice skater pulling in her arms. > The Nobel Committee says we do not know what we are > measuring that is being called spin in QM. > > Mitch Raemsch OK, Mitch, I guess I'm not going to penetrate your skull here. You want spin to mean what you think it means and only what it means: like a skater pulling it her arms. When I tell you it means something else in physics, this just rolls off you like money off a vagrant. You say, "No it doesn't. It doesn't mean anything. Angels and the Nobel Prize people told me so." This is where it becomes obviously useless to talk with you. Hope you got a decent microwave burrito with the dollar somebody dropped in your hat. PD
From: BURT on 8 Jul 2010 18:27 On Jul 8, 3:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 8, 5:17 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 8, 3:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 8, 4:42 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 8, 1:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 8, 1:37 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 8, 8:51 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 2:28 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 6:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 7:55 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 3:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 4:49 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 2:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 12:56 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 8:43 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 5:01 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 7:17 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 1:43 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Point mass can in no way rotate. Spin is for a changing size of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rotation. Particles never rotate or have changes in size. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But they do vibrate by their quantum aether wave flow push. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nobody ever said a point particle had to rotate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But they say Spin which is even more nonsensical. Spin is for changing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sizes of rotation rate; like an ice skater pulling in her arms. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A body does not need > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be rotating to possess angular momentum. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spin is an operator on a Hilbert space. It has nothing to do with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classical rotation.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. But that makes it nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it doesn't. It means it's a word that you recognize from somewhere > > > > > > > > > > > > > else that is being used with a new and different definition. So the > > > > > > > > > > > > > FIRST thing to do is to ask what this new and different definition of > > > > > > > > > > > > > "spin" is, so that you will not continue to be confused. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > You show me how a mathematical point particle can rotate. > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't. Quantum mechanical spin doesn't involve rotation of any > > > > > > > > > > > kind. > > > > > > > > > > > The Nobel Committee told me we don't know what we are measuring when > > > > > > > > > > we measure spin. > > > > > > > > > > Mitch, get some food. Your blood sugar is down. > > > > > > > > > > > Do you know what we are measuring then? > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. It doesn't happen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > Its an honest question. Point particles don't rotate. > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > Point particles don't wear underwear either. What's your point?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > A point cannot rotate > > > > > > That's right. > > > > > > > and spin is a wrong concept. > > > > > > It's a fine concept. It's clear you don't have the foggiest idea what > > > > > it means. That doesn't make it wrong. > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > If you define spin it is the ice skater pulling in her arms. > > > > No, that is NOT the definition of quantum mechanical spin. > > > > This is the problem, you see. You hear "spin" and think "skater", when > > > it means something completely different in quantum mechanics. > > > > You need to ask this question: "What does 'spin' mean in quantum > > > mechanics, if it does not mean the same thing as what a skater does?" > > > > > Particles > > > > don't change in rotation radius therefore they cannot be caused to > > > > spin. > > > > > Spin is a wrong concept in the quantum world. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Science is using spin when it is the wrong concept. > > Quantum particles do not change in radius and rotate. > > That is spin. The ice skater pulling in her arms. > > The Nobel Committee says we do not know what we are > > measuring that is being called spin in QM. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > OK, Mitch, I guess I'm not going to penetrate your skull here. > You want spin to mean what you think it means and only what it means: > like a skater pulling it her arms. When I tell you it means something > else in physics, this just rolls off you like money off a vagrant. You > say, "No it doesn't. It doesn't mean anything. Angels and the Nobel > Prize people told me so." This is where it becomes obviously useless > to talk with you. > > Hope you got a decent microwave burrito with the dollar somebody > dropped in your hat. > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Spin is a wrong concept even the Nobel Committee admits it. Mitch Raemsch
From: Igor on 10 Jul 2010 13:39 On Jul 8, 2:37 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 8, 8:51 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 7, 2:28 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 7, 6:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 6, 7:55 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 6, 3:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 4:49 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 2:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 12:56 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 8:43 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 5:01 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 7:17 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 1:43 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Point mass can in no way rotate. Spin is for a changing size of > > > > > > > > > > > > > rotation. Particles never rotate or have changes in size. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But they do vibrate by their quantum aether wave flow push. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nobody ever said a point particle had to rotate. > > > > > > > > > > > > But they say Spin which is even more nonsensical. Spin is for changing > > > > > > > > > > > sizes of rotation rate; like an ice skater pulling in her arms. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > A body does not need > > > > > > > > > > > > to be rotating to possess angular momentum. > > > > > > > > > > > Spin is an operator on a Hilbert space. It has nothing to do with > > > > > > > > > > classical rotation.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > Yes. But that makes it nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > No, it doesn't. It means it's a word that you recognize from somewhere > > > > > > > > else that is being used with a new and different definition.. So the > > > > > > > > FIRST thing to do is to ask what this new and different definition of > > > > > > > > "spin" is, so that you will not continue to be confused. > > > > > > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > You show me how a mathematical point particle can rotate. > > > > > > > It doesn't. Quantum mechanical spin doesn't involve rotation of any > > > > > > kind. > > > > > > The Nobel Committee told me we don't know what we are measuring when > > > > > we measure spin. > > > > > Mitch, get some food. Your blood sugar is down. > > > > > > Do you know what we are measuring then? > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > No. It doesn't happen. > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Its an honest question. Point particles don't rotate. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > Point particles don't wear underwear either. What's your point?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > A point cannot rotate and spin is a wrong concept. > > Mitch Raemsch That's why the discoverers of the concept, George Uhlenbeck and Samuel Goudsmidt wanted to call it "two-valuedness". It was Wolfgang Pauli who insisted on calling it "spin" and it's being confusing the hell out of clueless people like you ever since.
From: BURT on 10 Jul 2010 14:34
On Jul 10, 10:39 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > On Jul 8, 2:37 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 8, 8:51 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 7, 2:28 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 7, 6:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 6, 7:55 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 3:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 4:49 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 2:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 12:56 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 8:43 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 5:01 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 7:17 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 1:43 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Point mass can in no way rotate. Spin is for a changing size of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rotation. Particles never rotate or have changes in size. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But they do vibrate by their quantum aether wave flow push. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nobody ever said a point particle had to rotate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > But they say Spin which is even more nonsensical. Spin is for changing > > > > > > > > > > > > sizes of rotation rate; like an ice skater pulling in her arms. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A body does not need > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be rotating to possess angular momentum. > > > > > > > > > > > > Spin is an operator on a Hilbert space. It has nothing to do with > > > > > > > > > > > classical rotation.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. But that makes it nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > No, it doesn't. It means it's a word that you recognize from somewhere > > > > > > > > > else that is being used with a new and different definition. So the > > > > > > > > > FIRST thing to do is to ask what this new and different definition of > > > > > > > > > "spin" is, so that you will not continue to be confused. > > > > > > > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > You show me how a mathematical point particle can rotate. > > > > > > > > It doesn't. Quantum mechanical spin doesn't involve rotation of any > > > > > > > kind. > > > > > > > The Nobel Committee told me we don't know what we are measuring when > > > > > > we measure spin. > > > > > > Mitch, get some food. Your blood sugar is down. > > > > > > > Do you know what we are measuring then? > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > No. It doesn't happen. > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Its an honest question. Point particles don't rotate. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > Point particles don't wear underwear either. What's your point?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > A point cannot rotate and spin is a wrong concept. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > That's why the discoverers of the concept, George Uhlenbeck and Samuel > Goudsmidt wanted to call it "two-valuedness". It was Wolfgang Pauli > who insisted on calling it "spin" and it's being confusing the hell > out of clueless people like you ever since.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - What then is the property that has these two values? Mitch Raemsch |