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: Igor on 10 Jul 2010 16:03 On Jul 10, 2:34 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Why do you even need to ask? You know everything already. Your mind is already made up. But, if you actually need to know, it has to do with the spitting of emission lines. There, I just doubled your knowledge about the subject.
From: BURT on 10 Jul 2010 16:14 On Jul 10, 1:03 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 2:34 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > Why do you even need to ask? You know everything already. Your mind > is already made up. But, if you actually need to know, it has to do > with the spitting of emission lines. There, I just doubled your > knowledge about the subject.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - No. Spin is a wrong concept for a point particle. Maybe you could define it better than that. Mitch Raemsch
From: Androcles on 10 Jul 2010 16:18
"Igor" <thoovler(a)excite.com> wrote in message news:bf640551-92f0-4c06-9ec1-3f69f80f58c4(a)t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com... On Jul 10, 2:34 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Why do you even need to ask? You know everything already. Your mind is already made up. But, if you actually need to know, it has to do with the spitting of emission lines. There, I just doubled your knowledge about the subject. ========================================== Spitting, huh? You are getting worse that Cardinale with your pathetic little whines, hoovler. What trash will you spit next? |