Forces of Nature : THE SPIN.

[socratus]

In 1687, the book "Mathematical beginnings of natural philosophy"
by Isaac Newton was printed out. This book has become the fundamental
scientific textbook. In the foreword to this book, Newton has written:
"All the difficulty of physics, as it will be seen, is in recognizing
forces of the nature by the phenomena of motion,
and then to explain other phenomena according to these forces".
"The First Newton's law" breaks on the spot
this well formulated logical thought.
It states:
"Any body, until it remains insulated,
saves its state of rest or rectilinear motion".
This law of motion is considered fundamental in classic physics.
However, it permanently causes critics of initial positions of mechanics.
Because in earthly conditions it is defaulted.
This law does not take into consideration influence of external forces
; it also says nothing about internal forces. The reason on which the body
is moving or rests is not clear. This law is abstract.
Newton perceived illusiveness of this law. His scientific slogan was:
"I do not invent hypotheses".
He said: "I shall not mix conjectures with reliability".
He aimed to build a building of science without hypotheses.
Therefore, he wanted to correct somehow, to change his formulation.
But all attempts were unsuccessful.
However, this law is useful and necessary to explain then accelerated motion.
For this reason, this postulate of Newton
was forced and wrongfully erected to a rank of the law.
And from a school bench the person learns this postulate
as the law (unproved supposition). Here we have the paradoxical situation.
The Bible begins with the unfounded statement
"In the Beginning there was a Word ",
and classic physics begins with the unfounded statement
" In the Beginning there was the First Newton's law ".
The science states that the origin of the World according
to the religious version is not reliable, and builds the scientific
foundations based on abstraction. As a result, both formulations
(religious and scientific) are unsatisfactory from the point of view of logic.
====================================
Newton,s dream was realized by Planck.
let us analyze the discovery of quantum of light by Planck.
M. Planck in 1900 offered to examine the radiation emanating from
absolutely black body (Vacuum radiation of Kirchhoff /Max Laue / ),
as separate portions (quantum).
If the quantum of light will penetrate inside this absolute black body
and will not reflect back, the radiation and heat will die.
That it will not happen, the ideal black body should reflect
(radiate) this quantum of light back. Then and only then,
this initial (natural) radiation of quantum of light is characterized
by the constant of Planck -h .
The quantity of this particle, s impulse is h=1.
Under influence of this impulse the particle moves with speed c=1.
The particle has the form of a circle.
This quantity is described with a formula (h=Et) and has a title of
“the least quantum of action”,“ internal impulse of particle”, “spin”.
================================
Einstein realized Newton,s dream in another way
For the basic point of his argumentations, Einstein
took the constant of Boltzmann R/N = k
and coefficient (b) from the formula of radiation of Wien.
The multiplication of these two quantities gives the formula
of “ internal impulse of particle”, “spin” h = kb.
================================
Quantum of light is a privileged particle.
Only the speed of a light quantum in Vacuum has
a maximal, constant, absolute quantity of c=1.
No other particle can travel with the speed c = 1.
If quantum of light flies always rectilinearly c=1, it is a mad one.
Is he really mad?
========================================
No.
Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck also realized Newton,s dream.
Another impulse (spin) in 1925 was found by
Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck .
They came to a conclusion, that the particle should have other impulse.
Quantity of this impulse is described with a formula : ћ = h/ 2n,
forcing a particle to rotate around his diameter.
This means that it particle does not move rectilinearly,
but rotates around the diameter (has the form of a sphere).
The rotation of these particle creates electrical waves.
========================
So, when Newton wrote many years ago:
"All the difficulty of physics, as it will be seen, is in recognizing
forces of the nature by the phenomena of motion,
and then to explain other phenomena according to these forces",
Planck, Einstein, Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck realized his desire .

[Epsilon=One]

I agree with much that you write, which I’ve repeated below in quotes. However, your conclusion is somewhat overly optimistic concerning Planck, Einstein et al.
…Newton has written: “…physics…is in recognizing Forces…by the phenomena of motion, and then to explain other phenomena according to these forces".

"The First Newton's law"…does not take into consideration influence of external forces; it also says nothing about internal forces. The reason on which the body is moving or rests is not clear. This law is abstract.And, most importantly, Newton did not understand inertia.
…classic physics begins with the unfounded statement "In the Beginning there was the First Newton's law ". …both formulations
(religious and scientific) are unsatisfactory from the point of view of logic.

…let us analyze the discovery of quantum of light by Planck. …
The quantity of this particle, s impulse is h=1. …
The particle has the form of a circle. …
“the least quantum of action”,“ internal impulse of particle”, “spin”.Planck’s contributions to physics cannot be overstated. However, I don’t like your use of the term particle as it has the connotation of something solid, such as a small rock. Resonance would be a better word.

Einstein realized Newton,s dream in another way …“internal impulse of particle”,
“spin” h = kb.

Quantum of light is a privileged particle.

Only the speed of a light quantum in Vacuum has a maximal, constant, absolute quantity of c=1.

No other particle can travel with the speed c = 1.

If quantum of light flies always rectilinearly c=1… Be careful not to confuse a “quantum of light” with its ellipsoidal envelope.

Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck also realized Newton,s dream.
Another impulse (spin) in 1925 was found by Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck .

They came to a conclusion, that the particle should have other impulse.

Quantity of this impulse is described with a formula : ћ = h/ 2n, forcing a particle to rotate around his diameter.

This means that it particle does not move rectilinearly, but rotates around the diameter (has the form of a sphere).You have not adequately differentiated half-spin from a boson’s spin.

The rotation of these particle creates electrical waves.How do electrical waves’ motion differ from that of light waves’ motion???

So, when Newton wrote many years ago:
"All the difficulty of physics, as it will be seen, is in recognizing forces of the nature by the phenomena of motion, and then to explain other phenomena according to these forces", Planck, Einstein, Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck realized his desire .Not quite. They were never able to explain: Why??

[socratus]

From ancient times the man aspired to understand
the reason of movement. Gradually in physics there were
two points of view on the reason of movement.
1. In classical physics the reason of movement of bodies owing to
external influence is considered.
2. In quantum physics it was required to enter the term
"an internal impulse of a particle".
It is not me, who has entered into physics representation
about an internal pulse of a particle. This term is used in all
textbooks and books about physics. But spelling these words
nobody represents this process evidently.
I have simply decided to imagine, as this term, this impulse looks evidently.
And with the claims I ask you to address to physicists.
They, to be honest before themselves, should decide:
а) or to refuse the term "an internal impulse of a particle".
в) or to accept this term as a reality, and then it is necessary
to understand its origin.
If we refuse a terminology "an internal impulse of a particle",
we shall transform into the people unable to express their ideas.
If we accept this term as a reality, then it is necessary
to reconsider the sights on the world.

[Epsilon=One]

They, to be honest before themselves, should decide:
а) or to refuse the term "an internal impulse of a particle".

в) or to accept this term as a reality, and then it is necessary
to understand its origin.Your observations, I believe, are basically correct. You seem to be addressing the question of motion. Your “external influence” is the result of motion that is not above the speed of light.

There are two categories of motion: above and below the speed of light. That which is above the speed of light accounts for non-local phenomena and manifests only as resonances that are the quanta of light and subatomic particles. The “envelopes” that create and contain these resonances are non-local and are the quanta of “space.”

See: Motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=112)

[Albers]

I have elucidated time-independent field flow azimuthally by solving the Maxwell current equation at zero frequency. Light energy may go in circles here with no pulsation. Essentially I use <m=0> in the time sense but this gives you the result in the equation that it looks as though you selected <m=1> but you have not! You get a sort of freebie term and can hang sin(theta) on things without having declared the P-one-one state in spherical harmonics.

[Epsilon=One]

I have elucidated time-independent field flow azimuthally by solving the Maxwell current equation at zero frequency.I would contend that zero frequency would be a status that I refer to as Infinity. (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109)

Light energy may go in circles here with no pulsation.This is how I might geometrically and heuristically describe Infinity. (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109)

Essentially I use <m=0> in the time sense but this gives you the result in the equation that it looks as though you selected <m=1> but you have not! You get a sort of freebie term and can hang sin(theta) on things without having declared the P-one-one state.To escape Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109), at least geometrically, you must exceed "1" otherwise you have a dimensionless point or sphere. There is no "unit" of measurement (One) until the circle becomes an ellipse; thus, in Nature a radius of one cannot exist.

[Albers]

I would contend that must exceed "1" otherwise you have a dimensionless point or sphere. There is no "unit" of measurement (One) until the circle becomes an ellipse; thus, in Nature a radius of one cannot exist.
See, I thought 'one sucks'. Fascinating exchange. With the increasing density of energy toward the center, the speed of light falls to zero. We approach each other on different levels, productively. I'm starting to sense your 'hydrodynamic boogie', perhaps.

[Epsilon=One]

See, I thought 'one sucks'. Fascinating exchange.No argument here.

[Albers]

A round of beers in toast to differentiation!

[Epsilon=One]

Sorry, I missed your update to the post.

...With the increasing density of energy toward the center, the speed of light falls to zero. We approach each other on different levels, productively. I'm starting to sense your 'hydrodynamic boogie', perhaps.Yes, you are !!! And, of course, the "speed of zero" is no different from infinite speed . . . both are quintessentially non-local. And, respectively related to acute and obtuse ellipses.

At such speeds there is no "vector" as the "Pulse" squared (an undefined unit) remains an undefined "unit" (One² = One)." Without a "vector" there is no ellipse; thus, no Elliptical Constant (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=107) (a defined unit), which sets the resonance interruption, which sets the unit of fundamental, intrinsic time (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=164) (FIT) for each pulse. The pulses are non-local until the energy transfer to the resonance creates a pulse. The resonances, which I refer to as Resololids (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=482), are commonly known as bosons and fermions.

The fundamental equation for a Pulsoid (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=98) is v = εP² (the Pulsoid Theorem (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=607)), where v = vector, ε = Elliptical Constant (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=107), and P = Pulse (either perigee or soliton depending upon the nature of the Pulse and ellipse. Of course, you can see where e = mc² comes from.

It is the Brunardot Theorem (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=271) (c² = 2v² - s²) that establishes the importance of the vector (and the source of the Pythagorean theorem) as a structural part of the ellipse, and the Pulsoid Theorem (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=607), v = εP², that relates the ellipse to all of Nature.

[Albers]

.

And, of course, the "speed of zero" is no different from infinite speed . . . both are quintessentially non-local. And, respectively related to acute and obtuse ellipses.

At such speeds there is no "vector" as the "Pulse" squared (an undefined unit) remains an undefined "unit" (One^2 = One)." Without a "vector" there is no ellipse;
It is the Brunardot Theorem (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=271) (c^2 = 2v^2 - s^2) that establishes the importance of the vector (and the source of the Pythagorean theorem) as a structural part of the ellipse, and v = eP^2 that relates the ellipse to all of Nature.
Your first lines are powerful, and resonate with several different avenues of approach. Good meditations. At the singular surface of black holes, the radial coordinate changes get crunched as r=2m; in the electron, angular change vanishes throughout, and the speed goes to nothing as we approach the center. In the larger picture, I see all this as electrodynamic necessity which I am showing as being producible by a simply construed background field. In this part we will realize chaotic uncertainty and resonances which at best I will show to relate to the things we experience and whose background you boldly picture.

[Albers]

Angular momentum density in the EM field has occupied half my time. In the photon paper I showed that it is measured both in the homogeneous field (no charge or current) as E x A, vector cross product. Also, any charge fields, such as are cleaved by a passing A-field, represent locally momentum, which, if arranged off-center about the axis of propagation in antisymmetric fashion, give angular momentum as r-cross-momentum. You know, I got one of the blue-stars on the (European) Science Forums to admit that QM simply does not do these picturings! I find them slow.

[Epsilon=One]

At the singular surface of black holes, the radial coordinate changes get crunched as r=2m; in the electron, angular change vanishes throughout, and the speed goes to nothing as we approach the center. I think we have something going. Your math seems to reconcile my imagination.

Of course, I don’t believe in conventional black holes as currently proposed by astrophysicists and Pomo theoretical physicists; but, I do believe in Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) as a locus that can only be approached; and, I believe such approach to Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) as the mathematically, heuristic beginning and end of the seminal quantum.

In the larger picture, I see all this as electrodynamic necessity which I am showing as being producible by a simply construed background field.Yes.

In this part we will realize chaotic uncertainty and resonances…Yes. Though, I doubt if their can be true resonance where there is chaos.

… which at best I will show to relate to the things we experience… My belief is that we can only directly observe the resonances, while indirectly observing the effects of the non-local forces and harmony that are hyper-relativistic (supraluminal).

[Albers]

Yes. Though, I doubt if their can be true resonance where there is chaos.

My belief is that we can only directly observe the resonances, while indirectly observing the effects of the non-local forces and harmony that are hyper-relativistic (supraluminal).
I am searching for words here and I mean to include beyond chaos whatever deeper 'spray-can' is called for, and I mean that metaphor positively. Your last lines are strong and epistemologically loaded! This is what we came for. . . . . .I still am not knowing what to say to non-locality. When time permits I will spend time in the statistics there but it usually seems that we are trying to account for negative information. Until I hang out with the details I am in this state.

[Epsilon=One]

Your last lines are strong and epistemologically loaded! This is what we came for.You must be rationalizing what I understand. I might add that no one else has in over 50 years.

Of course, we may both be delusional.

Shortly, I will be clarifying and strengthening the posts in Pulsoid Theory. Before going too far in each thread, I wanted to establish general concepts while hoping for debate over the details. Obviously, for nearly a year, academia has not taken the bait. So much for academic, intelligent inquiry.

There is probably more in a few replies to you than in all my posts to PT.

An example: When a dimensionless point and a dimensionless sphere separate, the separation creates vectors, “v,” in all directions that are the square of the opposing motion of separation, “P,” (as yet, the only dimension is motion; no speed or units as there is no time or distance; there is not even . . . numbers), v = εP², (ε = epsilon = Elliptical Constant). The separation begins between 4 reactively, rotating spheroids, that are tangent and arranged in the manner of a tetrahedron, of almost infinite curvature (heuristically shown in 2D as Tini Circle Groups (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=159), which impart angular momentum to the motion. Such motion establishes an axis and GR indicates that the geometry of the separation, and motion about an axis generates a slide and swing to the vectors which results in an acute and obtuse ellipsoid on the same axis. When the vectors equal the wave (focal length of the ellipsoid) all salient, internal structures of the ellipse are harmonic (with a common unit denominator). The harmony creates spheroidal resonances and the common denominator is the Elliptical Constant, which remains constant for all subsequent elliptical shapes.

When v = εP² every salient structure of every elliptical shape is a Natural integer and related by a few simple relationships and at all times, for every ellipse, epsilon = One = h – w = 2p – r = P – K = h’ – v = v – r’ = 2s’ – r = w’ - r, et cetera. The accented symbols indicate an acute ellipse.

The importance of the vector is established by the Brunardot Theorem (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=271), c² = 2v² – s², of which the Pythagorean Theorem is a corollary. I’m sure you are aware of one of the corollaries to v = εP².

I still am not knowing what to say to non-locality.My concept of non-locality is simply that it is the effect of motion beyond the speed of light. Why because Einstein says so, should SOL be a limit. All logic indicates that speed should only be limited by the infinite and the infinitesimal. Speed beyond that of light and below that of the infinite provides non-local effects. As I explained to Morrison in 1955 if the spokes of a wheel are exceeding the SOL and can’t be observed, would he care to put a finger into the spinning wheel to prove that nothing can exceed the SOL. Such an arbitrary limit is ridiculous as Einstein demonstrated with the EPR gedunken paradox. No one understood better than Einstein what was wrong with SR, GR, and QM. I’m sure his attitude was similar to your Gell-Mann anecdote.

[Albers]

Even on the more friendly European Science Forums, the blue-stars are incapable of speaking to any idea not couched inside of their terms and concepts. I am throwing a carefully controlled snit there, being clear on my frustration without the rancor I have toward the evil King Xx. There has been much I've learned; CP violation is amazing, and I wonder what you can say to it. I am impressed to read that it is only in the beta decays that such a symmetry confusion is experienced. When I get that feeling "right up here in my guts", it is time to reestablish my own work focus. What joy to pull out of the hat my magnetic moment statement which made me feel stupid for three years. I am halfway to my next paper, and am working to see what my integrations give for the Bohr magnetic moment. I have done a good job of laying out before many people the good questions which go unanswered, and continue to walk on. Your statements are more and more clear; we knew this would be a gradual process.

[Albers]

I have completed a paper on electron magnetics and angular momentum, and it will soon be available as PARTS III and IV of the "Electron Field Solution with...". I have it separately in pdf form.