On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 1:30:12 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 1:47:39 AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 8:19:50 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > is spin not angular momentum?
> > >
> > > It is.
> > >
> > > > why is QM spin a label of integer and half?
> > >
> > > This is forced on us by an experimental result (the Stern-Gerlach magnet).
> > > And then the theory of angular momentum operators in QM matches that.
> > > The strange thing is that the half-integer spins do not correspond to
> > > the usual "r x momentum" definition (unless one fudges the
> > > definition of space by adding extra dimensions).
> > >
> > > > Spin should be speed instead.
> > >
> > > One reason spin cannot be naively thought of as a particle rotating is that,
> > > say, calculating the speed of rotation of an electron this way yields
> > > a value greater than the speed of light [exercise, see if I'm correct here,
> > > which I may not be].
> > Quite correct. Lorentz already said so,
> > even before the Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit paper was published.
> > But to reach that conclusion you need to assume
> > the classical electron model, with the classical electron radius.
> > So that model is wrong.
> > The electron is not a tiny billiard ball with surface charge.
> >
> > It really is a point particle,
> > and the concept of a 'surface velocity' is meaningless,
> Yes. That's another reason why spin is not the "r x momentum"-type thing
> (unless forced by adding extra dimensions).
>
> --
> Jan

What's the content of these "extra" dimensions?

On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 3:02:14 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 3/2/22 12:34 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > So Earth's rotation does not have a speed?
>
> Right. Earth's ROTATION does not "have a speed", because the concepts
> are incommensurate.
>
> But a given point on the surface of the earth does have a speed relative
> to the ECI frame. For points on earth's geoid (mean sea level), that
> speed depends only on latitude, which is characteristic of a rigid
> spheroid rotating around its principal axis.
>
> > That doesn't fly...
>
> Sure it does

No it doesn't.. rotation speed is determined by radius you moron.
Rotation has slow time and kinetic energy.

Mitchell Raemsch

> Tom Roberts

On 3/3/2022 12:08 AM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 3:02:14 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 3/2/22 12:34 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> So Earth's rotation does not have a speed?
>>
>> Right. Earth's ROTATION does not "have a speed", because the concepts
>> are incommensurate.
>>
>> But a given point on the surface of the earth does have a speed relative
>> to the ECI frame. For points on earth's geoid (mean sea level), that
>> speed depends only on latitude, which is characteristic of a rigid
>> spheroid rotating around its principal axis.
>>
>>> That doesn't fly...
>>
>> Sure it does
>
> No it doesn't.. rotation speed is determined by radius you moron.

That's right, Roy, you need a distance from the rotational axis to have
a speed. Rotation by itself isn't a speed, it has units of radians per
second. Speed has units of meters per second, these are incompatible
units so rotation cannot be speed. Roy, if you give a distance from the
axis, then there is a speed, but it's not the same everywhere. On earth
at the equator, the speed is about 1000 mph, while someone standing 1
meter from the North Pole will have a very slow speed.

> Rotation has slow time and kinetic energy.

Word salad, Roy.

On March 2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> One reason spin cannot be naively thought of as a particle rotating is that,
>> say, calculating the speed of rotation of an electron this way yields
>> a value greater than the speed of light
>
> Quite correct. Lorentz already said so,
> even before the Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit paper was published.
> But to reach that conclusion you need to assume
> the classical electron model, with the classical electron radius.
> So that model is wrong.
> The electron is not a tiny billiard ball with surface charge.
> It really is a point particle,
> and the concept of a 'surface velocity' is meaningless,

For grins, let's say a heretic proposes that an electron really IS
a classical particle, with its charge uniformly distributed through its
volume, or its surface. And it really does spin... faster than light.

Is such a model falsifiable? i.e. can it be experimentally distinguished
from the quantum point particle model?

--
Rich

On 3/6/22 6:52 PM, RichD wrote:
> For grins, let's say a heretic proposes that an electron really IS
> a classical particle, with its charge uniformly distributed through its
> volume, or its surface. And it really does spin... faster than light.
>
> Is such a model falsifiable? i.e. can it be experimentally distinguished
> from the quantum point particle model?

The classical radius of an electron is 2.8E-15 meters. No structure in
electron-proton scattering is seen down to ~ 1E-18 meters.

[BTW that classical electron radius is larger than the
measured radius of the proton.]

Tom Roberts

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On March 2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> One reason spin cannot be naively thought of as a particle rotating is
> >> that, say, calculating the speed of rotation of an electron this way
> >> yields a value greater than the speed of light
> >
> > Quite correct. Lorentz already said so,
> > even before the Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit paper was published.
> > But to reach that conclusion you need to assume
> > the classical electron model, with the classical electron radius.
> > So that model is wrong.
> > The electron is not a tiny billiard ball with surface charge.
> > It really is a point particle,
> > and the concept of a 'surface velocity' is meaningless,
>
>
> For grins, let's say a heretic proposes that an electron really IS
> a classical particle, with its charge uniformly distributed through its
> volume, or its surface. And it really does spin... faster than light.

In that case the predictions of QED would be wildly off.
They are not.
For example, QED correctly predicts the electron g-factor
to 10 decimals or so.
OTOH you would not even have an idea about
how to even make predictions on basis of a classical electron model,

> Is such a model falsifiable? i.e. can it be experimentally distinguished
> from the quantum point particle model?

Begin by resolving the internal inconsistencies in such a model,
so that you can predict something to falsify to begin with,

Jan

On Monday, 7 March 2022 at 09:56:07 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Begin by resolving the internal inconsistencies in such a model,
> so that you can predict something to falsify to begin with,

Professionals build their models unfalsifiable - to avoid
a possibility of conflict with the unknown. But how would
an idiot physicist know how to build models.

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On March 2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> One reason spin cannot be naively thought of as a particle rotating is that,
>>> say, calculating the speed of rotation of an electron this way yields
>>> a value greater than the speed of light
>>
>> Quite correct. Lorentz already said so,
>> even before the Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit paper was published.
>> But to reach that conclusion you need to assume
>> the classical electron model, with the classical electron radius.
>> So that model is wrong.
>> The electron is not a tiny billiard ball with surface charge.
>> It really is a point particle,
>> and the concept of a 'surface velocity' is meaningless,
>
>
> For grins, let's say a heretic proposes that an electron really IS
> a classical particle, with its charge uniformly distributed through its
> volume, or its surface. And it really does spin... faster than light.
>
> Is such a model falsifiable?

Yes. Magnetic moment is all wrong.

> i.e. can it be experimentally distinguished
> from the quantum point particle model?
>
> --
> Rich
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On March 6, tjrob137 wrote:
>> let's say a heretic proposes that an electron really IS
>> a classical particle, with its charge uniformly distributed through its
>> volume, or its surface. And it really does spin... faster than light.
>> Is such a model falsifiable? i.e. can it be experimentally distinguished
>> from the quantum point particle model?
>
> The classical radius of an electron is 2.8E-15 meters. No structure in
> electron-proton scattering is seen down to ~ 1E-18 meters.

I'm unclear on what structure means, or "no structure".

They smash particles, and observe the debris. From that,
they can infer the fields which caused the observed trajectories.

However, I do not see the step from there, to infer hypothetical
particle sizes. If we watch the moon, we can calculate the earth's
G field. But that does not uniquely determine the size or mass
distribution of the earth.

--
Rich

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On March 6, tjrob137 wrote:
>>> let's say a heretic proposes that an electron really IS
>>> a classical particle, with its charge uniformly distributed through its
>>> volume, or its surface. And it really does spin... faster than light.
>>> Is such a model falsifiable? i.e. can it be experimentally distinguished
>>> from the quantum point particle model?
>>
>> The classical radius of an electron is 2.8E-15 meters. No structure in
>> electron-proton scattering is seen down to ~ 1E-18 meters.
>
> I'm unclear on what structure means, or "no structure".
>
> They smash particles, and observe the debris. From that,
> they can infer the fields which caused the observed trajectories.

No, they can infer more than that.

There’s a interesting exhibit at some children’s museums that has a BB gun
on a horizontal rail so that it can slide back and forth. You can then fire
at a solid target hidden under a plastic disk. The BBs scatter off the
hidden object and leave marks on an impact screen that surrounds the whole
shebang. By looking at the pattern of the scattered BBs and by sliding the
gun back and forth on the rail, the game is to guess the shape and size of
the hidden target, among five hypothesized candidates. Keep in mind this is
in a children’s museum. The choices of target are a small diameter circular
disk, a large diameter circular disk, a square block, a triangle block, a
hexagonal block, or a row of evenly spaced pins.

What’s interested is learning what the pattern is from each of these and
then figuring out why.

>
> However, I do not see the step from there, to infer hypothetical
> particle sizes. If we watch the moon, we can calculate the earth's
> G field. But that does not uniquely determine the size or mass
> distribution of the earth.
>
> --
> Rich
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On March 6, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> let's say a heretic proposes that an electron really IS
> >> a classical particle, with its charge uniformly distributed through its
> >> volume, or its surface. And it really does spin... faster than light.
> >> Is such a model falsifiable? i.e. can it be experimentally distinguished
> >> from the quantum point particle model?
> >
> > The classical radius of an electron is 2.8E-15 meters. No structure in
> > electron-proton scattering is seen down to ~ 1E-18 meters.
>
> I'm unclear on what structure means, or "no structure".
>
> They smash particles, and observe the debris. From that,
> they can infer the fields which caused the observed trajectories.
>
> However, I do not see the step from there, to infer hypothetical
> particle sizes. If we watch the moon, we can calculate the earth's
> G field. But that does not uniquely determine the size or mass
> distribution of the earth.

It means that electrons are correctly described using standard QED,
(which has no electron structure)

Jan

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On March 6, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> let's say a heretic proposes that an electron really IS
> >> a classical particle, with its charge uniformly distributed through its
> >> volume, or its surface. And it really does spin... faster than light.
> >> Is such a model falsifiable? i.e. can it be experimentally distinguished
> >> from the quantum point particle model?
> >
> > The classical radius of an electron is 2.8E-15 meters. No structure in
> > electron-proton scattering is seen down to ~ 1E-18 meters.
>
> I'm unclear on what structure means, or "no structure".
>
> They smash particles, and observe the debris. From that,
> they can infer the fields which caused the observed trajectories.
>
> However, I do not see the step from there, to infer hypothetical
> particle sizes. If we watch the moon, we can calculate the earth's
> G field. But that does not uniquely determine the size or mass
> distribution of the earth.

It means that the electrons are completely, and correctly,
describe using standard QED, (which has no electron structure)

Jan

J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:

> RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On March 6, tjrob137 wrote:
> > >> let's say a heretic proposes that an electron really IS
> > >> a classical particle, with its charge uniformly distributed through its
> > >> volume, or its surface. And it really does spin... faster than light.
> > >> Is such a model falsifiable? i.e. can it be experimentally distinguished
> > >> from the quantum point particle model?
> > >
> > > The classical radius of an electron is 2.8E-15 meters. No structure in
> > > electron-proton scattering is seen down to ~ 1E-18 meters.
> >
> > I'm unclear on what structure means, or "no structure".
> >
> > They smash particles, and observe the debris. From that,
> > they can infer the fields which caused the observed trajectories.
> >
> > However, I do not see the step from there, to infer hypothetical
> > particle sizes. If we watch the moon, we can calculate the earth's
> > G field. But that does not uniquely determine the size or mass
> > distribution of the earth.
>
> It means that electrons are correctly described using standard QED,
> (which has no electron structure)

Sorry server error, duplicate posting.
Please ignore this one,

Jan

On Wednesday, March 9, 2022 at 1:35:50 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On March 6, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > >> let's say a heretic proposes that an electron really IS
> > > >> a classical particle, with its charge uniformly distributed through its
> > > >> volume, or its surface. And it really does spin... faster than light.
> > > >> Is such a model falsifiable? i.e. can it be experimentally distinguished
> > > >> from the quantum point particle model?
> > > >
> > > > The classical radius of an electron is 2.8E-15 meters. No structure in
> > > > electron-proton scattering is seen down to ~ 1E-18 meters.
> > >
> > > I'm unclear on what structure means, or "no structure".
> > >
> > > They smash particles, and observe the debris. From that,
> > > they can infer the fields which caused the observed trajectories.
> > >
> > > However, I do not see the step from there, to infer hypothetical
> > > particle sizes. If we watch the moon, we can calculate the earth's
> > > G field. But that does not uniquely determine the size or mass
> > > distribution of the earth.
> >
> > It means that electrons are correctly described using standard QED,
> > (which has no electron structure)
> Sorry server error, duplicate posting.
> Please ignore this one,
>
> Jan

Don't you mean "hivemind shard sharts"?

On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 4:54:04 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 9, 2022 at 1:35:50 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >
> > > RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On March 6, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > > >> let's say a heretic proposes that an electron really IS
> > > > >> a classical particle, with its charge uniformly distributed through its
> > > > >> volume, or its surface. And it really does spin... faster than light.
> > > > >> Is such a model falsifiable? i.e. can it be experimentally distinguished
> > > > >> from the quantum point particle model?
> > > > >
> > > > > The classical radius of an electron is 2.8E-15 meters. No structure in
> > > > > electron-proton scattering is seen down to ~ 1E-18 meters.
> > > >
> > > > I'm unclear on what structure means, or "no structure".
> > > >
> > > > They smash particles, and observe the debris. From that,
> > > > they can infer the fields which caused the observed trajectories.
> > > >
> > > > However, I do not see the step from there, to infer hypothetical
> > > > particle sizes. If we watch the moon, we can calculate the earth's
> > > > G field. But that does not uniquely determine the size or mass
> > > > distribution of the earth.
> > >
> > > It means that electrons are correctly described using standard QED,
> > > (which has no electron structure)
> > Sorry server error, duplicate posting.
> > Please ignore this one,
> >
> > Jan
> Don't you mean "hivemind shard sharts"?

Always duplicating his posts..., the linguist behind the
"various bots known as Burse" ends up adding lots of rules,
for they'd make too much _sense_.