The spin is classically declared by comparison with a rotary motion of particles. But this is impossible like Bohr's assumption, the electrons circulate around the atomic nucleus.
It should be better to declare "spin" as asymmetry of the electrical charge or a directed electrical field. In close range the asymmetry is very effective and also observable, in far range this asymmetrie lose its effectiveness and electrons/positrons have apparently a spherical charge.
Spin-spin-interactions between electrons, electrons/positrons and positrons would be better explainable and much more besides.
Dear Oliver!
I would like to use the term "interaction" instead of repulsion. In my opinion are Coulomb- and spin-interactions the causes of of all physical powers - also for the chemical bonds and the gravity. Maybe you say: "He is a bit crazy."
The cemical bond could appear paradoxical: The electrons in atomic shells should repel each other but exactly the opposite.
You can observe by disassembling a chemical compound several atoms - this is termed as chemical analysis.
What can you observe by disassembling of atomic nuclei (and also particles)? Not only protons and neutrons. Experimental physics showed us for a long time the reality of the subatomic world. The problems are the old theories which based too much on mechanistically models and comparisons and also a bit the intellectual inflexibility in science.
Best Regards!
Hans
No: spin, like mass, is a spacetime label of a particle, it labels how the particle behaves under Lorentz transformations; electric charge is the label of a particle under transformations that commute with the Lorentz transformations. They're totally independent properties.
Dear Stam!
I am delighted that someone can declare the world resp. is well informed in current theories.
Hans
Dear Oliver!
A short interjection: If we assume that gravity and antigravity are existing in reality, the universe could never collapse or expand (like the big bang- theory implied). This means also that the universe is filled with galaxies of matter and anti-matter with about same frequency.
Best Regards
Hans
Oliver, I define the antigravity as the opposite of the well-known gravity.
Do you mean in your answer neutrons in the theoretically neutron stars? Neutron-matter would be like a huger atomic nucleus: It would immediately disintegrate. Neutron stars and obviously black holes cannot exist. The greatest strength couldn't hold it together. And gravity is only a weak stregth.
I am surprised time and time again by the world view in science.
Dear Oliver!
To compare a neutron with a H-atom is a hot potato. The sum load is the same, but the difference lies in the bonding conditions. The binding of an electron in a neutron is much different from the binding of an electron in a H-atom.
[This points to my paper being in translation. Every particle or atomic nucleus has an elementary structure (electrons/positrons) and a sub-structure (light mesons). Proton (4e+ 3e-) and (π+ π– μ+), neutron (4e+ 4e-) and (K+ π−). In whole universe exist exactly the same number of electrons on the one hand and positrons on the other hand. This is without further context initially Double Dutch. Maybe you look at the link below on the subject β+-decay. There are some illustrations to understand without German knowledge.]
The earth climate is a very complex subject. My brother is a meteorologican. We both agree that the sun and its activity is the main reason of the climate. Your paper leads to the manifold prcesses and that all current theories are incomplete. I agree.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260103679_Electron_pair_production_as_cause_of_positron-emission_(Paarbildung_als_Ursache_der_Positron-Emission)
Hans
- Badges
- Science topic