Dear Chian Fan

Many thanks for the careful described introduction of the discussion!

The topic itself – the nature of the electron spin – is not an easy topic because the “tangible” existence of the electron is not without difficulties.

Moreover, because of the elementary electric charge the proton and the electron seem to be a “duality”. That means that we cannot understand the electron if we don’t understand the proton. Unfortunately, the proton is matter and that is why the rest mass carrying particle must have a gravitational field on its own. The electron has no rest mass and therefore its description is limited to the properties of the electromagnetic field.

Your introduction of the discussion mentions a couple of “opinions” of researchers that underscore the existence of an electron spin. For example F. J. Belinfante argued that it is a circular energy flow [12][15] and that spin is related to the structure of the internal wave field of the electron.

I agree with nearly all these facets of the electron spin but that doesn’t mean that it is possible to give a straightforward answer. I am afraid that the clarification of the spin of an electron needs a better understanding of its “creator”: the properties of the electromagnetic field.

With kind regards, Sydney

The introduction to the question is thorough one, and really reveals the mainstream physics problems at any attempts to understand – what the “quantum number” of a particle “spin” means.

The problems completely logically inevitably follow from that in mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics, all really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, “Matter” – and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fields”, etc., are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational,

- and so in every case when mainstream physics addresses to any really fundamental problem – in this case what is particle? - the result in better case is observations at experiments of some parameters of really transcendent/mystic material object, in this case “particle”, that are involved in some relations to other equally transcendent/mystic objects, revealing at that existent for/by equally mystic reasons and ways some universal laws/links/constants, and developing some mathematical constructions “approaches”, “theories”, “models”, etc., aimed at fitting the theories, etc. with experiments.

That, again for/by some mystic reasons/ways, turns out to be adequate to the reality in many cases, however at that quite inevitably logically any/every mainstream theory is based on evidently mystic postulates – in the SR/GR that are mystic – and really fundamentally non-existent - spacetime transformations at motion of material objects and gravitational interactions, etc., in QM, say, the postulates that all one type particles are identical and wave-particle duality,

- and a number of points that relates to particle’s spin, while particles – since they are observed as interacting as “particles-points” – are postulated as are point-like objects that have zero sizes, including, so, should have zero “classical” angular momentum. Etc., including even, say, as that is in the introduction

“…I think we must look towards the general relativity theory for an adequate solution of the problem of the "structure of the electron" ; if indeed this phrase has any meaning at all and if it can be possible to do more than to say how an electron behaves in an external field. Yang said too: "And most important, we do not yet have a general relativistic theory of the spinning electron. I for one suspect that the spin and general relativity are deeply entangled in a subtle way that we do not now understand [11]. I believe that all unified theories must take this into account.…”

- that in the quote is really a set of a tooo strange claims, nonetheless yeah, which are completely legitimate in the mainstream.

A bit lesser strange, nonetheless also really fantastic, but completely legitimate, are the claims that

“…spin is related to the structure of the internal wave field of the electron. A comparison between calculations of angular momentum in the Dirac and electromagnetic fields shows that the spin of the electron is entirely analogous to the angular momentum carried by a classical circularly polarized wave [13]. The electron is a photon with toroidal topology…”

The fundamental phenomena/notions above can be, and are, really scientifically defined only in framework of the philosophical 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

, where it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set;

- including Matter – and everything in Matter – is/are some informational patterns/systems; from what immediately it follows that there is nothing surprising in the identity of given type particles - that simply are exact copies of one pattern/system, more concretely [more see below] given type binary reversible algorithm, when the algorithm runs in “direct” command order that is particle, if runs in reverse command order that is antiparticle;

- from scientific definitions of “Space” and “Time” and Matter rigorously it follows that Matter’s spacetime is absolute and cannot be “contracted”, “dilated”, “curved”, etc.

Correspondingly from the conception it follows that the really earlier transcendent outstanding von Weizsäcker “Ur-hypothesis” and outstanding Fredkin-Toffoly finding, from which it follows that the informational system “Matter” is based on some binary reversible logics become completely legitimate and natural [from that also follows the mystic in mainstream extreme efficiency of mathematics in physics].

That allowed to develop the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model , main papers are

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics,

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force

- where, including, the models of particles, including spins, and of fundamental Nature forces and their fields, etc., are developed, all of which are in complete accordance with all existent really reliable experimental data.

The post is rather long already, so now more see the links, and

Cheers

Dear Chian Fan My answer is, we must see electron first.

I'm sure you know, the whole standard modeling of atom with electron is just theory of assumption and prediction, postulation is not science.

The perception of electron and magnetic in atom is totally incorrect.

Atom (hydrogen) is the unit of our universe, and act to temperature, and pressure promptly. thus it is not mechanic as mainstream follow.

read my paper for more information.

Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted

regards

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm, you hawe wrote "The electron has no rest mass". May be, you mean photon?

Dear Alexey Orlovsky

Electrons interact with a gravitational field. But the particle itself has no gravitational field of its own, like protons and neutrons. The gravitational field of a planet is the total amount of all the atomic nuclei. One can discuss the nature of a gravitational field (curved spacetime, Newtonian gravity or an influence from vacuum space around the matter object) but one thing is for sure: without matter there exists no force of gravitation.

Of course the electron has mass and momentum – even the quantum of energy (photon) has mass and momentum – but the mass of an electron is not rest mass (matter). A couple of decades ago it was proposed that the rest mass of a proton was obtained from the Higgs field (universal scalar field). That means that the concentrated energy of the proton forces an enclosed scalar of the Higgs field to decrease its magnitude. The idea was that the energy – represented by the released “freed” volume of the scalar – becomes part of the volume of the local electric field (actually the proton).

Unfortunately energy is not a property that represents volume. Energy is surface area (like E = m c2 shows). There are no experiments that show that adding energy changes the volume of a rest mass carrying particle significant. It doesn’t mean that the idea – the Higgs mechanism – is wrong but the process seems a bit more complicated. Nevertheless, rest mass is directly related with the emergence of a local gravitational field.

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Chian Fan

An experiment carried out in 1998, formally published in 2013 reveals that the magnetic poles of magnets whose both poles coincide at the geometric center of the magnet can be present only in alternance, which reveals that it oscillates at some frequency. By similarity, given that electrons are elementary point-like electromagnetic behaving particles, both their magnetic poles also coincide by structure.

This experiment brought the proof that these poles cannot be simultaneously present in these magnets, and by similarity in electrons:

Article On The Magnetostatic Inverse Cube Law and Magnetic Monopoles...

One year after this publication, that is in 2014, An experiment carried out by Kotler et al. Confirmed this behavior with real electrons made to interact in magnetic opposition:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13403.epdf?referrer_access_token=yoC6RXrPyxwvQviChYrG0tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PdPJ4geER1fKVR1YXH8GThqECstdb6e48mZm0qQo2OMX_XYURkzBSUZCrxM8VipvnG8FofxB39P4lc-1UIKEO1

This behavior for magnets whose both poles coincide with the geometric center of the magnets was also confirmed in attraction by an experiment carried out in 2019 by E. Markoulakis:

Data Measurement of Direct with no curl axial flux B field of N-S...

This reveals that when in parallel magnetic "so-called spin" alignment, two electrons will repel each other as a function of the inverse cube of the distance, while in anti-parallel spin alignment, they will attract as a function of the inverse cube of the distance separating them, which can be understood as the cause of covalent bounding that allows molecules to be assembled, and of Cooper pairs establishment when free moving electrons are sufficiently thermal and close together for the attractive inverse cube law to dominate their natural charges related electric inverse square law repulsion.

The analysis is carried out in the 2013 article.

Best Regards, André

The STOE suggests ``spin'' is actually a magnetic effect and indicates magnetic poles. As you suggest, the electron's magnetic effect indicates sever (4?) magnetic poles with a common center and with different directions, it ho the 720 degree symmetry in the magnetic field happens.

This implies also that while macroscopic magnetic fields are static in bar magnets, in which they are physically separated, they are dynamic in magnets in which both poles geometrically coincide with the center of the magnet, as well as in point-like behaving electrons.

This dynamic local spherical expansion-regression oscillation of the energy of concentric magnetic poles fields cannot really be described in 4D space-time geometry but can easily be represented and related to the electric state and clearly visualized in 3x3D+1 trispatial vector space geometry as being fundamental in explaining the inner dynamic structure of the de Broglie localized photon, as analyzed in this article, initially published in 2016 and republished as a book chapter upon invitation in 2021:

Article De Broglie’s Double-Particle Photon (Expanded republication PI)

The complete sequence of electromagnetic mechanics conversion processes between the known stable stationary resonance states of energy at the subatomic level then emerges from this dynamic energy structure, and whose local vector complexes are illustrated in this recently published article, that refers to their detailed analyses in previously published articles:

Article Introduction to Synchronized Kinematic and Electromagnetic Mechanics

André Michaud

Have downloaded your papers. I'm thinking about the electromagnetic vs kinematic resolution, also. I suggest the reason the ``point particle'' works is the Spherical principle which results from a heat equation like medium whose gradient is force. For subatomic particles this may not work. I note in Emmanouil's paper which you referenced and in your experiment that the very close point of the graph (low distance) look more like a linear relation such as the electric field between capacitor plates and Emmanoui;'s Fig. 1.

Also, I'm thinking about redoing Maxwell's equations to include my Biot-Savart and 2 types of magnetic field experiments. Also, I suggest the gradient of a permanent magnetic field is gravity, thus bringing gravity into electrodynamics (my paper on magnetic repulsion vs distance). But first, I have to resolve the heat equation (point particle assumption) with the need for applying the wave equation for photon interference. Your papers may help. Thanks.

John Hodge

Hi John,

Note that all my analyses and equations specifically concern elementary particles at the subatomic level in the set of their stable stationary action resonance states that directly emerge from the properties that fundamental energy must have to explain their existence and interactions.

I make no assumption whatsoever about the larger levels of magnitude (atomic-molecular – trispatial level 3) and (macroscopic-astronomical – trispatial level 4) except what directly emerges from the first 3 levels.

About the linear effect initially leading to 1/d2 that you and Emmanouil noticed at very close range, from my understanding this is because even though both poles of these magnets coincide with their geometric centers, their macroscopic oscillating fields themselves are very large with respect the unitary magnetic fields of the elementary particles themselves. I suspect that some macroscopic effect still to be identified is at play.

From the electromagnetic perspective in the trispatial vector geometry 1/d2 seems to be applicable only in electrostatic Y-space. But these sorts of considerations remain to be analyzed and clarified even from the trispatial geometry perspective. I am fully aware that my exploration from the local 3x3D+1 space geometry perspective is only a first wave of analyses. In particular, all related beat frequencies wave equations remain to be developed.

For the force interaction aspect in the trispatial context, Section 3 of the last article provides the analysis.

Best Regards, André

Electron never been observed to this date. how could be described it without any evidence ?

After the SS post on page 1 rather strange series of posts with rather strange “derivations” of “electron spin” appeared, so note here, that:

- again - any really fundamental problem in physics, including what is the really transcendent/mystic in mainstream physics parameter of particles “quantum number” “spin”, which all fundamental elementary particles have, not only electrons, but, say, quite electrically neutral neutrinos,

- and that any really fundamental problem in physics can be, and a lot of, including what is “spin”, are, scientifically answered/clarified only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception and informational physical model, the links to main papers see this SS post.

More see the links, here only more concrete comments to what is “a particle’s spin”, for what is evidently necessary before to understand “what is particle”, so:

(i) – as that is pointed in the SS post, the informational system “Matter” is based on some binary reversible logics, what is actualized in that the ultimate base of Matter is the Matter’s aether –

– primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which compose the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice, which is placed in the corresponding Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct), and

(ii) - so everything in Matter is/are some specific disturbances in the lattice that appear at impacting on any FLE in the lattice with transmitting to the FLE some momentum P. Including particles are specific disturbances, and, if we consider only utmost universal, i.e. “kinematical” parameters of the disturbances, including the parameter “spin”, it is sufficient to consider what happens in the utmost universal Matter’s “kinematical” [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct); where [“coordinate time” in the model] cτ, and 3 standard X,Y,Z space dimensions, are dimensions of the 4D space; and ct is the time dimension. All dimensions are fundamentally independent on each other.

Note, that in mainstream physics Matter’s spacetime is either 4D Euclidian with metrics (ct,X,Y,Z) in “classical” mechanics, and Minkowski 4D spacetime with metrics (ict,X,Y,Z), i is [mathematical] imaginary unit, in the SR.

Really these time ct/ict dimensions in the mainstream are some combinations of real cτ space dimension and real [“true time”] ct-dimension, and, since really in the utmost universal kinematical [5]4D spacetime all happens in the 4D space, when the “true time” ct-dimension, at least in local cosmological regions, is practically only the dimension, where everything that changes moves also independently on what change [at any interaction] happened; so this motion isn’t observable till the really extremely mighty Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle [which follows from the Matter’s logical base] acts completely, what happens in everyday mainstream physics practice,

- in classical physics time quite correctly – as the “true time” - is independent on what happens in 3D space;

- while in the SR “time and space are intertwined”, what is fundamentally impossible, but, since that, though illusory, but really essentially adequately [more see the linked in the SS post papers], follows from the relatively principle, the SR is applicable in everyday physical practice.

The particles are created at impact of 4D momentum P [“bold” means 4D vector] on a lattice FLE. If P is infinitely small, that causes in the lattice – and so, of course, in 4D space, propagating along a straight line of sequential flipping of FLEs, when every FLE binary flip causes the flip of next FLE with the speed of light, c, c=lP/tP, lP and tP are “FLE size” and “FLE flip time”, that are equal to Planck length and Planck time.

If P isn’t infinitesimal, since the propagating “FLE flip point” cannot be larger than c, the flipping FLEs become to precess, the “flipping point” correspondingly cyclically propagates along some 4D “helix” trajectory, and just that is a particle, which so is some cyclic algorithm that runs basing on “FLE hardware”, at that

- the flipping point has momentum P, while “radius” of the “helix”, λ, is determined by that λ=ћ/P, and so the flipping point’s angular momentum – i.e. the particle’s angular momentum, i.e. real spin, is equal to 1ћ.

Correspondingly: (i) – a particle exists at every time moment, and so interacts as a “point” that has ~ Planck length size, and, at that, this point can be at some time moment in any point on the helix that has extremely larger “size”, what is observable at interaction of particles in 3D space as that “particle is also a wave”, where the “wave” is 3D projection of 4D helix.

The post is rather long already, so now more will be in a few days, first of all abut some nuances relating to “spin”; now see also the links, and

Cheers

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm

Thank you for acknowledging the question I posed. Spin expression is an experimentally confirmed physical concept, but understanding its nature is indeed a difficult task. Any further exploration of it, especially when trying to build a unified theory, without being able to answer this question reasonably, may be tenuous.

You say, "The electron has no rest mass and therefore its description is limited to the properties of the electromagnetic field." I don't quite understand this, doesn't the electron have no mass and no gravitational field? If some explanation could be given, we would have a better idea of your point.

Best Regards， Chian Fan

Dear Sergey Shevchenko

I personally appreciate your work and am trying to understand your "information theory".

Regarding one of the possible "shortcomings" of mainstream physicists, I quoted C.N. Yang [in question no. 9]. I think he himself, as an important physicist, has made it very clear. However, this does not mean that we can take the conclusions of mainstream physicists with a light emphasis.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Dear Prof. Chian Fan

Although QED is not my specialty, I can suggest to read some chapters of one of the Landau Lifshitz monographies.

In the IV volume, spin is carefully treated within the example of a quantum field, using the electromagnetic interaction that seems more tractable than other interactions in the subject of polarization.

I also suggest the article:

Article Landau singularity and the instability of vacuum state in QED

Berestetskii, Vladimir B.; Lifshitz, Evgeny M.; Pitaevskii, Lev P. (1982). Quantum Electrodynamics. Vol. 4 (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. ISBN 978-0-7506-3371-0.

Kind Regards.

Dear Pedro L. Contreras E.

Thank you very much for the reference information.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

You are most welcome, Prof. Chian Fan

In Theoretical Solid State Physics are the so called noncentrosymmetric crystals, for them spin is not anymore a good quantum number, and a new term is introduce: Helicity.

Therefore your question is relevant.

Kind Regards.

Dear Chian Fan

In the first part of the 20th century rest mass is all the mass of an atom without the energy supply by its motion (this type of energy represents also mass). In other words, rest mass is the bare amount of energy that represents matter. But some 40 years ago the meaning of rest mass changed a bit because of Peter Higgs discovery of a universal scalar field everywhere in the universe. It was/is thought that the energy of the rest mass of a particle originates from one or more local decreased scalars of the Higgs field.

Thus energy of the electromagnetic field can concentrate without forcing one or more local scalars to decrease its/their magnitude. But the consequence is that this type of local concentration of energy isn’t stable. Thus the “electromagnetic” concentration of energy can/will vanish again.

A particle like the proton is stable and it is for sure that its electric “boundary” envelopes one or more decreased scalars of the Higgs field. This experimental fact changed somehow the meaning of “rest mass”. Because in the past rest mass was associated with “bare” matter. Now it shows that the stability of matter is caused by local decreased scalars of the Higgs field. In other words, rest mass seems to be a surplus of energy “on top” of the already concentrated energy by the electromagnetic field.

Electrons can vanish (the sea of Dirac). But because electrons and protons have an electric charge (+/-), it is clear that the proton and the electron together form a duality. The proton is a stable particle thus as long as the proton exists, the electron exists too. Although the electron doesn’t envelope one or more decreased scalars of the Higgs field.

Matter has a gravitational field. Matter exists of atoms and molecules thus if we want to know if the constituents of matter – protons, neutrons, electrons – have a gravitational field of their own, the situation is a bit more complicated. The nuclei of most atoms are compositions of protons and neutrons thus experiments with different type of atoms show that both type of particles have a gravitational field. Unfortunately the proton and the electron are a duality thus because of the electric charge (+/-) it is impossible to create a large object without electrons.

The consequence is that we need a theory of quantum gravity to decide if the electron has a gravitational field of its own. The fact that an electron can vanish as a local observable has no meaning because the majority of the theorists are convinced that Einstein’s theory of General relativity is correct. Curved spacetime is supposed to be the result of local concentrated energy and an electron represents energy like the proton and the neutron. We cannot solve the question with the help of Newtonian gravity because it has the same problem as curved spacetime, it is a theory that is restricted to macroscopic reality.

However, in quantum theory the electron represents only the properties of the universal electric field and the corresponding magnetic field. So it is really difficult to theorize an attached gravitational field.

With kind regards, Sydney

So let to continue comments to the problem “what is a particle’s [not only electron’s] spin” [see also SS posts on page 1, 2 days ago now; and on page 2, 2 days ago now]. In the last post it is explained, that particles are specific disturbances in the Matter’s ultimate base – [5]4D dense lattice of the [5]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements that are created at impact of some 4D momentum P [“bold” means 4D vector] on a the lattice’s FLE

- so, that all/every particles exist as constantly moving in the lattice [and so, of course, in the 4D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z)] with 4D velocities V, which have identical absolute values be equal to the speed of light, c, what is completely determined by main properties of FLE,

- while a particle exists in every time moment as “the lattice FLE flip point”, which moves along some 4D “helix” [so the point moves with 4D speed c√2, but the front of the helix moves with 4D c], that has “radius” λ=ћ/P, while the point has momentum P, so the point has also “4D angular momentum” – just 4D “spin”, that is equal to ћ [here we don’t consider some particles that are composed from other particles, and so can have sums of spins be equal to, say, zero].

However in 4D space cross-product M=λxP mathematically doesn’t exist as a 4D vector, and so the particles mostly have 4D spins “be equal to ћ” as something else, say, 4D tensors or bi-vectors, something else.

Besides there exist two main types of particles: “T-particles” that are created by momentums that are directed along the cτ-axis, which so can be at rest in the 3DXYZ space, moving at that with the speed of light in cτ-dimension, having momentum P0=m0c, and 3D space “rest mass m0” and if are impacted by a 3D space line directed momentum p, move also in the 3D space with a 3D speed v, having whole 4D momentum P=P0+p = γm0c, and whole 4D spin,

- which is observed as 3D projection of the 4D spin as be equal to 1/2ћ [though that changes at “spin flips” on whole ћ];

- and “S-particles” that are created by 3D space directed momentums, now that are for sure only photons , which, since move only in 3D space, have “true” spins be equal to ћ.

Here again are a couple of nuances: so photon hasn’t “spin-0” state projection; and, since the “4D angular momentum” of a particle has, nonetheless, the direction – along the particle’s 4D momentum P direction, T-particles if are impacted by large pand move also in 3D space with large Lorentz factor, have, by the Pythagoras theorem, 4D spins that are directed along p 3D direction, what is observed at experiments as the particles have “helicities” be equal to ћ, i.e. to the “true angular momentum”.

More see the SS posts above and links, first of all linked papers, in the posts.

Cheers

Yes ,,,,,,,,,,

Kauz :

Parity inversion makes it a rule that transformation on all particles correspond to the anti-particles . Changes of signs of all ( internal-parasymmetric ) Quantum numbers lave mass , momentum , and energy front density absolutely un-touched . EM and strong interaction obey C*-para_symmetry while weak interaction well violates C*-para_symmetry . It also occurs to me that one might deduce the parity from Maxwell's equations, though that might be a bit of a stretch since they are classical of course. Also, it occurs to me that parity might be assigned a value to -1 as merely a convention.

Photon parity is a matter of convention, not determined by experiment. Also that it is sometimes 1 and sometimes -1 and that it is really not defined since {P, → } = 0 and the photon always has nonzero momentum. Parity inversion [para-]symmetry emerges, as most fundamental things in modern physics, from a symmetry principle, namely that of spatial reflections (usually in the sense of reflections of the spatial components of the position vector at the origin of cartesian coordinate system). Then you describe the particles by relativistic quantum fields, building up a representation of the proper orthochronous Poincare group augmented by space reflections. Now if particles ought to have a specific parity in the strict sense the theory should have spatial reflections as a symmetry. For the hadrons, which can be described in the low-energy realm by an effective (chiral) theory of strongly interacting hadrons (baryons and mesons). The strong interaction is P (even CP) invariant (which is a puzzle in itself) and thus as long as only strong interactions are taken into account parity is a well-defined quantum number of all hadrons. There's even an approximate spontaneously broken symmetry between even and odd parity states with the pions as the pseudo-Goldstone bosons of this broken symmetry. Now since on the fundamental level of QCD the spontaneous breaking is due to the vacuum expectation value of the scalar order parameter describing up and down quarks an their antiparticles), the quark condensate. The Goldstone modes are necessarily the pseudoscalar modes, i.e., SU ( 2 ) L × SU ( 2 ) L is spontaneously broken to the iso-vector symmetry SU ( 2 ) V . Thus the pseudo-Goldstone modes, providing an isotriplet of mesons, must be described by pseudo-scalar fields, and all three pions must have the same parity (-). Now naively there's also an Abelian axial symmetry, U ( 1 ) A , if you look at the "classical" Lagrangian, but that symmetry is broken by an anomaly, particularly also when taking into account the electromagnetic interaction (which also breaks isospin symmetry by the way). That's why the decay of the neutral pion into two photons is much larger than expected. The decay into 3 photons is highly surpressed if present at all. Within the standard model it doesn't decay to 3 photons, because this would violate C (charge-conjugation) symmetry of the electromagnetic interaction.

In studying continuous geometrical symmetries on conjugative particle charges , we find that the conservation of momentum is a consequence of translational symmetry. In parity & charge conjugation processualization in quantum mechanics it means that the momentum operator is a generator of translation. I assume this means the following: there is a vector field

E (r ) in a Euclidean vector-space,

r is the position vector (both are independent of a coordiante system-> invariant tensors) and we have chosen a cartesian coordinate system, where the {x,y,z} coordinates are measured to be increasing in a certain direction, which gives rise to a local (covariant) basis in every point in space.

Dear Reza Sanaye

Your thoughts are profound. I need to learn more intensively.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Dear Sergey Shevchenko

Very much appreciate the creative force in your work. But I am sorry that I could not devote more time to study your thesis, because the fundamental concepts involved in building your theoretical foundation, "information", "the set", "aether ", "logos", "space", "time", "binary reversible fundamental logical elements" (FLE), "lattice", "flips", and so on, are overly esoteric. I hope others can understand and give a definite explanation.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm

Thank you for your enlightening reply.

you say, " In other words, rest mass seems to be a surplus of energy “on top” of the already concentrated energy by the electromagnetic field." "in quantum theory the electron represents only the properties of the universal electric field and the corresponding magnetic field. So it is really difficult to theorize an attached gravitational field." etc.

These points deserve deeper thinking.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Dear Chian Fan

- from this

“…I am sorry that I could not devote more time to study your thesis, because the fundamental concepts involved in building your theoretical foundation, "information", "the set", "aether ", "logos", "space", "time", "binary reversible fundamental logical elements" (FLE), "lattice", "flips", and so on, are overly esoteric. …..”

- it looks as you don’t read the SS posts attentively enough: in SS posts above it is clearly written that in mainstream philosophy and science, including physics, really all fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, “Matter” – and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fields”, etc., are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational,

- or, using your word – are fundamentally completely “esoteric”.

Just there in every case when mainstream physics addresses to any really fundamental problem – in this case what is particle?, and so what is “spin”, the result in better case is observations at experiments of some parameters of really transcendent/mystic/ esoteric material object, in this case “particle”, that are involved in some relations to other equally transcendent/mystic/esoteric objects, revealing at that existent for/by equally mystic/esoteric reasons and ways some universal laws/links/constants; and developing some correspondingly completely esoteric mathematical constructions “approaches”, “theories”, “models”, etc., aimed at fitting the theories, etc. with experiments.

Including that relates to the particles’ parameter – “quantum number” – “spin”, physics knows a lot of experimental data about which, but when uses the data in theories assigns quite “esoteric” – and really fantastic – properties

– that is some esoteric parameter which looks as some angular momentum of esoteric point “particle”, which for/by some esoteric reason/way this “point” has, or, say

“…"I think we must look towards the general relativity theory for an adequate solution of the problem of the "structure of the electron" ; …."And most important, we do not yet have a general relativistic theory of the spinning electron. I for one suspect that the spin and general relativity are deeply entangled in a subtle way that we do not now understand [11]”. ….”

- where the authors of the really fullstop esoteric claims above really have only completely esoteric imaginations about what are “particle”, “space/Space”, “time/Time”.

Etc. - again, all fundamental phenomena/notions can be, and are, really scientifically defined only in framework of the philosophical 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- where it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set; including Matter – and everything in Matter – absolutely for sure is/are some informational patterns/systems, while the general definition of the absolutely fundamental phenomenon/notion “Information” is

“Information is something that is constructed in accordance with the set/system of absolutely fundamental Rules, Possibilities, Quantities, etc. – the set/system “Logos” in the conception”

The definition above contains nothing esoteric, it is quite scientifically clear; including there is nothing esoteric in “Logos” – that is only some pertinent name of the set of Rules, Possibilities, Quantities, etc., that make something being some informational pattern/system, and so “Logos” set elements are actualized absolutely obligatorily in every informational pattern/system;

- including in the Set’s element “Matter”, which exists and changes in actualized “Space” and “Time” as the Matter’s spacetime, actualization of “Energy” is necessary to create practically every pattern in Matter and to determine so “persuasiveness” of informational exchange in Matter, etc.

And, besides, from all existent reliable experimental data it follows that Matter is a simple informational system that is based on a binary reversible logics, which is actualized as that Matter’s ultimate base are corresponding “logical gates” – like electronic chips in a computer [which in ordinary computers aren’t reversible] - binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], etc.;

- more, including the answer to the thread question see the SS posts in the thread. Here is only physics and nothing “esoteric”, in fundamental contrast to, again, mainstream physics; and to other than SS ones posts in the thread, though.

To read SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/H_denotes_the_constant_ratio_E_f_Ehf_is_it_possible_that_h_has_an_equation_both_without_E_and_f/1 it is useful as well.

Cheers

``Spin" as measured is not rotation, it is the result of magnetic pole orientation relative to the structure of particles. The magnetic poles of the particle srucure then react with the magnetic field of the external experiment. The angular momentum math is just that - the math not the relity.

Dear Chian Fan

The question about the spin of an electron gets even more mysterious. Because if we have an anti-Helium nucleus we can substitute one of the 2 anti-electrons (positrons) with a proton. Because the positron and the proton have the same electric charge.

Because of the mass of the proton the size of the “orbit” of the proton around the nucleus is much smaller than the “orbit” of the other positron. This is not a theoretical assumption, it is a real experiment and if I remember well it was published about 2 years ago.

The energy of the proton is a kind of a loop. Thus the proton that is orbiting the anti-Helium nucleus has a loop too so we cannot argue that the proton – because of its position as a substitute for a positron – has changed into a wave packet without a spin (loop).

So it is really difficult to get a convincing concept of the electron and its relation to the proton. But one thing is for sure, we cannot understand what is exactly going on at the atomic scale size if we use the phenomenological point of view (classic physics).

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm

The electron's spin is essential to the stability of matter, and control over the spin opens up avenues for manipulating the properties of molecules and materials. Chiral-induced spin selectivity (CISS) effect show that the spin orientation is linked to molecular symmetry and can be controlled in ways not previously imagined[1].

An object is chiral when distinguishable from its mirror image, viz., the two cannot be physically superimposed. A phenomenon that is governed by a vector product that obeys a right-hand vs. left-hand rule, characterized by a binary[2]

The helicity of a particle is the normalized projection of the spin on the direction of momentum.

Pedro L. Contreras E. suggests that there are related concepts, Spin, Chirality, Helicity. these concepts are deterministic properties at different levels. @

My understanding is that Spin is something that is a valid theory and experimentally verified to exist. Therefore, Spin should be the foundation of physics. Chirality and Helicity can " package" Spin at the top level, but Spin cannot be replaced at the bottom level. The question of what Spin is is unavoidable, and it is the most important question.

The fundamental difference between fermions and bosons lies in the spin[3], not whether there is spin or not, not the difference between half-integer and integer, but in the fact that they are two symmetrical spin modes, which are different physical manifestations.

The spin of fermions should be consistent with Quantum Theory, Special Relativity, and General Relativity, directly generating spin magnetic moments, charges, masses, and accompanying gravitational fields. Keep in mind that without spin (as in annihilation, where it is only the spin that changes), all of these properties disappear.

The Thomas precession [4] is a modulation of spin. @Preston Guynn Thinks that the Thomas precession is related to mass [5]. This is a step in the right direction for research.

Best Regards， Chian Fan

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Naaman, R., Y. Paltiel and D. H. Waldeck (2019). "Chiral molecules and the electron spin." Nature Reviews Chemistry 3(4): 250-260.

[2] Yu, T., Z. Luo and G. E. W. Bauer (2023). "Chirality as generalized spin–orbit interaction in spintronics." Physics Reports 1009: 1-115.

[3] Schmitz, W. (2019). Particles, Fields and Forces, Springer.

[4] Jackson, J. D. (1999). Classical electrodynamics, American Association of Physics Teachers.

[5] Guynn, P. (2018). "Thomas Precession is the Basis for the Structure of Matter and Space." 【ResearchGate】

Dear Chian Fan

Sorry, I was too vague. The discussion is about the spin of the electron. But the electron isn’t an independent phenomenon. Without a proton, there is no electron. The proton/electron seems to be a duality and that is logical because the proton and electron represent opposite electric charges (+/-).

The creation/existence of the duality is only possible if there is a dominant influence that creates the duality and keeps it intact. But that’s difficult to imagine because the stability of the proton seems to be the result of the strong force and there is no strong force coupled with the electron.

The proton is a local concentration of energy (a local surplus of energy in relation to the average energy density in vacuum space). But the electron isn’t a local concentrated “void” of energy inside the electromagnetic field. So I cannot state that the surplus of energy of the local proton is compensated by the deficit of energy of the local electron. Although the existence of the positive and negative electric charge shows that the electron is in some way “coupled” to the local deficit of energy.

The experiment with the anti-Helium atom with 1 positron replaced by a proton (my previous comment) is an indication that the electron doesn’t represent the negative electric charge but emerges from its existence. That means that the creation of a proton results in the positive and negative electric charge. While the negative electric charge “creates” the electron.

The creation of a local concentration of energy – the proton – influences the freedom of quanta transfer within the electromagnetic field around the proton. The result is the creation of a resultant motion of quanta transfer around the proton. Thus it isn’t the real velocity of a quantum of energy (the speed of light) but the “average” motion. Comparable with the resultant motion of electrons of an alternating current in a copper wire.

So we have a proton in the centre and around the proton there is a resultant circular “flow” of quanta transfer within the structure of the electromagnetic field. At the edge of the circular “flow” of quanta are the conditions of vacuum space “without” a noticeable resultant motion. The consequence is that it is like there are 2 flows of quanta in opposite direction, a situation well known in fluid dynamics. In fluid dynamics it results in the creation of eddy’s (vortex like “swirls” of molecule transfer). Thus it is realistic to assume that the electron is some kind of an eddy, composed as a wave packet with a “swirl” within the structure of the electromagnetic field around the proton.

So I don’t deny the existence of the spin of an electron, I only try to determine its real nature with the help of the general concept of QFT.

Article There are no particles, there are only fields

With kind regards, Sydney

Howdy Sydney Ernest Grimm ,

"That means that the creation of a proton results in the positive and negative electric charge. While the negative electric charge “creates” the electron."

So, what if a proton were a source of electric displacement current as used in Maxwell's equations before it is eliminated there and an electron were a sink of the same. Size would follow per your fluid example, especially with "Thus it is realistic to assume that the electron is some kind of an eddy, composed as a wave packet with a “swirl” within the structure of the electromagnetic field around the proton." with vorticity that enhanced the "swirl" at the sink. The "electric displacement current" is not more of a problem here than when James Clerk Maxwell conceived it.

That this eruption were a consequence of: "A particle like the proton is stable and it is for sure that its electric “boundary” envelopes one or more decreased scalars of the Higgs field." and ". . . concentrated energy by the electromagnetic field." is not hard to swallow, but I expect it would be hard to prove.

Well, this is an obvious option and certainly has been considered. What happened then?

Happy Trails, Len

Dear Leonard Hall

The problem with this kind of approximations of physical reality (models) is that reality at the smallest scale size is so crazy complicated. The amount of small changes is enormous and it is impossible to measure the smallest interactions. So it is necessary to search for the right concepts to “build up” a credible description.

I am the first one who doubt the completeness of the description because it rely on the assumption that the electric charge originates from the electric field. But the electric field and the magnetic field are corresponding fields thus if the electric charge is generated by the magnetic field – although it is “observable” because of the corresponding local properties of the electric field – the description cannot be correct. “Correct” means that it nears geometrically what is going on at this small scale size. Moreover, it is not easy to imagine how more complicated atomic orbitals – e.g. the electrons of an Oxygen atom – are composed. But the basic idea that the proton is also responsible for the negative electric charge and the negative electric charge creates the electron (and not the opposite) seems a workable concept to me.

In high energy particle collisions the created plasma “decays” in a stream of particles. So it is like the particles are created from the plasma without a delay of time. That is not possible but it shows how fast all the changes at the smallest scale size really are. The fact that there are still discussions about the interpretation of physical reality at the smallest scale size shows that the “puzzle” isn't solved.

With kind regards, Sydney

The thread question is answered in SS posts on pages 1,2, 3; utmost concretely in posts June 23 and June 25.

If briefly – particles are specific – close-loop algorithms that run basing on “FLE hardware” - disturbances in the Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice, which is composed from primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], and is placed in the corresponding Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct) [absolutely everything in Matter are specific disturbances in the lattice, though].

A particle is created at impact of 4D momentum P [“bold” means 4D vector in 4D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z)] on a lattice FLE. If P is infinitely small, that causes in the lattice – and so, of course, in 4D space, propagating along a straight line of sequential FLE-by-FLE “FLE flipping point” when every FLE binary flip causes the flip of next FLE with the speed of light, c, c=lP/tP, lP and tP are “FLE size” and “FLE flip time”, that are equal to Planck length and Planck time.

If Pisn’t infinitesimal, since the propagating “FLE flipping point” speed cannot be larger than c, the flipping FLEs become to precess, the “flipping point” correspondingly cyclically propagates along some 4D “helix” trajectory, and just that is a particle [and just is “particle as a point”],, which so is some cyclic algorithm that runs basing on “FLE hardware”, at that

- in first approximation the flipping point has momentum P, while “radius” of the “helix”, λ, is determined by that λ=ћ/P, and so the flipping point’s angular momentum – i.e. the particle’s angular momentum, i.e. real spin, is equal to 1ћ. The observed mostly 3D projection of the “helix” is “just “particle as a wave”.

However really the picture is more complex since in 4D space cross-product M=λxPmathematically doesn’t exist as a 4D vector, and so the particles mostly have 4D spins “be equal to ћ” as something else, say, as 4D tensors or bi-vectors, something else; which, nonetheless, is directed along Pvector [just so, say, Lorentz transformations are as they are], and when at everyday practice particles are observed practically always at 3DXYZ interactions, when at that only 3D projection of “real spin” is observed; say, the observed fermion’s spin is equal to ћ/2.

More see the SS posts above and papers that are linked in the posts, here only a note to that

“…The helicity of a particle is the normalized projection of the spin on the direction of momentum.…..”

- the particle’s helicity is projection on 3D space of just 4D “true spin”, which, again, is directed along the particle’s momentum P, and at particle’s motion with large Lorentz factor is directed practically along 3D motion direction. So the observed helicities of, say, fermions, are equal to ћ, what is 2 times more than also 3D projection at small speeds ћ/2.

Cheers

Howdy Sergey Shevchenko ,

Thank you! The clarity and temperate quality of this reply is a great relief. We are offered thousands of pages of "the answer to it all" in many posts by many confident scientists here on RG, if we go somewhere else to read it, and read it, and read it. I appreciate this post as a change-of-pace that informs on-the-spot. You may have written it before, but I respond to "getting pushed" poorly and I find this post informative. Again, thank you.

I have read in many of your other posts here and on other threads without satisfaction because they seemed too "loud," demanding, domineering, and I was thereby driven away. I would like to understand your worldview and thoughts, but also, not instead of, mine so I have a broader base for my worldview. I may even agree here and there, at least on principal.

I shall look again, and look further for a representation of the universe I see in your presentation. Certainly, it is deeply thought.

Happy Trails, Len

I don't understand the SS posts, but I have included 2 papers of Charles T. Sebens (2020; 2021) about the electron spin and electron charge.

Preprint Particles, Fields, and the Measurement of Electron Spin

Preprint Electron Charge Density: A Clue from Quantum Chemistry for Q...

With kind regards, Sydney

Howdy Sydney Ernest Grimm ,

I always appreciate your posts because they present so clear and balanced a view of physics, often separating known and suspected ideas, data, and theories with explanation. They have further value in the very different ways we "see" physical nature.

Our differences are clear in ". . .reality at the smallest scale size is so crazy complicated . . .." I am confident that at any scale the participants in a natural event are not in the least confused, relative, or uncertain. I cannot tell a boy ant from a girl ant, but they can. So also a proton, charge, and the appearance of an electron. I am confused, and each science is confused in its way, because our limitations leave us picking up needles wearing boxing gloves. In a fun movie, a frustrated daughter complains that her elderly father "Should have come with a set of instructions!" We have to make up our own set of instructions for natural events, but they are a script at best, not the play, and I think the actors know their parts better.

It is a great benefit to me when you report on the universe as seen through physics. I had not explored the Higgs field, etc., but your exposition allowed me to see an upwelling of displacement current that flows to a shell in which "downwelling" occurs, or over to a point-like sink, as a way to view protons, charge, and a resulting electron. Since I had posited that as "how" charge occurs decades ago, and had posited a universe vapor with condensation, and I find the Higgs field has something like condensation for matter, this fresh view comforts me. After all, our present knowledge is "ripples on a stream" as all past knowledge has turned out to be and comfort has value, quintessentially.

Happy Trails, Len

Dear Leonard Hall

It is easier to understand physics if physicists try to focus a bit more on describing the concepts instead of only trying to "prove" that their interpretation of physical reality is correct. But that means that we have to incorporate more philosophical thinking and mathematical thinking besides trying to apply "the scientific method". The latter is well suited for reverse-engineering mother nature, but is it pure science too?

With kind regards, Sydney

Howdy Sydney Ernest Grimm ,

Yes!

Happy Trails, Len

Howdy Sydney Ernest Grimm ,

I cannot be more accurate, but I can be more informative. The apparent conflict that you note is solved by how different we are, if differences are allowed.

A problem in the variety of approaches to physics is censorship, requiring others to do it right. This is very valuable for most students because they will place their lives in the application of usable results. But, excessive focus leads to fixing everyone's "mistakes" and the ideas of some individuals are not mistakes to be fixed. I dared to raise a question about gravitons from my readings in David Bohm's work and was "understood to be" pretty ignorant. That same professor agreed later he had done and spread that, but he didn't care that I had read MTW's Gravitation. I have read extensively. I am deeply thankful for what has been discovered and I use it every day in my thoughts. I endeavor to meet, or counter with explanation, "it is known that . . ." in all, and I affirm the poster at the Thrift Store: "Don't believe everything you think." We need all of us. Also, not instead.

So, Yes! to your view and question. Excessive efficiency becomes insane when one recognizes that discovery is not a committee product found while following yesterday's rules. Allow scientists to do science their way and embrace valid results, allowing "pure" to wander off into a closet with "truth."

Happy Trails, Len

Howdy Sydney Ernest Grimm,

It gets worse/better? Fresh off the mind:

An “outwelling” in the Higgs field “fluid” is evaporation of an electric displacement current vapor (?gas? Fine droplets or independent singles? Or “thin Higgs fluid? ) that condenses to Higgs fluid in a shell! The “inwelling" to the Higgs fluid in the “shell" completes a “circuit," fluid to fluid, like the water circuit of a fountain in a pool which need not be the same molecules: “all those water molecules look alike.”

Welcome to a possible proton, charge, and the appearance of an electron? “The source and sink Higgs fluid has ripples” is a way to see the event with closure detail within the Higgs fluid as natural for fluid character.

Note: the return flow in the circuit fades as a problem here. Well, it's a "thought" thrown into the stewpot.

Happy Trails, Len.

Dear Leonard Hall

There are so many strange papers... I have scanned the paper yesterday but I didn't understand it at all. A scalar cannot be a fluid. That is 100% impossible.

The Higgs field is like a solid and if the local concentration of energy of the electromagnetic field passes a certain threshold it forces the enclosed scalar to decrease its magnitude. That's all.

So it is a really confusing paper.

With kind regards, Sydney

Sorry.

Howdy Sydney Ernest Grimm ,

On second thought, not that sorry, especially after further readings and re-readings:

"So we have a proton in the centre and around the proton there is a resultant circular “flow” of quanta transfer within the structure of the electromagnetic field. At the edge of the circular “flow” of quanta are the conditions of vacuum space “without” a noticeable resultant motion." SEG.

And: "“Correct” means that it nears geometrically what is going on at this small scale size. Moreover, it is not easy to imagine how more complicated atomic orbitals – e.g. the electrons of an Oxygen atom – are composed." SEG. I'm just trying to fit it together, too . . .

". . . and it is through successive symmetry breakings of the Higgs field, or some similar field, at phase transitions that the presently known forces and fields of the universe arise." Wikipedia.

As an atmospheric scientist, boundary layer focus, I thought of liquid-gas/vapor-liquid phase transitions, but the sense of a return route in the source environment and and phase changes in the process is obvious, and I like it. Especially nice for me is the idea of condensation, or deposition, or freezing in a shell without a requirement that return from "inwelling" to "outwelling" required the same "individuals."

And: "In simple terms, unlike all other known fields, the Higgs field requires less energy to have a non-zero value than a zero value, so it ends up having a non-zero value everywhere . . .. This effect occurs because scalar field components of the Higgs field are "absorbed" by the massive bosons as degrees of freedom, and couple to the fermions via Yukawa coupling, thereby producing the expected mass terms." Wikipedia.

So energy is available, and we do not know everything yet, and the image of a proton, charge, and "electron" shell with an acceptable means of circuit closure might be of value to a science explorer. My best tuned two-stroke exhaust system design evolved from a bad idea - handshake - triggering one another's thoughts - it doesn't actually cost much to express a possibility.

And your: "The Higgs field is like a solid and if the local concentration of energy of the electromagnetic field passes a certain threshold it forces the enclosed scalar to decrease its magnitude." Okay; its "energy" goes . . .?

I am sorry to be incomprehensible. I wonder if I am "all wrong" too?

Happy Trails, Len

Dear Leonard Hall

Let we start with a simple electromagnetic wave. It is a sequence of single quanta (= quantum) that is passes on by the structure of the electromagnetic field with the speed of light. It has a wave configuration and that means that it is a sequence of a local surplus of energy of just 1 quantum that changes over a certain distance in a local deficit of 1 quantum and visa versa. I have attached the well known picture of 1 electromagnetic wave and the schematic structure is the electromagnetic field. Actually the universal electric field (E) and its corresponding magnetic field (B).

The blue and red wave forms represent the disappearing and reappearing of the single quantum within the structure (actually, the energy of the quantum is smeared out over an increasing and decreasing amount of units of the structure of the electromagnetic field). Because of the sequence of the surplus and deficit of 1 quantum of energy we cannot measure the mass of the electromagnetic wave because there is no local addition or subtraction of the total amount of energy of vacuum space where the electromagnetic wave passes through.

That means that at the moment an electromagnetic wave is absorbed by an atom, there is no absorption of a “tangible” stream of phenomena (like a stream of particles). Because the amount of energy in vacuum space hasn’t changed all along the trajectory of the electromagnetic wave.

So what is actually transferred by the electromagnetic wave?

An atom is also a local surplus and deficit of energy because the nucleus (proton in a Hydrogen atom) is a concentration of energy (E) that originates from vacuum space around. The image at the right side shows a schematic picture of the concentrated energy.

The small volume (1) represents the surplus of energy within the structure of the electromagnetic field that is transferred from a much larger volume (2). The average “energy density” of vacuum space is the volume around (3). I have drawn a simple diagram as an overlay that shows the related amounts of local energy (particle a = red; deficit energy b = blue; vacuum space c = green).

The schematic image of the atom shows that the atom itself represents a local surplus and deficit of energy, comparable with the wave form of the electromagnetic wave. Thus I can state that the Hydrogen atom in vacuum space doesn’t change the total local amount of energy, just like the electromagnetic wave. So what is actually going on?

The “power” to change is a property of the individual units of the structure of the electromagnetic field. The fixed change (h) itself is the change of the shape of every unit while the volume of the unit is invariant. In other words, energy is the continuous change of the surface area of every unit. In line with Einstein’s famous formula E = m c2.

Every unit of the structure is a partly deformed scalar because the volume of Euclidean space cannot be filled 100% with spheres (scalars). That means that the internal scalar mechanism of every unit “tries” to become a full scalar (a sphere). But all the units have exactly the same invariant amount of volume and share their surface areas, because all the units together tessellate the volume of the universe. The mathematical consequence is the synchronization of all the changes of the electromagnetic field (the existence of the universal constants h and c) and of course the conservation of all the changes (conservation of energy and momentum).

Let’s see if this is a description that is easy to imagine before I continue.

With kind regards, Sydney

Howdy Sydney Ernest Grimm ,

Fascinating approach and image. What you describe fits neatly into my imagination. Whether my image matches yours will become clear. Please continue.

Happy Trails, Len

The right picture in the previous post represents Einstein’s formula E = m c2. Because to create the mass every unit around the point of concentration (area 2) has decreased its surface area and the total amount of transferred surface area is the mass (1).

Without the quantization of the volume of the universe – actually the structure of the electromagnetic field – the property “surface area” is meaningless. So it is understandable that Einstein didn’t bother about c2 in his simplified formula. Nevertheless, was there no indication in the first half of the 20th century that space has a structure?

Planck derived the energy of electromagnetic waves (E = h v). Einstein showed that the speed of light (c) is a universal constant. So it was reasonable to express the frequency (v) in Planck’s formula with the help of the speed of light (c) divided by the wave length (λ). See equation [1] above, the original Planck-Einstein relation.

But the consequence is that the wave length must be a multiple (n) of a universal constant of length (the metric ℓc) in the equation because h and c are universal constants. See equation [2].

But if the linear velocity of the quantum of energy is a constant (c) and the metric is fixed (ℓc), time is a universal constant too, quantum time (tq). See equation [3].

Now I can express the frequency with the help of the constant of (quantum) time. Equation [4].

The conclusion is that space cannot curve because of the fixed metric and time cannot be relative because of the constant speed of the quantum of energy in relation to the metric. In other words, there cannot be doubt that the electromagnetic field has a “quantized” structure, independent from Einstein’s model of spacetime in his theory of Special and General relativity.

The image above shows in a schematic way 1 unit of the structure of the electromagnetic field and I have drawn the scalar of the Higgs field inside (the inscribed sphere). The deformable surface area of the unit is the universal electric field, a topological field. The sum of the green arrows (input deformation) and the sum of the red arrows (output deformation) must be the same because of the invariant volume of the unit. It shows the conservation of energy (surface area), thus Σinput= Σoutput.

The scalar of the Higgs field inside the unit has 6 points of contact with the not drawn units around. The consequence is that Σinput and Σoutput generate vectors in the scalar that are transferred from and to the other scalars of the Higgs field by the points of contact.

The image is just a schematic drawing of a unit because a real unit has 12 adjacent units so there are 12 points of contact on every scalar if the local Higgs field is flat (every scalar has exactly the same radius).

The consequence is that the vectors of the magnetic field are mediated by the flat Higgs field. So if a scalar of the Higgs field decreases its magnitude – shortens its radius what is termed “the Higgs mechanism” – the local vectors of the magnetic field are interrupted.

In other words, the concentration of energy in the drawing of the previous comment must have a decreased scalar of the Higgs field in its centre if the particle is a rest mass carrying particle like the proton. Matter creates a gravitational field thus the drawing not only shows a surplus and a deficit of energy, there must be a gravitational field too. Although the gravitational field has no relation with the model of curved spacetime, as described with the help of the Planck-Einstein relation.

I hope that the description is not too much compressed.

With kind regards, Sydney

Howdy Sydney Ernest Grimm ,

Excellent! Really great! It is compressed and a couple connections need to be found in context, but they are there. The presentation is crystal clear in logical "must be" conclusions. The "image" in the mind also is clear.

Please continue to illustrate the proton with its electric field generating an electron in this description.

Happy Trails, Len

I have reused the drawing about the concentration of energy, but it is a bit changed. To accentuate the decreased scalar in the centre of the surplus of energy, I have drawn a small white circle. Moreover, I have drawn a smaller sphere (dotted circle) that represents the amount of volume with a deficit of energy (2) that can decrease the radius of a scalar of the Higgs field. Nearly the same volume (2+) represents the amount of energy that was further concentrated because of the decreased scalar in the centre of the surplus of energy (particle 1).

If energy is concentrated from vacuum space around by the universal electric field, the result is the image on top. A concentration of energy with a vague boundary. But at the moment the scalar in the centre decreases its radius, the points of contact of the decreased scalar with the 12 scalars around are vanished. Thus the 12 scalars around the decreased scalar have lost their internal symmetry (11 points of contact instead of 12 points of contact). Now all the scalars around get vectorised and all these vectors point to the centre of the concentration of energy. I have drawn only the vectors (red) that will reach the 12 scalars around the decreased scalar.

The creation of these vectors is done by the concentration of ≈ 50% of the energy of the particle (volume dotted circle). So I cannot speculate that these vectors are weak. Moreover the vectors will direct the topological deformation of the units around to the joint faces with the central unit. Thus the concentration of energy gets a clear boundary that encloses a small volume (not like the vague boundary of the image on top).

The new created long range vectors are super positioned on the existing vectors of the magnetic field. That means that 2 identical particles can influence each other at longer distances although the influence of the long range vectors decreases with the square of the distance.

The surplus of energy (1) and the deficit of energy (2 and 2+) are each others opposite “charge”. The mechanism behind the concentration of energy by the universal electric field cannot be the strong force. So it is reasonable to speculate that the long vectors around the particle represent the strong force within and near the boundary of the particle. But it is also reasonable that the long vectors at a much larger distance of the particle are known as gravitational vectors. In other words, Newtonian gravity as a push force from vacuum space around (flat Higgs field). Especially because vectors are not bound to the speed of light, vectors act instantaneous.

The diagram above shows Kepler’s diagram of the mean velocity and mean distance of the planets of the solar system. If we calculate the energy transfer in vacuum space under influence of long range gravitational vectors (celestial body) we get the same curve like the curve in the diagram. The photo on top (JWST) shows the creation of a protostar from an enormous cloud of gas and dust. The dotted line accentuate the existence of a rotating disk around the protostar just because of the same long range gravitational vectors (the same mechanism).

But the particle is – in relation to the energy of 1 quantum of energy – also a large mass object and its gravitational vectors will force a resultant quanta transfer around the particle (rotational motion). Just like Kepler’s diagram shows at the macroscopic scale size.

The result will be the creation of an eddy (vortex) at the edge of volume 2+ because the energy of vacuum space around (3) is not rotating. The idea that the electron is some kind of an eddy/vortex solves a lot of problems but – of course – it will generate a lot of new problems too (if the idea is more or less in line with physical reality).

P.S. I have verified the spin of the "eddy" and it is spin 1/2. So I suppose that the idea about the "tangible" reality of the electron is realistic.

With kind regards, Sydney

Howdy Sydney Ernest Grimm ,

Again, an excellent description that evokes distinct images in the mind. For myself, and for yourself and others who wonder whether I actually "got it," I offer a further condensation against the much better full picture you have provided. I use quotations a little clumsily to avoid problems with words.

Given "energy (E) that originates from vacuum space around" that is concentrated from that surrounding volume "within the" (a) "structure of the electromagnetic field" we may find"the Hydrogen atom in vacuum space doesn’t change the total local amount of energy", which atom is made of the surplus energy in a structure and the depleted vacuum space energy in a surrounding volume. The surplus of energy (1) and the deficit of energy (2 and 2+) are each others opposite “charge”. Because "volume with a deficit of energy (2) that can decrease the radius of a scalar of the Higgs field" and "the points of contact of the decreased scalar with the 12 scalars around are vanished" "all the scalars around get vectorised" and we find"the strong force within and near the boundary" and "at a much larger distance of the particle are known as gravitational vectors." Further, since "its gravitational vectors will force a resultant quanta transfer around the particle (rotational motion)" we find shear between the rotational motion "at the edge of volume 2+" and "the energy of vacuum space around (3) is not rotating." Whether the shear produces an actual vortex to represent an electron with spin is problematic.

This picture is quite clear and does identify charge, "spin," strong force and gravitational force. The local scalar field conversion to locally convergent long range vectors around a reduced radius scalar is interesting.

As a Natural Philosopher instead of a Physicist (I dislike labels - they are a cartoon character's suitcase with stuff that was hanging out cut off, but . . .), I wonder how: 1) vectors act instantaneous; 2) energy is concentrated from vacuum space around by the universal electric field; 3) a deficit of energy (2) that can decrease the radius of a scalar of the Higgs field; 4) The surplus of energy (1) and the deficit of energy (2 and 2+) are each others opposite “charge”.; 5) super positioned on the existing vectors of the magnetic field; 6) force a resultant quanta transfer around the particle (rotational motion) when I try to see this excellent description as phenomena in the nature of Nature. Nonetheless, you have done a great job here, and "how" involves a different viewpoint.

Thank You!

Happy Trails, Len

Dear Leonard Hall

Most of the ancient Greek philosophers were natural philosopher and they used/developed mathematics, physics and astronomy/cosmology too. They even constructed a sophisticated mechanical “computer”: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-84310-w.

Anyway, why do vectors act instantaneous? [1]

Vectors don’t transfer energy, vectors “push”. Thus a vector needs a creator (the energy changes within the universal electric field) and it needs a rigid medium (the scalars of the Higgs field in vacuum space). The diagram above shows the “build up” of a single quantum of energy. Energy is surface area thus the triangle is the quantum and it represents a change of the shape of a unit of the structure in one or more joint faces with the adjacent units around. We can only determine “full quanta” (experimentally verified and it is the origin of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle). But the vector is created by the change of surface area so the red arrows represent the increasing vector during the “build up” of the quantum of energy.

The “push” that generates the vector is the push of the changing shape of a unit against the surface area of the scalar of an adjacent unit. All the points of contact of the scalars in vacuum space form together a 1-dimensional network thus all the quanta generate a continuous changing spatial configuration of vectors in vacuum space (the corresponding magnetic field). Above an image of the 1-dimensional vectors inside 3 scalars and a 4th scalar on top. Without a vector field our universe cannot be non-local (Noble prize Physics 2022).

It is possible to get an impression of the instantaneous influence of vectors with the help of Newton’s cradle (see drawing on top). Although in vacuum space the scalars of the Higgs field form together a rigid lattice (right image on top).

The Youtube video – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofgeRSCLyXc– shows the super fast “transfer” of the push. The second video – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuA-znVMY3I – shows an enormous Newton’s cradle but the iron spheres are filled with sand. So there is no “1-dimensional vector” because the spheres are not solid.

Of course there is a more insightful mathematical explanation too.

I have to think about your second question, why “energy is concentrated from vacuum space around by the universal electric field.” Because there is a lot to describe so I have to make the right choices.

With kind regards, Sydney

• The term "spin" for electrons is a quantum mechanical property that doesn't correspond to a classical spinning motion. It's a fundamental intrinsic property that doesn't involve physical rotation. Special relativity is necessary to describe how spin is manifested in the relativistic context.
• The structure of an electron as a point particle with spin quantization is a concept within quantum field theory. Spin is a distinct quantum property not directly proportional to charge or mass, but it's an intrinsic property of particles.
• Spin is already incorporated into the framework of quantum mechanics, which is used alongside special relativity. General relativity doesn't directly relate to the concept of spin as it does to mass and energy distributions. There's no direct link between spin and gravitational field energy in the way you're describing.

Howdy Sydney Ernest Grimm ,

That is why I dislike labels. There is a difference between trying to express the nature of Nature with details, like Anaxagoras' positing tiny bones as the particles from which bones are built up as a Natural Philosopher, and reading natural phenomena from inadequate models and equations, postulating as a Physicist that electron orbital jumps are instantaneous because that's all the equations report. Actually, there are no hard boundaries here, like I wrote, I dislike labels - it was an introduction/excuse for my "how" list.

Your images are again clear, but the issue for me is not "push" but range and time. I had asked on RG "Are electric field vectors so stiff longitudinally that they move as a whole?" which seemed to be one answer to the sense of "instantaneous." Several "No" answers were provided, and last night as a result of how much I have learned recently I added my answer:

"Realizations in discussion of Chian Fan 's No.9 Is the spin of an electron really spin? due to an excellent description of “the Higgs mechanism” by Sydney Ernest Grimm on Page 5 of replies there led me to an understanding:

Vectors do not act instantaneously. The fields they represent were formed at universe scale with their matter when the universe was "small." They remained universe scale, stretching with the universe as it expanded. If their matter is moved, the field changes spread as waves. It is not instantaneous. It seems that: “Especially because vectors are not bound to the speed of light, vectors act instantaneous.” is just wrong. Also, “Moreover, vectors act instantaneous because vectors are 1 dimensional (vectors are not bound to the speed of light).” is also just wrong.

That closes this question for me. Actually, Yousif Abdul Amer also set the stage well for this realization. The discussion at the location noted above will have further development I am sure, should you be interested.

Thanks for your replies here,"

The range of electric and gravitational fields of charged matter has been a question of long-standing for me, and I like this view. And of course, Newton's cradle is not instantaneous with any natural material. "Without a vector field our universe cannot be non-local (Noble prize Physics 2022)." I agree, but it can be non-instantaneous, like the time it took for gravity waves to get here from a binary star collapse, and then to cross a few states between detectors after that. Actually, the theory and equations were accurate and were read accurately in the prediction and interpretation of that observation. We struggle along . . .

Happy Trails, Len

Howdy Muhammad Kashif ,

"Spin is a distinct quantum property not directly proportional to charge or mass, but it's an intrinsic property of particles."

I have read extensively, sometimes with comprehension, but my curiosity often leads me ~"where I have not read before"~ and I benefit from assistance. The sentence that I have quoted will be quite clear after translation, say, how do I recognize in particles the presence of that intrinsic property?; how does the particle effect it?; is it just shear?; relativity (invariance) involves "form and ground" in expressions so one expects that but how does it work here?; "intrinsic" implies "actual" and not just "observed;" etc. Help. Don't worry about my "?" just tell it your way: What do you mean?

Happy Trails, Len

Howdy Sergey Shevchenko ,

I have invested additional time in your temperate post. It is quite interesting, and while the names applied to the actors of the drama vary, it seems that you are seeking to express their performances in the real play.

I expect that "fundamental logical elements [FLE]" are defined in your larger work, but as placeholders for the actors of the drama, they work well for me here.

"If briefly – particles are specific – close-loop algorithms that run basing on “FLE hardware” - disturbances in the Matter’s ultimate base –" is excellent in my view, because you have real actors in the parts. There are approaches to Physics that are content with tables of values one may associate with something worth knowing, but they are just numbers: you have "close-loop algorithms" you are tracking, because "everything in Matter are specific disturbances in the lattice. . .."

“Cartesian”, Well, maybe. A problem is that you seek to express a ~"specific particle"~ and you suffer the observational experience that relative motion matters, and unless you express your specific particle as a phenomenon relative to an environment you get into terrible trouble when your expressions are not invariant. Cartesian turns out to be inadequate, not because space-time is warped, but because when you write equations you introduce reference systems which must be included in how you write the equations.

"A particle is created at impact of 4D momentum P . . . on a lattice FLE.

propagating along a straight line of sequential FLE-by-FLE “FLE flipping point” when every FLE binary flip causes the flip of next FLE with the speed of light" Okay. It is a way to write it. One gets a good result, and if your dual language dictionary is good enough, others will agree.

"If P isn’t infinitesimal, . . . the flipping FLEs become to precess, the “flipping point” correspondingly cyclically propagates along some 4D “helix” trajectory, . . .

- in first approximation the flipping point has momentum P, while “radius” of the “helix”, λ, is determined by that λ=ћ/P, and so the flipping point’s angular momentum – i.e. the particle’s angular momentum, i.e. real spin, is equal to 1ћ." This is not worse than "fundamental intrinsic property" if a poor schmuck like myself would like to imagine it. A professor on my PhD committee said "so go and prove it." I was disappointed, but he was right. Explain . . .

"and when at everyday practice particles are observed practically always at 3DXYZ interactions, when at that only 3D projection of “real spin” is observed;" Guidelines for someone who will look further are valuable.

I would like to help more, but I am incapable of "convert" and do "disciple" poorly. When you have done it right, they will come to you.

Happy Trails, Len

The thread question is scientifically answered in SS posts on pages 1-4, and, though these posts now are rather back in the thread because of series of rather strange posts, the pages are easily accessible till now; so here only a note to

“…The term "spin" for electrons is a quantum mechanical property that doesn't correspond to a classical spinning motion. It's a fundamental intrinsic property that doesn't involve physical rotation. Special relativity is necessary to describe how spin is manifested in the relativistic context…..”

- yeah, that is quite so in mainstream physics, including that for/by some mystic reason and way this “fundamental intrinsic property” “doesn't involve physical rotation” – despite that, say, electrons and nuclei spins quite evidently are added/subtracted to/from, say, “practically classical” electrons’ orbital momentums.

“….The structure of an electron as a point particle with spin quantization is a concept within quantum field theory. Spin is a distinct quantum property not directly proportional to charge or mass, but it's an intrinsic property of particles…”

- and that is quite so in mainstream physics, where yeah, an electron [and any other particle] principally is a ”point particle” – so which by no means can have real non-zero angular momentum, but mystically has “spin”; and that is, correspondingly, for/by some mystic reasons/ways really so as a mystic concept within mainstream quantum field theory.

Though yeah, spin is a distinct quantum property not directly proportional to charge or mass, however in this case charge and mass are also intrinsic properties of particles, and it would be useful to understand – why all these intrinsic properties look as mutually independent?

“…..Spin is already incorporated into the framework of quantum mechanics, which is used alongside special relativity. General relativity doesn't directly relate to the concept of spin as it does to mass and energy distributions. There's no direct link between spin and gravitational field energy in the way you're describing.…..”

- and that is quite so in mainstream physics – and that Gravity doesn't directly relate to the concept of spin is, in certain sense correct – though, again, in certain sense only. Spin and any/every fundamental Nature force, including Gravity Force, acting, [and charge and mass, though] have the same common base [the GR, though yeah, doesn't directly relate to the concept of spin, however it also rather strangely relate to objective reality at all].

This common base is – more see at least SS post on page 4 – in that particles fundamentally aren’t “points”, that are specific – close-loop algorithms that correspondingly cyclically run basing on “FLE hardware” - disturbances in the Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice, which is composed from primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], and is placed in the corresponding Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct) [absolutely everything in Matter are specific disturbances in the lattice, though],

- and so have intrinsic structures [say, electron’s algorithm has logical length 2.4x1022 FLEs, where the at least Gravity and Electric Forces charges are written, more see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces ; [and 2023 Nuclear Force, though, in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force- Matter is rather simple logical system and at least these 3 Forces act by the same scheme];

- including, at that, particles, which fundamentally aren’t points, have correspondingly analogs of classical intrinsic angular momentum; though, of course, here is principal difference first of all in the having rest masses particles case, since 4D cross-product doesn’t exist as 4D vector, etc.,

- more see the SS posts above and links in the posts.

Cheers

Howdy Chian Fan , Sydney Ernest Grimm , Muhammad Kashif , et. al.,

Miranda: O wonder! How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world That has such people in't!

Prospero: 'Tis new to thee. ― William Shakespeare, The Tempest

IF we require the electron to be an elementary particle, THEN, we must abandon the meaningless jargon “intrinsic” for the “spin” we measure. It has been wise for those who need to “get on with life,” like it was for the fox in Aesop’s fable to assign “sour” to the grapes; some of us must find the cause of the observation elsewhere. This is such an exploration - value unknown.

The observed magnetic dipole moment of an electron is set during Lorentz boosts of the electron and a field that are interacting invariantly in relative motion. The natural event is an invariant action-reaction involving the velocities of systems as they affect one another. The electron and the field do not know about a universal electromagnetic rest frame, but that is a third reference frame that could be considered. It turns out that covariant equations are possible because processes like this are “invariant;” Nature is compatible with itself, all parties involved. The idea is “form on ground” for natural phenomena and they are true to their grounds as forms. Invariance in the nature of Nature is not a bother, it is a fact with which we must live. Let’s make sure our thinking is invariant too when we seek to comprehend it.

The theory and mathematics of “invariance” is essential in an effort to explain this “intrinsic form of angular momentum carried by elementary particles.” Convenient quotes: “The essential ingredient in proving the spin-statistics relation is relativity, that the physical laws do not change under Lorentz transformations.” “Lorentz transformations include 3-dimensional rotations and boosts. A boost transfers to a frame of reference with a different velocity and is mathematically like a rotation into time.” “The new ‘spacetime’ has only spatial directions and is termed Euclidean.” “Spin should not be understood as in the ‘rotating internal mass’ sense: spin is a quantized wave property.” As a quantized wave property we’re into linearized expressions for essentially quadratic phenomena again because in the Stern–Gerlach experiment “. . . this information is not sufficient to determine the values of C1 c 1 and C2c 2 , because they are complex numbers. Therefore, the measurement yields only the squared magnitudes of the constants, which are interpreted as probabilities.” We need invariance and real values, and we have linearized expressions and probable results that are statistically accurate. This is often accepted as a sufficient result. (Quotes from Wikipedia.)

Since magnetic monopoles have not been found, we need an electric displacement current to supply the form of angular momentum that is observed as “spin.” The induced electric displacement current of a changing magnetic field and the resulting magnetic dipole moment could suffice and it could be produced by interaction involving the coordinate systems (Lorentz boosts). When an electron enters the S-G non-uniform magnetic field it’s dominant experience is a Lorentzian boost from it’s own reference system, a current and induced magnetic field in the universal electromagnetic field, to another reference system that is racing backward along its path. Suddenly, in spatial coordinate time, its magnetic field is wrong and it must adjust to a compatible state using energy of the passing S-G field to effect the change. What is involved in that adjustment? Observation reveals that it is orientation of a magnetic moment in a modified magnetic field of the electron, plus energizing that magnetic moment to a, quantized level able to deflect the electron in the S-G field. An insufficient S-G field is ineffective.

This is an invariant process, of course, but why is that critical? Why must it occur in Minkowski space as a “rotation into time” in order to occur? It doesn’t: a “rotation into time” is only required by the covariant equations that report it.

Quantitatively, we have results that imply the approach state of the electron’s intrinsic angular momentum is relevant, namely, “The experiment was first performed with an electromagnet that allowed the non-uniform magnetic field to be turned on gradually from a null value (1922). When the field was null, the silver atoms were deposited as a single band . . .. When the field was made stronger, the middle of the band began to widen and eventually to split into two, . .. In the middle, . . . statistically half of the silver atoms had been deflected by the non-uniformity of the field.” I think the stronger field was necessary to orient the less-aligned electrons and also involve them in quantized reaction to the S-G magnetic field. At low field strength they just shot on through, like photons of low energy failing to trigger a photodetector.

The observed electron magnetic moment appears to have been aligned by the magnetic fields with parallel-antiparallel orientation selected by the electron. From Wikipedia Stern–Gerlach: “. . . the angular momentum cannot be measured on two perpendicular directions at the same time, the measurement of the angular momentum on the x direction destroys the previous determination of the angular momentum in the z direction. That's why the third apparatus measures renewed z+ and z- beams like the x measurement really made a clean slate of the z+ output.” Becoming happens now.

How do we see parallel-antiparallel orientation being selected by the electron if it is an elementary particle? A possibility lies above in this thread. “That means that the creation of a proton results in the positive and negative electric charge. While the negative electric charge “creates” the electron.” This new idea that the proton is the source of charge (+) that sets up an electric field and creates the electron (-) out of that field allows speculation that the field creation of the electron is the source of observed angular momentum orientation. It is intrinsic to the process of electron creation, which is a work in progress instead of an elementary “point particle:” “The electron has no rest mass and therefore its description is limited to the properties of the electromagnetic field.” Interesting.

For instance, were the electron a sink of the electric field of a proton source, how the electric field approaches that sink could explain electron “spin orientation.” A possible approach specification is that shear or rotation in the electric field that is “sinking” into the electron would produce a vortex quality due to convergence. Then, the converging field would produce orientation and the electron as an elementary “point particle” need not have rotation. The shear or rotation could be either right-handed or left-handed and the observed “spin,” whether + or - would be determined thereby. The wave character of the electron on the universal electromagnetic field would implement this process.

Another possibility lies in the local appearance of a surface in an apparently uniform environment, say a sphere whereon heat gain or release moves the most active location around the surface as a phase change makes a location thermodynamically less favorable than elsewhere. The shifting colors of a soap bubble come to mind. It is a primary cause of snowflake details as a deposition site is warmed. One sees a similar phenomena in continuous discharge phosphorescence around a charged sphere, and the shifting of steam fog columns above warm water or virga streaks between glaciating cloud elements. Were field convergence to an electron similarly shifted to fresh locations, it could be the cause of right-handed or left-handed bias that determined the observed “spin” orientation.

Well, great minds have left us with jargon, intrinsic angular momentum, that is not satisfying, so some of us need to try. This is just typing – out – loud as well as I can at the moment.

Happy Trails, Len

P. S. Wikipedia articles read recently: Photon - Proton - Electron - Orbiton - Planck constant - Black-body radiation - Planck & apos;s law - Action (physics) - Stationary-action principle - Electric dipole moment - Stern–Gerlach experiment - Measurement in quantum mechanics - Covariant classical field theory - Exterior algebra - Lorentz factor - Covariant formulation of classical electromagnetism - Relativistic electromagnetism - Schrödinger field - Annihilation - Creation and annihilation operators - Spin–statistics theorem - Spin (physics) - Spin-1/2 - Zitterbewegung - Sphere - Ellipsoid - Higgs boson - Stress–energy tensor - Magnetostatics - Magnetization - Magnetic current - Magnetic flux - Magnetic energy - Magnetic field - Magnetic moment - Magnetic dipole - Electromagnetism - Free electron model - Electric displacement field - Displacement current - Polarization density - Faraday & apos;s law of induction – Telegrapher & apos;s equations - Synchrotron radiation - History of Maxwell & apos;s equations – Maxwell & apos;s equations - Oliver Heaviside - Edward Norton Lorenz - Lorentz force - Einstein tensor - Quantum mechanics - De Broglie–Bohm theory - Bohr model - Feynman diagram – Compton scattering - Dirac spinor - Wave function collapse - Quantum entanglement - Quantum nonlocality - Pauli exclusion principle - Particle decay - Antiparticle - Quantum electrodynamics - QED - Poisson bracket - Commutator – Parity (physics) - Cohomology - Isotropy - Self-adjoint operator - Pseudo-Riemannian manifold - Potential flow - Conservative vector field - Nanoparticle tracking analysis - Characteristic equation - Molecular diffusion – Rayleigh–Jeans law - Brownian motion - Chaos theory - W - f log(f) - Stokes & apos; law - Internal energy - Mathematics - Peano axioms – Gödel & apos;s incompleteness theorems - Vortex shedding - Speed of light - Vacuum permittivity - Vacuum permeability - Spin angular momentum of light - Length contraction - Covalent bond - Hydrogen bond - Entanglement - Spontaneous parametric down-conversion - Impulse (physics) - Power (physics) - Inflation (cosmology) - False vacuum decay - Vacuum energy

Dear Leonard Hall

The central idea I captured was "we must abandon the meaningless jargon 'intrinsic' for the 'spin' we measured". Indeed, we need to fully explain Dirac's theoretical spin, the spin that S-G measured. We can take "intrinsic" as an ad hoc postulate, but we cannot take "intrinsic" as an axiom, which also includes other properties, such as charge and mass. Axioms are strictly conditional.

It's nice to have the right to read Wikipedia.

Best Regards， Chian Fan

I have verified the spin of an electron if the electron is like some kind of an "eddy" at the edge of the negative electric charge of a Hydrogen atom. Its spin shows to be 1/2 because the electron rotates 720 degrees while it is rotating 360 degrees for the outside world (the observer). So personally I have no problem with the description that the electron in a Hydrogen atom has an intrinsic spin.

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm

There may be differences in our understanding of "intrinsic". What you call "eddy" is not, in my opinion, an "intrinsic" property as physics usually calls it, because it is something explainable and real, and spin is not virtual. There is no need for the concept of "intrinsic". I agree with you that the electron is some kind of "eddy".

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Dear Chian Fan

In 1924, Wolfgang Pauli proposed that electrons possess a “hidden rotation” with a 720-degree symmetry. This property represents a form of angular momentum that describes that an electron needs to be rotated around two times in order to get back where it started. "Intrinsic" means that the electron has "a spin within a spin".

With kind regards, Sydney

Howdy Folks,

If "an 'eddy' at the edge of the negative electric charge of a Hydrogen atom" has half the diameter of the "edge," then rolling inside the latter would require 720-deg by the "eddy" to accomplish a 360-deg orbit of the atom.

Happy Trails, Len

Howdy Chian Fan ,

I hope this message finds you well. (From a "Nin hao a" reminder in a message from China as how to start. We ask "Howdy" = "How do you do?" more casually in our young culture, and just get on with it.)

If we think 1) of the electric field "in" the hydrogen atom described above by Sydney Ernest Grimm "as" due to a radial vector, and 2) that the vector lies between a "center" at the positive proton and the "edge" of the negative electric charge volume, and 3) that the vector propagation is sheared when moving around in that volume, 4) like the electric field of a photon, then 5) that shear could provide the sense of an "eddy" as the electron-observed. (Sentence broken for clarity.)

Further, that "shear state" need not move in a circular orbit but could wander all over the sphere of the negative electric charge, because the shear has the "spin of the electron" not the motion of the vector.

Happy Trails, Len

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm

It seems that my understanding is limited. But in any case, as long as we don't think of "spin" as something that can't be explained, we're in agreement.

"a spin within a spin" is a very graphic description, and there are several matching mechanical explanations, so it would be nice to be able to apply it to the field, and to be able to describe it in the complex.

Leonard Hall summarizes your concept of spin, which seems to match the 1/2. Spin is first and foremost a matter of the structure of the particles themselves, and then a matter of what happens between the particles. The key is your starting point, the definition of a photon, "Let us start with a simple electromagnetic wave. It is a sequence of single quanta (= quantum) that is passes on by the structure of the electromagnetic field with the speed of the electromagnetic field. It is a sequence of single quanta (= quantum) that is passes on by the structure of the electromagnetic field with the speed of light. It has a wave configuration and that means that it is a sequence of a local surplus of energy of just 1 quantum that changes over a certain distance in a local deficit of 1 quantum and visa versa." I am having trouble understanding this and will need More time to learn.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Dear Chian Fan

The description of the 720/360 degrees relation by Leonard Hall is geometrically correct. Actually, it is in line with the rotation around its axis and its orbit around a star by a planet (e.g. the Earth).

But a planet has – because of its scale size – a large freedom to move in every direction. At the smallest scale size not every direction of motion is possible. Not at least because an atom moves in relation to the structure of the electromagnetic field as a rest frame. Another complication is that the motion of a phenomenon is the pass on of distinct properties within and by the structure of the electromagnetic field (discrete space). A situation that is comparable with the ongoing motion by a row of toppling dominoes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_toppling).

Thus a Hydrogen atom exists and moves because of the properties of the units of the field structure. We know that the speed of light is a universal constant and the quantum of energy (Planck’s constant) too. So we can imagine that every unit of the structure changes its internal configuration with a fixed amount of change in a fixed amount of time (quantum time is a constant). The linear propagation of the fixed amount of change is the constant speed of light (electromagnetic wave). The consequence is that every unit changes its internal configuration with the same amount of fixed change in relation to all the other units around (actually the whole universe).

In other words, there is a cascade of changes within the local field structure that results in the creation of a Hydrogen atom. So if we want to know why an electron has spin = ½ we are forced to reverse engineering the evolution of a Hydrogen atom as a local configuration that is created by the basic quantum fields. At least if we want to understand what is really going on.

The consequence is that we need the right concepts about the structure to understand what is going on and that is not what we thought in classic physics. So it isn't easy to get a "tangible" picture.

With kind regards, Sydney

The thread question is scientifically answered in SS posts on pages 1-4, 6; but after that in the tread again a series of rather strange posts appeared, so for those readers who really want to know the answer more see these posts; here, though that is explained in the posts already, a few notes to Leonard Hall rather rational and concrete passage in his post, page 6, 7 days ago now:

“…[SS quote, post August 13, page 4] If P isn’t infinitesimal, . . . the flipping FLEs become to precess, the “flipping point” correspondingly cyclically propagates along some 4D “helix” trajectory, . . .

- in first approximation the flipping point has momentum P, while “radius” of the “helix”, λ, is determined by that λ=ћ/P, and so the flipping point’s angular momentum – i.e. the particle’s angular momentum, i.e. real spin, is equal to 1ћ.”[end quote]

[LH remark] This is not worse than "fundamental intrinsic property" if a poor schmuck like myself would like to imagine it. A professor on my PhD committee said "so go and prove it." I was disappointed, but he was right. Explain . . .”

- the remark is a bit strange – in the SS post on page 4 it is clearly explained, that particles are specific – close-loop algorithms that run basing on “FLE hardware” - disturbances in the Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], the lattice is placed in the corresponding Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct) [not only particles - absolutely everything in Matter are specific disturbances in the lattice, though].

A particle is created at impact of 4D momentum P[“bold” means 4D vector in 4D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z)] on a lattice FLE [including on a “particle’s” lattice FLE ]. If Pis infinitely small, that causes in the lattice – and so, of course, in 4D space, propagating along a straight line of sequential FLE-by-FLE “FLE flipping point”, where every FLE binary flip causes the flip of next FLE, with the speed of light, c, c=lP/tP, lP and tP are “FLE size” and “FLE flip time”, that are equal to Planck length and Planck time.

If P isn’t infinitesimal, since the propagating “FLE flipping point” speed cannot be larger than c, the flipping FLEs become to precess, and so the “flipping point” correspondingly cyclically propagates along some 4D “helix” trajectory, and just that is a particle [and that just is “particle as a point” in “wave-particle duality”], which correspondingly is some cyclic algorithm that runs basing on “FLE hardware”, at that

- in first approximation the flipping point has “tangential” momentum P, while “radius” of the “helix”, λ, is determined by that λ=ћ/P, and so the flipping point’s angular momentum – i.e. the particle’s angular momentum, which is so “fundamental intrinsic property” i.e. real spin of particle, is equal to 1ћ. At small 3D speeds the “radius” is a particle’s Compton Length. The observed [really practically always] 3D projection of the “helix” is “just “particle as a wave in “wave-particle duality”.

Note also, that particle has also the momentum P in 4D motion direction, and at propagating along 4D “helix trajectory” the FLE flipping point has speed be equal to c√2.

However that above is some, though well better than first, approximation [so “helix”, etc., are above in quotes]. Really the picture is more complex since in 4D space cross-product M=λxP [classical angular momentum in 3D] mathematically doesn’t exist as a 4D vector, and so the particles have 4D angular momentums/“true spins be equal to ћ” as something else, say, as 4D tensors or bi-vectors, something else; which, nonetheless, are directed along creating 4D P vector [just so, say, Lorentz transformations are as they are],

- and when at everyday practice particles are observed practically always at 3DXYZ interactions, at that only 3D projections of “real spins” are observed. Say, the observed a fermion’s 3D spin is equal to ћ/2. However if a particle moves in 3D space with large Lorentz factor, its 4D momentum P – and so “true spin” that is directed along P- are directed practically along some 3D space line, and so 3D “true spin” projection of a moving fermion is observed be equal to its “true” value, i.e. to ћ; in high energy physics that is observed and called “particle’s helicity”. To:

“….."and when at everyday practice particles are observed practically always at 3DXYZ interactions, when at that only 3D projection of “real spin” is observed;" Guidelines for someone who will look further are valuable. ..”

- see above.

Cheers

Howdy Sydney Ernest Grimm

"The consequence is that we need the right concepts about the structure to understand what is going on and that is not what we thought in classic physics. So it isn't easy to get a "tangible" picture."

We may also need new right concepts about the structure, not just classical physics or even 20th century physics. As I noted in another informative discussion: "Incidentally, a Theory of Everything About Which We Know (TOEAWWK) will have a large surface; be aware that the surface of knowledge is ignorance. The intent is of great value, keep up the good work with the windows of your mind open."

I do believe we are all working on it.

Happy Trails, Len

Howdy Sergey Shevchenko ,

Thank you for additional effort in my behalf. I'm afraid the deep issue is that your statements and definitions do not trigger my imagination: "close-loop algorithms that run basing on “FLE hardware” - disturbances in the Matter’s ultimate base – . . . fundamental logical elements [FLE]," . . .. etc. do not have meaning for me.

I recognize that there are images in your mind that associate these terms with observations, and also processes among observables (QM) or objects (Physics) that you can follow, but I do not see them. That is what I meant by "explain." Your "description" is fine, and that it leads to conclusions in keeping with observations for you, like "spin," I do not doubt. Much of 20th Century Physics accomplishment was calculation without explanation. I look for explanations, and comment when I am unable to see them, even if they are there. Thank you again for trying.

Happy Trails, Len

Howdy Chian Fan ,

Thank you for your kind comment on my vector shear speculation about "spin" in the Hydrogen model of Sydney Ernest Grimm .

It just occurred to me to wonder how the "Gauge boson, Spin = 1, Force carrier, Photon (γ; electromagnetic interaction)" of the Standard Model implements the electromagnetic force between the proton and electron in that model. In one Colloquium a knowledgeable physicist noted that the photon implements the electromagnetic force by changing momentum, else I have not seen or heard "how" anywhere that I can remember. It was not "up-front" in the Wikipedia "Standard Model" article. So in keeping with your opening question I ask:

How does the Standard Model explain electromagnetic forcing in the Hydrogen atom, including the observation labeled "spin?"

That in my vector shear speculation ". . . 4) like the electric field of a photon . . ." should have been "4) and is the electric field of a photon" seems too bold, but . . .. Actually, were the ". . . volume with a deficit of energy (2) . . ." in the SEG model occupied by a gauge boson force carrier photon, one could even imagine its positive field replenishing the proton as the negative field created the electron. I think we do not know everything yet, and I would like to get a little closer.

Happy Trails, Len

The electron is a current ring generated by a massless charge rotating at the speed of light along a circumference whose radius is equal to the electron reduced Compton wavelength, defined as rE ≈ 0.38616 × 10^−12 m.

The charge is not a point-like entity, but it is distributed on a spherical surface whose radius is equal to the electron classical radius rc ≈ 2.8179 · 10^−15 m .The free electron has an angular momentum hbar and a magnetic moment μB , equal to Bohr magneton. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that, in presence of an external magnetic Bext, the electron is subjected, as a small gyroscope, to a torque τ and to a Larmor precession with frequency ωp. The only difference with a classical gyroscope is the quantization of the component of the angular momentum along the external flux density field Bext . This component can take only two possible spin values, namely +1/2, -1/2

Article Electron Structure, Ultra-Dense Hydrogen and Low Energy Nucl...

Article The Electron and Occam's Razor

Howdy Giorgio Vassallo ,

Your reply has turned out to be quite interesting, provoking many observations, like a just-emerged term "jargon-speak." Thank you.

You have provided a very neat summary of the models in the articles you cited as far as I read. Certainly, they are not to be dismissed casually. A spherical charge in a current ring that is larger in diameter than the charge by about two orders of magnitude, and that produces a massless angular momentum and a magnetic moment scaled by the quantum of action, is quite a clear image. An external field producing torque and precession are reasonable along with the observation of one of two quantized "spins." Very good. In keeping with the value of "jargon-speak" the cited articles identify use of the newer meaning of Zitterbewegung, while the introductions provide excellent perspective.

The thread question is: "Is the spin of an electron really spin?" Well, if spin is observed because of the magnetic moment of a current ring, then it certainly is due to a current ring "inside the electron" in this model. Whether the word "spin" applies requires explicit definitions and agreements. That is the point of "jargon-speak" which is modeled after "newspeak" from Orwell's 1984 and the modern methods of social control like "politically correct" from a couple decades ago. In advanced forms of knowledge like Physics, Medicine, and Philosophy, "jargon-speak" is essential to communication. Novices must learn the discipline meanings for sounds (symbols, words, phrases), because Wittgenstein was right in his Blue and Brown books when he observed that common language is not sufficiently specific to communicate what you mean with confidence. "Spin" has turned out to be unfortunate Physics "jargon-speak" because of its common meaning.

So, why am I not satisfied with your answer? That the posited charged sphere rotating in a current ring has a magnetic moment is classical electromagnetism so all should be well. However, I do not see in your reply that: “The essential ingredient in proving the spin-statistics relation is relativity, that the physical laws do not change under Lorentz transformations.” Wikipedia "Spin-statistics theorem." Where have you included treatment of "invariance" in production of the angular momentum quantum observed? How do the external field and the internal structure of the electron experience one another? How did the momentum "get quantized," or reveal its "inherent quantized state," or . . .? "The only difference with a classical gyroscope is the quantization of the component of the angular momentum." Wow! What a difference! And how did it happen? I think we need that answered for "spin."

". . . is a current ring . . ." ". . . charge is . . . on a spherical surface . . ." "The free electron has . . ." "Is" equates, specifies, identifies, etc., but like a proper name, A is B does not explain, especially when B is only part of A in your reply. Read the exploration of Cratylus' premise about names between Hermogenes and Socrates in the "Cratylus" dialog by Plato (Jowett trans.): ". . . he says that they are natural and not conventional; . . .." In the dialog, all is well at first with names that do match persona of individuals, but then, this is Socrates as passed along by Plato, and things get complicated. Before the end all sorts of issues arise to challenge Cratylus' premise, including a need to use foreign languages. So also, for me, assertions of "is" in descriptions do not explain. "Spin is what causes the observation of quantized angular momentum in the Stern-Gerlach experiment" is also neat, and accurate. It doesn't explain either.

Should you clarify your: "The only difference with a classical gyroscope is the quantization of the component of the angular momentum." it would be great!

Happy Trails, Len

Howdy Giorgio Vassallo ,

It’s better than that – Thank You! I was basking in the photons from the full moon in a clear sky here at 6,000’ in the Intermountain West of North America, too late to be up, when I realized that you had elicited from me the phrase I had sought unaware for years, and especially during this thread. “How do the external field and the internal structure of the electron experience one another?” If this registers for you as a sense of why invariance (relativity) in the natural event is important and important to comprehend, and if you recognize that invariance is not just about formulating covariant equations as well as we can, then you will share my delight. If not, well, you have my appreciation in either case.

Wow!

Happy Trails, Len

Howdy Leonard Hall, in your last post you write that

“…Much of 20th Century Physics accomplishment was calculation without explanation. ….”

- that is correct, though non-completely. Really in all times in physics – and in all other sciences, though , the scientists invent

“…images in mind [of scientists] associate [some theoretical] terms with observations, and also processes among observables [including] (QM) or objects (Physics) …..”

- which [“terms”, etc.] are introduced in all scientific theories fundamentally without explanation. That never was by some other way, because of in all sciences in all times the fundamental phenomena/motions first of all in this case “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”,

- and “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fields”, etc., were/ are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational, and so, say, in mainstream physics the SR/GR are standard theories, where for Space” and “Time” some completely transcendent “relativistic properties and effects” are postulated without any explanations; in Standard particle Model and QFTs again without any explanations such terms as, say, “particle”, “field” and their properties are postulated – and that is even when not associating with observations, so called “virtual particles” and “virtual fields”, which are basic terms in QFTs, in these theories are principally non-observable – but, again, are the basic ones.

Etc., including the term “spin” in this thread question, I hope that you understand, in QM is again introduced quite transcendently without any explanations and only since that fits the theory with observation, despite that, say, “spin”, i.e. really an angular momentum, evidently cannot exist if, as that is also postulated in QM, particle is “point”; and all that aren’t some exclusions, examples in mainstream physics of “terms without explanations” are numerous.

Any real understanding of what/how really exists and happens in Matter [and not only, though] evidently is possible only provided that the fundamental phenomena/notions above [and not only, though] are really scientifically defined, what is possible, and is done only in framework of the really philosophical 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- where it is rigorously scientifically proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set;

- and at application to concrete the Set’s element informational system “Matter” in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model , 3 main papers are

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force

In the model so more 30 really fundamental, i.e. “transcendent”, physical problems so are really scientifically clarified and have at least rational scientifically explanations, a dozen of official problems see in Annex in 2-nd link, while a number of others even aren’t problems in mainstream physics – the physics quite frankly knows say, what are “particle”, “field”, “space”, “time”, etc. – though really, again, all that are in the mainstream completely mystic objects in Matter that for/by really some mystic reasons and ways are observable as they are observable.

.Besides the conception, the physical model above is based on really ones of utmost fundamental outstanding 20th Century physical findings:

- the von Weizsäcker’s first 1950s “Ur hypothesis”, where he proved that if Matter would be based on binary logics, then Matter must exist in 3D space – and Matter’s space indeed is 3D; so Matter’s ultimate base are some “bits”, and to underline the fundamentality of these bits von Weizsäcker’s called them “Urs”, which are binary alternatives that are fundamental base of World in German mythology; and

- Fredkin-Toffolilate 1960s finding that if a specific system of binary gates is reversible, at changing its state, say, at calculations, from the system energy doesn’t dissipate – so if Matter is based on reversible logics in Matter energy must be conserved – and in Matter the energy conservation law really works.

That above is the comment to yours

“…Thank you for additional effort in my behalf. I'm afraid the deep issue is that your statements and definitions do not trigger my imagination: "close-loop algorithms that run basing on “FLE hardware” - disturbances in the Matter’s ultimate base – . . . fundamental logical elements [FLE]," . . .. etc. do not have meaning for me. …..”

- so if you indeed want to understand what exists and happens in Matter – see the linked papers, for what [understanding], though, it will be necessary to spend some time, and be able to think really logically, objectively and non-standardly.

Returning to the thread question – see really scientific answer in SS post, in other posts the answers really are rather strange.

Cheers

Howdy Sergey Shevchenko ,

Thank you for your clarification. It is quite interesting as a foundation for your research and results. I appreciate your viewpoint and the foundations of thought in it that I can add to my canvas on which the world appears to my imagination. A person needs many ideas, and a good sorting method, to discover what rings true to them as where to place their lives. It is good that your have found yours.

I still seek comprehension of the nature of Nature in a real, existing universe that is not mystified by itself, and is not constrained by answers made too certain too soon. Experiencing your willingness and effort to explain has been quite pleasant, again, thank you.

Happy Trails, Len

Dear Chian Fan

Maybe the Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) is interesting for the insight in the “tangible” properties of electrons.

The image above shows a BEC that is made from a gas with a limited number of atoms (see Wikipedia). We get a BEC if we extract electromagnetic amplitudes/waves from a closed vessel with the gas atoms inside. Thus the temperature inside the vessel is forced to nearly 0 degrees Kelvin.

However, before we decrease the temperature of the vessel the gas atoms have nuclei and electrons and every atom has a small gravitational field on its own. All the distinct properties of these atoms are described/calculated (see e.g. the comment of Giorgio Vassallo). We even know that the rest mass of the nuclei is directly related to local decreased scalars of the Higgs field, a basic quantum field.

But all these “tangible” properties vanish at the moment we have extracted nearly all the electromagnetic amplitudes from the volume inside the closed vessel. Inclusive the properties of the involved electrons, because the BEC is just a local configuration of amplitudes of the electromagnetic field.

However, this strange disappearance of stable properties is not restricted to zero point temperatures. For example, in Palladium based nuclear fusion of Hydrogen/Deuterium atoms the nuclei of the atoms are forced to decrease their properties so fusion of the Hydrogen/Deuterium atoms is possible (in principle a 1,5 Volt battery is enough to drive the electrolyse of water to get nuclear fusion). An experimental result that was rejected by theoretical physicists because “it is impossible!”.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307594560_DTRA_INVESTIGATION_OF_NANO-NUCLEAR_REACTIONS_IN_CONDENSED_MATTER_FINAL_REPORT

The vanishing properties are in line with the modern insight that our universe is non-local. That means that the whole of local conditions within the volume of the universe create physical reality as we know it and as we measure it. The consequence is that we cannot isolate the properties of electrons – like its spin – from everything around if we really want to know “what is going on”.

With kind regards, Sydney

Howdy Sydney Ernest Grimm ,

Very interesting, making a BEC sounds like sculpting a statue - just remove the marble that is not part of it. When you remove all the energy in the personae of tangible properties what's left has no tangible properties. Okay.

My objection to "inherent" is that it hardens the surface of a portion of knowledge, ineffectively forbidding wonder. How did "spin" get to be isolated when we wisely include awareness of "everything around" nowadays? I'm actually seeking to comprehend the experimental result as part of everything around. I certainly agree with your last paragraph.

Happy Trails, Len

GR+TD gives

Spin= m*c*rG=1/2*h_bar

"restmass (m) rotation based" (m, and rG are effective values or expectation values if you prefer)

The magnetic moment

my=1/2*g*e*c*rG

here QED Lande Factor meets GR

Leonard Hall

"The only difference with a classical gyroscope is the quantization of the component of the angular momentum."

This only means that the classical mechanic equation (tau = dL/dt) can be applied to both electrons and macroscopic mechanical gyroscopes. However as all the other physical quantities, related to the Zitterbewegung electrodynamics, that are dimensionless in natural units (i.e. charge e, magnetic flux h/e, speed c) the angular momentum hbar is quantized. This quantization is related to the non-linearity of the Proca/Klein-Gordon equations proposed in the paper "Electron Structure Ultra-dense hydrogen and Low energy Nuclear reactions".

". . . is a current ring . . ." ". . . charge is . . . on a spherical surface . . ." "The free electron has . . ." "Is" equates, specifies, identifies, etc., but like a proper name, A is B does not explain, especially when B is only part of A in your reply."

This is an important point, related to Occam' razor principle: the quality of a theory is inversely proportional to the number of unexplained undefined concepts. I suggest you to read also the paper "Maxwell's equations and Occam's razor" and "Electron and Occam's razor" and if you find it interesting also the book "Unified field and Occam's razor"

Article Maxwell's Equations and Occam's Razor

Article The Electron and Occam's Razor

Preprint Electron Structure, Ultra-Dense Hydrogen and Low Energy Nucl...

Book Unified Field Theory and Occam's Razor: Simple Solutions to ...

You (Physics) need to come up with the restsmass of an electron (m) and charge (e) by theory. Not by hypothesis. (Eistein 1950)

The possible new result?

m(alpha, N), not presented in Literature, mass depending on alpha

rG(alpha,N), physically background due to mass NOT because of charge

e(alpha), Sommerfeld hypothesis need to be derived by theory.

N is an intrinsic quantum-number. (Open question now, instead of m)

Spin=m*c*rG=1/2*h_bar

is necessary result.

By the way

Feynman discusses re, the classical electron radius, mathematically. (Physically he did not accept re. Electron's Mass is not (can not be) made from Charge 100%!)

Howdy Giorgio Vassallo,

Thank you for your input. I prefer my version.

I read Abbott's "Flarland" long ago in Newman's "World of Mathematics." The world is full of spheres; it NEEDS squares.

Happy Trails, Len

The electron is one of several 'point' subatomic particles (electron, muon, tau, neutrinos, quarks), for which the internal structure is unknown. My favorite model for the electron is the “hubius helix”…a toroidally confined photon; see the attachment.

To find companion articles on the “hubius helix”…

-go to scholar.google.com;

-type “hubius helix” in the search bar and get 12 results…enjoy the reading.

These models are not accepted by physicists, because many important properties of the electron need to be satisfied. You can find a list of those properties with a Bing search on "dear hubius helix" (first result [a quora discussion], second entry). If you have suggestions for an improved electron model, I’d like to know.

Best regards, Lee Hively PhD (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, retired)

The questions what are “particles”, a particle’s spin, etc., can be, and are really rigorously scientifically answered only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model , links to 3 main papers see at least in SS post, page 8, August 30. So for those readers, who want to know the answers, more see the linked papers and comments in a number of SS posts in the thread; here only a comment to

“…The electron is one of several 'point' subatomic particles (electron, muon, tau, neutrinos, quarks), for which the internal structure is unknown. My favorite model for the electron is the “hubius helix”…a toroidally confined photon; see the attachment.

To find companion articles on the “hubius helix”…

-go to scholar.google.com;.…..”, etc.

- again, see SS posts above, particles are specific disturbances in the Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], the lattice is placed in the corresponding Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct) [not only particles - absolutely everything in Matter are specific disturbances in the lattice, though];

- which [particles] are close-loop algorithms that run as sequential the lattice’s FLE-by FLE specific flipping; i.e. a particle at every time moment exists as “FLE flipping point” that propagates along 4D “helix” trajectory, radius of the “helix”, λ, is determined by that λ=ћ/P, P is the particle’s 4D momentum, and so the flipping point’s angular momentum – i.e. the particle’s angular momentum, which is so “fundamental intrinsic property” i.e. real spin of particle, is equal to 1ћ. At small 3D speeds the helix’s “radius” is a particle’s Compton Length. The observed [really practically always] 3D projection of the “helix” is “just “particle as a wave in “wave-particle duality”; etc., more see the SS posts.

This real 4D “helix” has no relation to the [principally 3D] “hubius helix” – and to other “helixes” referenced in the quoted above post [scholar.google.com]; while these [referenced] helixes really have too indirect relation to what exists and happens in Matter.

Though in the referenced in commented post links paper [ https://hal.science/hal-03028157/], by using a “hubius helix”, the fine structure constant, α, is “derived”; so it looks worthwhile to point here, that, as that is rigorously shown in the SS&VT model above, α is simply relative part of an electrically charged particle’s algorithm’s logical length, where the “logical gates”, i.e. FLEs, have the fundamental Nature Electric force mark; so that at the algorithm running these FLEs initiate in the lattice propagation of Electric Force mediators, which very specifically interact with such FLEs in “irradiated” particle, causing the observable Electric Force interactions.

At that in Matter at least Gravity and Nuclear [that binds nucleons in nuclei] Forces act by the same as Electric Force scheme, more see the 2007 initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces , and 2023 initial model of Nuclear Force in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force

Cheers

Dear All,

you may find it interesting or even illuminating(?), but according to Motley String Theory (aka MST), all so called “elementary particles” are actually Compactified Threads of High Dimensional Motley String!

And because those original color dimensions (aka strings) are rotating and spinning, this MST model answers the Spin origin question as well as ALL Major Questions the High Energy Physics was hoping to answer since at least 1960 when the Standard Model was proposed.

For Comprehensive Overview of MST please have a look into the recent Copenhagen Update of MST Overview paper available on my profile (also attached for your convenience).

The most recent result of MST is the “Prime Number Generator” paper, which described how Prime Numbers were generated by MST in the first moments of our Universe creation.

Some 13 Billion years before first Mathematicians appeared on planet Earth!

Best regards/Mvh,

George Yury Matveev

www.matveev.se

年轻的中国博士们，你们好！

很高兴看到有几个博士生对“自旋”话题感兴趣。如果你们读过杨振宁先生的《曙光集》、《六十八年心路》的话，就会发现他对此一直极为重视，曾经多次强调过“自旋”与侠义相对论的关系，以及与引力的可能联系。那么自旋究竟来自于哪里，与物理学中哪些概念有密切关系，又是如何建立这些关系。文章 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379597414_Converging_and_Dispersing_Cyclic_-_Micro_and_Macro_Patterns_in_ Nature 提供了一种可参考的线索。特别是，如果你对Higgs机制非常了解，但是却不清楚它应该以什么方式映射到物理现实，且知道Higgs本人也无法直观解释清楚的话，那么该文章可能给出了最清晰的解释。阅读请有足够的耐心，抛掉成见，保持纯真和宽容。你最后会发现，自旋是对称性破缺的结果，它决定了整个物理学。

Hello young Chinese PhDs!

I am glad to see that some PhD students are interested in the topic of "spin". If you have read Mr. Yang's "Shu Guang Ji" and "Sixty-Eight Years' Journey", you will find that he has paid a lot of attention to this topic, and has repeatedly emphasized the relationship between "spin" and Special Relativity, as well as the possible connection with gravity. Where does spin come from, what concepts in physics are closely related to it, and how are these relationships established. The article "https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379597414_Converging_and_Dispersing_Cyclic_-_Micro_and_Macro_Patterns_in_ Nature" provides a clue. In particular, if you know a lot about the Higgs mechanism, but are not sure how it maps to physical reality, and know that Higgs himself could not explain it intuitively, then this article may provide the clearest explanation. Read it with plenty of patience, throw away preconceptions, and keep innocent. You will eventually realize that spin is the result of symmetry breaking. It determines the whole of physics.

Best Regards， Chian