 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / June 2005Here is Definitive Proof that Leptons have spin 1!
Spin quantum number In atomic physics, the spin quantum number is a quantum number that parametrize the intrinsic angular momentum (or spin angular momentum, or simply spin) of a given particle. As a quantized angular momentum, it holds that ||sv|| = sqrt(sn(sn + 2)).hdot where, sv is the quantized spin vector, ||sv|| is the norm of the spin vector, sn is the spin quantum number associated with the spin angular momentum, hdot = h / 4.pi = 5.2728584118222738157569629987554e-35 kg.m^2.s^-1. Given an arbitrary direction z (usually determined by an external magnetic field) the spin z-projection is given by Sz = ms.hdot where ms is the secondary spin quantum number, ranging from -s to +s in steps of two. The allowed values for s are any non-negative integers. For leptons and quarks these equations can be simplified to, ||s|| = sqrt(3).hdot and Sz = +1hdot, -1hdot and for photons, W bosons, Z bosons, and gluons, ||s|| = sqrt(8).hdot and Sz = +2hdot, 0, -2hdot This shows that leptons and quarks are spin 1 particles, and photons, W bosons, Z bosons and gluons are spin 2 particles. >From this, it follows that fermions have odd values of spin, while bosons have even values. yawn. its not proof its a theory. learn the difference. > Spin quantum number > > In atomic physics, the spin quantum number is a quantum number that > parametrize the intrinsic angular momentum (or spin angular momentum, > or simply spin) of a given particle. Right. > As a quantized angular momentum, it holds that > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > The allowed values for s are any non-negative integers. And what reason do you have to use hdot instead of the usual hbar? > For leptons and quarks these equations can be simplified to, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ||s|| = sqrt(8).hdot and Sz = +2hdot, 0, -2hdot Wrong. Photons and gluons can't have Sz = 0. > This shows that leptons and quarks are spin 1 particles, and photons, W > bosons, Z bosons and gluons are spin 2 particles. > > From this, it follows that fermions have odd values of spin, while > bosons have even values. No, this doesn't show that, since the spin quantum number is defined with respect to hbar, not with respect to your hdot. If you call the forelegs of a dog "arms", how many legs does the dog then have? Still four - calling a leg an arm doesn't make it one. Bye, Bjoern > Spin quantum number > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > >From this, it follows that fermions have odd values of spin, while > bosons have even values. Disproven by trivial empirical observation. Example: the Periodic Table.  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf But it still changes the current theory slighty. In the current theory, Fermions have half integer spin. Bosons have integer spin. In the corrected theory, Fermions have an odd integer spin. Bosons have an even integer spin. Would this correction have any other effects > But it still changes the current theory slighty. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > In the corrected theory, Why do you call your version the "corrected" theory? > Fermions have an odd integer spin. > Bosons have an even integer spin. Read again what I wrote about definitions and calling a leg an arm. [snip] Bye, Bjoern > > But it still changes the current theory slighty. > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Bye, > Bjoern I used the term "corrected thory" because in my opinion it is a mistake to use habr/2. I have replaced hbar/2 with hdot, so in my opinion, i have corrected it. >But it still changes the current theory slighty. >In the current theory, >Fermions have half integer spin. >Bosons have integer spin. >In the corrected theory, >Fermions have an odd integer spin. >Bosons have an even integer spin. >Would this correction have any other effects Yes. From what I understand, a fermion with spin of 1/2 hbar must make two complete rotations to return to its original state while a spin 1 boson only 1, so 1/2 and 1 make more sense than 1 and 2. Signature-Mike > >But it still changes the current theory slighty. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > -- > -Mike I'm sorry, but I don't see your logic with the above. Spin 1 particles make 2 rotations to return to their original state. Spin 2 particles make 1 rotation to return to their original state. This shows a nice sort of symmetry between them. What generates spin? > What generates spin? This question has been asked many times in these news groups, and the answers recieved have been contradictory. Some people will say, "It is intrinsic angular momentum, but note that the particle does not actually spin." Yeah right, that makes sense! NOT! The truth is I don't actualy know what spin is. I thought I did, and then I read these news groups. Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: > Golden Boar wrote: > > Spin quantum number [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > And what reason do you have to use hdot instead of the usual hbar? Why use hbar instead of h/2pi? Because it is more fundamental. Besides, a quantum refers to an indivisible entity, so how can you have half of a quantum. Can you dig me half a hole please? > > For leptons and quarks these equations can be simplified to, > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Wrong. Photons and gluons can't have Sz = 0. Isn't this because they have no rest frame? The equations still give those values whether using hdot or hbar. > > This shows that leptons and quarks are spin 1 particles, and photons, W > > bosons, Z bosons and gluons are spin 2 particles. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No, this doesn't show that, since the spin quantum number is defined > with respect to hbar, not with respect to your hdot. Yes, but defined wrongly. As I said before, how can you have half a quantum. > If you call the forelegs of a dog "arms", how many legs does the dog > then have? Still four - calling a leg an arm doesn't make it one. Using your analogy, i would say, "Well why have we been calling the forelegs of a dog 'arms' for all this time? Now that we know they are legs, shouldn't we call them legs!" > Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: > > Golden Boar wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Why use hbar instead of h/2pi? > Because it is more fundamental. This is where you are wrong. We use hbar instead of h/2pi because it is more *convenient*. > Besides, a quantum refers to an > indivisible entity, so how can you have half of a quantum. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Yes, but defined wrongly. As I said before, how can you have half a > quantum. Which is more fundamental, the index that labels the state or the size of the jump? Before you answer that question, think about what the difference is between quantum mechanics and continuum mechanics. Note that in the original scheme, the index that labels the state can have half-integer values, but the size of the jump is 1. In your scheme, the index that labels the state is an integer, but the size of the jump is 2. > > If you call the forelegs of a dog "arms", how many legs does the dog > > then have? Still four - calling a leg an arm doesn't make it one. > > > Using your analogy, i would say, > "Well why have we been calling the forelegs of a dog 'arms' for all > this time? Now that we know they are legs, shouldn't we call them legs!" And it would make no difference whatsoever in the nature of the dog, only in the terms used to describe the dog. PD [snip] > Which is more fundamental, the index that labels the state or the size > of the jump? Before you answer that question, think about what the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > index that labels the state is an integer, but the size of the jump is > 2. I would say that the index that labels the state is the more fundamental as this is what classifies a particle as either a fermion or a boson, while the index that labels the size of the jump classifies different states for that particle. [snip] > [snip] > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > or a boson, while the index that labels the size of the jump classifies > different states for that particle. And this is where most physicists would disagree with you. > [snip] > > [snip] > > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > > [snip] What is their/your reason? > > > [snip] > > > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > What is their/your reason? The fundamental thing that distinguishes quantum theory from classical theory is the abandonment of a continuum of allowed states in favor of ones that come in discrete steps. Energy, for example, cannot be delivered in an arbitrarily small amount at a given frequency; it has a certain minimum amount: the quantum. This is what explained the non-occurence of the "ultraviolet catastrophe" in blackbody radiation, the first case where the quantum idea took root. (Planck) It was only later that people noticed that you could assign an index to certain particle states, which helped you identify the quantum energy difference between the states. (Bohr) It was even later that people began to classify particles according the values of their indices and make some global rules about classes of particles. (Fermi, Dirac, Bose, Einstein) In the case at hand, what makes *both* fermions and bosons quantum particles is the fact that the energies of their spin states in an external magnetic field are not continuous, but separated by one quantum unit. (Stern, Gerlach) Once this fact is absorbed, then it is useful to talk about the indices of the spin states themselves, and what makes fermions and bosons different. The unit size of the energy steps is what drives the choice for the value of the indices. In any case, what distinguishes fermions and bosons is not the nature of the index, though it is a handy mnemonic. Fermions mathematically are different objects (spinors) than bosons, in a way that has nothing whatsover to do with the value of the index. For example, fermions obey the Dirac equation, and bosons do not. PD > > If you call the forelegs of a dog "arms", how many legs does the dog > > then have? Still four - calling a leg an arm doesn't make it one. > Using your analogy, i would say, > "Well why have we been calling the forelegs of a dog 'arms' for all > this time? Now that we know they are legs, shouldn't we call them legs!" Wrong analogy. The correct analogy is: "Nobody gives a rat's a.s what they're calld! Just because you decided to call them arms doesn't mean you can go aruond saying you discovered a new bipedal species living amongst humans and that everyone had been heretofore deluded into not noticing it because they had 'mistakenly' called their legs arms! You ain't got no bipedal species. You're making it up and trying to distract everyone to the UTTERLY irrelevant question as to what to name appendages after getting BUSTED for posing the nonsense that you discovered a bipedal species!" Golden Boar wrote [with corrections made]: > But it still changes [nothing] > In the current theory, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Fermions have [spin of h/4(pi) * odd integer] > Bosons have [spin of h/2(pi) * integer] > Would this [restating what's already been stated] have any other effects Obviously not. Nothing new follows from the same thing said twice. Uncle Al wrote: > Golden Boar wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf The periodic table remains the same when using this equation. Michael Moroney wrote: > "Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> writes: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > -- > -Mike I'm sorry, but I don't see your logic with the above. Spin 1 particles make 2 rotations to return to their original state. Spin 2 particles make 1 rotation to return to their original state. This shows a nice sort of symmetry between them. markwh04@yahoo.com wrote: > Golden Boar wrote [with corrections made]: > > But it still changes [nothing] [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Obviously not. Nothing new follows from the same thing said twice. I didn't think it would, I just wanted to get this confirmed by people with more knowledge in this area. > But it still changes the current theory slighty. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Would this correction have any other effects It's not a correction. It's a relabeling, with NO physical effects. If I changed Newton's 2nd law from F=ma to F=(mg)(a/g) and redefined a/g to be adot, I could argue that the law is simpler because mass gets replaced by a more natural weight (which Don Shead would love), and acceleration becomes normalized to g so that falling objects have adot = 1. Then I have a cleaner F = W*adot Note that this changes NOTHING about the physical predictions of the law and it changes nothing about the physics. It just reparameterizes. Half-integer or odd-integer spin, integer or even integer spin is NOT a prediction of quantum theory. It is a PARAMETER. A prediction is how the energy states split and by how much. And that doesn't change at all. PD |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.