Johnny5

Let me go all the way back in time, to the reason anyone ever added a fourth quantum number. Wasn't the reason QM was seen as incomplete due to the observation of the Zeeman effect? I have done the experiment myself, and witnessed the zeeman effect. $25,000 SPEX spectrometer was used. Hydrogen light entered the spex, and the computer plotted peaks which corresponded to the different photon wavelengths entering. Then a huge magnet (1-5 Teslas 50 lbs, big sucker) was placed between the light source (excited hydrogen gas) and the SPEX (diffraction grating inside). Then there was a splitting of the spectral lines observed. The number of hydrogen lines increased... the Zeeman effect. Isn't the Zeeman effect the reason why spin quantum number was added to the model of hydrogen atoms? This is actually the most helpful thing I've read so far, and yes of course I've went through this before, but that was long ago. Electron spin

Is "spinor" short for spin operator? Now I'm reading this Masochism really. In all my ignorance, I would just like to say, there has got to be a better way to do this. I read a few things so far: 1. Spin operator is a vector observable. 2. If you rotate ket vector through 2pi radians, you do not get back the original ket vector, you get back - ket. You have to rotate a ket vector through 720 degrees to get back the original ket vector. They say this is a classically unexpected result. Lepton (fermion)-generic name for any spin 1/2 particle which does not feel the strong nuclear force.

So c+,c- are just arbitrary constants? I'm reading this now, and this . That last thing is what you are trying to show me isn't it.

How do you get the RHS' date=' admittedly it's foreign to me. I don't know how to interpret it. I don't know what I'm looking at. How did you derive the state vector for a spin 1/2 particle? What is c[sub']+[/sub]... probability something is spin up state? Is the RHS just the sum of the probability that some arbitrary spin 1/2 particle is in a spin up state, with the probability that it is in a spin down state, given that it must be one or the other, something like that? Bits and pieces are coming back to me.

You know something, why don't you spell out for me what you mean when you say frame of reference. I saw the definition you spewed out. From memory, that means I am not going back to look at what you wrote, it said, "A frame of reference is a system of coordinates to which an observer refers to his/her measurements." Something like that. Is that what you mean by reference frame, when you say "the speed of light is c in all reference frames?" I get the first part of your OR correctly. The speed of light is c for all inertial observers. Why don't you just come out and say that an inertial reference frame is a reference frame in which a free particle is either at rest or moving in a straight line at a constant speed.

The definition above is practically meaningless. A free particle is a particle which isn't experiencing any force, so its as if you said, a free particle is a free particle. Although quibbling about this is dumb. Additionally, what if there are no free particles in nature... but that's not even my main objection. The definition of inertial reference frame is so important, that something more technical is required. Why didn't you say the following: An inertial reference frame is a reference frame in which a free particle isn't accelerating. Just curious. PS: I know that's not your definition, its found all over the web. Kind regards

Like I said, without latex fixed it was a bit hard to read.

Alright, let me ask you this. What interpretation of QM do you use? I want to hear what you have to say about wavefunction collapse.

I went through it, wonderful proof, I won't forget it. Thanks Draw the altitude, then you have created two tiny right triangles, each of which is similar to the original large right triangle. The rest follows using trig relations.

Yeah that's a good idea.

Can a human being be magnetized? It has been suggested by some, that if we want to accelerate human beings beyond the 6-8 g's, at which highly trained fighter pilots black out at, that the only way to do it, is to turn the human body into a magnet, so that the human being's body will not be subjected to internal stresses and strains which would tear the body apart. Is that the only way to do it? Is that even possible? If it is impossible, what is the most rapid proof proving so, so that it can be eliminated from consideration? For whatever it's worth, I myself don't think this idea will work.

I suppose you are treating events as four tuples. For the sake of simplicity, suppose you are using rectangular coordinates to describe points in this specific frame F. So, at moment in time T in frame F, a space point (X,Y,Z) is represented as a four tuple as follows: Event: (X,Y,Z,T) Suppose that an electron is located at (x1,y1,z1) at moment in time t1 in frame F, then it moves somplace else, and later returns to its starting point. We have: (x1,y1,z1,t1) (x1,y1,z1,tn) These 'events' are different simply because not (t1=tn), but they did have the same space-point as you called it. But if TWO events are simultaneous in frame F, then regardless of their respective space-points, their time-points are identical. So in order for them to really be TWO, they must have different locations in the frame. But I think what you have described is this: Event1: (x1,y1,z1,tn) Event2: (x1,y1,z1,tn) Therefore, event 1 = event 2, they are not different. You ask if it is possible that they may be simultaneous in another frame, but they are really just one, so I'm not sure what you are asking. If indeed you mean two different events which are simultaneous in F, then I suppose your question is this: Given two events which are simultaneous in frame F Event1:(x1,y1,z1,t) Event2:(x2,y2,z1,t) Not (x1=x2 and y1=y2 and z1=z2) Is there any reference frame other than F, in which these events are simultaneous? I need to ask you a question. Do you assume that the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames?

Where did you get that idea from? "Accelerate all parts of the body equally, with no significant internal stresses" this seems correct.

Yes that is the exact text. I still have it.

That's the whole idea JC.

I read that link, the professor there was from Princeton. But... still... according to SR, If I built a million mile starship, and got it to just the right speed, it would be smaller than the Planck length. Let it be a 5000 trillion mile long starship. Still, if we get it moving fast enough, it will fit on the head of a pin. Please see my post entitled Important question on Newton's third law violations. It happens to be something I'm working quite feverishly on, and I actually need help.