Vmedvil Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 (edited) Oh, so it goes toward the rest mass term I was wrong about this which also makes sense for quarks. If that is the case, then nuclei do not have angular momentum or angular kinetic energy in the form I was thinking about. The Rest momentum and Rest Energy is stored as Rest mass. Then here are your Energy Terms for it. 8 hours ago, StringJunky said: How can they be when they are scalar and vector respectively? Punch a screen in a straight path there is no change in momentum or KE but punch the screen with a constant speed in a curved path, the KE stays the same but the momentum changes because of the change in direction. To you let say my Fist has a mass of 1 kilogram, and I move it with a velocity of 5 m/s one of my weak punches it will indeed have both. as MV = p and V2M(1/2) = KE , (p = 5 kg*m/s , KE = 12.5 Joules) which are two versions of saying the physical value of the velocity in stopping ability needed to counter it. Edited December 26, 2017 by Vmedvil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio T. Posted December 26, 2017 Author Share Posted December 26, 2017 Ok the term spin used in quantum mechanics does not describe any rotation or angular momentum of the nucleus. The nucleus does however have mass. Do we know if it is spinning? (in the traditional Newtonian world) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 15 minutes ago, Giorgio T. said: Ok the term spin used in quantum mechanics does not describe any rotation or angular momentum of the nucleus. The nucleus does however have mass. Do we know if it is spinning? (in the traditional Newtonian world) The Spin number describes something about the particle its symmetry how far you would have to turn it to see the same view. So, No it is not spinning it is about symmetry of the Rest mass or Rest Energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordief Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 16 minutes ago, Giorgio T. said: Ok the term spin used in quantum mechanics does not describe any rotation or angular momentum of the nucleus. The nucleus does however have mass. Do we know if it is spinning? (in the traditional Newtonian world) Why is the term "spin" used at all in QM if it causes confusion with classical terminology? Are there any other appellations of the phenomenon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 (edited) Ya, I had remembered that after Mordred said the word Rest mass, it is about Group Theory Look at the spins, it is the superposition number, The "Spin Number" http://universe-review.ca/R15-10-groups01.htm Which I feel retarded now the "Spinor Number" is a better term for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigenspinor https://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/modern/SpinHandout.pdf https://www.iop.vast.ac.vn/theor/lectures/seidel/qm/QM-Lectures2-2.pdf Edited December 26, 2017 by Vmedvil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 56 minutes ago, Giorgio T. said: Ok the term spin used in quantum mechanics does not describe any rotation or angular momentum of the nucleus. The nucleus does however have mass. Do we know if it is spinning? (in the traditional Newtonian world) The spin represents all of the angular momentum in the ground state. It is not physically spinning. 38 minutes ago, geordief said: Why is the term "spin" used at all in QM if it causes confusion with classical terminology? It is angular momentum. It does not cause confusion among people who have studied physics to this point, or at least no more confusion than any other physics they are learning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio T. Posted December 26, 2017 Author Share Posted December 26, 2017 10 minutes ago, swansont said: The spin represents all of the angular momentum in the ground state. It is not physically spinning. It is angular momentum. It does not cause confusion among people who have studied physics to this point, or at least no more confusion than any other physics they are learning. So the 'spin' represents the rest state angular momentum which is zero? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 1 minute ago, Giorgio T. said: So the 'spin' represents the rest state angular momentum which is zero? Yes, it is the ground state angular momentum, but in most nuclei it is not zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordief Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 3 minutes ago, swansont said: Yes, it is the ground state angular momentum, but in most nuclei it is not zero. Does that also answer Giorgio's question regarding the nucleus in this post? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/111984-does-the-spin-of-a-nucleus-have-kinetic-energy/?do=findComment&comment=1030511 The nucleus does spin classically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 (edited) 35 minutes ago, geordief said: Does that also answer Giorgio's question regarding the nucleus in this post? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/111984-does-the-spin-of-a-nucleus-have-kinetic-energy/?do=findComment&comment=1030511 The nucleus does spin classically? I want to say yes because classically to have magnetism you need to have current, which is I = Q/dt Edited December 26, 2017 by Vmedvil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordief Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 3 minutes ago, Vmedvil said: I want to say yes because classically to have magnetism you need to have current, which is I = Q/dt At what level does the magnetic "charge" originate ? " Inside" the electron? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, geordief said: At what level does the magnetic "charge" originate ? " Inside" the electron? Fermions or possibly String level being a Planck Length Edited December 26, 2017 by Vmedvil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordief Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 6 minutes ago, Vmedvil said: Quarks or possibly String level being a Planck Length So the electron can be seen as a bearer of charge rather than originator (if that makes sense) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 Just now, geordief said: So the electron can be seen as a bearer of charge rather than originator (if that makes sense) Yes, it is just bearing a charge dimension, here is the Kaku Equation for String Charge in a String Field. https://studygtu.blogspot.com/2016/02/what-is-meaning-of-michio-kakus-equation.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 1 hour ago, geordief said: Does that also answer Giorgio's question regarding the nucleus in this post? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/111984-does-the-spin-of-a-nucleus-have-kinetic-energy/?do=findComment&comment=1030511 That's been answered a half-dozen times. No. There is no KE associated with spin. Quote The nucleus does spin classically? Can it? Sure. Stand up, turn around. All the nuclei in you body have undergone a classical rotation . But it is not due to QM spin. 1 hour ago, Vmedvil said: I want to say yes because classically to have magnetism you need to have current, which is I = Q/dt Electrons, protons and neutrons each have a magnetic moment, without having classical, physical rotation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 4 minutes ago, swansont said: Can it? Sure. Stand up, turn around. All the nuclei in you body have undergone a classical rotation . But it is not due to QM spin. Electrons, protons and neutrons each have a magnetic moment, without having classical, physical rotation. The Vibration of them then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 Just now, Vmedvil said: The Vibration of them then? We're talking about rotation, not vibration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 Just now, swansont said: We're talking about rotation, not vibration. Well, there is another solution to 1/dt which is f Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 1 hour ago, geordief said: At what level does the magnetic "charge" originate ? " Inside" the electron? There is no "inside" an electron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 1 minute ago, swansont said: There is no "inside" an electron. I get that https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/206276/why-are-electron-wavefunctions-standing-waves http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/Schr2.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 14 minutes ago, Vmedvil said: I get that I wasn't responding to you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 Just now, swansont said: I wasn't responding to you Sorry, Swan I didn't see that, my bad, I answered anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 18 minutes ago, Vmedvil said: Well, there is another solution to 1/dt which is f That doesn't make this relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 3 minutes ago, swansont said: That doesn't make this relevant. It kinda does because http://hydrogen.physik.uni-wuppertal.de/hyperphysics/hyperphysics/hbase/rotq.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 2 minutes ago, Vmedvil said: It kinda does because http://hydrogen.physik.uni-wuppertal.de/hyperphysics/hyperphysics/hbase/rotq.html That's not a vibration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now