Mordred Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 (edited) Both the field and particle spin has wavefunction characteristics this makes sense under particles being field excitations so the symmetries are related. for dipolar spin 1, 1/2 etc ie electromagnetic group SU(2) this group is represented by the Pauli matrixes. the quadrupole spin 2 group is the SU(3) group.(which will correlate to the SO(3.1 Poincare group. Under LQC however the SU(3) can be represented by the double cover [latex]SU(2)\otimes SU(2)/\mathbb{Z}[/latex] those are the key symmetry groups along with the U(1) gauge for the SM particles. gravitation affects the geometry of spacetime so your last question makes little sense Study how spin relates to spinors under Pauli. http://web.pa.msu.edu/people/mmoore/Lect33_Spin.pdf Edited June 17, 2018 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butch Posted June 17, 2018 Author Share Posted June 17, 2018 2 hours ago, Mordred said: Both the field and particle spin has wavefunction characteristics this makes sense under particles being field excitations so the symmetries are related. for dipolar spin 1, 1/2 etc ie electromagnetic group SU(2) this group is represented by the Pauli matrixes. the quadrupole spin 2 group is the SU(3) group.(which will correlate to the SO(3.1 Poincare group. Under LQC however the SU(3) can be represented by the double cover SU(2)⊗SU(2)/Z those are the key symmetry groups along with the U(1) gauge for the SM particles. gravitation affects the geometry of spacetime so your last question makes little sense Study how spin relates to spinors under Pauli. http://web.pa.msu.edu/people/mmoore/Lect33_Spin.pdf Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 13 hours ago, Butch said: I had a thought and would value your input... Might the spin of a particle equal its gravitation? An elementary particle, not a composite. Gravitation is not spin, so the notion of them being equal makes no sense whatsoever. In Newtonian physics gravitation is a force. In GR it is spacetime curvature. Neither of those is angular momentum, which is what spin is. 13 hours ago, Butch said: Sounds like I am on the right track however... How does spin relate to gravitation in an elementary particle? Specifically an elementary particle with mass of course. It doesn't. A spin 1/2 electron has a different mass than a spin 1/2 muon, tau, neutrino, or quark. Hence they will have different gravitational interactions. (and how does a "no" lead you to believe you are on the right track?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butch Posted June 18, 2018 Author Share Posted June 18, 2018 2 hours ago, swansont said: Gravitation is not spin, so the notion of them being equal makes no sense whatsoever. In Newtonian physics gravitation is a force. In GR it is spacetime curvature. Neither of those is angular momentum, which is what spin is. It doesn't. A spin 1/2 electron has a different mass than a spin 1/2 muon, tau, neutrino, or quark. Hence they will have different gravitational interactions. (and how does a "no" lead you to believe you are on the right track?) I may be able to map quarks and leptons to my model via mass and spin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 9 hours ago, Butch said: I may be able to map quarks and leptons to my model via mass and spin. oh I seriously doubt your ready for all the applicable formulas that defines the baryon octet, nonet and meson nonet just yet. the formulas are very extensive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butch Posted June 19, 2018 Author Share Posted June 19, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Mordred said: oh I seriously doubt your ready for all the applicable formulas that defines the baryon octet, nonet and meson nonet just yet. the formulas are very extensive Are you saying there has been some work in this area? I am sticking to elementary particles, for now. Edited June 19, 2018 by Butch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 Those terms are involved in the quarks/gluon and flavor family of SU(3). Yes there is extensive work of those eightfold way terms, which has similarities to the color interactions as well as flavor interactions of the strong and weak force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eightfold_Way_(physics) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butch Posted June 19, 2018 Author Share Posted June 19, 2018 11 hours ago, Mordred said: Those terms are involved in the quarks/gluon and flavor family of SU(3). Yes there is extensive work of those eightfold way terms, which has similarities to the color interactions as well as flavor interactions of the strong and weak force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eightfold_Way_(physics) If you look at the graph of my proposed particle, you will note that outside of x = 1 the field is relatively weak, at x<1 the field is precipitously stronger. It is my thinking that not only "in" the well, but also in a wave packet in the field the strength of the field can be much stronger than our classical perception of gravity. Certainly such waves could have an electro magnetic effect and could be charge carriers producing strong and weak forces, however I am still at a loss as to charge itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 1 hour ago, Butch said: If you look at the graph of my proposed particle, you will note that outside of x = 1 the field is relatively weak, at x<1 the field is precipitously stronger. It is my thinking that not only "in" the well, but also in a wave packet in the field the strength of the field can be much stronger than our classical perception of gravity. Certainly such waves could have an electro magnetic effect and could be charge carriers producing strong and weak forces, however I am still at a loss as to charge itself. What your graph means is not well-explained by you. One issue being that x has taken on different meanings, and you have never quite gotten around to explaining what interaction is being represented. Enough discussion about your model-that-isn't. You don't have a model, you don't have testable predictions. Explain how this meets the threshold for further speculations discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butch Posted June 19, 2018 Author Share Posted June 19, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, swansont said: What your graph means is not well-explained by you. One issue being that x has taken on different meanings, and you have never quite gotten around to explaining what interaction is being represented. Enough discussion about your model-that-isn't. You don't have a model, you don't have testable predictions. Explain how this meets the threshold for further speculations discussion. A macro structure(a slit for example) would have a weak and nearly uniform gravitational field, if the particle is nearer to one side of the slit than the other, the strength of field interaction would differ horizontally. The more exaggerated the difference in proximity, the more pronounced the difference in interaction with the particle. Being that the field strength weakens radially this should be a sinus function(a wave function)! I am working on the math, I am not a mathematician, I believe with some study, I can produce it. If anyone would like to help, it would be greatly appreciated! As far as a prediction, a neutral particle should show diffraction... I had stated that gravitation would need to be used to impel particles through the slit? Perhaps not. This diffraction should occur to some extent at macro levels(very long wave functions). Edited June 19, 2018 by Butch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 50 minutes ago, Butch said: As far as a prediction, a neutral particle should show diffraction... I had stated that gravitation would need to be used to impel particles through the slit? Perhaps not. We already have an equation that works quite well with this. Quote I am working on the math ! Moderator Note You can re-open this discussion when you have it. Until you do, no more speculation on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.cc169fb67f9c969aeace623286b9b5e6.jpg)
Recommended Posts