Okay, thanks. analogies work for a while but then something more definite ne3eds to be established.
Quarklets
- Thread starter quarklet8
- Start date
Orbits and orbitals
Electrons are like planets orbiting nuclei, their "suns", but orbiting electrons are a combination of sub-particles: neutrinos; photons; and gravitons. These have progressively greater spins: neutrinos have +/- 1/2; photons +/- 1; and gravitons (still theoretical) +/- 2. My proposal is to put an electron at the center of these spins and to then have the smallest spinners closest to center and the larger further out. Therefore, I equate spin with orbit- a neutrino would orbit its electron in the time it took to spin itself one-half upon its axis; it would either be a "+" or "-" but not both. Plus means "clockwise" and minus "counter-clockwise". Then, in the next closest orbit, a photon would orbit, meaning a virtual electron pair- thus, it would be neutral (+/-1). The orbit furthest out would be (+/ 2) with two virtual electrons forming a graviton.
The first orbit around an electron's quarklet pair, having a neutrino, is what determines its spin. An electron would be coupled to either a neutrino or an anti-neutrino. It is what I call a "tangible" electron. Their +/- 1/2 spins mean they also have mass (which virtuals don't). Neutrinos, having three mass "flavors" (light, medium, and heavy), make their electrons those, muons, or tauons. Therefore, an electron's neutrino orbit must have three sub-orbits, or "orbitals" which are for each mass. More later...
Electrons are like planets orbiting nuclei, their "suns", but orbiting electrons are a combination of sub-particles: neutrinos; photons; and gravitons. These have progressively greater spins: neutrinos have +/- 1/2; photons +/- 1; and gravitons (still theoretical) +/- 2. My proposal is to put an electron at the center of these spins and to then have the smallest spinners closest to center and the larger further out. Therefore, I equate spin with orbit- a neutrino would orbit its electron in the time it took to spin itself one-half upon its axis; it would either be a "+" or "-" but not both. Plus means "clockwise" and minus "counter-clockwise". Then, in the next closest orbit, a photon would orbit, meaning a virtual electron pair- thus, it would be neutral (+/-1). The orbit furthest out would be (+/ 2) with two virtual electrons forming a graviton.
The first orbit around an electron's quarklet pair, having a neutrino, is what determines its spin. An electron would be coupled to either a neutrino or an anti-neutrino. It is what I call a "tangible" electron. Their +/- 1/2 spins mean they also have mass (which virtuals don't). Neutrinos, having three mass "flavors" (light, medium, and heavy), make their electrons those, muons, or tauons. Therefore, an electron's neutrino orbit must have three sub-orbits, or "orbitals" which are for each mass. More later...
Last edited:
Orbits and orbitals II
If neutrinos give "tangible" electrons their spin, what gives "virtual" electrons theirs, meaning those making up photons and gravitons? Photons, with (+/- 1) spins/orbits, are "spin-neutral", as would be the still theoretical gravitons. We see photons are double neutrinos and gravitons double these: 1/2 > 1 > > 2.
If tangible electrons are coupled to neutrinos, could virtuals also be to their own auxillary, "ennabling" particles? For example, could two neutrinos join to form a "photino" (+1/2 x 2) which then would be attached to an electron quarklet pair to form a photon (both positive and negative)? And then could a graviton be the product of four positive-spinning and then four negative-spinning neutrinos (+/- 2 x 1/2 x 2)?
In this way, neutrinos would be like dynamic viruses attaching and detaching from their lepton complexes as if genetic agents. Hitherto considered neutral leptons, neutrinos may have a different quarklet number than leptons, perhaps three...
If neutrinos give "tangible" electrons their spin, what gives "virtual" electrons theirs, meaning those making up photons and gravitons? Photons, with (+/- 1) spins/orbits, are "spin-neutral", as would be the still theoretical gravitons. We see photons are double neutrinos and gravitons double these: 1/2 > 1 > > 2.
If tangible electrons are coupled to neutrinos, could virtuals also be to their own auxillary, "ennabling" particles? For example, could two neutrinos join to form a "photino" (+1/2 x 2) which then would be attached to an electron quarklet pair to form a photon (both positive and negative)? And then could a graviton be the product of four positive-spinning and then four negative-spinning neutrinos (+/- 2 x 1/2 x 2)?
In this way, neutrinos would be like dynamic viruses attaching and detaching from their lepton complexes as if genetic agents. Hitherto considered neutral leptons, neutrinos may have a different quarklet number than leptons, perhaps three...
Last edited:
Okay, I like the clockwise and anti-clockwise spin ideas. But what geometric shape is actually do the spinning?
What causes one particle to orbit another? I can imagine a piece of string attached, but presumably you're imagining empty space between the two. How does gravity work in your vision of the atom?
Gravity as "valence"
Dear Seeker,
The question of spin and gravity seems to me resolvable at the quarklet level. Neutrinos coupled to leptons and "sub-quarks" (the lepton-like parts of quarks) generate spin. Matter is made up of particles with two quarklets
(electrons and positrons) and those with three (neutrinos). Neutrinos' odd quarklet number give them spin and their coupling to leptons makes those "complex" and they share their spin with those, as well. Gravity must be the surplus spin of neutrino quarklets which I call "valence". More later...
Dear Seeker,
The question of spin and gravity seems to me resolvable at the quarklet level. Neutrinos coupled to leptons and "sub-quarks" (the lepton-like parts of quarks) generate spin. Matter is made up of particles with two quarklets
(electrons and positrons) and those with three (neutrinos). Neutrinos' odd quarklet number give them spin and their coupling to leptons makes those "complex" and they share their spin with those, as well. Gravity must be the surplus spin of neutrino quarklets which I call "valence". More later...
Last edited:
You realize that taking a few scientific terms and adding a madeup term or 2 and then dumping those terms into a sentence is not science. It is not anything except a waste of bandwidth.
By the way.
Electrons do not orbit the nucleus like planets.
Subatomic particles do not spin like little tops.
I'm pretty sure he is incapable of recognizing anything that doesn't fit his ideology. Cranks might think we were all born equal and 'our opinions' on science shouldn't be given 'short shrift' regardless how scientifically uninformed others think they might be. One thing is for sure we were all born ignorant and what happens after that is up to each of us. Some folks seem to get off reveling in their own ignorance and want to put it's stink on others.
Ain't that the truth!
Orbits and spins
To origin and brucep:
Sub-particles spin and orbit in atomic nuclei. The Solar System is often used as a metaphor for this. I use it because I presume my readers know I generalize and compare. I trust in their intelligence...
Nuclei, atoms' centers, have combined spins and so axies. Electrons, normally paired, have combined axes and so spins. These must match their orbits. They then generate various forms of magnetism within orbiiti mostly mutually neutralized (like charge).
I have presented this in simple terms to allow readers to follow me but if I'm wrong and "ignorant", please show me (and our readers why) but leave out my mother...
To origin and brucep:
Sub-particles spin and orbit in atomic nuclei. The Solar System is often used as a metaphor for this. I use it because I presume my readers know I generalize and compare. I trust in their intelligence...
Nuclei, atoms' centers, have combined spins and so axies. Electrons, normally paired, have combined axes and so spins. These must match their orbits. They then generate various forms of magnetism within orbiiti mostly mutually neutralized (like charge).
I have presented this in simple terms to allow readers to follow me but if I'm wrong and "ignorant", please show me (and our readers why) but leave out my mother...
Last edited:
Gravity
Dear sense,
Because electric quarklet pairs are attached to neutrinos which give them spin and mass and to the same (in extra numbers) to give them energy, I think that electrons and baryon sub-quarks have "metabolisms" based upon the separation and re-combination of neutrinos with their electric counter-parts. The "electrics" must have neutrino clouds generating surplus orbits and spins which are the neutral magnetism we call "gravity"...
By the way, thanks to the SF for allowing me to be "ignorant". More later...
Dear sense,
Because electric quarklet pairs are attached to neutrinos which give them spin and mass and to the same (in extra numbers) to give them energy, I think that electrons and baryon sub-quarks have "metabolisms" based upon the separation and re-combination of neutrinos with their electric counter-parts. The "electrics" must have neutrino clouds generating surplus orbits and spins which are the neutral magnetism we call "gravity"...
By the way, thanks to the SF for allowing me to be "ignorant". More later...
Last edited:
They don't. Electrons are described as standing waves around the nucleus, paramaterized by three quantum numbers, n, m and l. For example, the ground state of hydrogen has n = 1, m = l = 1. The wavefunction has this form, from solving the Schrodinger equation:
$$\psi = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}}\left (\frac{1}{a_{0}} \right )^{\frac{3}{2}}e^{-\frac{1}{a_{0}}r}$$
Since a₀ = 0.0529 nanometers, the above function can be plotted (See here). It yields a radial distribution around the nucleus. There is no "orbiting particle", just a wavefunction describing the probability that a particle may be found at a particular location.
Hi MarkM125.
I note your esponse to quarklet8's post re 'spin' etc. Thanks. I would also be very interested to hear your take on something else which quarklet8 touched upon in the second part of his relevant post. I have it quoted below.
My bolding and underlining of the bit I would be very interested in your comments about.
That is, I would like to hear your explanation of how do abstract things 'wave functions' and 'probabilities' and 'standing waves' generate the detected magnetic fields associated with the atoms in bar magnets etc?
Thanks, MarkM125 and quarklet8 for your polite and very interesting discussion.
I note your esponse to quarklet8's post re 'spin' etc. Thanks. I would also be very interested to hear your take on something else which quarklet8 touched upon in the second part of his relevant post. I have it quoted below.
My bolding and underlining of the bit I would be very interested in your comments about.
That is, I would like to hear your explanation of how do abstract things 'wave functions' and 'probabilities' and 'standing waves' generate the detected magnetic fields associated with the atoms in bar magnets etc?
Thanks, MarkM125 and quarklet8 for your polite and very interesting discussion.
Hi MarkM125.
I note your esponse to quarklet8's post re 'spin' etc. Thanks. I would also be very interested to hear your take on something else which quarklet8 touched upon in the second part of his relevant post. I have it quoted below.
My bolding and underlining of the bit I would be very interested in your comments about.
That is, I would like to hear your explanation of how do abstract things 'wave functions' and 'probabilities' and 'standing waves' generate the detected magnetic fields associated with the atoms in bar magnets etc?
Thanks, MarkM125 and quarklet8 for your polite and very interesting discussion.
Spin is an intrinsic form of angular momentum carried by particles. As any form of angular momentum will generate a magnetic dipole, so will spin. However, don't think of spin in terms of classical spin - the name is merely coincidental, due to the perceived similarity with classical spin. It's a quantum number that behaves like angular momentum.
Specifically, the solution to the Dirac equation, the equation describing fermionic fields, contains four components. Two can be readily identified - the particle and its anti-particle. The other two are then the opposite spin states.
In summary: the quantum mechanical description of spin is that it is an observable that can be described by a quantum number s, and that behaves like angular momentum. Why does it exist? Well, why do particles have charge, baryon number, color charge, weak hypercharge, etc.? The question doesn't have any physical answer (as of now) other than we simply know they exist because of experiment. The descriptions of them provided by current theory are accepted then because of the fact that predictions made by said theories agree with experimental data.
Thanks for your polite and erudite response, as usual, MarkM125.
Yes, I already understood that QM 'spin' is not a "classical spin' thing, but an abstraction.
The question is, what does that abstraction refer to in reality? Something must generate magnetic field in a dynamical sense, no? Else there is no sense to be had from your prior textbook explanations elsewhere describing photon propagating via mutual (stepwise, leapfrog or whatever you want to call it) dynamical induction of electric and magnetic field component to give the translation across space action of propagation at rate of 'c'.
Whereas if no actual 'spin' or other 'dynamical motion' is involved in generating magnetic field, then everything must be a configurational 'frozen-in' arrangement of actual energy-space closed loops of energy-flows (ie, not actually 'flowing' but merely 'oriented closed loops of energy tendency to IMPETUS', as in QM 'spin' sense) which we perceive as 'dynamics' and abstractly describe as 'spin' in QM?
Potential
MarkM,
Thanks for insights. Yes, of course electrons are waves. This is because an electron wave is a particle and its" anti". But sub-particles have dual natures which include being particles. For magetism to occur, electrons must have "particle moments". But because of their usual mutual neutralization, their particle traits don't show...
MarkM,
Thanks for insights. Yes, of course electrons are waves. This is because an electron wave is a particle and its" anti". But sub-particles have dual natures which include being particles. For magetism to occur, electrons must have "particle moments". But because of their usual mutual neutralization, their particle traits don't show...
Last edited:
Huh? WTF are talking about?
Particle-Wave Duality
While the original topic of this thread was "quarklets", or "quarks" within quarks", it has become a debate about whether or not particles even exist within the electron orbitus. This still goes on in physics. I think part of the problem is a reluctance to admit not only that quarklets exist but that they can. Once again, they seem to me real because colliders smashing electrons into each other have shown them to be made of two small, hard points. These must be the charges at their centers. I called these "quarklets" and proposed that they made up of "sub-quarks" within quarks. I also stated electrons were free "sub-quarks".
Afterwards, the debate touched upon whether or not electrons were waves or particles. I thought a wave was a particle and its anti-particle, but an electron is its own wave. To me, this doesn't mean quarklets don't exist but only that they "wave". I think the reason that physicists won't accept them is that quarklets want them to wave back. Why not?
While the original topic of this thread was "quarklets", or "quarks" within quarks", it has become a debate about whether or not particles even exist within the electron orbitus. This still goes on in physics. I think part of the problem is a reluctance to admit not only that quarklets exist but that they can. Once again, they seem to me real because colliders smashing electrons into each other have shown them to be made of two small, hard points. These must be the charges at their centers. I called these "quarklets" and proposed that they made up of "sub-quarks" within quarks. I also stated electrons were free "sub-quarks".
Afterwards, the debate touched upon whether or not electrons were waves or particles. I thought a wave was a particle and its anti-particle, but an electron is its own wave. To me, this doesn't mean quarklets don't exist but only that they "wave". I think the reason that physicists won't accept them is that quarklets want them to wave back. Why not?
Last edited:
Huh? WTF are talking about?