What exactly is "spin"?

The thing is Mr Anderson, that in pair production we really do make electrons out of light. And electrons really do have angular momentum. Plus, they don’t zip past you at c. Whilst that might not constitute a theory, I’d say it’s not so much philosophical as cut and dried.

What views? He only communicated certain facts.
In this case the facts are so far reaching that they seem to make elaborate theory somewhat redundant. Especially striking when this is seen to the background of string theory.

I posted on a physics subforum because I only wanted to know how things work, not why. If you see a philosophical angle, what is it?

" what exactly is " spin " ?

is the confinement of energy within mass

for if energy is not confined then there is no rotation , the energy would move straight ahead

Interpretational issues.

We both agree energy is the fundamental unit of all matter in the universe, his ideas go a little further than that though.

It’s not hard to make string theory redundant, it’s name does that, it is not a theory.

Which interpretational issues? Be concrete please.

What we are discussing here is light, not energy.

Energy is a broader term. Everyone knows by now that matter is made of it, we know it by Einsteis definition of E, for example. But the mechanism of translation is not explained. That mechanism is what is being addressed. If you have any knowledge about it (I dont mean knowledge of which magazine sells and why, but of physics - and by that I dont mean writing a post full of names and references, but explanations of mechanisms) you are invited to share it.

Not rather the confinement of energy as mass?

I am wondering in which terms this straight-moving energy can be defined, besides light.

Light is either a group of photons or a single photon, which do you mean?

Everything is energy, matter is energy in a different but analagous form.

I have an explanation of the model it’s called the standard model. It’s not twists and bends, it is just spin. Beyond that is purely philosophical atm. Ask Farsight it’s his “theory” but he goes beyond just light is energy and matter is equivalent. This we all understand and accept, we also except that the photon is the smallest quanta of energy that can exist as a whole “particle”. These are not revelations, these are what science agrees on atm.

Jakob: there are interpretational issues everywhere you look in physics. What tends to happen is that one particular interpretation becomes the consensus, and alternative interpretations are described as “wrong”. But it isn’t black and white, the consensus interpretation might not be wholly correct, and the “wrong” interpretation might not be wholly wrong. For example if you read about the standard model, you’ll be told that protons and neutrons are made of quarks. See for example springerlink.com/content/b121n578740ux17m/ and look at the free preview. Neutrinos muddy the water a little, but in essence, what you get, is light. Note that I’m not against the standard model. Instead I consider it to be incomplete, and burdened by some interpretational issues that have hampered its completion.

From the perspective of matter=light+mechanism, the quark seems to be part of the mechanism by which substance is kept together - by which light is trapped. It is not retrieved, only perceived, right? I mean it can’t be distilled, so to speak, from the nucleus, or can it? How can they even observe a quark, now that I really think about it?

Relativity is about to go out the window! …““There is a growing sense that the properties of the universe are best described not by the laws that govern matter but by the laws that govern information…”

“By exploiting the quantum energy fluctuations in entangled particles, physicists may be able to inject energy in one particle, and extract it in another particle located light-years away.” Re:: physorg.com/news184597481.html

How does one go about extracting energy from a particle light years away? Or does it only mean that this would in theory be possible because of entanglement?
What has changed in relation to what Anthem posted? Have there been successful expieriments?

entanglement and non-locality are a fact not a theory. Entanglement has worked for effecting the spin of a distant electrons and qubits are being sent and extracted -“Physicists have teleported quantum information between two atoms separated by a significant distance”…“Now researchers at the University of Maryland and the University of Michigan have successfully teleported quantum information between two ytterbium ions separated by 1 m, reporting a 90% success rate”…RE: physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/37450

Quarks are observed by scattering experiments. There’s definitely three parts to a proton, see cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/41014. People talk about gluons keeping quarks together. Gluons are the QCD equivalent of the virtual photons in QED which are said to keep the electron and the proton together in a hydrogen atom. There’s a lot of people now talking about the evanescent wave as the physical thing underlying virtual photons, search google for details. The point is that the evanescent wave is light, light is essentially a wave of space in space, and at the subatomic level there isn’t really any substance. When you break a proton you don’t get three quarks flying out along with a host of gluons. See what I said earlier re pions and neutrinos, but in essence what you get is light.

God is great. Science is greater.

[list]spin
O.E. spinnan “draw out and twist fibers into thread,” from P.Gmc. *spenwanan (cf. O.N., O.Fris. spinna, Dan. spinde, Du. spinnen, O.H.G. spinnan, Ger. spinnen, Goth. spinnan), from PIE *(s)pen- “stretch” (cf. Armenian henum “I weave,” Gk. patos "garment, lit. “that which is spun,” Lith. pinu “I plait, braid,” spandau “I spin,” M.Welsh cy-ffiniden “spider;” see span (v.)). Sense of “to cause to turn rapidly” is from 1612; meaning “revolve, turn around rapidly” first recorded 1667. When Newton was 25!

It is a rotation, Jakob. The best way I can describe electron spin is rolling like a smoke ring and turning like a steering wheel.

If however you look at the Stern-Gerlach experiment on wiki, you can spot the non-sequitur:

"If this value arises as a result of the particles rotating the way a planet rotates, then the individual particles would have to be spinning impossibly fast. Even if the electron radius were as large as 14 nm (classical electron radius) then it would have to be rotating at 2.3×10^11 m/s. The speed of rotation would be in excess of the speed of light, 2.998×10^8 m/s, and is thus impossible. Thus, the spin angular momentum has nothing to do with rotation and is a purely quantum mechanical phenomenon. That is why it is sometimes known as the “intrinsic angular momentum.”

This is a trivial logical flaw. The electron isn’t rotating like a planet. But to then say that its angular momentum and magnetic moment is nothing to do with rotation just doesn’t follow.

I realize that word play has no place in science, however I was quoting this because I find it interesting that matter seems to be weaved from light with the mechanism of spin, of rotation. It just makes so much sense even within the symbolism we have already.

Doesn’t it?
Pretty cool stuff!
Kind of threw my mind back for a moment in simplicity the first time I comprehended it all in definition.

I still can’t thank Farsight enough for doing, in that single little book, what would have taken me most of my life to figure out a way to articulate, or even conclude.
I had a notion of the concept, but nothing quite like he introduced.
I’m keeping it for my kids, that’s for sure!

Thanks Stumps, but remember that it’s mainly a synthesis drawn from papers that people just don’t get to hear about. Like arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512265. Physics is far more cutthroat than the public appreciates, with groups and collaborations trying to crowd competing theories and portray their own theory as the only viable option. Jakob, I don’t like to “spam” it, so I don’t mention it too much, but this is it:


amazon.co.uk/RELATIVITY-Theo … 0956097804

People reading this thread should be aware that Farsight is a notorious board spammer. All one has to do is search for threads with his name and whatever physics topic he is talking about to see that he constantly dodges questions about the details of his “synthesis.” Most of what he writes is not physics: he has a pseudo-science book to sell. Be aware.