Click ANY of these links to get what you want.
c.squared.pdf 11-25-2017 (Adobe)
c.squared.doc 11-25-2017 (Word)
Spin and iso-spin
I agree with Jim Whitescarver, text below, that we have a real problem understanding iso-spin in the micro world.
It has the angular momentum similar to what we know as spin, but this iso-spin in the microcosm is a riddle wrapped inside an enigma.
The only explanation that I can see, that makes sense of it all, is that this is indeed a wave only universe with every spherical entity that we notice really being a scalar, standing wave entity as Dr. Milo Wolffhas mathematically proven the electron to be.
What must be happening is that these scalar, standing wave entities appear to us to have what we describe as spin and motion. Also this spin and motion will appear to obey Newton's laws and fit into a Euclidean framework providing this motion does not exceed .01% of the available speeds or in our realm if it does not exceed .01% of the speed of light.
If this is true then Dr. Milo Wolff is absolutely right in adamantly demanding we see everything as waves and not as particles.
In the future we will have the super computers to give us what Stephen Wolfram calls "A New Kind of Science".
And they will undoubtedly work entirely with these scalar resonance entities and vector type quantum resonance exchanges that build our entire universe.
But we don't have these future super computers yet so we are forced to use this simplified Occam's razor approach that our minds understand using particles, spin and motion.
Remember, seeing things in the microcosm as particles having spin and motion will be essentially wrong for 99.99% of the available speeds and only right for .01% of the available speeds if the microcosm follows the same pattern as we see here.
But even though wrong for 99.99% of available speeds look how much we still continue to use Newton's laws of motion in a Euclidean framework.
I've found the same approach can be used in the microcosm using Ampere's Laws.
These relative motion laws absolutely do work.
Look at how much Feynman emphasizes motion in his famous QED.
Over 4 Decades of Daniel P. Fitzpatrick's Books, Papers and Thoughts
Over 4 Decades of Fitzpatrick's Books, Papers & Thoughtshttp://www.amperefitz.com/4.decades.htm
In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, Jim Whitescarver <jim@x>> wrote:
Yes. I understand half spin as a result of the limited dimensionality
of flux twists orthogonally 4 times to point in the original direction.
each "querk" points one way defining only half of a dimension that goes
Or, there are two 180 turn arounds in each of two dimensions for one
complete turn around of 360 in each independent dimension for a total of
720. Note that there is no meaning of turns at angles of other than 180
degrees in this quantum view. This also represent a Moebian twist in
the orthogonal twists.
For me, understanding spin is just about the most challenging aspect of
understanding the quantum. I tend to value any proposed model of the
quantum based on how well it suggests the nature of quantum spin.
Further the key to handedness of spin as that which distinguishes the
degrees of freedom of plus and minus charge separates, in my mind,
arbitrary models, from models actually mirroring the kinetics of quantum
While this seems very clear to me with respect to electrodynamics, I
still get rather baffled understanding spin in neutrino interactions. I
am still missing something...
And, further the cooperative or participatory nature of the quantum must
be accounted for in any correct model of the quantum.