The Problem of Spin

[webolife]

Excellent reference from Blazelabs.
This is akin to what I have been referring to as the "crystalline" structure of atoms (and the universe!), which I also believe is fundamentally and ultimately responsible for the spectra of the various elements. As I view it, in the general sense of the word, piezoelectricity is responsible for redshifts of these spectra in astronomical light sources.... not speed or recession. The crystalline nature of "spin" really clarifies a lot of this discussion for me. Earlier on this thread,
I was a bit stuck in on the mechanical aspects of spin, but it is all beginning to make much sense!

[Solar]

Sadly, it was not until 1908 that O. W. Richardson (Physical Review, 26, p. 248) suggested that when the magnetism in a pivotally mounted ferromagnetic rod is reversed, the rod should sustain an angular momentum change. It was predicted that the gyromagnetic ratio, the ratio of the change of angular momentum to the change of magnetic moment, should be 2mc/e, where e/m is the charge to mass ratio of the electron. Curiously it was
Einstein and W. J. Haas who first observed the effect in 1915 (Verh. d. Deutsch. Phys. Ges., 17, p. 152) but it was not until 1923 that W. Sucksmith and L. F. Bates (Proc. Roy. Soc. London, 104A, p. 499) found that the effect was only one half of that predicted. Here was the clear evidence of the aether reaction but what did physicists then do? They still ignored the aether and invented yet another notion, the notion of ‘half-spin’, another arbitrary idea serving to side track genuine research into the realm of fantasy rather than reality.

The point was that if the free conduction electrons in a ferromagnetic rod react to half-cancel the applied magnetic field then a similar action must occur for a magnetic field set up in a vacuum, which indicates that there must be free charge in motion in the aether. See the strong evidence in support in my paper ‘Crystal 27 Symmetry and Ferromagnetism’, Speculations in Science and Technology, 1, pp. 59-63 (1978). - PHYSICS WITHOUT EINSTEIN

Also see: "DISCOURSE NO. 6 THE PARLOUS STATE OF PHYSICS" for a great short read on how physics excludes an Aether via ignoring the "half-field reaction":

However, how could I, a young Cambridge Ph.D. needing to earn my living, stand up and challenge what Einstein had said about there being no need for an aether and, more to the point, challenge Nobel Laureate Paul Dirac by saying that his interpretation of the factor 2 of the gyromagnetic ratio was wrong? Dirac had confounded the physics world by distilling from Einstein's equations a formula which gave the electron a half-quantum spin factor. Here was Dirac, originally a graduate in Electrical Engineering, having become a theoretical physicist by propounding an abstruse mathematical case that came to be accepted by his brother physicists but yet did not tell me how to solve my problem of field reaction in steel.

[junglelord]

Nice links Solar, got to hand to you, very powerful evidence about the true nature of magnetic fields.
Aether is a rotating magnetic field.

[junglelord]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 162807.htm

[StevenO]

Nice links Solar, got to hand to you, very powerful evidence about the true nature of magnetic fields.
Aether is a rotating magnetic field.

How often did I tell you! The aether can only be scalar...rotation creates a preferential orientation and then you get all these ghostly objects like "quarks", "aether units" and others

[junglelord]

Dude, I was on to scalar forms long before you joined the forum. Nothing new to me. I was the one that said that from the beginning.

[AndyM]

Gentlemen,

The problem is solved:

At CASYS 03 in the 4th BCSCMsG International Symposium, 'The Universe, the Nothing that is?', Diaz & Rowlands (D&R) presented their paper 'A Computational path to the Nilpotent Dirac Equation'. It unveiled a remarkable new discovery. There exists a nilpotent universal computational rewrite system (NUCRS) with an infinite universal alphabet, see inset below. It defines the semantics of quantum mechanics in terms of a universal grammar, such that the nipotent generalization of Dirac's famous quantum mechanical equation is the computational machine order code.

Further in a companion paper 'Symmetry Breaking and the Nilpotent Dirac Equation' Rowlands shows that the symmetry breaking of this nilpotent Dirac equation, describes the spontaneous emergence of both 3+1 relativistic space time and the experimentally validated strong, weak and electromagnetic quantizations (including spin) of Standard Model elementary particle physics, from their empty set. That is to say, these fundamental physical quantum mechanical structures not only define level one of the ontological hierarchy corresponding to the NUCRS semantics, but are those from which all subsequent levels of this hierarchy will be reconstituted in 3+1space-time due to the action of the strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces.

For full information you need to read Rowlands book from Zero to Infinity - you can also reference his papers on the subject via the internet.

Here's a link to start with: http://www.bcs.org/server.php?show=ConWebDoc.12111

[KickLaBuka]

Further in a companion paper 'Symmetry Breaking and the Nilpotent Dirac Equation' Rowlands shows that the symmetry breaking of this nilpotent Dirac equation, describes the spontaneous emergence of both 3+1 relativistic space time and the experimentally validated strong, weak and electromagnetic quantizations (including spin) of Standard Model elementary particle physics, from their empty set. That is to say, these fundamental physical quantum mechanical structures not only define level one of the ontological hierarchy corresponding to the NUCRS semantics, but are those from which all subsequent levels of this hierarchy will be reconstituted in 3+1space-time due to the action of the strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces.

I challenge this on the basis that quarks and lemons are unnecessary. So is relativistic space. If someone can walk in and offer new math that uses less fundamental units, then that must be the correct one. How do I formally challenge this paper?