Sign in to follow this  
Mike Smith Cosmos

Tuning fork model of spin

Recommended Posts

swansont, on 25 Apr 2013 - 23:32, said:snapback.png

Fine — prove it. Show the trajectory has the right angular momentum, and/or devise an experiment to test it.

Yes. Well I have devised several types of trajectories. I have built some experiments to demonstrate the principles of the proposed phenomenon, I have done some of the maths And as I mentioned a few posts ago , that I would try to put it together. Which I will, provided I do not get run over by a bus, or end up in concrete wellington boots..

First Experiment:-

post-33514-0-40541500-1367355713_thumb.jpg

The purpose of this experiment conducted in 1970's and put to patent agent was devised to see if it were possible to arrange, and see if , centrifugal force could be ' rectified' [ as in the case of a.c. voltage waves being rectified to produce unsmoothed d.c. voltage wave.

At the time this was discussed with Professor Laithwait of Imperial College London . Laithwait himself was working on linear induction motors since used for magnetic elevated railway systems. His activity with Gyroscopes and Centrifugal force attracted criticism . He has since Died.

From the above ONE of the aspects that came out of the experiment :-

1, The tuning fork converged ALWAYS to a balanced anti phase condition of self stimulating oscillation.

Namely the only way the system would behave in a non tethered state was as one arm of the tuning fork moved say to the left ...the other arm would move to the right. exactly in anti phase.

I now view this as a model for two electrons in an inner orbit or energy band having opposite spin . As the natural , only way that the dual system can exist. as per the arms of the non tethered tuning fork.

In fact any of the pairs of electrons in higher energy bands. Not in a tuning fork configuration , but in the way that vibrating/oscillating systems when coupled ' like ' to work in opposite pairs.

This was not the only result that came from this model.

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless the experiment uses actual electrons in atomic orbitals, I don't see how this shows what you were claiming. We already know that macroscopic/classical physics does not behave like QM, so a classical experiment sheds no light on how QM systems behave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless the experiment uses actual electrons in atomic orbitals, I don't see how this shows what you were claiming. We already know that macroscopic/classical physics does not behave like QM, so a classical experiment sheds no light on how QM systems behave.

 

I would like to further progress the development of the spin model

 

Before I do that , I would like to explain a little of the setting and purpose behind the tuning fork experiment, as the paired electron model was not the initial purpose of the tuning fork experiment. The electron pair model was an offshoot of the experiment. [ you never know what you will find until you look over the edge. ]

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to further progress the development of the spin model

 

Before I do that , I would like to explain a little of the setting and purpose behind the tuning fork experiment, as the paired electron model was not the initial purpose of the tuning fork experiment. The electron pair model was an offshoot of the experiment. [ you never know what you will find until you look over the edge. ]

 

I have two times spent university study into electronics ( First in the 1960's Brunell University London 3 years ) ( Second in the 1990's/2000's University Plymouth/Salford 4 years ) Each time with horrendous Maths and Electron Energy Band Theory . I think both have left me with Brain Damage.

 

However, when I was out in the big wide world, working and thinking , I got to think about how if adding a quantified amount of energy to an electron could move an electron to a higher energy band ( just by inputting ENERGY ) Why could we not do the same with Macro matter , although I don't remember the use of "Macro" then . So Move BIG STUFF into a higher orbit. Well of course it was all the rage then. Missiles, Rockets, Nassa Men on the moon. I worked on missiles a bit, but changed and ended up in the hardware computer business, which itself went up and down like rockets.

I set myself the task, to one side from the Day Job , to thinking on this matter of :

 

Inputting Energy into Big Matter as the BIG or MACRO version of

Inputting energy into the MICRO electrons to put into Higher Energy Bands ORBITALS.

 

Although there is much debate about electrons, what they are and where they are, They must be out there somewhere further away from the Nucleus than inner electrons as they are the ones that make Molecules, conduct electricity, etc ( and stick static electrified balloons to ceilings ) So they are put there by energy usually by Electro- Magnetic Wave Energy. . Why? i said to myself,can we not do the same with Big Stuff MACRO . like Human size.

 

I did the maths and it came out at 40,000 hz with a peak to peak amplitude of approx 4 inches ( 10 cm or 100mm) . I laughed myself into a drain. It made Elvis Presley's " I'm All shook up" look like a ride in the park. .

 

However I did start the patent root to the bewilderment of my patent agent.. Although the Giroscope root was/is a way of getting oscillatory energy into matter , the energy is trapped inside the rotating , dare I say it 'spinning' mass. If you have ever tried to pick up a large spinning gyroscope you can clearly feel the difference in System contents ( between a spinning and non spinning gyroscope).

 

How to get the energy out of this inertial system . It was clearly put in . How to get the energy out to change to a higher orbit.

 

Enter the Tuning Fork : Remember the sums we are. talking 40,000 Hz peak to peak top of each prong 4 inches (10 cm - 100mm ).

 

Man , that would have been one mean Tuning fork .

 

 

.post-33514-0-23543200-1368182657_thumb.jpg

.

~ This is where a model comes in handy ~

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless the experiment uses actual electrons in atomic orbitals, I don't see how this shows what you were claiming. We already know that macroscopic/classical physics does not behave like QM, so a classical experiment sheds no light on how QM systems behave.

 

The experiment which came to shed light on electron behavior was derived from a mechanical model but directly emanating an electron .

 

Firstly to investigate the sort of vibrations that could be applied to electrons in energy format ( but in a mechanical model. ) I set up the following apparatus.

 

 

post-33514-0-16854800-1368483703_thumb.jpg

 

 

I then set up an atomic model :-

 

post-33514-0-50865500-1368485078_thumb.jpg

 

 

Note Standing waves

 

..

 

 

 

.

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The experiment which came to shed light on electron behavior was derived from a mechanical model but directly emanating an electron .

 

Firstly to investigate the sort of vibrations that could be applied to electrons in energy format ( but in a mechanical model. ) I set up the following apparatus.

 

 

attachicon.gifSimulation Energy Levels.jpg

 

 

I then set up an atomic model :-

 

attachicon.gifsimulated atom.jpg

 

 

Note Standing waves

 

..

 

 

 

.

Then a sweep of frequencies produced Standing waves around the circular orbit . The circle was a solid steel wire , supported between soft springs. So the springs were not vibrating merely supporting the circular orbital wire .

 

post-33514-0-18980600-1368561331_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the angular momentum here? I thought this was a model of spin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the angular momentum here? I thought this was a model of spin.

We are getting towards it ! But you and I know this is at the moment more like the Bohr model . ( Planets going round the Sun ) . There are two Steps to go.

 

Step 1 Rather than a single wire, Because the electron is travelling pretty dam fast, we are talking about , effectively a surface,

 

 

post-33514-0-02485400-1368568746_thumb.jpg

 

STEP 2 A second surface tracked out by a second electron , going exactly in the opposite direction

 

post-33514-0-45357300-1368569640_thumb.jpg

 

You might say why would they end up opposing each other. The same reason in a much simpler way ,that the tuning fork does. ( Attraction and repulsion ) [ they converge into a steady state. producing the first complete shell of the first orbital.

 

Just like the little magnets kids throw into the air as a pair ( they go ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz.........)

 

Or a double dumbel toy .

 

post-33514-0-67126000-1368570486_thumb.jpg

 

So each electron of a pair of electrons will generate angular momentum as part of a partial arc .

 

 

[ I believe the electrons are confined to their orbitals by the principles that dictate the Shroeniger wave equation .based on electrical and magnetic fields.]

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

STEP 2 A second surface tracked out by a second electron , going exactly in the opposite direction

 

Even for hydrogen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even for hydrogen?

No ! But thats why they want to be H2 . My Chemistry is not red hot . But i thought thats partly what makes elements reactive is rogue single charges . ( they tend to want to be TWO's . they want to be together ! )

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

H2 is spherical?

 

Probably more like this -

 

link http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hydrogen_Density_Plots.png

 

This is where the

"Mold , goal " idea kicks in . things, electrons are flying around in probability mode trapped within the mold no formula just mold !

 

Once going above a simply one variable like length. Wave motion gets difficult to calculate.( unless you are Sheoneger or some one .)

 

However it is my belief that atoms are not working from formulas , rather formulae are derived in an attempt to model what is there. If what is there is complex (to us ) in behavior , it might not be difficult at the Electron level. A couple of electrons might well be buzzing around their fields environment, like bees in a bottle, avoiding the bottle sides and each other by simple REPULSION yet, when settling down , into a complex yet pretty ,symmetrical pattern as link pictures above.

 

The two or more ( as the case may be ) electrons are in the mold TRAPPED until their next exploites when exited away from their host nucleus or energy band.

 

In the mechanical model I started with wires vibrating in single length ( all be it a circle ) its like upgrading to hitting a Spherical Gong . The wave patterns become very complex looking , however do settle down to complex beautiful , symmetrical patterns.

 

-------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------

LOOK at Coloured Picture Half way down this paper Link BELOW :- ......... webistem ...............acoustics ,,,,,,,,,,,

 

Then Look at 4: 3:1 in the atom orbital in Link ABOVE ............commons ..............hydrogen density ..............

-

One is a GONG the other is electrons in orbitals ! Surely the model is a good model !

------------------------------------ -------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------....

 

.

http://webistem.com/acoustics2008/acoustics2008/cd1/data/fa2002-sevilla/forumacusticum/archivos/mus06006.pdf

 

 

 

From above link paper .......acoustics.2008..........

 

Table 3 shows an almost perfect agreement between calculated and measured

eigenfrequencies except for the lowest axisymmetric mode. This effect might be due to the
presence of the magnet (0.5 g) glued at the center of the shell. However, more systematic
experiments and calculations are needed here in order to validate this assumption.
Figure 2. From left to right: the two configurations of the (6,0) asymmetric mode, and modal
shape of the axisymmetric (0,2) mode for the spherical cap.

.

 

 

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That's a hydrogen atom, with one electron. You said your picture was H2.

 

 

This is where the

 

Once going above a simply one variable like length. Wave motion gets difficult to calculate.( unless you are Sheoneger or some one .)

 

However it is my belief that atoms are not working from formulas , rather formulae are derived in an attempt to model what is there. If what is there is complex (to us ) in behavior , it might not be difficult at the Electron level. A couple of electrons might well be buzzing around their fields environment, like bees in a bottle, avoiding the bottle sides and each other by simple REPULSION yet, when settling down , into a complex yet pretty ,symmetrical pattern as link pictures above.

 

"Might well be" doesn't feed the bulldog, as they say. Either you have a model that explains what we observe, or you don't.

 

 

 

The two or more ( as the case may be ) electrons are in the mold TRAPPED until their next exploites when exited away from their host nucleus.

 

In the mechanical model I started with wires vibrating in single length ( all be it a circle ) its like upgrading to hitting a Spherical Gong . The wave patterns become very complex looking , however do settle down to complex beautiful , symmetrical patterns.

 

We have math that can describe complex, beautiful, symmetrical patterns.

 

 

 

-------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------

LOOK at Coloured Picture Half way down this paper Link BELOW :- ......... webistem ...............acoustics ,,,,,,,,,,,

 

Then Look at 4: 3:1 in the atom orbital in Link ABOVE ............commons ..............hydrogen density ..............

------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------....

 

.

http://webistem.com/acoustics2008/acoustics2008/cd1/data/fa2002-sevilla/forumacusticum/archivos/mus06006.pdf

 

 

 

Wonderful. Now explain why the math behind those patterns explains electron spin, or atomic orbitals. When we solve the Schrödinger equation, we get the orbitals you linked to earlier; that's the solution of an electrostatic central potential. A mechanism within the framework of a model. It makes predictions about the energy and angular momentum states of the Hydrogen atom that are actually observed.

 

You have to do as well with whatever model you want to present. Presenting some pretty pictures doesn't come close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That's a hydrogen atom, with one electron. You said your picture was H2.

 

 

 

"Might well be" doesn't feed the bulldog, as they say. Either you have a model that explains what we observe, or you don't.

 

 

 

 

We have math that can describe complex, beautiful, symmetrical patterns.

 

 

 

 

Wonderful. Now explain why the math behind those patterns explains electron spin, or atomic orbitals. When we solve the Schrödinger equation, we get the orbitals you linked to earlier; that's the solution of an electrostatic central potential. A mechanism within the framework of a model. It makes predictions about the energy and angular momentum states of the Hydrogen atom that are actually observed.

 

You have to do as well with whatever model you want to present. Presenting some pretty pictures doesn't come close.

 

Well I wanted to get the principle of the model (TF) in place, so that a discussion could follow about : {Model (TF ) see below}

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

a) orbital Angular momentum of the electron

 

b) characteristic or intrinsic spin as an extra angular momentum , and magnetic moment..

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

As of yet I have not discussed the actual Spin of the electron in the model (TF) form . [ ( TF =Tuning Fork model)]

 

 

Tuning fork is not to be taken literally . It represents two masses oscillating in anti-phase mode based on mutual ( attraction) and/or ( repulsion )

 

. TUNING FORK MODEL

.post-33514-0-98159400-1368726926_thumb.jpg.

.

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if there's only one electron?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I wanted to get the principle of the model (TF) in place, so that a discussion could follow about : {Model (TF ) see below}

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

a) orbital Angular momentum of the electron

 

b) characteristic or intrinsic spin as an extra angular momentum , and magnetic moment..

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

As of yet I have not discussed the actual Spin of the electron in the model (TF) form . [ ( TF =Tuning Fork model)]

 

 

Tuning fork is not to be taken literally . It represents two masses oscillating in anti-phase mode based on mutual ( attraction) and/or ( repulsion )

 

. TUNING FORK MODEL

.attachicon.gifANTI phase1.jpg.

.

Well it keeps buzzing around the shell or probability orbital in the way we currently understand it to do.

I only ever happened on the single to dual tuning fork phenomenon when I was trying to create vibration with a single rod without a grounding base.

 

So I tried the large hand built tuning fork working at 60-100 hz. It came to life like a beauty .

 

This one NOT dependent on a ground or base. .as illustrated below.

 

post-33514-0-05038200-1368735705_thumb.jpg

.

When I moved to designing a possible system to work without the cross piece it reduced to :-

 

post-33514-0-43306600-1368736137_thumb.jpg

 

Which gave me the possible thought, that could electrons possibly work in pairs within the energy bands. They appeared to prefer to work in opposing pairs ( different spin states Pauli exclusion ).

 

Remember I wanted to do this out in the big wide world , in the atmosphere and in space . ( Still do )

However the numbers are quite quite large. but exciting none the less. THERE IS NO NEED TO MOVE AROUND IN ORBIT.

Similarly with the electrons . ( Partial arc can be sufficient )

 

.post-33514-0-48005400-1368737227_thumb.jpg

 

Remember the toy

 

post-33514-0-69380100-1368737558_thumb.jpg.

.

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we have the problem of trying to solve a very narrow problem — a two-electron system, i.e. Helium. But if your model doesn't work for hydrogen, i.e. for one electron, it doesn't work. When the jigsaw puzzle piece fits for the first tab but not the second, you stop trying to fit it into the puzzle — it's the wrong piece. Continuing to sit there and admire how well the first tab fits doesn't get the puzzle done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we have the problem of trying to solve a very narrow problem — a two-electron system, i.e. Helium. But if your model doesn't work for hydrogen, i.e. for one electron, it doesn't work. When the jigsaw puzzle piece fits for the first tab but not the second, you stop trying to fit it into the puzzle — it's the wrong piece. Continuing to sit there and admire how well the first tab fits doesn't get the puzzle done.

 

But I do not believe you have responded to a previous comment of mine

 

But i thought thats partly what makes elements reactive is rogue single charges . ( they tend to want to be TWO's . they want to be together ! )

 

In other words, single electrons or holes in atomic shells , are mis-fits , jigsaws or uncomfortable on their own, and sort of 'seek' complimentary pieces to fit with, by reacting and making molecules .

 

post-33514-0-56680200-1368738919_thumb.jpg

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I do not believe you have responded to a previous comment of mine

 

 

In other words, single electrons or holes in atomic shells , are mis-fits , jigsaws or uncomfortable on their own, and sort of 'seek' complimentary pieces to fit with, by reacting and making molecules .

 

attachicon.gifBONDING.jpg

 

That's a separate issue. Again, you need to explain all of the behavior, not just a few parts of it. A model that explains bonding but fails to accurately explain some other behavior is wrong. Failures have to be outside the scope of the model. Failures inside are fatal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a separate issue. Again, you need to explain all of the behavior, not just a few parts of it. A model that explains bonding but fails to accurately explain some other behavior is wrong. Failures have to be outside the scope of the model. Failures inside are fatal.

 

But , maybe this business of electrons on their own is not a problem , but pivotal as Bonding is everything , whether Ionic or covalent the universe would not be here without it . I can not pretend to know fully what is going on , as I am not a Chemist. I wish I was , as it appears to be all about the building up of the materials of matter for all the important things of life. . But free electrons seems a very important requirement to facilitate matter . I do not mean electrons outside the atom , but inside. However I do accept your point about correct function of the model. Have to work on that .

 

Let me deal with intrinsic spin of individual electrons in the context of the model I am putting forward. . Maybe the issue of single electrons will resolve itself .

 

It is interesting a single electron has been filmed with a quantum strobascope

 

link ..

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But , maybe this business of electrons on their own is not a problem , but pivotal as Bonding is everything , whether Ionic or covalent the universe would not be here without it . I can not pretend to know fully what is going on , as I am not a Chemist. I wish I was , as it appears to be all about the building up of the materials of matter for all the important things of life. . But free electrons seems a very important requirement to facilitate matter . I do not mean electrons outside the atom , but inside. However I do accept your point about correct function of the model. Have to work on that .

 

Let me deal with intrinsic spin of individual electrons in the context of the model I am putting forward. . Maybe the issue of single electrons will resolve itself .

 

It is interesting a single electron has been filmed with a quantum strobascope

 

link ..

 

In keeping with the principle of the tuning fork ( of opposite direction oscillating entities, being a self sustaining system ) . Perhaps we can look for a similar device within the electron to produce

. spin , angular momentum, magnetic moment, charge.

 

In my original mechanical model with the tuning fork

post-33514-0-05038200-1368735705_thumb.j

 

 

There are ,( despite the crude looking diagram), and indeed in the actual device interesting Oscillating electrical, fields,Magnetic fields, antiphase and 90 degree phase shifts, as well as two mechanical movements of an oscillating nature in opposite directions.

 

As this provides the ingredients ( at least ) for a micro device having

 

. spin , angular momentum, magnetic moment, charge.

 

All we need to look at is what goes where and how . We also have a possible picture above from Sweden What it looks like slowed down.

 

post-33514-0-07104700-1368872223_thumb.jpg

 

. spin , angular momentum, magnetic moment, charge.

.

post-33514-0-90664100-1368873152_thumb.jpg

 

Looks a bit like the one from Sweden as well . Well sort of ELECTRON .

 

 

We already have examples how the Electro- magnetic system works.

 

To produce a Magnetic moment. Moving charge in the center of the earth ( outer molten core ) produces a magnetic moment North pole south pole. And so with the spinning electron charge

 

To Produce a Charge. Michael Faraday's last experiment showed if you have a spinning disc in a magnetic field you will generate a continuous electrical potential from circumference to center point

 

Angular momentum comes from the two opposing Spins generating a 720 degree total displacement

 

by the Paul Dirac Dance http://unity1.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/diracs-visual-representation-of-electron-spin/

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To produce a Magnetic moment. Moving charge in the center of the earth ( outer molten core ) produces a magnetic moment North pole south pole. And so with the spinning electron charge

 

If this is physical spinning, how fast does the charge have to move and how big is it?

 

To Produce a Charge. Michael Faraday's last experiment showed if you have a spinning disc in a magnetic field you will generate a continuous electrical potential from circumference to center point

 

This doesn't produce a charge. It produces a potential because already-existing charges (in the disc) rearrange themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is physical spinning, how fast does the charge have to move and how big is it?

 

 

This doesn't produce a charge. It produces a potential because already-existing charges (in the disc) rearrange themselves.

 

 

. spin , angular momentum, magnetic moment, charge.

I think all these things are here in principle. The maths may take a little longer.

.

post-33514-0-90664100-1368873152_thumb.j

ELECTRON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Repeating yourself doesn't answer any of the outstanding questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this