Venus Resurgent

Jan 27, 2020
208
81
680
Nature Astronomy volume 5, page 623 (2021)

After years of relative neglect, Venus is enjoying renewed interest, with several missions bound to reach it in the next decade. Many questions about its nature still need to be answered, including regarding the highly debated presence of phosphine.

Phosphine is an unlikely headliner. This chemical compound, which has the same structure as ammonia just with phosphorus in place of nitrogen, is hardly on the A-list of astronomically significant molecules. Even though it has been proposed as a promising biosignature, it has not received the attention of, for example, methane or oxygen. Venus too suffered from an ‘image deficit’, particularly compared to our other planetary neighbour, Mars. Maybe it’s the hellish conditions at its surface, or the fact that planet-wide clouds do not allow us to look at the surface with our own eyes, but the numbers are clear: since 2000, 15 missions were sent to Mars (14 of which were successful), but only two towards Venus. Even some basic properties of the planet, such as the moment of inertia, have only recently been discovered. And yet, when we published the paper by Jane Greaves and colleagues that found evidence of phosphine in the cloud deck of Venus in September 2020, it attracted immediate and intense attention. Its Altmetric score, which tracks the overall impact of scientific publications in the media, is a staggering 10,650, one of highest among the papers published in 2020 across all fields — an impressive feat for a year dominated by a pandemic!

At its roots, the presence of phosphine on Venus is a mystery. According to our knowledge of chemistry, Venus’s atmosphere shouldn’t be able to sustain it. Thus, either we have an incomplete or incorrect view of Venus’s chemistry, or there is a source we do not know about. It is the latter option that attracted so much attention, following a reasoning that recalls the ‘methane on Mars’ one: on Earth, such trace gases are produced almost in their entirety by living organisms. Seemingly, phosphine has even fewer abiotic pathways to production than methane in terrestrial planets.

The post-publication path of the Greaves et al. paper has been as interesting as the immediate aftermath. It has generated a thriving discussion among scientists, at various levels. The result was scrutinized intensely from both technical and scientific points of view. Several publications have appeared since the paper was published, raising various points and proposing alternative scenarios to the one of life or disputing the actual detection. At Nature Astronomy we understand the value of post-publication debate and have a specific format that encourages it within our pages. This Matters Arising format frames the discussion in a formal setting by allowing the community to voice their concerns and the authors to reply within a full peer-reviewed and editorially controlled process. In this issue we present the Matters Arising from Geronimo Villanueva and colleagues that raised a comprehensive series of questions about the results and methodology, together with the reply from Greaves et al.

We also appreciate that fresh information that might have a significant impact on the results could come out after publication. For instance, this month’s issue also presents a paper from Hallsworth et al. arguing that the clouds of Venus are uninhabitable even for terrestrial extremophile microbes. In addition, it was found that the calibration of one of the ALMA (Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array) datasets used by Greaves et al. had been carried out incorrectly. While the authors waited for the recalibration, an Editor’s note was attached to the paper. With their re-analysis complete, Greaves et al. published an Addendum that presents the results with the new calibration. In this way, we preserve the integrity of the publication record in an open and transparent way.

The issue of communicating the results within the right frame and with a healthy degree of caution is also paramount when extraterrestrial life is mentioned, even in passing. Journals, researchers, scientific institutions and journalists all need to work to convey the correct information to the public. This approach is all the more important for high-impact papers such as the phosphine one. From our side as a journal, we act at different levels: in this case, we worked with the authors and reviewers at the editorial stages to refine the message in the paper itself and we issued a press release centred around the scientific facts that clarifies what is speculation and what is not at publication. The phosphine paper was generally well received by the community, which appreciated the authors’ efforts to clearly state that the biotic source of the molecule was just one possible explanation among many. We strive to avoid misinterpretation in this delicate field and we will work similarly for any future papers on the topic.

The question of the detection of phosphine and where it comes from is still open. New dedicated observations are forthcoming, but we will probably get a clear answer only by going back to the planet. Happily, it seems that Venus is finally getting the spotlight it deserves. June 2021 has been a dream come true for the Venusian community, which was awarded three new missions in the space of ten days. NASA selected the VERITAS (Venus Emissivity, Radio Science, InSAR, Topography, and Spectroscopy) orbiter and the DAVINCI+ (Deep Atmosphere Venus Investigation of Noble gases, Chemistry, and Imaging, Plus) probe as its next Discovery missions, and the European Space Agency chose the EnVision spacecraft for its new M-class mission. All these will be launched around 2030, so we will be able to advance our knowledge of our still poorly understood neighbour by leaps and bounds in the not-too-distant future.

See: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-021-01440-x

After a spate of B-movies about Venus, one starring Zsa Zsa Gabor, Queen of Outer Space (1958), which was produced long before she became famous again for starring in another show by "slapping" a Beverly Hills police officer (1989), I'm glad to find that Venus, named for the Roman goddess of love and beauty, is on schedule for further exploration.

venus.jpg
VENUS FROM AKATSUKI ON 15 JANUARY 2017 The image is composed of data taken through ultraviolet filters, featuring clouds at different depths in the atmosphere. JAXA / ISAS / DARTS / Damia Bouic

venus crater dbase.jpg

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov

Venus was the first planet to be explored by a spacecraft, NASA's Mariner II in March of 1962. Numerous spacecraft from the U.S. and other foreign space agencies have explored Venus, including NASA's Magellan, which mapped the planet's surface with radar. Soviet spacecraft made the most successful landings on the surface of Venus to date, but they didn’t survive long due to the extreme 900F heat and the crushing atmospheric pressure found on the surface. One of NASA's Pioneer Venus Multiprobes, survived for about an hour after impacting the surface in 1978.

More recent Venus missions include ESA’s Venus Express (which orbited from 2006 until 2016) and Japan’s Akatsuki Venus Climate Orbiter (orbiting since 2016). NASA’s Parker Solar Probe has made many orbits of Venus, and on July 11, 2020, the probe came within 516 miles of the surface.

Further missions to the second planet from the sun have been announced: NASA said it had selected two new missions to Venus as part of the agency’s latest Discovery Program. The missions are expected to launch in the 2028-2030 timeframe. The European Space Agency (ESA) has picked EnVision to make detailed observations of Venus. As a partner in the mission, NASA will provide the Synthetic Aperture Radar, called VenSAR, to make high-resolution measurements of the planet’s surface features from orbit.

See: https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/venus/overview/

With a good set of binoculars or a spotting scope, you can see the phases of Venus as it circles the sun - a fantastic and easy view to achieve to whet the thirst of your inner astronomer.
Hartmann352





 
Jul 29, 2021
84
4
55
Extraordinary, diverse approach for the mission.

DAVINCI+ (Deep Atmosphere Venus Investigation of Noble gases, Chemistry, and Imaging) .
VERITAS (Venus Emissivity, Radio Science, InSAR, Topography, and Spectroscopy).

Zurbuchen expects powerful synergies across NASA’s science programs, including the James Webb Space Telescope. He anticipates data from these missions will be used by the broadest possible cross section of the scientific community.

Though 'years of relative neglect', probably the right time and effective way in the common goal of solar system way-out advanced exploration. Capacity in hand for the coming years processing and understanding in one voice together with other extraterrestrial missions.
 
Mar 4, 2020
338
44
730
I also hear they have detected Venus's dust/debris torus, that encircles the sun. How long will it be until they realize that Venus is rotating in two directions at the same time? Venus rotates around that torus, as it rotates around the sun. A rotation inside of a rotation. A perpendicular rotating circumference.......that rotates around......like a circumference. A stretched out(open) rotation inside a (closed)rotation. With a rotation ratio of one to one. Ringlet rotations and orbits have much higher ratios. The asteroid belt might be like this.

The true dynamic of gravity's orbits. A helical trajectory in a rotation.(closed helix)

Giving a painted torus.(the core of both rotations) Every planet has one.

Never before known to man. A crack, a rip, possibly a tear, in the veil of nature.

Stretch some stiff wire one turn around a long broomstick. Carefully slide that wire off stick and form wire into a circle.

That's a planetary orbit. The observed and measured elliptic..........actually comes from a helix. We don't see the small rotation. Because it's stretched out.
 
Jul 29, 2021
84
4
55
If all galaxies formed from the same cloud of spinning material, we might expect their spin directions to be the same. This is similar to the planets of the Solar System, which all spin in the same direction as the proto-planetary cloud from which they formed (except for Venus and Uranus which were probably made to spin in the opposite direction by large impacts).

 
Mar 4, 2020
338
44
730
Gravity itself, working with a net charge mass, might induce spin. Spin is one very mysterious property. If one cuts all mass down to it's internal parts......there are equal numbers of R and L spins.

BUT.....99% of the angular momentum(energy) in the universe is R handed. Very small amount of L handed momentum.

This should mean something. It should affect/effect something.
 
Jan 27, 2020
208
81
680
Are The Galaxies In Our Universe More Right-Handed… Or Left-Handed?

M101 pinwheel.jpg

M101 the Pinwheel Galaxy, apod.nasa.gov

m83 southern pinwheel.jpg
M83 The Southern Pinwheel Galaxy, cs.astronomy.com

It’s called mirror symmetry and it has everything to do with a recent study done by physics professor Michael Longo and a team of five undergraduates from the University of Michigan. Their work encompasses the rotation direction of tens of thousands of spiral galaxies cataloged by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. What they’re looking for is the shape of the Big Bang… and what they found is much more elaborate than they thought.

By utilizing SDSS images, the team began looking for mirror symmetry and evidence the early universe spun on an axis. “The mirror image of a counter-clockwise rotating galaxy would have clockwise rotation. More of one type than the other would be evidence for a breakdown of symmetry, or, in physics speak, a parity violation on cosmic scales.” Longo said. However, there seems to be a certain “spin preference” when it comes to spiral galaxies toward the north pole of the Milky Way. Here they found an abundance of left-handed, or counter-clockwise rotating, spirals – an effect which extended beyond an additional 600 million light years.

“The excess is small, about 7 percent, but the chance that it could be a cosmic accident is something like one in a million,” Longo said. “These results are extremely important because they appear to contradict the almost universally accepted notion that on sufficiently large scales the universe is isotropic, with no special direction.”

On the other hand, be it left or right, Galaxy Zoo has done some very interesting research into mirror symmetry as well. In conjunction with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, the team also involved the public for their input – a total of 36 million classifications for 893,212 galaxies from 85,276 users. The GZ study is absolutely fascinating and took every variable into account.

“We wish to establish the large scale statistical properties of the galaxy spins. Although there is some level of uncertainty in the overall number counts, it is still possible to look for a dipole, for example, in the spin distributions.” says Kate Land, et al. “Curiously, the dipoles from these two analyses are in completely opposite directions. The samples cover different amounts and parts of the sky, with SDSS mainly in the Northern hemisphere and the sample of Sugai & Iye (1995) predominantly in the Southern hemisphere. In both cases the dipoles tend to point away from the majority of the data but neither analysis fits for a monopole or takes account of their partial sky coverage in assessing the dipole. With incomplete sky coverage the spherical harmonic decomposition is no longer orthogonal and for a sample covering less than half of the sky it is hard to tell the difference between a monopole (an excess of one type over the other) and a dipole (an asymmetry in the distribution).”

So what’s the end result? Well, chances are good that our universe was born spinning… but like any family, there isn’t much evidence one way or another that says most members have to be right – or left – handed. It’s more about how we, as humans, perceive them…

Original Story Source: University of Michigan New Service. For further information, read Galaxy Zoo: The large-scale spin statistics of spiral galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.

See: https://www.universetoday.com/87488/are-the-galaxies-in-our-universe-more-right-handed-or-left-handed/

So, it seems to be that our universe came into being spinning. But it is devilishly hard to tell whether a particular "handedness" statistically prevails among galaxies. Moreover, if a handedness does appear in the majority of galaxies, it may just be due to our own perceptions. However, there does seem to be a certain “spin preference” when it comes to spiral galaxies toward the north pole of the Milky Way. Here an abundance of left-handed, or counter-clockwise rotating, spirals – an effect which extended beyond an additional 600 million light years was found by the team.
Hartmann352
 
Mar 4, 2020
338
44
730
I believe that you have mis-understood me. I am talking about the handedness of rotation, not the symmetry.

And the angular momentum(energy) of the universe is not the angular momentum of any stellar dynamic.

I was referring to particle angular momentum. The momentum(mass) that all other structures are made of.
 
Jul 29, 2021
84
4
55
There are experiments published.

- The present study proposes that the photon consists of a positive elementary charge and a negative elementary charge. The charges are loosely coupled, i.e. they do not form a fixed dipole.
It is proposed that the positive charge propagates in the radial direction and at the same time it rotates clockwise perpendicular to the radial direction. The negative charge rotates counter clockwise resulting that the two charges propagate along in the radial direction.
- Photon, which is a 'pure' energy, spin with no mass, can 'convert' itself in a particle, that has a mass. Electron or a positron can be formed (negative or positive charge). This happens all the time around us with a spontaneous emission or absorption of energy.

Is that to the subject?
Thank you.
 
Mar 4, 2020
338
44
730
The handedness I am talking about comes from charge. If I were to take a proton and an electron, and set them side by side, and look down upon their spins.....and orientate those spins to be in the same direction.....one particle would express a north magnetic pole to me and the other would express a southern magnetic pole to me. This is where all handedness comes from.

Take a R hand and a L hand toroidal core and coil. Orientate coils so that current goes the same direction.

This current represents the rotation of charge. Inside the core of the R coil, the magnetic flux is moving in the same direction that the charge is moving. The momentum of the charge and the flux is parallel.

In the L coil, the flux is moving in opposition to the current. It's anti parallel. The momentums are cancelling out. Resulting in little momentum. Low energy. When the electron absorbs energy....this anti-parallel property.....wants to expel it back out and stay empty.

The R charge however, will keep all the absorption it receives, because of the piggiest parallel behavior.

This keeps protons charged up, and electrons, relatively, discharged.

99% of the motion(both mass and energy) in the universe is R handed.

But the electrons.......do most of the transferring of energy.

Reality is a little kinky.

Side note. If modern science defines a magnetic monopole as a dipole without a N and a S pole....I just showed you one and we use them all the time.

If you believe a monopole is one pole that can be re-located, or propagated, I do believe I can show you that too. But that's another story.
 
Jan 27, 2020
208
81
680
A bit more information on angular momentum , orbital angular momentum, spin and the total spin (S) of a system.

In quantum mechanics (QM), a particle can have two types of angular momentum – that due to its motion in a potential, such as an
electron ‘orbiting’ the nucleus of an atom, the so-called orbital angular momentum, L, and that due to its own intrinsic ‘rotation’ about its axis, called spin (symbol s for a particle, and S for the total spin of a system of several particles). The total angular momentum, J is then given by:

J = L + S

In reality, the classical analogies of orbital and rotational angular momentum are not entirely correct, since in QM particles do not follow definite trajectories (think of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle – momentum and position can not be both exact values). However, particles do have their QM equivalent of angular momentum,
which is quantised (can only take certain well-defined values). [In the ‘classical limit’ a large system of many particles, such as a football, can have so many different values of angular momentum, that its range of
valuables is essentially continuous, as we experience it to be.]

Similar to linear momentum, total angular momentum is also conserved and when the Hamiltonian is not changed by rotation:

Linear momentum conservation was shown to be due to the translational invariance of physical systems.
Angular momentum is similarly due to rotational invariance. This means that the physics of a system do not change if the spatial coordinates of the system are rotated in space – our spaceship behaves the same in
space, no matter what its orientation is (it would be quite mysterious otherwise!).

Parity

The parity transformation is another coordinate transformation and involves reflection (inversion) through the origin of all the spatial positions of a system’s parts. This means that all x-values, for example, change to –x, so that the spatial coordinate axes are inverted. This is not to say that we would necessarily actually carry out such a transformation on a system, but we could configure two machines in which each is the mirror-image of the other, or more specifically the inversion through the centre of the other system. It generally wouldn’t matter whether or not all the cogs turned clockwise or anti-clockwise, the system will be governed by the same physical laws. (Of course its behaviour may be crucially different – a clock whose hands run in reverse is not very
useful to us, but its physics is the same as a normal clock!).

For the strong force and the electromagnetic force, it turns out that if the Hamiltonian is unchanged by the parity transformation then:

So that parity is conserved. It turns out, however, that for the weak force, parity is not conserved. Thus, parity conservation is only approximate.

The reason for this comes back to our clock. Think of a corkscrew – it only works when rotated in one sense (either clockwise or anticlockwise depending on the handedness of the screw). [A property exploited by bacterial flagella.] A spinning particle, like an electron, that is also moving as a whole follows a helical ‘path’ (not a strict trajectory but the quantum mechanics (QM) equivalent) and the handedness of this path, which depends on the direction of spin of the electron, affects weak force interactions. Thus, a parity transformation can change the behavior of weak force interactions which are said to violate parity conservation. This property of the electron, or other particle with spin, is called helicity.

It happens that mathematical functions can be affected by a parity change in their coordinates in one of two ways. Even if functions are not changed at all, for example, the cosine of 180 degrees equals the cosine of -180 degrees equals -1. Odd functions change sign, for example the sine of 90 degrees equals 1, but the sine of -90 degrees equals -1. The same is true of the wave functions describing particles. If the sign is unchanged by a parity transform, then the particle is said to have even parity, or a parity of +1, for example the parity of the proton is +1. If the wave function changes sign then the particle has odd parity (a parity of -1), for example, the photon and the pion (pi meson). [There are thus two eigenvalues of the parity operator: +1 and -1.] Parity is thus an intrinsic property of elementary particles. Anti-particles have opposite parity (opposite in sign) to their corresponding particles. Applying parity transformations twice in succession returns the original system, i.e.
leaves the system unchanged.

Charge Conjugation

Charge conjugation (C) is a type of theoretic transformation in which all particles are replaced by their anti-particles (and anti-particles by their particles) whilst leaving other properties unchanged. This changes the
sign of the particle’s electric charge, parity and magnetic moment, but leaves properties like momentum and position unchanged.

Again for the strong and electromagnetic forces, charge conjugation is conserved:

However, this conservation (called C-invariance) is violated again by the weak force. Similar to parity, the eigenvalues for the charge conjugation operator are +1 and -1. Applying the operator again returns the system back to its original state.

Time Reversal

Time reversal involves replacing all the time coordinates, t, by –t. In other words, we reverse the process as if it was running backwards in time. Many processes work just the same in reverse, e.g. think of a gamma-ray
photon turning into a positron-electron pair. Now reverse this and we have the annihilation of the pair to produce a photon, something which is physically feasible and the forward rate of reaction should equal the
reverse rate. The electromagnetic force, as described by Quantum Electro-Dynamics (QED), and the strong force, as described by Quantum Chromo-Dynamic (QCD), are both time-reversible – reactions proceed just as quickly in reverse as they do forwards (this is a familiar concept in chemistry in which many reactions are reversible).

However, not all processes are symmetrical when time-forward is compared to time-reversed. Reactions involving the weak force violate time-reversal symmetry, these reactions do not occur with an equal rate in both directions. The weak force involves the helicity of particles and
helices do not necessarily have the same properties when reversed. Try opening a bottle of wine by turning the corkscrew in the wrong direction, or undoing a screw or opening a tap by turning in the wrong direction!
[The fact that a helix rotating about its long axis is not time-reversible explains how bacterial flagella work in highly viscous fluids.] Time reversal is different to the spatial symmetries, however, in that it does not lead to a conserved (or approximately conserved) observable quantity, since the time-reversal operator does not have the necessary properties to yield observable eigenvalues.

Gauge Invariance

Electric and magnetic fields can be expressed mathematically as functions of a scalar field and a vector field. (A scalar field is one in which a number is associated with each point in space, e.g. temperature in a
temperature field. A vector field is one in which a vector, that is a number and a direction, is associated with each point in space, e.g. the gravitational field which points towards the centre of large objects such as the Earth and grows in strength as you approach the object.)

Think of how the electric field surrounding an electric charge has a value of field strength at each point in space, but also how direction is important – a moving electric charge, for example, generates a magnetic field, and moving electric charges follow helical paths in magnetic fields.

Since two fields are involved (scalar and vector) it is possible to change (transform) these two fields by adding specific mathematical terms to them without changing the overall electric and magnetic fields. Only the electric and magnetic fields are observable, not the component scalar and vector fields (which are useful mathematical devices).

In a gauge transformation, the underlying mathematical components, such as the scalar and vector fields for the electromagnetic force, are changed without changing the observable properties of the system. Such a transformation achieves no observable change in the physics, rather like our translations of the coordinates in space, and is similarly due to a symmetry called gauge invariance. These transformations are global -
they apply to all points in space and time. (We will consider local symmetries later). Think of voltage, which is the difference in electric potential across two points in space, such as across the terminals of a power cell or a battery. This voltage or potential difference (p.d.) drives electric current (the flow of electric charge) around a circuit. It is the potential difference that matters, not the actual potential. A squirrel can walk across a high-voltage power line without frying, because there is no p.d. across its feet: the potential is the same everywhere along the cable, but if it had one foot on the line and another on the ground then it has serious problems!
We could globally change the electric potential everywhere in space and time and nobody would notice! This is a consequence of a global symmetry (which leads to the conservation of electric charge). It is a bit like changing the gauge of a rail network (the width between the rails) - as long as all lines use the same gauge it is of no consequence to the running of the trains.

Changing the electric and magnetic fields by a gauge transformation does not change the wave equation (Schrodinger’s or Dirac’s) if a compensating change can be made to the wave function which also does not change the physics. Remember, that if a particle is in an electric or magnetic field that this will enter the Hamiltonian in the potential energy term and so change the wave equation.

A free particle is one that is not moving in an observable potential difference, that is the force-fields and potentials it are moving to are all constant and this constant value can be taken to be zero. (It is like an
electric battery – it is the potential difference or voltage across the terminals that drives the electric current around a circuit, the actual value of the potential has no physical meaning and can be taken as zero – no current flows if only one terminal is in contact with the circuit.) The time-dependent wave-function for such a free particle can be written as the time-independent wave-function multiplied by an exponential phase factor that describes the wave-like oscillations in time.

The wave-function itself does not correspond directly to the observable properties of the particle, instead it is the square of the wave function, which gives us the probability that the particle will be found in a particular region of space (and for example gives us the hydrogen atomic orbitals). When we square the wave-function, the exponential terms vanish, due to the presences of i, the square-root of -1, which makes the wave-function complex. See the box below for information on squaring complex numbers and wave functions.

Squaring the wave-function removes the time-dependent exponential factors (called phase-factors). This means that many different phase-factors may correspond to the same physical state. This allows us to
compensate for a change in gauge (a gauge transformation) by changing the phase-factor in some way to keep the wave equation (Schrodinger or Dirac wave equation) invariant - meaning that the gauge transformation has no effect on it and no effect on the physics.

Gauge Principle

The gauge principle states that if we reverse the above process then we can learn a lot about the nature of the forces governing the potential in the Hamiltonian. We can begin by transforming the wave-function and
then seeing what (minimum) change (gauge transformation) in the mathematical terms describing the potential energy (part of the Hamiltonian) are necessary to keep the wave equation gauge invariant.

For example, if we transform the wave-function and then plug into the Dirac equation for an electron, then we obtain the physics of quantum electrodynamics (QED) which explains the electromagnetic force! Similarly for quantum chromodynamics (QCD) which describes the strong force.

Higgs Boson

The current or standard model of particle physics predicts the existence of a spin-0 boson (meaning that its intrinsic angular momentum, or spin, is zero) called the Higgs boson. There are two main classes of
particles - fermions and bosons. They differ in the way they interact with one-another (the statistics describing the behavior of populations of these particles differ).

The standard model describes four fundamental forces that can act between particles, causing them to repel one-another or be attracted to
one-another, and each force is due to the exchange of force-carrying particles, all types of boson, called gauge bosons, between the interacting particles:

1. The electromagnetic force, conveyed by photons, described by QED.
2. The strong force, conveyed by gluons, described by QCD.
3. The weak force, conveyed by charged W+ and W- bosons and neutral Z bosons.
4. Gravity, thought to be conveyed by gravitons, not yet fully described.

These gauge bosons are all spin-1 particles. However, gauge invariance predicts that if all the force-carriers are spin-1 then they must be massless. Photons and gluons are certainly massless, but W+, W- and z
bosons are not, these are very heavy particles! This can be explained by the hypothesized existence of the Higgs boson, which interacts with all the gauge bosons, but most strongly with those that have mass (the
weak force bosons) allowing them to acquire mass without violating gauge invatiance. In some ways the Higgs boson would behave like a fifth fundamental interaction.

See: https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/annual-reviews/spin-and-parity-determination-of-elementary-particles-ayH0lyWrcp

See: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.140478/2015.140478.Theory-Of-Elementary-Particles_djvu.txt

See: https://cronodon.com/Atomic/Symmetry.html

Also see: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241916616_Lepton_flavor_violating_I_decays_in_the_type-III_seesaw_mechanism

To sum up, the change of a particle’s displacement around their superposition generates the conserved quantity called spin, which in quantum physics has identification, known as the angular momentum. By quantum physics, the spin number for a point particle is the product of pseudo-vector position (relative to some unknown origin) and its momentum vector r × p.

Spin is the conserved vector quantity, produced from conservation of energy within discrete energy-momentum exchange relation, which generates for ingredients of this interaction’s spin numbers. The space and time portions of energy in exchange interaction appear as interaction of fields, which produces the ingredients of this interaction in the form of fermions and bosons.

The quantum physics’ presentation of spin, as a cross product of vector position with the momentum, does not produce quantity, which may carry energy-momentum conservation in a proper way. The quantum mechanic’s specification of spin is a very abstract concept because the point particle is not a particle, which does not have a space–time frame of matter and therefore cannot produce half spin identity in the form of fermion. The identification of angular momentum as a product of the particle’s space–time position vector and energy-momentum exchange interaction, which produces not the pseudo-vector but the local space vector. This vector generates a deterministic pathway of a particle’s dynamics. In this model, the dynamic local position became the deterministic position vector. Therefore, fermions and bosons may be identified only as the products of a space–time frame.
Hartmann352
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY