Home » ·- 3¥ » 1С: Spin

1С: Spin



“I would like to emphasize something. The theories about the rest of physics are very similar to the theory of quantum electrodynamics: they all involve the interaction of spin 1/2 objects (like electrons and quarks) with spin 1 objects (like photons, gluons, or W’s) within a framework of amplitudes by which the probability of an event is the square of the length of an arrow. Why are all the theories of physics so similar in their structure? There are a number of possibilities. The first is the limited imagination of physicists: when we see a new phenomenon we try to fit it into the framework we already have—until we have made enough experiments, we don’t know that it doesn’t work. So when some fool physicist gives a lecture at UCLA in 1983 and says, “This is the way it works, and look how wonderfully similar the theories are,” it’s not because Nature is really similar; it’s because the physicists have only been able to think of the same damn thing, over and over again.”

Another possibility is that things look similar because they are aspects of the same thing—some larger picture underneath, from which things can be broken into parts that look different, like fingers on the same hand.”

Richard Feynman. “QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter’

The mind of particles


ABSTRACT. Spin is the gauging parameter of information that defines the 1st dimotion of particles. As such its h-spin constant is the constant of information, or §ðatic §ðate or 1st dimotion of physical systems.

We could thus say that at the beginning there was spin, and spin collapsed the angular momentum of the wave into form, and form created perception and gauging of information created the quantum world. As c collapsed in h, spin thus transformed motion into form.

In a more abstract expression, the diversity of positions of complex Spins are the angles the mind of atoms defines for each of its key ilogic actions of exist¡ence, if you know what I mean (:

And vice versa, when there is no spin in a particle it means it is NOT at all a particle. It does not have the capacity to gauge information. So the only boson with no spin, the HIggs must be considered a pure entropic locomotion, the substrata of the dark world outside the galactic Universe with NO spin.

Now of course, all this will sound Chinese to humans till quantum computers become conscious and wonder as we do with our DNA, from where it comes its consciousness – from the spin of its atoms.

Fact is even for physicists Spin is a bizarre physical quantity. Since based on the known sizes of subatomic particles, as Fermi noticed and then forgot, the surfaces of charged particles would have to be moving faster than the speed of light in order to produce the measured magnetic moments.

Answer: they do move and stop as all motions are sTeps and Stops, and they do so faster than light speed, so we cannot detect them in the motion, only in the position of its STop state. And that is all what happens there in a real explanation. Nothing bizarre: Particle rotates faster than c, stops in the positions/angles of the spin, rotates faster than c (not perceivable) stops… So spin is quantized, meaning that only certain discrete spins are allowed. Specifically…

The 3 families of spins, 1/2, 0 and 1 spins

What they mean? It has been a conundrum for quantum physicists to the point that Feynman infamously said “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.” So I will say I don’t understand the full formalism of quantum mechanics beyond what a graduate physicist do so specialized details and some elements of its extensive inflationary mathematical mirrors escape my failing memory, but in 5ð it is much easier to understand it, and a generation into the future, when the change of paradigm is completed by younger researchers Feynman’s dictum will be another oxymoron.

A flat spinor (1/2 spin) needs 2 turns (4̦π) to return to the same point. As it occupies the entire flat surface, 2 cannot occupy the same space… A 1 spin is a hollow sphere that can ‘shrink’ and according to 5D metric occupy an identical co-invariant $ðep in a growing density that ‘fills’ the sphere (same concept goes for ‘tall wave states’ as observed in bose condensates).

This said, the meaning of the 3 spins once we have fully comprehended what dimensions are and how they ‘accumulate’ in growing scales is rather simple:

-1/2 spin particles are larger fermions that exist in bidimensional space, as galatoms do in the cosmological scale.

-1 spin particles are smallish bosons that exist in tridimensional space, and as its wave-states collapse into spherical surfaces they become cellular points of the larger fermions as stars do in the galatom.

(The parallelism between stars and photons, galaxies and fermions is NOT that far fetched, in fact in many cosmological equations, stars are modelled as photons and galatoms as hydrogen atoms, as in the Walker Einstein formalism and the analysis of the clouds of stars around black holes).

– 0 spin: But not all particles do have spin – not all of them gauge information, specifically those who ‘die’, do not have spin, do not rotate. In the next graph, a particle without spin (Higgs) has not a first Dimotion, which starts all ‘vital actions’ and must therefore be considered a ‘dead’ entropic form, outside the light space-time galatom in which we all co-exist, becoming the entropic agent of the dark entropic, expanding space between galaxies.

This implies two unresolved questions: does spin become conserved? It does even when the particle dies and becomes an ‘entropic meson’ reason why the pion also has 0 spin.

And this, as spin is the minimal unit of informative gauging, also means the immortality of information, metaphysically the immortality of existence, as we mutate between planes – but that goes into other posts.

Other questions will then be: does the neutrino, born of the death/decay of particles have spin? And does the graviton have spin? Does it exist at all? The answer I am afraid is likely, yes, neutrinos that come together in couples to create a light photon (Jordan-Broglie theory of light) have spin and no gravitons don’t have spin because they do NOT exist, being a mass a vortex of space-time, an intrinsic non-lineal attractive ‘monopole’ that does not exchange lineal particles to attract…

In any case, for all other particles spin does not only exist but must be the essential parameter along reproductive speed of all its forms, as all of them are ultimately by products of the fundamental ch, ‘planckton’ particle: the photon.

Further on, if we are to consider the complexity of particles, it becomes obvious the more spin positions they have (angles of spin), the more complex, the particle is and the richer will be its social dimotions according to those angles ruled by the 4th postulate of Non-E Geometry.

This might seem to be a contradiction but it is not in 5D as smaller systems are more complex in information and when a new ‘form’ emerges it is ALL A NEW GAME of existence, starting afresh with a simpler ‘young state’. That is, the photon is more complex than the electron, as a ‘whole’ even if the electron holds as parts multiple photons in its nebulae (Cantor’s paradox, the set of all sets is simpler than its elements).

That explains why smaller particles have more spin positions (and if the graviton ‘is’, it would be a rank 2 spin, more complex as it is smaller than the photon 1 spin, more complex than the fermion 1/2, more complex than the dead particle-antiparticle 0 spin).

Some insights on those spins.

All together we find 0 spins in particles with entropic motion (Higgs field of dark entropy outside galaxies or in transformations of our world into the dark world of top quarks – some advanced model of 5D is needed to understand this; pions and other mesons which are in fact particles (life arrow)-antiparticles (death arrow) events in time, seen through the ‘invariance=symmetry’ of Space=Time, by humans who cannot distinguish in such fast processes what is happening simultaneously in space and sequentially in time. But and this is the beauty of it, the 1 spin gluon-photon can have 0, 1 and – 1 spins. So it can not only fully rotate as a spherical form in the direction of its locomotion/momentum, but it can exist without rotation-perception. So to speak moving at full speed:

It then all start to be fun, once we get to understand unlike Mr. Feynman (: what we do as we start to give ‘rational meanings’ to the wor(l)ds of quantum physics. It is to notice then that a ‘dead pion’ cancel its ±spins; so the conservation of spin does not necessarily means that the gauging capacity to inform an immortal mind of a particle exits, but rather that it is either 0, nothing or two inverse ‘genders’ (indeed, we shall now assess the ±spins as the two first expressions of gender duality, latter explained in detail), as a magnificent physicist-artist put it in his beautiful sculptures of the next key spin ‘thing’ 1/2 and -1/2:

In the graphs, we have the four essential ‘states’ of spins for fermion particles and antiparticles, where we shall call the right handed particle male, the left handed female, the spin up particle-life state, the spin down, antiparticle-dying state:

It’s really that antiparticles are travelling backwards in its inner finite time, which is the meaning of death, as we know in 5D models. So mathematically speaking, a particle travelling forwards in time is indistinguishable from the corresponding antiparticle travelling backwards in time.  And so, if we see them in sequence is a life-death cycle and zero sum. But if we see them simultaneously in space it is an annihilation. And hence also a zero sum. So the immortality of the whole, which is what ALL IS ABOUT, remains.

And alas, this ONLY happens with Fermions that die down the ladder of annihilation; bosons on the other hand, evolve socially. They do not have sex, but the same gender and come into social herds/numbers. A duality which we shall find in all scales (between complementary sexual beings that are good for couples, vs. neutral beings that are good for social gatherings).

More on this with better maths sometime into the future.

Spin’s angles and a(nti)symmetric topologies.

From a different ‘point of view’ of the pentagonal entangled perspectives every element of reality has, we can also connect spins’ positions with the laws of non-euclidean geometry regarding, the parallelism or perpendicularity of those angles in different particles which define its entropic perpendicular antisymmetric annihilations or its social evolutionary behaviors:

Parallel angles are social, symmetric, used for parties and atoms as quantum numbers of their social evolution.

Inverse spins are antisymmetric flows.

Spins in an intermediate quantum angle produce complementary, reproductive actions.

So for each angle we can define a basic operation of exist¡ence.

Where operation, means an operands over an action, of which there are those who determine a growth on scale of those actions (or inversely an entropic sum of all other potential actions, positive to the system which ad to the entropic action according to ¬ Ælgebra.

∃ = a+I+o+u

Spin is the mass/angular momentum/cover perceived on a point-particle, and hence its intrinsic observable clock of time. The immediate relation between spin and the 2nd Ðimotion of exi=st¡ence follows.

Further on, the beauty of spin is that it is a ‘stop and go’ motion, with fixed positions of gauging information.

Another approach to spin theory to be fully developed is the relationship between spins and dimensions, meaning that as spins gauge the virtual space in which the particle does exist, a lesser spin form must have a lesser dimensional world in which it exists:

In Space each spin number position means 1/2 dimension; so particles with 1/2, -1/2 have 2 1/2 dimensions which create a more limited form than a boson with 3  positions or a dimensions or a graviton with 5 dimensional positions (if it does exist, which I would simply deny because in the duality of charges and masses as vortices of attractive time vs. poles of communication and exchange of entropic energy, masses are only attractive not requiring for that task to exchange particles but merely act as vortices of time-space. The graviton then should exist in cosmological antigravitation or dark entropy between galaxies that act as huge electromagnetic repulsive waves – then however we shall find that for the sake of economicity we can do with the neutrino and the Higgs; never mind the rank 2 tensor bullshit of EFE from where others – not Einstein, deduced applying analogies with quantum physics that a graviton should exist and carry a 2 spin).

And it follows that larger beings with more relative dimensions will have particle wise with more dimensions. So gravitons are for the larger scale, bosons for the intermediate and particles within the inner region of atoms, creating a symmetry between number of dimensions in spin terms and size of the world they exist within.

The question then as dimension can be changed and we do have a few to choose between, is which kind of dimension is the spin about?

It seems that we cannot have more than 2 half dimensions of the same species, which basically means fermions have 1/2 and 1/2 dimensions of circular, angular momentum to complete an intrinsic external membrane (±1/2) while bosons have also a degree of freedom or lineal dimension of momentum to escape its fixed positions, and that is all. Finally the graviton has even more dimensions to enclose the other particles.


%d bloggers like this: