A quantum picture of torsion

[Dubbelosix]

Sorry I haven't been around, if you noticed, OceanBreeze fancied abusing his powers, spoke to me like ****, couldn't handle getting a bit back, including the fact he was doubly ashamed when citations where thrown his way when he said I couldn't. I have respect for the site, but not when it comes to him. Anyway, thanks to him, my month exile allowed me to write up a theory for torsion in some linearized gravitoelectromagnetic theory which includes a core aspect of torsion dynamics in spin and orbit coupling. My preliminary work interested Ruth Kastner (look her up) enough that I've been told not to drop my investigations.

Torsion in particle dynamics

The torsion has been proposed in literature to be related to the frequency of the spin

ω = -1/2 Ω = −(e/2mc)B

Where I gather the last expression under inspection from manipulation of dimensional analysis. It still remains though that torsion and spin while related, are still different dynamics. The gravitational field Γ is related to torsion as:

∇x Γ = - 1/2c² ⋅∂Ω/∂t

The magnetic field associated to spin and orbit is:

B = 1/2emc² ⋅ 1/r ⋅ ∂U/∂r ⋅ J
= (1/mc² ⋅ ∂U/∂t) J/2e

(where J is the total angular momentum)

The Josephson constant appears J/2e from the definitions and I identify torsion here as:

Ω = 1/2mc² ⋅ (∂U/∂t)

A gravielectro field would be related as

E = 1/e ⋅ ∂U/∂t = c²/e ⋅ ∂m/∂t

And from Sciama units I identify:

a/G = 1/r ⋅ ∂m/∂r = ω²r/G

When putting a particle or sphere into motion by spinning it, it experiences a Lorentz force If the magnetic field has origins in the gravitational field, it couples equally to the Gravimagnetic field and is associated with torsion

B x v = 1/2emc² ⋅ 1/r ⋅ ∂U/∂r ⋅ Jv
= (1/mc² ⋅ ∂U/∂t) Jv/2e

 

Since Jv ~ e we can state roughly that

 

B x v ~ (1/2mc² ⋅ ∂U/∂t) 

 

It's approximate because in exact units, Jv is really twice the value of e. An exact equality would be 

 

B x v = (e/2mc² ⋅ ∂U/∂t) 

 

Some more results Bohr obtained two major objects of importance, the Bohr radius and the Bohr inverse mass. He derived the inverse mass from the known classical laws

1/m≡(4π²Be²)/h

is:

B = 1/2emc² ⋅ 1/r ⋅ ∂U/∂r ⋅ J

=1/me ⋅ (Φ/c²) ⋅ ∂v/∂t J

= 1/me ⋅ (a/G) J

= 1/me ⋅ ω²r/G ⋅ J

=1/me ⋅ m/r² ⋅ J

Where

1/G = Φ/c²

a/G = 1/r ⋅ ∂m/∂r = ω²r/G

1/e⋅ ∂U/∂r = c²/e⋅ ∂m/∂r

In CGS units. A gravielectro field now defined as

E = 1/2emc² ⋅ 1/r ⋅ ∂U/∂r ⋅ Jc = 1/2e ⋅ ∂U/∂r

Plugging in now the inverse Bohr mass we get

E = 4π²eB/2mc⋅ 1/r ⋅ ∂U/∂r ⋅ J/h

Here we can identify an important term arising as the magnetic dipole:

μ = eJ/2mc

So we can write

μ(S) = -g μ J/h

This now gives

E = -4π²μB⋅ 1/r ⋅ ∂U/∂r ⋅ J/h

Where

H = μB

Is an interaction energy.
The gravielectro potential is
From Sciama theory we have

E = - ∇φ - 1/c (∂v/∂r) ~ Φ/c² (∂v/∂r)

E = ∇x A = 0

The total electric field is

Φ = ∫ ρ/r ⋅ c²t²

And if density is uniform

Φ ~ -2πρc²t²

And by symmetry the vector potential is

A = 0

So the total gravielectro field is,

E = m/r² + 1/c² (Φ + φ)a

Rewriting the spin orbit equation in terms of the Sciama gravielectro field we get

B = 1/2emc² ⋅ 1/r ⋅ ∂U/∂r ⋅ J

The electric field encoded in this is

E = 1/e⋅ ∂U/∂r 

B = 1/2mc² ⋅ 1/r ⋅ Φ/c² (∂v/∂r) ⋅ J
= -1/2mc² ⋅ 1/r ⋅ (∇φ - 1/c (∂v/∂r))⋅J

With a total Gravimagnetic field as

B = 1/2mc² ⋅ 1/r ⋅ ∂U/∂r J
= 1/2mc² ⋅ 1/r ⋅(m/r² + 1/c² [Φ + φ]a) ⋅ J

a =  Ω x v

So that we get after plugging it in

B = 1/2mc² ⋅ 1/r ⋅(m/r² + 1/c² [Φ + φ]Ω x v) ⋅ J

 

Need to knows!

 

We can define an acceleration as

a = ω x v

And

v = ω x r = ωr sinθ

Under this interpretation, the acceleration can be attributed to the centrifugal pseudo force

a = ω x (ω x r) = ω²r sinθ

And we recognise the orthogonality of ω⋅r =0 from the triple cross product rule

a x (b x c) = b(a⋅b) - c(a⋅b)

Mass to charge ratio has the same dimensions as angular momentum to magnetic moment,

L/μ = m/e

The angular momentum is

L = mωR^2

Derivation:

L = r × p
L = r × mv
L = mr × (ω × r)
L = mω(r · r) − mr(r · ω)
L = mr²ω − 0
L = mr²ω

Edited June 20, 2021 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

I changed the result from the first part of the investigation so that the units of torsion is satisfied in the second part. I was using two different ideas.

[Dubbelosix]

In the modified units, we retain the usual standard units,

B x v ~ (1/2mc² ⋅ ∂U/∂t) 

Which means we now identify more acutely a torsion with dimensions of inverse time, just like the second part of my investigation, so everything remains consistent. This means a second velocity cross would produce an acceleration.

Edited June 8, 2021 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

In previous derivations, when we take the triple cross product involving two terms of angular frequency with a radius, we find the result of orthogonality satisfying  (r · ω) = 0, and with that of the terms of what happens physically speaking when you take the velocity cross product of 

v x (B x v)

Then

v · v = 0

(iff) the velocity vectors are perpendicular to each other, so this is another little "need to know."

 

Edited June 8, 2021 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

This model to finish for now, does rely on one specific difference to some earlier works from different authors who had identified a torsion directly as Ω = B, but I can argue, I think better than those models, that the Gravimagnetic field, isn't directly related to torsion, since velocity must be included so that torsion arises from a spinning top in a Gravimagnetic field. It's more acceptable then in the case of treating the two as closely related topics instead of a direct equality.

 

 

[Dubbelosix]

6 hours ago, JeffreysTubes8 said:

Yeah I read to the bottom earlier and I don't see anything more than two D equivalencies 

I'm talking about the remodelling for

Since Jv ~ e we can state roughly that

B x v ~ (1/2mc² ⋅ ∂U/∂t) 

[Dubbelosix]

Why are you on about branes? Why would torsion speak about branes, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about anyway. Ridiculous jargon reminds me of another here who keeps making various new accounts in hope that his dialogue would go unnoticed, revealing a massive crank.

You're not qualified in any way either to say I've provides no evidence, I've done my bit, the onus is now on others to prove me wrong. Not with words. But with experiment and math.

Edited June 10, 2021 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

Don't bother replying by the way,you're even talking about inflation in a topic unrelated. I don't have time for people like you.

[Dubbelosix]

No you really don't, it's a mish-mash of buzzwords with no relevance to what is being discussed in the Op. 

[Dubbelosix]

You really weren't. You started talking about branes and inflation. Take a walk. A long one and stop spamming my thread. You're a poster who used to do exactly the same thing before, just under a different guise. You have no knowledge worth participating here. 

[Vmedvil2]

9 hours ago, JeffreysTubes8 said:

Again it's not a buzzword. You need it to express torsion, I literally gave you it's definition it's not a buzzword

Hi Superpolymath, you know you are perma-banned right? I am sure ocean will be around to reban you soon. You know you even had me fooled for awhile i honestly thought you were just some random dude that joined.

Edited June 11, 2021 by VictorMedvil

[OceanBreeze]

3 hours ago, VictorMedvil said:

Hi Superpolymath, you know you are perma-banned right? I am sure ocean will be around to reban you soon. You know you even had me fooled for awhile i honestly thought you were just some random dude that joined.

What happened to your request for

[Dubbelosix]

Branes are commonly known artifacts of string theory and inflation has to do with primordial space expansion. None of which hold here!

[Dubbelosix]

You're preaching to the wrong person in the wrong thread. If this was about branes within the description of extended objects in higher dimensional space you'd know about it, which it isn't. Which you should know but you don't. So stop the spamming.

[Dubbelosix]

Again, I don't believe in any dimensions theoretically larger than seven, ok? It's at odds with string theory, because that stringent result came from bivector theory for gravity, which this thread is not about. The physical explanation of the math, is how torsion may play a role in the spin and orbit of an electron round a physically spinning nucleus. It's that simple.

[Vmedvil2]

7 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

What happened to your request for

 

[Dubbelosix]

I don't need to look up anything lol I know fine well what an abelian group is, I know more than most the delicacies say, of complex and real fields. There's no need to talk about such things, my theory is self consistent, it doesn't need to have additive ideas unless it's absolutely relevant. 

Edited June 11, 2021 by Dubbelosix