![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() Order |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
According to NIST, the g-factor of the electron is:
and NIST gives the magnetic moment of the electron as:
The quantum dimensions equation for electron magnetic moment in single charge dimensions is:
According to NIST the electron gyromagnetic moment is given as a positive value by taking the absolute value of electron magnetic moment, which was made negative by the negative g-factor for the electron. The negative value for the gfactor is supposedly based on the negative charge of the electron. But then what logic would make the neutron g-factor negative? Can the electron and neutron g-factors be negative from different causes? That doesn't seem likely. As seen below, there is no mathematical reason for the electron gfactor to be negative, but there is a possible reason for the neutron gfactor to be negative. While researching the physics of time, I found that Phi and phi are related to time. Phi is the Golden Ratio. It turns out that the electron g-factor is due to the stretching of spacetime as the electron spins at the speed of light. Mathematically, the electron g-factor is: and the proton g-factor is: Giving the symbol F for Phi and f for phi, a possible solution for the neutron gfactor is: In the previous equations, notice how the electron g-factor is dependent upon electron magnetic moment, and electron magnetic moment is dependent on the electron g-factor. Modern science has not yet found the true cause of the g-factor. Also, as described on the magnetic moment page, NIST appears to have messed up on the value of the neutron magnetic moment and neutron g-factor as well. We welcome Making Waves for incorporating the information above in their theory, even if it is not presented within the APM paradigm. Reference: Eric W. Weisstein scienceworld.wolfram.com |
© Quantum AetherDynamics Institute 2000-2005. All rights reserved. |
Last updated on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 01:09:25 PM