You are on page 1of 12

Preprint 1

The impact of the Laws of the Nonlinear Dynamics applied on gyroscope or what is the difference between the models in Physics and the reality
Bojidar Djordjev Independent Researcher, Bulgaria, bojidardj@dir.bg

Although the First Newtonian Law determines speed and direction as conserved values, the coming Laws of Dynamics and the existing Mechanics ignore the inertial potential of changed direction in favor of the one of changed speed. Naturally, it leads to the conviction that the degrees of freedom are isolated. To explain the gyroscopic phenomenon, demonstrating connected in a system degrees of freedom Mechanics has been compelled to develop models like the one of vector multiplication. This paper suggests an explanation of the phenomenon from the point of view of the inertial effect of changed direction. Then the paper juxtaposes the new solution to the well-established one. The new solution extends the frontiers. We find that it corresponds to the spin of elementary particles, more specifically to the spin of electron. Copyrights Bojidar Djordjev, February 2014
Keywords: General Physics, Newtonian laws of dynamics, nonlinear dynamics, vector multiplication, gyroscopic torque (couples), quantum mechanics, spin, spin-orbit coupling

Nomenclature
wem nrpp J L = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = gyroscopic torque/couples calculated by the formula of the well established model gyroscopic torque/couples calculated by the formula of the nonlinear reality moment of inertia angular momentum angular speed of rotation angular speed of turning number of quantum per second angle of deflection mass velocity force time radius relative difference kinetic energy of rotation gyroscopic factor qualitative gyroscopic factor quantitative gyroscopic factor gyroscopic constant=2/ spin of electron

r t

N m v F t R dr Ekr Gf qgf Qgf Kg espin

I. Introduction
n one hand, the First Newtonian Law Every object persists in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed on it determines that a state can be changed in two ways: by change of the speed and by change of the direction i.e. there are two conserved values/conditions. On the other hand, the Second and Third Newtonian Laws determine the inertial effect of changed momentum (speed) within the frame of unchanged direction only. The existing Mechanics fails to determine the inertial effect of changed direction within the frame of unchanged momentum as an equal in rights inertial phenomenon. Instead, it describes it as a fictive fictitious or pseudo one in favor of the inertial phenomenon of changed speed. The disregard of the inertial potential of changed direction is a fundamental inconsistency in the Classical Mechanics. If only changed speed/velocity within the frame of a given direction makes mass to release its inertial properties, it means that inertia exists only in the given degree of freedom. It leads to the next conclusion that the degrees of freedom of a given system of bodies are mutually isolated (disconnected). That solution fully corresponds to Galileos Principle of Projections determining that directions are to be connected with the cosine of the angle between them i.e. perpendicular directions are mutually isolated because the cosine of ninety degrees is equal to zero. Therefore, the consequently developed Hamiltonian and Lagrangian Mechanics, symmetry of space, relativity and the Special and General theories of Relativity, Conservation Laws, and many others, are based on the understanding that no force/torque momentum/angular momentum can be transferred at all from one to another degree of freedom. It appears that the Galileos Principle of Projections is the most fundamental principle of the existing Mechanics. If the inertial potential of changed direction were equal in right, it would mean that there are two ways to release the property inertia of mass. Hence, inertia does not exist only within the frame of its own degree of freedom. It would lead to existence of systems of bodies with connected in a system degrees of freedom. Being against Galileos most fundamental Principle of Projections and the Conservation Laws, it has not been accepted. Life suggests mechanical devices demonstrating connected in a system degrees of freedom. A Gyroscope is the typical one. Ignoring the inertial potential of changed direction, Mechanics has been forced to develop vector multiplication as a replacing method to explain the phenomenon. The explanation of gyro effects by means of vector multiplication can be found in every textbook because it is classical. The core of the explanation is the method of vector multiplication. The essence is that vector c is equal to vector a times vector b (c=a x b) and perpendicular to plane of the vectors a and b. Therefore, Feynman (for example) explained the secrets of vector multiplication in the same chapter 20 (page 20-4) Ref.1, he explained the gyroscope. About vector multiplication, Feynman wrote: We have then, in addition to the ordinary scalar product in the theory of vector analysis, a new kind of product, called a vector product. And then: the magnitude of c turns out to be the magnitude a times the magnitude of b times the sine of the angle between the two. Then, about the direction of the vector product c determined by the right-hand rule he wrote: the fact that we say a right-hand screw instead of a left-hand screw is a convention, and is a perpetual reminder that if a and b are honest vectors in the ordinary sense, the new kind of vector which we have created by a x b is artificial, a slightly different in its character from a and b, because it was made up with a special rule. The essence of the gyroscopic effect is that if a flywheel with moment of inertia J rotates with angular speed r about axis X and at the same time an external torque applied about axis Y makes it turn with an angular speed t, the flywheel generates a gyro torque (also called a gyro couple) about the third axis Z. Just applying vector multiplication to the phenomenon, we determine that the magnitude of the generated torque is equal to the angular momentum of rotation vector multiplied by the angular speed of turning (1).

= L t = Jr t

(1)

As Feynman explained, the vector multiplication calculates at the same time two (or actually three) things: 1) Vector multiplication calculates mathematically the magnitude of the generated torque (the vector product) as equal to the moment of inertia times the magnitude of the angular speed of rotation times the magnitude of angular speed of turning. 2) Vector multiplication determines the axis of the generated torque as perpendicular to the plane of the first two axes, by means of its special rule. 3) Vector multiplication determines the direction of the generated torque about this axis, by another special rule of the right-hand screw.

II. Criticism on vector multiplication


Vector multiplication calculates magnitude and direction in the same time. Even if mathematically correct, the math multiplication calculates the magnitude of the generated torque with the sine of the angle between the angular speeds of rotation and turning. It appears that both angular speeds or the angular momentum of rotation and the angular speed of turning interact maximally if perpendicular. The question is: what is the reason to multiply mathematically rotations about different degrees of freedom if according to the well-established Galileos Principle of Projections they are mutually isolated? Obviously, this is because of the special rules. How these special rules changes fundamental principles? The answer that these are the rules is not a scientific solution because it does not explain the phenomenon. For example, the rule that every body falls down when released does not explain why it falls. Such rules just gloss over the truth. The other products of vector multiplication are the direction of the axis of the generated torque and the direction of the torque about the axis. The question here is: how physically do we receive the third direction perpendicular to the first two? Here are some points: 1) We do not have the right to apply the Newtonian Laws of Dynamics because they deal with interactions/motions with components placed in the given direction/degree of freedom. Therefore, vector multiplication fails to correspond to the Newtonian Laws of Dynamics. 2) We cannot apply the same vector multiplication to perpendicular linear speeds or linear momentum and linear speed. Hence, vector multiplication fails to correspond to the first main kind of motion. 3) We can decompose math multiplication into math sums and vice versa, we can compose math multiplication by means of chain of math sums. That is way math multiplication corresponds to the lower (as well as to the upper) rank of math operations. Can you please decompose vector multiplication into the lower rank of vector operation (vector sum)? Can you receive a direction perpendicular to the plane of the two addends by composing vector multiplication by means of a chain of vector sums of the two perpendicularly acting angular velocities or angular momentum and angular velocity? If you cannot do this, do not worry, because actually nobody can do it. Vector multiplication fails to correspond to the lower rank of vector operation. What is actually vector multiplication? Is it some kind of an exception? Or probably it is a special property of matter? If so, how does it correspond to the fundamental properties of matter? It seems that vector multiplication is nothing else but just a model of the reality covered by the idea of the special rules, intended to make up for a lack of a real explanation, in its turn a result of the disregard of the inertial potential of changed direction. On the other hand, what exactly are the vectors representing the second main kind of motion vector multiplication operates with? Mass (the given body) rotates in a plane doing an in-plane motion. Therefore, the orbital displacement, the orbital (linear) inertia, the orbital speed, the momentum, the angular speed, the moment of inertia the angular momentum are situated in the plane because the mass exists in the plane physically. Also, their equal and opposite reactions and the components of the reactions are situated in the plane if we apply the Newtonians Laws of Dynamics strictly. If we represent an angular motion or its components as a vector perpendicular to the plane, in fact, we are introducing another model of the reality covered by another special rule. Similarly, the vector is a model because even if it reflects the above cites staff of the orbital motion it does not reflect the inertial effect of the changed direction i.e. it does not reflect the full aspect of the phenomenon. It appears that the model of vector multiplication develops/deals with previous models. Hence, statements from textbooks that vector multiplication explains the gyro torque are incorrect. Vector multiplication does not explain gyro torque; it just shapes it same like for example the special rule for falling bodies does not explain gravitation. It seems that, with the exception of the cases of equal and opposite forces/torques, a net of models of the reality forms the fabric of Physics. Every model that follows inherits the errors from the previous ones adding a new error.

III. The difference between models and reality


In principle, every model/theory discovers/explains (by forming) only a separate part of the reality. Therefore, to explain another part of the reality we need another model. Since every model is based on previous models, it inherits their errors adding new ones. Probably that is why the top of Science is occupied by a few models/theories. It seems that Science spend its resources to develop its own models of reality instead of studying the reality. Hence, the model/theory of everything will never be created because it would be the very reality. The solution is back to reality! For example, every religion is a model/theory of reality. That is why there are plenty of religions operating in a single reality. The world of models is a world of penumbras, a world of semi truths-semi lies. We do not like to abandon the lies because we afraid to lose the truths.

Models are important. When man does not know much about reality, he creates models. Then he develops better models. But if reality is revealed, models must give the go-ahead to reality. Which one is more real, the well-established model of reality or reality? This historical question is in the core of the Galileos trial. What is real, the almost seven thousand years (since the creation of the world to the Galileos trial) well-established model of the reality part of which is that the Sun rotates around the Earth or the reality that the Earth rotates around the Sun. The answer is crucial for the existence of modern Science. Fortunately or unfortunately, we must ask this question again and again today.

IV. The impact of the Laws of the Nonlinear Dynamics


The reality is that Mother Nature does not play games with fictive forces probably because she has not been properly informed by the Science of humankind for the decision taken. The point is that if some force disrupts the Conservation Laws domain we must adapt our understandings to the reality instead of adapting the reality to our understandings by presenting the force as a fictive one and creating replacing models to ignore it. The reality is that they are two conserved conditions predicted by the First Newtonian Law: velocity within the frame of the given direction and direction of the given velocity. So there are two conserved inertial potentials, there are two subjects of change and therefore two kinds of impulses are released in case of change. If the Second and Third Newtonian Law define released force/impulse when velocity/momentum changes within the frame of the given direction, the Second and Third laws of the Nonlinear Dynamics (Ref.2) define that, an impulse is released when the direction of the given velocity/momentum is changed. Hence, the reality is that the force generated/released when the direction of given momentum changes is not less real than the force generated when velocity of the given mass changes within the frame of the given direction. Since the generated gyroscopic torque about an axis perpendicular to the axis of rotation and the one of the turning is a product of unbalanced forces of the change of the direction of the orbital momentum in the plane of turning, we have nothing to do but just to apply the Second Law of the Nonlinear Dynamics to the case.

Figure 1. Explains gyroscopic torque by means of changed direction of the orbiting mass, a) in plane of rotation, b) in plane of turning with two opposite masses, c) in plane of turning with a single mass Imagine that a single mass m1 or an elementary mass m1, belonging to a massive body rotates with constant angular velocity r around the axis X. For every period of rotation, the mass leaves point A and arrives at point C describing the arc ABC in the plane of rotation, Fig. 1 a). Respectively, mass m2 describes arc CDA. Therefore, the masses move along a straight line ABC (CDA) in the plane of page perpendicular to the axis Y from Fig 1 b) and c). But if at the same time the axis X of rotation of the masses turns with constant angular velocity t around Y (Fig. 1 b)) the masses arrive at points C1 or A1 in the space instead of at points C or A, describing a 3D arcs. That is to say, these masses describe the arcs ABC1 and CDA1 in the plane perpendicular to the axis Y. During the next period of rotation, the mass m1 describes the arc C1DA2 while m2 describes A1BC2 and so on and so forth. In other words, every elementary mass, belonging to the rotating body, describes arcs in the plane perpendicular to the axis of turning. Therefore, an inertial potential (impulse) of the changed orbital direction in the plane of turning and in the frame of the constant orbital speed is released. According to the Laws of Nonlinear Dynamics, we replace the motion along the arc ABC1 by two linear motions from A to B and from B to C1 with deflection in point B. 4

Respectively, we replace the motion along the arc CDA1 by two linear motions from C to D and from D to A1 with deflection in point D. The Second Law of Nonlinear Dynamics determines the magnitude of the nonlinear impulse released at points B and D (2). The Third Law of Nonlinear Dynamics determines the direction of the impulse along the angle bisector of the contiguous angle of the angle of deflection. Namely, the nonlinear impulses are released at point B and D perpendicular to the plane of rotation shown by the line 1-1 when the given masses are at the points of space B or D i.e. at the convexity of the arc. Since the convexity of AnBCn+1 arc is oppositely directed to the convexity of the CnDAn+1 one, the directions of the impulses acting on points B and D are oppositely directed. Since they act at the opposite sides of axis Z relative Y they create the same directed angular impulses around Z. Obviously, the nonlinear impulse of the changed direction of the given mass (2) is released at points B and D periodically, in portions (in stages) for every half revolution around X from points An to Cn+1 and from Cn to An+1. We call this phenomenon a or one-half or a half revolution quantization. If in Quantum Mechanics a quantum is a limited number of periods of an electromagnetic wave, quantization here means that for every period of rotation every single or elementary mass of the gyroscopic flywheel generates an impulse Ft (2).

Ft = 2mv sin

(2)

As a matter of fact, the Author introduced the idea about the role of the arcs for the first time in the PCT predecessor of Ref.3 in 2006. Then he explained the idea in Ref. 4 with the help of the maximal magnitude line BOD (Fig. 1) and zero magnitude & inversion line AnOCn perpendicular to the previous one. If we connect the masses m1 and m2, they will cross both lines at the same time. That is to say, we have a body called an SDD Flywheel able to generate torque about the third axis periodically for every half a revolution (quantum) i.e. in pieces/quantum. This effect makes possible the Linear-NonLinear (L-NL) cycle procedure explained in Ref. 2. The behavior of the SDD Flywheel is nonlinear when its work branches (the masses) cross the maximal magnitude line (BOD) in the middle of every quantum, because at that time it generates a torque about the third axis i.e. the degrees of freedom of rotation, turning and the one of generated torque are joined in system. Respectively, the behavior of the SDD Flywheel is linear when its work branches cross the zero magnitude & inversion line (AnOCn) at the end of every quantum when the next quantum has not started yet, because at that time it does not generate a torque about the third axis, hence the degrees of freedom are disconnected. The quantization follows the previous developments making it possible to be explained with the universal language of math this time. The Author just wants to say that everything is connected. On the other hand, we can find elements of the idea in the Fig. 20-4, Ch. 20, Ref. 1. When referred to as the before position of the mass, m1 is at point An, in the now one it is at point B and in the after one it is at Cn+1. Respectively, the before position of the mass m2 is point Cn, the now is point D and the after one is point An+1. Let us first calculate the angle of deflection for one orbiting mass m1, Fig. 1 c). If for one -quantum (a half revolution about axis X) the mass m1 describes arc AnBCn+1, for the next -quantum it describes arc Cn+1DAn+2. The mass describes a given number of arcs ABC1, C1DA2, A2BC3, C3DA4 per second. For every arc described the mass releases an impulse (2) at points B or D perpendicular to the plane of rotation when the mass is at that points. The number of the quantum per second N is equal to the number of the described arcs per second, which is equal to the number of the impulses (2) per second. We calculate N dividing the angular speed of rotation r to (3). Dividing the angular speed of turning to the number of the quantum per second N we receive the angle of deflection of the orbital speed at the points B and D in the plane of turning for every quantum (4). Correlation (5) shows the impulse of the changed direction generated by one elementary mass for one quantum. Multiplying both sides by the radius R (the distance O-B or O-D) we determine the magnitude of the angular impulse (6). To determine the magnitude of the torque generated for one second we must multiply both sides by the number of the quantum per second N (7). We call this torque the Torque of the nonlinear reality nr.

N =

(3)

t
N

t r

(4)

Ft = 2mv sin

t 2r

(5)

FtR = 2mvR sin

t 2r

(6)

nr = FtRN = 2mvR

r sin t 2r

(7)

We replace the orbital speed of the elementary mass by its angular speed of rotation times the radius of rotation v=r R (8). Then replacing the moment of inertia of a point (elementary) mass m at a distance R by J=mR2 we get an equation (9). Naturally, if we need to apply the equation (9) to body with another shape we have to replace the moment of inertia of a point mass to the one of the given body.

nr =

2 sin mR 2r

t 2r

(8)

nr =

2 sin Jr

t 2 r

(9)

nr =

Ekr sin

t 2 r

(10)

The equation (10) expresses the role of the kinetic energy of the rotating Ekr. This way, by applying the Laws of the Nonlinear Dynamics, we determine the magnitude, the axis and the direction about the axis of the generated gyro torque without using vector multiplication.

V. First Check
We have on hand two rival formulas: the ones of the well-established model of vector multiplication (1) and the one of nonlinear reality (9) or/and (10). Let us compare the calculated by both formulas results for different combinations of angular speeds of rotation and turning accepting that the moment of inertia of the given body about the axis of rotation is equal to one (J=1). Table 1 shows the results. The units of r, t, wem and nr are not given because the final purpose is the calculation of the percentage of relative difference dr, displayed in the last column. Table 1. The table compares results calculated by both formulas for different correlations between angular speeds of rotation and turning. r 10 000 1 000 100 10 1 t 1 1 1 1 1

wem = Jrt
10 000 1 000 100 10 1

nr =

2 Jr sin

t 2 r

dr =

wem nr 100,% wem


0.00000047 0.0000412 0.004112 0.4117 36.34

9 9999.999953 999.99959 99.9959 9.959 0.637

Comparing the results, we find that both formulas calculate results with negligibly small difference, if the speed of rotation is much greater than the one of turning.

VI. Second Check


Let us try to find the math condition under which both formulas (1) and (9) calculate equal results. Equating both formulas, we receive (11) and (12). Then let us multiply both sides of (12) by (/2r2).

wem = nr
Jrt = 2
2 sin Jr

(11)

t ; 2 2r 2r

(12)

t = sin t 2r 2r

2 = sin

(13)

(14)

Bingo! The result (13) shows that the math condition is actually a trigonometric one. If we replace (4) in (13) we determine that formulas (1) and (9) calculate equal results if the sine of half of the angle of deflection from Fig 2 c) is equal to the half of the angle (14). That is to say, the formulas (1) and (9) calculate equal results if the angle of deflection of orbital momentum in the plane perpendicular to the axis of turning for every quantum of the rotation is small enough to satisfy condition (14). With the help of equation (4) we find that condition (14) is satisfied if the angular speed of rotation is much greater than the one of turning, r>>t, respectively if t<<r. We call it a Classical Gyroscopic Condition. But what if the angular speed of rotation is just greater than the one of turning (r>t)? What if both angular speeds are equal (r=t)? Or what if the angular speed of rotation is lower than the one of turning (r<t)? Obviously, these cases stay out of the range of the formula of the well-established model (1)! Now it is clear why Mechanics understands a gyroscope as a fast rotating rigid body with an angular speed of rotation much greater than the one of turning (r>>t), but because the well-established model of vector multiplication is able to calculate correctly this case only. To those who still doubt we would say that the function sine of a given angle calculates an always-correct result independently, if the angle is small enough to satisfy condition (14), not small enough, big or very big. That is why nr calculated by equations (9) and (10) is always correct. In contrast, the formula of the well-established model (1) does not consist of a sine function i.e. it does not calculate the influence of the angle of deflection. On that account wem is accidentally correct only if the condition (14) is satisfied. We can assume that the Classical Gyro Condition (14) does not show the limit of the gyroscopic properties as a Mother Natures product. It demonstrates the limit of the properties of the vector multiplication as a product of the science of the humankind to explain gyroscope. What is there beyond the limit (14)? Is it an unchartered field in Mechanics? Is it an uncharted territory in the fundament of Physics? The modern science risks too much building towers on unexplored terrain.

VII. Expanding the Frontiers


We can take the relation for generated gyro torque (10) as a multiplied constant and factors (arguments). Let us denote the Gyroscopic Constant Kg=2/ (15) and then the Gyroscopic Factor Gf (16) as a correlation between the angular speeds of turning and rotation. Then we present the Qualitative Gyroscopic Factor qgf (17) as a sine function of Gf times 1/ Kg. The kinetic energy of rotation Ekr plays the role of the Quantitative Gyroscopic Factor Qgf (18). The message of equation (19) is that the magnitude of the generated torque is equal to two times the gyroscopic constant Kg times the Quantitative Gyroscopic Factor Qgf times the Qualitative Gyroscopic Factor qgf.

Kg =

(15)

Gf =

t r
1 Gf Kg

(16)

qgf = sin

(17)

Qgf = Ekr

(18) (19)

nr = 2 K g Qgf qgf

The Classical Gyro Condition (14) determines the relation between the Qualitative Gyro Factor qgf and the Gyro factor Gf (17) as the most important one. Figure 2 shows the change of the qgf as a sine function of correlation between the angular speeds of turning and rotation in the range from -4 to 4. We can see that qgf=0 and therefore the generated gyro torque is equal to zero, if t=0. This is the so-called Central or Classical zero. The right side toward the Central zero is the zone of the positive Gf where the correlation between angular speeds of turning and rotation is positive. The left side is the zone of the negative Gf where this correlation is negative. The thin strip occupying both sides close to the Central zero is the Classical gyro zone where according to the result of the second check, the angular speed of turning is low enough to satisfy the Classical Gyroscopic Condition (14). The zone of a Square gyroscope is determined on the condition that the angular speed of turning is equal to the one of rotation i.e. Gf is equal to plus/minus one. A Super gyroscope occupies positive and negative zones (in blue) between a Square and a Classical gyroscope where the correlation between both angular speeds is less than one but not low enough to satisfy the Classical Gyro Condition (14). Obviously, the Hyper gyroscope (in green) responds to the condition Gf>1.

Figure 2. Qualitative gyro factor qgf as a function of Gyro factor Gf As we can see, the sine function accepts its maximal value of one (qgf=+/-1; where Gf=+/-1) when the angular speed of rotation is equal to the angular speed of turning. This is the Square gyroscope. The physical explanation is that for every half revolution about axis X (-quantum) the plane of rotation completes half a revolution about axis Y, perpendicular to the page, Fig. 1 b) and c). That is to say that every mass m1 leaving point An in the space arrives at the same point An completing the arc AnBAn with maximum possible angle of deflection equal to i.e. a closed curvature. Respectively, every mass m2 leaving point Cn arrives at Cn completing a similar arc CnDCn. Beyond those points begins a countdown where the real angle of deflection decreases. We can note that the Qualitative Gyro Factor is also equal to one if the angular speed of turning is three, five, seven times bigger than the one of rotation. We summarize that qgf=1 if Gf=+/-1, +/-3,.i.e. if Gf accepts positive or negative odd whole numbers (integers).

As we have mentioned, every time the sine function crosses the abscissa the generated torque (gyro couples) becomes zero. That is to say, that the gyroscope is stable because it does not lose energy to generate a gyro torque i.e. it is in a potential well. The function accepts zero if Gf=0, +/-2, +/-4, i.e. if Gf accepts zero and positive or negative even integers. However, there are some differences. If t=0 at the Central (Classical) zero gyroscope conserves the orientation of its plane of rotation in space. This is well-known property used in gyrocompasses. But if t= 2r, t= 4r and so on, the gyroscope does not generate torque although its plane of rotation turns about the axis of turning. We can assume that the Hyper gyroscope is stable (it does not lose kinetic energy) if its plane of rotation turns about the axis of turning 2, 4, 6 times faster than it rotates. The physical explanation of that phenomenon is that if the angular speed of turning is equal to zero, in the frame of every quantum, every elementary mass moves along the line AnBCn (or CnDAn) in the plane in turning, Fig 1 b) and c). Therefore, the angle of deflection is equal to zero and that is why the generated gyro torque is equal to zero. But if the angular speed of turning is two (four, six) times greater than the one of rotation for every quantum the entire body completes a whole revolution (or 2, or more) about the axis of turning. It makes so that finally the mass from point An arrives at point Cn (from Cn to An) the same as when the angular speed of turning is zero i.e. if the angle of deflection is equal to zero. Therefore, at the Hyper zeros, the degrees of freedom of the gyroscope are disconnected (isolated) i.e. the behavior of the system is a linear type one, despite that the angular speed of turning is different than zero. On the other hand, disturbance coming from the outside can generate oscillations about the zeros. For example, we know nutation as a oscillation about the Central (Classical) zero. Similarly, oscillations can be provoked around the Hyper zeros. But if an oscillation about the Classical zero is expressed as an oscillation of the plane of rotation, the oscillation about every Hyper zero is expressed as an oscillation of the correlation between the angular speed of turning and rotation. In fact, every diversion of the correlation in positive and negative direction connects the degrees of freedom positively or negatively. Therefore, the oscillations about the Hyper zeros are a Natural Logic Gate (NLG) kind of oscillation (Ref. 2). Figure 2 shows the possible oscillations graphically under each zero perpendicular to the abscissa.

VII. Third Check


Exactly a century ago (1914) Franck and Hertz provided the first direct evivence for discrete atomic energy levels Ref. 5. The existing quantum theory as for example introduced in Ref. 5 and Ref. 6 states that the charged particles, (fermions, leptons including electron...) are with spin 1/2. The uncharged particles (bosons) are with spin 1. Fermions with other spins including 3/2 and 5/2 and bosons with other spins as 0, 2, and 3 are not known to exist, even if theoretically predicted. In 2013, the Higgs boson with spin 0 has been proven to exist. All of this reduces the possible spin numbers to very few: 0, 1/2 and 1. What is spin? For example, Shankar, (Ref. 5, ch.14) wrote: It follows that electron has intrinsic angular momentum not associated with its orbital motion. This angular momentum is called spin, for it was imagined in the early days that if the electron has angular momentum without moving through space, then it must be spinning like a top. We adopt this nomenclature but not the mechanical model that goes with it, for a consistence mechanical model doesnt exist. Norbuly, (Ref. 6, ch.10.4) states: As nicely explained this angular momentum is intrinnsic to the electron and does not arise from orbit effects. We can summarize that in Quantum Mechanics, spin and orbital momentum are two types of angular momentum. Initially, spin was accepted as a physical rotation, like a planet spinning, as orbital momentum is. In modern particle physics, spin is an intrinsic form of angular momentum, that is to say, it is solely quantum mechanical phenomenon with no counterpart in Classical mechanics. But taking in account the abovementioned developments, we can assume that it is said that spin does not have a counterpart in the Classical Mechanics simply because Classical Mechanics is not capable of explaining the role of spin despite the heavy and complicated math apparatus developed during the past centuries, even with the help of the mystery of vector multiplication. This is the price for the disregard of the inertial potential of changed direction. Let us examine the problem in more details with the help of the Laws of the Nonlinear Dynamics. The test question here is why Mother Nature has chosen spin 1/2 as the most appropriate for the charged particles? In other words, what kind of special properties compatible with the properties of mass and charge of particle does spin 1/2 possess? We look for remarkable results covering two criteria: 1. The special property of spin 1/2 has to be clearly discernible and 2. The special properties of spin 1/2 need to correspond to the existing properties of the electron. Can we explain the properties of the 1/2 spin by means of the Hyper zeros from Fig. 2? If we accept that spin of electron is a physical rotation of the electron about its axis with an angular velocity 1/2 of the speed of turning about a perpendicular axis, an electron does not generate gyro torque (gyro couples) about the axis perpendicular to the 9

first two. That is to say that an electron acts as a Hyper gyroscope with a Gyroscopic factor Gf=+/-2. An electron acting as a Hyper gyroscope exists in the potential wells of the Hyper zeros +2 or -2 where the degrees of freedom are disconnected, the system is linear and an electron or actually an electron-nuclei system does not lose kinetic energy. In fact, the spin of an electron espin is reciprocal to the Gyroscopic factor at the Hyper zeros +2 and -2 (20).

espin =

1 Gf
2

r 1 = 2 t

(20)

This way we return to the original understanding that electron rotates like a top as when spin was discovered about a century ago. A. The intrinsic (principal, primary) axis problem As we accepted, spin expresses a single physical rotation about an axis. On the other hand a gyroscope works if there are two rotations (or rotation and turning according to the Authors terminology) around a perpendicular axis leading to generated torque about the third axis. Every rotation needs an axis to determine it, so an intrinsic spin requires a clearly determined intrinsic axis. The uncharged particles rotate (spin) about their principal axis freely. They receive turning about a perpendicular axis causing gyro effects in special cases like for example collusion and diffraction. Unlike them, the charged particles exist normally in a system connected to opposite charged particles because of the attractive forces. They rotate (spin) freely only when due to certain reasons they lose the system. That is to say, existing in a system with nuclei, an electron receives a second motion belonging to the system in addition to its intrinsic spin. On the other hand, if at the +2/-2 Hyper zeros the speed of turning is two times greater than the one of rotation, the kinetic energy of turning is four times greater than that of rotation (for spherical body). Therefore, an electron cans easily switch over the axes of spin and turning. This cannot happen only if an electrons axis of spins is clearly determined by an intrinsic property of the electron. That is to say, an intrinsic property of physical spin requires an intrinsic axis of spin i.e. an axis that is clearly determined and discernible when compared to the other ones.

Figure 3. Electron-nuclei system The abovementioned considerations/requirements can be satisfied if we suppose that the centers of charge and mass of the electron are divided at some distance p, Fig. 3. The centers of charge and mass of the nuclei are also divided, but since the nuclei of different chemical elements and isotopes consist of different numbers of protons and neutrons, the centers are divided at different distances. Obviously, the intrinsic axis of an electron is the line connecting the electrons centers of mass and charge. The Coulombs attractive force directs the electrons center of charge to the nucleis center of charge while the acting on the electrons center of mass centrifugal force directs it oppositely. Therefore, the forces make so that the three centers are normally in line. Since the electrons center of charge is ways directed to the nuclei, the electron completes one turn about the axis Y perpendicular to the orbital plane every time it completes one revolution around the nuclei. We can easy assume that if at the same time an electron completes half a revolution (spin) about its intrinsic axis that electron acts as a Hyper gyroscope in one of the potential wells of the Hyper zeros +2 or -2. The electron-nuclei system becomes linear because the degrees of 10

freedom are disconnected and therefore it does not lose kinetic energy. The axis of spin cannot be changed by another one because it is irreversibly determined by the intrinsic property of electron. We can assume that we understand spin as a physical rotation of an electron. Spin here is not measured in radians per second but as a strict one-half correlation (20) between angular speed of spin about the intrinsic axis directed to the nuclei and angular speed of turning about an axis perpendicular to the plane of orbiting, equal to the orbital angular speed. We can expect the same strict correlation between the angular momentums of spin and turning. On the other hand, since the angular speed of turning is equal to the one of rotation around the nuclei and since the permitted orbital momentums/orbital angular speeds are changed in steps we can expect a change in steps of the correlation between the angular momentums of spin and orbit. Obviously, if the electrons from the electron couple take positive and negative Hyper zeros at points +2 and -2 from Fig. 3, we can find that there are four possible combinations between the directions of spin and orbital momentums. According to tradition, we can classify the possible spin-up and spin-down states from Fig. 3 also as left and right, Table 2. Table 3 interprets the electrons spin-up and spin-down states with their signs. Table 2. Spin-up and spin-down states like correlation spin /orbit
left right

espin-up state

1
2 G+ f

= =

spin orbit spin + orbit

=+ =

1 2 1 2

1
2 G+ f

= =

+ spin + orbit + spin orbit

=+ =

1 2 1 2

espin-doun state

1
2 G f

1
2 G f

Table 3. Spin-up and spin-down states interpreted by the signs of spin


left right

espin-up state

spin =

orbit
2 G f

1 = + orbit 2

spin =

+ orbit
2 G+ f

1 = + orbit 2

espin-doun state

spin =

+ orbit
2 G f

1 = orbit 2

spin =

orbit
2 G+ f

1 = orbit 2

B. Some basics of the electrons dynamics It appears that contrary to the well-established beliefs, there is a hard inertial correlation/relation between the angular speed of an electrons spin and the angular speed of an electron around the nuclei. Respectively, there is a hard correlation between the orbital angular momentum of the electron and the angular momentum of the electrons spin. If for example, because of some reason, the orbit of the electron drops with a radius R, it increases its angular speed around the nuclei, increasing the orbital momentum/angular momentum. It increases the angular speed of the electrons turning about axis Y. The Gyroscopic factor becomes greater than two (Gf>2). Hence, the spin from Tables 2 and 3 becomes less than one-half of the orbiting. The electron comes out of the given Hyper zero (potential well) and starts to generate Hyper gyro torque according to the relations (9) or (10). If the electron comes out of the +2 Hyper zero it generates a negative torque. Respectively, if the electron comes out of the -2 Hyper zero it generates a positive Hyper torque, see again Tables 2 and 3. The Hyper torque acts around an axis Z perpendicular to the first two passing through the electrons center of mass. It shifts the electrons center of charge off the line connecting the electrons center of mass and the nucleis center of charge. It makes the electrons center of charge to do periodical motions dependent on the -quantization leading to emission of electromagnetic wave. On the other hand, every piece of electromagnetic wave attacking the electron from outside makes its center of charge to do similar periodical motions. They make the electron to come out of the given Hyper zero (Hyper well). Electron-nuclei system loses its inertial stability again.

11

In fact, there are many details. Briefly, we know that every system taken out of its equilibrium tends to recover it. The only way the inertial electron-nuclei system can recover its equilibrium is to bring the correlation between the angular speed of spin and orbital angular speed to the natural value of one-half. We can call the phenomenon of spin-orbit inertial interaction a spin-orbit inertial coupling. On the other hand, the orbital and spin magnetic moments separately interact with any applied magnetic field (the Zeeman effect) and also with each other. We can call it a spin-orbit magnetic coupling. The inertial spin-orbit coupling connects the magnetic spin-orbit one to the emitted/accepted piece of electromagnetic wave. In fact, spin and orbit are coupled in two ways - an inertial and an electromagnetic one. All together work in system. How do the inertial and the electromagnetic couplings work together to recover the equilibrium of the electronnuclei system? We analyze linear and nonlinear inertial and electromagnetic interactions able to recover the equilibrium at the new orbit/orbital momentum. Detailed analysis supported by figures and tabulated calculated results can be the topic of the next paper.

VIII. Some possible developments


We can derive each quantum number from the known kinds by means of the -quantization. In some cases, the electron does not emit an electromagnetic wave when it occupies a fixed orbit because the electromagnetic wave is balanced by an inertial one by means of cooperation between electromagnetic and inertial couplings like the Natural Logic Gates as expressed in the Ref. 2. 3) We can discover the exact mechanisms fixing orbit/orbital momentum. 4) The conclusions from the extended frontiers in Fig. 3 are an important argument to explain the matter waves or de Broglie waves i.e. the wave nature of matter. Having in mind the aforementioned, we can expect that vector multiplication, applied on electromagnetism, might give partially correct and partially incorrect result. Finally, the -quantization, inertial and electromagnetic spin-orbit couplings working together like a Natural Logic Gates can explain the phenomenon of discreteness that gave rise to the name Quantum Mechanics. 1) 2)

IX. Conclusion
The intrinsic disadvantage of the existing mechanics/physics is the disregard of the inertial potential of the changed direction. The other intrinsic disadvantage is the two and a half centuries old decision We (the Science) do not deal with this...

References
Feynman, R. P., The Feynmans lectures on Physics, 2nd printing, California Institute of Technology, November 1964, Volume 1, Chap. 20. 2 Djordjev, B., Topology of the Change or from the Free Torque Generation to the fundaments of the Nonlinear Dynamics, 2011, SCRIBD, URL : http://www.scribd.com/bojidar_djordjev 3 Djordjev, B., U.S. Patent Application for a Forces Generative Method, Docket No. 20100050809, PCT filled Dec. 12 2006. 4 Djordjev, B., Free (reaction less) Torque Generation or Free Propulsion Concept, AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1208, SPESIF 2010, pp. 324, 339. 5 Shankar, R., Principles of Quantum Mechanics, 2nd ed., Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publisher, New York, 1994, Chap. 14. 6 Norbuly, J., Quantum Mechanics, Physics Department, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, November, 20, 2000.
1

12