DKV: Do you mean to say that electron carries no Angular Momentum of its own with or without Magnetic field?
Incisive and scary question: Yes this is what my model implies. The potential energy term responsible for the formation of the Gaussian orbital is a harmonic potential which only depends on the distance from the equilibrium point (which is also the centre of charge and centre of mass). It is really a one-dimensional function because space is assumed to be isotropic. The solution does not include any degenerate angular components at al. It cannot because there is no spherical symmetry betwen the positive nad negative charges involved. They are separated over the fourth dimension. It sounds crazy but when I apply this principle to the covalent bond between two hydrogen atoms along the (two-dimensional) directions perpendicular to the bond lenth, I can derive the binding energy correctly without having to use perturbation theory a la Heitler and London. Thus, according to my model, the "spin" of the electron has to do with the fourth dimension, along which the electron is seprated from the positive charge responsible for the restoring force in three dimensions. If my model withstands the test of time, this will imply that "spin" has nothing to do with an intrinsic angular momentum of a single "free" electron within three-dimensional space.
================================
DKV quotes and answers:Thanks DKV, this is in line with what I have been trying to convey: i.e. that we know what nothing implies. I would define nothing as zero time (no change in time) zero entropy (no change in entropy) and zero temperature.
Dkv:Why only zero ? Zero is just a reference point.Why not replace zero with absolute certianity of the quantity.
You are correct I have not been clear. I should not have said zero time but absence of time. Absence of time means no relative movements and thus one cannot define entropy or temperature; however, I will not be surprised if in the latter two cases zero is more than just a reference point.
==========================================
What I pointed out is that an Euclidean four-dimensional space-time can be considered as "nothing", because time is then linearly independent from the space axes.
Thus there is no change. The existence of our universe required the time axis to be bent relative to the space axes. Although I am not an expert, I believe that this is inherent in both special and general relativity.
DKV: I agree partailly here. Yes indeed your understanding of Nothing is correct but Linearity doesnt go away with the "bending" of Space Time. The Mathematics involved remains linear.
Non-linearity appears somewhere else.
Yes in special relativity the mathematics remains linear owing to the "magic" bestowed by the imaginary number square root of minus one. But if you analyse histories in this space-time you will find that it is curved.
========================================
--------------------
Regards,
DKV
