Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: pfishy

Eros' eternally correct statement certainly applies here:

Eros' eternally correct statement
"A simple answer to a fundamental question is a rarity. Scratch the surface of a simple answer and you will find a squid work under it"

So rather than trying to give an over-simplified answer to a complex question, I think it's better to read about the complexities involved:

What exactly is the 'spin' of subatomic particles such as electrons and protons? Does it have any physical significance, analogous to the spin of a planet?

1/2 spin versus 1 spin is discussed here, but in general fermions such as electrons have half integer spins (such as 1/2 or -1/2) and bosons such as photons have integer spins (1 or -1) and it turns out that fermions have to obey the Pauli exclusion principle which we talked about with respect to "touch", something bosons don't have to do:
Electron Spin for Toddlers

a reply to: DanielKoenig

Why are you assuming I haven't heard many times and don't know and understand those ideas equally or better than him? I know the 'radical ideas' very well and understand how and why they exist as ideas, which is precisely why I am able to successfully argue against their existence.

I made the assumption I did because everything you write about the status quo appears to me to come from a classical mindset. Generally, when one really understands the status quo they begin to discuss things in a different, non-classical, way. That is because the status quo (modern physics) really can't be described classically. Hence the confusion over terms like "vacuum" or "nothing". Such terms lose their classical meaning when viewed within QED. When applied in conversation, whether by proponents or opponents, it often results in mush. What is clear in the status quo is the math. Do you also consider yourself well versed in the math of things like the gamma matrices, gamma-five and the totally anti-symmetric Levi-Civita tensor? Tensor analysis? Group theory? CT violation? The Weinberg angle? Propagators? I am not trying to be judgmental, but I was assuming you were not well versed in such things. In the end, whether someone knows about those things or not doesn't matter for our classical discussion. On the other hand, it does matter with regard to discussions with other distinguished participants here on this most excellent thread. It is my opinion Arbitrageur does about as good a job as possible in trying to answer questions on a theory that can't really be put into non-mathematical words.

And now on to more concrete matters:

One last question: Are there masses/types of particles of matter that when accelerated EM radiation does not propagate away from them?

I know there are particles considered to be charged particles, and particles considered to be non charged, and then there is the neutron (which is said to be composed of positive and negative quarks). So it is thought there are non charge particles that exist, and when they are accelerated, EM radiation does not propagate away from them?

For my aether model, if two or three overlapping charges that sum to zero charge move exactly together, as they would in a neutron, then there will be no EM radiation to first order. That is because the first order aetherial force laws proposed by the model will have the effects of one charge cancelled by the remaining charge or charges. The force laws are symmetric in that way. Now there may be second order effects, and they are the ones that would lead to the Lorentz force equation and possibly gravity, and I am working on that now.

For the status quo, I hope others might contribute. I do find this discussion useful.

I am also glad you are probing my model with critical questions. As I've said once before here about my new theories - it is the silence that kills.

a reply to: Arbitrageur


I didn't know Fermi used the two sentences. However, they have been my guide all along. In the ABC Preon Model I have an underlying physical model and 3 free parameters predict 18 experimental results. For the aether model I have both a physical model and mathematical rigor to support it. All my work involves physical models, mathematical rigor, and proposed tests to separate it from the status quo. I want to keep banging on that, because I am frequently clumped in with works that have none of that simply because my hypotheses are classical and physical models are presently "out" while the principle of least action is "in".

I took a shot at a profundity back in grad school that you may find humorous. After realizing that the light that hits my eyes has quantum uncertainty, as does any other possible measuring device, I reduced the situation to the fact that I could be sure of absolutely nothing. But at least I was sure of that! So my eternal truth was "I can be sure of just one thing - that I can be sure of just one thing." I thought myself quite clever, and began telling other graduate students and my engineering friends. After I explained it, most of them thought it quite clever too. And then a fellow graduate student pointed out that "you know, many people have thought about these things, there are whole departments that look at them". And of course she was right. I don't recall if it was she or another who then brought up Des Cartes, with "cogito ergo sum" (I think - therefore I am.) And upon reflection, I realized that that was something I could know. So that destroyed my first attempt at an eternal truth. Rather than eternity, it lasted a month or so. I wish you all better luck with your attempts.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks, those links helped.

So just to make sure I'm drawing the right conclusion, is the difference between spin 1/2 and spin 1 just the +/- 1 factor of the wave function, when a spin 1/2 is flipped 360 degrees?

a reply to: delbertlarson

The reason I am interested in theoretical fundamental physics is because I am interested and fascinated by the attempt to understand and comprehend what that which cannot be seen (with the naked eye, and furthermore, even microscopes, and furthermore, even the most powerful microscopes) looks like. Thats the mystery and ignorance: There exists Stuff that we cannot see, how does it exist. We all start off as the blind men feeling the elephant that is the universe, we must use many intricate context clues to attempt to piece together an image of how the universe (on the smallest, and largest scales, and everywhere in between) exists, how if we could see absolutely every particle of that which exists, what we would see.

If we could see an electron, what would we see. If we could see an atom, what would we see, if we could see the EM field/aether, if we could see the gravity field/aether what would we see. That is what I am interested in.

(and I dont use 'if we could see' in reference to eyes and light and optical illusion, I mean if the concept of eyes and light were of no matter, If we had a hypothetical imaginary machine which we could place any 'non nothing' in (any particle, any field) and it could scan it and convert it into a perfect blown up image of exactly what that stuff placed into it exactly was, what would show up on the screen. (the history of the totality of theoretical fundamental physicists have been the attempt to be that machine (as should be))

This is a great thread. As a scientist, but not a physicist (in the slightest) I'd like to speculate and ask for apologies. Suppose the different emissions of neutron star collisions and black hole collisions are the difference between light and dark matter - photons. Suppose black holes create dark matter, and that is Higgs particles. Black hole collisions produce "gravity waves," which is actually Higgs bosons and waves in the Higgs field. I'll separately ask the physicists, where do photons come from?

Maybe photon come from Higgs bosons, which are slightly heavier than hydrogen atoms?

originally posted by: delbertlarson
a reply to: Arbitrageur


I didn't know Fermi used the two sentences. However, they have been my guide all along.

I thought you might appreciate that video since it seemed to be consistent with what you were saying about having a physical model. Having a rigorous mathematical underpinning is also good, and both is even better.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks, those links helped.

So just to make sure I'm drawing the right conclusion, is the difference between spin 1/2 and spin 1 just the +/- 1 factor of the wave function, when a spin 1/2 is flipped 360 degrees?

Maybe you didn't understand my answer because if you did I certainly don't understand your question.

Electrons never have a spin of 1, only 1/2 or -1/2. They are leptons which never have integer spins like 1.

Particles that can have integer spins like 1 or -1 are completely different particles which are bosons instead of leptons like the electron.

originally posted by: smokybarnable
This is a great thread. As a scientist, but not a physicist (in the slightest) I'd like to speculate and ask for apologies.

That doesn't work for me. Why not skip both and then not have to apologize? Speculation by informed people knowledgeable about physics is fine, but your comment sounds like a bunch of words strung together in ways that suggest you are uninformed. If you had stopped at "Black hole collisions produce gravity waves" that would have made sense, but you had to distort that by tacking on some relationship between gravity waves and the Higgs which are unrelated. This is not helpful to anyone in any way and I don't know what you expect to get out of it except embarrassment.

Ignorance is fine, and so is asking genuine questions, but please leave the speculation to those more knowledgeable about the subject.

a reply to: smokybarnable
Since we are all on Earth, the answer to this question from the Earth's perspective is that most photons we receive come from our local star, the sun. But with much less intensity, photons come from many other sources like all the more distant stars, and they even come from "everywhere" in the form of cosmic microwave background radiation, which are photons left over from the big bang.

The ultimate source of the sun's photons is nuclear fusion on hydrogen in the sun's core, but we never see the photons directly from that process, because they are blocked by the remaining mass of the sun and after working its way toward the surface of the sun the energy is finally released not as nuclear fusion photons but as photons that are given off by all objects in an approximate frequency distribution associated with blackbody radiation. The white color of sunlight correlates to somewhere around 5500 degrees K, while slightly cooler temperatures give off redder colors as can be seen in this photo of a nail heated by a torch:

Black body radiation and color temperature


Even the part of the nail that's not giving off any visible light is giving off photons, but they are infrared which is why you can't see them in this photo with a non-infrared camera. All objects above absolute zero (which is pretty much everything made of normal matter excepting perhaps some man-made lab experiments) give off these infrared photons.

So baryonic dark matter like the earth gives off photons too, which we can detect standing on the earth but we can't detect them from any distance of exoplanets. Even in our own solar system we have difficulty detecting earth crossing asteroids which may one day wipe out our civilization if they are far enough away. They are giving off photons too but they are so hard to detect, NASA figures they've only detected 90% of "near earth" asteroids 1km and larger in diameter, so maybe 10% remain undetected.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

like your false dichotomy of touch

Explain, how is my dichotomy of touch false? The only way body A can influence body B across a distance if their bodies do not touch, is if there is a medium/field/aether/body of bodies in between them which they mutually touch, or if body A possess 'things' it can projectile at body B. What about this statement is false?

Does magnet A repulse magnet B by tossing things at it, or disturbing a medium they both touch, or by definitely neither of those but definitely no other way you can touch upon?

various forms of aether that's certainly your prerogative but the burden of proof is not really on me to show that aether doesn't exist, and in fact I admit it might be possible but I've just never seen any good evidence for it.

What you refer to as the EM field and 'einsteins warpable space time' is the aether/s. The idea is the same, they just changed the word.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Take a piece of white paper and pen, and color in a small circle and label it A above, color in another small circle 3 inches away and label it B above.

Propose a theoretical, hypothetical physical mechanism as to how particle A can influence particle B (without tossing projectiles at it, and without mutually touching a medium disturbed).

Use your imagination, invent any thing you can, any concept, give me one the tiniest sliver of possibility of how such a thing could be possible. Any clue or hint, the tiniest tiniest concept of hope, that what you believe can actually be possible in a physical reality.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I understand that. Leptons 1/2, bosons 1. But what does it mean to have spin 1/2? What does it mean to have spin 1?

The article you linked didn't seem to directly address that, but implies the multiplication of a wave function by a factor of -1 as a result of flipping a particle's spin by 360 degrees ONLY happens with spin 1/2 particles (leptons).


So is that the difference between spin 1/2 and 1?

Maybe I'm not wording my question appropriately, so please refer to the cited text below, from your linked article.

That’s not the weirdest part, though. The weird part comes when you look at what happens when you flip the spin twice. In a classical system, or a system of ordinary quantized angular momentum, when you rotate the direction of angular momentum through 360 degrees, you get back to where you started. If you start out in a state with one unit of angular momentum, then do something to move it from +1 to 0, then 0 to -1, then -1 to 0, and finally 0 back to +1, at the end of all that state-shifting, you end up with a state that is indistinguishable from an identical system that just sat in +1 the whole time.

When you do this with half-integer spin– that is, take an electron in spin-up, flip it to spin-down, and then back to spin-up, you pick up a factor of -1. That is, the spin is pointing in the same direction it was at the start, but the overall wavefunction for that electron is multiplied by -1.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

That doesn't work for me. Why not skip both and then not have to apologize? Speculation by informed people knowledgeable about physics is fine, but your comment sounds like a bunch of words strung together in ways that suggest you are uninformed. If you had stopped at "Black hole collisions produce gravity waves" that would have made sense, but you had to distort that by tacking on some relationship between gravity waves and the Higgs which are unrelated. This is not helpful to anyone in any way and I don't know what you expect to get out of it except embarrassment.

Ignorance is fine, and so is asking genuine questions, but please leave the speculation to those more knowledgeable about the subject.

So its wrong to speculate if you're not "qualified"? Its not like Smokeybarnable was making dogmatic statements about anything, and everyone has the legitimate right to speculate about whatever they please whether you like it or not. If you want to genuinely inform someone of theory or fact, that's fine. But to excoriate someone for thinking out of the box (even if its 100% wrong)...well, its unbecoming of a professional truth seeking physicists.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Take a piece of paper or imagine one, and draw a circle. Make a little vertical line intersecting the top of the circle only.

If you rotated this circle 180 degrees, it would be different than when you started (the line would now be on the bottom). If you rotated it 360 degrees it would be the same as when you started (spin 1/2, spin 1).

Draw a circle, without any lines this time. If you rotate it 1/2, or 1, or 0, it is the same any way.

Apparently the strange claim is that some particles when rotated 360 degrees do not have the same initial result and conditions as before rotated.

So for the first example with the line in the circle, imagine rotating it 360 degrees and the line wasn't there.

What is interesting to ask and consider is, what are the methods of rotating/spinning these single particles. And, how much it has to do with what is surrounding the particle and how much it has to do with the particle it self.

In relation to the latter, I believe it is not so much that the electron (or whatever the particle it is with this supposedly odd condition) is like the circle with the line which when turned 360 degrees the line is not seen at the top (or like bullet rotated, or bottle, or how a person has a front and back, if you rotated 360 degrees your front is front) but that however this particle is linked to the environment, the conditions of the surrounding environment are altered with this act of turning, so that when the particle is rotated 360 degrees, prior to its rotation the environment is in a state of A and after 360 degree rotation the environment is in state of not A.

Some particles prior to rotation are in state A, and after 180 degree rotation are in state A. Some after 360 degree are in state A. Some after 180 degree rotation are in not state A.

Without the exact details, this appears to be the general idea behind the concept of qm spin.

a reply to: DanielKoenig

So it seems that spin 1/2 particles are bound to a medium. At least that seems to be the implication if a spin 1/2 particle rotated 360 degrees is no longer in the same state as before. Here is one of the analogous images that pops in my head:

A ball is attached to the floor with a series of rubber bands on either side (lets ignore the angular momentum for the time being). As you flip the ball over 360 degrees, the rubber bands become twisted. It is no longer in the same state. So that tells me that leptons cannot move independently of their respective medium.

Or maybe, as you hinted, the process of flipping the particle causes a change that we don't understand.

originally posted by: DanielKoenig


Atoms and electrons dont touch each other because THE ELECTRIC/MAGNETIC FIELD/MEDIUM/AETHER EXISTS BETWEEN THEM.

The electricmagnetic field/medium/aether is not nothing.

That is how electron can influence an electron without the electron touching the electron, there is "NOT NOTHING" in between the electrons, it has been called 'electric magnetic field'.

Just like you can move a floating ball without touching it in water by splashing the water.

The electron and atoms interact with one another without touching by splashing the electromagnetic field/medium/aether.

First of all are you talking about an electromagnetic field as in the classical EM field or are you invoking quantum field theory which is a quantum field?

You might read Feynmans QED. Quantum Electrodynamics explains electrons interacting through disturbances in the field also called virtual particles.

Action at a distance refers to something influencing something else before light speed could have delivered some type of influence.
From the sun it takes 8 minutes for light to reach Earth so if an electron at the sun effected another electron at Earth in less than 8 minutes or even instantly then that is action at a distance.

The only known action at a distance is entanglement.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
So its wrong to speculate if you're not "qualified"? Its not like Smokeybarnable was making dogmatic statements about anything, and everyone has the legitimate right to speculate about whatever they please whether you like it or not. If you want to genuinely inform someone of theory or fact, that's fine. But to excoriate someone for thinking out of the box (even if its 100% wrong)...well, its unbecoming of a professional truth seeking physicists.

Here's the tautology which applies:

If you want to "think outside the box", you must first know where the box is and what's in it.

If you don't know what's inside the box or where the box is, you can't think outside it. People seem to think they can, but it often ends in silliness like proposing ideas which are already known to be wrong because they are unaware of experiments "inside the box" demonstrating that. Even for a full time theoretical physicist like Nima Arkani-Hamed who knows more physics than most people, he has said one of the most difficult things about coming up with ideas "outside the box" is that you can immediately show most of them are wrong based on experiments already performed and known to people who study physics.

You really can't legitimately violate that tautology anywhere, however trying to violate it in this thread will generate complaints from me like the above and I have asked people who want to think outside the box but don't know what's in the box to do it elsewhere, just not in this thread, and they have cooperated with my requests. In reality they shouldn't really do it elsewhere either, but I don't complain about it if they do and you can find the people who previously did it in this thread doing it in other threads and I don't tell them not to, but they look just as silly when they do it in other threads.

If you know what's in the box like Delbert Larson does, then you can speculate here and he's done so quite a bit and I've never discouraged him and on the contrary welcomed his posts. In fact he often will explain the mainstream beliefs and then explain how his own beliefs differ so people still can get an understanding of what is mainstream and what is not, which is good. So the guideline for this thread is really that simple, if you know what's in the box, feel free to think outside it and post your speculations here. It's people who don't even know what's in the box trying to think outside it whose speculations are not welcome here, though they can feel free to ask questions.

Capiche?

As for your question about spin, maybe I understand your question now, let's see if this answers it. A spin-1 particle needs a full rotation to be the same, like the classical example of a book, and a spin-2 particle only needs half a rotation to be the same, like the classical example of a needle. A spin 1/2 particle needs two full rotations to be the same as the quote you cited suggests, and there is no classical example of this phenomenon. You are correct that the article implies that only applies to spin 1/2 particles, and that's not the only difference as I already explained. There are other differences like the Pauli exclusion principle applies to half-integer spin leptons but not integer spin bosons.

originally posted by: joelr

First of all are you talking about an electromagnetic field as in the classical EM field or are you invoking quantum field theory which is a quantum field?

First of all are you talking about

Reality.

The only known action at a distance is entanglement.

There is no proof or reason to believe or suspect or put faith in or guess that the so called 'action at a distance entanglement' is as is claimed.

Particle pair A and B are created and one is sent down channel 1 and the other is sent down channel 2.

Before they are measured scientists do not know if A is in channel 1 or in channel 2. Do not know if B is in channel 1 or channel 2.

When they look in channel 1 and measure the particle they discover that it is particle B.

They then look in channel 2 and discover that it is particle A.

Because science is interested in predicting events, they make equations to attempt to predict events.

Because scientists (((((Before they are measured scientists do not know if A is in channel 1 or in channel 2. Do not know if B is in channel 1 or channel 2.))))) they cannot put in their equation: When particle pair is created we know which is which, they have to include in their equation: We Do Not Know Which Is Which:

This is written as something like:

When particle pair is created, down channel 1 goes particle A/B and down channel 2 goes particle A/B.

Somewhere along the line people mistake this encoded ignorance, this admitted lack of knowledge and ability of knowledge, as a fundamental statement about the universe:

When a scientist creates a particle pair the scientist cannot know the state of each particle before measuring them:

Therefore the particles in reality do not have a state.

There is no reason to assume this.

When a scientist creates a particle pair, each particle is in a state, obviously that cannot be known by the scientist before the particles state is measured.

Just because a scientist does not know true facts about the universe, does not mean the universe is lacking true facts, which is being assumed and promoted by this bit of formalized ignorance.

originally posted by: joelr
Action at a distance refers to something influencing something else before light speed could have delivered some type of influence.

No, there is a lot of confusion on this topic but see James Clerk Maxwell's treatise in chapter XXIII "Theories of Action at a Distance", it has absolutely nothing to do with entanglement or faster than light, he is talking about electromagnetism which travels at the speed of light.

A treatise on electricity and magnetism by Maxwell, James Clerk


What you're calling "action at a distance" isn't even action at a distance according to Physicist Charles Bennett, and indeed according to Sean Carroll's preferred interpretation discussed in the opening video of this thread there is no action in entanglement, it is merely a correlation, not an action, and further according to that interpretation it's not even faster than light so Sean Carroll wouldn't necessarily agree to that stipulation either, it's a completely local meaning not faster than light correlation in that interpretation.

Here is more explanation from Charles Bennett about the problems caused by Einstein's misnomer:

www.sciencenews.org...

IBM’s Charles Bennett, has said, what Einstein got wrong was characterizing entanglement as spooky action at a distance. “It’s spooky,” says Bennett, “but it’s not action at a distance.”

www.sciencenews.org...

“This worst thing that happens here is when people describe entanglement — and I’m not going to say who is the highly reputed scientist who did this first — as ‘spooky action at a distance,’” Bennett said last week at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “That has generated an enormous amount of confusion that people in this field are trying to undo all the time.”

At first glance, it does seem that entanglement permits instantaneous messaging from one lab to another, no matter how far apart they are. That’s what Einstein didn’t like. But actually, no signal is sent. Alice’s measurement merely alters the description of the “quantum state,” the math describing the entangled system containing the two particles. Alice’s measurement changes the universe in a way that gives Bob’s particle a definite property to measure that it did not previously possess.

“It’s spooky,” says Bennett, “but it’s not action at a distance.”

I think it should be referred to as a correlation rather than an "action" so I tend to think Bennett has a point. I can't say I agree with Sean Carroll's preferred interpretation but whether that's correct or not I still think correlation is a better description than action.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Capiche?

Whatever.

I think even faulty speculation (based on ignorance), submitted in humility deserves humble correction. You came off as condescending, and that can really discourage people from asking honest questions. I don't agree with your approach, but its your thread, not mine.

Thank you for answering my question.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
If I wanted to correct physics speculations of people who don't know physics, I'd make a tread titled:

"People who don't know physics, post your speculations here and I'll correct them"

But that's not the title of this thread, and that's not what I want to do.

Even if I did want to do that, many of the speculations aren't really correctable because they're "not even wrong". Rather than pick on anybody from ATS I'll post this speculation written by a non-ATS member, but ATS members have re-posted this type of speculation here on ATS:

Vortex-Based Mathematics

The number nine is Energy being manifested in a single moment event of occurrence in our physical world of creation. It is unique because it is the focal center by being the only number identifying with the vertical upright axis. It is the singularity or the Primal Point of Unity. ... The number nine is the missing particle in the universe known as Dark Matter.

It's not like they forgot to carry the one and all I have to do to correct that is say "if you carry the one that will fix your speculation". It's hard to even make sense out of that and sure it would be pretty great if someone finally figured out what dark matter really is because everyone would like to know, but I'm pretty sure it's not the number 9.

It's apparent someone doesn't understand the definitions and properties of terms like energy, number, dark matter, and so on, and I could write a book explaining what all those things are but that wouldn't be productive since there are already books written explaining those term. If someone is going to speculate about them they should learn the terms they are speculating about first so that what they are speculating about can even begin to make sense.