Opposing Mainstream Physics - Swan001 (opposition) vs ATS

Originally posted by buddhasystem
a) you can't see tracks of quarks in any detector, because quarks so far have not been shown to exist in a free state.

Yeah.. but we are talking about top quark here.

The Standard Model predicts its mean lifetime to be roughly 5×10−25 s.[3] This is about 20 times shorter than the timescale for strong interactions, and therefore it does not form hadrons, giving physicists a unique opportunity to study a "bare" quark.

Unlike up and down and all around ( ), tops don't hadronize.

Originally posted by buddhasystem


a) you can't see tracks of quarks in any detector, because quarks so far have not been shown to exist in a free state.

So how did protons and neutrons form? or is the theory that at the beginning of the universe free quarks could exist because for those split seconds the universe was mainly quarks and because it was so hot and plasma-y the quarks existed, and then as time progressed and space progressed, the quarks were forced to quickly turn into protons and neutrons, which were force to quickly turn into atoms. And maybe the electrons were created from the in between forces which caused the quarks to come together? once space and time had progressed to the point where quarks could not exist freely any longer and were forced to turn into protons, could that activity of momentum and energy change have created electrons? Or what is the theory on how electrons were created?

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by buddhasystem


a) you can't see tracks of quarks in any detector, because quarks so far have not been shown to exist in a free state.

So how did protons and neutrons form?

According to Big Bang theory, quarks did exist individually in the beginning. The thing that prevented them from hadronizing (pack up into protons & neutrons and other hadrons) was high energy (basically heat). As soon as the primordial soup cooled off, they started hadronizing. It's now believed that at certain temperature, called the GUT energy level, all particles, including quarks, become symmetrical again (they all share properties).

Originally posted by swan001

Originally posted by buddhasystem
a) you can't see tracks of quarks in any detector, because quarks so far have not been shown to exist in a free state.

Yeah.. but we are talking about top quark here.

It's true that top does not hadronize, however it's still incorrect to say that we "see it's tracks". We don't. We observe tracks from its decay products, two or more generations down.

Originally posted by swan001

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by buddhasystem


a) you can't see tracks of quarks in any detector, because quarks so far have not been shown to exist in a free state.

So how did protons and neutrons form?

According to Big Bang theory, quarks did exist individually in the beginning. The thing that prevented them from hadronizing (pack up into protons & neutrons and other hadrons) was high energy (basically heat).

This description is no longer quite correct in view of discoveries at RHIC and now the LHC. True that quarks won't hadronize at high temperature, but they can't be called "free" either. The medium discovered at high energies was a strongly interacting soup of quarks and a lot of gluons. Free quarks at high temperatures was a rather naive picture that had existed for a while, but it was not borne out in the experiment.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Would I be wrong in thinking that magnetism works by electrons distorting or creating wells in space-time (just as gravity works by mass distorting or creating wells in space-time)?

Yes, you would. And Aristotle was not Belgian.

How does magnetism work then? How do the electrons in one material (magnetic) cause a material (magnetic) to come towards it until touching, from a distance, without touching? Please describe the physical action that takes place.

Also please note that I did not mean to imply that the phenomenon of magnetism is equal to that of gravity when I said 'just like gravity works'. I only meant to express the similar relationship, in that both actions (gravity and magnetism) are situations where material causes a local change to space in a manner that can induce an affect or apparent force on material which enters the space according to the extent of the materials force on that surrounding space.

edit on 8-3-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-3-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

Yes, this is known as a "classical field theory". Gravity and magnetism are the principal examples. (Not only that, the 2nd volume of Landau & Lif#z textbook is called "The Classical Theory of Fields" and contains both electromagnetism & gravity).

Here's what's going on with magnetism. In a permanent magnet (ferromagnet, for example which is what most people associated with "a magnet") some special quantum mechanics makes it such that there are a large number of electrons with their spin pointing in the same direction.

It is an intrinsic property of nature that electrons create a magnetic field, just by their existence sitting there without moving. There is no deeper explanation, as far as we know, it is a fundamental property of elementary particle physics, called the magnetic moment and it points in the same direction as its intrinsic angular momentum, called spin.

Even though the electron is considered a point, the magnetic field generated by its spin extends over space.
Classically, there is only one value of the magnetic field at all points in space and time. When you have a large number of electrons with spin in the same direction, the magnetic fields they create add up to make a macroscopically observable magnetic field.

Now, the spins/magnetic moments which are part of the other material have an interaction with the external magnetic field. The potential energy of this interaction depends on the field strength, the field orientation and the orientation of the dipole. If this energy has a non-zero gradient with distance (as it usually is) then there will be a net force either attracting or repelling the magnets.

Calculating this type of thing is a classic problem in undergraduate electromagnetism classes.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by mbkennel


More supporting evidence that all matter is a simulation and we are immersed in a grand illusion and every thing is blinking on and off so fast they cant measure it.
They extracted two photons and sent them down two different fiber optics .The end of one was 70 miles from the other, but when they harvest(measure) one the other disintegrates. Why?

Because the quarks and sub- atomic tacions have EXTRA COMUNICATION MEANS THAT WE CANT UNDERSTAND.
We have streaming matter all around us , disintegrating and being rebuilt so fast that it looks real, looks solid but is any thing but real.

reply to post by supergravity


Uh this paper arxiv.org... does not show evidence the Universe is some kind of numerical simulation. It presents tests for this notion which may hypothetically be observable. These phenomena have not yet been observed.

They extracted two photons and sent them down two different fiber optics .The end of one was 70 miles from the other, but when they harvest(measure) one the other disintegrates. Why?

Because the quarks and sub- atomic tacions have EXTRA COMUNICATION MEANS THAT WE CANT UNDERSTAND.

I don't know we "understand" it, but we have known about it since Wehrner Heisenberg in 1926. It's called quantum mechanics, and the very odd thing is that the laws of physics under quantum mechanics appear to be a time evolution operator in a Hilbert space of functions. It is pretty weird, and it can't be reconciled with a classical field theory with Einsteinian locality according to the experimental evidence. This why physicists say "nobody understands quantum mechanics, they only get used to it."

If you think in "functional space" (space of wave functions) then the notion of distance might be different. so that the particles which have high probabilities of being far apart in physical (x,y,z,t) space are still close together (entangled) & coupled in the functional space, and only with decoherence does this stop making a difference.

So far it appears to be part of the laws of physics and yet there doesn't appear to be any underlying force or mediating new particle, strangely enough.

Originally posted by supergravity
More supporting evidence that all matter is a simulation and we are immersed in a grand illusion and every thing is blinking on and off so fast they cant measure it.

So you consider NaturalNews to be a good source on developments in physics? I don't consider them to be a good source for anything.

The authors of the paper don't claim what NaturalNews claims. They said they looked at the hypothesis and the constraints on it. They don't claim to have "strong statistical evidence that our reality is, indeed, a grand computer simulation", as NaturalNews claims. Here is the link to the paper:

arxiv.org...

Originally posted by mbkennel

Yes, this is known as a "classical field theory". Gravity and magnetism are the principal examples. (Not only that, the 2nd volume of Landau & Lif#z textbook is called "The Classical Theory of Fields" and contains both electromagnetism & gravity).

Here's what's going on with magnetism. In a permanent magnet (ferromagnet, for example which is what most people associated with "a magnet") some special quantum mechanics makes it such that there are a large number of electrons with their spin pointing in the same direction.

It is an intrinsic property of nature that electrons create a magnetic field, just by their existence sitting there without moving. There is no deeper explanation, as far as we know, it is a fundamental property of elementary particle physics, called the magnetic moment and it points in the same direction as its intrinsic angular momentum, called spin.

Even though the electron is considered a point, the magnetic field generated by its spin extends over space.
Classically, there is only one value of the magnetic field at all points in space and time. When you have a large number of electrons with spin in the same direction, the magnetic fields they create add up to make a macroscopically observable magnetic field.

Now, the spins/magnetic moments which are part of the other material have an interaction with the external magnetic field. The potential energy of this interaction depends on the field strength, the field orientation and the orientation of the dipole. If this energy has a non-zero gradient with distance (as it usually is) then there will be a net force either attracting or repelling the magnets.

Calculating this type of thing is a classic problem in undergraduate electromagnetism classes.

en.wikipedia.org...

Yes thank you for that response. So with field theory, it is known that it is energy/matter's interaction with space which causes the field or no? like a planet creates a field, which is a distortion in space which causes gravity. And magnetism, electrons create a field, which is a distortion in space which causes magnetism? And, maybe even light can said to be a distortion of space caused by an accelerated charge. Is a magnetic field made of em radiation? or is that a silly thing to ask because em radiation is made of a magnetic field...

I just want to know the truth, and I dont want to read a whole text book right now to do it, it should be able to be stated simply. Either magnetism works by electrons causing activity of space which allows magnetic properties to exist. Or magnetism works by the electrons physically touching the electrons of another material them selves and either pushing them away or pulling them toward. Which one do you think it is?

If electrons interact with local space and that is how magnetism works, this is perhaps an analogy that can explain it...maybe...

2 rectangular wooden blocks of equal size, with 100 mini water wheels on each block, which all have motors which cause them to constantly spin, they are all facing the same direction/spinning same direction on each block. if you held one in your hand from the top and placed it in water you would get two different style wakes from the front in back. If you placed the equal other block with both back ends facing the created wakes or distortions would push away from one another; if you put the fronts together i think they might repel as well, because both items would have an inward pull of space so when placed together neither would want to completely go towards the other. If you placed opposite ends, it would be an outward wave, plus an inward wave and perhaps the inward wave would climb the outward wave like a ladder, or get attracted like a rip tide, or like how if you are standing in a pool you can get an object out of reach, in reach, by making motions in your local water space. If the electron spins in magnets arent aligned vertical spins like that in the total magnetic domain and they are spinning perpendicular to the long ways of the rectangular direction, then this analogy may also be relevant to understand the repulsive and attractive forces of 2 bar magnets. And I think this would have to do with half way point of an object like a rectangle or sphere, cuts the object into 2 perspectives in a way. If you look down on a sphere spinning clockwise, and then keep the sphere spinning the same, but look up at it, its spinning counter clockwise. This would cause waves (if any) to spin outward and downward with different directions of angular momentum. So if electrons spin perpendicular to the long ways of a rectangular bar magnet, then looking down at the magnet, the electrons spin would be in one direction, and looking up at it would be spinning the opposite direction.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
I just want to know the truth, and I dont want to read a whole text book right now to do it, it should be able to be stated simply. Either magnetism works by electrons causing activity of space which allows magnetic properties to exist. Or magnetism works by the electrons physically touching the electrons of another material them selves and either pushing them away or pulling them toward. Which one do you think it is?

The first, charges like electrons causing activity of something called a magnetic & electric field which is everywhere in space.

If electrons interact with local space and that is how magnetism works, this is perhaps an analogy that can explain it...maybe...

Electrons interact by creating a magnetic field which is in space and other electrons are sensitive the magnetic field which exists at their own location. (A field is something which is a function of x,y,z,t---put those 4 things in and you get some values out, and this 'field' has physical consequences).

The effect of magnetic fields on electrons is determined entirely by the strength and direction of the local magnetic field regardless of the causative origin of that field, whether from moving electrons, moving composite particles like protons, or the intrinsic magnetic moment of elementary particles such as electrons.

Electrons also interact with other electrons via the electric field which they create.

Originally posted by mbkennel

Electrons interact by creating a magnetic field which is in space and other electrons are sensitive the magnetic field which exists at their own location. (A field is something which is a function of x,y,z,t---put those 4 things in and you get some values out, and this 'field' has physical consequences).

The effect of magnetic fields on electrons is determined entirely by the strength and direction of the local magnetic field regardless of the causative origin of that field, whether from moving electrons, moving composite particles like protons, or the intrinsic magnetic moment of elementary particles such as electrons.

Electrons also interact with other electrons via the electric field which they create.

edit on 15-3-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

K thanks. So the weird thing is that magnetism (electric and magnetic fields) are a property of space, caused by the relative distance and motions of charged particles, and if charged particles create magnetic fields, is this changing the local geometry of space (space-time)? or no, just changing the 'field' aspect? Or is it that on the scale of the electron, the magnetic field that is created is made in space in a small and subtle way, so as to not affect the path of a baseball through, at a magnet for example. It also may be weird how light is not affected by a magnetic field, being that light itself (at times?) is a magnetic field itself, and the way magnets work are magnetic fields interacting right? and if fields are due to spatial geometry (or is it more of conservation of energy, or something), is it weird that light interacts with gravity fields but not magnetic fields. Well I dont think so, simply because I think gravity is purely macro, not purely macro, but the affects are seen much easier amplified by the addition of mass at large scales, just like an electron itself can 'be a magnet', but it takes "billions?" of them spinning in the same directions, 'amplifying' their affect to create their magnetic field. Its still not easy to know the fundamental composition of space and why light is affected by it in terms of gravity but if space is all rigid/rough and has subtle changes at all times in lines of gravitational force, then how is light not 'jolted' and affected by these, how does it conserve its energy for so long through space and time? and if a magnet creates a magnetic field surrounding the magnet and this field is in space, and (does it physically change space?) light is sent through this field, how does it react?

reply to post by mbkennel


Thank you for that intellectual and detailed response, I do realize the idea that matter is being generated and disappearing extremely fast and could be part of a huge quantum propagator system is way outside the box.
But this is how new things are discovered by pondering and discussing these unknowns.
I am not stating anything I post is written in stone, It is very interesting for me even though I am just an electrical engineer and inventor and not a physicist.

Originally posted by mbkennel

Electrons interact by creating a magnetic field which is in space and other electrons are sensitive the magnetic field which exists at their own location. (A field is something which is a function of x,y,z,t---put those 4 things in and you get some values out, and this 'field' has physical consequences).

The gist of what I want to know is; what the magnetic field is made of (or at least what knowers of field theory understand it is made of)? Is it electronic energy? EM radiation?

reply to post by ImaFungi

All I really want to know, is what is the magnetic field made of

Magnetism

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

All I really want to know, is what is the magnetic field made of

Magnetism

So the smartest people on this planet have no idea how magnetism physically works? No ideas even or theories on what the physical mechanism may be? If you say its 'a field' you gotta say what the field is, is it an emanation of energy from the electron, is it composed of particles, is the field due to the electrons interaction with local space, or is absolute nothingness did exist, a perfect vacuum, and an electron was traveling through, it would still be emanating this magnetic field? is it a result of the electron being constantly accelerated, and it is always losing mass and maintaing orbital velocity, and the lost mass is converted into a short lived magnetic field at each point in space and time the electron is, however since the electron is constantly traveling it is constantly producing this conversion affect?

reply to post by ImaFungi

So the smartest people on this planet have no idea how magnetism physically works?

Oh, it's known how it works. Just not why.
Sort of like gravity. How it works is very well known. Exactly why, not so much. Just be glad it does. Magnetism too.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

So the smartest people on this planet have no idea how magnetism physically works?

Oh, it's known how it works. Just not why.
Sort of like gravity. How it works is very well known. Exactly why, not so much. Just be glad it does. Magnetism too.

edit on 3/16/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Ok, How is it thought to work? How is the same as why in this instance, how it physically works is why it physically works, if you describe how sufficiently enough.

So what are the ideas on why/how magnetism works? How do physicists think the electrons behavior in one material (magnetic) can cause another material (magnetic), to come towards one another? What is going on, how does this phenomenon physically work?

reply to post by ImaFungi

Magnetism has been very well understood for some time already. It can be derived as a relativistic effect of the electric field. Means whether there is a magnetic field or not will depend on your frame of reference. The same effect has been predicted for gravity btw called gravitomagnetism.

Originally posted by moebius
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Magnetism has been very well understood for some time already. It can be derived as a relativistic effect of the electric field. Means whether there is a magnetic field or not will depend on your frame of reference. The same effect has been predicted for gravity btw called gravitomagnetism.

What is the electric field made of?