100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: An Energy Discussion | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
'I do try to find out about things that interest me, when I find out, I try to incorporate those ideas into my reasoning, if they don't work, I dismiss them, even if they are established science right now.' Sure, I get it. We make it up as we go along. However, there needs to be a mechanism other than outright dismissal. Two (or more) minds are better than one. Collaboration keeps the cobwebs off the social skills, eh? 'If I gain a semblance of order from my reasoning, what does it matter?' I agree. It's a free country, We have the right to believe what we like. But if we want to come to common understandings, some give-and-take has to occur. So if we want to think (believe?) matter can move at c+ or we want to define units in our own way (Enerts, Krynts THE Point, true Absolute Zero as opposed to scientific AZ) to satisfy our thought system, we absolutely have the right to do that. But unsubstantiated, unsupported conclusions are not science. Science is so named because opinions have also been demonstrated to be true by others. Facts are established by common understanding and validation. Thank you for your effort to communicate your reasoning. That's lovely coding there.—IM Its understandable that there would be an effort to establish a connection and to reveal the truth. However, that is presuming I need social acceptance. I know my ideas are way out wacky. I do have a reason for my efforts, not really needing to be right or accepted as much as presenting alternatives. See, people get stuck in their ideas. I believe sometimes new things get discovered by accident from things that are not on target for discovery. If I say something to just the right person it could reveal a path to a solution they may not have thought about had they not considered what was said. I mean, ya never know? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I appreciate your point of view.
So, as to spin direction, any further thoughts, or have you dismissed that? The reason I press on is I read (learned) that sub-atomic particles each have unique spin (up/down,clockwise, counter clockwise, diagonal, yada), which in turn then, define elements. I'm not talking about fields, like the Higgs. I read about one collision experiment where the SAP went off the area of observance with a particular spin and re-entered with a different spin. Also, the effects at a distance, where, at the quantum level, a change in the state of one particle affects another for no observable reason. Perhaps you have a POV. These things interest me 'cause, like chaos theory, they lead to an understanding that, despite the most rigorous validation, the nature of the universe includes randomness, i.e. the metaphorical poke in the eye with a sharp stick. So God really does play dice.—IM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I appreciate your point of view. So, as to spin direction, any further thoughts, or have you dismissed that? The reason I press on is I read (learned) that sub-atomic particles each have unique spin (up/down,clockwise, counter clockwise, diagonal, yada), which in turn then, define elements. I'm not talking about fields, like the Higgs. I read about one collision experiment where the SAP went off the area of observance with a particular spin and re-entered with a different spin. Also, the effects at a distance, where, at the quantum level, a change in the state of one particle affects another for no observable reason. Perhaps you have a POV. These things interest me 'cause, like chaos theory, they lead to an understanding that, despite the most rigorous validation, the nature of the universe includes randomness, i.e. the metaphorical poke in the eye with a sharp stick. So God really does play dice.—IM Up until you mentioned earlier about spin direction I never gave it much thought. Now that you mention it again and expanded on it a lil I'm wondering if there is an elemental force that governs the spin direction? Also makes me wonder if spin speed is significant? At quantum levels like we are talking about normal physics probably don't apply. Quantum has its own set of laws. The solar system spins according to how its mass gathered. Yet Uranus spins off kilter from the rest of the system, probably due to a collision with something while it was still a relatively solid ball. At quantum, I'm not sure how gravity works. The spins may not be gravity governed? Four basic forces— gravitational, electromagnetic, strong, and weak — that govern how objects or particles interact and how certain particles decay. All the known forces of nature can be traced to these fundamental interactions. The keyword is Known. I did a quick search for fermion spin properties and a wiki came up on Spin 1/2 = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin-%C2%BD The dynamics of spin-1/2 objects cannot be accurately described using classical physics; they are among the simplest systems which require quantum mechanics to describe them. As such, the study of the behavior of spin-1/2 systems forms a central part of quantum mechanics.
The entry then directs to Spin-Statistics Theorem, another wiki = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin%E2%80%93statistics_theorem In quantum mechanics, the spin–statistics theorem relates the intrinsic spin of a particle (angular momentum not due to the orbital motion) to the particle statistics it obeys. In units of the reduced Planck constant ħ, all particles have either integer spin or half-integer spin.
The Fermi–Dirac distribution describing fermions leads to interesting properties. Since only one fermion can occupy a given quantum state, the lowest single-particle energy level for spin-1/2 fermions contains at most two particles, with the spins of the particles oppositely aligned.
Then it goes on to state that there is still energy present at Absolute Zero which I don't agree. They are confusing scientific AZ values with True AZ (frozen state). So, from what I'm reading and digesting, they think fermions are polarized and that polarity dictates their spin properties? The only sure way to know if spin is a result of interaction or a condition of existence is to observe a fermion manifesting in a void and see which way it spins, if it even does? Then manifest a 2nd fermion and see if the spin changes or starts. Then manifest a third and watch how they all interact with each other. Which would certainly be interesting if we could do that. Plus, I would like to know what happens if the spin is stopped? Does the fermion wink out of existence? Does it attract an anti-fermion that results in annihilation? Does the fermion become part of the bosonic field or the ghost field? Have a look at Faddeev–Popov ghost = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faddeev%E2%80%93Popov_ghost One thing I'm not finding is direction or speed of the fermion spins. Perhaps those characteristics are specific to the type of fermion. Its probably significant that bosons also have spin? Force Particles 
Not sure what that language is but I recognize the names... 
The significance of these images is that all of these have some type of spin (movement). Mesons are intermediate mass particles which are made up of a quark-antiquark pair. Three quark combinations are called baryons. Mesons are bosons, while the baryons are fermions. Recent experimental evidence shows the existence of five-quark combinations which are being called pentaquarks.
SOURCE: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/hadron.html The source goes on to tell about the different hadrons, baryons and mesons. During my search for spin values I saw (but didn't read) a notation that mesons have ZERO spin? It was written in the description of a link on a search result and I forget what I searched when I saw it. If mesons have no spin (no movement) is significant, I think? If a meson interacts with a spinning fermion could it drag on the fermion that causes a change in the spin aspect? Changing its direction or possibly slowing it? Not friction drag, force drag? Like spinning a beach ball in the water and changing its spin by slightly dragging your hand a different direction? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, well:
'The Faddeev–Popov ghosts violate the spin-statistics relation, which is another reason why they are often regarded as "non-physical" particles.' I have a hard enough time with the physical. Again, thanks for the nice image capture. Maybe sometime you can message me through my profile how you accomplish that. I tried <b>,</b> and <i>, </i> in my previous post just to do basic bold and italics and it didn't work. I am a neophyte at html. OR are you snipping? OR copy to clipboard and paste?? Send up to a dropbox and pull it back down??? later...IM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I appreciate your point of view. So, as to spin direction, any further thoughts, or have you dismissed that? The reason I press on is I read (learned) that sub-atomic particles each have unique spin (up/down,clockwise, counter clockwise, diagonal, yada), which in turn then, define elements. I'm not talking about fields, like the Higgs. I read about one collision experiment where the SAP went off the area of observance with a particular spin and re-entered with a different spin. Also, the effects at a distance, where, at the quantum level, a change in the state of one particle affects another for no observable reason. Perhaps you have a POV. These things interest me 'cause, like chaos theory, they lead to an understanding that, despite the most rigorous validation, the nature of the universe includes randomness, i.e. the metaphorical poke in the eye with a sharp stick. So God really does play dice.—IM No sir, God does not really play the dice whatsoever. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
IMFrisson
on
Sat 06/02/18 04:01 PM
|
|
I appreciate your point of view. So, as to spin direction, any further thoughts, or have you dismissed that? The reason I press on is I read (learned) that sub-atomic particles each have unique spin (up/down,clockwise, counter clockwise, diagonal, yada), which in turn then, define elements. I'm not talking about fields, like the Higgs. I read about one collision experiment where the SAP went off the area of observance with a particular spin and re-entered with a different spin. Also, the effects at a distance, where, at the quantum level, a change in the state of one particle affects another for no observable reason. Perhaps you have a POV. These things interest me 'cause, like chaos theory, they lead to an understanding that, despite the most rigorous validation, the nature of the universe includes randomness, i.e. the metaphorical poke in the eye with a sharp stick. So God really does play dice.—IM No sir, God does not really play the dice whatsoever. BlakeIAM: You sure? Never snuck out through a wormhole to another universe and bet a few buckazoids, let his hair down, chill?—IM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes I'm sure. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*yawn*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure you wasted a ☆yawn☆
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, well: 'The Faddeev–Popov ghosts violate the spin-statistics relation, which is another reason why they are often regarded as "non-physical" particles.' I have a hard enough time with the physical. Again, thanks for the nice image capture. Maybe sometime you can message me through my profile how you accomplish that. I tried <b>,</b> and <i>, </i> in my previous post just to do basic bold and italics and it didn't work. I am a neophyte at html. OR are you snipping? OR copy to clipboard and paste?? Send up to a dropbox and pull it back down??? later...IM Image code is [img]url then close the tag. There's a thread pinned at the top in Help that lets you play with the coding. http://mingle2.com/topic/199646 Its bbcode not html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
KO thx
|
|
|
|
|
