Notices
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Sub-atomic particles.

  1. #1 Sub-atomic particles. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    54
    Do sub-atomic particles spin? If they do, why?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator AlexP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,838
    If they do, only hadrons would be able to, since elementary particles are point-particles and thus are 0-dimensional and can't spin. Particles have a property called spin, which refers not to a literal spin around an axis (because they're points) but just to the presence of angular momentum. It's an intrinsic property of all particles.


    "There is a kind of lazy pleasure in useless and out-of-the-way erudition." -Jorge Luis Borges
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    By the nature of the CERN reserarch experiment for 2008, it will be demonstrated that sub-atomic particles have mass and spin qualities.

    I make that prediction based on knowing the type of research that will be undertaken, in comparison to the actual theory of space-time based on making "time" the primary feature of focus, not space.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Sub-atomic particles. 
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by spinner42
    Do sub-atomic particles spin? If they do, why?
    Yes, they are not 'spin' in the sense you would think, only relativley. They are usually as Chemboy says that Hadrons do, such as baryons (protons, neutrons etc). The spin is usually defined commonly as 2/3.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Sub-atomic particles. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by spinner42
    Do sub-atomic particles spin? If they do, why?
    Yes, they do, but it isn't quite like you think. Sorry to correct you Chemboy, but these particles are not actually points - a dimensionless point can't spin. Yes, they are hypothesized as points, but they are also thought of as "billiard balls", and this just isn't what they are. They consist instead of "action". You will have heard of Planck's Constant h. This is a constant of action. Action is momentum multiplied by distance, and it does what it says on the tin. For example a kick is an action, as is a wave. A wave has no surface because the ocean has the surface. A wave has no mass because the water has the mass. If you think of a boson such as the photon, where E=hf and p=hf/c, you have to think of it in terms of "kick" rather than "billiard ball". Then when you think of a subatomic particle like an electron, and consider that you can annihilate it with a positron to end up with two 511KeV photons. If you work back from this and think about "zitterbewegung", you can reason that in a way the electron is like "a rotating kick". It's difficult to explain this properly briefly, and the long explanation is so long that you might not get through it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Sub-atomic particles. 
    Moderator Moderator AlexP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    a dimensionless point can't spin.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chemboy
    and thus are 0-dimensional and can't spin.
    Yep, I said that.
    "There is a kind of lazy pleasure in useless and out-of-the-way erudition." -Jorge Luis Borges
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    The thing about the upcoming research at CERN though is that given enough energy, it will be demonstrated that these virtual "points" actually will have parted onto them (via the energy collisions they would be implicted in) spin and mass. That's why I am not a big fan of high energy collision experiments (it's like studying the mechanics of a heart by firing a shot-gun at it and then watching the cardiac muscle fan out in an explosive manner).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    54
    It has been proposed by Krekora that based in the quantum field theory, 2nd-quantized quantum theory, prohibits occurrence of Zitterbewegung for an electron. If this is true then does this invalidate any angular momentum of quarks?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    What you are debating, we are debating, is "theory" regarding subatomic particles, and exactness.

    I have argued previously in this forum that when we CHANGE the natural environment of a particle, we interfere with it's real existence in space-time. Measuring therefore the properties of subatomic particles in unnatural conditions is a little extreme, if not psuedo, yet scientists embark on that road. They embark on that road to get a better idea on how, it would seem, they can better derive energy from the atom. Yet that fail to see the forest for the trees in being practical about that pursuit and how one would still need to be generally "normal" about handling matter and using that matter to derive "energy".

    The strangest thing about contemporary physics research and associated theories is that it has become so "synthetic", so "unnatural", so "not found normally like that in nature", I have often argued modern physics became "pseudo" years ago, "lost it's marbles", so to speak.

    So, I have been proposing a theory of perception and space-time, as a way to standardise what is real and what is not, by creating a theory of space-time based on the REAL LIMITS of our perception.

    What do you think?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    I'd say that's a little extreme, streamsystems, but I agree to a certain extent.
    Quote Originally Posted by spinner42
    It has been proposed by Krekora that based in the quantum field theory, 2nd-quantized quantum theory, prohibits occurrence of Zitterbewegung for an electron. If this is true then does this invalidate any angular momentum of quarks?
    Zitterbewegung happens. We observe it. So no, Krekora's proposal doesn't invalidate angular momentum for quarks. The angular momentum is most definitely there. But perhaps surprisingly, what we have never ever seen is a quark. People tend to think of quarks as little billiard-ball things, but personally I think it's better to think of them in terms of the components of a particular "soliton" configuration of action.

    Sorry chemboy, the point I wanted to stress was that particles are not points. That's an outdated mathematical abstraction. String theory tried to address this, but without much success. The answer is in extended volumetric entities, hence there's lots of papers coming out on geometry, though this hasn't filtered through much yet. Think about long wave radio: a photon can be 1500m long. Think about an electron: the electromagnetic field surrounding it is part of what the electron is, not something it's "got".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator AlexP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,838
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    What you are debating, we are debating, is "theory" regarding subatomic particles, and exactness.

    I have argued previously in this forum that when we CHANGE the natural environment of a particle, we interfere with it's real existence in space-time. Measuring therefore the properties of subatomic particles in unnatural conditions is a little extreme, if not psuedo, yet scientists embark on that road. They embark on that road to get a better idea on how, it would seem, they can better derive energy from the atom. Yet that fail to see the forest for the trees in being practical about that pursuit and how one would still need to be generally "normal" about handling matter and using that matter to derive "energy".

    The strangest thing about contemporary physics research and associated theories is that it has become so "synthetic", so "unnatural", so "not found normally like that in nature", I have often argued modern physics became "pseudo" years ago, "lost it's marbles", so to speak.

    So, I have been proposing a theory of perception and space-time, as a way to standardise what is real and what is not, by creating a theory of space-time based on the REAL LIMITS of our perception.

    What do you think?
    So are you saying that where a particle is in space and time actually makes a difference in our measurements of it, in a way? Like, the measurements we make of particles in an accelerator aren't "natural"?
    "There is a kind of lazy pleasure in useless and out-of-the-way erudition." -Jorge Luis Borges
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Yes.

    Correct.

    I am not a believer in the big bang when things were at a SUPER-HOT condition and that things evolved to this generally cooled-down state.

    The main DRIVE for energy accelerated particle physics is to develop a string theory that explains the big bang.

    If I can prove the big bang is a WRONG concept, very innacuarate, then high energy particle physics experiments is like fossicking through a garbage dump of ideas.

    Ask me why I think the big bang is flawed.

    As for particle-physics, subatomic phenomena, representing a standard of measurement itself, as a repeating cycle of point to point events, as a footprint of time, well, that WOULD interfere with our measurement of it if indeed the WAY we measure particle physics is WRONG. Would you not also think this?

    You need to see the forest for the trees: when a physcist sits down and asks for a billion dollars from his government for research using HIGH ENERGY PARTICLE ACCELERATORS, the Government is going to say, "why, what do you expect to find". The physicist will say, "it is because we believe in the big bang, sir: if we know how to control that explosion in theory, by controlling it with these high energy particle accelerators, we will lead any type of space-time advancement".

    NOW, I am saying that the BIG BANG is BULLSHIT. It's a retarded concept. And so too is all that reasoning to splash out billions on particle accelerator research.

    Particle accelerator research has offered NO new theories that can be taught in textbooks at schools, BECAUSE IT IS TOO PSEUDO.

    The concept of the big bang is flawed because it breaches "c" constraints, if people decided to think about it long enough.

    How can any research point to developments of physics in researching an event we have no longer become apart of, because new laws and forces have been developed SINCE THAT BIG BANG, as the theory scientists use to explain the big bang GOES.

    Creating near-big-bang conditions is ridiculous, because those conditions and space-time laws don't exist any more................getting an idea via experiment re. any presumed big bang is getting an idea of a brick wall. Yet these guys (who do that research) say they can see writing on that wall, indicating that there was NO big bang, because in those near-big-bang conditions, well, they're seein stuff, which is contradictory to the concept of the big bang itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    54
    I have to wonder that given the conservation of energy thought then we are not in a cooled-down state as the total energy is the same. That is unless the cooled-down state simply means that the energy has been transformed to mass. So, could the BB have occurred?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    The big bang is something we cannot prove, only propose.

    So, why would we want to include something that can't be proven into a "theory of all things"?

    How CAN a valid theory of space-time include non-proveable ideas?

    Let us abandon this crazy theory, the big bang, and propose things we CAN prove.

    We can prove a steady state system, a circular eternity, better than the big bang theory, by "preparing" for the future of a steady state cycling system.

    NO ONE can go back in time and prove the big bang existed, no one.

    To include something that is not an evident reality of the laws of space-time in the here and now, one may as well suggest the big bang is also a future event that breaks all laws of space-time, as it has to, to masquerade as some type of PAST event. If anyone is serious about a unified theory for space-time, they will know what to do with the "big bang".

    If the big bang is actually a future event, in order to contradict known laws of time and space, then one could say that the big bang is a continual event, happening all the time, as an average of what we think it is in relation to a time event (the past), and what it logically should be (the future).

    I know of a theory that suggests that the concept of the big bang is effectively a "continual" event, a feature of space-time.......what we know as "chaos".

    One can download this theory from the www feature below. In doing that, we may be able to discuss the more fresh possibilities of this issue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    77
    When you say that it exceeds c constants are you talking about the expansion of the universe because if you are the speed of light applies to everything in the universe. If you look at the universe as having an edge, the edge is moving faster than the speed of light but the edge is not actually in the universe therefore it does not have to follow the same laws. I'm not saying I believe in the theory I am just saying that the speed of light only applies to the inside of our universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Good observation.

    I agree.

    "c" is a "front", a wave-front.

    BUT, something exists BEYOND THAT, the code of the actual big bang itself.

    For something to exist outside that "c" front though, is for that "thing", that big bang code, to exist "ahead" in time. And that is what I am arguing, that the big bang is a theoretical condition of the space-time matrix, held though in the future, NOT in the past.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    I'd say that's a little extreme, streamsystems, but I agree to a certain extent.
    Quote Originally Posted by spinner42
    It has been proposed by Krekora that based in the quantum field theory, 2nd-quantized quantum theory, prohibits occurrence of Zitterbewegung for an electron. If this is true then does this invalidate any angular momentum of quarks?
    Zitterbewegung happens. We observe it. So no, Krekora's proposal doesn't invalidate angular momentum for quarks. The angular momentum is most definitely there. But perhaps surprisingly, what we have never ever seen is a quark. People tend to think of quarks as little billiard-ball things, but personally I think it's better to think of them in terms of the components of a particular "soliton" configuration of action.

    Sorry chemboy, the point I wanted to stress was that particles are not points. That's an outdated mathematical abstraction. String theory tried to address this, but without much success. The answer is in extended volumetric entities, hence there's lots of papers coming out on geometry, though this hasn't filtered through much yet. Think about long wave radio: a photon can be 1500m long. Think about an electron: the electromagnetic field surrounding it is part of what the electron is, not something it's "got".
    Thanks for that Farsight. Fascinating thoughts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    54
    I would like to put the train of thoughts back on the original track.
    Spinner42 wrote.
    Do sub-atomic particles spin? If they do, why?
    The real questions has to do with the actual physical spinning of objects. I was wondering why things in our universe tend to spin on a plane. My guess is that if subatomic particles spin on an axis then over time and mutual attraction, gravity, then it would follow that the collected objects, e.g., solar systems, would spin. Which we all know they do. Just looking for some help. Thanks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •