| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
| Date: |
20 May 2005 07:19:42 AM |
| Object: |
Do Neutrinos Have Spin? |
I have an idea that neutrinos might spin very slowly,or have no spin. My
"Spin is in " theory predicts this is reality. A particle with little
spin speed does not interact with atoms or particles.readily The
neutrino has the ability to go through billions of miles of lead.Using
the uncertainty principle some neutrinos must go to infinity without
touching anything.(go figure) Nature must certainly love the neutrino
she made so many of them. I can see why we should hate them.since they
can cause cancer. You can't even block them at night. Bert
.
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Neutrinos Have Spin? |
20 May 2005 08:44:28 AM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
I have an idea that neutrinos might spin very slowly,or have no spin.
My
"Spin is in " theory predicts this is reality. A particle with little
spin speed does not interact with atoms or particles.readily The
neutrino has the ability to go through billions of miles of
lead.Using
the uncertainty principle some neutrinos must go to infinity without
touching anything.(go figure) Nature must certainly love the neutrino
she made so many of them. I can see why we should hate them.since
they
can cause cancer. You can't even block them at night. Bert
Neutrinos are leptons with spin = 1/2. They don't spin "slowly" or
"not at all".
And it's absurd to fret over neutrino induced cancer. If they
interact only exceedingly rarely, when exactly is it then that they're
having their way with our genetic material? The ambient radioactivity
of a an old set of Fiestaware is orders of magnitude more dangerous.
(Perhaps even *infinitely* more dangerous, since neutrinos aren't known
to cause cancer.)
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Neutrinos Have Spin? |
20 May 2005 08:01:54 AM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
I have an idea that neutrinos might spin very slowly,or have no spin. My
"Spin is in " theory predicts this is reality. A particle with little
spin speed does not interact with atoms or particles.readily The
neutrino has the ability to go through billions of miles of lead.Using
the uncertainty principle some neutrinos must go to infinity without
touching anything.(go figure) Nature must certainly love the neutrino
she made so many of them. I can see why we should hate them.since they
can cause cancer. You can't even block them at night. Bert
Print this images on you printer Herb
http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/chart_cutouts/particle_chart.jpg
Cite one instance where a neutrino caused cancer, Herb.
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Neutrinos Have Spin? |
20 May 2005 11:38:48 AM |
|
|
Hi Sam Could not get into that site.Thanks anyway. Cancer is like
gravity it has its unknowns. Still we have to keep in mind our body
cells are mostly water,and today tanks of water are used to have see a
few neutrinos detected each day. Any thing that disrupts our cells can
cause them to mutate,and that goes for neutrinos too. If I said X-Ray
photons you would have said nothing. Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Neutrinos Have Spin? |
20 May 2005 12:09:49 PM |
|
|
In article <19159-428E1298-783@storefull-3178.bay.webtv.net>,
G=EMC^2 Glazier <herbertglazier@webtv.net> wrote:
Hi Sam Could not get into that site.Thanks anyway. Cancer is like
gravity it has its unknowns. Still we have to keep in mind our body
cells are mostly water,and today tanks of water are used to have see a
few neutrinos detected each day. Any thing that disrupts our cells can
cause them to mutate,and that goes for neutrinos too. If I said X-Ray
photons you would have said nothing. Bert
It doesn't matter whether neutrinos interact with our bodies; what matters
is how much. You're more at risk from the potassium and carbon-14 in
your own body, from the uranium and thorium in the soil that your food
grows in, and from the cosmic rays that exclude neutrinos. If you worry
about getting cancer from neutrinos, you worry too much.
--
"Then they placed the ark of the Lord on the cart; along with the box
containing the golden mice and the images of the hemorrhoids."
-- 1 Samuel 6:11
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Neutrinos Have Spin? |
20 May 2005 10:17:08 AM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Yes, they have spin 1/2.
I have an idea that neutrinos might spin very slowly,or have no spin.
Then your idea is wrong. The spin of neutrinos is equal to the spin of
electrons.
But note that this "spin" has nothing to do with a *rotation* of the
particle.
My "Spin is in " theory predicts this is reality.
Then your "theory" is in trouble.
A particle with little
spin speed does not interact with atoms or particles.readily
Non sequitur.
The
neutrino has the ability to go through billions of miles of lead.Using
the uncertainty principle some neutrinos must go to infinity without
touching anything.
That has nothing to do with the uncertainty principle, and is actually
wrong.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Neutrinos Have Spin? |
20 May 2005 11:48:32 AM |
|
|
Bjoern I am using spin in its classical featured way. Like a spinning
gyro. What I said there was a probable chance a neutrino can go forever
without touching anything is most certainly what the uncertainty
principle is about, Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Neutrinos Have Spin? |
24 May 2005 07:52:39 AM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Bjoern I am using spin in its classical featured way.
Like a spinning gyro.
You shouldn't. Doesn't work for elementary particles.
What I said there was a probable chance a neutrino can go forever
without touching anything is most certainly what the uncertainty
principle is about,
No.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Neutrinos Have Spin? |
21 May 2005 02:53:17 PM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Yes, they have spin 1/2.
I have an idea that neutrinos might spin very slowly,or have no spin.
Then your idea is wrong. The spin of neutrinos is equal to the spin of
electrons.
But note that this "spin" has nothing to do with a *rotation* of the
particle.
My "Spin is in " theory predicts this is reality.
Then your "theory" is in trouble.
Right.Currently accepted ideas do not equate
spin with any physical movement.
Actually QM ideas are pretty much *all*
nonsensical.
Where is your *physical model*, b-y?
It sounds like the spin QM talks
about for electrons is their precession
of 720 degrees for every orbital. In addition to
precessing twice they also rotate 1, 3, 5, 7,
9....or higher odd cycles per each 2 precessions.
Neutrinos are charge
(1+ and 1-)containing mostly precession.
Light is charge (1+ and 1-) containing mostly rotation.
Hence neutrinos are linked to electrons in
QM's babble-speak.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Neutrinos Have Spin? |
24 May 2005 07:54:26 AM |
|
|
John Sefton wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Yes, they have spin 1/2.
I have an idea that neutrinos might spin very slowly,or have no spin.
Then your idea is wrong. The spin of neutrinos is equal to the spin of
electrons.
But note that this "spin" has nothing to do with a *rotation* of the
particle.
My "Spin is in " theory predicts this is reality.
Then your "theory" is in trouble.
Right.Currently accepted ideas do not equate
spin with any physical movement.
Right.
Actually QM ideas are pretty much *all*
nonsensical.
"contradicts *common* sense" does not imply "is nonsensical".
Where is your *physical model*, b-y?
Depends on what you mean with "physical model".
It sounds like the spin QM talks
about for electrons is their precession
of 720 degrees for every orbital.
Wrong.
In addition to
precessing twice they also rotate 1, 3, 5, 7,
9....or higher odd cycles per each 2 precessions.
Feel free to present evidence for these assertions.
Neutrinos are charge
(1+ and 1-) containing mostly precession.
Gibberish.
Light is charge (1+ and 1-) containing mostly rotation.
Gibberish.
Neither photons nor neutrinos have electric charge!
Hence neutrinos are linked to electrons in
QM's babble-speak.
Utter nonsense.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Neutrinos Have Spin? |
24 May 2005 11:59:16 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Yes, they have spin 1/2.
I have an idea that neutrinos might spin very slowly,or have no spin.
Then your idea is wrong. The spin of neutrinos is equal to the spin of
electrons.
But note that this "spin" has nothing to do with a *rotation* of the
particle.
My "Spin is in " theory predicts this is reality.
Then your "theory" is in trouble.
Right.Currently accepted ideas do not equate
spin with any physical movement.
Right.
Actually QM ideas are pretty much *all*
nonsensical.
"contradicts *common* sense" does not imply "is nonsensical".
Where is your *physical model*, b-y?
Depends on what you mean with "physical model".
It sounds like the spin QM talks
about for electrons is their precession
of 720 degrees for every orbital.
Wrong.
In addition to
precessing twice they also rotate 1, 3, 5, 7,
9....or higher odd cycles per each 2 precessions.
Feel free to present evidence for these assertions.
Neutrinos are charge
(1+ and 1-) containing mostly precession.
Gibberish.
Light is charge (1+ and 1-) containing mostly rotation.
Gibberish.
Neither photons nor neutrinos have electric charge!
Hence neutrinos are linked to electrons in
QM's babble-speak.
Utter nonsense.
No, QM does make a little sense if you
kind of tilt your head to the left and
squint your eyes. For a microsecond.
Then you say spin doesn't have
movement, and I see your problem with
presenting a physical model.
That's a hard one. Hmm, how
to physically model spin with no
movement. See, where QM got off the track
was when they decided the old rules no
longer apply and made their own rules.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Neutrinos Have Spin? |
24 May 2005 05:44:29 PM |
|
|
Hi John Spinning is natures favorite motions in the macro realm. Its
intrinsic to all objects. I can't believe spin is out in the QM realm. I
even read that in this realm particles have an intrinsic amount of spin
that is either a whole number or half a whole number(in the multiples of
Planck's constant) That this spin is set and never changes I know all
matter particles have spin equal to the electron,and are given (spin one
half) In roughly speaking its a quantum-mechanical measure of how fast
electrons rotate. Photons,weak gauge bosons,and gluons also possess
intrinsic spinning,and it turns out they spin twice as fast as matter
particles and thus they spin-1 Where is spin left out?. Spin makes
round particles super symmetrical(like a photon is) John nature
creates particles in pairs one real the other is an anti-twin.I'm sure
besides charge one of there big differences is they are created with
opposite ":spin" I think EPR experiment was based on this. Bert
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Neutrinos Have Spin? |
25 May 2005 05:39:03 AM |
|
|
John Sefton wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Yes, they have spin 1/2.
I have an idea that neutrinos might spin very slowly,or have no spin.
Then your idea is wrong. The spin of neutrinos is equal to the spin of
electrons.
But note that this "spin" has nothing to do with a *rotation* of the
particle.
My "Spin is in " theory predicts this is reality.
Then your "theory" is in trouble.
Right.Currently accepted ideas do not equate
spin with any physical movement.
Right.
Actually QM ideas are pretty much *all*
nonsensical.
"contradicts *common* sense" does not imply "is nonsensical".
Where is your *physical model*, b-y?
Depends on what you mean with "physical model".
It sounds like the spin QM talks
about for electrons is their precession
of 720 degrees for every orbital.
Wrong.
In addition to
precessing twice they also rotate 1, 3, 5, 7,
9....or higher odd cycles per each 2 precessions.
Feel free to present evidence for these assertions.
Neutrinos are charge
(1+ and 1-) containing mostly precession.
Gibberish.
Light is charge (1+ and 1-) containing mostly rotation.
Gibberish.
Neither photons nor neutrinos have electric charge!
Hence neutrinos are linked to electrons in
QM's babble-speak.
Utter nonsense.
No, QM does make a little sense if you
kind of tilt your head to the left and
squint your eyes. For a microsecond.
It makes sense forever if you bother to actually learn
and understand it, instead of dwelling in your misconceptions.
Then you say spin doesn't have movement,
I did not say that. Look again what I actually wrote.
and I see your problem with
presenting a physical model.
Please tell me what exactly you mean with "physical model",
then we can talk again about that.
That's a hard one. Hmm, how
to physically model spin with no
movement. See, where QM got off the track
was when they decided the old rules no
longer apply and made their own rules.
What rules are you talking about, specifically?
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Neutrinos Have Spin? |
25 May 2005 08:18:20 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Yes, they have spin 1/2.
I have an idea that neutrinos might spin very slowly,or have no spin.
Then your idea is wrong. The spin of neutrinos is equal to the spin of
electrons.
But note that this "spin" has nothing to do with a *rotation* of
the particle.
My "Spin is in " theory predicts this is reality.
Then your "theory" is in trouble.
Right.Currently accepted ideas do not equate
spin with any physical movement.
Right.
Actually QM ideas are pretty much *all*
nonsensical.
"contradicts *common* sense" does not imply "is nonsensical".
Where is your *physical model*, b-y?
Depends on what you mean with "physical model".
It sounds like the spin QM talks
about for electrons is their precession
of 720 degrees for every orbital.
Wrong.
In addition to
precessing twice they also rotate 1, 3, 5, 7,
9....or higher odd cycles per each 2 precessions.
Feel free to present evidence for these assertions.
Neutrinos are charge
(1+ and 1-) containing mostly precession.
Gibberish.
Light is charge (1+ and 1-) containing mostly rotation.
Gibberish.
Neither photons nor neutrinos have electric charge!
Hence neutrinos are linked to electrons in
QM's babble-speak.
Utter nonsense.
No, QM does make a little sense if you
kind of tilt your head to the left and
squint your eyes. For a microsecond.
It makes sense forever if you bother to actually learn
and understand it, instead of dwelling in your misconceptions.
It's bean-counting. Feynman said it all.
It does not explain what is happening.
It is a dead-end.
Then you say spin doesn't have movement,
I did not say that. Look again what I actually wrote.
This is what you said:
'> Currently accepted ideas do not equate
spin with any physical movement.'
I don't see how that means anything
except that what it says.
and I see your problem with
presenting a physical model.
Please tell me what exactly you mean with "physical model",
then we can talk again about that.
Well, you know like how they hang miniature
solar systems (not even to scale but
representative of the planets' positions) so
you can see what is where and move the planets
around their paths.
Hang your atom up and show the electrons'
paths.
Do they move?
If yes, show the path.
If no, then what are these data sets
that show electrons travelling at
..3c?
You can't have it both ways.
That's a hard one. Hmm, how
to physically model spin with no
movement. See, where QM got off the track
was when they decided the old rules no
longer apply and made their own rules.
What rules are you talking about, specifically?
Well like how you can't just appear on the
toilet when you want to go; you have to get up
and walk there. You know- rules of fucking Physics.
Voodoo QM. Vas!
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Neutrinos Have Spin? |
25 May 2005 09:04:54 AM |
|
|
John Sefton wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
[snip]
It makes sense forever if you bother to actually learn
and understand it, instead of dwelling in your misconceptions.
It's bean-counting. Feynman said it all.
It does not explain what is happening.
Just because that's Feynman's opinion does not mean that this is
accepted by everyone.
It is a dead-end.
Then please explained why physics has progressed so much in the last
80 years.
What planet have you lived on?
Then you say spin doesn't have movement,
I did not say that. Look again what I actually wrote.
This is what you said:
'> Currently accepted ideas do not equate
spin with any physical movement.'
I don't see how that means anything
except that what it says.
"do not equate spin with any physical movement" is by no means
the same as "spin doesn't have movement". The second statement
does not even make sense.
and I see your problem with
presenting a physical model.
Please tell me what exactly you mean with "physical model",
then we can talk again about that.
Well, you know like how they hang miniature
solar systems (not even to scale but
representative of the planets' positions) so
you can see what is where and move the planets
around their paths.
So in order to count as a physical model, we must show the paths,
or what?
Why?
Hang your atom up and show the electrons'
paths.
What makes you think there *are* paths?
Do they move?
This question was answered several times already. It's time that
you begin trying to understand the answers which were given.
If yes, show the path.
There is no one single path. You yourself mentioned Feynman above,
so you should be familiar with his "sum over paths" approach to QM.
If no, then what are these data sets
that show electrons travelling at
.3c?
What data sets are you talking about???
You can't have it both ways.
Indeed.
That's a hard one. Hmm, how
to physically model spin with no
movement. See, where QM got off the track
was when they decided the old rules no
longer apply and made their own rules.
What rules are you talking about, specifically?
Well like how you can't just appear on the
toilet when you want to go; you have to get up
and walk there.
And how exactly is that rule violated by QM?
You know - rules of fucking Physics.
I don't think that physics has to say very many useful things about
fucking. ;-)
Voodoo QM.
What has QM to do with Voodoo?
Vas!
Huh?
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Neutrinos Have Spin? |
26 May 2005 12:36:16 PM |
|
|
Then you say spin doesn't have movement,
I did not say that. Look again what I actually wrote.
This is what you said:
'> Currently accepted ideas do not equate
spin with any physical movement.'
I don't see how that means anything
except that what it says.
"do not equate spin with any physical movement" is by no means
the same as "spin doesn't have movement". The second statement
does not even make sense.
Explain yourself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Neutrinos Have Spin? |
27 May 2005 11:23:38 AM |
|
|
John Sefton wrote:
Then you say spin doesn't have movement,
I did not say that. Look again what I actually wrote.
This is what you said:
'> Currently accepted ideas do not equate
spin with any physical movement.'
I don't see how that means anything
except that what it says.
"do not equate spin with any physical movement" is by no means
the same as "spin doesn't have movement". The second statement
does not even make sense.
Explain yourself.
What exactly am I supposed to explain here? That the two statements
are not equivalent, or that the second makes no sense?
Well, isn't both *obvious*???
1) "equate spin with movement" does essentially mean "spin is
movement". Don't you see the difference between "spin *is* movement"
and "spin *has* movement".
2) How on earth could spin "have" anything???
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Neutrinos Have Spin? |
27 May 2005 05:35:11 PM |
|
|
If a neutrino turns out to have mass it will rotate at the same speed as
an electron Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Neutrinos Have Spin? |
30 May 2005 09:50:55 AM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
If a neutrino turns out to have mass
Has already happened years ago. Where have you been?
it will rotate at the same speed as an electron
Wrong. Why do you think so?
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Neutrinos Have Spin? |
27 May 2005 07:22:10 PM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
If a neutrino turns out to have mass it will rotate at the same speed as
an electron Bert
The concept of rotation is meaningless for subatomic particles, Herb.
Get over it!
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Neutrinos Have Spin? |
28 May 2005 05:44:49 PM |
|
|
Sam Sorry but the heart of my "Spin is in theory" has spin in the
sub-micro realm. My theory gives inertia to sub-microscopic particles.
In the tiny world spin makes round particles super symmetrical(such as
the photon) Best to keep in mind Google thinking can be wrong. Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Neutrinos Have Spin? |
28 May 2005 07:13:10 PM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Sam Sorry but the heart of my "Spin is in theory" has spin in the
sub-micro realm. My theory gives inertia to sub-microscopic particles.
In the tiny world spin makes round particles super symmetrical(such as
the photon)
A "theory" is a set of statements or equations that explains a group
of observations, makes testable predictions, and is in agreement with
a large body of empirical data.
Herb, you can't call your muddled thinking a *theory*!
All Fermions have inertia, Herb.
http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/chart_print.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Neutrinos Have Spin? |
31 May 2005 06:41:23 AM |
|
|
Hi Sam What you last posted tells me that Brian Greene and Edward Witten
are like me just a bunch of "muddled thinkers" You having only a Google
brain have no right to cast any shadow of the thinking of others. You do
not use criticism you just pick away in a cute nasty way. To quote
Google will never give us TOE. You think because QM gives spin a
quantum twist you can take rotation away from it(No way) Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Neutrinos Have Spin? |
31 May 2005 08:23:28 AM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Hi Sam What you last posted tells me that Brian Greene and Edward Witten
are like me just a bunch of "muddled thinkers" You having only a Google
brain have no right to cast any shadow of the thinking of others. You do
not use criticism you just pick away in a cute nasty way. To quote
Google will never give us TOE. You think because QM gives spin a
quantum twist you can take rotation away from it(No way) Bert
I didn't say that Brian Greene or Ed Witten were "muddled thinkers".
but I will say that an "untestable theory", if you can call it
that is not science, but philosophy.
Herb--You mistake Google for something other than a search tool. Google
has no authority. The authority in science is the empirical data of
observation and experiment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Neutrinos Have Spin? |
31 May 2005 09:06:10 AM |
|
|
Bam Both Brian Greene and Edward Witten are champions of string
"theory" String theory at this time can't be tested by experiment. You
have lost this argument with your own words. Both Brian Greene,and
Edward Witten only think as philosophers. You say Google is just a tool
and that is true,but you the tool you are using is a sledge hammer,and
you are pounding old Google science as hard as you can to pound away any
new thinking. Best to keep in mind Sam that our thinking has to keep
evolving.into the future. That is hard for you to understand I know.
Like i've told you over the years its time to lift your head up over
your pants That way you will see what's going on. Sam its not
that the pants are to long,its that you would rather be in the dark
Sam what are you fraid of? Herbert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Neutrinos Have Spin? |
31 May 2005 04:03:47 PM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Bam Both Brian Greene and Edward Witten are champions of string
"theory" String theory at this time can't be tested by experiment. You
have lost this argument with your own words.
I didn't know we had an argument!
Both Brian Greene,and
Edward Witten only think as philosophers. You say Google is just a tool
and that is true,but you the tool you are using is a sledge hammer,and
you are pounding old Google science as hard as you can to pound away any
new thinking.
http://www.edu-observatory.org/eo/hammercons.gif
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ross A. Finlayson" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Neutrinos Have Spin? |
31 May 2005 08:44:07 AM |
|
|
Hi,
Hey I was looking at that particle chart, that's some interesting
stuff.
Why does it give the mass of the particle in Gigaelectron-volts per
square meter?
It says the up quark masses about .003 of those and the down quark
..006, if a proton is two up quarks and a down quark, why is its mass
..983 intead of .018? Are there the gluons in that?
What are the force carriers with spin greater than 1?
Are there any quarks besides up and down in nature? How can an up
quark and an anti-down quark form a particle without annihilating?
In real numbers with a scalar infinitesimal, Vitali's result does not
hold and all sets of numbers are measurable. ZF is inconsistent.
I think it's interesting that the fermions and baryons have spin that
is some odd multiple of one half, while the bosons and force carriers
have spin that is integral. Why? Please explain.
Thanks,
Ross F.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Moroney" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Neutrinos Have Spin? |
31 May 2005 10:16:04 AM |
|
|
"Ross A. Finlayson" <raf@tiki-lounge.com> writes:
Hi,
Hey I was looking at that particle chart, that's some interesting
stuff.
Why does it give the mass of the particle in Gigaelectron-volts per
square meter?
It should be gigaelectronvolt divided by c (speed of light) squared.
Rememeber E=mc^2? Particle physicists like to keep track of mass in
terms of its equivalent energy, so a mass will usually be given as
its energy divided by c squared. They also use the electron volt
as an energy unit for convenience. An electron volt is the energy
gained by the charge of one electron moved through a voltage difference
of 1 volt, which works out to be about 1.6*10^-19 joule. Often they
get lazy and list masses in electron volts which is technically not
correct. The c^2 term is implied.
What are the force carriers with spin greater than 1?
The graviton is theorized to have a spin of 2. There are probably
excited meson states with spin of 2 or more.
Are there any quarks besides up and down in nature?
Strange, charm, top and bottom. They don't occur as part of normal matter.
How can an up
quark and an anti-down quark form a particle without annihilating?
They do annihilate. There are no stable mesons. They can't annihilate
exactly since they aren't exactly the same. They have different charges.
Something which has an up and an antidown quark probably becomes a
virtual up-antiup pair and a W+ (to conserve charge) and the up-antiup
annihilate and that energy and the W+ become something like a mu+ and
mu-neutrino pair.
I think it's interesting that the fermions and baryons have spin that
is some odd multiple of one half, while the bosons and force carriers
have spin that is integral. Why? Please explain.
Things with half-integral spin obey Fermi's rules while things with
integral spin don't, so they act differently. Fermions act like matter,
bosons don't.
--
-Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ross A. Finlayson" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Neutrinos Have Spin? |
31 May 2005 06:10:19 PM |
|
|
Oh, it does say GeV/c^2. I wonder how I could have misread that.
So, people are positing the graviton to have spin 2.
Are quarks indivisible? Why not, if not? Remember, the atom used to
be indivisible.
Are there any metrics of particles that when equipment increases in
precision, grow smaller or larger? That is, if you were measuring
something about a quark, or other known particle, does the experimental
value or its reciprocal diverge as technology to observe them increases
in precision? The universe's apparent size appears to be that way over
time.
That's about infinitesimals, I'm trying to understand particles in
terms of infinitesimals instead of Planck, the discrete and continuous
etcetera. If you know of things for which that is true, I'm interested
in hearing about that.
That particleadventure.org is a cool site, its precursor was one of the
first, and best, places to learn about the Standard Model on the
Internet. That's partially because the information contained there was
discovered muchly in the last forty years or so.
http://www.google.com/search?q=quark+discovery+history
That's longer than I've been alive.
In the particleadventure.org chart, it lists spin for fermions as 1/2,
3/2, 5/2, ..., and for bosons as 0, 1, 2, .... Why is that inductive
sequence ellided? What fantastic particle has spin 99?
So, things with half-spin, or 1 1/2 or 2 1/2 spin, obey Fermi's rules.
That reminds me of passive electrical components that obey Ohm's and
Kirchoff's laws, I forget. The Fermionic particles, or fermions, they
are all hadrons?
So how do I snip a gluon and let it shoot off like a rubber band? I
want a gluon gun like Half-Life, the video game. Ha ha ha. (ha ha
ha... haanson! That guy cracks me up when isn't being serious.) I'd
like to order a gluon splitter for my inertial capacitor.
Hey, thanks you guys, I have read your posts and respect your
opinion(s). I might have some more questions. I think Clifford
algebra is the way to go to understand most applications of physics.
Unfortunately I do not yet understand Clifford algebra, eg Cl_3, or
Cl_3,1 or Cl_3,2, so fortunately I study Pertti Lounesto's "Clifford
algebras and spinors", which I understand he heartily recommends, in
theory.
There can be, only one, theory.
The particle: it's a wave.
Have a nice day,
Ross F.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Neutrinos Have Spin? |
01 Jun 2005 04:43:14 AM |
|
|
Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
Oh, it does say GeV/c^2. I wonder how I could have misread that.
So, people are positing the graviton to have spin 2.
Yes. *If* gravitons exist (so far, they are entirely hypothetical),
they *must* have spin 2.
Are quarks indivisible?
We don't know so far, but so far there is no evidence that they are
divisible.
Why not, if not?
You could equally well ask: Why, if they are?
Remember, the atom used to be indivisible.
Used to be *considered* as indivisible.
Are there any metrics of particles that when equipment increases in
precision, grow smaller or larger? That is, if you were measuring
something about a quark, or other known particle, does the experimental
value or its reciprocal diverge as technology to observe them increases
in precision?
Change, yes, usually (read up on "running coupling constant" and
"running mass"). Diverge, no.
The universe's apparent size appears to be that way over time.
Huh?
[snip]
In the particleadventure.org chart, it lists spin for fermions as 1/2,
3/2, 5/2, ..., and for bosons as 0, 1, 2, .... Why is that inductive
sequence ellided?
Because particles with spin higher than 5/2 and 2 exist.
What fantastic particle has spin 99?
You have to consider that spin is not only a property of *elementary*
particles, but also of *composite* particles. If you combine enough
particles with each other, you can get an almost arbitrarily large spin.
So, things with half-spin, or 1 1/2 or 2 1/2 spin, obey Fermi's rules.
That reminds me of passive electrical components that obey Ohm's and
Kirchoff's laws, I forget.
Huh? Sorry, I fail to see the analogy.
The Fermionic particles, or fermions, they are all hadrons?
No. Look at the particle chart again. All leptons are fermions. And
leptons aren't hadrons!
So how do I snip a gluon and let it shoot off like a rubber band?
Not possible. Did you deliberately misunderstand the analogy?
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ross A. Finlayson" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Neutrinos Have Spin? |
01 Jun 2005 12:35:36 PM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
Oh, it does say GeV/c^2. I wonder how I could have misread that.
So, people are positing the graviton to have spin 2.
Yes. *If* gravitons exist (so far, they are entirely hypothetical),
they *must* have spin 2.
Are quarks indivisible?
We don't know so far, but so far there is no evidence that they are
divisible.
Why not, if not?
You could equally well ask: Why, if they are?
Remember, the atom used to be indivisible.
Used to be *considered* as indivisible.
Are there any metrics of particles that when equipment increases in
precision, grow smaller or larger? That is, if you were measuring
something about a quark, or other known particle, does the experimental
value or its reciprocal diverge as technology to observe them increases
in precision?
Change, yes, usually (read up on "running coupling constant" and
"running mass"). Diverge, no.
The universe's apparent size appears to be that way over time.
Huh?
[snip]
In the particleadventure.org chart, it lists spin for fermions as 1/2,
3/2, 5/2, ..., and for bosons as 0, 1, 2, .... Why is that inductive
sequence ellided?
Because particles with spin higher than 5/2 and 2 exist.
What fantastic particle has spin 99?
You have to consider that spin is not only a property of *elementary*
particles, but also of *composite* particles. If you combine enough
particles with each other, you can get an almost arbitrarily large spin.
So, things with half-spin, or 1 1/2 or 2 1/2 spin, obey Fermi's rules.
That reminds me of passive electrical components that obey Ohm's and
Kirchoff's laws, I forget.
Huh? Sorry, I fail to see the analogy.
The Fermionic particles, or fermions, they are all hadrons?
No. Look at the particle chart again. All leptons are fermions. And
leptons aren't hadrons!
So how do I snip a gluon and let it shoot off like a rubber band?
Not possible. Did you deliberately misunderstand the analogy?
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
Hi,
OK, that makes more sense.
I did not deliberately misunderstand, it was more of an ignorant
misunderstanding.
So spin basically is the aspect of the particle that does not
contribute to mass, but may contribute to inertia. Does it contribute
to the inertia of the particle for any non-zero spin? How much in
terms of mass is this virtual inertia?
From the first result of "Google" for "running coupling constants",
they have to do with the strong nuclear force, among weak nuclear
force, electroweak, electromagnetic, and gravitic, and vary based upon
the energy where they are measured.
http://www.clab.edc.uoc.gr/materials/pc/proj/running_alphas.html
So basically I'm wondering if the running coupling constant is greater
than one for some energy level or that it goes to zero fo some energy
level, besides arbitrarily increasing the energy level. I'm not
looking for how these things change from the Big Bang through its
initial development and now as much as an effect where as measurement
precision increases the value diverges, an observational effect, like
finding a ladder at an apple tree and on every rung the apple tree
grows faster than you can climb, so the fruit on the branch's distance
appears to increase as you approach it.
About the universe's size, that's more a question of its predicted
value. Over time, as various predictions or extrapolations of its size
have been determined, I've never heard of it being determined smaller,
rather than larger, in general terms. As we learn more about it, it
gets bigger.
I've heard that in physics that there are some things in the universe
that mathematically represent singularities or infinities, besides
their reciprocals I'm looking for things that represent infinitesimals.
What's the difference between a hadron and a non-hadron?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom
The hadron is a subatomic particle composed of quarks, antiquarks, and
gluons bound by the strong nuclear force. "The gluons mediate the
color force that binds the quarks together." Oh, so that says the
color force, of something called "quantum chromodynamics", binds the
quarks together with some gluon(s) to form fermionic (odd multiple of
half spin) baryons, such as the proton and neutron. If the electron is
a lepton, and the neutron is a proton and electronbound or unified in
some way, .... Quantum chromodynamics is the study of the "SU(3)
Yang-Mills theory" of quarks.
I wonder if the quarks are divisible, and if there is some pattern of
divisibility that the resultant forces and particle organizations would
repeat.
Thank you,
Ross F.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
