Re: Detecting Space-Time
From: jahn (susysewnshow_at_yahoo.com.au)
Date: 11/14/04
- Next message: Bill Hobba: "Re: The Nature of Mathematics - a plea for help"
- Previous message: TomGee: "Re: Explaining Time Dilation"
- In reply to: Androcles: "Re: Detecting Space-Time"
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: Detecting Space-Time"
- Reply: Androcles: "Re: Detecting Space-Time"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 10:12:53 -0000
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
news:aoPld.13660$P7.8454@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:2vpofaF2ocd03U1@uni-berlin.de...
> :
> : "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
> : news:7NKld.31567$Q7.18914@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> : >
> : > "jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> : > news:2vo38lF2kctcqU1@uni-berlin.de...
> : > :
> : > : "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
> : > : news:27yld.10201$P7.6527@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> : > : >
> : > : > "jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> : > : > news:2vna5lF2nl42gU1@uni-berlin.de...
> : > : > :
> : > : > : "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
> : > : > : news:5Osld.9808$P7.1484@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> : > : > : >
> : > : > : > "jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> : > : > : > news:2vmnvbF2mjqj8U1@uni-berlin.de...
> : > : > : > : [spinning logic snip]
> : > : > : > : > :
> : > : > : > : > : http://www.chem4kids.com/files/atom_structure.html
> : > : > : > : > :
> : > : > : > : > : Good Luck!
> : > : > : > : > : Sue...
> : > : > : > : >
> : > : > : > : > I don't see anything spinning on that page. All I see
> is
> : > : > : > : > a diagram of some electrons in orbit about a nucleus.
> : > : > : > : > What is spinning? It certainly doesn't explain you
> POV.
> : > : > : > : > Androcles.
> : > : > : > :
> : > : > : > : Firstly, my POV doesn't rely on semantics for support.
> : > : > : > : If the earth moon-system can spin on its barycenter
> then
> : > : > : > : just as well the electron-neucleus system can spin
> : > : > : > : the proton can spin, the electron can spin,
> : > : > : > : the core-winding system of a relay can spin
> : > : > : > : (it's electrical field spins, not the wires of course)
> : > : > : > : All these spins are detectable on magnetic imaging
> systems.
> : > : > : >
> : > : > : > I fail to see what sematics has to do with it. You pointed
> : > : > : > me to a page with blue cones spinning on their own axis
> and
> : > : > : > said "look, spin". Then you point me to a kiddy page
> : > : > : > with orbiting electrons and say "look, spin".
> : > : > : > I do not understand your PoV. Please decide whether
> : > : > : > you mean barycentre spin or axis spin.
> : > : > : >
> : > : > : > Androcles.
> : > : > :
> : > : > : I mean either one and rectangular and octagonal paths too.
> : > : >
> : > : > Neither depends on spin. Imagine a square one light year on a
> : > side.
> : > : > There will still be a local B-field adjacent to the conductor,
> and
> : > it
> : > : > "spins". There will not be much field at the centre of the
> square.
> : > :
> : > : Let Fizpatrick imagine... less typing.
> : > : << In other words, the line integral of the magnetic field
> around
> : > some
> : > : circular loop C, centred on a current carrying wire, is equal to
> u0
> : > times
> : > : the current flowing in the wire. Note that this answer is
> : > *independent* of
> : > : the radius of the loop: i.e., the same result is obtained by
> taking
> : > the
> : > : line integral around *any* circular loop centred on the wire.
> : >
> : > Yes, but what does this have to do with spinning electrons?
> : >
> : > :
> : > : In 1826 Ampère demonstrated that Eq. (6.28) holds for *any*
> closed
> : > loop
> : > : which circles around any distribution of currents. Thus,
> Ampère's
> : > circuital
> : > : law can be written: [or clicked]
> : > : The line integral of the magnetic field around some closed loop
> is
> : > equal to
> : > : the u0 times the algebraic sum of the currents which pass
> through
> : > the loop.
> : > : >>
> : > : http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node60.html
> : > :
> : > :
> : > : cgs u0 = 4Pi x 10^-7 henry per meter.
> : >
> : > Yes, but what does this have to do with spinning electrons?
> : Absolutlely nothing. It is pure concidence that the poles of an
> electron
> : *seem* to always correspond to the poles of a solenoid wrt the
> charge's
> : direction of motion.
>
> What poles of an electron?
The ones that exclude Wolfgang from the theatre?
<< Electron spin resonance (ESR),
magnetic resonance phenomenon involving the electron spin. MR imaging and
MR spectroscopy rely on the resonant behaviour of the atomic nucleus in an
external magnetic field. A similar phenomenon occurs with the electron.
Although most electrons exist in pairs with no net spin, electron spin
resonance may be observed from the unpaired electrons that exist, for
example, in free radicals.The ESR phenomenon occurs at much higher
frequencies than the NMR phenomenon, and therefore the technique is
inherently more sensitive than its nuclear equivalent. In principle, the
methods of MR imaging can be applied to ESR, but such experiments are
hampered by very short relaxation times, typically in the microsecond range.
An alternative approach is to administer free radicals such as nitroxides
and, by the Overhauser effect, enhance the proton polarization in a
proton/electron double resonance experiment. Such experiments have been
proposed for very low field imaging. PS
The Encyclopaedia of Medical Imaging Volume I
>>
http://www.amershamhealth.com/medcyclopaedia/medical/volume%20I/ELECTRON%20S
PIN%20RESONANCE%20%20ESR%20.ASP
Note that free electrons in conductors, accelerators CRT's
etc are "unpaired"
>
> It is due the Hilbert Jackpot function. Millions of
> : observations have shown this relationship but it is surely random
> chance
> : running afoul. ;-)
> :
> : >
> : > :
> : > :
> : > : It works for light years just the same as for millimeters.
> : > :
> : > : > There is no requirement for the electrons in the conductor
> : > : > to spin.
> : > :
> : > : What happens when they stop? {rhetorical)
> : >
> : > I'll give a rhetorical reply. Would there still be years if the
> Earth
> : > kept one face to the Sun as the Moon keeps one face to the
> : > Earth? How about if it kept the same orientation with respect
> : > to the stars?
> :
> : That is a rectal reply. The earth will still have it's identity as a
> : planet. The electoron will shine itself away as gamma radiation.
>
>
> Didn't know the elector Ron had a vote.
> We know that Mr Positron and Miss Electron will elope when
> married, giving birth to a pair of wayward gamma children inheriting
> DNA from both parents, but I STILL don't see why you are putting
> spin on it before the dance begins.
So thick black smoke won't pour out of the ESR machines that your
local radiologist just aquired. Besides... ya don't want to mess with
the ghost of anybody named "Wolgang".
>
> : >
> : >
> : > : I'll assume you really mean it is insignificant in the
> : > : examples below. Nuclear spin is significant however.
> : >
> : > The Sun spins. Being a fluid, not all latitudes spin
> : > at the same rate. I have yet to see any proof that the nucleus
> : > of the hydogen atom is spinning, though. How fast does
> : > a deuterium nucleus spin, and which axis does it spin on?
> : > Does this affect the field, producing Lagrange points now
> : > that we have three bodies, Electron, Neutron and Proton?
> : > Does deuterium have any magnetic properties that differ
> : > from hydrogen?
> :
> : <<The proton (1Hydrogen nucleus) is the most sensitive (apart from
> tritium)
> : nucleus and usually yields sharp signals. Even though its chemical
> shift
> : range is narrow, its sharp signals make proton NMR very useful. >>
> : http://drx.ch.huji.ac.il/nmr/techniques/1d/row1/h.html
> :
> : What did your search engine die of, atrophy?
> :
> : > :
> : > : > A beam in the TV tube is a current and is deflected
> : > : > by magnetic attraction and repulsion.
> : > :
> : > : Lorentz force perhaps ?
> : >
> : > I don't care what names you give it. The deflection is real.
> : But Lorentz force is between massive entities not the divine
> : guidance of space faries. If you leave a hole like that some
> : philosopher will try to drive a truck thru it... in reverse gear.
>
> They are your fae.
>
>
>
> : >
> : >
> : > :
> : > : > Similar deflection by the
> : > : > charged plates of an oscilloscope cannot be magnetic.
> Deflection
> : > : > by the magnetic yoke of a TV tube has to be.
> : > : > Yes, I know there are coils to produce the field, but I'm
> talking
> : > : > about
> : > : > the field itself. How it gets there is irrelevant. It exists
> in a
> : > : > vacuum.
> : > :
> : > : But does it exist absent a moving charge?
> : >
> : > Does an electric field exist absent a moving flux?
> :
> : YES!
>
> Good. So a magnetic field can exist without a moving charge too.
We shouldn't exclude the possiblily 'cause how could four generations
of Minkowski etherians possibly be wrong? OTOH... they might be
wrong about a lot of things.
Ditching SR doesn't fix Maxwell.
>
>
> Again...
> :
> : Charge two capacitor plates with a battery.
> : Measure the force between them with a fish scale.
> : Remove the battery.
> : What does the scale do when the battery is removed?
> : Measure the current through the disconnected battery
> : or the disconneted capacitor (they should be the same)
> : and compute the force using Amperes law.
> : Compare your result with the scale's indication.
>
> Again...
> My fridge has magnets attached.
> No current inside the magnet,
Yes there is.
A charge in motion is a current.
> and it is NOT a superconductor.
It is not a glass of chablis either.
You're a refrigerator abuser aren't cha?
> Betcha I can measure the force without using fish, and it is more
> than your wimpy capacitor can manage. You manage a few scraps
> of paper, I can suspend a human being on a permanent magnet.
Add up the Lorentz force of all the co-moving charges in the magnet
and you'll see why.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=orbital+nickel+cobalt+iron&btnG=Google+
Search
>
>
> :
> : > Does mass exist?
> : > What do we mean by "existence"?
> : Whadday mean "WE" Kimosabe?
> : http://www.planetmike.com/jokes/misc/the_lone_ranger_and_tonto.shtml
> :
> : The electron ceases to exist AFAIK when it shines away as a
> : gamma.
>
> So does water when you cook it. We call that change of state.
> Where does the electron's gravity go?
> B-field. Big time force.
> E-field. Not so big.
> G-field. Wimpy.
> A lumpy magnet I can carry in one hand can outpull the entire Earth,
> and you are saying that's because of some tiny spinning electrons that
> can barely manage to lift a scrap of paper.
Electric repulsion is what keeps a Blacksmith's anvil from touching
the floor and you have never seen magnets get close enough to
overcome that force.
http://www.almaden.ibm.com/vis/stm/gallery.html
http://www.almaden.ibm.com/vis/stm/library.html
>
> :
> : > :
> : > : > The electron beam curves in it.
> : Curve in what? An ether? Like photons curving in a gas density
> : gradient ya mean?
> : > :
> : > : More specifically:
> : > : The Lorentz force between the beam and the charges moving in
> : > : the coils/cores exerts a lateral force to propell the yoke
> through
> : > : the side of your new VGA monitor. :o)
> : > :
> : > : > The electron doesn't have to spin to
> : > : > do that, and if it did then we can discuss Stern-Gerlach, but
> that
> : > is
> : > : > very much a secondary and minor effect with two electrons have
> : > : > a less than 1 degree separation angle while both are deflected
> 45
> : > : > degrees.
> : > :
> : > : Right... there is plenty of energy but little extent. So the
> : > circular
> : > : component of an electrons charge must have a very tiny diameter.
> : > : Smaller than a gamma wavelength if synchrontron radiation is any
> : > : indication.
> : > :
> : > : > This observation makes it difficult for me to understand your
> PoV.
> : > :
> : > : What is difficult about:
> : > : << The ampere is that constant current which, if maintained in
> two
> : > straight
> : > : parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible circular
> : > : cross-section, and placed 1 metre apart in vacuum, would produce
> : > between
> : > : these conductors a force equal to 2 x 10-7 newton per metre of
> : > length.
> : > : ???
> : >
> : > I see nothing about spinning electrons in that, particularly since
> the
> : > cross
> : > section of the conductor is negligible. Removing the conductor
> : > entirely,
> : > we then have an electron beam as the current. Two electron beams
> going
> : > in the same direction 1 meter apart should diverge because of the
> : > force of
> : > 2.0E-06 newtons per meter.
> : > Two electron beams going in opposite directions 1 meter apart
> should
> : > eventually meet because of the force of 2.0E-06 newtons per meter.
> :
> : Ya forgot the space faries role in all of that but I'm lettin' ya
> off the
> : hook
> : 'cause I think you're making them up anyway.
>
> I never made then up in the first place, you did. Permeability of
> free space and her little sister, Permittivity. A right pair of
> fairies,
> they are.
>
> :
> : > Removing the mass component of the electron,
> : > we then have moving (set of) E-fields producing a magnetic field.
> :
> : Massless charges Eh? Are they sold by the dozen?
>
> Yep. 12 neutrinos + 12 photons per dozen, non-negotiable.
>
> : > Using conductors once again, the windings in an electric motor
> should
> : > be spreading apart, so we use a glue to stick them together and
> pack
> : > them tightly in the (straight) slots.
> : > That is my PoV that you are having so much difficulty with.
>
> : Are you saying that Amperes long wire law is backward?
>
> I'm saying gold leaf electroscopes separate when you charge them
> with one of those E-fields that exist without a magnetic field.
Fair enough. So in a world where the best man gets the most votes
in the electronic college you think the man with a magnetic
personality should fare as well. Sadly Virginia... there is
eeveeil in this world so things are seldom equitable.
http://www.sorryeverybody.com/
Note the force when q = 0
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/limg801.gif
From:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/LorentzForce.html
>
> : > I am still unable to understand your PoV that the electron has to
> : > spin.
> :
> : It is part of it's mechanism to contain it's 0.511 MeV.
> :
> : << On the other hand, when p/q is a fraction (and, in some cases, an
> odd
> : integer) there is no simple "single particle" way to understand
> where the
> : gap comes from. We now understand that these QHE's are spectacular
> : signatures of complex many-body states whose existence relies
> totally on the
> : Coulomb interaction between electrons. >>
> : http://www.cmp.caltech.edu/~jpe/fqhe.html
>
> Again, I do not see "spin" in your quotation.
> Your PoV, as I understand it, is that electron spin creates a magnetic
> field. Now you are talking about half a million electron volts. What
> IS
> it you are trying to say?
No ... Relative moviing charges experience a Lorentz
force. Unless their motion maintains their proximity,
the force will diminish quickly.
Wasn't it 1/ d ^3 or 1/ 4pi d^2 for a loop?
I fergit.
>
> : >
> : >
> : > : Note that the effect of this definition is to fix the
> permeability
> : > of vacuum
> : > : at exactly 4pi x 10-7 H · m-1.
> : > : >>
> : > :
> : >
> http://www1.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter2/2-1/2-1-1/ampere.html
> : >
> : > I note that the property you assign to nothing is actually a
> property
> : > of the field, not the nothing. You seem to be quite happy that
> nothing
> : > has properties, but unable to accept that fields can exist unless
> : > caused
> : > by spinning matter.
> : > If the nothing has properties of its own, why can't a field?
> :
> : "Nothing" only has geometrical properties. Ya care to
> : gusess how they know the value isn't really
> : 3.9999999999 pi ?
>
> Lobachevsky, last I heard. Reimann's value is 2.99999999.
>
>
> : They took a spray can inside of a sphere and counted droplets. ;-)
>
> Nah. that's 4pi.(r^3)/3
Why didn't put that 30 lines ^ up where we needed it.
>
> http://www.mathstutor.com/Volume.html
>
>
>
> :
> : 'Twas you, I recall who pointed out a sphere only has an axis if
> : it spins.
>
> Yep.
>
>
> : If all the magnetic fields we can observe are associated
> : with a moving charge,
>
> I see no moving charges in my fridge magnets. Why do insist
> there are?
Because I can put a coil of wire around them and make
them fall off by moving an equivalent amount of charge
in the opposite direction.
>
>
> : it is no small assumtion that some unknown
> : property of space will substitute for the spinning (circulating,
> orbiting)
> : entities when an EM wave is propagating far from any matter.
> : There seems to be an intuitve rejection of Huygen principle
> : resulting from similar reasoning.
> :
> : <<Huygens's Principle:
> : every point on a propagating wavefront serves as the source of
> spherical
> : secondary wavelets, such that the wavefront at some later time is
> the
> : envelope of these wavelets. >>
> : http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae471.cfm
>
> Antenna radiate in circles.
> I agree with Huyghens.
> The generated E-field, like the cork bobbing on water, is stationary
> with respect to the source.
> I agree with Huyghens.
> The magnetic field travels radially, like the ripples on water.
> I agree with Huyghens.
> I do not agree with you that the radiation is caused by millions
> of corks on the water spinning to make it happen.
So we don't need millions of spin fairies.
> I do not believe it because you have yet to provide any evidence
> to support it, and I'm a stickler for evidence and abhor assumption.
It is you that has to provide a Lorentz force, absent a charge.
>
>
> : Imagine one of these things:
> : http://www.magnet.okayama-u.ac.jp/magword/light/eh1.gif
> : where the H decays but the E builds in the first few wavelengths.
> : Then imagine the revese process in the last few aperture-lengths.
> :
> : << Thus, in the antenna near field there is stored energy. (The
> complex
> : radiation field equations have imaginary terms indicating reactive
> power.)
> : Figure 4 shows normalized power density for three different
> illuminations.
> : >>
> : https://ewhdbks.mugu.navy.mil/ANTNRFLD.HTM
>
>
> There is oodles of stored energy at the point where the rock hits
> the water, where the amplitude is at its greatest.
"Reactive" is the key word. Also called "Apparent Power".
As you know, only near sighted mathematicians will complain
if we "apparently" violate c, conservation of energy or charge.
(-1)^(-2) sprinked over Maxwell's equations might even make
them work without fiddling with your watch.
>
> :
> : [Stump speech]
> : Does this not remove some of the magic in Feynman's sum over
> : paths technique?
> : Does this not eliminate the need for retarded potential and
> : displacement current?
> : Does this not explain the near-field H predominance ?
>
> Answered above.
Yep.
It looks like we are proxys for a Feynman-Huygens duel.
Kind regard,
Sue...
>
>
> : Kind regards,
> : Sue...
> :
> : > Androcles.
> : > :
> : > : Sue...
> : > :
> : > : > Androcles
> : > :
> : > :
> : > :
> : > : >
> : > : > :
> : > : > : << By direct incorporation of relative motion between
> charges
> : > into
> : > : > the
> : > : > : Coulomb force, it was possible to accomodate the force
> between
> : > two
> : > : > : currents - something we normally look at by means of a
> magnetic
> : > : > field.
> : > : > :
> : > : > : While we normally think of a magnet generating a magnetic
> field
> : > : > which then
> : > : > : acts on other objects, according to this approach, the
> moving
> : > : > charges in the
> : > : > : magnet each directly act on the other objects. We correct
> the
> : > force
> : > : > between
> : > : > : them for the fact that the charges are moving .... and viola
> !
> : > We
> : > : > have the
> : > : > : same result as we would get from a magnetic field.
> : > : > :
> : > : > : By incorporating the acceleration between the two charges,
> it
> : > was
> : > : > possible
> : > : > : to incorporate the effects of varying current - that is,
> : > transformer
> : > : > action.
> : > : > :
> : > : > : One important contributor was Ritz. He showed how many of
> the
> : > then
> : > : > known
> : > : > : experiments could be explained using Ritzian principles
> rather
> : > than
> : > : > : Maxwell's theory.
> : > : > : >> http://arachnid.apana.org.au/johna/ritz5.html
> : > : > :
> : > : > : As you have twice now forgotten the Stern-Gerlach experiment
> : > : > : and are dismissing the g-2 expeiment because it has .gov
> : > : > : at the end of the URL, I have to be guessing that the tail
> is
> : > : > : wagging the dog on your end of the line.
> : > : > :
> : > : > : When your argument reduces to the denial of atomic motion
> : > : > : your theory might just be due for an overhaul. ;-)
> : > : > :
> : > : > : As I mentioned earlier, the notion that magnetism can't
> exist
> : > : > : absent a moving charge is fairly new to me too so I haven't
> : > : > : developed a repretoire of simple gedankens yet. My best
> example
> : > : > : seems to be the near/far field anomalies and that is beyond
> many
> : > : > : "trained" physicists and completly out of the reach of
> : > lay-people.
> : > : > :
> : > : > : I realize you have a lot of work in you double star project
> so
> : > : > : it is hard to abandon the work ethic that says "never give
> up"
> : > : > : but I know you have seen, as I have, others who let
> investment
> : > : > : become inertia. (I won't mention names) ;-)
> : > : > :
> : > : > : Kind regards,
> : > : > : Sue...
> : > : > :
> : > : > : > :
> : > : > : > : When one charge moves relative to another charge, the
> : > : > : > : Lorentz force acts to displace them 90 degrees to the
> : > : > : > : relative motion, whether they are spinning, orbiting or
> : > : > : > : moving on parallel paths.
> : > : > : > :
> : > : > : > : If you agree with all of that then we can proceed with
> : > : > : > : what the discussion of what space isn't made of.
> : > : > : > :
> : > : > : > : Kind regards,
> : > : > : > : Sue...
> : > : > : > :
> : > : > : > : [spinning logic snip]
> : > : > : > :
> : > : > : > :
> : > : > : >
> : > : > : >
> : > : > :
> : > : > :
> : > : > :
> : > : >
> : > : >
> : > :
> : > :
> : >
> : >
> :
> :
>
>
- Next message: Bill Hobba: "Re: The Nature of Mathematics - a plea for help"
- Previous message: TomGee: "Re: Explaining Time Dilation"
- In reply to: Androcles: "Re: Detecting Space-Time"
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: Detecting Space-Time"
- Reply: Androcles: "Re: Detecting Space-Time"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
