Grand Unified Theory

[Mike C]

Craig

 

I do not consider the mass/energy formula as valid as I have explained previously on another thread.

 

The photons created in the SUN and stars result from ELECTRON TRANSITIONS and there is NO matter involved in these creations.

These are strictly forces at work here.

 

NS

[InfiniteNow]

The photons created in the SUN and stars result from ELECTRON TRANSITIONS and there is NO matter involved in these creations.

These are strictly forces at work here.

 

Sir, how do you define matter?

 

An electron has mass ([math]9.10938188 \times 10^{-31} kg[/math] ), so how is it anything but matter?

[Erasmus00]

I do not consider the mass/energy formula as valid as I have explained previously on another thread.

 

Electons and positrons colliding and producing photons has been directly observed. You have a lot of theories that involve ignoring mountains of empirical evidence.

-Will

[Erasmus00]

I said these protons have 'very' high spin rates in these central regions of the stars to create 'very' powerful magnetic binding to enhance the electrons attraction between the two protons, IMHO.

 

Except that conservation of angular momentum would then dictate that when they split apart again they must still have high spin rates- this is not observed in fission processes.

 

Also, protons and electrons are spin 1/2 particles. The highest intrinsic angular momentum they can have is hbar/2. Hence, you would more correctly refer to orbital angular momentum instead of spin rate.

 

Naturally, the electron and one proton comprise the neutron in the deuteron.

It is a known fact that the neutron decays into a proton and electron when isolated from the other proton.

 

Your right, a neutron will decay into a proton and electron. However, we know from deep inelastic scattering experiments on neutrons that neutrons are NOT made up of a proton and an electron. Deep inelastic scattering clearly shows the neutron is best described by the quark model.

 

The 'nuclear magneton' you mention above is in a hydrogen atom and has no comparison to the protons in the central regions of the stars.

 

As mentioned above, both protons and electrons have a fixed total spin. This means there intrinsic magnetic moment is fixed in magnitde.

-Will

[Mike C]

Sir, how do you define matter?

 

An electron has mass ([math]9.10938188 \times 10^{-31} kg[/math] ), so how is it anything but matter?

 

Matter is 'substance'. Forces are defined as 'charges' and are intrinsic to matter.

The electric component is a 'fixed' value while the magnetic component is variable relative to the electrons velocity.

Because of this variable nature of the magnetic component, there are the different 'energy levels' of these photons. So all photons are 'not' equal except possibly at 'c'.

 

This is 'basic' physics as I understant it.

 

NS

[Mike C]

Electons and positrons colliding and producing photons has been directly observed. You have a lot of theories that involve ignoring mountains of empirical evidence.

-Will

 

You call that 'mountains' of evidence as compared to the stars emmissions?

 

NS

[Mike C]

Except that conservation of angular momentum would then dictate that when they split apart again they must still have high spin rates- this is not observed in fission processes.

 

Also, protons and electrons are spin 1/2 particles. The highest intrinsic angular momentum they can have is hbar/2. Hence, you would more correctly refer to orbital angular momentum instead of spin rate.

 

Your right, a neutron will decay into a proton and electron. However, we know from deep inelastic scattering experiments on neutrons that neutrons are NOT made up of a proton and an electron. Deep inelastic scattering clearly shows the neutron is best described by the quark model.

 

 

As mentioned above, both protons and electrons have a fixed total spin. This means there intrinsic magnetic moment is fixed in magnitde.

-Will

 

Will get back to tou tomorrow

 

NS

[CraigD]

Electons and positrons colliding and producing photons has been directly observed. You have a lot of theories that involve ignoring mountains of empirical evidence.

-Will

You call that 'mountains' of evidence as compared to the stars emmissions?

I would call it that, yes. If not truly a “mountain”, paper records and printouts of electronic records of all the data gathered from antiparticle colliers over roughly the past 75 years are certainly enough to build a small hill. Optical, radio, and other astronomy, being much older and more cost-efficient disciplines, could, I’m confident, produce paper enough for a good bit bigger hill.

 

Seriously, what New Science seems to be arguing is that a “grand unified” physical theory can ignore contradicting data – because there is less of it, because it is obtained from artificial rather than “natural” sources, because the phenomena it measures is less common than others, or simply because it’s hard to explain. This is, IMHO, profoundly antithical to the scientific method. Choosing to ignore data that does not agree with a preconceived theory is more characteristic of “acts of faith” in a religious context than of the process of formulating and testing hypothesis in a scientific context.

 

I find this argumentative tactic unfortunate, as one of the ideas New Science is offering – that gravity may be due to slight asymmetry in magnetic interactions favoring attraction over repulsion – is intriguing. Investigated in a more scientifically normal fashion, I think it could inspire interesting and edifying discussion. As it is being presented now, the discussion is more focused on what appear to be New Science’s strange idea of how to develop a scientific theory than the ideas underlying it.

[Mike C]

Except that conservation of angular momentum would then dictate that when they split apart again they must still have high spin rates- this is not observed in fission processes.

 

Fission of what? Neutrons or the complex isotopes like uranium?

 

My version of neutron decay is that the electron that was in line at the spin axis of the proton when coupled in a deuteron and now separated as part of a neutron, would gravitate down to the protons ecliptic spin position due the angular momentum of its mass and thus separate with the enhancement of their respective magnetic fields that were in opposition, cause the two to separate.

 

Also, protons and electrons are spin 1/2 particles. The highest intrinsic angular momentum they can have is hbar/2. Hence, you would more correctly refer to orbital angular momentum instead of spin rate.

 

The word 'spin' here does not mean 'intrinsic angular spin'.

I interpret its meaning to mean 'one reservered position' for one electron.

The word orbit refers to orbits, not intrinsic particle spins.

My opinion is that electrons do not spin while on the other hand, only protons spin and at variable rates synchroneously to the electrons orbital positions and variable velocities.

 

Your right, a neutron will decay into a proton and electron. However, we know from deep inelastic scattering experiments on neutrons that neutrons are NOT made up of a proton and an electron. Deep inelastic scattering clearly shows the neutron is best described by the quark model.

 

Quarks are NOT real particles. The quark mosdel is just a creation to justify the nuclear accelerator research. Nothing practical has come of this research.

 

As mentioned above, both protons and electrons have a fixed total spin. This means there intrinsic magnetic moment is fixed in magnitde.

-Will

 

If this were true, how do you explain the various wavelengths emitted by the hydrogen atoms?

Your statement above applies to the 'ground state' of the hydrogen atom only and electrons do not have true intrinsic spin.

 

NS

[Mike C]

I find this argumentative tactic unfortunate, as one of the ideas New Science is offering – that gravity may be due to slight asymmetry in magnetic interactions favoring attraction over repulsion – is intriguing. Investigated in a more scientifically normal fashion, I think it could inspire interesting and edifying discussion. As it is being presented now, the discussion is more focused on what appear to be New Science’s strange idea of how to develop a scientific theory than the ideas underlying it.

 

Craig

while the electric component of the EM forces are both attractive and repulsive, magnetic fields are 'bipolar'. This then allows them to 'orient' themselves to attract only.

 

This can be easily confirmed by having two bar magnets with one laying on a table and the other suspended above. The above bar magnet will position itself to be attractive to the lower bar magnet.

Another example is when a compass automatically positions itself to point north in our Earths magnetic field. The needle is a tiny magnet.

 

Thus, this is the principle in the central regions of stars where the fusion of hydrogen into helium is automatic where the protons fuse into deuterons with an electron coupling and subsequently into helium where the particles are packed in very close proximity.

 

This fusion does NOT generate the photons. The electron 'open orbital' passages by the protons generate the photons

 

These are my opinions.

 

NS

 

 

.

[Erasmus00]

Fission of what? Neutrons or the complex isotopes like uranium?

 

Either! If you were at all correct, every nuclear decay would send out particles with very high angular momentum! This is not seen.

 

The word 'spin' here does not mean 'intrinsic angular spin'.

 

I'm aware of that,(hence what I said) but that is what everyone else uses it to mean! You need to learn the vocab. of the field you wish to discuss.

 

My opinion is that electrons do not spin while on the other hand, only protons spin and at variable rates synchroneously to the electrons orbital positions and variable velocities.

 

Thats ridiculous! If the electron didn't spin, it wouldn't have a magnetic moment (which has been measured). Also, the spin is responsible for the fine structure of the hydrogen atom (since you trust hydrogen more than other atoms).

 

Quarks are NOT real particles. The quark mosdel is just a creation to justify the nuclear accelerator research. Nothing practical has come of this research.

 

As I've mentioned earlier, that claim is ridiculous. However using a particle accelerator we can look at the internal structure of a nucleus (much as we use scattered electrons to look at the structure of metal lattices). This structure implies that neutrons (as well a protons) can be more or less described as made up of 3 point masses with fractional charges. A neutron simply is NOT a proton with an electron smashed into it- we've checked.

 

 

If this were true, how do you explain the various wavelengths emitted by the hydrogen atoms?

Your statement above applies to the 'ground state' of the hydrogen atom only and electrons do not have true intrinsic spin.

 

My statement applies to all electrons regardless of their state- they have a total intrinsic angular momentum of hbar/2. They can also have various orbital angular momentums.

-Will

[Qfwfq]

Nothing practical has come of this research.

Nothing practical has come of seeing galaxies through telescopes.

Therefore galaxies don't exist.

[Mike C]

Nothing practical has come of seeing galaxies through telescopes.

Therefore galaxies don't exist.

 

The telescopic objects are 'works of art' and have a much greater variation of images in comparison to the nuclear images that are fragmented and scattered with different sizes and spins.

So, do the fragmented protons always break up into 3 components (quarks)?

 

NS

[Mike C]

My statement applies to all electrons regardless of their state- they have a total intrinsic angular momentum of hbar/2. They can also have various orbital angular momentums.

 

You shpild know by now that I do not believe in everything I read.

 

I understand that the 'physical' size of the electron and proton are the same.

 

Since their is a great difference in their densities, I consider the electron to be similar to a fluid in comparison to the proton.

So with this point of view, the electron would have a slight bulge toward the proton to prevent any 'intrinsic' spin on its axis.

 

The electron has only one magnetic component and that is its resulting field surrounding it from its orbital motion. My opinion.

 

NS

[Erasmus00]

You shpild know by now that I do not believe in everything I read.

 

This isn't necessarily the problem. The problem is that you seem to make no effort to understand something before you throw it out. The only reason I am continuing here is the off chance someone reading both of our posts decides to pick up a book and do some learning.

 

I understand that the 'physical' size of the electron and proton are the same.

 

Thats not true at all. Protons are bound states of quarks, so the point like (or at least very small) quarks are moving around within some radius. The electron is point like.

 

So with this point of view, the electron would have a slight bulge toward the proton to prevent any 'intrinsic' spin on its axis.

 

If we assume your argument is valid (which it probably isn't), it still won't give the result you like. If what you suggest is true, the electrons spin and orbit will decay until its tidally locked with the proton(hence is always showing the proton the same "face")- which means that the electron will spin once on its access for every one orbit around the proton.

 

Of course, electrons are quantum objects, so the above argument ISN'T valid.

 

The electron has only one magnetic component and that is its resulting field surrounding it from its orbital motion. My opinion.

 

Your opinion doesn't hold up to reality. The hydrogen atoms fine structure is partially due to spin-orbit coupling- the electrons intrinsic magnetic moment interacts with the orbital magnetic field and lifts degeneracies in the various M_l,S (orbital angular momentum, electron spin respectively) states of the atom. If you were right, this structure of the energy levels wouldn't exist.

-Will

[Mike C]

00;176451]This isn't necessarily the problem. The problem is that you seem to make no effort to understand something before you throw it out. The only reason I am continuing here is the off chance someone reading both of our posts decides to pick up a book and do some learning.

 

I am thorough;y knowledgeable about the BBU, the Laws of Physics, the experiments and observations. As I said before, I always cite the sources responsible for my posts.

 

Thats not true at all. Protons are bound states of quarks, so the point like (or at least very small) quarks are moving around within some radius. The electron is point like.

 

Can you answer some questions regarding these quarks?

In the particle accelerators when they smash two protons against each other, do they break up into six quarks and what happens to these liberated quarks?

 

If we assume your argument is valid (which it probably isn't), it still won't give the result you like. If what you suggest is true, the electrons spin and orbit will decay until its tidally locked with the proton(hence is always showing the proton the same "face")- which means that the electron will spin once on its access for every one orbit around the proton.

 

Of course, electrons are quantum objects, so the above argument ISN'T valid.

 

All the large satellites in our solar system are spherical (liquid centers), so they do not have an intrinsic spin because of a buldge caused by the gravity.

I used this same principle regarding the electron because of its much lower density in relation to the proton and the effect the coulomb force would have on it geometric shape.

A while back, the electron was considered to have the same size as the proton but the quark theory apparently shrank the electron to a 'point source'.

 

Can you cite any data that says the electron is a point source object?

 

Synchronous spin is NOT the same as intrinsic spin.

 

Your opinion doesn't hold up to reality. The hydrogen atoms fine structure is partially due to spin-orbit coupling- the electrons intrinsic magnetic moment interacts with the orbital magnetic field and lifts degeneracies in the various M_l,S (orbital angular momentum, electron spin respectively) states of the atom. If you were right, this structure of the energy levels wouldn't exist.

-Will

 

The hydrogen atom (HA) exists only in ONE natural state and that is the ground state (GR) where the orbital momentum (OM) of the electron and the magnetic field interactions between the two particles enhance the OM to keep it in that state indefinately to prevent collapse.

The higher energy levels of the HA is the result of 'external' boosts when a photon bumps the electron into those higher states.

Those higher energy states are not due to internal states as you say above IMHO.

 

NS

[Erasmus00]

I am thorough;y knowledgeable about the BBU, the Laws of Physics, the experiments and observations. As I said before, I always cite the sources responsible for my posts.

 

You seem to have little to no quantum physics, no quantum field theory, etc. Many of your posts are "referenced" as simply your opinion.

 

Can you answer some questions regarding these quarks?

In the particle accelerators when they smash two protons against each other, do they break up into six quarks and what happens to these liberated quarks?

 

You have to understand much to really understand the theory of the strong nuclear force. First, no accelerator smashes protons with protons (though soon the LHC will). The tevatron comes closest smashing protons with anti-protons. In such collisions, a quark and an anti-quark annhilate (and in important events usually produce a W or Z particle). The remaining quarks can either annhilate or scatter and "hadronize" which means they bind together to form larger, multi-quark bound states, much as electrons and protons in a plasma can bind to form hydrogen.

 

All the large satellites in our solar system are spherical (liquid centers), so they do not have an intrinsic spin because of a buldge caused by the gravity.

 

Easy counterexample- Earth. On top of its orbital angular momentum it spins on its axis (which is as obvious as night and day).

 

A while back, the electron was considered to have the same size as the proton but the quark theory apparently shrank the electron to a 'point source'.

 

This would have been obviously wrong much before the advent of the theory of the strong force. Rutherford scattering and extrapolation should indicate that the nucleus, and therefore the proton) is very much larger than the electron orbitting it.

 

Can you cite any data that says the electron is a point source object?

 

Feynman lecture volume 3, Landau and Lifshitz, Classical Theory of Fields. Bjorken and Drell (the whole book).

 

Also, please note that the latter shows that the electron is a point mass ON THE LENGTH SCALES WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO PROBE. String theory, for instance, posits that the electron (and all particles) have a string like structure on some small length scale we don't yet have access to.

 

The hydrogen atom (HA) exists only in ONE natural state and that is the ground state (GR) where the orbital momentum (OM) of the electron and the magnetic field interactions between the two particles enhance the OM to keep it in that state indefinately to prevent collapse.

The higher energy levels of the HA is the result of 'external' boosts when a photon bumps the electron into those higher states.

 

This seems to me a non-sequiter. Please either wiki Hydrogen Fine Structure, or look at Eisberg and Resnick's Physics of Atoms, Solids, Molecules and Nuclei. You claim to have books on atomic physics, please look in their index for spin-orbit coupling and hydrogen fine structure.

-Will