Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #580183 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-24 13:31 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-05-30 21:09 +0200 |
| Articles | 9 on this page of 129 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-05-24 13:31 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 16:19 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 16:35 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 09:49 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 11:54 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 10:08 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 12:25 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 10:25 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-25 23:30 -0400
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 12:53 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 13:13 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 16:07 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 15:20 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 20:25 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-25 23:31 -0400
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-25 23:31 -0400
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 16:06 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:39 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 12:45 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-05-26 14:56 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 15:22 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 18:15 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 13:44 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 18:14 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-05-27 14:46 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 12:58 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 16:10 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 19:06 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:23 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 08:33 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:37 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:55 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:35 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 18:03 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-26 16:10 +0000
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:29 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 15:22 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 16:42 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 22:40 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 23:12 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 00:16 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 09:25 -0500
Alfven waves are a) slow, b) medium and c) noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 13:06 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 04:24 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 08:15 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 10:39 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 09:57 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 13:26 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 09:47 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 12:16 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 11:11 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 15:04 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 18:36 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 18:46 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 20:37 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 09:49 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 19:01 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 21:08 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 20:24 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 08:22 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 09:36 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 19:11 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 10:23 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 18:03 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 18:23 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 20:16 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 06:59 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 05:47 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 07:49 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 06:08 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:47 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 10:42 -0400
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:07 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 11:27 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 10:07 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 14:25 -0400
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 12:32 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:12 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:24 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:50 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 14:21 -0400
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 09:39 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 14:20 -0400
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 10:45 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 10:18 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 10:25 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 12:44 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-03 17:55 +0000
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 13:07 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 11:17 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 13:27 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 14:45 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 16:59 -0500
que noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 15:51 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:01 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:42 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 12:59 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-26 14:13 -0400
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-28 00:46 +0200
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 18:47 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-28 08:59 +0200
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 12:49 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 13:10 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-28 16:29 -0400
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 16:57 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-28 20:09 -0400
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 15:22 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-30 17:48 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 16:28 -0500
antijohn cersus johnboy noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 15:22 -0700
Re: antijohn cersus johnboy Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-29 12:46 +0200
Re: antijohn cersus johnboy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 07:36 -0700
Re: antijohn cersus johnboy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 09:10 -0700
Re: antijohn cersus johnboy Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-30 20:21 +0200
waves in anti-\matter noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 10:34 -0700
Re: antijohn cersus johnboy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 09:20 -0500
Re: antijohn cersus johnboy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 07:58 -0700
Re: antijohn cersus johnboy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 10:45 -0500
Re: antijohn cersus johnboy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 16:04 -0700
Re: antijohn cersus johnboy moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-01 01:30 +0000
Re: antijohn cersus johnboy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 09:37 -0500
Re: antijohn cersus johnboy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 09:25 -0700
Re: antijohn cersus johnboy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 12:38 -0500
Re: antijohn cersus johnboy noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 12:00 -0700
Re: antijohn cersus johnboy Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-29 23:14 +0200
Re: antijohn cersus johnboy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 09:16 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-29 03:39 +0200
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-29 03:29 +0200
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-30 21:09 +0200
Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 09:37 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: antijohn cersus johnboy |
| Message-ID | <nimru8$10f6$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #581992 |
On 5/31/2016 6:04 PM, john wrote: > Odd said > "John, you don't have to insert positrons in atoms to get this. > You can take a collection of electrons (such as from a metal), ALL with > negative charge, and they will to into a positive ion such that some > will be spin up and some will be spin down, and none of them will change > the sign of their charge along the way. " > > 'A collection of electrons' will consist of > spin up negative electrons and spin down > negative electrons. None of them change > their spin along the way, either. > > You DO recognize the difference between > speculating on how things are structured > and discussing actually MAKING atoms? John, nature makes atoms all the time, and the structure of atoms comes from the way nature makes them. So when you make atoms, you ARE looking at the structure of atoms. > > I'm just trying to understand a structure, > that's all. Everything has one. Electrons, > especially. > > Electrons and positrons are mirrors > of each other. > In the Galaxy Model, a disc rotating at > 1 and precessing at 2, every position > on the disc mirrors its opposite. > There are 2 precessions possible. > If antimatter is, for example, a counter > clockwise precession compared to > a clockwise precession of matter, > all of its 'up' positrons will have exactly > the same pathway and spin as > what is required for a 'down' electron- > which runs OPPOSITE to the 'up' > electron. > > You need to play with this 1 spin 2 precession > model to see how electrons appear to > go around TWICE per cycle. > > Train wreck > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 09:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: antijohn cersus johnboy |
| Message-ID | <771b64a9-e80d-4b7b-b3c2-678c7428a140@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #582138 |
Odd is "Nature", now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 12:38 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: antijohn cersus johnboy |
| Message-ID | <nin6hs$1vko$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #582147 |
On 6/1/2016 11:25 AM, john wrote: > Odd is "Nature", now. > Uh, no, John. But you can find out what Nature does through experiment. You CANNOT find out what Nature does through an animation. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 12:00 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: antijohn cersus johnboy |
| Message-ID | <ac3da6ee-aa53-4561-9c2c-ab1d75725a50@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #581444 |
Thomas gives what I thought, but that is just how the quantum numbers were created, as integral units of ordinary spinning in ordinary orbits ... as johnboy sort-of asserts it, belowsville > The FIRST contains the electron, making > it up or down. > The SECOND defines the disc, wherein the > electron is placed in the up or down position. > The THIRD, which precesses the disc > positive or negative to the second, > decides matter or antimatter. > > You are missing a spin. That is why > you confuse intrinsic electron spin > (calling it + /- interchangeably with up/down), > with antimatter/matter. > The same electron can be in matter or antimatter- > it will be 'up' in the one and 'down' in the other > because it keeps its spin. > > Do you see that, Thomas Pointed Ears?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 23:14 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: antijohn cersus johnboy |
| Message-ID | <574B5BC6.10808@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #581444 |
john wrote: > One of the Thomases in the preceding post or thread or perhaps awhile ago > (a while) said: > > "Learn to quote." That was me. You would have known if you had learned to quote already. > I haven't figured that out for this iPhone6 piece of crap. You are blaming others for your mistake? > There are THREE axes of spin to create matter/antimatter. Nonsense. There are three *components* of a spin *vector*, but, basically due to the uncertainty principle, only one component can be measured exactly at a time. Hence the *projection* of spin along a *chosen* axis, and the possibility for a particle with *absolute* *projected* spin (+)S to have *projected* spins −S and +S. Because the spin vector as such is useless, it is the absolute of the projected spin or the projected spin itself that is usually referred to as “spin”. Spin is either specified as a dimensionless quantum number or with proper units as a multiple of the reduced Planck constant, ℏ = ℎ∕2π. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)> > The FIRST contains the electron, making it up or down. The SECOND defines > the disc, wherein the electron is placed in the up or down position. The > THIRD, which precesses the disc positive or negative to the second, > decides matter or antimatter. Not even wrong. > You are missing a spin. You are missing the point. > That is why you confuse intrinsic electron spin (calling it + /- > interchangeably with up/down), with antimatter/matter. I have not said anything of the sort. In essence, I have pointed out that conservation laws in matter–antimatter pair production require the produced particle pair to consist of two particles where one particle has not only the opposite electric charge, but also the opposite spin, of the other one. > The same electron can be in matter or antimatter- No. > it will be 'up' in the one and 'down' in the other because it keeps its > spin. Not even wrong. > Do you see that, Thomas Pointed Ears? I see that you have no clue what you are talking about. You cannot even write my (nick) name correctly. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 09:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: antijohn cersus johnboy |
| Message-ID | <nik6bs$m9j$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #581444 |
On 5/29/2016 9:36 AM, john wrote: > One of the Thomases in the preceding post > or thread or perhaps awhile ago (a while) said: > > "Learn to quote." > > I haven't figured that out for this iPhone6 > piece of crap. The hardware device has nothing to do with it. What are you using to read usenet? What app? > > There are THREE axes of spin to > create matter/antimatter. > The FIRST contains the electron, making > it up or down. > The SECOND defines the disc, wherein the > electron is placed in the up or down position. > The THIRD, which precesses the disc > positive or negative to the second, > decides matter or antimatter. > > You are missing a spin. That is why > you confuse intrinsic electron spin > (calling it + /- interchangeably with up/down), > with antimatter/matter. > The same electron can be in matter or antimatter- > it will be 'up' in the one and 'down' in the other > because it keeps its spin. > > Do you see that, Thomas Pointed Ears? > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 03:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5886237.taLBOME7Jg@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #581300 |
Sam Wormley wrote: > On 5/28/16 2:49 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote: >> I can see high energy photons changing the spin of free electrons > > Free electrons and bound electron have an spin of 1/2, where spin > is the intrinsic angular momentum of particles. Spin is given in > units of h/2π = ℏ (the quantum unit of angular momentum), where > ℏ = 6.58E-25 GeV s = 1.05E-34 J s . That description is incomplete. The *absolute* of the spin of an electron is ½ (as quantum number) or ℏ∕2 (in proper units), and is a fixed quantity. But the spin *projected* along any axis can have values −½ (or −ℏ∕2) and +½ (or ℏ∕2), respectively. A photon (spin ±1 or ±ℏ) can/must change the projected spin of an electron from −½ to +½ or vice-versa when they are interacting. It is a common misconception to assume that an intrinsic property cannot change. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 03:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1593147.etap0CIDlL@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #581271 |
reber g=emc^2 wrote: > […] Nice post. Thanks. > I can see high energy photons changing the spin of free > electrons.How say you? I do not think those photons have to have high energy, i.e. high frequency. I do not think the electrons have to be free either. However, I think that if a photon with *projected* spin +ℏ or −ℏ along any axis would change the *projected* spin of an electron along that axis from −ℏ∕2 to +ℏ∕2 or vice-versa, respectively (meaning the *absolute* spin stays the same, as was pointed out), the electron were bound in an atom, and would be one of two inhabiting an orbital, then the Pauli exclusion principle says that it would have to leave that orbital. Given that the photon would give off its energy E = ℎ f to the electron, the electron would either have to advance to an orbital with higher quantum numbers or become free, i.e. leave its atom. Trim your quotes next time, please. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-30 21:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <19045244.usZ0qDajjH@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #580183 |
Double-A wrote: > If gravitational waves can escape black holes, then information can escape > black holes! Isn't that a problem? *If*. But they do _not_, so there is no problem. Instead, picture the two black holes spiraling in on each other, that caused GW150914, as a pair of black swans circling around each other near the center of a pond, and the gravitational waves of GW150914 as the ripples that are produced on the water surface by the birds’ motion. You would not say that the water ripples escaped the swans, would you? Now picture the pond to be circular with a radius of one billion light-years (short scale; the approximate distance those two black holes were away), and yourself to be an mosquito larva swimming near the banks of the pond. Then you get a good idea as to why the LIGO arms have to be that long, why building this was so expensive, and why it took months of checking and double-cecking for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration to be certain that they had detected gravitational waves. See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_observation_of_gravitational_waves> pp. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web