Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #596638 > unrolled thread

3 Hydrogen gas variants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  3 Hydrogen gas variants Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 17:49 -0700
    Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-12 01:18 +0000
      Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 18:40 -0700
    Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 08:14 +0200
      Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 08:28 +0200
        Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 07:26 -0700
          Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 17:38 +0200
            Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 09:21 -0700
              Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 19:01 +0200
                Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 10:17 -0700
                  Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 19:19 +0200
                  Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 19:24 +0200
                    Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 10:50 -0700
                      Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 20:00 +0200
                      Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-12 18:29 +0000
                  Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 15:10 -0500
                    Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-09-13 09:07 +0200
                      Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 09:22 +0200
                        Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 09:25 +0200
                        Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-09-13 10:37 +0200
                          Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 18:27 +0200
                            Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-09-13 18:56 +0200
                              Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 21:03 +0200
                                Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-09-13 23:49 +0200
                                  Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 07:16 +0200
                                    Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 09:15 +0200
                                    Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-09-19 12:10 +0200
                                      Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 12:13 -0700
                                      Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 09:06 +0200
                                  Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 07:33 +0200
                                    Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 07:35 +0200
                                    Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-09-19 12:23 +0200
                                      Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-19 08:05 -0700
                                        Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-09-19 18:41 +0200
                                          Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-21 21:47 -0700
                                      Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 09:25 +0200
                                        Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-09-20 21:38 +0200
                                  Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 07:41 +0200
                        Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-13 14:35 +0000
                          Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 08:09 -0700
                            Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-13 15:50 +0000
                              Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 09:05 -0700
                Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 13:24 -0700
                  Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 10:59 +0200
                    Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 14:28 -0700
                      Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 07:08 +0200
                        Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 09:55 -0700
                          Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 19:12 +0200
                            Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 10:18 -0700
                              Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 19:29 +0200
                                Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 18:31 -0700
              Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-12 18:05 +0000
          Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 18:41 -0700
      Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-12 17:59 +0000
        Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 20:15 +0200
          Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-12 21:15 +0000
      Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 20:41 -0700
        Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 07:34 +0200
          Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 07:46 +0200
        Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 07:53 +0200
        Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 07:57 +0200
          Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 08:35 +0200
    Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-17 11:07 -0700
      Re: 3 Hydrogen gas variants Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 21:55 +0200

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#596817

On 09/13/2016 10:37 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Poutnik wrote:
>
>> Dne 13/09/2016 v 09:07 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 9/12/2016 12:17 PM, john wrote:
>>>>> No.
>>>>> Electrons can't change whether
>>>>> they slot in as "up" or "down".
>>>> Yes, they can. If an electron is kicked out from the "up" position, then
>>>> the "down" electron that remains can get into the "up" position. Happens
>>>> all the time.
>>> Cite evidence.
>>>
>>> ISTM that you have not read John’s statement (no matter the false premise
>>> it is based on) carefully enough.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_paramagnetic_resonance
>
> Where exactly in that Wikipedia article do you see "john"’s statement
> refuted or "Odd Bodkin"’s statement confirmed?
>

The second sentence and also 1.1 chapter.

See also the singlet(excited form)-->triplet(base form)
transition of the oxygen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singlet_oxygen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596823

Poutnik wrote:

> On 09/13/2016 10:37 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Poutnik wrote:
>>> Dne 13/09/2016 v 09:07 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> On 9/12/2016 12:17 PM, john wrote:
>>>>>> No.
>>>>>> Electrons can't change whether
>>>>>> they slot in as "up" or "down".
>>>>> Yes, they can. If an electron is kicked out from the "up" position,
>>>>> then the "down" electron that remains can get into the "up" position.
>>>>> Happens all the time.
>>>> Cite evidence.
>>>>
>>>> ISTM that you have not read John’s statement (no matter the false
>>>> premise it is based on) carefully enough.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_paramagnetic_resonance
>>
>> Where exactly in that Wikipedia article do you see "john"’s statement
>> refuted or "Odd Bodkin"’s statement confirmed?
> 
> The second sentence and also 1.1 chapter.

The second sentence of the article is:

| The basic concepts of EPR are analogous to those of nuclear magnetic 
| resonance (NMR), but it is electron spins that are excited instead of the 
| spins of atomic nuclei.

_Section_ 1.1, “Origin of an EPR signal”, talks about an electron’s spin 
"changing" *when interacting with an external magnetic field* (which I 
already knew, see the newsgroup’s records):

| Every electron has a magnetic moment and spin quantum number s=½, with
| magnetic components mₛ=+½ and mₛ=−½. In the presence of an external
| magnetic field with strength B₀, the electron's magnetic moment aligns
| itself either parallel (mₛ=−½) or antiparallel (mₛ=+½) to the field,
| each alignment having a specific energy due to the Zeeman effect:
| […]

Where, do you think, did "john" say anything that contradicts either?
Where, do you think, did "Odd Bodkin" say anything that is confirmed
by either?

> See also the singlet(excited form)-->triplet(base form)
> transition of the oxygen
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singlet_oxygen

In what way is that relevant to this discussion?

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596830

Dne 13/09/2016 v 18:56 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
> Poutnik wrote:

> 
> The second sentence of the article is:
> 
> | The basic concepts of EPR are analogous to those of nuclear magnetic 
> | resonance (NMR), but it is electron <<<spins that are excited>>> instead of the 
> | spins of atomic nuclei.
> 
> _Section_ 1.1, “Origin of an EPR signal”, talks about an electron’s spin 
> "changing" *when interacting with an external magnetic field* (which I 
> already knew, see the newsgroup’s records):

It need not to be external fields, but fileds of the atom itself.
> 
> Where, do you think, did "john" say anything that contradicts either?
> Where, do you think, did "Odd Bodkin" say anything that is confirmed
> by either?

John said the electrons cannot change their spins
and are of 2 kinds, like a blue and a red car.
Odd Bodkin said it is not true.

You should not need more...
> 
>> See also the singlet(excited form)-->triplet(base form)
>> transition of the oxygen
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singlet_oxygen
> 
> In what way is that relevant to this discussion?

Well, it is clear to a chemist....

Unpaired fermions like electrons ( the above EPR )
and some atomic kernels  ( See caesium clocks and NMR )
can absorb or emit photons and change their orbital or spin angular
momentum, as photons have spin 1.

As they have a magnetic dipole as well, different orientation
means different energy levels in external fields,
or even the own atomic fields

E.g. orbital - spin electron interactions case fine spectrum structures,
and electron kernel intractions cause hyperfine structures.
( Used in the caesium clocks. )

The rest is put as a homework.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596859

Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 13/09/2016 v 18:56 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> Poutnik wrote:
>> The second sentence of the article is:
>> 
>> | The basic concepts of EPR are analogous to those of nuclear magnetic
>> | resonance (NMR), but it is electron <<<spins that are excited>>>
>> | instead of the spins of atomic nuclei.
>> 
>> _Section_ 1.1, “Origin of an EPR signal”, talks about an electron’s spin
>> "changing" *when interacting with an external magnetic field* (which I
>> already knew, see the newsgroup’s records):
> 
> It need not to be external fields, but fileds of the atom itself.
>> 
>> Where, do you think, did "john" say anything that contradicts either?
>> Where, do you think, did "Odd Bodkin" say anything that is confirmed
>> by either?
> 
> John said the electrons cannot change their spins

Not in the posting that I read.  He said:

| Electrons can't change whether they slot in as "up" or "down".

And *that* is *true*.  (An electromagnetic interaction, IOW photons, 
has/have to be involved in order to change an electron’s spin.)

> and are of 2 kinds, like a blue and a red car.

Not in the posting that I read.

> Odd Bodkin said it is not true.

Not in the posting that I read.  He said:

| Yes, [electrons can ‘change whether they slot in as “up” or “down”’].

AFAIK, this is is wrong.  Spin is an intrinsic property of electrons; it 
does not change spontaneously (without interaction).

He also said:

| If an electron is kicked out from the "up" position, then the "down"
| electron that remains can get into the "up" position. Happens all the
| time.

I asked for evidence of that.  None has been provided by anyone so far.

Either you have read very different postings than me, or, more likely, you 
have not read the actual postings carefully enough, if at all.  Your self-
presumed, but actually provably absent, ability to understand English well 
enough may have contributed to that.
 
> You should not need more...

Correct; I now know that you, too, cannot have read carefully what you are 
commenting on here.
 
>>> See also the singlet(excited form)-->triplet(base form)
>>> transition of the oxygen
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singlet_oxygen
>> 
>> In what way is that relevant to this discussion?
> 
> Well, it is clear to a chemist....

Then, as we are in sci.*physics*, you should enlighten us.
 
> Unpaired fermions like electrons ( the above EPR )
> and some atomic kernels  ( See caesium clocks and NMR )
> can absorb or emit photons and change their orbital or spin angular
> momentum, as photons have spin 1.

Yes, and (AISB) that was not debated.  Your fallacy and "Odd"’s is a straw 
man argument: arguing against something that was not claimed.  Probably 
supported by superficial reading.
 
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596902

Dne 13/09/2016 v 23:49 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
> Poutnik wrote:

>>
>> John said the electrons cannot change their spins
> 
> Not in the posting that I read.  He said:
> 
> | Electrons can't change whether they slot in as "up" or "down".
> 
> And *that* is *true*.  (An electromagnetic interaction, IOW photons, 
> has/have to be involved in order to change an electron’s spin.)

Hmm, show me where is written the change is supposed
to be spontaneous without any interaction.

It is obvious due angular momentum conservation
that an interaction must be involved.

> 
>> and are of 2 kinds, like a blue and a red car.
> 
> Not in the posting that I read.

Now you have not read the postings carefully.


-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596913

Dne 14/09/2016 v 07:16 Poutnik napsal(a):
> Dne 13/09/2016 v 23:49 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> Poutnik wrote:
> 
>>>
>>> John said the electrons cannot change their spins
>>
>> Not in the posting that I read.  He said:
>>
>> | Electrons can't change whether they slot in as "up" or "down".
>>
>> And *that* is *true*.  (An electromagnetic interaction, IOW photons, 
>> has/have to be involved in order to change an electron’s spin.)
> 
> Hmm, show me where is written the change is supposed
> to be spontaneous without any interaction.
> 
> It is obvious due angular momentum conservation
> that an interaction must be involved.
> 
>>
>>> and are of 2 kinds, like a blue and a red car.
>>
>> Not in the posting that I read.
> 
> Now you have not read the postings carefully.
> 
> 
On 09/12/2016 04:26 PM, john wrote:
> There are TWO different electrons-
> the "up" and the "down",

Rather 2 electrons with different spin angular momenta.

Different electrons would imply their nature is different.


On 09/12/2016 06:21 PM, john wrote:
> The difference is permanent.
> Is a red car different from a blue car?
> Yes.

In case of electrons, it is not permanent.

There is rule their quantum numbers must not be the same,
but is does not mean their quantum numbers are constant.
.......


-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597515

Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 13/09/2016 v 23:49 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> Poutnik wrote:
>>> John said the electrons cannot change their spins
>> 
>> Not in the posting that I read.  He said:
>> 
>> | Electrons can't change whether they slot in as "up" or "down".
>> 
>> And *that* is *true*.  (An electromagnetic interaction, IOW photons,
>> has/have to be involved in order to change an electron’s spin.)
> 
> Hmm, show me where is written the change is supposed
> to be spontaneous without any interaction.

That follows from the *actual* wording.  Learn English.
 
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597574

waves of light have polarization,
that is minimally 3-dimensional,
not just planar (circular etc.

> >> And *that* is *true*.  (An electromagnetic interaction, IOW photons,
> >> has/have to be involved in order to change an electron’s spin.)
> > 
> > Hmm, show me where is written the change is supposed
> > to be spontaneous without any interaction.
> 
> That follows from the *actual* wording.  Learn English.
>  
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597663

On 09/19/2016 12:10 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Poutnik wrote:
>
>> Dne 13/09/2016 v 23:49 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>>> Poutnik wrote:
>>>> John said the electrons cannot change their spins
>>>
>>> Not in the posting that I read.  He said:
>>>
>>> | Electrons can't change whether they slot in as "up" or "down".
>>>
>>> And *that* is *true*.  (An electromagnetic interaction, IOW photons,
>>> has/have to be involved in order to change an electron’s spin.)
>>
>> Hmm, show me where is written the change is supposed
>> to be spontaneous without any interaction.
>
> That follows from the *actual* wording.  Learn English.
>

Your abuse of English is worse than my misuse of it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596908

Dne 13/09/2016 v 23:49 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):

> 
> He also said:
> 
> | If an electron is kicked out from the "up" position, then the "down"
> | electron that remains can get into the "up" position. Happens all the
> | time.
> 
> I asked for evidence of that.  None has been provided by anyone so far.

"cannot get into" say nothing about spontaneity without interaction.
EPR spectroscopy is based on such spin flipping.
You just refuse to read.
--------------------------

New light shed on electron spin flips

Researchers from Berlin Joint EPR Lab at Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin (HZB)
and University of Washington (UW) derived a new set of equations that
allows for calculating electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) transition
probabilities with arbitrary alignment and polarization of the exciting
electromagnetic radiation. The validity of the equations could be
demonstrated with a newly designed THz-EPR experiment at HZB’s storage
ring BESSY II. This progress is relevant for a broad community of EPR
users and is published in Physical Review Letters on January 6. 2015
(DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.010801).

https://www.helmholtz-berlin.de/pubbin/news_seite?nid=14114&sprache=en&typoid=49880



-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596909

Dne 14/09/2016 v 07:33 Poutnik napsal(a):
> Dne 13/09/2016 v 23:49 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
> 
>>
>> He also said:
>>
>> | If an electron is kicked out from the "up" position, then the "down"
>> | electron that remains can get into the "up" position. Happens all the
>> | time.
>>
>> I asked for evidence of that.  None has been provided by anyone so far.
> 
> "cannot get into" say nothing about spontaneity without interaction.

Errata: "can get into"


-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597517

Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 13/09/2016 v 23:49 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> He also said:
>> 
>> | If an electron is kicked out from the "up" position, then the "down"
>> | electron that remains can get into the "up" position. Happens all the
>> | time.
>> 
>> I asked for evidence of that.  None has been provided by anyone so far.
> 
> "cannot get into" say nothing about spontaneity without interaction.

Learn English.

> EPR spectroscopy is based on such spin flipping.

An electron changes spin *spontaneously* from −½ℏ (“down”) to +½ℏ (“up”) 
because its partner in the same orbital was “kicked out from the ‘up’ 
position”?  And that happens “all the time”?

Because *that* is what "Odd Bodkin" claimed.

> You just refuse to read.

No, the *actual* problem appears to be that I *can* read, write and 
*understand* *English* *properly*, while you cannot.

> --------------------------
> 
> New light shed on electron spin flips
> 
> Researchers from Berlin Joint EPR Lab at Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin (HZB)
> and University of Washington (UW) derived a new set of equations that
> allows for calculating electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) transition
> probabilities with arbitrary alignment and polarization of the exciting
> electromagnetic radiation. The validity of the equations could be
> demonstrated with a newly designed THz-EPR experiment at HZB’s storage
> ring BESSY II. This progress is relevant for a broad community of EPR
> users and is published in Physical Review Letters on January 6. 2015
> (DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.010801).
> 
> https://www.helmholtz-berlin.de/pubbin/news_seite?nid=14114&sprache=en&typoid=49880

The key words here are “the exciting electromagnetic radiation”.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597539

On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 6:23:33 AM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Poutnik wrote:
> 
> > Dne 13/09/2016 v 23:49 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
> >> He also said:
> >> 
> >> | If an electron is kicked out from the "up" position, then the "down"
> >> | electron that remains can get into the "up" position. Happens all the
> >> | time.
> >> 
> >> I asked for evidence of that.  None has been provided by anyone so far.
> > 
> > "cannot get into" say nothing about spontaneity without interaction.
> 
> Learn English.
> 
> > EPR spectroscopy is based on such spin flipping.
> 

Well what do you know; a real discussion on usenet. Congratulations.
Seems it's been years since I've bumped into a real conversation with actual content and thinking here. Perhaps the gov is letting up on us.

As I see it some of the links of the OP are concerned with nuclear spins. Electron spins coupled with nuclear spins poses some even greater difficulties I would think. Here we are with the simplest atom in physics that is supposedly fully theoretically developed and we can enter quagmire after quagmire. Hurrah for modern physics and the indefatigable perfection of quantum theory. 

Fact is they can't even produce an electron beam of pure spin up or spin down electrons. Best figure last I looked was 85%. And they want to build computers with this stuff? It's not going to work; that is my own prediction. What will the consequences be? Well, here you are studying one of the most fundamental accessible parts of nature, and it may well be that there are consequences. Even practical ones, such as the upper limit of efficiency of hydrogen production. Keep going guys. So glad you find electromagnetic radiation to be so exciting!
 
> An electron changes spin *spontaneously* from −½ℏ (“down”) to +½ℏ (“up”) 
> because its partner in the same orbital was “kicked out from the ‘up’ 
> position”?  And that happens “all the time”?
> 
> Because *that* is what "Odd Bodkin" claimed.
> 
> > You just refuse to read.
> 
> No, the *actual* problem appears to be that I *can* read, write and 
> *understand* *English* *properly*, while you cannot.
> 
> > --------------------------
> > 
> > New light shed on electron spin flips
> > 
> > Researchers from Berlin Joint EPR Lab at Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin (HZB)
> > and University of Washington (UW) derived a new set of equations that
> > allows for calculating electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) transition
> > probabilities with arbitrary alignment and polarization of the exciting
> > electromagnetic radiation. The validity of the equations could be
> > demonstrated with a newly designed THz-EPR experiment at HZB’s storage
> > ring BESSY II. This progress is relevant for a broad community of EPR
> > users and is published in Physical Review Letters on January 6. 2015
> > (DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.010801).
> > 
> > https://www.helmholtz-berlin.de/pubbin/news_seite?nid=14114&sprache=en&typoid=49880
> 
> The key words here are “the exciting electromagnetic radiation”.
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597549

Tim BandTech.com wrote:

> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Poutnik wrote:
>> > Dne 13/09/2016 v 23:49 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> >> He also said:
>> >> | If an electron is kicked out from the "up" position, then the "down"
>> >> | electron that remains can get into the "up" position. Happens all
>> >> | the time.
>> >> 
>> >> I asked for evidence of that.  None has been provided by anyone so
>> >> far.
>> > 
>> > "cannot get into" say nothing about spontaneity without interaction.
>> 
>> Learn English.
>> 
>> > EPR spectroscopy is based on such spin flipping.
> 
> Well what do you know; a real discussion on usenet. Congratulations.

Thank you.  Unfortunately, you have overlooked/snipped the important parts.

> Seems it's been years since I've bumped into a real conversation with
> actual content and thinking here. Perhaps the gov is letting up on us.

Perhaps you are smoking the wrong stuff.
 
> As I see it some of the links of the OP are concerned with nuclear spins.

Which “links of the OP”?

> Electron spins coupled with nuclear spins poses some even greater
> difficulties I would think.

Which “difficulties” and why?

> […]
> Fact is they can't even produce an electron beam of pure spin up or spin
> down electrons.

Of course not.

> Best figure last I looked was 85%.

85 % of what?  Cite evidence.

> And they want to build computers with this stuff?

Among other approaches, electron spin is used for realizing qubits in 
*quantum* computers.

> It's not going to work;

You are not remotely in a position to tell.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing>

> that is my own prediction.

Which is therefore worthless.

> What will the consequences be?

Proper English would be “What will be the consequences?”.

> Well, here you are studying one of the most fundamental accessible parts 
> of nature,

So you have no idea what “accessible” means, too.

> and it may well be that there are consequences.  Even practical ones, such
> as the upper limit of efficiency of hydrogen production.

Crackpot’s FUD.

> Keep going guys. So glad you find electromagnetic radiation to be so
> exciting!

“Exciting” there does not have anything to do with us being excited about 
the subject, but with (the photons of) electromagnetic radiation that 
give(s) off their/its energy to electrons, thereby reversing the direction 
of the spins of electrons (as photons are spin-1 particles and total angular 
momentum in an interaction must be conserved), and bringing the latter into 
an excited energy state (with an energy higher than their ground state).  
[*This* happens all the time, indeed.]

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excited_state>

Please get yourself a minimum clue or keep your big Googlodyte mouth shut; 
the S/N here is low enough already.  TIA.
  
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597896

On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 12:41:46 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Tim BandTech.com wrote:
> 
> > […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> Poutnik wrote:
> >> > Dne 13/09/2016 v 23:49 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
> >> >> He also said:
> >> >> | If an electron is kicked out from the "up" position, then the "down"
> >> >> | electron that remains can get into the "up" position. Happens all
> >> >> | the time.
> >> >> 
> >> >> I asked for evidence of that.  None has been provided by anyone so
> >> >> far.
> >> > 
> >> > "cannot get into" say nothing about spontaneity without interaction.
> >> 
> >> Learn English.
> >> 
> >> > EPR spectroscopy is based on such spin flipping.
> > 
> > Well what do you know; a real discussion on usenet. Congratulations.
> 
> Thank you.  Unfortunately, you have overlooked/snipped the important parts.
> 
> > Seems it's been years since I've bumped into a real conversation with
> > actual content and thinking here. Perhaps the gov is letting up on us.
> 
> Perhaps you are smoking the wrong stuff.
>  
> > As I see it some of the links of the OP are concerned with nuclear spins.
> 
> Which “links of the OP”?
> 
> > Electron spins coupled with nuclear spins poses some even greater
> > difficulties I would think.
> 
> Which “difficulties” and why?
> 
> > […]
> > Fact is they can't even produce an electron beam of pure spin up or spin
> > down electrons.
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> > Best figure last I looked was 85%.
> 
> 85 % of what?  Cite evidence.
that's the spin purity of the beam. Here is a recent link citing a 90% pure beam "By carefully controlling the strain that builds up in these layers, they could increase the purity of electrons emitted with the correct spin polarization to as high as 90%." - http://www.aip.nagoya-u.ac.jp/en/public/nu_research/highlights/detail/0000873.html

This is supposedly a discrete property of electrons which according to college physics is readily separated via Stern-Gerlach type apparatus with a inhomogeneous magnetic field, but the fact is that it doesn't work that well. Going back to the SG experiment you'll find that they arbitrarily varied the aperture to make the blur go away to support the discrete spin claim. Fine structure spectroscopy does not do much better; they are caught with a continuum graph rather two vertical fine bars.

What I am saying is that electron spin is not a discrete effect; it is a continuous one, and for this reason the quantum computer that relies upon the assumption of discrete electron spin is doomed. We'll see. 

I find your insults insulting. Thank you very much for upholding usenetiquette. That the electron has a magnetic moment I find believable. In effect this is the ultimate Maxwellian feature which denies the purity of Maxwell's equations, for they dictate that magnetism is caused by a moving raw charge, and so it is that electron spin gets its name. The snake eating its tail in physics. How much of modern physics is science fiction? You know Newton tried to decode his bible using numerology? You know Godel died of starvation worrying that his food could be poisoned? You think you are any better than these? I'm sorry, but getting to the truth is a much larger struggle, and the vast accumulation of modern physics is bound to riddled with mistruth. I have sufficient reason to criticize the assumption of discrete electron spin. There is far too little skepticism and academia insists on mimicry as the basis for its being, particularly in this field. There is no room for skepticism if you are a straight A, and that seems to be you; the snake eating its own shit.

> 
> > And they want to build computers with this stuff?
> 
> Among other approaches, electron spin is used for realizing qubits in 
> *quantum* computers.
> 
> > It's not going to work;
> 
> You are not remotely in a position to tell.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing>
> 
> > that is my own prediction.
> 
> Which is therefore worthless.
> 
> > What will the consequences be?
> 
> Proper English would be “What will be the consequences?”.
> 
> > Well, here you are studying one of the most fundamental accessible parts 
> > of nature,
> 
> So you have no idea what “accessible” means, too.
> 
> > and it may well be that there are consequences.  Even practical ones, such
> > as the upper limit of efficiency of hydrogen production.
> 
> Crackpot’s FUD.
> 
> > Keep going guys. So glad you find electromagnetic radiation to be so
> > exciting!
> 
> “Exciting” there does not have anything to do with us being excited about 
> the subject, but with (the photons of) electromagnetic radiation that 
> give(s) off their/its energy to electrons, thereby reversing the direction 
> of the spins of electrons (as photons are spin-1 particles and total angular 
> momentum in an interaction must be conserved), and bringing the latter into 
> an excited energy state (with an energy higher than their ground state).  
> [*This* happens all the time, indeed.]
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excited_state>
> 
> Please get yourself a minimum clue or keep your big Googlodyte mouth shut; 
> the S/N here is low enough already.  TIA.
>   
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597667

On 09/19/2016 12:23 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Poutnik wrote:
>>
>> "cannot get into" say nothing about spontaneity without interaction.
>
> Learn English.
>
>> EPR spectroscopy is based on such spin flipping.
>
> An electron changes spin *spontaneously* from −½ℏ (“down”) to +½ℏ (“up”)
> because its partner in the same orbital was “kicked out from the ‘up’
> position”?  And that happens “all the time”?
>
> Because *that* is what "Odd Bodkin" claimed.
>
>> You just refuse to read.
>
> No, the *actual* problem appears to be that I *can* read, write and
> *understand* *English* *properly*, while you cannot.
>
>> --------------------------
>>
>> New light shed on electron spin flips
>>
>> Researchers from Berlin Joint EPR Lab at Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin (HZB)
>> and University of Washington (UW) derived a new set of equations that
>> allows for calculating electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) transition
>> probabilities with arbitrary alignment and polarization of the exciting
>> electromagnetic radiation. The validity of the equations could be
>> demonstrated with a newly designed THz-EPR experiment at HZB’s storage
>> ring BESSY II. This progress is relevant for a broad community of EPR
>> users and is published in Physical Review Letters on January 6. 2015
>> (DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.010801).
>>
>> https://www.helmholtz-berlin.de/pubbin/news_seite?nid=14114&sprache=en&typoid=49880
>
> The key words here are “the exciting electromagnetic radiation”.
>

I am not playing your obsessive superiority games, Thomas.

It is fine you abandoned the John's point of view
of the spin to be a permanent electron attribute
like the colour of a car.

The spin up and down marking is just a convention,
with meaning of the opposite projections of spin angular momenta.

Every spectroscopy since roentgen crystalography
to VHF NMR organic structure analysis, is based on energy transision.

This transition can be radiative or non radiative.

Depending on the external field,
or even internal one for paramagnetic cases,
the opposite fermion spins have different energies,
with Boltzmann distribution.

Transitions to upper energy level and different angular momentum
are stimulated by photon
or intermolecular energy / angular momentum transfer

Similarly, transitions to lower energy level and different angular momentum
is stimulated *or* spontaneous
with photon emission
or intermolecular energy / angular momentum transfer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597728

Poutnik wrote:

> On 09/19/2016 12:23 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Poutnik wrote:
>>> --------------------------
>>>
>>> New light shed on electron spin flips
>>>
>>> Researchers from Berlin Joint EPR Lab at Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin (HZB)
>>> and University of Washington (UW) derived a new set of equations that
>>> allows for calculating electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) transition
>>> probabilities with arbitrary alignment and polarization of the exciting
>>> electromagnetic radiation. The validity of the equations could be
>>> demonstrated with a newly designed THz-EPR experiment at HZB’s storage
>>> ring BESSY II. This progress is relevant for a broad community of EPR
>>> users and is published in Physical Review Letters on January 6. 2015
>>> (DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.010801).
>>>
>>> https://www.helmholtz-berlin.de/pubbin/news_seite?nid=14114&sprache=en&typoid=49880
>>
>> The key words here are “the exciting electromagnetic radiation”.
> 
> I am not playing your obsessive superiority games, Thomas.

/Ad hominem/.  What you are actually saying with this is that you do not 
care to provide arguments in favor or your interpretation.  Fair enough.
I am not playing *your* game.
 
> It is fine you abandoned the John's point of view
> of the spin to be a permanent electron attribute

I had never assumed it in the first place.  If you care to improve your 
English and care to *read*, I have written here about electron–photon 
interaction reversing an electron’s spin long before "john" started this 
thread, several times.

> like the colour of a car.

Your analogy is flawed, too, because the color of a car can change.

> [tl;dr]
 
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596910

Dne 13/09/2016 v 23:49 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
> Poutnik wrote:

>  
>>>> See also the singlet(excited form)-->triplet(base form)
>>>> transition of the oxygen
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singlet_oxygen
>>>
>>> In what way is that relevant to this discussion?
>>
>> Well, it is clear to a chemist....
> 
> Then, as we are in sci.*physics*, you should enlighten us.
>  
As the spin is more about physics, I should not..

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596805

Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> writes:

>Dne 13/09/2016 v 09:07 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> 
>>> On 9/12/2016 12:17 PM, john wrote:
>>>> No.
>>>> Electrons can't change whether
>>>> they slot in as "up" or "down".
>>>
>>> Yes, they can. If an electron is kicked out from the "up" position, then
>>> the "down" electron that remains can get into the "up" position. Happens
>>> all the time.
>> 
>> Cite evidence.
>> 
>> ISTM that you have not read John's statement (no matter the false premise it 
>> is based on) carefully enough.
>> 
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_paramagnetic_resonance

There is also the 21 cm microwave frequency from hydrogen, caused by when the
electron flips from spin parallel to that of the proton to antiparallel.
This is very useful in radio astronomy as the broadness and Doppler shift of
this line can reveal the temperature and movement of hydrogen clouds in space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_line

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596806

And tell me, again, how you know
this is the same electron?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web