Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #693430 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-07-09 23:02 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-07-10 15:26 -0700 |
| Articles | 12 on this page of 52 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Spinning atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-09 23:02 -0700
Re: Spinning atoms mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-10 00:06 -0700
Re: Spinning atoms Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-07-10 11:41 +0200
Re: Spinning atoms Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-11 11:51 -0500
Re: Spinning atoms mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-11 14:12 -0700
Re: Spinning atoms Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-11 17:57 -0500
Re: Spinning atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-12 18:45 -0700
Re: Spinning atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-12 19:14 -0700
Re: Spinning atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-13 08:51 -0700
Re: Spinning atoms Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-13 11:46 -0500
Re: Spinning atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-13 10:35 -0700
Re: Spinning atoms Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-13 12:47 -0500
Re: Spinning atoms mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-13 12:57 -0700
Re: Spinning atoms Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-13 15:01 -0500
Re: Spinning atoms mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-12 18:57 -0700
Re:Spinning atoms Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-07-10 11:39 +0200
Re: Spinning atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 10:26 +0000
Re: Spinning atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 05:48 -0700
Re: Spinning atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 12:54 +0000
Re: Spinning atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 06:51 -0700
Re: Spinning atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 14:29 +0000
Re: Spinning atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 07:47 -0700
Re: Spinning atoms Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-07-10 16:53 +0200
Re: Spinning atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 14:57 +0000
Re: Spinning atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 08:01 -0700
Re: Spinning atoms Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-07-10 18:07 +0200
Re: Spinning atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 20:38 +0000
Re: Spinning atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-13 09:46 -0700
Re: Spinning atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 07:58 -0700
Re: Spinning atoms Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-07-10 17:09 +0200
Re: Spinning atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 08:30 -0700
Re: Spinning atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 20:38 +0000
Re: Spinning atoms moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-10 16:01 +0000
Re: Spinning atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 20:38 +0000
Re: Spinning atoms Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-07-11 04:31 +0200
Re: Spinning atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-11 03:39 +0000
Re: Spinning atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-11 01:08 -0700
Re: Spinning atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-11 09:39 +0000
Re: Spinning atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-11 05:58 -0700
Re: Spinning atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-11 06:19 -0700
Re: Spinning atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-11 13:31 +0000
Re: Spinning atoms Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-07-11 16:10 +0200
Re: Spinning atoms Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-11 13:29 +0000
Re: Spinning atoms moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-11 14:36 +0000
Re: Spinning atoms john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-11 08:02 -0700
Re: Spinning atoms Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-07-11 18:46 +0200
Re: Spinning atoms moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-11 14:32 +0000
Re: Spinning atoms moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-10 14:57 +0000
Re: Spinning atoms "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 13:13 -0700
Re: Spinning atoms "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-07-10 15:29 -0700
Re: Spinning atoms "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 13:16 -0700
Re: Spinning atoms "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-07-10 15:26 -0700
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-11 13:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pi50ra$1l76$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #693588 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd and Michael > > Spinning objects cannot be precessed. Yes they can. With an external torque. > However, there are special cases where: > a. The spin and precession start at the same time. > and > b. The spin and precession are in phase What circumstances are those? Not what you draw. What is the physical driver that makes that happen? Do you know? Physics is not what you can draw. > > At first, I was thinking that 1:1 and 1:2 are the start of a series, but > now I’m not so sure if they’re not the only ones. > Here’s the 1:1 > http://users.accesscomm.ca/sefton/PHOTON.GIF > See how the same side of the disc is always more advanced? Now, if one > accords gyroscopic properties to both the spins, the only way the object > can react to forces on it is to go down the line where the two spin > planes intersect when P is at maximum. Which occurs twice per cycle. See? > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-11 16:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pi535i$abp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #693588 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> Wrote in message: > Odd and Michael > > Spinning objects cannot be precessed. False. It is a solar nonsense like saying moving object cannot be accelerated. They precess regularly. The period of Earth precession is about 26000 years ( "Platon's year"). Any rotating object can precess, if a momentum of force is acting upon it. It is a rotational analogy of the 2nd Newton law for linear motion. Note that for quantum objects, the rotation axis for spin bis not defined. For a spin, only the vector magnitude and 1 of the vector component is and can be known. -- Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer) "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity." Miloš Forman ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-11 13:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pi50n0$1kut$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #693584 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “John that is simply made up and it is not so” > You don’t seem to be able to say what IS so. > > There’s some sort of spin is what you say. > Unlike any known spin you say. Unlike any spin YOU know from children’s museums. But QM spin has been well known for 75 years to those who read up on it. > > I say spin in two orthogonal planes at 1:1 for photons and 1:2 for matter. > > You say there’s no known spin like that. I say your claim not only does not have any experimental verification (which QM spin does have) but also is in conflict with conservation of angular momentum (which QM does not). You see, John, this isn’t just counter-proposing weird ideas. There’s more to science than that. > > Is that about where we are? :) > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-11 14:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pi54ld$aq6$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #693584 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >I say spin in two orthogonal planes at 1:1 for photons and 1:2 for matter. And I say you mined that from your butt. >You say there's no known spin like that. There is; it just requires an external torque. What you are saying is like claiming we say there are no such thing as accelerating objects. There are; but they all require some sort of force acting on them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-11 08:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6ddef806-08ef-4a40-a5d1-b5e4845dd0cd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #693596 |
MM “ng is like claiming we say there are no such thing as accelerating objects. There are; but they all require some sort of force acting on them” Like gravity
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-11 18:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pi5c8g$6dk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #693597 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> Wrote in message: > MM > “ng is like > claiming we say there are no such thing as accelerating objects. There are; > but they all require some sort of force acting on them” > > Like gravity No, they need external force for acceleration wrt inertial frames. For acceleration wrt noninerial frames, they need no external force. OTOH, the need external force not to accelerate wrt noninerial frames. -- Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer) "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity." Miloš Forman ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-11 14:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pi54ek$aq6$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #693567 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Well, Odd, the 'quantum' spin that's not spin but has angular momentum >actually IS spin, but a spin that apparently you and Michael deny can >exist: a combination of two spins orthogonal and in phase. 1:1 or 1:2 No, John, it's perfectly possible for spinny things to get all retarded and precess in a 1:1 or 1:2 ratio, just not without some sort of external torque applied to them. And QM spin has nothing to do with that. I repeat, QM spin is not macroscopic spin as you know it, much less involves any precession.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-10 14:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pi2hg6$psj$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #693453 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd >" >A magnetic moment is a measure of the energy needed for an external >magnetic field to flip the spin. >" >What spin? >Is there something spinning in an atom? That's quantum mechanical "spin". It is a QM effect which doesn't have a macroscopic equivalent. It is called "spin" because it has the same units of angular momentum (remember angular momentum? Something that your precessing galaxies violate conservation of?) that actual rotation does. However, it is quantized and only certain states of it can exist. That's unlike your toy top which can spin about as much or as little as you want, and in any direction. Before you put too much faith in the term "spin", don't forget that quarks come in different "colors" and "flavors"...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-10 13:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f213a85a-c861-464f-b1f9-575b034b2657@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #693445 |
On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 3:26:15 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> wrote: > > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> Wrote in message: > >> Collective spin oscillations have been spotted for the first time in an > >> ultracold atomic gas. The discovery was made by Bruno Laburthe-Tolra and > >> colleagues at the University of Paris 13. > >> > > > > Do not confuse it with spinning atoms. > > The article is > https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.013201 > > So John, what do you think the words in this article mean? I mean, do you > understand what they are saying, or is it all Greek to you? > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables spin is in 100% in both realm.More so in QM bert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-10 15:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pi3c0l$3rv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #693493 |
"reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote: "spin is insane 100% in both realms. More so since Bert was always a mental cadaver proven by Bert's daily, idiotic palaver > ==== See why in Glazier's Dossier =====
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-10 13:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <38b97532-5867-4f04-bfe5-e245474bc6ff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #693430 |
On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 11:02:16 PM UTC-7, john wrote: > Collective spin oscillations have been spotted for the first time in an ultracold atomic gas. The discovery was made by Bruno Laburthe-Tolra and colleagues at the University of Paris 13. Gravity tries to make objects spin in union and opposite directions.I'm talking coupling here.Bert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-10 15:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pi3bt2$37e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #693494 |
"reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote: "I'm talking coupling here" says Bert who was always a mental cadaver proven by Bert's daily, idiotic palaver > ==== See why in Glazier's Dossier =====
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web