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

Groups > sci.physics > #693430 > unrolled thread

Spinning atoms

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

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

#693457

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
> 

Quantum mechanical spin. Not the spin you look at in a children’s museum. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#693460

Odd
“Quantum mechanical spin. Not the spin you look at in a children’s museum. ”
No.
The kind of totally illogical idea that QM has been poisoning Science with for...how long? Too long.

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

#693462

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> Odd
> “Quantum mechanical spin. Not the spin you look at in a children’s museum. ”
> No.
> The kind of totally illogical idea that QM has been poisoning Science with for...how long? Too long.
> 
Rather, nature behaviour at atomic level is totally illogical,
 according to the logic of  classical science,
poisoning the correct nature behaviour at well known and we'll
 behaving macro world.

The QM just follows nature  to domains, where classical physics cannot.

-- 
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]

#693464

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “Quantum mechanical spin. Not the spin you look at in a children’s museum. ”
> No.

Yes

> The kind of totally illogical idea 

There is nothing illogical about it. Just because you have no idea what it
is, and just because it is not something you can animate, does not make it
illogical. 

You have this brain dead notion that anything logical would be immediately
understandable to a newbie and would be drawable. That’s just childish. 

So the long and short of it is that you cited an article about collective
spin without having any idea what it means. You just WANTED it to support
some idea you have. 

> that QM has been poisoning Science with for...how long? Too long.
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#693467

Odd
“brain dead notion that anything logical would be immediately ”
Yes.
Your theory is so full of contradictions that it is effectively ‘brain dead’.
Good call, Odd

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

#693474

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> Odd
> “brain dead notion that anything logical would be immediately ”
> Yes.
> Your theory is so full of contradictions that it is effectively ‘brain dead’.
> Good call, Odd
> 

The point is, it is not his theory  at all.

It is theory used  by physicists and chemists
to successfully model and predict behaviour of objects at
 molecular,  atomic and subatomic levels .

Currently,  medical drug candidates are often calculated by
 methods of quantum chemistry and just few percent that pass are
 synthesized for classical drug tests .

It is much faster and cheaper.

-- 
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]

#693496

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “brain dead notion that anything logical would be immediately ”
> Yes.

And you are flat wrong. Science does not work the way you want. Give it up.


> Your theory is so full of contradictions that it is effectively ‘brain dead’.
> Good call, Odd
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#693796

Odd
“you are flat wrong. Science does not work the way you want. Give it up. ”
Maybe you didn’t notice, but the most comprehensive search yet for Dark Matter just finished and found no evidence of it.
You’re the boy-oh gonna be giving something up, soon.

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

#693465

Odd
“t -
Quantum mechanical spin. Not the spin you look at in a children’s museum. 
“
If you can’t explain it- and you can’t
And you can’t model it- and you can’t
And you can’t picture it- and you can’t
It’s total bullshit.

You set yourself up with the failure to be able to understand spin when you invented ‘point particles’, for whom spin is meaningless.

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

#693469

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> Odd
> “t -
> Quantum mechanical spin. Not the spin you look at in a children’s museum. 
> “
> If you can’t explain it- and you can’t
> And you can’t model it- and you can’t
> And you can’t picture it- and you can’t
> It’s total bullshit.

No, you just wish it is.

There are  many things in the world
that many people cannot explain nor model nor picture
and nobody reasonable would say
they are a total bullshit.

> 
> You set yourself up with the failure to be able to understand spin when you invented ‘point particles’, for whom spin is meaningless.

Only in classical sense. 

Even if point particles had not been point like, with their
 maximal known size limit and given mass, they would not have
 enough kinetic energy for observed spin angular momentum.

Farthermore, photons have zero mass and still have their angular
 momentum, which is even independent on their energy
 .


-- 
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]

#693472

Libor 
“There are  many things in the world 
that many people cannot explain nor model nor picture 
and nobody reasonable would say 
they are a total bullshit. ”

 QM is bean-counting.
It provides no understanding.
We can do better.

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

#693497

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Libor 
> “There are  many things in the world 
> that many people cannot explain nor model nor picture 
> and nobody reasonable would say 
> they are a total bullshit. ”
> 
>  QM is bean-counting.
> It provides no understanding.

Of course it does. YOU don’t understand it. Other people understand it
where you don’t. 

> We can do better.

What you want by “better” is making science like a children’s museum. That
is not a good thing. 

> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#693473

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Odd
>"t -
>Quantum mechanical spin. Not the spin you look at in a children's museum.
>"
>If you can't explain it- and you can't
>And you can't model it- and you can't
>And you can't picture it- and you can't
>It's total bullshit.

No, John, science doesn't follow rules that you make up for science to 
follow. Why should it follow rules you make up?

And just because YOU can't explain it using incorrect macroscopic
concepts doesn't mean it's wrong. It means you're wrong.

The purpose of science is to figure out the rules nature actually uses
so we can model nature. Science often finds a few unexpected surprises.

>You set yourself up with the failure to be able to understand spin when you
> invented "point particles", for whom spin is meaningless.

Point particles are just one reason why trying to think of QM spin as being
little thingies rotating is wrong. It doesn't apply there. It doesn't mean 
point particles is a wrong concept, it just means thinking of QM spin as a 
rotation of a tiny ball is wrong.  Yes, macroscopic spin is meaningless,
but QM spin isn't meaningless.

Consider this: QM spin is quantized - you don't see that with macroscopic
spin. It either isn't or the amount is so small it can't be measured.
But the biggest thing is the very different behavior of things with the
quantity equal to an odd number of hbar/2 units or an even number of
hbar/2 units. Explain bosons and fermions simply by rotation of little 
balls. You can't.

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

#693495

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “t -
> Quantum mechanical spin. Not the spin you look at in a children’s museum. 
> “
> If you can’t explain it- and you can’t
> And you can’t model it- and you can’t
> And you can’t picture it- and you can’t
> It’s total bullshit.

We’ve had conversations about this before. Physics is not a children’s
museum. What you want to be so for physics just is not so. Give it up,
John. 

> 
> You set yourself up with the failure to be able to understand spin when
> you invented ‘point particles’, for whom spin is meaningless.

No it’s not meaningless. Quantum mechanical spin does not mean rotation in
a circle around an axis. It just doesn’t. Give it up. 

> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#693540

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Odd
>> “t -
>> Quantum mechanical spin. Not the spin you look at in a children’s museum. 
>> “
>> If you can’t explain it- and you can’t
>> And you can’t model it- and you can’t
>> And you can’t picture it- and you can’t
>> It’s total bullshit.
> 
> We’ve had conversations about this before. Physics is not a children’s
> museum. What you want to be so for physics just is not so. Give it up,
> John. 
> 
Once I met a guy who wanted everything in physics to have a 
 YouTube video or at least a PowerPoint presentation.



-- 
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]

#693546

Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Odd
>>> “t -
>>> Quantum mechanical spin. Not the spin you look at in a children’s museum. 
>>> “
>>> If you can’t explain it- and you can’t
>>> And you can’t model it- and you can’t
>>> And you can’t picture it- and you can’t
>>> It’s total bullshit.
>> 
>> We’ve had conversations about this before. Physics is not a children’s
>> museum. What you want to be so for physics just is not so. Give it up,
>> John. 
>> 
> Once I met a guy who wanted everything in physics to have a 
>  YouTube video or at least a PowerPoint presentation.
> 

> 

Which is a stupid demand. One that perhaps John would also want. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#693567

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

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

#693573

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> 

John that is simply made up and it is not so. Repeating the same mistake
over and over and over doesn’t make it less a mistake. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#693584

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.

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.

Is that about where we are? :)

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

#693588

Odd and Michael

Spinning objects cannot be precessed.
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

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?

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web