Big Bang Busted in Science Classes for High Schools

Painius wrote:

"Odysseus" wrote...
in message ...

It's not the spin of atoms themselves that produces magnetism, but
that of their electrons. Each element has a distinctive configuration
of electrons (which also produces the spectral lines that make its
'signature') so for each one the way the spins 'add up' or interefere
is different. The particular arrangement of electrons in such
elements as iron, cobalt, and nickel, in which the outermost ones
have unpaired spins allowing large-scale interaction between the
atoms, gives them the characteristics that we call ferromagnetism.

The first part of your first statement is, of course, controversial in this
discussion. However, i respect your skepticism and agree that
electron spin plays a major role in magnetism. Since science is still
only scratching the surface of quantum magnetism, gravity, etc.,
hopefully you will accept that, at this point, almost anything is still
possible?

Sure, but the possibilities included in that "almost anything" are
constrained by what *is* known, described to a very high degree of
precision by existing theories; any new theory must be able to do at
least as well to be accepted as a replacement.

Science presently teaches that there are four fundamental or universal
"forces" in nature. In order of strongest to weakest they are...

Strong Nuclear Force = 1
Electromagnetism = 0.001
Weak Nuclear Force = 0.0000000000000001
Gravity = 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001

...and the figures represent *calculated* relative strengths.

("calculated" as opposed to "measured")

These relative strengths must only apply in the most general way; for
example black holes seem to create a situation in which gravity
trumps the other forces.

What if Bill is right? Suppose there is really only *one* universal
force, and that the above "forces" are only manifestations or "effects"
of this one universal force? This might explain why our greatest minds
have yet to unify these so-called forces? Maybe the one universal
force is something we haven't yet observed?

Is it less than logical to formulate such an hypothesis?

I don't think so, unless one ignores the qualitative differences
among them. I gather that there has been some success in 'unifying'
the first three under quantum theory; it's mainly gravity that still
resists description in 'non-classical' terms. Also lacking is an
explanation for entropy and the 'arrow of time'. So the situation is
clearly unsatisfactory, but it does no good to sweep inconvenient
observations under the carpet in trying to accommodate what is known
to a new, broader model. We also have to be very careful in trying to
generalize our intuitive understandings outside a mathematically
rigorous framework; for example, returning to the notion of electron
spin that began this subthread, that property is quantized (s = +/-
1/2, either "up" or "down" but never in between) so if we try to
picture electrons as little tops or other spinning macroscopic
objects we can easily be misled -- just as we can be by trying to
apply our intuitions about macroscopic "waves" or "particles" to
microscopic entities.

--
Odysseus

"Odysseus" wrote...
in message ...

Painius wrote:

"Odysseus" wrote...
in message ...

It's not the spin of atoms themselves that produces magnetism, but
that of their electrons. Each element has a distinctive configuration
of electrons (which also produces the spectral lines that make its
'signature') so for each one the way the spins 'add up' or interefere
is different. The particular arrangement of electrons in such
elements as iron, cobalt, and nickel, in which the outermost ones
have unpaired spins allowing large-scale interaction between the
atoms, gives them the characteristics that we call ferromagnetism.

The first part of your first statement is, of course, controversial in this
discussion. However, i respect your skepticism and agree that
electron spin plays a major role in magnetism. Since science is still
only scratching the surface of quantum magnetism, gravity, etc.,
hopefully you will accept that, at this point, almost anything is still
possible?

Sure, but the possibilities included in that "almost anything" are
constrained by what *is* known, described to a very high degree of
precision by existing theories; any new theory must be able to do at
least as well to be accepted as a replacement.

*Refinement*, my friend. Not looking to replace existing theory...
only to refine it.

Science presently teaches that there are four fundamental or universal
"forces" in nature. In order of strongest to weakest they are...

Strong Nuclear Force = 1
Electromagnetism = 0.001
Weak Nuclear Force = 0.0000000000000001
Gravity = 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001

...and the figures represent *calculated* relative strengths.

("calculated" as opposed to "measured")

These relative strengths must only apply in the most general way; for
example black holes seem to create a situation in which gravity
trumps the other forces.

Yes, wouldn't it be incredible if the greater forces maintained these
ratios within the event horizon? Especially where galactic hubs are
concerned?

What if Bill is right? Suppose there is really only *one* universal
force, and that the above "forces" are only manifestations or "effects"
of this one universal force? This might explain why our greatest minds
have yet to unify these so-called forces? Maybe the one universal
force is something we haven't yet observed?

Is it less than logical to formulate such an hypothesis?

I don't think so, unless one ignores the qualitative differences
among them. I gather that there has been some success in 'unifying'
the first three under quantum theory; it's mainly gravity that still
resists description in 'non-classical' terms. Also lacking is an
explanation for entropy and the 'arrow of time'. So the situation is
clearly unsatisfactory, but it does no good to sweep inconvenient
observations under the carpet in trying to accommodate what is known
to a new, broader model. We also have to be very careful in trying to
generalize our intuitive understandings outside a mathematically
rigorous framework; for example, returning to the notion of electron
spin that began this subthread, that property is quantized (s = +/-
1/2, either "up" or "down" but never in between) so if we try to
picture electrons as little tops or other spinning macroscopic
objects we can easily be misled -- just as we can be by trying to
apply our intuitions about macroscopic "waves" or "particles" to
microscopic entities.

--
Odysseus

Whenever i think this small, i remember back when long ago i read
about how there is sooo much space between a nucleus and its
accompanying electrons. And sooo much space between atoms,
and how "ghostly" reality seems to be. And i try and try, but i can't
even *imagine* what this "space" is they're talking about. When i
was a kid i just thought it was "air." But *that* can't be.

So what is it? Nothing? (...and what the heck is *that*?)

g see what you get for boggling my meager mind?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Lessons of time
in the presents of rhymes...
The essence of time
is the presence of primes.

Indelibly yours,
Painius

From Painius:

*Refinement*, my friend. Not looking to
replace existing theory... only to refine it.

The expanded model never seeks to supplant or negate the old, but to
build upon it, in the sense that Einstein built upon Newton. The new may
subsume the old, but never replace it.

And i try and try, but i can't even
*imagine* what this "space" is they're
talking about. When i was a kid i just
thought it was "air." But *that* can't be.
So what is it? Nothing? (...and what the
heck is *that*?)

(Raises hand sheepishly) The 'pneuma' of our age?

oc

Hi oc Painius Odysseus Glad that one universal force(gravity) is being
mentioned ,and all the other forces coming from this one force. When we
finally unify the forces. this will be reality That is why my universe
equation fits so well. My 'Spin is in theory" tells how electrons work
in regard to magnetisim.,electricity,and light. Keep in mind it would
not be an electron if it were not spinning(classical spin) All
electrons spin at the same speed. That speed is "c" and it is the reason
when photons leave this spinning field their speed is "c" The
structure of an electron is composed of a field(much like a cloud) of
swirling photons. (Weinberg knew that) When smashing the electron
with a positron ask yourselves what does it show. My
theory on photons answers the twin slit experiment. Gentlemen thinking
with gravity and spin in your mind can answer lots of hard questions.
Nature gave gravity only an attraction force. She has ways of balancing
this inward force with (angular motion) and particles spinning at rest
Nature uses spin in all three worlds. Macro,micro,and sub-microscopic.
Using QM in the sub-micro world and QM describes a particle as a dot to
give this dot an effect nature gave it spin.
As far as magnetisim goes all objects have a degree of a magnetic field.
This was proven about 4 years ago when frogs,and mice were levitated by
a magnetic field. interesting part of this experiment they thought they
would need a much stronger field to levitate these objects with. I
wish nature gave our fingers a magnetic field. I'm always dropping nuts
and bolts when working on a car. Hey here is an idea magnetic gloves.
Bert

Hi oc I think that is very old fashion thinking that space is nothing.
We see the Casmir effect. These plates are pushed together because more
energy(waves) can be outside compared with those that can fit between
the plates. Again I repeat "space is more interesting than the stars"
It is the force of gravity ,and the intrinsic energy of space that
created all there is Bert

From Painius:

..i remember back when long ago i read
about how there is sooo much space
between a nucleus and its accompanying electrons. And sooo much space
between atoms, and how "ghostly" reality seems to be.

Matter's 'ghostliness' is why Wolter called it the ephemeral "dustbunny"
tagged onto the energy-dense Primary Reality. David Bohm recognized the
same thing, calling the PR the 'Implicate Order' and the secondary,
externalized universe the 'Explicate Order'. The ancient Vedic writers
also recognized it, calling the material universe maya, meaning
"illusion". But it's a very real illusion.g

From Ody:

If we try to picture electrons as little tops or other spinning
macrocosmic objects
we can easily be misled.... electron spin
is quantized s=+/-1/2, either "up" or
"down" but never in between.

Without the aid of math, W gave a very straightforward conceptualization
of electron spin (mentioned a few times previously). First, picture the
(ground state) hydrogen atom as a modified sphere; it's somewhat oblate
and 'dimpled in' at the poles. It's the most primal planform in nature,
and common to all rotating systems it displays two hemispheres and a
common equator rotating on a polar axis. But in addition to this
circumferal spin, there is *axial* spin as the hemispheres roll out from
the equator and back in thru the poles.
Now strip the electron shell from the H atom's central
proton and you have a 'rolling smoke ring' in space; it retains the
axial spins of its two hemispheres, the 'N' hemisphere rolling up and
back in thru the center, and the 'S' one rolling down and back in: these
are the "up" and "down" components of the electron's spin in addition
to its circumferal spin. Such a tripartite spin is possessed by no other
particle.
Now separate the two hemispheres, and what do you have?
Two mirror-imaging 'rolling smoke rings' of the same circumferal but
opposite *axial* spins: the electron-positron pair.

What is called the "positron" is merely the second half the the normal
electron. W stated that a true antielectron would have both its
hemispheres intact. Other than this brief allusion to antimatter, he was
mute on the subject of antimatter.

If the above is correct, then PET scan tomography is not seeing true
matter-antimatter anihilation but normal electron-'positron'
interaction. The same would apply to those oppositely-curving
electron-positron tracks observed in cloud chambers. oc

From Bert:

Glad that one universal force(gravity) is
being mentioned ,and all the other forces coming from this one force.
When we
finally unify the forces. this will be reality
Well Bert, if gravity is merely one manifestation of the *flow* of the
spatial medium, you gotta ask what is driving the flow(?). Whatever this
First Cause is, it would be even more primal than gravity, and by
implication, primal to the other forces in the Unified Field of Spatial
Flows. Wolter called it the 'supra-cosmic overpressure' (to which
Painius assigned the acronym SCO).
The SCO is one of the imponderable 'givens' of the
expanded model. Along with the pre-BB state, the 'roach motel' issue,
and what lies at the 'ends' of eternity, it's one of the "flat Earth""
issues of the new model. The SCO may be criticized as 'ad hoc', but the
mainstream's model is rife with ad hoc fixes like dark matter, dark
energy, quintessence, extra dimensions etc. etc.

So the 'One Force' driving all the flows (including gravity) would have
to be the SCO.
oc

Hi Odysseus All matter particles have half spin. The half is,roughly
speaking,a quantum-mechanical measure how fast electrons ROTATE.
Positron(electron evil twin) also have a half spin,but I see it rotating
in the opposite direction. Interesting Odysseus all of the
non-gravitational force carriers photons,weak gauge bosons,and gluons
also possess an intrinsic spinning characteristic,and that turns out to
be two times that of matter particles,for they all have spin-1 Then
physicist having problem on the spin of the graviton(transmitter of
force of gravity) came up with spin2,and that is twice the spin of
photons,gluons,weak gauge bosons. Tricky stuff when a massless particle
like the graviton has a spin at all. I have no problem with thinking
spin as a top spinning(why should I?) It is rotational motion. In the
sub-microscopic realm it has a quantum twist. I can live with that Bert

From Painius:

He (Zinni) was just tryin' to p**s you off,
you ol' coot!
At least i haven't seen him yawn like a baboon, yet. g

John got torked because i was trying to coax him into an explanation of
why c is constant if there is 'no medium', when all he could do was post
some old-hat web page. oc

Hi oc the particle is the graviton it is the messenger particle. Like
the photon is the messenger particle for EM.Gravity's force gets
stronger in the QM realm of the universe,and we give this stronger
gravity a different name inside the nuclei of atoms and call the
graviton a gluon particle. In the sub-nuclei realm we only give the
graviton a structure feature. It is a tiny curled up string,a loop that
is vibrating. See what I mean???? oc it is in the realm of particle
science that my thinking gets weired enough to fit with QM. I have
always felt this to be true. In astronomy we had the Hubble to show us
macro reality. We have the electronic microscope and that hopefully
could see a blurry bucky ball. In the sub-micro realm only our minds can
probe there,and I like that. Bert PS all this gives me my next "what
if"