Grand Unified Theory

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by New Science

I said these protons have 'very' high spin rates in these central regions of the stars to create 'very' powerful magnetic binding to enhance the electrons attraction between the two protons, IMHO.

Except that conservation of angular momentum would then dictate that when they split apart again they must still have high spin rates- this is not observed in fission processes.

Also, protons and electrons are spin 1/2 particles. The highest intrinsic angular momentum they can have is hbar/2. Hence, you would more correctly refer to orbital angular momentum instead of spin rate.

Naturally, the electron and one proton comprise the neutron in the deuteron.
It is a known fact that the neutron decays into a proton and electron when isolated from the other proton.

Your right, a neutron will decay into a proton and electron. However, we know from deep inelastic scattering experiments on neutrons that neutrons are NOT made up of a proton and an electron. Deep inelastic scattering clearly shows the neutron is best described by the quark model.

The 'nuclear magneton' you mention above is in a hydrogen atom and has no comparison to the protons in the central regions of the stars.

As mentioned above, both protons and electrons have a fixed total spin. This means there intrinsic magnetic moment is fixed in magnitde.
-Will

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Sir, how do you define matter?

An electron has mass ( ), so how is it anything but matter?

Matter is 'substance'. Forces are defined as 'charges' and are intrinsic to matter.
The electric component is a 'fixed' value while the magnetic component is variable relative to the electrons velocity.
Because of this variable nature of the magnetic component, there are the different 'energy levels' of these photons. So all photons are 'not' equal except possibly at 'c'.

This is 'basic' physics as I understant it.

NS

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

Electons and positrons colliding and producing photons has been directly observed. You have a lot of theories that involve ignoring mountains of empirical evidence.
-Will

You call that 'mountains' of evidence as compared to the stars emmissions?

NS

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

Except that conservation of angular momentum would then dictate that when they split apart again they must still have high spin rates- this is not observed in fission processes.

Also, protons and electrons are spin 1/2 particles. The highest intrinsic angular momentum they can have is hbar/2. Hence, you would more correctly refer to orbital angular momentum instead of spin rate.

Your right, a neutron will decay into a proton and electron. However, we know from deep inelastic scattering experiments on neutrons that neutrons are NOT made up of a proton and an electron. Deep inelastic scattering clearly shows the neutron is best described by the quark model.


As mentioned above, both protons and electrons have a fixed total spin. This means there intrinsic magnetic moment is fixed in magnitde.
-Will

Will get back to tou tomorrow

NS

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

Electons and positrons colliding and producing photons has been directly observed. You have a lot of theories that involve ignoring mountains of empirical evidence.
-Will

Originally Posted by New Science

You call that 'mountains' of evidence as compared to the stars emmissions?

I would call it that, yes. If not truly a “mountain”, paper records and printouts of electronic records of all the data gathered from antiparticle colliers over roughly the past 75 years are certainly enough to build a small hill. Optical, radio, and other astronomy, being much older and more cost-efficient disciplines, could, I’m confident, produce paper enough for a good bit bigger hill.

Seriously, what New Science seems to be arguing is that a “grand unified” physical theory can ignore contradicting data – because there is less of it, because it is obtained from artificial rather than “natural” sources, because the phenomena it measures is less common than others, or simply because it’s hard to explain. This is, IMHO, profoundly antithical to the scientific method. Choosing to ignore data that does not agree with a preconceived theory is more characteristic of “acts of faith” in a religious context than of the process of formulating and testing hypothesis in a scientific context.

I find this argumentative tactic unfortunate, as one of the ideas New Science is offering – that gravity may be due to slight asymmetry in magnetic interactions favoring attraction over repulsion – is intriguing. Investigated in a more scientifically normal fashion, I think it could inspire interesting and edifying discussion. As it is being presented now, the discussion is more focused on what appear to be New Science’s strange idea of how to develop a scientific theory than the ideas underlying it.

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by Erasmus

Except that conservation of angular momentum would then dictate that when they split apart again they must still have high spin rates- this is not observed in fission processes.

Fission of what? Neutrons or the complex isotopes like uranium?

My version of neutron decay is that the electron that was in line at the spin axis of the proton when coupled in a deuteron and now separated as part of a neutron, would gravitate down to the protons ecliptic spin position due the angular momentum of its mass and thus separate with the enhancement of their respective magnetic fields that were in opposition, cause the two to separate.

Also, protons and electrons are spin 1/2 particles. The highest intrinsic angular momentum they can have is hbar/2. Hence, you would more correctly refer to orbital angular momentum instead of spin rate.

The word 'spin' here does not mean 'intrinsic angular spin'.
I interpret its meaning to mean 'one reservered position' for one electron.
The word orbit refers to orbits, not intrinsic particle spins.
My opinion is that electrons do not spin while on the other hand, only protons spin and at variable rates synchroneously to the electrons orbital positions and variable velocities.

Your right, a neutron will decay into a proton and electron. However, we know from deep inelastic scattering experiments on neutrons that neutrons are NOT made up of a proton and an electron. Deep inelastic scattering clearly shows the neutron is best described by the quark model.

Quarks are NOT real particles. The quark mosdel is just a creation to justify the nuclear accelerator research. Nothing practical has come of this research.

As mentioned above, both protons and electrons have a fixed total spin. This means there intrinsic magnetic moment is fixed in magnitde.
-Will

If this were true, how do you explain the various wavelengths emitted by the hydrogen atoms?
Your statement above applies to the 'ground state' of the hydrogen atom only and electrons do not have true intrinsic spin.

NS

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by Craig

I find this argumentative tactic unfortunate, as one of the ideas New Science is offering – that gravity may be due to slight asymmetry in magnetic interactions favoring attraction over repulsion – is intriguing. Investigated in a more scientifically normal fashion, I think it could inspire interesting and edifying discussion. As it is being presented now, the discussion is more focused on what appear to be New Science’s strange idea of how to develop a scientific theory than the ideas underlying it.

Craig
while the electric component of the EM forces are both attractive and repulsive, magnetic fields are 'bipolar'. This then allows them to 'orient' themselves to attract only.

This can be easily confirmed by having two bar magnets with one laying on a table and the other suspended above. The above bar magnet will position itself to be attractive to the lower bar magnet.
Another example is when a compass automatically positions itself to point north in our Earths magnetic field. The needle is a tiny magnet.

Thus, this is the principle in the central regions of stars where the fusion of hydrogen into helium is automatic where the protons fuse into deuterons with an electron coupling and subsequently into helium where the particles are packed in very close proximity.

This fusion does NOT generate the photons. The electron 'open orbital' passages by the protons generate the photons

These are my opinions.

NS


.

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by New Science

Fission of what? Neutrons or the complex isotopes like uranium?

Either! If you were at all correct, every nuclear decay would send out particles with very high angular momentum! This is not seen.

The word 'spin' here does not mean 'intrinsic angular spin'.

I'm aware of that,(hence what I said) but that is what everyone else uses it to mean! You need to learn the vocab. of the field you wish to discuss.

My opinion is that electrons do not spin while on the other hand, only protons spin and at variable rates synchroneously to the electrons orbital positions and variable velocities.

Thats ridiculous! If the electron didn't spin, it wouldn't have a magnetic moment (which has been measured). Also, the spin is responsible for the fine structure of the hydrogen atom (since you trust hydrogen more than other atoms).

Quarks are NOT real particles. The quark mosdel is just a creation to justify the nuclear accelerator research. Nothing practical has come of this research.

As I've mentioned earlier, that claim is ridiculous. However using a particle accelerator we can look at the internal structure of a nucleus (much as we use scattered electrons to look at the structure of metal lattices). This structure implies that neutrons (as well a protons) can be more or less described as made up of 3 point masses with fractional charges. A neutron simply is NOT a proton with an electron smashed into it- we've checked.

If this were true, how do you explain the various wavelengths emitted by the hydrogen atoms?
Your statement above applies to the 'ground state' of the hydrogen atom only and electrons do not have true intrinsic spin.

My statement applies to all electrons regardless of their state- they have a total intrinsic angular momentum of hbar/2. They can also have various orbital angular momentums.
-Will

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by New Science

Nothing practical has come of this research.

Nothing practical has come of seeing galaxies through telescopes.
Therefore galaxies don't exist.

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

Nothing practical has come of seeing galaxies through telescopes.
Therefore galaxies don't exist.

The telescopic objects are 'works of art' and have a much greater variation of images in comparison to the nuclear images that are fragmented and scattered with different sizes and spins.
So, do the fragmented protons always break up into 3 components (quarks)?

NS