Grand Unified Theory

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by will

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.

You shpild know by now that I do not believe in everything I read.

I understand that the 'physical' size of the electron and proton are the same.

Since their is a great difference in their densities, I consider the electron to be similar to a fluid in comparison to the proton.
So with this point of view, the electron would have a slight bulge toward the proton to prevent any 'intrinsic' spin on its axis.

The electron has only one magnetic component and that is its resulting field surrounding it from its orbital motion. My opinion.

NS

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by New Science

You shpild know by now that I do not believe in everything I read.

This isn't necessarily the problem. The problem is that you seem to make no effort to understand something before you throw it out. The only reason I am continuing here is the off chance someone reading both of our posts decides to pick up a book and do some learning.

I understand that the 'physical' size of the electron and proton are the same.

Thats not true at all. Protons are bound states of quarks, so the point like (or at least very small) quarks are moving around within some radius. The electron is point like.

So with this point of view, the electron would have a slight bulge toward the proton to prevent any 'intrinsic' spin on its axis.

If we assume your argument is valid (which it probably isn't), it still won't give the result you like. If what you suggest is true, the electrons spin and orbit will decay until its tidally locked with the proton(hence is always showing the proton the same "face")- which means that the electron will spin once on its access for every one orbit around the proton.

Of course, electrons are quantum objects, so the above argument ISN'T valid.

The electron has only one magnetic component and that is its resulting field surrounding it from its orbital motion. My opinion.

Your opinion doesn't hold up to reality. The hydrogen atoms fine structure is partially due to spin-orbit coupling- the electrons intrinsic magnetic moment interacts with the orbital magnetic field and lifts degeneracies in the various M_l,S (orbital angular momentum, electron spin respectively) states of the atom. If you were right, this structure of the energy levels wouldn't exist.
-Will

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by Erasmus

00;176451]This isn't necessarily the problem. The problem is that you seem to make no effort to understand something before you throw it out. The only reason I am continuing here is the off chance someone reading both of our posts decides to pick up a book and do some learning.

I am thorough;y knowledgeable about the BBU, the Laws of Physics, the experiments and observations. As I said before, I always cite the sources responsible for my posts.

Thats not true at all. Protons are bound states of quarks, so the point like (or at least very small) quarks are moving around within some radius. The electron is point like.

Can you answer some questions regarding these quarks?
In the particle accelerators when they smash two protons against each other, do they break up into six quarks and what happens to these liberated quarks?

If we assume your argument is valid (which it probably isn't), it still won't give the result you like. If what you suggest is true, the electrons spin and orbit will decay until its tidally locked with the proton(hence is always showing the proton the same "face")- which means that the electron will spin once on its access for every one orbit around the proton.

Of course, electrons are quantum objects, so the above argument ISN'T valid.

All the large satellites in our solar system are spherical (liquid centers), so they do not have an intrinsic spin because of a buldge caused by the gravity.
I used this same principle regarding the electron because of its much lower density in relation to the proton and the effect the coulomb force would have on it geometric shape.
A while back, the electron was considered to have the same size as the proton but the quark theory apparently shrank the electron to a 'point source'.

Can you cite any data that says the electron is a point source object?

Synchronous spin is NOT the same as intrinsic spin.

Your opinion doesn't hold up to reality. The hydrogen atoms fine structure is partially due to spin-orbit coupling- the electrons intrinsic magnetic moment interacts with the orbital magnetic field and lifts degeneracies in the various M_l,S (orbital angular momentum, electron spin respectively) states of the atom. If you were right, this structure of the energy levels wouldn't exist.
-Will

The hydrogen atom (HA) exists only in ONE natural state and that is the ground state (GR) where the orbital momentum (OM) of the electron and the magnetic field interactions between the two particles enhance the OM to keep it in that state indefinately to prevent collapse.
The higher energy levels of the HA is the result of 'external' boosts when a photon bumps the electron into those higher states.
Those higher energy states are not due to internal states as you say above IMHO.

NS

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by New Science

I am thorough;y knowledgeable about the BBU, the Laws of Physics, the experiments and observations. As I said before, I always cite the sources responsible for my posts.

You seem to have little to no quantum physics, no quantum field theory, etc. Many of your posts are "referenced" as simply your opinion.

Can you answer some questions regarding these quarks?
In the particle accelerators when they smash two protons against each other, do they break up into six quarks and what happens to these liberated quarks?

You have to understand much to really understand the theory of the strong nuclear force. First, no accelerator smashes protons with protons (though soon the LHC will). The tevatron comes closest smashing protons with anti-protons. In such collisions, a quark and an anti-quark annhilate (and in important events usually produce a W or Z particle). The remaining quarks can either annhilate or scatter and "hadronize" which means they bind together to form larger, multi-quark bound states, much as electrons and protons in a plasma can bind to form hydrogen.

All the large satellites in our solar system are spherical (liquid centers), so they do not have an intrinsic spin because of a buldge caused by the gravity.

Easy counterexample- Earth. On top of its orbital angular momentum it spins on its axis (which is as obvious as night and day).

A while back, the electron was considered to have the same size as the proton but the quark theory apparently shrank the electron to a 'point source'.

This would have been obviously wrong much before the advent of the theory of the strong force. Rutherford scattering and extrapolation should indicate that the nucleus, and therefore the proton) is very much larger than the electron orbitting it.

Can you cite any data that says the electron is a point source object?

Feynman lecture volume 3, Landau and Lifshitz, Classical Theory of Fields. Bjorken and Drell (the whole book).

Also, please note that the latter shows that the electron is a point mass ON THE LENGTH SCALES WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO PROBE. String theory, for instance, posits that the electron (and all particles) have a string like structure on some small length scale we don't yet have access to.

The hydrogen atom (HA) exists only in ONE natural state and that is the ground state (GR) where the orbital momentum (OM) of the electron and the magnetic field interactions between the two particles enhance the OM to keep it in that state indefinately to prevent collapse.
The higher energy levels of the HA is the result of 'external' boosts when a photon bumps the electron into those higher states.

This seems to me a non-sequiter. Please either wiki Hydrogen Fine Structure, or look at Eisberg and Resnick's Physics of Atoms, Solids, Molecules and Nuclei. You claim to have books on atomic physics, please look in their index for spin-orbit coupling and hydrogen fine structure.
-Will

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by will

You seem to have little to no quantum physics, no quantum field theory, etc. Many of your posts are "referenced" as simply your opinion.

Quantum Physics or Plancks math did only ONE thing. It tranformed light to a 'pulse'.
When dealing with the nature of the universe, its application is essential only with the nature of the star light. Bohr's solutions did that.
Those are the only things I need to promote my version of Cosmology.
Your detailed descriptions of other non essentials regarding cosmology are mute.

You have to understand much to really understand the theory of the strong nuclear force.

I do not need the theory since I know the facts about the SF. These are that it is supposed to be 137 times stronger than the EM force BUT with the ridiculous short range of the width of a nucleon (10^-15 meters).
Does this sound realistic to you?

Easy counterexample- Earth. On top of its orbital angular momentum it spins on its axis (which is as obvious as night and day).

Your comparing the space between the Sun-Earth distance to these local planetary satellite distances?
This is a ludicrous comparison.

the proton is very much larger than the electron orbitting it.

I am aware of the experiments that determined the physical size of the proton. But those references you provide for the electron are time consuming and I am not interested since this issue is NOT important regarding cosmology.

Also, please note that the latter shows that the electron is a point mass ON THE LENGTH SCALES WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO PROBE. String theory, for instance, posits that the electron (and all particles) have a string like structure on some small length scale we don't yet have access to.

The 'string theory' is just that. An unproven theory that may never be substantiated. Just another attempt to give the religious BBU some credibility.

Also, please note that the latter shows that the electron is a point mass ON THE LENGTH SCALES WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO PROBE. String theory, for instance, posits that the electron (and all particles) have a string like structure on some small length scale we don't yet have access to.

Ha ha.

NS

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by New Science

Quantum Physics or Plancks math did only ONE thing. It tranformed light to a 'pulse'.
When dealing with the nature of the universe, its application is essential only with the nature of the star light. Bohr's solutions did that.

This isn't at all true. Bohr's model of the atom is ad-hoc, it was quantum mechanics that created a first-principles model of the hydrogen atom. Quantum mechanics showed that light had a particle nature, BUT it also showed that electrons (and all matter) had a wavelike structure as well.

Those are the only things I need to promote my version of Cosmology.
Your detailed descriptions of other non essentials regarding cosmology are mute.

For future reference, the word you mean is most probably moot. Now, I have only brought up anything detailed either by request, or because it reveals problems in the physics you promote. You are quite willing to throw out any physics you disagree with- which isn't how the game of science is played.

I do not need the theory since I know the facts about the SF.

This is silly. The theory encompasses the facts about the strong force.

Your comparing the space between the Sun-Earth distance to these local planetary satellite distances?
This is a ludicrous comparison.

Fine, yet another counterexample- our moon. For every one rotation around the Earth, the Moon revolves once on its axis. i.e. it both rotates around its axis AND orbits the Earth. (This is why the Moon always shows the Earth the same side).

I am aware of the experiments that determined the physical size of the proton. But those references you provide for the electron are time consuming and I am not interested since this issue is NOT important regarding cosmology.

It is indeed important to your theory of fusion from stars. (which is how we got on this tangent) I claim your theory is completely broken, and you claim to be too busy to deal with objections. Also, the very experiments that determine the physical size of the proton also determine that the electron is much smaller.
-Will

[Mike C]

Erasmus

Granted, I should have used the word 'moot'.

However, these posts are getting too long and time consuming,so I will no longer keep repeating what I have already said.

NS

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by New Science

...so I will no longer keep repeating what I have already said.

Which means I can close the thread.