New Science Posted June 20, 2008 Author Share Posted June 20, 2008 Electron spin and proton spin are things that have been independently measured. Your model has to incorporate reality. Has this spin been measured within the HA or as a separate particles? My guess is that it was measured as a sparated particle. NS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Has this spin been measured within the HA or as a separate particles? My guess is that it was measured as a sparated particle. NS Read this: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/spin.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Science Posted June 21, 2008 Author Share Posted June 21, 2008 Read this: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/spin.html This can apply to electrons within molecules and more complex elements. These formulas apply to isolated electron experiments. I am inclined to think that they do not apply to electrons within a HA only. NS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 Electron spin is an intrinsic property; it's spin is always s=1/2. You would have caught that if you read the link more carefully. It does not matter if it is in a Hydrogen Atom or a Uranium one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 I am inclined to think that they do not apply to electrons within a HA only. The hyperfine splitting indicates that they do apply in the hydrogen atom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Science Posted June 25, 2008 Author Share Posted June 25, 2008 Electron spin is an intrinsic property; it's spin is always s=1/2. You would have caught that if you read the link more carefully. It does not matter if it is in a Hydrogen Atom or a Uranium one. This is a matter of semantics. Electron spin is not intrinsic spin in a litteral sense like the planets. It is just used to allow two different posirions within a molecule IMO. NS Neither of your links is valid. The correct link is http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/13911-theory-everything.html You were thoroughly refuted in post #2 in that thread. However, you are repeating verbatim the original post in that thread here in ScienceForums (including incredibly bad spelling), indicating that you have not learned a thing. Therefore, I am moving this thread to Pseudoscience and Speculations. Thanks for the correct posts. Scrolling down to the bottom of the ToE does bring up my GUT also. My URLs were blocked by the Modsrators. NS The hyperfine splitting indicates that they do apply in the hydrogen atom. I know about the observed splitting from the solar observations that can be caused by the magnetic fields but am unaware of any local observed effects outside the Sun. Can you cite the effect that you based your post on? NS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 (edited) This is a matter of semantics.Electron spin is not intrinsic spin in a litteral sense like the planets. That's not what they mean by spin. A particle's spin refers to the angular momentum. They are not literally spinning. An electron's spin/angular momentum is intrinsic; it is always going to have spin s=1/2, as that has been observed. It is just used to allow two different posirions within a molecule IMO. Please leave your opinions out of this. When debating or presenting a theory, you must use facts. Besides which, that statement is wrong anyways. I know about the observed splitting from the solar observations that can be caused by the magnetic fields but am unaware of any local observed effects outside the Sun. Can you cite the effect that you based your post on? :confused::confused: I have a better idea, why don't you start defending your so-called theory with citations and experiments. Rather than cutting and pasting the same arguments. Didn't you read the message I posted at hypography, about how you must debate and provide proper backup of your theories (i.e. math, citations, observations, etc.) You must hurry, it's only a matter of time before I or someone else calls bingo . Edited June 27, 2008 by Reaper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Science Posted June 29, 2008 Author Share Posted June 29, 2008 That's not what they mean by spin. A particle's spin refers to the angular momentum. They are not literally spinning. An electron's spin/angular momentum is intrinsic; it is always going to have spin s=1/2, as that has been observed. Please leave your opinions out of this. When debating or presenting a theory, you must use facts. Besides which, that statement is wrong anyways. :confused::confused: I have a better idea, why don't you start defending your so-called theory with citations and experiments. Rather than cutting and pasting the same arguments. Didn't you read the message I posted at hypography, about how you must debate and provide proper backup of your theories (i.e. math, citations, observations, etc.) You must hurry, it's only a matter of time before I or someone else calls bingo . I quoted science when I said the large planetary satellites all do NOT have 'intrinsic' spin. My theory is that they have 'liquid' centers that give them their spherical shapes and results in a gravitional distortion of that shape that prevents intrinsic spin. So the electrons are not very dense particles and they must have spherical distortions by the coulomb force to prevent intrinsic spin. I understand that that current spin assigned to electron positions is not to be taken literally. NS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 29, 2008 Share Posted June 29, 2008 I know about the observed splitting from the solar observations that can be caused by the magnetic fields but am unaware of any local observed effects outside the Sun. Can you cite the effect that you based your post on? NS http://www.answers.com/topic/hydrogen-line?cat=technology 1420 MHz (21 cm) is a very popular frequency (wavelength) for radioastronomy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 New Science, I feel it is only fair to warn you that the moderators have been instructed not to indulge pseudoscience/speculation threads where the same extraordinary claims are persistently made without any credible explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Science Posted June 30, 2008 Author Share Posted June 30, 2008 http://www.answers.com/topic/hydrogen-line?cat=technology 1420 MHz (21 cm) is a very popular frequency (wavelength) for radioastronomy The 21 cm lines are not what I had in mind because there were observations observed in lines from some elements in the Sun. I thought about the proton flips in space that could result in shifting the electrons orbittal distance from the proton but never made that connection to the 21 cm lines. Anyway, this is besides the topic of discussion. It surprises me that they accept the CMBR as a BB remnant. I have refuted this in several different ways but this is another topic. NS New Science, I feel it is only fair to warn you that the moderators have been instructed not to indulge pseudoscience/speculation threads where the same extraordinary claims are persistently made without any credible explanation. Are you saying that I have not provided any evidence for this post? The 'glaring' ommision of 2 AMN's is very strong evidence that the description of the strong force is incorrect. Its description as a very strong gravitational force that is attractive only and with that tiniest of ranges does not convince me that it is real. The inner fusion in the stars is strictly 'Quantum' physics. NS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 The 'glaring' ommision of 2 AMN's is very strong evidence that the description of the strong force is incorrect. Stop with the stupid, non-standard acronyms. If you want to communicate, do so. If you merely want to obfuscate, you don't belong here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Are you saying that I have not provided any evidence for this post?The 'glaring' ommision of 2 AMN's is very strong evidence that the description of the strong force is incorrect. That was not an invitation for you to make more proclamations in my direction. This thread is called "Theory of Everything". PUT UP OR SHUT UP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Science Posted July 1, 2008 Author Share Posted July 1, 2008 Stop with the stupid, non-standard acronyms. If you want to communicate, do so. If you merely want to obfuscate, you don't belong here. If you are confused about AMN, then that means Atomic Mass Number. This number includes all the nucleons in the elementary chain like the protons and the neutrons. When considering all the elements and their isotopes, the only AMN's missing are 5 and 8. This is a 'glaring' omission that should not exist. NS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 What makes you say they're missing? According to the graph I've got here they're definitely in there... In fact there's isotopes with atomic mass number of 5 and 8 for Lithium... 8Li has a halflife measured in ms... And beryllium and Helium, Boron has one at 8 but not 5... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Are you saying that I have not provided any evidence for this post? Pretty much. All you've done was flung this rubbish at us without providing any credible defense of your arguments and mangled the math, and then when we point out it's flaws and errors you immediately cry conspiracy . Are you going to put up now? Or will we have to be forced to throw all of your threads into the trash can? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Science Posted July 2, 2008 Author Share Posted July 2, 2008 What makes you say they're missing? According to the graph I've got here they're definitely in there... In fact there's isotopes with atomic mass number of 5 and 8 for Lithium... 8Li has a halflife measured in ms... And beryllium and Helium, Boron has one at 8 but not 5... I will try to find an URL on these isotopes. What graphs are you talking about? Post the URL. NS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 I don't have it online it's in some lecture notes. You can find the isotopes on wikipedia though, they're hardly hidden... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 You can find the isotopes on wikipedia though, they're hardly hidden... 5He and 8He.5He has a half-life of 7.6×10−22 seconds. 8He has a half-life of 0.119 seconds and is widely researched for insight on the behavior of neutron stars.Sources:http://www.site.uottawa.ca:4321/astronomy/index.html#helium8http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080205201555.htmhttp://www.helium.com/items/866476-the-chemical-properties-of-helium-5-he5-and-its-potential-usefulness,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_helium#Table 5Li and 8Li.5Li has a half-life of 6.8x10-22 seconds. 8Li has a half-life of 0.84 seconds. Sources:http://www.site.uottawa.ca:4321/astronomy/index.html#lithium8http://li-lithium.info/isotopes.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_lithium#Table Need I continue? NS, the very first thing a scientific theory must do is conform with existing facts. Isotopes with atomic mass number 5 and 8 do exist. Your Theory of Everything is kaput. None of these isotopes stable, but physicists know why this is the case. Hint: The answer involves mathematics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Science Posted July 3, 2008 Author Share Posted July 3, 2008 Cancelled' .................NS 5He and 8He.5He has a half-life of 7.6×10−22 seconds. 8He has a half-life of 0.119 seconds and is widely researched for insight on the behavior of neutron stars.Sources:http://www.site.uottawa.ca:4321/astronomy/index.html#helium8http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080205201555.htmhttp://www.helium.com/items/866476-the-chemical-properties-of-helium-5-he5-and-its-potential-usefulness,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_helium#Table 5Li and 8Li.5Li has a half-life of 6.8x10-22 seconds. 8Li has a half-life of 0.84 seconds. Sources:http://www.site.uottawa.ca:4321/astronomy/index.html#lithium8http://li-lithium.info/isotopes.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_lithium#Table Need I continue? NS, the very first thing a scientific theory must do is conform with existing facts. Isotopes with atomic mass number 5 and 8 do exist. Your Theory of Everything is kaput. None of these isotopes stable, but physicists know why this is the case. Hint: The answer involves mathematics. I have a book here authored by John Emsley entitled 'The Elements' and printed by the Oxford Press. It is the most complete book on this subject. I have another book by Henry Semat entitled 'An Introduction to Atomic and Nuclear Physics. On page 588 that lists all the Atomic Mass Numbers of the isotopes and the elements and it showws that numbers 5 and 8 are missing. These are the only numbers missing. The Emsley book lists Lithium as having just two stable isotopes. One at 92.5% (#7) and the ither at 7.5% (6). This adds up to 100%. So any others would be completely unstable. Regarding Berylium, The book lists three isotopes with #9 as being 100% stable and the other 2 (7 and 10) as unstable. So those you dredged up are no doubt just done by human experimentors. I explained why they cannot exist because of EM intewrastions while you use math that is a fabrication of the human intellect. With the strong force explanation, the nuclei would clump together as some illustrations show but this is a human creation. My visualization uses the EM forces interactions that I consider are more realistic. NS . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Do you only want stable ones? Why did you not state that? We've got quite good mathematical models that tell us the reasons why some isotopes are stable and other are not, it's no great mystery! If you just want stable isotopes then there's ALOT of heavier atomic mass numbers where there are no stable isotopes... take U238 as an example completely unstable What do you mean by that, something is either stable or unstable... Unless you carefully define a quasistable state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 When considering all the elements and their isotopes, the only AMN's missing are 5 and 8. This is a 'glaring' omission that should not exist. NS How is this a glaring omission? Is nature "wrong" not to have stable isotopes with those mass numbers? Or do you think that theory predicts they should be stable? (They certainly exist) I explained why they cannot exist because of EM intewrastions while you use math that is a fabrication of the human intellect. It occurs to me that this implies that you admit your explanation is not a fabrication of human intellect. Is that what you meant to say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Science Posted July 3, 2008 Author Share Posted July 3, 2008 Do you only want stable ones? Why did you not state that? We've got quite good mathematical models that tell us the reasons why some isotopes are stable and other are not, it's no great mystery! If you just want stable isotopes then there's ALOT of heavier atomic mass numbers where there are no stable isotopes... take U238 as an example What do you mean by that, something is either stable or unstable... Unless you carefully define a quasistable state. What I am talking about is whether there is a quantity of stable isotopes in 'natural abundance. U235 has none in natural abundance. So all isotopes of U235 decay. Although a couple have decaying halflifes in billions of years. I think these are extracted from Uranium ores. NS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 What I am talking about is whether there is a quantity of stable isotopes in 'natural abundance.U235 has none in natural abundance. So all isotopes of U235 decay. Although a couple have decaying halflifes in billions of years. I think these are extracted from Uranium ores. NS And U-235 is one of those long-lived isotopes, so this is either a really bad example or complete nonsense. "All isotopes of U-235" falls under the latter: U-235 is one isotope. Perhaps "all isotopes of uranium" is what you meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 (edited) U-235 and U-238 are both naturally occurring but neither is stable. I, like swansont, don't quite know what you're saying. Edited July 3, 2008 by Klaynos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts