Speed of light

[EMField]

First of all if light travels at c in a vacuum according to the math, then why does it travel at c in our solar system which is not a true vacuum? We do know that light travels slower in a denser medium. Slower in water than air, slower in air than our solar system. Does anyone believe the great voids between galaxies are as filled with particles as is our solar system? look at a galaxy photo, they are filled with plasma and dust.

 

 

It is also likewise clear that the space between galaxies is less dense. Since we have never measured the speed of light outside our own solar system, there is no basis for the claim that the measured speed of c is the same speed in a true vacuum as it is in our solar system. It is just a handy calculation aid to assume that it is.

Edited August 22, 2012 by EMField

[StringJunky]

First of all if light travels at c in a vacuum according to the math, then why does it travel at c in our solar system which is not a true vacuum? We do know that light travels slower in a denser medium. Slower in water than air, slower in air than our solar system. Does anyone believe the great voids between galaxies are as filled with particles as is our solar system? look at a galaxy photo, they are filled with plasma and dust.

 

It is also likewise clear that the space between galaxies is less dense. Since we have never measured the speed of light outside our own solar system, there is no basis for the claim that the measured speed of c is the same speed in a true vacuum as it is in our solar system. It is just a handy calculation aid to assume that it is.

 

Regardess of the medium light only has one speed: the reason for the apparent velocity differences between media is that a photon is 'atom-hopping' ie it is being absorbed and re-emitted as it passes through and the cumulative absorption/emission times are the cause of the slowdown compared to results in a vacuum. Don't forget a vacuum lies between atoms in any given media.

[Greg H.]

It is also likewise clear that the space between galaxies is less dense. Since we have never measured the speed of light outside our own solar system, there is no basis for the claim that the measured speed of c is the same speed in a true vacuum as it is in our solar system. It is just a handy calculation aid to assume that it is.

 

It wouldn't be hard to experimentally verify (assuming you have access to the equipment). Measure the speed of light across a vacuum chamber of known size, and compare it to a measurement taken by bouncing a laser pulse off the moon.

I'm willing to bet they're within the experimental margin of error of each other.

 

And if a 9-5 computer programmer can come up with that idea, I'm pretty sure professional scientists can too. My guess is, someone already did that.

 

That said, even if you're right, the speed of light in the Earth's atmosphere is only about 90km/s slower than the speed of light in a vacuum. That's a difference of .00003002% (30 millionths of a percent). The solar system, which is a heck of a lot less dense than our atmosphere, as I am sure you'll agree, would produce an even less measurable effect. With tolerances that close, on a macroscopic scale, I think we're justified in saying they're the same number.

 

Also, what StringJunky said above.

[ACG52]

Does anyone believe the great voids between galaxies are as filled with particles as is our solar system?

 

Our solar system isn't filled with particles. It's a pretty good vacuum. Those particles which are floating around in space are certainly not dense enough to be a medium.

 

Furthermore, we can produce an even better vacuum in a lab setting, and measure the speed of light in that. The measured value matches the calculated value.

 

BTW, the glow in the picture you posted are not particles or plasma, they're stars.

[EMField]

Regardess of the medium light only has one speed: the reason for the apparent velocity differences between media is that a photon is 'atom-hopping' ie it is being absorbed and re-emitted as it passes through and the cumulative absorption/emission times are the cause of the slowdown compared to results in a vacuum. Don't forget a vacuum lies between atoms in any given media.

 

Does a vacuum really lie between atoms? Then what makes up electric and magnetic fields? Can't be atoms or we would already know what makes them up. To assume that the electron magically rotates around the protons and neutrons without crashing into them is stretching it a bit. There MUST be smaller particles transfering the EM force, no two ways about it.

 

Our solar system isn't filled with particles. It's a pretty good vacuum. Those particles which are floating around in space are certainly not dense enough to be a medium.

 

Furthermore, we can produce an even better vacuum in a lab setting, and measure the speed of light in that. The measured value matches the calculated value.

 

BTW, the glow in the picture you posted are not particles or plasma, they're stars.

 

 

 

 

Who was talking about the glow? You cant see all that dust and plasma surrounding every galaxy?

 

Really? Then why is the permativity of air only .0006% different than what you call a true vacuum?

http://en.wikipedia....ectric_constant

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum

Outer space has very low density and pressure, and is the closest physical approximation of a perfect vacuum. But no vacuum is truly perfect, not even in interstellar space, where there are still a few hydrogen atoms per cubic meter.

The lowest pressures currently achievable in laboratory are about 10⁻¹³ torr (13 pPa).^[49] However, pressures as low as 5×10⁻¹⁷ Torr (6.7 fPa) have been indirectly measured in a 4 K cryogenic vacuum system.^[3] This corresponds to ≈100 particles/cm³

 

 

^{Interstellar space has 1 particle per cm.}

 

Intergalactic space has 10-⁵

 

Our best vacuum has 100 particles per cm.

Edited August 23, 2012 by EMField

[StringJunky]

Does a vacuum really lie between atoms? Then what makes up electric and magnetic fields? Can't be atoms or we would already know what makes them up. To assume that the electron magically rotates around the protons and neutrons without crashing into them is stretching it a bit. There MUST be smaller particles transfering the EM force, no two ways about it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

 

In physics, a virtual particle is a particle that exists for a limited time and space.... <snip> Virtual particles are viewed as the quanta that describe fields of the basic force interactions, which cannot be described in terms of real particles. Examples of these are static force fields, such as a simple electric or magnetic field, or the components of any field that do not carry information from place to place at the speed of light (information radiated by means of a field must be composed of real particles).

[alpha2cen]

http://en.wikipedia....irtual_particle

 

In physics, a virtual particle is a particle that exists for a limited time and space.... <snip> Virtual particles are viewed as the quanta that describe fields of the basic force interactions, which cannot be described in terms of real particles. Examples of these are static force fields, such as a simple electric or magnetic field, or the components of any field that do not carry information from place to place at the speed of light (information radiated by means of a field must be composed of real particles).

 

Vertical particle number density is all the same in the Universe? Vertical particle number of the beginning of the Universe = present number?

[EMField]

http://en.wikipedia....irtual_particle

 

In physics, a virtual particle is a particle that exists for a limited time and space.... <snip> Virtual particles are viewed as the quanta that describe fields of the basic force interactions, which cannot be described in terms of real particles. Examples of these are static force fields, such as a simple electric or magnetic field, or the components of any field that do not carry information from place to place at the speed of light (information radiated by means of a field must be composed of real particles).

 

Virtual particles are the biggest fudge in modern science to try to explain how something can interact with something else yet mass or energy is not required.

 

Static magnetic fields are the next biggest fudge. Magnetic fields cause things to spiral, a static field could never cause this reaction. Neither are electric fields static. You don't want to go down that false line of reasoning, it will get you no where but wrong answers. You should also research dielectric mediums before you assume that something that stores and transfers energy must do so across vast distances. A dielectric can simply align axis and energy transfer is complete without the need to cross vast distances, hence gravities seeming instantaneous affect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric

[swansont]

Virtual particles are the biggest fudge in modern science to try to explain how something can interact with something else yet mass or energy is not required.

 

Static magnetic fields are the next biggest fudge. Magnetic fields cause things to spiral, a static field could never cause this reaction. Neither are electric fields static. You don't want to go down that false line of reasoning, it will get you no where but wrong answers. You should also research dielectric mediums before you assume that something that stores and transfers energy must do so across vast distances. A dielectric can simply align axis and energy transfer is complete without the need to cross vast distances, hence gravities seeming instantaneous affect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric

!

Moderator Note

Posts decrying standard physics or presenting alternatives to it belong is speculations, in accordance with rules 5 and 10. Please do not derail thus further by responding to this modnote here in the thread

[EMField]

!

Moderator Note

Posts decrying standard physics or presenting alternatives to it belong is speculations, in accordance with rules 5 and 10. Please do not derail thus further by responding to this modnote here in the thread

 

So science is not to question, but just to repeat by rote? I always thought the basics of science was to question and thereby discover and learn, my bad.

 

And who is speculating? Dust and plasma so dense it blocks 50% of all light from edge on galaxies, and so thick in interstellar space it blocks 70% of those edge on galaxies because they were already half as bright. And show me one laboratory evidence (not speculation) where anything I said is wrong?????????

http://www.space.com...nly-bright.html

 

I will certainly agree a nanosecond magnetic switching event may appear static over the long run, as long as you agree that it requires a steady current to produce that event.

http://en.wikipedia..../Magnetostatics

http://en.wikipedia....ectric_currents

 

But I understand theories can never be wrong.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=2287

Edited August 24, 2012 by EMField

[swansont]

So science is not to question, but just to repeat by rote? I always thought the basics of science was to question and thereby discover and learn, my bad.

 

And who is speculating? Dust and plasma so dense it blocks 50% of all light from edge on galaxies, and so thick in interstellar space it blocks 70% of those edge on galaxies because they were already half as bright. And show me one laboratory evidence (not speculation) where anything I said is wrong?????????

http://www.space.com...nly-bright.html

 

I will certainly agree a nanosecond magnetic switching event may appear static over the long run, as long as you agree that it requires a steady current to produce that event.

http://en.wikipedia..../Magnetostatics

http://en.wikipedia....ectric_currents

 

But I understand theories can never be wrong.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=2287

!

Moderator Note

Saying that virtual particles, and magnetic and electric fields are fudge factors, that static B fields don't cause charges to spiral — that's contrary to accepted physics.

 

Discuss this in speculations, and ONLY in speculations. The topic of THIS thread — in a physics section — is the speed of light, and the only acceptable discussion is mainstream physics and on that topic.

 

Any further objections to these modnotes should NOT take place in this thread.

[EMField]

That is because it is NOT static:

http://dictionary.re...m/browse/static

 

The current is simply steady so the field is constant, not varying over time. Static means non-moving, so if you want magnetic fields and particles to spiral you need to admit the current is steady, and that does not mean static, charges must flow to be current. It just means it is constant and non-varying over time, the same as the magnetic field. It is static in the sense of a waterfall that is basically the same over time verses a frozen one which is static in the sense that it does not move.

 

And that is NOT speculation, it is scientifically supported FACT:

 

http://en.wikipedia....Magnetostatics:

 

Magnetostatics is the study of magnetic fields in systems where the currents are steady (not changing with time).

 

You say they are static, yet to have a steady current one MUST have moving charges:

 

http://en.wikipedia....ectric_currents

 

Electric current is a flow of electric charge through a conductive medium

 

 

So you can say what you want, but your interpretation of definitions belies what laboratory experiments says they mean.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_photons

If a single particle is detected, then the consequences of its existence are prolonged to such a degree that it cannot be virtual.

http://www.bourbaphy.fr/grangier.pdf

http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_slit/index.shtml

Edited August 25, 2012 by EMField

[EMField]

AFAIK a photon only travels in a vacuum (a vacuum lies between atoms), otherwise it is absorbed by an electron. In a material, like glass, an incoming photon meets an electron giving it energy to try to move up to the next higher energy level/orbital but it is insufficient (in materials with transparent properties) so the electron promptly drops back down to the rest state and releases the photon, whereupon it travels to the next one and the process is repeated.

 

But saying a vacuum exists between atoms asks the question: how does an electron orbit the nucleus if smaller particles are not transferring energy between the nucleus and the electron? Unless science is proposing action at a distance?

[StringJunky]

But saying a vacuum exists between atoms asks the question: how does an electron orbit the nucleus if smaller particles are not transferring energy between the nucleus and the electron? Unless science is proposing action at a distance?

 

TBH I don't understand your question so I'll leave it to someone that does.

[ACG52]

how does an electron orbit the nucleus if smaller particles are not transferring energy between the nucleus and the electron?

 

Electrons don't orbit the nucleus. They exist in probability 'clouds' called orbitals.

 

 

Unless science is proposing action at a distance?

 

 

Action at a distance on the quantum level has been experimentally confirmed.

[MigL]

Hello EMField, still at it, eh ?

Yes , all space around any nucleus is permeated by a Quantum field. This field extends out to infinity since EM fields ( not you ) are infinite in extent. The electron, wether you consider them orbiting or as a probability cloud, fall in the range of this field. As a quantum field, it necessarily has excitations which we associate with bosonic force carrier particles, and for QED these happen to correspond to virtual photons. These are created from 'borrowed' energy, and can exist for short periods of time determined by Heisenberg's principle. The numbers of virtual photons is immensly greater near a charge, such that at extremely close ranges, the virtual particles 'blow-up' obsevables like mass and charge to infinities which can only be removed by a dubious ( to me anyway ) process called renormalization.

Now you may say 'Aha, I told you so', but bosonic force carriers have this peculiar quality, they follow Bose-Einstein statistics, ie they don't have an equivalent of the Pauli exclusion principle. In effect, you can stack as many photons as you want, virtual or real, intothe same state without ANY interaction between them.

 

This means photons will not keep other photons from travelling at the speed of light.

 

Sorry if I'm violating rules Swansont, but I couldn't resist.

Edited August 26, 2012 by MigL

[EMField]

Hello EMField, still at it, eh ?

Yes , all space around any nucleus is permeated by a Quantum field. This field extends out to infinity since EM fields ( not you ) are infinite in extent. The electron, wether you consider them orbiting or as a probability cloud, fall in the range of this field. As a quantum field, it necessarily has excitations which we associate with bosonic force carrier particles, and for QED these happen to correspond to virtual photons. These are created from 'borrowed' energy, and can exist for short periods of time determined by Heisenberg's principle. The numbers of virtual photons is immensly greater near a charge, such that at extremely close ranges, the virtual particles 'blow-up' obsevables like mass and charge to infinities which can only be removed by a dubious ( to me anyway ) process called renormalization.

Now you may say 'Aha, I told you so', but bosonic force carriers have this peculiar quality, they follow Bose-Einstein statistics, ie they don't have an equivalent of the Pauli exclusion principle. In effect, you can stack as many photons as you want, virtual or real, intothe same state without ANY interaction between them.

 

This means photons will not keep other photons from travelling at the speed of light.

 

Sorry if I'm violating rules Swansont, but I couldn't resist.

 

Oh I agree, space is composed of an aether and this aether is a dielectric. This polarization of the aether allows transfer of energy without the need for particle transfer over large distances, but just a slight shift in axis. Call it a field if you want, but a field must be composed of something to exist. And as observations show there is no aberration in the gravitational force as it is a polarization of the dielectric medium and does not depend on particulate movement except to align axis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric

 

So tell me, if light is constant and velocity only depends on the delay from absorption to emission, then how could a Black Hole ever stop light from escaping? The light MUST physically slow so it is unable to reach escape velocity. Therefore the speed of light is not constant but depends on the density of the material (i.e. it's gravitational potential) that it travels through. Just as atomic oscillations are slowed by nearness to a gravitational potential, i.e. clocks slow. And since no known gravitational model exists for the atom, then the gravitational force must be an EM event, hence mass is energy. E=mc²

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Posts have been moved from the thread this discussion was hijacking

That is because it is NOT static:
http://dictionary.re...m/browse/static

The current is simply steady so the field is constant, not varying over time. Static means non-moving, so if you want magnetic fields and particles to spiral you need to admit the current is steady, and that does not mean static, charges must flow to be current. It just means it is constant and non-varying over time, the same as the magnetic field. It is static in the sense of a waterfall that is basically the same over time verses a frozen one which is static in the sense that it does not move.

The current is steady. Meanwhile, the field is static, i.e. constant in time. Current and field are not the same thing.

And that is NOT speculation, it is scientifically supported FACT:

If you will reread my previous note, it was calling virtual photons and static fields fudge factors, and claiming that a static field will not cause a charged particle to spiral. Not that currents cause the fields.

These claims are not mainstream, so this discussion has been moved to speculations.

[EMField]

Electrons don't orbit the nucleus. They exist in probability 'clouds' called orbitals.

 

 

 

 

Action at a distance on the quantum level has been experimentally confirmed.

 

No, it has been interpreted as that because they refuse to accept observations.

 

http://en.wikipedia....stance_(physics)

 

In physics, action at a distance is the idea of direct interaction of two objects that are separated in space with no intermediating agent or mechanism.

 

Various proofs, beginning with that of Dirac have shown that direct interaction theories (under reasonable assumptions) do not admit Lagrangian or Hamiltonian formulations (these are the so-called No Interaction Theorems). Consequently, the Fokker-Tetrode action is mostly a historic novelty. Still, attempts to recapture action at a distance without a field, which is often difficult to quantize, lead directly to the development of the quantum electrodynamics of Feynman and Schwinger.

 

So the electron magically orbits the nucleus without intermediate particles transfering energy?

 

 

 

Yet science still relies on the field concept, which requires mediating particles.

 

!

Moderator Note

Posts have been moved from the thread this discussion was hijacking

 

 

The current is steady. Meanwhile, the field is static, i.e. constant in time. Current and field are not the same thing.

 

 

 

If you will reread my previous note, it was calling virtual photons and static fields fudge factors, and claiming that a static field will not cause a charged particle to spiral. Not that currents cause the fields.

 

These claims are not mainstream, so this discussion has been moved to speculations.

 

 

Yes, it is CONSTANT, not varying over time, but constant does not imply static, i.e. non-moving. It means it is the same from momemt to moment as it regenerates itself. Just as an electric current that is constant, i.e. non-varying over time is a flow of charges from one point to another. You say the speed of light is constant, does this mean a photon is static, i.e. non-moving?????? And you and I both know a truely static, i.e. non-moving field could never impart motion to another object. It is simply constant in strength, i.e. it does not fluctuate but is constantly regenerated, i.e. has movement which enables particles to spiral. Constant does NOT mean static.

Edited August 27, 2012 by EMField

[swansont]

Yes, it is CONSTANT, not varying over time, but constant does not imply static, i.e. non-moving. It means it is the same from momemt to moment as it regenerates itself. Just as an electric current that is constant, i.e. non-varying over time is a flow of charges from one point to another. You say the speed of light is constant, does this mean a photon is static, i.e. non-moving??????

The implication that a static magnetic field flows is decidedly non-mainstream.

[EMField]

The implication that a static magnetic field flows is decidedly non-mainstream.

 

 

Yet a static magnetic field requires a constant flow of current to exist. The same word static is used to describe this electric field, yet current is the FLOW of charges, so static can not be taken as meaning non-moving, but simply constant, not changing perceptionally from moment to moment. And if the electric current is constantly flowing then the magnetic field is constantly regenerating, else there would be NO magnetic field at all. Only from flowing current are magnetic fields produced. There is no known laboratory evidence that any other way exists. Only deluded fantasies and wishfull thinking.

 

And what, you think mainstream is never wrong? If that was the case we would still be under the assumption that the Earth is flat and the center of the universe. All these theories you claim to follow were devised before we had the equipment of the space age. Yet you still refuse to accept the data of the last 20 years and continue to hang onto your outdated theories from the 1900's. Even in the time of Einstein it was believed our galaxy the milky-way was the only galaxy in existence. Do you still believe that? Why not, it was once "mainstream"?

 

 

Your mass calculations for the universe are clearly off by orders of magnitude, but I don't see you questioning mainstream on why they have not revised thier mass calculations for so called Dark Matter??????

 

http://www.jpl.nasa....fm?feature=2287

http://www.space.com...nly-bright.html

 

 

 

Instead you will simply agree with anything they tell you, even when thier mass calculations are clearly based on eroneous data.

Edited August 27, 2012 by EMField

[swansont]

Yet a static magnetic field requires a constant flow of current to exist.

Not in the case of a permanent magnet, where the field comes from the spin of electrons. No current. And the field is identical. Hence, the field is not moving.

 

(Possibly more important is that fields are conceptual constructs, but that's another discussion)

[EMField]

Not in the case of a permanent magnet, where the field comes from the spin of electrons. No current. And the field is identical. Hence, the field is not moving.

 

(Possibly more important is that fields are conceptual constructs, but that's another discussion)

 

http://www.allaboutc.../chpt_14/1.html

Modern theories of magnetism maintain that a magnetic field is produced by an electric charge in motion, and thus it is theorized that the magnetic field of a so-called "permanent" magnets such as lodestone is the result of electrons within the atoms of iron spinning uniformly in the same direction. Whether or not the electrons in a material's atoms are subject to this kind of uniform spinning is dictated by the atomic structure of the material (not unlike how electrical conductivity is dictated by the electron binding in a material's atoms). Thus, only certain types of substances react with magnetic fields, and even fewer have the ability to permanently sustain a magnetic field.

AND WHAT ARE SPINNING ELECTRONS???? Moving charges, i.e. current flow.

 

http://www.howmagnetswork.com/

How is a magnetic field created?

When current flows in a wire, a magnetic field is created around the wire. From this it has been inferred that magnetic fields are produced by the motion of electrical charges. A magnetic field of a bar magnet thus results from the motion of negatively charged electrons in the magnet.

 

 

http://farside.ph.ut...res/node77.html

 

When the atoms are arranged in a uniform lattice, so as to form the magnet, the interior surface currents cancel out, leaving a current which flows only on the outer surface of the magnet. This is illustrated in Fig. 30. Thus, the solenoid-like currents which must flow over the surface of a magnet in order to account for its associated magnetic field are, in fact, just the resultant of currents which circulate in every constituent atom of the magnet. But, what is the origin of these atomic currents?

 

<a name="7658">Figure 30: A schematic diagram of the current pattern in a permanent magnet.

 

Well, atoms consist of negatively charged electrons in orbit around positively charged nuclei. A moving electric charge constitutes an electric current, so there must be a current associated with every electron in an atom...

 

In conclusion, all magnetic fields encountered in nature are generated by circulating currents. There is no fundamental difference between the fields generated by permanent magnets and those generated by currents flowing around conventional electric circuits. In the former, case the currents which generate the fields circulate on the atomic scale, whereas, in the latter case, the currents circulate on a macroscopic scale (i.e., the scale of the circuit).

 

And as for the core of the Earth or Sun being a permanent magnet, think again. there must be a constant current flowing to produce a constant magnetic field under conditions that would destroy a magnet in seconds.

 

http://www.mceproduc...e-dtl.asp?id=23

 

The Curie Temperature (Tc) is the temperature at which the magnet will be completely demagnetized. Even though it may still be a magnetic material, a material that has the ability to retain a magnetic field when magnetized, it would have completely demagnetized. It is important to note that taking a magnet to Tc will demagnetize the magnet, but depending on the process used, heating and cooling rates, and the environment that the magnet is exposed to during the temperature cycle, heating a magnet to Tc can cause structural or mechanical damage.

Edited August 27, 2012 by EMField

[swansont]

AND WHAT ARE SPINNING ELECTRONS???? Moving charges, i.e. current flow.

Spin is not current. Put an ammeter in place and will register zero.

 

Spin is also not classical motion; it is a QM property of intrinsic angular momentum; "physics 101" websites aren't likely to delve into this.

[EMField]

Because your ammeter is also measuring all the internal fields that are cancelling each other out and is not sensitive enough to differentiate between just the outer electrons.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....i/Spin_(physics)

 

Magnetic momentsMagnetic field lines around a magnetostatic dipole; the magnetic dipole itself is in the center and is seen from the side.Particles with spin can possess a magnetic dipole moment, just like a rotating electrically charged body in classical electrodynamics. These magnetic moments can be experimentally observed in several ways, e.g. by the deflection of particles by inhomogeneous magnetic fields in a Stern–Gerlach experiment, or by measuring the magnetic fields generated by the particles themselves.

 

The intrinsic magnetic moment μ of a spin-1/2 particle with charge q, mass m, and spin angular momentum S, is^[9]

 

where the dimensionless quantity g_s is called the spin g-factor. For exclusively orbital rotations it would be 1 (assuming that the mass and the charge occupy spheres of equal radius).

 

The electron, being a charged elementary particle, possesses a nonzero magnetic moment.

And it possesses a nonzero magnetic moment because it is a charged particle.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

Magnetic moment

 

Main article: neutron magnetic momentEven though the neutron is a neutral particle, the magnetic moment of a neutron is not zero because it is a composite particle containing three charged quarks.

 

 

Electric dipole moment

 

Main article: Neutron electric dipole momentThe Standard Model of particle physics predicts a tiny separation of positive and negative charge within the neutron leading to a permanent electric dipole moment.^[21] The predicted value is, however, well below the current sensitivity of experiments. From several unsolved puzzles in particle physics, it is clear that the Standard Model is not the final and full description of all particles and their interactions. New theories going beyond the Standard Model generally lead to much larger predictions for the electric dipole moment of the neutron. Currently, there are at least four experiments trying to measure for the first time a finite neutron electric dipole moment

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....c_dipole_moment

So far, no neutron EDM has been found.

And it was discovered it was NOT a fundemental particle because:

 

http://en.wikipedia....ong_interaction

 

History

 

Before the 1970s, physicists were uncertain about the binding mechanism of the atomic nucleus. It was known that the nucleus was composed of protons and neutrons and that protons possessed positive electric charge while neutrons were electrically neutral. However, these facts seemed to contradict one another. By physical understanding at that time, positive charges would repel one another and the nucleus should therefore fly apart. However, this was never observed. New physics was needed to explain this phenomenon.

 

A stronger attractive force was postulated to explain how the atomic nucleus was bound together despite the protons' mutual electromagnetic repulsion. This hypothesized force was called the strong force, which was believed to be a fundamental force that acted on the nucleons (the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus). Experiments suggested that this force bound protons and neutrons together with equal strength.^{[citation needed]}

 

It was later discovered that protons and neutrons were not fundamental particles, but were made up of constituent particles called quarks. The strong attraction between nucleons was the side-effect of a more fundamental force that bound the quarks together in the protons and neutrons. The theory of quantum chromodynamics explains that quarks carry what is called a color charge, although it has no relation to visible color.^[3] Quarks with unlike color charge attract one another as a result of the strong interaction, which is mediated by particles called gluons.

 

Yet you to this day still call the Strong force a fundemental force even though to be a fundemental force:

 

http://en.wikipedia....tal_interaction

 

In particle physics, fundamental interactions (sometimes called interactive forces or fundamental forces) are the ways that elementary particles interact with one another. An interaction is fundamental when it cannot be described in terms of other interactions.

 

Yet they are NOT fundemental particles and it can be described in terms of color charge.

 

http://en.wikipedia....i/Spin_(physics)

Composite particles also possess magnetic moments associated with their spin. In particular, the neutron possesses a non-zero magnetic moment despite being electrically neutral. This fact was an early indication that the neutron is not an elementary particle. In fact, it is made up of quarks, which are electrically charged particles. The magnetic moment of the neutron comes from the spins of the individual quarks and their orbital motions.

 

Actually it should have been an early indication that neutral does not mean no charge, but a balancing of charge, both positive and negative. And that those charges are still interacting with every other charge. Protons, electrons and other atoms included.

 

Call it color in an effort to disguise the fact if you want, but it is all due to the movement of electrically charged particles, i.e. current.

 

 

And you are correct, it is all due to spin:

http://farside.ph.ut...res/node73.html

Edited August 27, 2012 by EMField