Chirality

[StrengtheningSagaciousness]

A recent vision: As an electron travels away from point of perspective, it produces a circular magnetic field around it which has always been observed to have an anti-clockwise rotation also known as "chirality". Perhaps this is common to a biased direction of spin of the electron in motion with its axis being in the direction of travel.

 

Perhaps this spin we observe wouldn't happen at all if it weren't for the local rotating gravitational field of our galaxy.

Perhaps at our galaxy's center is a black hole or magnetic anomaly which creates a quadripolar magnetic field with the galactic plane being north and its poles being south.

Perhaps if we were to cross to the other side of the galactic plane everything that appears to exhibit chirality would spin the opposite direction.

This makes more sense to me than a universal chirality.

Perhaps a galaxy's dark rift along the galactic plane is dark due to a neutral influence of spin forces which actually influences spinning photons to stop spinning altogether.

Perhaps the farther the photon travels away from a spinning gravitational/magnetic field, the less spinning it does and eventually doesn't..... until it re-enters a spinning field which once again increases it's amplitude of spin and it goes from potential photon back to observable photon..... After all, isn't it only within a gravitational field (from which we know creates spin) we scratch our heads trying to figure out the spin of the electron inappropriately as a universal anomaly?

 

Sorry for the vagueness and bouncing around. I'm still interpreting and refining a recent vision.

[Ronald Hyde]

This is a great topic for me, I put a topic on classical physics asking why spiral galaxies so resemble Hurricanes. I've gotten some really good responses in it. I know that the Sun has

a quadrupole field, and recently that the Earth likely does too. So your topic increases my understanding, and nice picture too, and mine might increase yours. Study the Sun's field

because it relates to the Solar Cycle.

[Bill Angel]

The value of spin for an elementary particle depends only on the type of particle, and cannot be altered in any known way. Also spin is a quantum property, in that it assumes integer or half integer values. It can't gradually decrease from a value of 1 to -1, passing through 0 at the plane of the galaxy.

[Phi for All]

A recent vision:

 

*

 

I'm still interpreting and refining a recent vision.

Define vision, please.

[vampares]

The value of spin for an elementary particle depends only on the type of particle, and cannot be altered in any known way. Also spin is a quantum property, in that it assumes integer or half integer values. It can't gradually decrease from a value of 1 to -1, passing through 0 at the plane of the galaxy.

 

So does the "counter-clockwise" magnetic field have any relavance to our non-quantum world? Or is it just like looking at the front or the back of an electron?

[StrengtheningSagaciousness]

The value of spin for an elementary particle depends only on the type of particle, and cannot be altered in any known way. Also spin is a quantum property, in that it assumes integer or half integer values. It can't gradually decrease from a value of 1 to -1, passing through 0 at the plane of the galaxy.

 

First of all, an electron is only "generally thought to be an elementary particle", and furthermore when a particle is said to have half integer value of spin, that only means that it has been observed that such particles must rotate 720 degrees to return to an identical state.......

 

Referring to the Heisenberg principle:

An accurately observed spin is relative to what vantage point?

If viewed from the sun, the earth appears to complete 1 spin in 24 hours, but what if viewed from the moon?

Perhaps the invisible mass in which the electron inhabits is opposite spinning at half speed, thus creating the illusion of half-spin.

Is it certain that the observed spin has a vantage point in-line with a stationary axis?

What exactly makes it a quantum property?

 

I find it very un-scientific that some individuals draw up a fact out of theory as soon as evidence is presented, such as data coming from the CERN project, show it as "probable" and suddenly the whole world accepts it as common or traditional knowledge. Traditional knowledge and traditional thinking means to discourage individuals to back-track in their understandings. Where true science exists, tradition does not.

 

All traditional common understandings, scientifically, are subject to change.

 

Absolutely, the only one absolute fact is that nothing is absolute at all.

 

I don't mean to challenge the whole world, I only mean to compare visions with most current understandings.

 

Thanks for reading:)

Edited September 20, 2012 by StrengtheningSagaciousness

[Bill Angel]

Concerning the question of why the electron has a quantum property called "spin":

 

Check out the entertaining blog post "Electron Spin for Toddlers":

http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2010/07/26/electron-spin-for-toddlers/

[studiot]

I really didn't understand the relationship between the title of your initial post and your post#1.

 

Chirality is not a quantum matter.

 

It's most significant effects on humanity have been in the fields of chemistry and biochemistry where the the lack of appreciation of chirality of certain molecules has lead undesirable effects.

 

The spin quantum number on the other hand is only to do with quantum mechanics, and further really has little or nothing to do with classical mechanical rotation.

Edited September 20, 2012 by studiot

[StrengtheningSagaciousness]

I really didn't understand the relationship between the title of your initial post and your post#1.

 

Chirality is not a quantum matter.

 

It's most significant effects on humanity have been in the fields of chemistry and biochemistry where the the lack of appreciation of chirality of certain molecules has lead undesirable effects.

 

The spin quantum number on the other hand is only to do with quantum mechanics, and further really has little or nothing to do with classical mechanical rotation.

 

 

Albert Einstein advanced the very uncertain "quantum theory" into the brain of Max Planck. Planck, without even fully understanding what he had his hands on, was hungry for his own Nobel Prize. At the same time, the scientific community was so excited with the new general theory of relativity which covered the macrocosm, they immediately opened the doors to accept the first theory which would set the fundamental stage for study into the microcosm. What Planck had discovered, while tugging on the shirts of giants, may have only been so deeply accepted because it made the most sense to world which was all too eager to finish the puzzle.

 

Quantum theory may have proven itself accurate enough times to be accepted, but no theory should be 100% TRUSTED.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnNsswDgoGg

 

Looks like we may be going back to a wave mechanics standing.

[Ronald Hyde]

Albert Einstein advanced the very uncertain "quantum theory" into the brain of Max Planck. Planck, without even fully understanding what he had his hands on, was hungry for his own Nobel Prize. At the same time, the scientific community was so excited with the new general theory of relativity which covered the macrocosm, they immediately opened the doors to accept the first theory which would set the fundamental stage for study into the microcosm. What Planck had discovered, while tugging on the shirts of giants, may have only been so deeply accepted because it made the most sense to world which was all too eager to finish the puzzle.

 

Quantum theory may have proven itself accurate enough times to be accepted, but no theory should be 100% TRUSTED.

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=mnNsswDgoGg

 

Looks like we may be going back to a wave mechanics standing.

I wasn't aware of those historical facts, it adds insight into how important this Einstein fellow was to Physics, then and now. Too bad that he was lost to Physics

because he couldn't reconcile his Philosophy with his Physics. A real loss that. I have the Pais book on Einstein "Subtle is the Lord". BTW it contains one of the best

description of the Planck derivation I have ever seen. The book isn't afraid to get technical, but still explains things very clearly, and gives a good understanding of

Einstein himself.

 

You're right in perceiving that the problem is not properly defined, and it has to be defined in context, but you've included that context with the Galaxy picture.

So all we need to do is bring enough things in and modify our definitions just a bit, and maybe get this buggy on the road. I'll get back to you on this, if someone

doesn't beat me to it.

[studiot]

Strengthening Sagactiousness although your post#9 quotes my post#8 and purports to be a response to it I can't see any direct relationship between the two.

 

I was trying to listen to you, but are you listening to me?

[StrengtheningSagaciousness]

Strengthening Sagactiousness although your post#9 quotes my post#8 and purports to be a response to it I can't see any direct relationship between the two.

 

I was trying to listen to you, but are you listening to me?

 

When I happened upon the term chirality I was actually researching the biased direction of spin of a current induced magnetic field. Even though it is defined as an effect in the "quantum" world, I believe that what we think is a quantum or "closed system" isn't as closed as we have been taught with most recent common understandings.

 

Sorry if it seems I had put your question on the back burner... I felt compelled to bring in some history to show the basis for my views on the quantum uncertainty before elaborating on specific definitions which could be affected.

[studiot]

But chirality is not a quantum matter so why mix the two?

[StrengtheningSagaciousness]

But chirality is not a quantum matter so why mix the two?

 

We could call it the Right-Hand-Rule but this only describes its function.

Another possibility would be circular polarization but still does not explain the biased direction of rotation.

I'm open to using a more appropriate term if anyone has a suggestion.

Edited September 21, 2012 by StrengtheningSagaciousness

[Ronald Hyde]

We could call it the Right-Hand-Rule but this only describes its function.

Another possibility would be circular polarization but still does not explain the biased direction of rotation.

I'm open to using a more appropriate term if anyone has a suggestion.

I'm not going to prove this, I'll just declare it, but in time you will see it's the case. Every time there is a rule like the 'Right Handed Rule, in

Electromagnetism there is an underlying spontaneously broken symmetry.

[FrankM]

I'm not going to prove this, I'll just declare it, but in time you will see it's the case. Every time there is a rule like the 'Right Handed Rule, in Electromagnetism there is an underlying spontaneously broken symmetry.

In 1975, an article was published titled, "Chirality". Many more examples have been found since then.

 

Chirality

 

The article stated there was a left-hand bias. The final paragraph contained the following: "Thus there are indications that the role of chirality in the universe, or at least on this Earth, may be greater than has yet been understood. This accords with the view often put forward that greater attention should be paid to asymmetries as the necessary initiators of processes."

[StrengtheningSagaciousness]

In 1975, an article was published titled, "Chirality". Many more examples have been found since then.

 

Chirality

 

The article stated there was a left-hand bias. The final paragraph contained the following: "Thus there are indications that the role of chirality in the universe, or at least on this Earth, may be greater than has yet been understood. This accords with the view often put forward that greater attention should be paid to asymmetries as the necessary initiators of processes."

 

I love it!!!!

This article very deeply elaborates on the problem. Thank you very much FrankM for bringing this into the thread!!

In so many fields of applied sciences this property is regarded as a rule but for the purpose of this topic it remains a question.

The biased direction of nature is crucial to the order which enables all things to exist. Without this property all would be chaos and static.

 

Supposing that there exists a mirrored realm where all chiral rotations observed here on earth would rotate in the opposite direction, I hereby encourage future posts to explore the possibilities for "where the mirror exists?"

[studiot]

Chirality

 

Perchance those who do not understand its precisely defined meaning might like to look it up?

 

Then perhaps the OP could get on and state whatever it is he actually want to say.

[StrengtheningSagaciousness]

Chirality

 

Perchance those who do not understand its precisely defined meaning might like to look it up?

 

Then perhaps the OP could get on and state whatever it is he actually want to say.

 

This is sort of an exploration into symmetry (with the belief that all is symmetrical and anything observed to not have perfect symmetry must have a counterpart beyond current view)

 

The implications of what came to me in a dream are nothing short of insane, but its echoes ring louder and louder everyday.

If I knew excactly what it is I wanted to say, there would be no need for the question. Equally, if I could perfectly describe the question it surely would contain the answer within merely speaking it.

 

If you haven't yet read this article, I urge you to do so. If you don't understand a definition, look it up and research it's use in context.

 

This is an excerpt from ^^^^^^^ (the article) which basically sums up what I am after:

 

 

A primary aim of science is the elimination of

arbitrariness by the discovery of intelligible reason

for everything being as it is and not otherwise.

But no-one has yet conceived ,a sufficient reason

for a fundamental or general chiral bias, say in

favour of left-handed forms. So, if a bias has been

found in any realm, the natural inference has been

that it is due to some contingent local effect and

that structures with the opposite bias may exist

elsewhere in the universe. <-------------(Where might they exist?)

 

Here is an interesting video which I think provides a very important aspect to take into consideration. Pay close attention at about 4 minutes into the video.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZXme8FHe0o

 

Any thoughts?

[MigL]

t your facts straight Strengthening Sagactiousness, Max Planck' final version of a quantised statistically derived black body radiation spectrum, was published in late 1900. Albert Einstein's paper ( one of three, the other two being special relativity and brownian motion ) on the photoelectric effect, which alluded to quantization, was published in 1905.

 

Who was influenced by whom ???

[Bill Angel]

In 1975, an article was published titled, "Chirality". Many more examples have been found since then.

 

Chirality

 

The article stated there was a left-hand bias. The final paragraph contained the following: "Thus there are indications that the role of chirality in the universe, or at least on this Earth, may be greater than has yet been understood. This accords with the view often put forward that greater attention should be paid to asymmetries as the necessary initiators of processes."

 

A group of scientists were awarded the Nobel Prize in 2008 for their work in this area.

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2008

"A hitherto unexplained broken symmetry of the same kind lies behind the very origin of the cosmos in the Big Bang some 14 billion years ago. If equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created, they ought to have annihilated each other. But this did not happen, there was a tiny deviation of one extra particle of matter for every 10 billion antimatter particles. It is this broken symmetry that seems to have caused our cosmos to survive. The question of how this exactly happened still remains unanswered. Perhaps the new particle accelerator LHC at CERN in Geneva will unravel some of the mysteries that continue to puzzle us."

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2008/press.html

[Ronald Hyde]

t your facts straight Strengthening Sagactiousness, Max Planck' final version of a quantised statistically derived black body radiation spectrum, was published in late 1900. Albert Einstein's paper ( one of three, the other two being special relativity and brownian motion ) on the photoelectric effect, which alluded to quantization, was published in 1905.

 

Who was influenced by whom ???

The physics community was very small in Europe and Germany at that time and there was direct communication between many of the interested parties,

which does not appear in the Annelin der Physic (sic) which is only a quarterly, and about the only journal available..

[MigL]

Einstein wasn't even part of the physics community in Europe in 1900, when Planck came up with several drafts to explain the UV catastrophy of black body radiation. In 1900 Einstein wasn't even a clerk in the Swiss patent office yet, Ronald.

 

Symmetry is the underlying cause of many physical laws ( which are inviolatile ), I don't know if I'd extend that to rules ( which are for convenience ). One of the greatest female mathematicians proved this in the theorem named for her, Emily Noether. Global continuous space time symmetries like translational, angular and temporal account for the conservation laws for momentum, angular momentum and mass-energy respectively. There are also global discrete space-time symmetries that account for CPT conservation and local gauge symmetries which acocount for our forces and their associated particles.

The simplest way to think of symmetry breaking ( credit to Alan Guth ) is to consider a dropping pencil. As it falls it moves to a lower and lower energy state but it is always rotationally symmetric, it can be turned at any angle about its axis and there is no difference ( a round pencil not a hexagonal one ). When it hits the ground point first, it still has the same symmetry but it is unstable because it can drop to a lower energy state, ie it is at a 'false' zero energy state. As soon as it falls on its side, it is in its lowest, real zero energy state but it is no longer symmetric because a rotation will now point the pencil in a specific direction.

Symmetry breaking in the early universe worked the same way. As it expanded and cooled, it dropped to lower energy states. Some of these states were 'false' vacuum states, and as the universe dropped to the real vacuum state symmetry breaking occurred. There may have been many such breaks, the last one being at an energy of 250 GeV, where the electroweak sparated into the weak and EM force. A previous one may have occurred at 10^15 GeV where the strong interaction separated from the electroweak. These are examples of gauge symmetry breaks. A continuous space-time symmetry break of a scalar vacuum energy field may have precipitated the inflationary period between 10^-35 and 10^-30 secs after the big bang by causing a large negative pressure condition as it slowly rolled down to the true lowest vacuum energy. In GR it can be shown that large negative pressure ( pressure being a form of energy ) can cause repulsive or negative gravity, resulting in exponential expansion.

If this slow roll down to the actual zero vacuum state still has to be reached , and the roll is very slight, it could account for th accelerating expansion of the universe. Dark energy is then nothing more than the final effects of a symmetry break which started 13.7 billion yrs ago.

Edited September 22, 2012 by MigL

[Ronald Hyde]

Einstein wasn't even part of the physics community in Europe in 1900, when Planck came up with several drafts to explain the UV catastrophy of black body radiation. In 1900 Einstein wasn't even a clerk in the Swiss patent office yet, Ronald.

I haven't been able to reference what I wanted to tell you in the Pais book, partly because it's find print and I don't see as well as I used to, but I do know these about Einstein. First, understand that I am an avid follower of the history of science and math, mention a name and I can probably give you at least a page of bio. Before he graduated he knew people who

were part of the little community. Basically their first love was physics and they tutored or taught students on the side for money. People who wanted to be engineers, that sort of thing. Einstein was not popular with his professors, he studied Maxwell, which they didn't understand. When he graduated one of them wrote a scathing note saying that he was lazy and could not get an academic career. You've got to remember that in his youth, we don't have many 'young' pictures of him alas, he was very handsome, charming, bright even

mesmerizing. Just look at young Einsteins eyes. And he was very people oriented too, so he had no problem gathering a group around him or joining any other group. So even before

he graduated he was already part of that community. When he graduated he did indeed not appointment, I think his desired post went to Arnold Somerfeld. Somerfeld is not now so

big a name as Einstein, but he was a great choice in many ways, he contributed to both the theoretical and experimental problem of the Hydrogen Atom, the big ticket item of the day, but most of

all he was a great mentor. It's hard to overestimate his influence in that regard, he attracted the best students, taught them well and let them roam free to accomplish their deeds. Born and Bohr were of course excellent mentors too.

 

Back to Einstein, when he didn't get that position, I don't know whether he knew him personally or through some of his friends, Planck tried to find Einstein a position elsewhere but

could not, and then a only then did he take the patent office job. But the patent office wasn't quite the dead end you might think, because every patented item (then) must work,

and thus must obey the laws of physics. That's a gimmee.

 

I have no idea whether Einstein helped or encouraged Planck in any way, but I do know that Planck was working for a company that made light bulbs, not as a paid employee but

on contract or retainer, and they are the ones who specifically wanted the solution to the black body problem. But there's another reason Planck wanted to solve it. He had solved many

little problems but he was 42 and wanted to 'get his name in lights' so to speak, do something significant. He had wanted to tackle the problems of chemical thermodynamics, I'm sure he would have done well, but an American, one Josia Willard Gibbs had completely and very elegantly done that. Not until Berzelius added chemical electro-thermodynamics

was anything important added. Those are things I know 'off the top of my head' but right now I don't have any links to point you to.

 

On Noether's theorem, I think it is one of the most beautiful theories ever put forth, right along with Einstein's.

 

Now, on all of these 'physical picture' things, I'm aware of and heard and read about them, but I'm running on a different track. I'm starting to see that there are clearly some

people who understand what I am saying, that they know that I understand them too. Not everyone does, they are my 'little bad of brothers' or sisters too. Alas, you're not one

of them, and it's very hard to explain something who doesn't see any part of what is going on. But it's really nice when I see that if I post something they immediately know how

it fits into their scheme, and when I ask a question, I immediately get relevant answers. Because they're working on self organizing systems, emergence, organizing principles,

those things. Viewing the Universe as a self organizing system is the simplest part of it. My part in this, and why I understand what they are doing so well, is that I arrived at

EXACTLY the same viewpoint, but from a completely different direction, and without knowing the right names to use. But I also know that I have special things to offer that they may or may not have. I have First Principals, I've already made a post about them to 'test the water' and got the typically warm reception. I know how a lot of the math

connects up, SU(3) is very important in the scheme of things, it and the concept of Color, as in everyday life and the strong interaction. What's more I can see things in the physical

picture that are readily observable, have been under observation for a long time, and are well known, that connect and are explainable. So I think of the Beatle's tune:

 

Come together, right now, over me!

 

I have to help them all bring it together and I'm sure they will help me.

[MigL]

I have thae Pais book ( Subtle is the Lord... ), along with several others on Einstein's life and carreer.

I also don't see well ( almost no vision in left eye ) due to PDS glaucoma in my middle 30s, filtering operations and subsequent cataract operations. Driving at night or in bad weather is an adventure, and I now read fine print with a magnifying glass.

The math professor who called Einstein a lazy dog was none other than Hermann Minkowsky.

Planck's introduction of quantization was an ' act of desperation ', a fudge factor if you will, since he couldn't make his equations make sense ( infinite energy as frequency approaches infinity ) without it. He was not influenced by anyone or any prize.

I prefer to try and understand the accepted science first, before making speculative assertions, as I've always thought you'd be able to see farther by standing on the shoulders of others ( recognise the quote ?? ) rather than jumping up while standing behind them.