So the LHC has been halted for a period of several months due to magnetic failure? Wasn't this due to a electrical malfunction that caused a helium leak? Am highly anticipating its return!
You have to love your very own living god in your pressance(melbourne boure)
LHC out of action? huh?
Theyllfigure a particle
taser beam gun: plasma electocution!
The silly thing will be up and running in a month
mega lots of black holes that will evaporate
black holes are not reaLLY BLACK
if you got a spectrometre on the fucks you would see they jet out polarlly a lot of energy of ambuguous spectrum
LHC out of action? huh?
Theyllfigure a particle
taser beam gun: plasma electocution!
The silly thing will be up and running in a month
mega lots of black holes that will evaporate
black holes are not reaLLY BLACK
if you got a spectrometre on the fucks you would see they jet out polarlly a lot of energy of ambuguous spectrum
I have some sort of impression that the "leak" and "temperature rise" were quite a bit more brutal than explained.
Superconducting magnets tend to detonate if they lose their coolant. About 100 magnets have gone out of function simultaneously. Vacuum was lost.
To me, this suggests a huge destruction. Something like magnets destroying their neighbours as well as the vacuum tube, the explosion propagating to over 1/10th of the ring.
Hopefully I'm wrong. But if that's it, then repair the toy for next spring.
Superconducting magnets tend to detonate if they lose their coolant. About 100 magnets have gone out of function simultaneously. Vacuum was lost.
To me, this suggests a huge destruction. Something like magnets destroying their neighbours as well as the vacuum tube, the explosion propagating to over 1/10th of the ring.
Hopefully I'm wrong. But if that's it, then repair the toy for next spring.
QUOTE (Enthalpy+Oct 6 2008, 05:34 PM)
I have some sort of impression that the "leak" and "temperature rise" were quite a bit more brutal than explained.
Superconducting magnets tend to detonate if they lose their coolant. About 100 magnets have gone out of function simultaneously. Vacuum was lost.
To me, this suggests a huge destruction. Something like magnets destroying their neighbours as well as the vacuum tube, the explosion propagating to over 1/10th of the ring.
Oooooooooh!
Do I detect a dark conspiracy again?
(or is that just a tech report?
)
Superconducting magnets tend to detonate if they lose their coolant. About 100 magnets have gone out of function simultaneously. Vacuum was lost.
To me, this suggests a huge destruction. Something like magnets destroying their neighbours as well as the vacuum tube, the explosion propagating to over 1/10th of the ring.
Oooooooooh!
Do I detect a dark conspiracy again?
(or is that just a tech report?
)
QUOTE (Enthalpy+Oct 6 2008, 09:34 PM)
I have some sort of impression that the "leak" and "temperature rise" were quite a bit more brutal than explained.
Superconducting magnets tend to detonate if they lose their coolant. About 100 magnets have gone out of function simultaneously. Vacuum was lost.
To me, this suggests a huge destruction. Something like magnets destroying their neighbours as well as the vacuum tube, the explosion propagating to over 1/10th of the ring.
Hopefully I'm wrong. But if that's it, then repair the toy for next spring.
That is what I was pondering over as well. I'm more than sure that the initial problem is being held back a bit, to offset the integrity of the project. But then again I am not working at the site, so I obviously don't realize the situation at hand. your explanation offers a more critical analysis concerning the LHC. Thanks for the info Enthalpy
Superconducting magnets tend to detonate if they lose their coolant. About 100 magnets have gone out of function simultaneously. Vacuum was lost.
To me, this suggests a huge destruction. Something like magnets destroying their neighbours as well as the vacuum tube, the explosion propagating to over 1/10th of the ring.
Hopefully I'm wrong. But if that's it, then repair the toy for next spring.
That is what I was pondering over as well. I'm more than sure that the initial problem is being held back a bit, to offset the integrity of the project. But then again I am not working at the site, so I obviously don't realize the situation at hand. your explanation offers a more critical analysis concerning the LHC. Thanks for the info Enthalpy
Conspiracy?
The Lep, the predecessor of the Lhc in the same tunnel, has been sabotaged at least once with beercaps in the vacuum tube, so such uses do exist - whatever their origins are, which certainly don't need to be a competitor.
As for the Lhc, I have no information about sabotage or not and hence won't express an opinion.
I know sabotage exists. I also know that machines, especially new ones, do have flaws.
I wrote that about 100 magnets were destroyed. Please don't misinterpret this: is doesn't need 100 independent causes. The explosion of one failing magnet might have destroyed the neighbour helium tank and so on. Or maybe a leak in the first destroyed tank may have emptied the neighbours, whose magnets would then have exploded.
If this was the case, it would be a design flaw to be corrected. Armour everything to prevent a propagation.
The first runs were probably at a very low power. At full steam ahead, the proton beams would carry as much energy as 10kg of TNT but very well focussed, which is more than enough to punch through the tube and cut quite a few magnet wires.
The Lep, the predecessor of the Lhc in the same tunnel, has been sabotaged at least once with beercaps in the vacuum tube, so such uses do exist - whatever their origins are, which certainly don't need to be a competitor.
As for the Lhc, I have no information about sabotage or not and hence won't express an opinion.
I know sabotage exists. I also know that machines, especially new ones, do have flaws.
I wrote that about 100 magnets were destroyed. Please don't misinterpret this: is doesn't need 100 independent causes. The explosion of one failing magnet might have destroyed the neighbour helium tank and so on. Or maybe a leak in the first destroyed tank may have emptied the neighbours, whose magnets would then have exploded.
If this was the case, it would be a design flaw to be corrected. Armour everything to prevent a propagation.
The first runs were probably at a very low power. At full steam ahead, the proton beams would carry as much energy as 10kg of TNT but very well focussed, which is more than enough to punch through the tube and cut quite a few magnet wires.
True... the 1st test were low power. 1st tests were only ran at the required amount of energy to accelerate protons in the magnetic field (8.36) Tesla, but was for a duration of 24hrs. They need to be able to sustain that amount of energy for longer durations of time to produce temperatures below -271c. which is actually colder then space. I am aware that the initial test runs explicitly had readings of over 8.36 Tesla, and speculation grew that may have the LHc running near 10Tesla. so in the case of its "malfunction", as demoting as it sounds I would have rather it been considered as sabotage as opposed to a major flaw, or failure.
So many things can go wrong! Technology doesn't really need sabotage to malfunction - though sometimes it helps.
Look at the Jumbo for instance, it's been flying for 30 (?) years, and still has accidents, with the Ntsb making recommendations to change design features.
I mean, maybe the induction was below already successful values, but then, hydraulics may have leaked at that time and not before, of software may have driven the magnets in a wrong way, or an electric contact went pshhhh at that time and not before, or or or...
Even parts as reliable as transformers sometimes go bang because of insulation failure, after 20 years of permanent service under worse conditions.
I wouldn't make any conclusion without much more precise first-hand data.
Look at the Jumbo for instance, it's been flying for 30 (?) years, and still has accidents, with the Ntsb making recommendations to change design features.
I mean, maybe the induction was below already successful values, but then, hydraulics may have leaked at that time and not before, of software may have driven the magnets in a wrong way, or an electric contact went pshhhh at that time and not before, or or or...
Even parts as reliable as transformers sometimes go bang because of insulation failure, after 20 years of permanent service under worse conditions.
I wouldn't make any conclusion without much more precise first-hand data.
QUOTE (Enthalpy+Oct 7 2008, 11:06 AM)
I wrote that about 100 magnets were destroyed.
They weren't. It was a Helium leak and if you know anything about the properties of superfluidic Helium at high pressure, you'd know how hard it is to keep it from leaking.
They weren't. It was a Helium leak and if you know anything about the properties of superfluidic Helium at high pressure, you'd know how hard it is to keep it from leaking.
QUOTE (Enthalpy+Oct 7 2008, 11:06 AM)
The first runs were probably at a very low power. At full steam ahead, the proton beams would carry as much energy as 10kg of TNT but very well focussed, which is more than enough to punch through the tube and cut quite a few magnet wires.
The first run/practice was at beam energies of 5TeV, but without collisions. The full power runs will be at beam energies of 7TeV.
Get your facts right before bitching about a conspiracy or making claims you have no idea about.
Get your facts right before bitching about a conspiracy or making claims you have no idea about.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 7 2008, 11:45 AM)
Get your facts right before bitching about a conspiracy or making claims
He didn't, fatso. That was my conspiracy talk. And it was something real physicists don't know much about, a joke.
But it was also a trick, since I was trying to extend the conversation just enough to see a real person come up with the words you stole from a real person to pretend you are a real person.
Let a real person speak next time. Any person.
He didn't, fatso. That was my conspiracy talk. And it was something real physicists don't know much about, a joke.
But it was also a trick, since I was trying to extend the conversation just enough to see a real person come up with the words you stole from a real person to pretend you are a real person.
Let a real person speak next time. Any person.
QUOTE (IAMoraes+Oct 7 2008, 06:01 PM)
But it was also a trick, since I was trying to extend the conversation just enough to see a real person come up with the words you stole from a real person to pretend you are a real person.
Got any more paranoid delusions you want to whine about?
Got any more paranoid delusions you want to whine about?
QUOTE (IAMoraes+Oct 7 2008, 06:01 PM)
Let a real person speak next time. Any person.
Check out the acknowledgments here. See the name 'George Weatherill'. That's me. Expect a sequel to the paper with the fortnight, with my name in the authors' section.
Got any examples of you being a real person?
Got any examples of you being a real person?
Thanks AN for the clarification there:)
I would very much hate it to be a 'conspiracy'.
Helium is indeed a real problem
I would very much hate it to be a 'conspiracy'.
Helium is indeed a real problem
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 8 2008, 06:19 AM)
Got any examples of you being a real person?
IAMoraes is a literary character desperately in search of an IgNobel... someone else from Brazil was indicated for it and I am green with envy. (In any case, it was a mistake to call him by my name, now no one knows the difference.)
Eeeewwwww...
Yor_on, just out of curiosity, the smashing particles are NOT spun by these magnets before the crash? Are they just accelerated? I thought the magnets were set to spin them, and I was a bit surprised that no article mentioned their spin. What happened?
IAMoraes is a literary character desperately in search of an IgNobel... someone else from Brazil was indicated for it and I am green with envy. (In any case, it was a mistake to call him by my name, now no one knows the difference.)
QUOTE
Helium is indeed a real problem
Eeeewwwww...
Yor_on, just out of curiosity, the smashing particles are NOT spun by these magnets before the crash? Are they just accelerated? I thought the magnets were set to spin them, and I was a bit surprised that no article mentioned their spin. What happened?
AN, about "full steam":
As the tests were done with almost the full induction, it was pretty clear to everyone that the particle energy was near the maximum achievable.
However, it doesn't mean that the number of protons was anywhere near the achievable maximum, and this also determines whether the beam can punch the tube or not.
About the number of magnets destroyed: do you have an internet address with more serious data? I got information only through BBC and worse ones, and they stated about one hundred destroyed.
Conspiracy? I wrote
"As for the Lhc, I have no information about sabotage or not and hence won't express an opinion."
and
"I wouldn't make any conclusion without much more precise first-hand data."
so you probably mistook me for another forum writer here.
About helium:
Up to now, I though superfluid helium would behave more or less the same way at high pressure. What does it change?
But why should one use it at high pressure? Quite unclear to me. At 2K, its vapour pressure is below 1b. What's the benefit?
As the tests were done with almost the full induction, it was pretty clear to everyone that the particle energy was near the maximum achievable.
However, it doesn't mean that the number of protons was anywhere near the achievable maximum, and this also determines whether the beam can punch the tube or not.
About the number of magnets destroyed: do you have an internet address with more serious data? I got information only through BBC and worse ones, and they stated about one hundred destroyed.
Conspiracy? I wrote
"As for the Lhc, I have no information about sabotage or not and hence won't express an opinion."
and
"I wouldn't make any conclusion without much more precise first-hand data."
so you probably mistook me for another forum writer here.
About helium:
Up to now, I though superfluid helium would behave more or less the same way at high pressure. What does it change?
But why should one use it at high pressure? Quite unclear to me. At 2K, its vapour pressure is below 1b. What's the benefit?
This dilemma reminds me of two teenagers, that have found an access door below the walls of an old abandoned dam, that still holds water.
They are trying to get a thick steel door open, that is bolted shut, because they think that there are riches behind that door.
They are trying to get a thick steel door open, that is bolted shut, because they think that there are riches behind that door.
Iamoraes?
why would they need 'particles' to spin?
And how do you think they would make them do it?
You've got me there:)
As far as I know they are meant to accelerate and 'direct' their paths.
Enthalpy do you have any link to your statement?
the only one I found is from LHCdefense.org and as they are rather negative to the whole idea?
http://lhcdefense.org/blog/
---------------
Ah yes :)
What I'm more wondering about is what the heating respective cooling will do to that section?
" CERN researchers must warm the damaged section so they can fix the problem and this will take a while.
The operating temperature of the LHC is of minus 271.3 degrees Celsius (minus 456.3 degrees Fahrenheit). "
To warm it and then cool it again, what will that do to the fatigue life of the materials?
Ok Enthalpy i found it here too.
" The problem occurred last weekend, when a failure, known as a quench, caused around 100 of the LHC's super-cooled magnets to heat up by as much as 100 degrees. "
But it doesn't state that the magnets are destroyed?
But considering that they should have been at minus 271.3 C just before it makes for a rather good guess:)
why would they need 'particles' to spin?
And how do you think they would make them do it?
You've got me there:)
As far as I know they are meant to accelerate and 'direct' their paths.
Enthalpy do you have any link to your statement?
the only one I found is from LHCdefense.org and as they are rather negative to the whole idea?
http://lhcdefense.org/blog/
---------------
Ah yes :)
What I'm more wondering about is what the heating respective cooling will do to that section?
" CERN researchers must warm the damaged section so they can fix the problem and this will take a while.
The operating temperature of the LHC is of minus 271.3 degrees Celsius (minus 456.3 degrees Fahrenheit). "
To warm it and then cool it again, what will that do to the fatigue life of the materials?
Ok Enthalpy i found it here too.
" The problem occurred last weekend, when a failure, known as a quench, caused around 100 of the LHC's super-cooled magnets to heat up by as much as 100 degrees. "
But it doesn't state that the magnets are destroyed?
But considering that they should have been at minus 271.3 C just before it makes for a rather good guess:)
QUOTE (yor_on+Oct 8 2008, 03:38 PM)
why would they need 'particles' to spin?
And how do you think they would make them do it?
You've got me there:)
As far as I know they are meant to accelerate and 'direct' their paths
I just automatically assumed that the sub-particles coming off a two clockwise-spin-particle crash would be of a different nature than those off a clockwise-counterclockwise crash! I don't know why it should be, of course, I just assumed it. That might come from seeing pictures of crashing galaxies at another site and noticing that a border-border crash leaves a (probably fast-cooling) triangular streak and a nucleus-nucleus crash leaves a fast-heating mess. That is obviously not the case with particles but I don't know any better so sue me!
I also assumed -without any reason as is the case- that the magnets were synched to spin the particles as the scientists wished. If the particle goes a few centimeters past the point where it should be turned towards its intended, planned half-circle path, and the magnet is then turned on in order to get it back into place, there should be a particle counter-reaction which would cause spin. Alas, one of those things I naturally assumed someone else would have thought about, but... I guess it doesn't make sense so sue me!
(boo hooooo...)
(no one let's me have any fun, boo hoo...)
And how do you think they would make them do it?
You've got me there:)
As far as I know they are meant to accelerate and 'direct' their paths
I just automatically assumed that the sub-particles coming off a two clockwise-spin-particle crash would be of a different nature than those off a clockwise-counterclockwise crash! I don't know why it should be, of course, I just assumed it. That might come from seeing pictures of crashing galaxies at another site and noticing that a border-border crash leaves a (probably fast-cooling) triangular streak and a nucleus-nucleus crash leaves a fast-heating mess. That is obviously not the case with particles but I don't know any better so sue me!
I also assumed -without any reason as is the case- that the magnets were synched to spin the particles as the scientists wished. If the particle goes a few centimeters past the point where it should be turned towards its intended, planned half-circle path, and the magnet is then turned on in order to get it back into place, there should be a particle counter-reaction which would cause spin. Alas, one of those things I naturally assumed someone else would have thought about, but... I guess it doesn't make sense so sue me!
(boo hooooo...)
(no one let's me have any fun, boo hoo...)
No I won't sue you :)
I guess it depends how you look at 'particles'.
Spin as it seems defined is the intrinsic angular momentum of a particle.
'Intrinsic' in this meaning 'true'. that it exist as much as the 'mass' and 'electric charge'.
"But particle spin is uniquely a quantum phenomenon, different than human scale angular momentum. Its value is fixed and independent of particle mass or angular velocity. "
And
" As a qualitative concept, the spin vector is often handy because it is easy to picture classically. For instance, quantum mechanical spin can exhibit phenomena analogous to classical gyroscopic effects. For example, one can exert a kind of "torque" on an electron by putting it in a magnetic field (the field acts upon the electron's intrinsic magnetic dipole moment — see the following section). The result is that the spin vector undergoes precession, just like a classical gyroscope."
My problem is how to see it as a particle with a defined position and velocity.
Spin becomes yet another 'property' that we concluded as existing and true but that we can not treat as we would when describing the spin of f ex earth.
Which doesn't stop spin from being able to be manipulated though.
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200111281...trunc_sys.shtml
If you treated it as a very small replica of a 'earth' one could easily expect it to react by changing it spin depending on the direction of a magnetic field.
So I find your idea rather sane :)
And if you look at is a wave?
Read about spin here.
I guess it depends how you look at 'particles'.
Spin as it seems defined is the intrinsic angular momentum of a particle.
'Intrinsic' in this meaning 'true'. that it exist as much as the 'mass' and 'electric charge'.
"But particle spin is uniquely a quantum phenomenon, different than human scale angular momentum. Its value is fixed and independent of particle mass or angular velocity. "
And
" As a qualitative concept, the spin vector is often handy because it is easy to picture classically. For instance, quantum mechanical spin can exhibit phenomena analogous to classical gyroscopic effects. For example, one can exert a kind of "torque" on an electron by putting it in a magnetic field (the field acts upon the electron's intrinsic magnetic dipole moment — see the following section). The result is that the spin vector undergoes precession, just like a classical gyroscope."
My problem is how to see it as a particle with a defined position and velocity.
Spin becomes yet another 'property' that we concluded as existing and true but that we can not treat as we would when describing the spin of f ex earth.
Which doesn't stop spin from being able to be manipulated though.
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200111281...trunc_sys.shtml
If you treated it as a very small replica of a 'earth' one could easily expect it to react by changing it spin depending on the direction of a magnetic field.
So I find your idea rather sane :)
And if you look at is a wave?
Read about spin here.
That the magnets still have a temperature is a clue that they aren't destroyed - that would be fine. It's just the common behaviour of superconducting magnets to explode if they lose their coolant while being supplied with current, and that's what is usually meant by "quenching". Maybe the operators could brake the current before too much helium was lost, or the induction was low at that particular time.
A small hint is that vacuum was lost.
Anyway, I wish the reports were clearer.
--------------------------
Magnets serve to bend the path of the particles on a loop so that resonating cavities have enough time, over many turns, to give energy to the particles bunches.
Dipolar magnet are built with alternating gradients in order to focus the beam. Other magnets (quadripolar etc) have other beam shape correction goals.
A small hint is that vacuum was lost.
Anyway, I wish the reports were clearer.
--------------------------
Magnets serve to bend the path of the particles on a loop so that resonating cavities have enough time, over many turns, to give energy to the particles bunches.
Dipolar magnet are built with alternating gradients in order to focus the beam. Other magnets (quadripolar etc) have other beam shape correction goals.
QUOTE (yor_on+Oct 9 2008, 01:03 AM)
I guess it depends how you look at 'particles'.
Your_on, sorry...
"Wave" or "particle" or "number" or "information" for me are all the same thing. I just switch theories and nothing comes out even close to the way you expect. I have no idea what most of what you are saying is supposed to mean.
But that never stopped me before, so just bear with me:
I don't have a "momentum" to show anyone, I can only see everything as symbolic infinitesimals frozen in time. So here is an atom:
I don't have a "momentum" to show anyone, I can only see everything as symbolic infinitesimals frozen in time. So here is an atom:
111111111... (this is here as place filler, an "atomic border", as it were)
101010101...
110110110...
101010101...
111101111...
100010100...
111111011...
101010101...
110110110...
...
A proton is, then, half of that, which means that half of an infinity is an infinitesimal (but that goes in another context). Only the angle of the "freeze in time" changes because it is exactly like a whole atom. Everything above the 10000000000... is a proton, and below, another proton. (I covered my bases with a symbolic explanation of why this is a proton in another thread, but you don't really need that explanation because this is all symbolism.) Here it is:
0110110110...
0101010101...
0111111011...
0100010100...
0111101111...
0101010101...
0110110110...
0101010101...
0111111111...
1000000000...
0111111111...
0101010101...
0110110110...
0101010101...
0111101111...
0100010100...
0111111011...
0101010101...
0110110110...
...
I can *see* why it has a "half spin"... I just put it there, didn't I?
So I can see an angle as the "momentum" and that is the closest thing I will ever get to understanding it. The best way to get a better estimate of what "momentum" is, if and when you get a minimal information set, is to double the value of your informational system. Since the distance of my informational set above will never go over 9 (because I didn't bother to write it) the "radius" of that "atom" is 18 (plus a fraction of the value of the infinitesimal 10000000000000...)
As you can see, I don't see any "force" or "gravity" as both would be impossible in a system stopped in time. I can imagine "electricity", though. Of course I can imagine it. It's just the coordinate 101010101010... and that is it.
(I am running to the caves right this minute because I don't know the first thing about "electricity", I have no way of understanding it in any other way, and there is no possibility that I will ever change my view on that which I do not understand: how could I?!)
But hte question was why can't I have a more accurate prediction for "momentum" when I have enough information about a system. I can too!
If a "spin" stopped in time (within a system) can reduced to an angle, the "momentum" will be predicted within a cone. I don't see why no one saw it yet.
The reason is very clear! Anyone who doesn't know the first thing about physics can see it!
If there is an "momentangle" x that you don't know the first thing about and you have a stopped-in-time system that will acquire a value; you have to assume that x can be any number only as long as it is an integer from within that system.
But "any angle" means "any point of observation". You can still write the complete "proton" as a series of integers, except their BIT position is random. Here is a proton, again, with ragged ends:
I can *see* why it has a "half spin"... I just put it there, didn't I?
So I can see an angle as the "momentum" and that is the closest thing I will ever get to understanding it. The best way to get a better estimate of what "momentum" is, if and when you get a minimal information set, is to double the value of your informational system. Since the distance of my informational set above will never go over 9 (because I didn't bother to write it) the "radius" of that "atom" is 18 (plus a fraction of the value of the infinitesimal 10000000000000...)
As you can see, I don't see any "force" or "gravity" as both would be impossible in a system stopped in time. I can imagine "electricity", though. Of course I can imagine it. It's just the coordinate 101010101010... and that is it.
(I am running to the caves right this minute because I don't know the first thing about "electricity", I have no way of understanding it in any other way, and there is no possibility that I will ever change my view on that which I do not understand: how could I?!)
But hte question was why can't I have a more accurate prediction for "momentum" when I have enough information about a system. I can too!
If a "spin" stopped in time (within a system) can reduced to an angle, the "momentum" will be predicted within a cone. I don't see why no one saw it yet.
The reason is very clear! Anyone who doesn't know the first thing about physics can see it!
If there is an "momentangle" x that you don't know the first thing about and you have a stopped-in-time system that will acquire a value; you have to assume that x can be any number only as long as it is an integer from within that system.
But "any angle" means "any point of observation". You can still write the complete "proton" as a series of integers, except their BIT position is random. Here is a proton, again, with ragged ends:
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111...
101010101010101011010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010...
0110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110...
10101010101010101101010101101010101101010101101010101101010101010...
011110111101111011110111101111011110111101111011110111101111011110111...
0001010001010001010001010001010001010001010001010001010001010001...
0111111011111101111110111111011111101111110111111011111101111110111111...
101010101010101011010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010...
110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110...
It is perfectly obvious that the "face" of the proton switched places. Because of the symmetry of the codes, it is obvious that it appeared suddenly somewhere else. If it weren't so, the atom, made of *forms* floating in *space*, would fall apart because "moving" parts within an atom are required to not break symmetry.
But it is also perfectly obvious that the place the momentangle can be found is where the face is supposed to be, and the face of the atom is right besides the line that reads a "trivial 1" followed by a series of unending zeros. The "randomness" that followed then had strict rules, since a 10 logically ORed with a 01 would never leave you with a zero. We correct that so that all 2's are properly aligned with themselves, 3's aligned with themselves, and 5's etc.... we can shift any of these coordinates only as long as all of their pure multiples are shifted along:
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111...
1010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010...
0110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110...
1010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010......
11110111101111011110111101111011110111101111011110111101111011110111...
101000101000101000101000101000101000101000101000101000101000101000101000...
111111011111101111110111111011110111111011111101111110111111011111101111110...
1010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010......
0110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110...
Prime qualities make it absolutely certain that there WILL be an alignment somewhere. Math handles that relatively easy -but I don't do any. It is a certainty that there will be a 1 followed by a series of zeros somewhere here. It happens to be in the 40th position at the resolution of 9 bits, above, but it could be anywhere else -as long as the math follows the rules of multiples, of course. (I am not touching math!)
I don't see why that is not enough for anyone to narrow down a "momentum" to a certain degree of accuracy once a minimal informational system is up: prediction should be a bit easier. (Is "momentum as an angle" that chaotic at those levels?!)
I don't see how anything I said could possibly be incompatible with this:
Prime qualities make it absolutely certain that there WILL be an alignment somewhere. Math handles that relatively easy -but I don't do any. It is a certainty that there will be a 1 followed by a series of zeros somewhere here. It happens to be in the 40th position at the resolution of 9 bits, above, but it could be anywhere else -as long as the math follows the rules of multiples, of course. (I am not touching math!)
I don't see why that is not enough for anyone to narrow down a "momentum" to a certain degree of accuracy once a minimal informational system is up: prediction should be a bit easier. (Is "momentum as an angle" that chaotic at those levels?!)
I don't see how anything I said could possibly be incompatible with this:
particle spin is uniquely a quantum phenomenon, different than human scale angular momentum. Its value is fixed and independent of particle mass or angular velocity. "
Or this:
My problem is how to see it as a particle with a defined position and velocity.
Of a whole system, not as a single particle thing, I can fake it, and I just did, in fact. It can have a "face" (position and velocity) but can't have a "momentum" until the randomnesses of the model-system you have are calculated.
The Earth's "face" would be Greenwich Meridian when it faces its direction 90 degrees from the Sun, as if the face had a place where it points to the future. It's just as arbitrary.
The Earth's "face" would be Greenwich Meridian when it faces its direction 90 degrees from the Sun, as if the face had a place where it points to the future. It's just as arbitrary.
Which doesn't stop spin from being able to be manipulated though.
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200111281...trunc_sys.shtml
I also don't see how anything I said could possibly conflict with what is in this link.
Then that would mean that the earth would change its magnetic field if the spin of the Sun changed?! I am lost here
It's kind of not-in-my-field... I mean, if an innocent series of 1's is a "border" for an "atom", it's perfectly clear that the next-in-line infinitesimal border will be made of 10 repeated forever but I don't know what "10 repeated forever" is supposed to mean in something as large as a whole planet yet.
Then that would mean that the earth would change its magnetic field if the spin of the Sun changed?! I am lost here
It's kind of not-in-my-field... I mean, if an innocent series of 1's is a "border" for an "atom", it's perfectly clear that the next-in-line infinitesimal border will be made of 10 repeated forever but I don't know what "10 repeated forever" is supposed to mean in something as large as a whole planet yet.
And if you look at is a wave?
Read about spin here.
Here is the abstract:
Uh, ok...
I don't see how I could possibly be in disagreement with anything the site says: if they say "SU(2) and I say "gyroscopic integers only", we are still talking about the same thing, but I wouldn't dream of changing my narrative for mathemystics. I would have to be insane. I don't have that type of mind structure. However, what brought me to this issue was a misunderstanding that I misunderstood. (Wow, first thing I double-misunderstood today.) I thought magnetic fields were being tuned to actually fast-rotate individual protons/atoms around themselves in addition to the rotation Enthalpy mentioned
Uh, ok...
I don't see how I could possibly be in disagreement with anything the site says: if they say "SU(2) and I say "gyroscopic integers only", we are still talking about the same thing, but I wouldn't dream of changing my narrative for mathemystics. I would have to be insane. I don't have that type of mind structure. However, what brought me to this issue was a misunderstanding that I misunderstood. (Wow, first thing I double-misunderstood today.) I thought magnetic fields were being tuned to actually fast-rotate individual protons/atoms around themselves in addition to the rotation Enthalpy mentioned
Magnets serve to bend the path of the particles on a loop so that resonating cavities have enough time, over many turns, to give energy to the particles bunches.
and used the word "spin". I wasn't and couldn't be talking about *physics* spin because I wouldn't know the first thing about it. (for that matter, what is wrong with using a laser beam to manipulate that spin?! And would magnetism plus laser be an improvement?!))
I am using you as a sounding board: you had an objection to something and I thought it might help to visualize the "thingies" I do. So SUE ME!
Your_on, sorry...
"Wave" or "particle" or "number" or "information" for me are all the same thing. I just switch theories and nothing comes out even close to the way you expect. I have no idea what most of what you are saying is supposed to mean.
But that never stopped me before, so just bear with me:
QUOTE
Spin as it seems defined is the intrinsic angular momentum of a particle.
'Intrinsic' in this meaning 'true'. that it exist as much as the 'mass' and 'electric charge'
'Intrinsic' in this meaning 'true'. that it exist as much as the 'mass' and 'electric charge'
I don't have a "momentum" to show anyone, I can only see everything as symbolic infinitesimals frozen in time. So here is an atom:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Spin as it seems defined is the intrinsic angular momentum of a particle. 'Intrinsic' in this meaning 'true'. that it exist as much as the 'mass' and 'electric charge' |
I don't have a "momentum" to show anyone, I can only see everything as symbolic infinitesimals frozen in time. So here is an atom:
111111111... (this is here as place filler, an "atomic border", as it were)
101010101...
110110110...
101010101...
111101111...
100010100...
111111011...
101010101...
110110110...
...
A proton is, then, half of that, which means that half of an infinity is an infinitesimal (but that goes in another context). Only the angle of the "freeze in time" changes because it is exactly like a whole atom. Everything above the 10000000000... is a proton, and below, another proton. (I covered my bases with a symbolic explanation of why this is a proton in another thread, but you don't really need that explanation because this is all symbolism.) Here it is:
QUOTE
0110110110...
0101010101...
0111111011...
0100010100...
0111101111...
0101010101...
0110110110...
0101010101...
0111111111...
1000000000...
0111111111...
0101010101...
0110110110...
0101010101...
0111101111...
0100010100...
0111111011...
0101010101...
0110110110...
...
I can *see* why it has a "half spin"... I just put it there, didn't I?
So I can see an angle as the "momentum" and that is the closest thing I will ever get to understanding it. The best way to get a better estimate of what "momentum" is, if and when you get a minimal information set, is to double the value of your informational system. Since the distance of my informational set above will never go over 9 (because I didn't bother to write it) the "radius" of that "atom" is 18 (plus a fraction of the value of the infinitesimal 10000000000000...)
As you can see, I don't see any "force" or "gravity" as both would be impossible in a system stopped in time. I can imagine "electricity", though. Of course I can imagine it. It's just the coordinate 101010101010... and that is it.
(I am running to the caves right this minute because I don't know the first thing about "electricity", I have no way of understanding it in any other way, and there is no possibility that I will ever change my view on that which I do not understand: how could I?!)
But hte question was why can't I have a more accurate prediction for "momentum" when I have enough information about a system. I can too!
If a "spin" stopped in time (within a system) can reduced to an angle, the "momentum" will be predicted within a cone. I don't see why no one saw it yet.
The reason is very clear! Anyone who doesn't know the first thing about physics can see it!
If there is an "momentangle" x that you don't know the first thing about and you have a stopped-in-time system that will acquire a value; you have to assume that x can be any number only as long as it is an integer from within that system.
But "any angle" means "any point of observation". You can still write the complete "proton" as a series of integers, except their BIT position is random. Here is a proton, again, with ragged ends:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
0110110110... 0101010101... 0111111011... 0100010100... 0111101111... 0101010101... 0110110110... 0101010101... 0111111111... 1000000000... 0111111111... 0101010101... 0110110110... 0101010101... 0111101111... 0100010100... 0111111011... 0101010101... 0110110110... ... |
I can *see* why it has a "half spin"... I just put it there, didn't I?
So I can see an angle as the "momentum" and that is the closest thing I will ever get to understanding it. The best way to get a better estimate of what "momentum" is, if and when you get a minimal information set, is to double the value of your informational system. Since the distance of my informational set above will never go over 9 (because I didn't bother to write it) the "radius" of that "atom" is 18 (plus a fraction of the value of the infinitesimal 10000000000000...)
As you can see, I don't see any "force" or "gravity" as both would be impossible in a system stopped in time. I can imagine "electricity", though. Of course I can imagine it. It's just the coordinate 101010101010... and that is it.
(I am running to the caves right this minute because I don't know the first thing about "electricity", I have no way of understanding it in any other way, and there is no possibility that I will ever change my view on that which I do not understand: how could I?!)
But hte question was why can't I have a more accurate prediction for "momentum" when I have enough information about a system. I can too!
If a "spin" stopped in time (within a system) can reduced to an angle, the "momentum" will be predicted within a cone. I don't see why no one saw it yet.
The reason is very clear! Anyone who doesn't know the first thing about physics can see it!
If there is an "momentangle" x that you don't know the first thing about and you have a stopped-in-time system that will acquire a value; you have to assume that x can be any number only as long as it is an integer from within that system.
But "any angle" means "any point of observation". You can still write the complete "proton" as a series of integers, except their BIT position is random. Here is a proton, again, with ragged ends:
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111...
101010101010101011010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010...
0110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110...
10101010101010101101010101101010101101010101101010101101010101010...
011110111101111011110111101111011110111101111011110111101111011110111...
0001010001010001010001010001010001010001010001010001010001010001...
0111111011111101111110111111011111101111110111111011111101111110111111...
101010101010101011010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010...
110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110...
It is perfectly obvious that the "face" of the proton switched places. Because of the symmetry of the codes, it is obvious that it appeared suddenly somewhere else. If it weren't so, the atom, made of *forms* floating in *space*, would fall apart because "moving" parts within an atom are required to not break symmetry.
But it is also perfectly obvious that the place the momentangle can be found is where the face is supposed to be, and the face of the atom is right besides the line that reads a "trivial 1" followed by a series of unending zeros. The "randomness" that followed then had strict rules, since a 10 logically ORed with a 01 would never leave you with a zero. We correct that so that all 2's are properly aligned with themselves, 3's aligned with themselves, and 5's etc.... we can shift any of these coordinates only as long as all of their pure multiples are shifted along:
QUOTE
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111...
1010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010...
0110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110...
1010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010......
11110111101111011110111101111011110111101111011110111101111011110111...
101000101000101000101000101000101000101000101000101000101000101000101000...
111111011111101111110111111011110111111011111101111110111111011111101111110...
1010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010......
0110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110...
Prime qualities make it absolutely certain that there WILL be an alignment somewhere. Math handles that relatively easy -but I don't do any. It is a certainty that there will be a 1 followed by a series of zeros somewhere here. It happens to be in the 40th position at the resolution of 9 bits, above, but it could be anywhere else -as long as the math follows the rules of multiples, of course. (I am not touching math!)
I don't see why that is not enough for anyone to narrow down a "momentum" to a certain degree of accuracy once a minimal informational system is up: prediction should be a bit easier. (Is "momentum as an angle" that chaotic at those levels?!)
I don't see how anything I said could possibly be incompatible with this:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111... 1010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010... 0110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110... 1010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010...... 11110111101111011110111101111011110111101111011110111101111011110111... 101000101000101000101000101000101000101000101000101000101000101000101000... 111111011111101111110111111011110111111011111101111110111111011111101111110... 1010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010...... 0110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110110... |
Prime qualities make it absolutely certain that there WILL be an alignment somewhere. Math handles that relatively easy -but I don't do any. It is a certainty that there will be a 1 followed by a series of zeros somewhere here. It happens to be in the 40th position at the resolution of 9 bits, above, but it could be anywhere else -as long as the math follows the rules of multiples, of course. (I am not touching math!)
I don't see why that is not enough for anyone to narrow down a "momentum" to a certain degree of accuracy once a minimal informational system is up: prediction should be a bit easier. (Is "momentum as an angle" that chaotic at those levels?!)
I don't see how anything I said could possibly be incompatible with this:
particle spin is uniquely a quantum phenomenon, different than human scale angular momentum. Its value is fixed and independent of particle mass or angular velocity. "
Or this:
QUOTE
As a qualitative concept, the spin vector is often handy because it is easy to picture classically. For instance, quantum mechanical spin can exhibit phenomena analogous to classical gyroscopic effects. For example, one can exert a kind of "torque" on an electron by putting it in a magnetic field (the field acts upon the electron's intrinsic magnetic dipole moment — see the following section). The result is that the spin vector undergoes precession, just like a classical gyroscope.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As a qualitative concept, the spin vector is often handy because it is easy to picture classically. For instance, quantum mechanical spin can exhibit phenomena analogous to classical gyroscopic effects. For example, one can exert a kind of "torque" on an electron by putting it in a magnetic field (the field acts upon the electron's intrinsic magnetic dipole moment — see the following section). The result is that the spin vector undergoes precession, just like a classical gyroscope. |
My problem is how to see it as a particle with a defined position and velocity.
Of a whole system, not as a single particle thing, I can fake it, and I just did, in fact. It can have a "face" (position and velocity) but can't have a "momentum" until the randomnesses of the model-system you have are calculated.
QUOTE
Spin becomes yet another 'property' that we concluded as existing and true but that we can not treat as we would when describing the spin of f ex earth
The Earth's "face" would be Greenwich Meridian when it faces its direction 90 degrees from the Sun, as if the face had a place where it points to the future. It's just as arbitrary.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Spin becomes yet another 'property' that we concluded as existing and true but that we can not treat as we would when describing the spin of f ex earth |
The Earth's "face" would be Greenwich Meridian when it faces its direction 90 degrees from the Sun, as if the face had a place where it points to the future. It's just as arbitrary.
Which doesn't stop spin from being able to be manipulated though.
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200111281...trunc_sys.shtml
I also don't see how anything I said could possibly conflict with what is in this link.
QUOTE
If you treated it as a very small replica of a 'earth' one could easily expect it to react by changing it spin depending on the direction of a magnetic field.
Then that would mean that the earth would change its magnetic field if the spin of the Sun changed?! I am lost here
It's kind of not-in-my-field...
I mean, if an innocent series of 1's is a "border" for an "atom", it's perfectly clear that the next-in-line infinitesimal border will be made of 10 repeated forever but I don't know what "10 repeated forever" is supposed to mean in something as large as a whole planet yet.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you treated it as a very small replica of a 'earth' one could easily expect it to react by changing it spin depending on the direction of a magnetic field. |
Then that would mean that the earth would change its magnetic field if the spin of the Sun changed?! I am lost here
It's kind of not-in-my-field...
I mean, if an innocent series of 1's is a "border" for an "atom", it's perfectly clear that the next-in-line infinitesimal border will be made of 10 repeated forever but I don't know what "10 repeated forever" is supposed to mean in something as large as a whole planet yet.And if you look at is a wave?
Read about spin here.
Here is the abstract:
QUOTE
It is shown how the spin of the electron and other charged particles arises out of the quantum wave structure of matter. Spin is a result of spherical rotation in quantum space of the inward (advanced) spherical quantum wave of an electron at the electron center in order to become the outward (retarded) wave. Wave rotation is required to maintain proper phase relations of the wave amplitudes. The spherical rotation, a unique property of 3-D space, can be described using SU(2) group theory algebra. In the SU(2) algebra, the inward and outward waves of the charged particle are the elements of a Dirac spinor wave function. Thus all charged particles satisfy the Dirac Equation.
Uh, ok...
I don't see how I could possibly be in disagreement with anything the site says: if they say "SU(2) and I say "gyroscopic integers only", we are still talking about the same thing, but I wouldn't dream of changing my narrative for mathemystics. I would have to be insane. I don't have that type of mind structure. However, what brought me to this issue was a misunderstanding that I misunderstood. (Wow, first thing I double-misunderstood today.) I thought magnetic fields were being tuned to actually fast-rotate individual protons/atoms around themselves in addition to the rotation Enthalpy mentioned
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It is shown how the spin of the electron and other charged particles arises out of the quantum wave structure of matter. Spin is a result of spherical rotation in quantum space of the inward (advanced) spherical quantum wave of an electron at the electron center in order to become the outward (retarded) wave. Wave rotation is required to maintain proper phase relations of the wave amplitudes. The spherical rotation, a unique property of 3-D space, can be described using SU(2) group theory algebra. In the SU(2) algebra, the inward and outward waves of the charged particle are the elements of a Dirac spinor wave function. Thus all charged particles satisfy the Dirac Equation. |
Uh, ok...
I don't see how I could possibly be in disagreement with anything the site says: if they say "SU(2) and I say "gyroscopic integers only", we are still talking about the same thing, but I wouldn't dream of changing my narrative for mathemystics. I would have to be insane. I don't have that type of mind structure. However, what brought me to this issue was a misunderstanding that I misunderstood. (Wow, first thing I double-misunderstood today.) I thought magnetic fields were being tuned to actually fast-rotate individual protons/atoms around themselves in addition to the rotation Enthalpy mentioned
Magnets serve to bend the path of the particles on a loop so that resonating cavities have enough time, over many turns, to give energy to the particles bunches.
and used the word "spin". I wasn't and couldn't be talking about *physics* spin because I wouldn't know the first thing about it. (for that matter, what is wrong with using a laser beam to manipulate that spin?! And would magnetism plus laser be an improvement?!))
I am using you as a sounding board: you had an objection to something and I thought it might help to visualize the "thingies" I do. So SUE ME!
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.