Jump to content

ISN’T “THREESOME” A FACTOR FOR STABILITY?


Kramer
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

ISN’T “THREESOME” A FACTOR FOR STABILITY?

Weeks ago I read in Phys.Org about an experiment upon electrons of deep cold helium’s atoms. I was impressed by the statement of authors: electron is composed by two parts, apart each other: an electric charge and a magnet. They boasted that this discovery is supported by quantum theory, or support quantum theory.
First--- This “discovery “, if it is true, is in clear opposition with quantum theory, at least about view point of quantum that see electron as “ a point excitement” of electric field, without dimension.
Second.--- if it is true, there must be three different electric charges, one that was apart and two that formed an “magnet”. Because I think that “magnet” , even though a simple one, is nothing else but an electro-magnet that asks for “two other electric charges”.
Third ---- How comes that this experiment hasn’t any echo, with it’s flagrant controversy? May be for this controversy is closed?
--- Now, If, I mean if!, is it true this experiment, we may bring a rule:
“threesome” in physic is a factor for stability. Take in view the fact that needed “three different electric charges” in proton, for it to be “stable”.
Any rebut. It is so easy for to win green medals.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kramer, why didn't you cite or link back to the article you read so that the rest of us can take as look and see? Trying to answer questions based on your remembrances of a random article doesn't seem like it had a good chance of being productive, especially considering how most of your threads go...

 

edited to fix grammar mistake.

Edited by Bignose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I second the call for a link.

 

I strongly suspect this is a quasi-particle effect, and is being grossly misinterpreted. It only happens in a material, not with single electrons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin–charge_separation

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7396/full/nature10974.html

 

One thing you will not find is a statement that an individual electron is comprised of parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They boasted that this discovery is supported by quantum theory, or support quantum theory.

First--- This “discovery “, if it is true, is in clear opposition with quantum theory[/size]

As they state (I don't know why you say "boast") that the experiment is in agreement with quantum theory, what reason do you have do saying that it contradicts quantum theory? Perhaps you can show the maths that led you to this conclusion?

 

 

Second.--- if it is true, there must be three different electric charges, one that was apart and two that formed an “magnet”. Because I think that “magnet” , even though a simple one, is nothing else but an electro-magnet that asks for “two other electric charges”.

There is no need for three charges. A single moving charge is enough to generate a magnetic moment.

 

Third ---- How comes that this experiment hasn’t any echo, with it’s flagrant controversy?

As it seems that you invented this "controversy", why would you you expect there to be any echo of it?

 

--- Now, If, I mean if!, is it true this experiment, we may bring a rule:

“threesome” in physic is a factor for stability. Take in view the fact that needed “three different electric charges” in proton, for it to be “stable”.

As you have just made up the idea of "three charges" for no reason at all, there appears to be no justification for such a rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big nose

Kramer, why didn't you cite or link back to the article you read so that the rest of us can take as look and see? Trying to answer questions based on your remembrances of a random article doesn't seem like it had a good chance of being productive, especially considering how most of your threads go...

 

edited to fix grammar mistake.

---- It is because I think that scientists, like you, must be in current of all break throw of experimental data. As a layman I like to see breaches in strange statements of quantum, which assert “speculations” that electron is a point without dimension. This for me is absurd.

Swanson

I second the call for a link.

---The upper answer is the first.

 

 

I strongly suspect this is a quasi-particle effect, and is being grossly misinterpreted. It only happens in a material, not with single electrons.

----- That sound correct for a debate, ups… I mean conversation --- with a low educated. But on the other hand I would like to listen a debate between high educated specialists, about those searches that happens in the world. Why are they initiated you think? If nature of electron is well established?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin–charge_separation

----Thanks for link.

 

http://www.nature.co...ature10974.html

--- another thanks for the link.

 

One thing you will not find is a statement that an individual electron is comprised of parts.

----- I think you never will find an electron pure “individual”. They are always associated with other kind of particles, photons, which make them to look like “ waves function”. This is another my speculation.

Endy0816

http://phys.org/news...n-electron.html

 

This?

Thanks Endy0816. I think is in the same series of articles, as I see now, but not ones that I have extracted “electric charge and magnet--- apart each other”. Sorry for my confusion.

Anyway I am pleased to see that another, is interested in those kind of articles, not important about what is his aim.

Strange

As they state (I don't know why you say "boast") that the experiment is in agreement with quantum theory, what reason do you have do saying that it contradicts quantum theory? Perhaps you can show the maths that led you to this conclusion?

---- You must be a very appassionato with math. and very clever. You always bring this as a counter argument, when you “make conversation” with lay mans.

I bring here their conclusion:

“To be clear, the researchers are not saying that the electron can be broken apart. Electrons are elementary particles, indivisible and unbreakable. But what the researchers are saying is in some ways more bizarre.”

So they hurry, like you, to stop any misunderstanding about their search. IT doesn’t break sancta sacra statement of quantum. NO. Only ….. some bizarre.

What is bizarre? “Wave function” that can be fragmentized. And after their statement :--- in many waves-function fragments. For others: --- in one electric charge and one magnet.

O no. Is it function, not electron that suffers this. . …fragmentation.

As you are very smart, you may explain existence of some fragment of waves function, without any electron inside.

 

There is no need for three charges. A single moving charge is enough to generate a magnetic moment

---- In what kind of movement? And what caused the movement?

As it seems that you invented this "controversy", why would you you expect there to be any echo of it?

---- I don’t say that “they “ declare a controversy”. How do you think, are they stupid to suffer a battle with so many Strangers? No. Only …. some bizarre ways.

 

As you have just made up the idea of “three charges” for no reason at all, there appears to be no justification for such a rule.

----- Make up the idea of “three charges” ? They must be real. The experimenters I think are wiggle to admit in their “fragmentation of Wave function”. For me : one electron associated with one photon is a threesome, because photon is a particle composed by two opposite charged subs. The same threesome is proton with three other kind of subs.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big nose

Kramer, why didn't you cite or link back to the article you read so that the rest of us can take as look and see? Trying to answer questions based on your remembrances of a random article doesn't seem like it had a good chance of being productive, especially considering how most of your threads go...

 

edited to fix grammar mistake.

---- It is because I think that scientists, like you, must be in current of all break throw of experimental data. As a layman I like to see breaches in strange statements of quantum, which assert “speculations” that electron is a point without dimension. This for me is absurd.

Swanson

I second the call for a link.

---The upper answer is the first.

 

 

 

I have no idea what "The upper answer is the first." means, and you still have not provided a link. There can be no discussion of the topic unless you provide one, so that everyone knows what was being talked about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is another my speculation.

 

And, like all your speculations, completely lacking in evidence. I have no idea why you just make up random "stuff".

 

You must be a very appassionato with math. and very clever. You always bring this as a counter argument, when you “make conversation” with lay mans.

 

This is a science forum. If you are going to claims that something contradicts quantum theory then the only way you can do this is by using mathematics.

 

“To be clear, the researchers are not saying that the electron can be broken apart. Electrons are elementary particles, indivisible and unbreakable. But what the researchers are saying is in some ways more bizarre.”

 

Another unreferenced quotation. (OK, I found it in the Phys.org article. Again, it would be helpful if you provided references, rather than assume we are mind readers.)

 

So they hurry, like you, to stop any misunderstanding about their search. IT doesn’t break sancta sacra statement of quantum.

 

There is nothing sacred about quantum theory? Why would you say that?

 

NO. Only ….. some bizarre.

 

Note it that was a journalist, not the scientists, who used the word "bizarre".

 

What is bizarre?

 

Many aspects of quantum theory are surprising and counterintuitive (and lead to bad journalism). I thought you might have noticed that by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is because I think that scientists, like you, must be in current of all break throw of experimental data.

Any idea just how much scientific literature is published in any year? Any month? Heck, any day? I am reasonably confident that there is a lifetime of reading just based on a single month's published scientific literature. Expecting us all to know exactly every article you are talking about is ridiculous. This is why at the end of every even slightly reputable article, there is a whole list of the other works cited. No human being knows even one tenth of 1 percent of all the scientific literature.

 

This is certainly not my area of expertise -- so I probably would never see this article -- but I do enjoy reading about different things. I would have liked to have read about this, direct from the authors, and not based on your interpretation of what you remember.

Edited by Bignose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Swanson

I have no idea what "The upper answer is the first." means, and you still have not provided a link. There can be no discussion of the topic unless you provide one, so that everyone knows what was being talked about.
---- I read the links you had good-wellness to give me. I was surprised that the idea of some kind of threesome, on electron particle, is not a new one “make stuff” by me. The modern physicists call them like chargeon, orbiton, spinon, I suppose, referring on the properties of particle. Are they embedded in one point thing (without any dimension) that “ all mighty math ” is suggesting for convenience, or are they divided by space (in three different posts)?
I think the question is very normal. And not serviced by me. I see in Phys.Org that physicist make different experiments (especially in deep cold ambient) to study the comportment of electron particle, I think, even in search for those parts that structure particle.

Now about this my thread or post or question--- name as you like. What is wrong with it?
What kind of sacrilege I committed for the dislike response? Why asks for a cause, I think unimportant, like the lack of link about the article I brought, when for specialists is well known the field of actual researches?
I didn’t suppose that you can be unaware about science news.

You may close the thread as you see uninteresting.

Strange

And, like all your speculations, completely lacking in evidence. I have no idea why you just make up random "stuff".

---- Random stuff ? Do you mean without any importance, because for you are evident?
Then, without wiggle, display your knowledge on the question that a lay-man has the right to ask. If you are not able to answer, because I admit no one is able to know all the secrets of nature, then be honest to say I don’t know.

This is a science forum. If you are going to claims that something contradicts quantum theory then the only way you can do this is by using mathematics.

----This is a speculation forum. The people that participate as members or friends have the right to ask specialists, to be skeptical, to put in question statements that seems susceptible, inaccurate, bizarre, that opens the street for metaphysics interpretations or that have other agenda. And why not , to speculate with own ideas when the response of specialist is not satisfactory.

So. Are you a specialist? If yes respond to me: Do you admit that electron is a point without any dimension? Don’t wiggle with sophisms.

Another unreferenced quotation. (OK, I found it in the Phys.org article. Again, it would be helpful if you provided references, rather than assume we are mind readers.)

There is nothing sacred about quantum theory? Why would you say that?

Note it that was a journalist, not the scientists, who used the word "bizarre".
Many aspects of quantum theory are surprising and counterintuitive (and lead to bad journalism). I thought you might have noticed that by now.

----- Just for this I wanted to discus, what is really counterintuitive, what is really bizarre, what is made intentionally, why don’t try in speculative manner to give an intuitive explanation, to strip the bizarre from transcendence.

Big Nose

----- You are right. That’s true. It is enormous information, little human capacity to absorb all, especially for uninteresting themes.

But as a mathematician you are, I am curious to know if number three has any preferred position in Fourie’s series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Random stuff ? Do you mean without any importance, because for you are evident?

 

No. I mean making statements with no apparent connection to the source material. So, for example, you see an article about an experiment and then:

 

1. Refuse to provide a link to it so we can know what you are talking about.

2. Claim, for no reason whatsoever, that it contradicts quantum theory.

3. Claim, for no reason at all, that it involves "three charges".

 

Then, without wiggle, display your knowledge on the question that a lay-man has the right to ask.

 

What question?

 

So. Are you a specialist?

 

No.

 

If yes respond to me: Do you admit that electron is a point without any dimension?

 

It is modelled that way and, so far, no experiment has been able to measure its radius.

 

p.s. Please use the QUOTE button. Your style of posting is ugly, lazy and impolite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

#12 swansont

o link, no discussion.

If you provide a link, you may re-introduce the subject. At least then we'll have some idea of what you are talking abou

Electrons may be seen as small magnets that also carry a negative electrical charge. On a fundamental level, these two properties are indivisible. However, in certain materials where the electrons are constrained in a quasi one-dimensional world, they appear to split into a magnet and an electrical charge, which can move freely and independently of each other.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-12-electrons-evidence-exotic-behaviors.html#jCp

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

----This is a speculation forum. The people that participate as members or friends have the right to ask specialists, to be skeptical, to put in question statements that seems susceptible, inaccurate, bizarre, that opens the street for metaphysics interpretations or that have other agenda. And why not , to speculate with own ideas when the response of specialist is not satisfactory.

 

A speculations forum, where we expect you to follow certain guidelines

As I expected, it's quasi-particle behavior. So, let's see what we have

 

First--- This “discovery “, if it is true, is in clear opposition with quantum theory, at least about view point of quantum that see electron as “ a point excitement” of electric field, without dimension.

 

No, what's happening is that when the electron interacts in this material, under certain conditions, you see separate charge and magnet behaviors. It isn't happening with a bare electron.

 

 

Second.--- if it is true, there must be three different electric charges, one that was apart and two that formed an “magnet”. Because I think that “magnet” , even though a simple one, is nothing else but an electro-magnet that asks for “two other electric charges”.

No. The poles of a magnet are not electrical charges.

 

Third ---- How comes that this experiment hasn’t any echo, with it’s flagrant controversy? May be for this controversy is closed?

--- Now, If, I mean if!, is it true this experiment, we may bring a rule:

“threesome” in physic is a factor for stability. Take in view the fact that needed “three different electric charges” in proton, for it to be “stable”.

Any rebut. It is so easy for to win green medals.

 

There's not controversy, much less a flagrant one. This kind of behavior has been observed before. What's new is that it's in 2D rather than 1D.

 

The notion that this is a rule of threes is simplistic and wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A speculations forum, where we expect you to follow certain guidelines
---- I hope that guidelines don’t go further than the right of word. The speculation forum I suppose is open for question, especially about interpretations of weirdness of some phenomena of the branch of physics called quantum mechanic, by some physicists, I think for dark agenda.
I suppose that modern physics luxuriate with hypothesis that I am appalled that nobody calls them speculations. Instead they are given a high publicity to make them credible.

As I expected, it's quasi-particle behavior. So, let's see what we have.
----May be it is my ignorance about “quasi particle behavior” that confuse me. May any link about, an easy to understand, please?

No, what's happening is that when the electron interacts in this material, under certain conditions, you see separate charge and magnet behaviors. It isn't happening with a bare electron.

---- Well. This “behaviors”, that happens in different spots of space, and that are not, (or are they?) linked tight with an un-dimensional center, we call bare electron, that surprise me. And about this I am curious to learn.

No. The poles of a magnet are not electrical charges.

---- I had not in mind the poles of magnet, when I ad two electric charges. The electric charges of mater and antimatter evolve toward each other in a circle, create so called magnet, naturally with two point up and down in the center of circle, the so called “poles”.

There's not controversy, much less a flagrant one. This kind of behavior has been observed before. What's new is that it's in 2D rather than 1D.
---- Sorry about my impertinence, but when you read : “they appear to split into a magnet and an electrical charge, which can move freely and independently of each other” I see a flagrant controversy about “ zero dimension” of electron, about “unity” in his structure.

The notion that this is a rule of threes is simplistic and wrong.
---- Have, or have not, I the right to interpret experiments other-ways? Even they must be speculations, simplistic and …. maybe wrong ?
I imagine the tiny, but not zero dimension, tiny electron --- as a tiny “ spherical chest “ create by two mater “subs.” with “- e” electric charge, and one antimatter sub. with “+e” charge, normally evolving in “spherical three dimensional trajectories”, as a unity.
In one experiment this “three dimensional spherical chest” is squashed in a “quasi one dimension”, and the electron has display its components: one electric charge “-e” and one pair +e, -e evolving in circle that display “magnetic” property.
In the other experiments, I speculate, the tiny “spherical chest -like electron” is transformed in “ spherical cow -like (…?) electron, attracted in sphere of helium bubbles.
Any rebut or you think to close?

Regard - and happy new year 2015 ' tireless and encyclopedic Swanson'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I expected, it's quasi-particle behavior. So, let's see what we have.

----May be it is my ignorance about “quasi particle behavior” that confuse me. May any link about, an easy to understand, please?

I already provided you with two

 

The notion that this is a rule of threes is simplistic and wrong.

---- Have, or have not, I the right to interpret experiments other-ways? Even they must be speculations, simplistic and …. maybe wrong ?

You can interpret them any way you want. But if you post them, you need to do so within the guidelines you were given.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Swanson

I already provided you with two

You can interpret them any way you want. But if you post them, you need to do so within the guidelines you were given.
Strange

No one else does. So maybe the problem is with your understanding.

------It is futile and unproductive the further conversation, in this adversary way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not adversary to follow the forum rules and show at least the mathematics behind a model.

Any one can make pretty statements and claim a discovery etc. However when it comes down to the mathematics. They rarely attempt to provide them. Instead they get defensive.

 

Here is the thing a model with no mathematics is NOT a model. The idea or descriptive is just the premise only. A model is

Premise

Mathematics

Experimental and repeatable evidence

comparisons with other current models

Repeated experiments to find problems to disprove your model.

 

Thus far you have shown an idea that barely counts as a premise

Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

 

Here's the problem: you can ask questions about physics and people here will typically try and explain it to you. Or, you can propose some alternative model to explain something. But you cannot do both. If you propose an alternative model, the reaction will be to try and falsify it — that's what scientists do: try and find weaknesses (or gaping holes) to see if the model works. Of course you can't do this particularly well if the model is lacking in detail.

 

In your case, there is a history of asking questions and then turning the post around and trying to shoehorn it into some poorly-formed model. You've played bait-and-switch on too many occasions. So of course this is going to be adversarial: you have an agenda, and you clearly lack understanding (and have admitted as much) of the science you're trying to replace. So a lot of this is trying to get you to get to the point so we can quickly debunk your idea, instead of the inevitable result of dragging it out. But threads being dragged out too long is one reason why we formulated the guidelines for speculations, so that what is expected of you is more clearly laid out.

 

Now, you were provided links about quasi-particle systems, so I hope that answers questions you might have — if not, you are free to post questions asking for more detail. What you are not free to do is turn any such questions into another speculation, because this thread is again locked. You don't have a model, and you don't have anything testable. What you do have does not rise to the level of scientific discussion we require here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.