Chemistry, this nuclear science.

[nix]

Nix,

I isolate for you my 2 central points:
Technetium is unstable whatever its isotope we consider, and I am afraid that a model representing a bag of badly defined bullets cannot. Mathis could explain why Technetium is unstable whatever the isotope we consider, nothing less !!

-And the second is my question:
Why the hell, physicists invoke a spin "which is not a spin", although particles have dimensions ?? (and why not to ascribe the name "banana" in place of it)

Nuclear physics does not see the nucleus as a bag of "badly defined bullets"! there is a very precise quantum mechanical model of the nucleus which also predicts all isotopes of technetium to be radioactive, and will give a sense of which isotopes are the least stable and why. Mathis's characterization of currently existing science is as accurate as his estimate of pi!
You would do better to spend your time reading something like Eisberg & Rednick's Quantum physics of atoms, molecules, solids, nuclei and particles, if you want to know what science has found out about this stuff....

Spin is a relativistic quantum mechanical phenomena. It is predicted by Dirac's equation for the electron as are all its properties (the magnetic moment, the magnitude 1/2(h/2pi) etc. It is a form of intrinsic angular momentum which particles posess they cannot change the size of it at all by say spinning faster or slower! It is like the rest mass: completely characteristic of the particle). When it was first discovered by Goudsmit in the analysis of spectra of sodium it looked like it could be ascribed to an actual physical classical rotation of the electron (hence the name he gave it). However that is problematic. From the known largest possible size of the electron (deduced from scattering experiments) and the known charge of the electron, we could imagine a classical ball of charge. If we spin this, a magnetic moment is generated which depends on the rate of spin. To generate the observed electron magnetic moment the surface of the ball would have to move at faster than the speed of light. This is not possible....Also if it were just the spinning of some classical object we would imagine we could speed it up or slow it down and hence change the spin: this is not possible.

[NielsBohr]

To generate the observed electron magnetic moment the surface of the ball would have to move at faster than the speed of light. This is not possible...

Thanks.

But replacing a real spin with zero spin does not help anymore ?

[nix]

To generate the observed electron magnetic moment the surface of the ball would have to move at faster than the speed of light. This is not possible...

Thanks.

But replacing a real spin with zero spin does not help anymore ?

Nature has two types of particle Fermions (spin 1/2, 3/2,5/2 etc) and Bosons (spin 0,1, 2, 3). They do not convert into each other

The electron has this intrinsic "spin" angular momentum of 1/2 it cannot get rid of it. The only thing that can change are the orientation with respect to a magnetic field and then QM determines that only two orientations are possible (so called space quantisation) 'spin up' and 'spin down'. A spin 1/2 particle (protons and neutrons have spin 1/2 also) obey one form of quantum statistics (Fermi dirac ) in which no two particles can have exactly the same quantum numbers - this is the basis of the pauli exclusion principle and in turn the basis of the whole periodic table of the elements....

Spin 0, 1 ,2 etc particles obey Bose Einstein statistics (light photons are spin 1 particles) these can all go into the same quantum state. (this is the basis of the laser) also of superfluidity and superconductivity.

[Obvious Leo]

Let's get something straight here, nix. This is a philosophy forum and not a physics forum and thus the rules of engagement are somewhat different. You are not amongst a priesthood of self-satisfied geeks who claim that the universe is simply too complicated for dumb schmucks like us to understand and I'll thank you to remember that. In philosophy the benchmark for truth is set considerably higher than it is in the tautology that is mathematical physics and therefore logical fallacies will be stamped out root and branch.

we are familiar with the macroscopic case which is described to very high precision by Newton's laws of gravity and motion (the general relativistic corrections to this three body system are so tiny as to be negligible). we get the notions of trajectories, and all the concepts of classical determinism and causality from this system.

Precision of language is paramount in philosophy and the word "negligible" is NOT synonymous with "irrelevant". The true father of relativity, Henri Poincare, most certainly thought so and he was a genius who left his descendants for dead when it came to matters of distinguishing the map from the territory. He never bought into Minkowski's mathematical shenanigans for an instant and it was precisely because of the three body problem that he declared the spatialisation of time in SR to be a physical absurdity, albeit a useful mathematical convenience. In other words SR is no more than a mathematical abstraction because there is no such thing as a "flat space". For a model to be defined as scientific it must be both predictive and explanatory. In the case of predictability near enough is good enough because any half-wit knows that a perfect prediction of the future is a logical absurdity that physics may well yearn for in its Newtonian earnestness but one in which they will always be disappointed because Laplace was a dickhead. This was pointed out by no less a metaphysical guru than Doris Day in "Que sera sera" and reinforced by that other great giant of metaphysics, Yogi Berra. "Prediction is difficult, particularly of the future".

Q. Why the fuck does physics find Yogi's simple and self-evident fact of nature to be such an astonishing proposition that it can only be accounted for by the metaphysical absurdity of the uncaused event?

A. Because the entire science of physics is founded on the opposite assumption a priori. Physics assumes that the future has been fully determined since the dawn of time. You guys are full of shit, and you're clutching at the straw of randomness to salvage an unworkable paradigm, but all you're doing is jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire and leaving yourselves with models which make no sense as a result.

The three-body problem shows us that this a priori assumption of physics is FALSE and logic requires that it cannot become miraculously true at some arbitrary level of scale. When it comes to the explanatory authority of any scientific model near is not good enough and a miss is as good as a mile. "Very close" predictions do not make for "nearly right" explanations.

Kindly address the above comments, nix, and then answer this question?

What is your basis for assuming that an effect which may be "negligible" at the cosmological scale should be non-existent at the sub-atomic scale? Has this reversal of the natural order of the universe been recorded for other observed phenomena? Why would the three-body problem not be many orders of magnitude more significant within the atom than it would be in the case of the solar system, for instance, as simple formal logic would require. In QM you have simply assumed that which you then seek to prove, a logical fallacy which might persuade a physicist but never a philosopher. We get up a bit earlier in the morning and are more accustomed to dealing with dickheads.

Poincare didn't live long enough to see the publication of GR, a model from which he would have recoiled in horror, and he certainly didn't live long enough to witness the publication of QM, a model which he would have publicly pilloried. The "flat space" of QM is a mathematical myth and this is a complete and adequate explanation for why it can never be incorporated into any unification model for physics. It will always retain its astonishing predictive authority via the Schrodinger equation and the wave functions but it must NEVER be granted any explanatory authority whatsoever for the reasons why Poincare rejected SR. Neither SR nor QM are physical models because they represent time as a spatial dimension which it fucking well ISN'T. Spacetime is a mathematical object and not a physical one, a truth which Einstein himself took pains to stress throughout his life.

"Spacetime must NEVER be regarded as physically real"....Albert Einstein

This brings me to your so-called evidence for QM. Evidence does not speak for itself, a much-worn phrase which should make any philosopher of knowledge puke. Evidence is nothing more than raw data which must necessarily be interpreted within the context of a defined narrative. If you can't see the tautologous nature of the arguments which you're attempting to bring to the table, nix, then I'm more than happy to point them out to you. You are using the assumptions made by the spacetime paradigm to try and prove the narrative of spacetime true. However the assumptions of the spacetime paradigm are not true. They are FALSE. Time is not a spatial dimension and gravity does not become miraculously irrelevant at some arbitrary level of scale.

The models of physics make no sense because they aren't physical, nix. They are Platonist abstractions which exist only in the minds of the physicists who use them and I can bloody well prove it. Don't forget my testable prediction which can blow all your bullshit to kingdom come.

Regards Leo

[nix]

Clearly i'm wasting my time, you have no understanding of the physics you claim to talk about. Newtonian gravity is a perfectly good approximation for the solar system triplet Sun, Earth, Moon as Poincare knew (all his work was done with it!). I say nothing about relativity, special nor general as we can ignore its effects in this system all velocities are so far removed from light speed that any effects are impossible to measure and all masses are so far removed from those required to produce any possible measureable effects due to general relativity that Newtonian gravity gives a perfectly fine description.

When it comes to the helium atom gravity has nothing to tell us. The gravitational interactions between electrons are 42 orders of magnitude smaller than the electrostatic interactions. They Can be ignored!

I used these examples to show how the QM is needed to account for the observed properties of atomic systems and that the classical mechanics is the limit of large S/h for mechanical systems QM the limit of small S/h and that you are correct in saying logically there must be one type of physics for both the large and small scales, but that it is QM from the bottom to the top, not classical mechanics from the top to the bottom. Causality remains but not the kind we are used to at the macroscopic scale in which determinism often acts as a model of how causality works, a false model. I thought you were all for the death of determinism- that's what this picture confirms!

[Obvious Leo]

When it comes to the helium atom gravity has nothing to tell us. The gravitational interactions between electrons are 42 orders of magnitude smaller than the electrostatic interactions. They Can be ignored!

How well would say this policy has been working out for the past century? Are we any closer to understanding what causes these electrostatic interactions than we were a hundred years ago?

Get yourself a fucking dictionary and look up the difference between a cause and an effect.

[nix]

When it comes to the helium atom gravity has nothing to tell us. The gravitational interactions between electrons are 42 orders of magnitude smaller than the electrostatic interactions. They Can be ignored!

How well would say this policy has been working out for the past century? Are we any closer to understanding what causes these electrostatic interactions than we were a hundred years ago?

Get yourself a fucking dictionary and look up the difference between a cause and an effect.

So what causes gravitational interactions? These interactions are the causes of the motions of bodies with mass. They are an uncaused property of mass.

Electrostatic interactions are the cause of the motion of electrically charged bodies. They are an uncaused property of charge.

[Obvious Leo]

So what causes gravitational interactions? These interactions are the causes of the motions of bodies with mass. They are an uncaused property of mass

I knew you hadn't read my synopsis although you claimed several times that you had. Gravity is not a property of mass. Mass is a property of gravity and gravity is an inversely logarithmic function of time. Before you jump up and down and shake your tiny fist I suggest you think very seriously about this statement. It contradicts no physical "law" and conflicts with no empirical evidence and thus there is no logical reason why your interpretation should be preferred to mine other than the fact that you have a canonical doctrine which mandates how the evidence must be interpreted and I don't. I merely explore the consequences to our understanding of the sub-atomic world if this alternative narrative is considered. Why don't you show a bit of intellectual courage and give it a try instead of reposing such a blind faith in models which haven't made a lick of sense since the day they were born and which every significant theorist in physics acknowledges are flawed.

[nix]

Mass is a property of gravity and gravity is an inversely logarithmic function of time.

You have just said that the mass of the universe is increasing exponentially. I hope you don't mean that!

[NielsBohr]

To generate the observed electron magnetic moment the surface of the ball would have to move at faster than the speed of light. This is not possible...

Thanks.

But replacing a real spin with zero spin does not help anymore ?

Nature has two types of particle Fermions (spin 1/2, 3/2,5/2 etc) and Bosons (spin 0,1, 2, 3). They do not convert into each other

The electron has this intrinsic "spin" angular momentum of 1/2 it cannot get rid of it. The only thing that can change are the orientation with respect to a magnetic field and then QM determines that only two orientations are possible (so called space quantisation) 'spin up' and 'spin down'. A spin 1/2 particle (protons and neutrons have spin 1/2 also) obey one form of quantum statistics (Fermi dirac ) in which no two particles can have exactly the same quantum numbers - this is the basis of the pauli exclusion principle and in turn the basis of the whole periodic table of the elements....

Spin 0, 1 ,2 etc particles obey Bose Einstein statistics (light photons are spin 1 particles) these can all go into the same quantum state. (this is the basis of the laser) also of superfluidity and superconductivity.

Ok,

Thank you Nix, but I was afraid you'd jump in the hole I left.

I meant: replacing a real spin with zero real spin does not help anymore - I was not thinking about maths.

I am afraid of the behavior of Niels Bohr. Depending on Mathis, he was at least able to understand that some virtual physics "could lead to no physics".

But I am against this way of thinking: his is a hollist way of thinking, ans I disapprove that. The fact there are some lacks of mechanics, does not allows us to jettison all the mechanics.

As far as mechanics have intrinsical meaning, have a cognitive content, we should preserve the total possible contribution of mechanics, even if it meant to invoke supplementary cause(s) as virtual.

This would have let a margin, in which we could define better experiments and/or calculus. But at least, I am indeed happy that physicists were not crazy enough to rename "virtual spin" as "banana" This let a way of reconstruction in science.

Maybe you have not seen, ans I have not yet all read, but M. Mathis propose a correction of experiments which would define the spin, depending on you; knowing Compton scattering (there are 2 documents, I do not yet really know why), and even Rutherford's original experiment:
http://milesmathis.com/proton.html
http://milesmathis.com/comp.html
http://milesmathis.com/comp2.html

Don't worry, I also have to read these articles (they are my next steps), and english is not my maternal langage - so you'll finish before I.

[NielsBohr]

Okay,

I read his three articles mentioned above.

Miles Mathis redefine electromagnetism, as a variety of gravity -

An "emergent property" of gravity would be a more precise form of language.

Hi Obvious Leo,

I thought you was searching the detail too much, and did not accord his importance to your reply.

A deeper reading of his articles (from more anecdotic ones to the more fundamental) let me understand that the traditional expression of electromagnetism could be a variety of the traditional expression of gravity.

It follows with a deeper reading that these fields are actually muddled.

It appears from his paper about G:
http://milesmathis.com/g.html
which I have read in its first third part,

that the key in understanding G (which Einstein himself could not access) was given to Mathis by Maxwell, who suggested that mass could be written as a cubed length over a squared time.

Miles decomposed mass as density x volume, and he means that density refers to electromagnetism, and volume to gravity. But I cannot tell more as I have not read further, and as I gave you the link to the article.

[Obvious Leo]

Niels. As far as I'm concerned G is nothing more than a mathematical fiddle necessary to make reality conform to Newton's narrative of it. The same can be said for all the constants in physics because the very fact that such constants are needed at all is complete and adequate evidence that the geeks have got something badly wrong.

Incidentally, nix, I can name you dozens of the leading lights in physics who would absolutely and fully endorse my above remarks so look before you leap.

[NielsBohr]

Hi Obvious Leo,

I have also not read your synopsis, but will do. Thank you already for this remark:

Let's get something straight here, nix. This is a philosophy forum and not a physics forum and thus the rules of engagement are somewhat different. You are not amongst a priesthood of self-satisfied geeks who claim that the universe is simply too complicated for dumb schmucks like us to understand and I'll thank you to remember that. In philosophy the benchmark for truth is set considerably higher than it is in the tautology that is mathematical physics and therefore logical fallacies will be stamped out root and branch.

Um... About G, this seems a little complicated. I have not read all, but I'll try o make you an overview.

Yes, G was historically defined "as" many multiplicator constants which act no more than a way to equilibrate the equation's members and make pratical numbers, sometimes with also an equilibrium in dimensions.

About the analogous constant in Coulomb's law, this was a little different. This law was about to consider charges as "1", and that was really not far from this, since the Coulomb itself was historically bad defined, and that another "derivate" unity - "stat-coulomb" - had its own unities. And moreover, the law's equation was accompanied with other constants (free space permittivity, void permittivity, and another - all to be stacked to find a minimum of meaning).

But you cannot declare masses as being "1", of course, since masses are ponderable. And not as with the historical way of (opposite) charges, there was no way to have a locality in space where the gravitational field could cancel itself.

And when you believe to consider the field of the larger mass as accelerating the smaller, there are actually 2 fields.

So, the problem is not that quite simple, as for some other practical constants.

But as I have understood, there was a suspicion that Newton had compiled several heuristics in this constant - nothing less. This is mainly indicated by the amounts of dimensions in this constant, and also by the number itself - as with an eleventh power of ten.

Another thing, about this gravitational law. It was not ascribed in a theory. Mathis tell us that Newton could find better numbers with masses multiplication (than with addition), and needed an exponent for the distance at the denominator - and the first, 2, was adequate with experiment. This law-without-its-theory became a dogma, not anything else.

But, if you have read the Part Four of Mathis' differentials, he shows us that what I call the "behavioral part of the law" - knowing out of the constant - although it is about to give an acceleration to masses, has no differential of distance at the numerator, and no differential of time at the denominator - nothing less !

The dimensions were reported in the constant, without a lot of variations worries, and the work was done.

So if I have well resumed, all what precede is about to show us, that several behaviors have been compiled in the constant. The only thing Mathis could explain better, were (about what I mentioned before) : what led Maxwell to the indication that mass could be a cubed length over a squared time, and once this done, what kind of application had this in reworking the gravitational law (he passes very briefly on that).

But once I have read the complete paper on unified field:
http://milesmathis.com/uft.html
(with a few more equations),

I'll be able to make you a better summary.

[Obvious Leo]

Niels. The legacy of Newton's heuristic understanding of gravity has a long pedigree which simply refuses to go away. Only today I was listening to an interview given by a physicist of international standing who said this:

" Physics is still grappling with the same question it has has been trying to answer for 300 years. We simply don't know what causes gravity".

I groaned in despair on hearing this statement because it reveals a profound inability by this so-called science to ask the right questions of nature. Nothing causes gravity because gravity is simply an alternative expression of time and time is an irreducible property of the universe. Time/gravity simple IS and thus gravity is the causER and not the causEE.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Niels. The legacy of Newton's heuristic understanding of gravity has a long pedigree which simply refuses to go away. Only today I was listening to an interview given by a physicist of international standing who said this:

" Physics is still grappling with the same question it has has been trying to answer for 300 years. We simply don't know what causes gravity".

I groaned in despair on hearing this statement because it reveals a profound inability by this so-called science to ask the right questions of nature. Nothing causes gravity because gravity is simply an alternative expression of time and time is an irreducible property of the universe. Time/gravity simple IS and thus gravity is the causER and not the causEE.

One slaps ones hand on ones head in exasperation. Let us say they were to find "the cause" of gravity. Would that satisfy? Or would they then find themselves in a restless struggle to find the cause of the cause?
Newton was smarter than that. hypothesis non fingo.
Newton was happy to describe the universe. That is all science can do.