Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Atreyu]

I agree that the common behaviour of rotational motion suggests that systems of various different sizes all have something in common. I think the thing they have in common is laws and principles of physics that cross scales.

If I had to identify the one physical principle which I think accounts for the ubiquity of spinning behaviour I would say that it is the existence of isotropic forces. That is, forces that appear to radiate from a point in space equally in all directions. The gravitational and electrostatic forces appear to do that. When you combine this with Newton's first law - the tendency of objects to carry on moving at constant velocity unless acted on by a force - circular or elliptical motion naturally emerges. And spherical objects naturally emerge.

Yes, Steve. I was precisely suggesting a "law or principle that crosses scales". And your response seems to be a proper way of trying to find a solution. You are suggesting a very general principle or "law", and any solution which applies on all scales, i.e. a universal principle, would have to be very broad and encompassing.

However, I have a question about your general principle of a force radiating from a point equally in all directions. I can see how it would apply when taken on a large scale, such as planets orbiting stars, and I can see how it would apply on the atomic scale, at least as far as electrons spinning around an atomic nucleus is concerned. But would it apply to just the general spinning that all subatomic particles do in relation to themselves, such as an electron just spinning round and round either as it orbits an atom or if it's standing alone in empty space? I am imagining subatomic particles in empty space spinning, but without orbiting anything else....

[Steve3007]

Areyu:

Yes, Steve. I was precisely suggesting a "law or principle that crosses scales". And your response seems to be a proper way of trying to find a solution. You are suggesting a very general principle or "law", and any solution which applies on all scales, i.e. a universal principle, would have to be very broad and encompassing.

Yes, I think it's probably right to call it a "general principle" rather than a "law", because the idea of isotropy - of things that are the same in all directions - underlies many laws without being specific to any one of them. It has more to do with geometry than physics.

I think geometrical shapes like spheres and circles naturally arise from isotropy as a basic principle of geometry, before we even consider any actual physics, because the definition of a circle (2D) or sphere (3D) is that it is a shape which looks the same in all directions, from the point of view of its centre. It is the definition of spherical symmetry on which the definition of isotropy rests.

And the definition of circular motion at constant speed is that it means constant acceleration towards the centre of the circle. So any force which causes the same amount of acceleration towards a central point will result in circular motion.

However, I have a question about your general principle of a force radiating from a point equally in all directions. I can see how it would apply when taken on a large scale, such as planets orbiting stars, and I can see how it would apply on the atomic scale, at least as far as electrons spinning around an atomic nucleus is concerned. But would it apply to just the general spinning that all subatomic particles do in relation to themselves, such as an electron just spinning round and round either as it orbits an atom or if it's standing alone in empty space? I am imagining subatomic particles in empty space spinning, but without orbiting anything else....

Well, you're talking here about "intrinsic angular momentum/spin" as opposed to "orbital angular momentum".

The intrinsic spin of something like an electron does not appear to share all the properties of intrinsic spin as we understand it to apply to objects like planets, but it is still first understood by (imperfect) analogy with these large scale objects.

I would say that the underlying principles which most help to describe the ubiquity of intrinsic spin are the extension of Newton's laws of motion from linear to rotational motion.

As I said, all objects are observed to keep moving at constant velocity unless acted on by a force (Newton's 1st law). This also applies to the angular velocity of spinning objects because the centripetal force acting on every point in a spinning object is always exactly perpendicular to the direction of its velocity. As I said above, it is a fact of geometry that an object moving in a circle (such as a small part of a spinning object) is accelerating towards the centre of the circle. And the mathematics of vectors shows that if the acceleration is perpendicular to the velocity, it doesn't change the speed. It only changes the direction. (Remember, velocity is both speed and direction. A vector.)

So it naturally follows that once an object is spinning, its rate of spin will remain constant until another force acts to speed it up or slow it down.

This might explain why objects that start spinning keep spinning, but it doesn't explain why all the stars and planets in the universe seem to be spinning in the first place. For that, you have the conservation of angular momentum.

This means that if a spinning object, or collection of things that will one day coalesce into an object, shrinks in size its rate of spin increases (as you can demonstrate by spinning round on an office chair with your arms and legs sticking out and then pulling them in). Since large collections of gas and dust floating through space are very unlikely to be entirely motionless, there will always be at least some small amount of net rotational movement. This gets hugely magnified when the gas and dust contracts due to mutual gravitation.

That, it seems to me, explains the ubiquity of spin in the large scale universe. But it doesn't explain the intrinsic spin of elementary particles, does it? The explanation of that, I think, goes into more sophisticated levels of physics than I'm qualified to confidently explain. I know my limits!

[DarwinX]

Thx for the cogent reply, Steve.

It seems to me that the most interesting thing about Darwin's post is just the fact that cosmic bodies seem to spin even when taken on vastly different scales. While I'm hardly sold on Darwin's propositions, I do think that this observation of a general phenomenon of spin is quite interesting, if for no other reason than modern science has not concluded or postulated anything whatsoever in relation to it.

I mean, let's face it. The fact that atoms, moons, planets, stars, galaxies, and even clusters of galaxies all spin cannot be coincidence. There must be something important missing in the current model if it does not account for or explain this phenomenon (spin) which appears to be universal....

Spin is the common denominator that joins gravity, matter and light. Once you have a common denominator you can do and imagine things that you couldn't do before. The concept that the universe is made of only one subatomic particle which has 3 states is also key to understanding how light, matter and gravity are related. The universe must be constructed in a very simple and uncomplicated manner. My theory demonstrates that it is possible to build an entire universe with one subatomic particle in 3 states. The combination of orbits of the left and right spin ethons determines the element. The universe operates on the paper, sissors and rock principle. The right spin, left spin and no spin ethons represent the trilogy of irreconcilable incompatibility which is the universe.

[Atreyu]

Spin is the common denominator that joins gravity, matter and light. Once you have a common denominator you can do and imagine things that you couldn't do before. The concept that the universe is made of only one subatomic particle which has 3 states is also key to understanding how light, matter and gravity are related. The universe must be constructed in a very simple and uncomplicated manner. My theory demonstrates that it is possible to build an entire universe with one subatomic particle in 3 states. The combination of orbits of the left and right spin ethons determines the element. The universe operates on the paper, sissors and rock principle. The right spin, left spin and no spin ethons represent the trilogy of irreconcilable incompatibility which is the universe.

Do you think that this spinning is constant in each of the three states? For example, could a right spinning ethon become a left spinning one, or a non-spinning one? I am imagining a scenario such as a right-spin, a left-spin, and a no-spin ethon interacting with each other, with the end result being, among other things, that the three ethons' respective spinning states might change. The left-spin ethon may end up spinning right, or perhaps the non-spinning ethon will acquire spin, etc. What does your hypothesis say about that?

[DarwinX]

Do you think that this spinning is constant in each of the three states? For example, could a right spinning ethon become a left spinning one, or a non-spinning one? I am imagining a scenario such as a right-spin, a left-spin, and a no-spin ethon interacting with each other, with the end result being, among other things, that the three ethons' respective spinning states might change. The left-spin ethon may end up spinning right, or perhaps the non-spinning ethon will acquire spin, etc. What does your hypothesis say about that?

I am open to suggestions in regards to the transferability of spin energy. The hydrogen atom has no neutron which suggests that protons may be in a state of half spin which attracts the electron. The distribution of left and right spin ethons must be alternate and equal otherwise light would not be able to transfer its energy in the aether medium. Light waves would keep the ethons synchronized with one another when they make temporary contact. The galactic centre would be a factory of matter destruction and aether creation.

In my theory, the universe is made of only one particle, so, obviously, the spin energy must be transferable to the three different states. There also must be zero friction at the sub-atomic level so that energy is not lost. Thus, friction only applies to atoms and matter and not to ethons.

[Atreyu]

I am open to suggestions in regards to the transferability of spin energy. The hydrogen atom has no neutron which suggests that protons may be in a state of half spin which attracts the electron. The distribution of left and right spin ethons must be alternate and equal otherwise light would not be able to transfer its energy in the aether medium. Light waves would keep the ethons synchronized with one another when they make temporary contact. The galactic centre would be a factory of matter destruction and aether creation.

In my theory, the universe is made of only one particle, so, obviously, the spin energy must be transferable to the three different states. There also must be zero friction at the sub-atomic level so that energy is not lost. Thus, friction only applies to atoms and matter and not to ethons.

Well, I do like the idea of reducing everything to one particle --- one particle in three different states. That idea jibes with many ancient esoteric teachings.....

[Cogito ergo sum]

I believe that the universe is like a 3D photo-plate which has Plank length [1.61619926x10 to the power of minus 35] - 3D pixels. Each pixel represents one ethon. Each ethon rotates at the speed of light, [its natural signature speed for its dimension]. This must be so, because when a light passes through glass the light slows down and then speeds up again when it gets to the other side. When these positive and negative ethons rotate around one-another they become matter or solid. Thus, atoms are made up of positive and negative ethons which rotate around one-another. Light causes the ethons to engage into contact with one-another which creates a moving wave packet. This gear and clutch action allows the intensity of light to increase smoothly and not in quantum jumps. But - when the light is received, the atoms can only acquire the light's energy in quantum amounts due to the integral structure of the atom.

Currently accepted reasons of why light slows down and speeds up again when entering glass.

1. The photons are absorbed and re-emitted. - [If so why don't they scatter?]

2. The bounce around and are thus delayed. [light should be more disciplined next time]

3. The wave length changes. [oh, so now its turned into a wave and is not a photon any more, pity]

4. It becomes a wave and is slowed down by drag. [oh, what a drag!]

5. When the photon approaches the glass it enters a change room and turns into a wave, before it exits the glass, it enters another change room and turns back into a photon. [science needs more change rooms to accommodate its theories]

If you don't find any of the above reasons are appealing you can use DarwinX's explanation.

The ethons are spinning at the speed of light, and thus, carry the light at a standard speed - once it has passed the glass.

I am finished trying to tell you of your complete lack of understanding when it comes to physics so I will try this. Explain to me the implications of a "ethon" spinning at the speed of light? what would happen if you had a particle with an angular momentum of the speed of light? What is the speed of light if you don't believe in photons? How fast is this speed you created? Can to show me a model of an ethon traveling through glass with such a high an angular motmentum? Which way would they scatter? Is the direction of their spinning the same for all the ethons? If so, would all the ethons clump together based off of their insanely high angular momentum at a fixed spin?

1. The photons are absorbed and re-emitted. - [If so why don't they scatter?]
They do hence the "wave" nature. 2. The bounce around and are thus delayed. [light should be more disciplined next time]
It's a particle not a dog. You have to imagine that a photon interacts with matter so obviously it slows down when traveling much like you would slow down if you were in severe traffic. 3. The wave length changes. [oh, so now its turned into a wave and is not a photon any more, pity]
Wavelength is strictly to understand the probability. It is not necessarily its true nature. 4. It becomes a wave and is slowed down by drag. [oh, what a drag!]
I am not aware of this one.

[Paradigmer]

The ethons are spinning at the speed of light, and thus, carry the light at a standard speed - once it has passed the glass.

How do you compare ethons to aether corpuscles, or luminiferous aether?

[LDub]

I believe that the universe is like a 3D photo-plate which has Plank length [1.61619926x10 to the power of minus 35] - 3D pixels. Each pixel represents one ethon. Each ethon rotates at the speed of light, [its natural signature speed for its dimension]. This must be so, because when a light passes through glass the light slows down and then speeds up again when it gets to the other side. When these positive and negative ethons rotate around one-another they become matter or solid. Thus, atoms are made up of positive and negative ethons which rotate around one-another. Light causes the ethons to engage into contact with one-another which creates a moving wave packet. This gear and clutch action allows the intensity of light to increase smoothly and not in quantum jumps. But - when the light is received, the atoms can only acquire the light's energy in quantum amounts due to the integral structure of the atom.

Currently accepted reasons of why light slows down and speeds up again when entering glass.

1. The photons are absorbed and re-emitted. - [If so why don't they scatter?]

2. The bounce around and are thus delayed. [light should be more disciplined next time]

3. The wave length changes. [oh, so now its turned into a wave and is not a photon any more, pity]

4. It becomes a wave and is slowed down by drag. [oh, what a drag!]

5. When the photon approaches the glass it enters a change room and turns into a wave, before it exits the glass, it enters another change room and turns back into a photon. [science needs more change rooms to accommodate its theories]

If you don't find any of the above reasons are appealing you can use DarwinX's explanation.

The ethons are spinning at the speed of light, and thus, carry the light at a standard speed - once it has passed the glass.

I’m slightly confused as to the “argument” that first started this forum, the original post of DarwinX. Addressing that first post, you (DarwinX) seem to pose a set of beliefs, as well as critiques of some theories provided by modern day physics. You make the claim that the presence of ethons rotating at the speed of light “must be so, because when a light passes through glass the light slows down and then speeds up again when it gets to the other side”. However, I don’t quite see why this must be the case given the information you’ve provided. Your answer to the glass/speed of light problem you posed, though it may arguably provide an answer to the problem, doesn’t necessarily fit with other notable observations of the physical nature of the world. For instance, you suggest the idea of positive and negative ethons taking on a particular arrangement within atoms, but you provide no discussion as to the masses of these ethons nor do you address the experimental evidence provided by physicists such as Ernest Rutherford, which supports the theory of an atom being composed of a positively charged nucleus surrounded by orbiting electrons. In addition to this, I’m not sure if you entirely understand the lexical and scientific definition of a photon. For example, you critiqued one of the theories cited in your original post by commenting “so now it’s turned into a wave and is not a photon any more”. However, the whole idea behind a photon is that it has a dual nature: it may behave both as a wave and a particle. Therefore, even if the photon began to behave like a wave, that would not change the fact that it is still a photon. Although this is a very strange phenomenon to the human intellect, the wave-particle theory is supported by data from experimental feats such as Thomas Young’s double-slit experiment. And so though this is indeed a philosophy forum where philosophical opinions can and should be discussed or expressed, I think it is also important to take into careful consideration observations from physics and science, especially since this particular topic pertains so deeply to those subjects.

[Niebieskieucho]

Darwin, My thoughts--

1.There is probably no such thing as a photon. It's closer to a collapsed wave in four dimensions.

Nope. Photon is a physical entity. Now we can see what a single photon looks like.
Unfortunately, according to the appearing info I cannot post links. Quote: "You are not authorized to post url links, please remove or rename:"