Skip to comments.
UC Riverside Researchers' Discovery Of Electrostatic Spin Topples Century-old Theory
University Of California - Riverside / ScienceDaily.com ^
| April 2, 2003
| Anders Wistrom and Armik Khachatourian
Posted on 04/03/2003 7:28:43 AM PST by forsnax5
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 next last
For you bleeding-edge science fans...
1
posted on
04/03/2003 7:28:43 AM PST
by
forsnax5
To: forsnax5
Thanks, been a while since I had a good bleeding.
2
posted on
04/03/2003 7:32:15 AM PST
by
DannyTN
(Note left on my door by a pack of neighborhood dogs.)
To: forsnax5
I'm confused. The "spin" variable used in quantum mechanics has nothing to do with our notion of physical spinning like a tennis ball, etc. The author implies that subatomic particles actually spin. Just as a "top", "bottom", or "strange" quark has nothing to do with the physical definitions of those words. They are just quantum variables.
To: Diogenesis
- ping -
I know you like this stuff. Potential truth, or a story a day late for April Fool's?
To: *RealScience
5
posted on
04/03/2003 7:39:47 AM PST
by
Free the USA
(Stooge for the Rich)
To: forsnax5
bump
6
posted on
04/03/2003 7:51:53 AM PST
by
VOA
To: VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; *crevo_list; RadioAstronomer; Scully; Piltdown_Woman; ...
Could be big, could be bogus.
[This ping list is for the evolution -- not creationism -- side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. To be added (or dropped), let me know via freepmail.]
7
posted on
04/03/2003 7:52:58 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
To: forsnax5
Maybe James Blish's "Spindizzy" will come out of this...
8
posted on
04/03/2003 7:53:20 AM PST
by
boris
(Education is always painful; pain is always educational)
To: forsnax5
Electro-static spin?
Our clothes dryer does that....it's caused by the machine ingesting one sock out of each pair.
To: Flightdeck
The "spin" variable used in quantum mechanics has nothing to do with our notion of physical spinning like a tennis ball, etc. The author implies that subatomic particles actually spin.This was appended to the article at the UC site, and probably explains the confusion:
"Produced by the Office of Marketing & Media Relations."
10
posted on
04/03/2003 7:57:17 AM PST
by
forsnax5
To: Flightdeck
Keep in mind that whoever wrote this article probably has made a high school level science background, and maybe not even that level in physics.
To describe quantum mechanics in terms that are readily understandable to the general public is next to impossible, since you can't use analogies, since, as you said, quantum mechanics simply don't work in the same way we view reality.
Trying to describe it even stumped Richard Feynman, so I'm willing to cut the author a little slack.
To: N. Theknow
That's a special application of quantum physics. The existence of the other sock depends on whether you observe the first sock.
12
posted on
04/03/2003 7:58:58 AM PST
by
DannyTN
(Note left on my door by a pack of neighborhood dogs.)
To: forsnax5
Tommy Roe figured this out and explained it as: "I'm so dizzy, my head it spins..."
13
posted on
04/03/2003 8:00:17 AM PST
by
trebb
To: N. Theknow
Our clothes dryer does that....it's caused by the machine ingesting one sock out of each pair. Conservation of matter and energy, you know. That sock is converted into pure electrostatic spin. Not to mention lint.
14
posted on
04/03/2003 8:02:43 AM PST
by
js1138
To: PatrickHenry; Physicist; RadioAstronomer; ThinkPlease; Gordian Blade
Not clear what the deal is here; if they are saying that rotation occurs because of asymmetric charge distribution, I don't see how that violates any standing theories, but then I'm not an expert.
To: js1138
That sock is converted into pure electrostatic spin. Not to mention lint. That harkens back to a discussion a few years back in which I hypothesized the existence of a gyro-rotational Black Hole inside of clothes dryers, that swallowed stray socks, and led via a worm-hole to the Planet of Lint...... I'm still waiting to hear from the Nobel Committee on when I can expect my nomination to come thru....
To: longshadow
I just printed the article and it looks like they have three spheres in an asymetrical configuration. They put a potential on one sphere and the others move. The asymetrical arrangement causes the torque.
There isn't anything about QM spin; it's all electrostatic.
17
posted on
04/03/2003 8:21:29 AM PST
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: longshadow
Not clear what the deal is here ... This could be the long-sought answer to one of the great naggning questions in my life -- why does my secretary's telephone cord get so darn twisted up every day that I'm forever having to let the thing swing free for a couple of minutes to untangle itself?
18
posted on
04/03/2003 8:30:48 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
To: forsnax5
This article made essentially no sense to me. Furthermore, while the title says:
UC Riverside Researchers' Discovery Of Electrostatic Spin Topples Century-old Theory
the article says:
"It is very satisfying to learn that electrostatic rotation can be predicted by the simple laws of voltage and force that date back at least 200 years," Wistrom said.
To: Flightdeck
I'm confused. The "spin" variable used in quantum mechanics has nothing to do with our notion of physical spinning like a tennis ball, etc. The author implies that subatomic particles actually spin. Just as a "top", "bottom", or "strange" quark has nothing to do with the physical definitions of those words. They are just quantum variables.While the spin of an electron, etc. cannot be envisioned as the rotation of a rigid body, it is not true that this spin "has nothing to do with" the spinning of a tennis ball. They represent the same conserved quantity, angular momentum.
If you align the spins of photons, for example (i.e. circularly polarized light), and shine the beam at an opaque object, you will impart a measurable torque to it.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson