19 Mar 20
@metal-brain saidThe thread about relativity here exposes this as a huge lie.
I admit when I don't know something, it is often the most intelligent answer. I don't let my ego get in the way of reality.
19 Mar 20
@deepthought saidLack of permanence indicates the first.
The word has three meanings. The first is a moment in time. The second is importance, something of great moment is something of great importance. The meaning in physics is derived from the second sense of moment.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/moment
@metal-brain saidBy your many angry arrogant delusionally ignorant massive opinionated idiotic layperson posts there, containing obviously false assertions to any expert on the relevant subject, clearly to us all non-morons contradicts your assertion of;
LOL!
How so?
"I admit when I don't know something, it is often the most intelligent answer. I don't let my ego get in the way of reality." (your quote)
This also convinces us all here you are a massive hypocrite. You convince body.; -why do your think your posts keep getting the thumbs down while the only thumbs down all our posts get is from you and you alone? If you say we are all convinced by your BS, explain that one.
@humy saidAd hominem attacks again? LOL! That is a clear sign of defeat to constantly resort to that again and again.
By your many angry arrogant delusionally ignorant massive opinionated idiotic layperson posts there, containing obviously false assertions to any expert on the relevant subject, clearly to us all non-morons contradicts your assertion of;
"I admit when I don't know something, it is often the most intelligent answer. I don't let my ego get in the way of reality." (your quote)
Th ...[text shortened]... r posts get is from you and you alone? If you say we are all convinced by your BS, explain that one.
Name one obvious false assertion I have made. You cannot without lying.
You are a pathological liar.
20 Mar 20
@metal-brain saidFrom a couple of pages back:
Ad hominem attacks again? LOL! That is a clear sign of defeat to constantly resort to that again and again.
Name one obvious false assertion I have made. You cannot without lying.
You are a pathological liar.
The fact is nobody understands what causes magnetism. Electron spin is a popular theory, but that is all it is.
I think most professional physicists would disagree with this statement. It is a false assertion, whether it counts as obviously false depends on what one regards as obvious. Maxwell produced his theory of electromagnetism over 150 years ago, since dF = 0 implies the absence of magnetic monopoles the only possible cause of magnetic fields is circulating currents. The only circulating currents which persist indefinitely in ordinary conductors are electrons in singly occupied orbitals. So there is no other mechanism for generating magnetism than the intrinsic dipole moment of electrons and this is a consequence of their spin.
21 Mar 20
@deepthought saidI accept their is a consensus that accepts electron spin as the best theory for explaining magnetism. The problem is that nobody agrees what "spin" is. You asserted that spin was not really the electron spinning on it's axis and that it was a magnetic moment. You went from saying electrons spin to saying the magnetic moment causes spin. This is backwards.
From a couple of pages back:The fact is nobody understands what causes magnetism. Electron spin is a popular theory, but that is all it is.
I think most professional physicists would disagree with this statement. It is a false assertion, whether it counts as obviously false depends on what one regards as obvious. Maxwell produced his theory of electromag ...[text shortened]... ing magnetism than the intrinsic dipole moment of electrons and this is a consequence of their spin.
Does magnetism cause spin or does spin cause magnetism? You need to make up your mind if you want to avoid contradicting yourself. Which is it?
21 Mar 20
@metal-brain saidWhere did I say that the magnetic moment causes spin? The chain of explanation is from spin and charge to magnetic moment. All physicists agree on what spin is, it's just that the definition is mathematical. Particles exist in unitary representations of the Lorentz group and this gives us both the spin states and the matter/anti-matter states.
I accept their is a consensus that accepts electron spin as the best theory for explaining magnetism. The problem is that nobody agrees what "spin" is. You asserted that spin was not really the electron spinning on it's axis and that it was a magnetic moment. You went from saying electrons spin to saying the magnetic moment causes spin. This is backwards.
Does magnetis ...[text shortened]... e magnetism? You need to make up your mind if you want to avoid contradicting yourself. Which is it?
21 Mar 20
6 edits
@metal-brain saidNo, no such problem exists. We accept and generally agree with how science defines spin, no problem. There is no big controversy over that; Only you have a problem with accepting how science defines it, not us. You are totally alone here with your ignorant opinions and assertions on science.
The problem is that nobody agrees what "spin" is.
@deepthought saidI don't enjoy repeating past posts, but it has become necessary.
Where did I say that the magnetic moment causes spin? The chain of explanation is from spin and charge to magnetic moment. All physicists agree on what spin is, it's just that the definition is mathematical. Particles exist in unitary representations of the Lorentz group and this gives us both the spin states and the matter/anti-matter states.
What is electron spin? What is spinning? Can it be measured?
Perhaps you can give better answers now than you did before. As you will recall you resorted to an article that was purely theoretical. That was evident since it gave a spin measurement to the graviton, a theoretical particle. All of that waste of time simply because I asked for proof spin can be measured and wanted a number. If all the numbers are theoretical shouldn't science (as if science is a person 😉 say that?
edit: In the end you claimed that electron spin was measured by the magnetic moment. The magnetic moment is not spin. If the magnetic moment is the result of spin you are not measuring spin directly, so how do you know there is really spin? Spin seems to be a purely theoretical concept that is hidden with vague terms like "angular momentum" and "intrinsic spin" to avoid admitting lack of verification. Others on this forum even unwittingly digressed into orbital angular momentum to obfuscate the issue.
I am asking simple questions that obviously do not have simple answers, but I do expect them to make sense. If something is a purely theoretical concept please just admit it. Not everything in physics is deserving of rigid thinking. Electron spin is a theory, right? Either it has been verified or not.
21 Mar 20
@humy saidGreat!
No, no such problem exists. We accept and generally agree with how science defines spin, no problem. There is no big controversy over that; Only you have a problem with accepting how science defines it, not us. You are totally alone here with your ignorant opinions and assertions on science.
Define spin.
Is the electron spinning or something else?
21 Mar 20
1 edit
@wolfgang59 saidI think gravity is the most complicated or unexplainable thing going.
What is the most complicated concept you know of?
Explain it simply to us.
Thanks.
10 Apr 20
@TheListener
I thought big Al did a bang up job explaining gravity as not a fundamental force like magnetism but just a curve in spacetime where you might go downhill or take energy to go uphill against gravity but still just a curve in spacetime.