The Problem of Spin

[webolife]

JL, please... I know what the definition of absolute zero is. Let me ask my question a different way:
Do you believe there is no temperature inside of an atom? Or do you simply not define temperature below/at the atomic scale?
You seem to be acknowledging that absolute zero doesn't exist in the universe... I'll buy that. But that begs the question of how an electron can still spin at absolute zero, if that condition is not real?

[junglelord]

Your really missing the point. Very cold quantum devices of classical mechanics size show coherent electron motion. Electrons never stop moving. That is the point. This movement is primary angular momentum. Superconductors work because electrons do not freeze. The universe is telling you something, it is not speaking english. You must discover for yourself what it means. To me its a fundamental reality that we use in technology with quantum mechanics principles that relies on the fact that electrons never freeze.

[StevenO]

Very well spoken, Dean...

The universe expresses itself. Constant light speed, special relativity, quantum behaviour, Planck's constant, zero-point fluctuations, the 'sync' shape models of the electron and Higgs particle...it are all expressions of the same thing. That there is ultimately a fundamental relationship between space and time that can't be broken.

[webolife]

OK, StevenO, sometimes I'm right there with you, other times, can hardly buy a single word! Ok, a few words I can buy are Planck's constant and ... maybe that's it... everything else to me is not what the universe is saying, but what a collective mind of scientific consensus is dictating... some of which I believe is totally wrong!
Back to you JL, all you are telling me in that last post is that superconductors are not operating at absolute zero, confirming my objection.
What exactly am I missing?

[webolife]

Sorry StevenO, I was too hard on you... I accept elements of what you said and I do believe that b]there is ultimately a fundamental relationship between space and time that can't be broken.[/b] I'm pushing for the time when a child can explain to me the fundamental principles of the universe, then maybe I can understand it as well.

[StevenO]

Sorry StevenO, I was too hard on you... I accept elements of what you said and I do believe that there is ultimately a fundamental relationship between space and time that can't be broken. I'm pushing for the time when a child can explain to me the fundamental principles of the universe, then maybe I can understand it as well.

I often wonder if we fool ourselves and kids are better at seeings things for what they are

and I have another excerpt from Micheal Miller about both:

The time standard must be immutable if you are to deal with time arithmetically; i.e., if you are to measure time. Why?

If different units of time are not equal, then no arithmetic operations on them are valid. To so much as add or subtract times, you must know that the units are equal. If the units are not equal, the arithmetic results are meaningless: 5 seconds plus 2 hours equals 7 what?

In fact, 1 plus 1 does not equal 2 unless both units are the same. If the units are not the same, arithmetic is useless. Let's explore this.

It is proverbial that you cannot add apples to oranges, but the fact is you can if you know exactly what you're doing. Children know. When you ask them what is 1 apple plus 1 orange, they puzzle over it for a moment and then triumphantly announce: 2 fruits! And they're right! Philosophers should be so smart!

http://www.quackgrass.com/time.html
Disclaimer: I do not endorse every statement on this website, but the philosophy sections are definitely worth reading.

[Grey Cloud]

Quackgrass is crap philosophy emanating from crap right-wing, materialist politics.
This article for instance from the philosophy essays suggests that either he is a liar or he has never read an alchemy book.
http://www.quackgrass.com/stone.html
Similarly, there is another article by Miller somewhere on these boards in which he features Parmenides. Miller makes up some spurious arguement from Parmenides then shows his own 'cleverness' by proving it wrong. The article was something to do with vacuum domains but I can't remember where it was. Found it
http://www.quackgrass.com/space.html
I can expand upon my criticism of with regard to both alchemy and Parmenides if so required.

[StevenO]

Quackgrass is crap philosophy emanating from crap right-wing, materialist politics

I think he gets most of philosophy from Ayn Rand, which explains his background and he presents himself as an armchair philosopher with a website, so please apply the right dose of salt...

I was curious about the Parmenides quote. I thought he just quoted him to say that 2500 years ago the old Greek already
agreed that there can be no 'void', so what we define as 'vacuum' must be material. It's a discussion that we are having in another thread as well. I argue that the confusion comes from defining 'photons' as real particles, while they are only two dimensional entities carrying momentum.

[webolife]

StevenO said:
I argue that the confusion comes from defining 'photons' as real particles, while they are only two dimensional entities carrying momentum.
I say:
I argue that photons are conical vector beams of pressure centropically directed and instantaneously effective across the radius of the field at any scale. Hence "photons" do not exhibit "spin" per se, keeping this discussion on the topic of SPIN. However photonic activity affects the spin of "charge"/charges within the field...

[Grey Cloud]

http://www.quackgrass.com/space.html

Parmenides and the atomists share the error that perceptual gaps are voids. They differ only in the way they use the error. Parmenides says, contrary to perception, that gaps do not exist; because voids do not exist, and gaps are voids. The atomists insist, contrary to the axiom of existence, that void exists; because gaps exist, and gaps are voids.

Void means gap, it has nothing to do with nothingness. Parmenides said that nothing (i.e. a thing called nothing) could not exist.
Democritus (the atomist) said that there was only atoms and the void. That is, there was only the smallest particle and the gap or space between said particles. All Quackcrap does is substitute vacuum for void, gap and space.

Faced with this, Parmenides himself lapsed into collectivism and rationalism: he declared that there are no separate entities, that our senses deceive us; there is only a mystic unity: The One.

So is Quackcrap saying that our senses are infallible? The One was not the invention of Parmenides, the concept is at the root of all religions as well as all good philosophy and alchemy. Parmenides if I am not mistaken, was a priest of Apollo. The One is synonymous with Aristotle's First Cause or Unmoved Mover.

Suppose we observe a cat and a dog on opposite sides of a brick fence. What is between them? Obviously there are bricks between them. That's no problem for anyone: we all know that bricks exist.
But if we remove the bricks from between our critters, they don't merge into the mystic unity of The One. They are still apart; they are still distinct entities. Now what's between them?

Answer: A darned sight more than there is between your ears Quackcrap.

[StevenO]

StevenO said:
I say:
I argue that photons are conical vector beams of pressure centropically directed and instantaneously effective across the radius of the field at any scale. Hence "photons" do not exhibit "spin" per se, keeping this discussion on the topic of SPIN. However photonic activity affects the spin of "charge"/charges within the field...

I probably need your dictionary first before I can really understand that sentence....
For me the simplest description of a photon is:

A photon is the process of two vibrating atoms (vibrating without direction==all directions, I guess that's your 'centropical') exchanging a quantized amount of energy (due to the quantization of the electron energies).
(Same thing happens inside the nucleus between quarks).

Have a nice picture of that:

[StevenO]

Answer: A darned sight more than there is between your ears Quackcrap.

OK, maybe we should leave Mr. Quack for what he is and return to spin our stories...

For me the mere fact that we exist logically proves that the universe exists and there can be no "nothing" between matter and other 'material' stuff like vacuums, ether and so on. And if "nothing" exists, it can only exists "outside" our universe and that is no EU

[webolife]

StevenO, ask me for specific definitions via specific situations, and I'll try to see if I can do it!
Your graphic works just fine for me. Substitute vectors for the undulating standing waves, and My fields look like yours!

[Plasmatic]

Say Steven where is the "other thread" located ?

GC id be happy to take you up on your comments about onesness and such privately!

[bboyer]

Say Steven where is the "other thread" located ?

This one? http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... t=45#p6290 What is Real/Material from Non-material