Naked Science Forum
General Science => General Science => Topic started by: jerrygg38 on 23/08/2016 22:13:35
-
Does the proton spin rapidly in the cyclotron?
As I am trying to understand why an object in motion in free space continues to move in a straight line with constant velocity, it appears to me that either the proton must spin perpendicular to the motion or the gravitational field of the proton must spin perpendicular to motion. Most likely they both spin. However what has been observed by the scientists? In addition do they observe the effects of a spinning electrical field and an associated magnetic field?
If the proton has been observed to spin in proportion to the speed of the proton, then for an object in motion, all the protons within the object must spin or at least their fields must spin. Thus a mass in motion is kept in a straight line because each proton acts like a gyroscope?
What do you guys think?
-
I think that you need to understand that the so called "spin" of subatomic particles is not really a spin.
Also you need to explain why you think that " it appears to me that either the proton must spin perpendicular to the motion or the gravitational field of the proton must spin perpendicular to motion."
Why not just accept that a proton moving with no forces acting on it will travel in a straight line because there's nothing else there to define what else it should to.
-
I think that you need to understand that the so called "spin" of subatomic particles is not really a spin.
Also you need to explain why you think that " it appears to me that either the proton must spin perpendicular to the motion or the gravitational field of the proton must spin perpendicular to motion."
Why not just accept that a proton moving with no forces acting on it will travel in a straight line because there's nothing else there to define what else it should to.
That is very philosophical. And the little proton said "I will move in a straight line because I want to". And you may be right.
The engineer in me tries to find a reason why the little proton moves in a straight line. I know a mass has a gravitational field. I know a charged particle has an electric field. In addition the moving charged particle produces a magnetic field.
So now the question is what happens to the body of the proton which is composed of several quarks? What happens to the gravitational field of the proton? what happens to the electric and magnetic field of the proton? Does anyone know?
-
It's more a case of "And the little proton said "I will move in a straight line because nothing is here (in free space) to tell me to do anything else"
There's a tiny electrostatic field. An even smaller gravitational one and a massively stronger nuclear force holding the nucleus together.
It's like worrying about the effects of static electricity on the ball during a football game.
It's a real effect-but too small to matter.
When you say"an object in motion in free space " what you mean is an object that's far enough from everything that the forces on it are too small to matter- otherwise it's not moving in "free space" but in "an electric field" or "the gravity well of a star" or whatever.
-
The principal of least action is something you should study. The lazy proton wants to exert the least amount of effort. Bless its little cotton socks.
-
And the little proton said "I will move in a straight line because I want to". And you may be right.
The engineer in me tries to find a reason why the little proton moves in a straight line.
The little proton doesn't say anything.
Whatever it is in you, is looking at this the wrong way round, there doesn't have to be a reason for an object to continue in a straight line, there has to be a reason for it not to.
Newton had this right, the object continues in its current state (stationary, moving) unless something (clue - a force) makes it change state. It doesn't need a gyroscope to keep in its current state.
-
And the little proton said "I will move in a straight line because I want to". And you may be right.
The engineer in me tries to find a reason why the little proton moves in a straight line.
The little proton doesn't say anything.
Whatever it is in you, is looking at this the wrong way round, there doesn't have to be a reason for an object to continue in a straight line, there has to be a reason for it not to.
Newton had this right, the object continues in its current state (stationary, moving) unless something (clue - a force) makes it change state. It doesn't need a gyroscope to keep in its current state.
Wow. I will have to think about that for awhile. What you guys say makes sense to me but it is strange that an object in motion in a straight has no other reason to do that unless a force is exerted to change it. That would make it a primary principle of the universe. This principle would be a first cause. Still there must be some space time reason why it does that. The gyroscope effect may be wrong but if I look at the object a split second before and a split second later for an arbitrary x,y,z axis it would have traveled in a straight line.
I believe that we can look at the universe as a triple universe of the past, the present and the future. Has any scientists conceived of this? If this is true, then that is another possibility of why an object continues in a straight line. And that is a very complicated Einsteinian space time problem. Did Einstein ever consider the problem of why an object continues to move in a straight line?
-
Still there must be some space time reason why it does that.
You should make an effort to disabuse yourself of this notion. I'm not talking just in terms of Relativity either. In order to construct a theory (even a purely mathematical one) you must start with some number of assumptions that you are pretty sure are true. These are called axioms and they don't have reasons. Axioms just are and cannot be proven within the theory that they define.
Now in this particular case there is a reason why things moving in free space move in a straight line. Simply put conservation of momentum and energy which can be traced back to symmetries present in free space.
Noether's Theorem explains how conservation laws come from underlying symmetries. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem)
-
it is strange that an object in motion in a straight has no other reason to do that unless a force is exerted to change it. That would make it a primary principle of the universe.
If Emily Noether's theorem is a bit much, try Newton's First Law of Motion.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Newton.27s_first_law
-
Does the proton spin rapidly in the cyclotron?
You don't need to look farther than the magnetron in your microwave oven.
The electrons inside the magnetron would travel in a straight line from the negative to positive terminal, except they are deflected by a magnetic field so they travel in a circular path.
This is similar to the way that the Earth would travel in a straight line through space, except it is deflected by the Sun's gravitational field to travel in a circular orbit.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavity_magnetron
-
Still there must be some space time reason why it does that.
You should make an effort to disabuse yourself of this notion. I'm not talking just in terms of Relativity either. In order to construct a theory (even a purely mathematical one) you must start with some number of assumptions that you are pretty sure are true. These are called axioms and they don't have reasons. Axioms just are and cannot be proven within the theory that they define.
Now in this particular case there is a reason why things moving in free space move in a straight line. Simply put conservation of momentum and energy which can be traced back to symmetries present in free space.
Noether's Theorem explains how conservation laws come from underlying symmetries. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem)
thanks for the information. I studied it a little. When I was young my memory was much better and my mathematical abilities were excellent. However I have an engineers mind. I like building things and getting them to work. Even at 77 I am still building things like a wooden swing or a set of wooden steps. I like to paint rooms and roofs and fix cars. The mathematical physicists seem to love the math and the theoretical science. Different kind of animal than me.
Yet today I awoke and realized if we take an object that is stationary with respect to the far stars it is not moving. It has no linear momentum or angular momentum. It will not move in a straight line. Now if we add photonic energy to it, it will gain linear momentum. All the photons added to it must have a vector sum which pushes it. Thus it was forced to move in a straight line. the linear momentum will build up and the angular momentum will as well.
I assume that the total angular momentum of all the inner particles will be constant as per Noether's theory. and the same will be true of all the linear momentum.. So from an engineering understanding it moves in a straight line with constant momentum because of it prior history. Thus it behaves the way it does because of what was put into it. Do you agree with that?
-
it is strange that an object in motion in a straight has no other reason to do that unless a force is exerted to change it. That would make it a primary principle of the universe.
If Emily Noether's theorem is a bit much, try Newton's First Law of Motion.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Newton.27s_first_law
Thanks. It was good to review Newton and to learn about Noether. I do not understand every word of Noether but the summary was quite clear and informative. I came to the conclusion early today that the object moves in a straight line because of all the prior inputs into the object. Then I studied both articles and my thoughts matched the two articles.
-
...All the photons added to it must have a vector sum which pushes it. Thus it was forced to move in a straight line. the linear momentum will build up and the angular momentum will as well.
Why just photons? Yes for a solar sail, but any external force will change the momentum. Whether that change is linear or angular will depend on the exact location of the application of the force on the object - basic engineering.
So from an engineering understanding it moves in a straight line with constant momentum because of it prior history. Thus it behaves the way it does because of what was put into it. Do you agree with that?
No, its prior history determines its direction and velocity, whether it continues in a straight line or deviates depends on current and future forces
-
Whether that change is linear or angular will depend on the exact location of the application of the force on the object - basic engineering.
I'd like to take this opportunity to point out a subtlety that a lot of people are unaware of. Even people that have taken introductory college courses often miss it. No single force acting alone can produce a pure rotation. Even if you apply the force perfectly tangentially to the object you'll still get a rotation and a translation if it is the only force acting on the object.
A quick way to demonstrate this is to roll cylinder (like a battery) down an inclined plane (a book propped up at one end). If you place a long strip of paper under the cylinder and pull the paper up the incline very quickly (you have to jerk it pretty hard because it works best when the paper is accelerating) you can get the cylinder to rotate in place on the incline and sometimes even go up the incline while still rotating in the direction that should take it down the incline. At the very least you should be able to make the cylinder take a longer time to reach the bottom.
-
No single force acting alone can produce a pure rotation.
You are right, what I wrote implied exclusive or. Too late at night for proof reading posts [;)]
PS Jerry, although what agyejy wrote is correct it is possible for a single force to create linear motion without rotation. My post was intended to address this point as you still seem to be looking for some kind of rotation. As my granddaughter sings incessantly 'let it go' [:)]
-
If a proton was spinning, like an automobile's wheel, in the direction of motion, if it approached the speed of light, the perimeter could travel the speed of light. If the proton was spinning perpendicular to the direction of motion, like the propeller of an airplane, the velocity profile between hub and perimeter is different.
If we look at photons, the spinning wheel photon would allow the surface of the proton to go faster and slower than the speed of light, adding both an inertial and a tertiary component to the light speed of hub. But if the photon is spinning like a propellor, there will only be two components to motion; hub and perimeter.
-
...All the photons added to it must have a vector sum which pushes it. Thus it was forced to move in a straight line. the linear momentum will build up and the angular momentum will as well.
Why just photons? Yes for a solar sail, but any external force will change the momentum. Whether that change is linear or angular will depend on the exact location of the application of the force on the object - basic engineering.
So from an engineering understanding it moves in a straight line with constant momentum because of it prior history. Thus it behaves the way it does because of what was put into it. Do you agree with that?
No, its prior history determines its direction and velocity, whether it continues in a straight line or deviates depends on current and future forces
I do not usually think of the reasons for very basic physics. Yet I am still working on another model of the photon and looking at the fundamentals. I think in terms of photonic energy. Now you say that there are non-photonic forces which can transfer energy. Going back to F= QBV, a electron moving with velocity V encountering a magentic field experiences a force which changes its direction. likewise an electron accelerates when it encounters a positive electric field. What happened? Isn't it all changes in photonic energy or are my concepts wrong?
-
If a proton was spinning, like an automobile's wheel, in the direction of motion, if it approached the speed of light, the perimeter could travel the speed of light. If the proton was spinning perpendicular to the direction of motion, like the propeller of an airplane, the velocity profile between hub and perimeter is different.
If we look at photons, the spinning wheel photon would allow the surface of the proton to go faster and slower than the speed of light, adding both an inertial and a tertiary component to the light speed of hub. But if the photon is spinning like a propellor, there will only be two components to motion; hub and perimeter.
I would not think of the proton spinning like a wheel. This would exceed the speed of light in one direction as you say. To spin perpendicular to the direction of forward travel would not exceed the speed of light in the forward direction. The spin would only add a tiny fraction to the total speed as long as the spin was no different than the spin of a photon itself. In effect as we bring a proton or electron up to the speed of light we have added so much energy that it is more photon than particle. What do you think?
-
In effect as we bring a proton or electron up to the speed of light we have added so much energy that it is more photon than particle. What do you think?
Protons have quarks, whether they are stationary, or travelling at close to the speed of light in the LHC.
Photons do not have quarks, whether they are travelling at the speed of light in a vacuum, or at less than the speed of light through glass or through the crystal detectors of the LHC.
Protons have an electric charge, whether they are stationary, or travelling at close to the speed of light in the LHC.
Photons do not have electric charge, whether they are travelling at the speed of light in a vacuum, or at less than the speed of light through glass or through the crystal detectors of the LHC.
It is true that when you accelerate protons, eg by bending them around the LHC, or by passing close to another proton, they will radiate energy in the form of photons.
And the LHC accelerates protons by subjecting them to electromagnetic fields.
These electromagnetic interactions don't make the proton any more a proton (or any less a proton) - they just produce a proton travelling at a different velocity.
I think that photons & protons are distinctly different particles; their main similarity is in the spelling: "PXOTON".
-
No single force acting alone can produce a pure rotation.
You are right, what I wrote implied exclusive or. Too late at night for proof reading posts [;)]
PS Jerry, although what agyejy wrote is correct it is possible for a single force to create linear motion without rotation. My post was intended to address this point as you still seem to be looking for some kind of rotation. As my granddaughter sings incessantly 'let it go' [:)]
It is interesting how many different variations of thoughts occur from simple questions. In any event if we apply a single vector force on an object that goes through the center of gravity of that object, no rotation will occur unless you guys can think of some other reason why it should rotate. (omitting other forces)
But my main concern was the possibility that linear motion could result in rotational fields. An electron moving in a straight line causes a magnetic field perpendicular to the motion. I am not sure but is it possible that the magnetic field is some sort of rotating electric field? Is it possible that the gravitational field of an object?
All I know is that we put words together and observe reactions and accept certain things. Yet in my opinion we do not truly understand many things.
-
In effect as we bring a proton or electron up to the speed of light we have added so much energy that it is more photon than particle. What do you think?
Protons have quarks, whether they are stationary, or travelling at close to the speed of light in the LHC.
Photons do not have quarks, whether they are travelling at the speed of light in a vacuum, or at less than the speed of light through glass or through the crystal detectors of the LHC.
Protons have an electric charge, whether they are stationary, or travelling at close to the speed of light in the LHC.
Photons do not have electric charge, whether they are travelling at the speed of light in a vacuum, or at less than the speed of light through glass or through the crystal detectors of the LHC.
It is true that when you accelerate protons, eg by bending them around the LHC, or by passing close to another proton, they will radiate energy in the form of photons.
And the LHC accelerates protons by subjecting them to electromagnetic fields.
These electromagnetic interactions don't make the proton any more a proton (or any less a proton) - they just produce a proton travelling at a different velocity.
I think that photons & protons are distinctly different particles; their main similarity is in the spelling: "PXOTON".
Thanks, that was a good summary. So you see no indication that the proton moving close to the speed of light in the LHC does not look like a proton with a photon tail or a line of charge. Thus the photons are embedded within the small proton which got smaller? Another question. When you heat a mass, do we get a split of energy absorption between the electrons and the protons? The simple Bohr model always had the electrons absorbing the photons but it seems to me that the protons should take a share.