Surprising result shocks scientists studying spin

January 8, 2018, Brookhaven National Laboratory
Neutrons produced when a spin-aligned (polarized) proton collides with another proton come out with a slight rightward-skew preference. But when the polarized proton collides with a much larger gold nucleus, the neutrons' directional preference becomes larger and switches to the left. These surprising results imply that the mechanisms producing particles along the beam direction may be very different in these two types of collisions. Credit: Brookhaven National Laboratory

Imagine playing a game of billiards, putting a bit of counter-clockwise spin on the cue ball and watching it deflect to the right as it strikes its target ball. With luck, or skill, the target ball sinks into the corner pocket while the rightward-deflected cue ball narrowly misses a side-pocket scratch. Now imagine your counter-clockwise spinning cue ball striking a bowling ball instead, and deflecting even more strongly—but to the left—when it strikes the larger mass.

That's similar to the shocking situation scientists found themselves in when analyzing results of spinning protons striking different sized atomic nuclei at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC)—a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science User Facility for nuclear physics research at DOE's Brookhaven National Laboratory. Neutrons produced when a spinning collides with another proton come out with a slight rightward-skew preference. But when the spinning proton collides with a much larger gold nucleus, the neutrons' directional preference becomes larger and switches to the left.

"What we observed was totally amazing," said Brookhaven physicist Alexander Bazilevsky, a deputy spokesperson for the PHENIX collaboration at RHIC, which is reporting these results in a new paper just published in Physical Review Letters. "Our findings may mean that the mechanisms producing particles along the direction in which the spinning proton is traveling may be very different in compared with proton-nucleus collisions."

Understanding different particle production mechanisms could have big implications for interpreting other high-energy particle collisions, including the interactions of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays with particles in the Earth's atmosphere, Bazilevsky said.

Detecting particles' directional preferences

Spin physicists first observed the tendency of more neutrons to emerge slightly to the right in proton-proton interactions in 2001-2002, during RHIC's first polarized proton experiments. RHIC, which has been operating since 2000, is the only collider in the world with the ability to precisely control the polarization, or spin direction, of colliding protons, so this was new territory at the time. It took some time for theoretical physicists to explain the result. But the theory they developed, published in 2011, gave scientists no reason to expect such a strong directional preference when protons were colliding with larger nuclei, let alone a complete flip in the direction of that preference.

"We anticipated something similar to the proton-proton effect, because we couldn't think of any reasons why the asymmetry could be different," said Itaru Nakagawa, a physicist from Japan's RIKEN laboratory, who served as PHENIX's deputy run coordinator for spin measurements in 2015. "Can you imagine why a bowling ball would scatter a cue ball in the opposite direction compared with a target billiard ball?"

Brookhaven Lab physicist Alexander Bazilevsky and RIKEN physicist Itaru Nakagawa use billiards and a bowling ball to demonstrate surprising results observed at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider's PHENIX detector when small particles collided with larger ones. Credit: Brookhaven National Laboratory

2015 was the year RHIC first collided polarized protons with gold nuclei at high energy, the first such collisions anywhere in the world. Minjung Kim—a graduate student at Seoul National University and the RIKEN-BNL Research Center at Brookhaven Lab—first noticed the surprisingly dramatic skew of the neutrons—and the fact that the directional preference was opposite to that seen in proton-proton collisions. Bazilevsky worked with her on data analysis and detector simulations to confirm the effect and make sure it was not an artifact from the detector or something to do with the adjustment of the beams. Then, Nakagawa worked closely with the accelerator physicists on a series of experiments to repeat the measurements under even more precisely controlled conditions.

"This was truly a collaborative effort between experimentalists and accelerator physicists who could tune such a huge and complicated accelerator facility on the fly to meet our experimental needs," Bazilevsky said, expressing gratitude for those efforts and admiration for the versatility and flexibility of RHIC.

The new measurements, which also included results from collisions of protons with intermediate-sized aluminum ions, showed the effect was real and that it changed with the size of the nucleus.

"So we have three sets of data—colliding polarized protons with protons, aluminum, and gold," Bazilevsky said. "The asymmetry gradually increases from negative in proton-proton—with more neutrons scattering to the right—to nearly zero asymmetry in proton-aluminum, to a large positive asymmetry in proton-gold collisions—with many more scatterings to the left."

Particle production mechanisms

To understand the findings, the scientists had to look more closely at the processes and forces affecting the scattering particles.

"In the particle world, things are much more complicated than the simple case of (spinning) billiard balls colliding," Bazilevsky said. "There are a number of different processes involved in particle scattering, and these processes themselves can interact or interfere with one another."

Alexander Bazilevsky discusses surprising particle spin results from the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven National Laboratory.

"The measured asymmetry is the sum of these interactions or interferences of different processes," said Kim.

Nakagawa, who led the theoretical interpretation of the experimental data, elaborated on the different mechanisms.

The basic idea is that, in the case of large nuclei such as gold, which have a very large positive electric charge, electromagnetic interactions play a much more important role in particle production than they do in the case when two small, equally charged protons collide.

"In the collisions of protons with protons, the effect of electric charge is negligibly small," Nakagawa said. In that case, the asymmetry is driven by interactions governed by the strong nuclear force—as the theory developed back in 2011 correctly described. But as the size, and therefore charge, of the nucleus increases, the electromagnetic force takes on a larger role and, at a certain point, flips the directional preference for neutron production.

The scientists will continue to analyze the 2015 data in different ways to see how the effect depends on other variables, such as the momentum of the particles in various directions. They'll also look at how preferences of other than neutrons are affected, and work with theorists to better understand their results.

Another idea would be to execute a new series of experiments colliding polarized protons with other kinds of nuclei not yet measured.

"If we observe exactly the asymmetry we predict based on the electromagnetic interaction, then this becomes very strong evidence to support our hypothesis," Nakagawa said.

In addition to providing a unique way to understand different particle production mechanisms, this new result adds to the puzzling story of what causes the transverse spin asymmetry in the first place—an open question for physicists since the 1970s. These and other results from RHIC's polarized proton collisions will eventually contribute to solving this question.

Explore further: A very special run for the LHCb experiment

More information: arXiv:1703.10941 [hep-ex] arxiv.org/abs/1703.10941

Related Stories

A very special run for the LHCb experiment

November 30, 2017

For the first time, the LHCb experiment at CERN has collected data simultaneously in collider and in fixed-target modes. With this, the LHCb special run is even more special.

Colliding protons head-on

December 8, 2017

They won't pinch you and you won't find them on the beach. The name of the new radio-frequency crab cavities has nothing to do with their appearance and is merely illustrative of the effect they will have on circulating proton ...

Smashing polarized protons to uncover spin and other secrets

February 11, 2015

If you want to unravel the secrets of proton spin, put a "twist" in your colliding proton beams. This technique, tried and perfected at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC)—a particle collider and U.S. Department ...

Recommended for you

Information engine operates with nearly perfect efficiency

January 19, 2018

Physicists have experimentally demonstrated an information engine—a device that converts information into work—with an efficiency that exceeds the conventional second law of thermodynamics. Instead, the engine's efficiency ...

Team takes a deep look at memristors

January 19, 2018

In the race to build a computer that mimics the massive computational power of the human brain, researchers are increasingly turning to memristors, which can vary their electrical resistance based on the memory of past activity. ...

Artificial agent designs quantum experiments

January 19, 2018

On the way to an intelligent laboratory, physicists from Innsbruck and Vienna present an artificial agent that autonomously designs quantum experiments. In initial experiments, the system has independently (re)discovered ...

69 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

KBK
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2018
Perhaps some with a bit of intelligence should go back and look at transmutation claims across the spectrum and centuries. It's a complex subject.

A short mind won't get there. But the short mind might ridicule that which it has never fully investigated. We all know how well that tends to go for humanity. The mainstream is never close to the cutting edge, as a matter of fact, this here (article), is mainstream as you are reading it. It cannot be anything else. Which means it is defacto ignorant. It just told you so: Surprise in a result.

The real edge of things is outside of what you know. Think it through......

Go explore the edges of things, the zone where the ignorance and the ridicule resides, as such missives pour forth from the mainstream, the bulk of the scientific centrist bell curve.. That is the nature of human societal and cultural phenomena.

Modern alchemy is quite explicit in it's references to the simple 'test' done here (and it's results).
rrwillsj
4 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2018


kbk, not quite sure what your fulminating about in your comment?

However, let me take a guess. If I'm wrong please correct my perception of your opinions. Unlike most people I am not afraid to be proven wrong. Gives me a new opportunity to make new mistakes. Yeah! Progress!

Your complaint is that Modern Scientists are refusing to repeat centuries old experiments?

That the results of centuries of empirical evidence fail to confirm your perception of reality?

Or, conform to what you consider acceptable results?

So what? Do you have a personal craving for public adulation of your genius?

Cause you could easily resolve that issue, by producing physical evidence as a result of your belief system.

Guys and Gals all over the world, are busy bees in their garages or basements or other workshops, inventing like crazy.

Nothing stopping you is there? Of course there are those picky Patent Office rules , you need to show them a working device.
ValentinVoroshilov
3 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2018
I will bet $100 it is NOT about the mass, it is about the structure, try different nuclei instead of gold and you will see the deflection will be changing, left, right, left, right!
Vidyaguy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 08, 2018
I will wager that conservation of angular momentum (including, of course, the spins of the particles involved including that represented by the angular momentum associated with photons having a significant impact parameter relative to the system) will hold just fine...as it always has.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jan 08, 2018
Yes, I can see this if your theory of matter has no axiomatic structure. One must not deny an axiom that has never before been proven false. One may; however, denying that as a discovery using a theory is somewhat nonsensical. That is saying, if this were true; then everything we've stated as physics is false.

Anyway consider a Truth, undeniable: Charge exists!

Now define charge. I use Coulomb and Maxwell, charge as producer of the electric field from nothing is rejected as nonsense; therefore charge as the field. Then, a neutron is a zero charge and a null set. If a neutron is not null the only possibility is the collection of both the positive and the negative field as a zero field. This can only exist if the centers of the two charges occupy the same point at the same time! Therefore the above is an impossibility; suggest an electron must be involved and that spin has nothing to do with it. Also using a mega-structure analogy has no existence to compare the atomic.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jan 08, 2018
This implies particles do not exist. Light is only a wrinkle within a charge's field. The wrinkle may be sinusoidal, non-sinusoidal, or any that will satisfy a condition of charge motion.

Light not photons.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jan 08, 2018
Since each charge is unique, i.e. the field, superposition may be applied mathematically. Therefore, with the field of a single charge and a given perspective, you can simulate anything, with only two unique plys graphically, 3D, a point in time at a given state, all points defined by Maxwell and Coulomb!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jan 08, 2018
So, compare simulation results. Find the missing electron.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jan 08, 2018
Do it without round-off. Do it as a Diophantine Equation, predefined for each charge, or graph. It's simple addition!
Ralph
4 / 5 (1) Jan 08, 2018
Is this result expected to lead to new physics? It sure sounds that way.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jan 08, 2018
I like a 4D space, with only the 3D view at a 4D point. Consider each dimension as lambda, you know lambda nu = c. So for time, set c = 1; therefore T = lambda. makes the graph simpler and easier to scale. From each point the progression of any wrinkle from any charge is defined according to scale. This then defines a single clock, everywhere! Note the information between points, you know where you are and you know where you came from then you can ... recursive?
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2018
Is this result expected to lead to new physics? It sure sounds that way.


No, back to the beginning of the 20th century before the bull$hit!

Silly Wabbit, my first point, if new you don't have a clue. QED!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jan 08, 2018
Get it? Charge is Space. Einstein was almost right, mass is not changing space, mass is space!
EyeNStein
5 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2018
We need more data points from other elements before we hand it to the theoreticians to explain it. Can't indicate anything definite at this point in time.
It would also help if they showed their missing neutrino and its spin on their diagrams. Neutrino spin and its biased weak-force relationships make these results more interesting to keep an eye out for in future experiments.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2018
Do scientists know what spin is and how does it occur? If this is not known, what kind of purpose such research has and various experiments, which can be billions and never will be able to come to the true cause of the phenomenon. The science is based on "virtual experiments" and models, which represent some deities for science, as the golden calf for the old Jews. These lasers are injected into a structure that works on the principle of electromagnetism. But science did not understand what is magnetism and how it arises, and therefore nothing understands what is happening in these structures that are being examined. Neutrons are much more influential on all behaviors than protons or electrons. Without the surplus of the neutron in the nucleus of the atom, there is no magnetism, which is dominant, nor other changes in the atom, except for external influences.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2018
The laser beam, inserted into the atom, changes the energy state, and each particle is obstructed to behave according to the laws of nature. The use of lasers is the invasion and occupation of free atoms, and these occupiers think that they have discovered the proper behavior of particles. In this way, they will never find out what spin is, how it occurs, and especially when science has no idea how and from what forms matter and all its elements in its various material-energy structures. If one does not accept the existence of Aether, from which matter is formed, science will never find out and explain many phenomena in the universe.
Nik_2213
5 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2018
"...nearly zero asymmetry in proton-aluminium, to a large positive asymmetry in proton-gold ..."
Wow ! Who ordered that ??
Does it also vary by isotope, given 'nuclear shell' filling ??
humy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2018
Is this result expected to lead to new physics? It sure sounds that way.


No, back to the beginning of the 20th century before the bull$hit!

Err, would this be before the "bull$hit" of

Quantum teleportation (1992)
The creation of the first Bose-Einstein condensate (1995)
The discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe (1997)
Experimental proof that neutrinos have mass (1998)
The sighting of the Higgs boson at Cern (2012)
?
humy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2018
Do scientists know what spin is and how does it occur?

Yes, at least in the sense that at least the top physicists generally do.
Surely you didn't think all physicists, most of who are far smarter than most of us here, that spent their lives intensively researching this haven't worked out anything at all about it, right?
danR
5 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2018
I'd suggest simple counter-EMF of the proton's spin interacting the dense cloud of constituent protons in the nucleus. A large-mass, neutral, nucleus would allow it to pull off this stunt. A mere second proton, having the same charge would repel the pair before the phenomenon could kick in. It's not clear to me from the article, but I assume momentum is conserved with the target-nucleus moving a bit to the right.
Nik_2213
5 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2018
#Dan, you mean like a 'secondary' rainbow has two internal reflections per drop ??

FWIW, if there was ANY indication of momentum NOT conserved, there'd be a Nobel Prize due...
danR
5 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2018
#Dan, you mean like a 'secondary' rainbow has two internal reflections per drop ??

FWIW, if there was ANY indication of momentum NOT conserved, there'd be a Nobel Prize due...


There's a ridiculous hole in my theory, unfortunately, which will need to be patched. A bare nucleus is hardly 'neutral'; it's massively charged.

Counter-EMF theory upgrade 2.0: the proton approaches the nucleus and the constituent protons are repelled a sufficient distance for the proton to interact with the neutrons' constituent quark-charges.

They laughed at the Wright brothers, the fools.

You may Fed-Ex the Nobel.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jan 09, 2018

Err, would this be before the "bull$hit" of

Quantum teleportation (1992)
The creation of the first Bose-Einstein condensate (1995)
The discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe (1997)
Experimental proof that neutrinos have mass (1998)
The sighting of the Higgs boson at Cern (2012)
?

Don't try to answer me. Quantum Source? Condensate, compute the minimum energy state with B/E, the universe is not expanding, we see red shift cause the stream of galaxies are moving into a really big hole. Do the correct math. Neutrinos are the field wrinkle produced during separation of the neutron into the electron and the proton, take another look. Higgs Boson, ya gotta be $hitting me!

Does any know that if New, then what you used to theorize the new is completely false? By the way, what built your instrumentation and exactly WTF!?
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jan 09, 2018
#Dan, you mean like a 'secondary' rainbow has two internal reflections per drop ??

FWIW, if there was ANY indication of momentum NOT conserved, there'd be a Nobel Prize due...


There's a ridiculous hole in my theory, unfortunately, which will need to be patched. A bare nucleus is hardly 'neutral'; it's massively charged.

Counter-EMF theory upgrade 2.0: the proton approaches the nucleus and the constituent protons are repelled a sufficient distance for the proton to interact with the neutrons' constituent quark-charges.

They laughed at the Wright brothers, the fools.

You may Fed-Ex the Nobel.

Keep this $hit up. I'll watch from a distance as your a$$ is blown up in a nuclear disaster from massive instability. These test are no different than crashing anti-matter into matter. No I won't explain, there are no minds to understand. Most prefer illogic.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Jan 11, 2018
This is pretty interesting. It tends to indicate that weak and EM interactions are biased toward left-handed interactions, and color interactions are biased toward right-handed interactions. I'm not sure that the bias of color interactions toward right-handedness has been shown before.
milnik
not rated yet Jan 11, 2018
@humy,
Everything related to the causes of spin and elemental particles and in the celestial bodies, science has not found the real causes of these phenomena, and therefore there are many speculations that do not conform to natural laws.
Again, I note: without understanding and accepting the existence of the substance of AETHER, science or anyone else, there will never be a finding of the cause of any occurrence. Aether with gluons causes the occurrence of magnetism, and all other phenomena such as spin, photon motion, all wave movements, planetary movements and many other phenomena, other than gravity, which appears as Aether's relationship with a "solid" state of matter (such as quarks and stings of particles).
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Jan 12, 2018
Surprising result shocks scientists studying spin
versus
Neutrons produced when a spinning proton collides with another proton come out with a slight rightward-skew preference. But when the spinning proton collides with a much larger gold nucleus, the neutrons' directional preference becomes larger and switches to the left
Therefore this "shocking" result has very simple and easily predictable explanation.
But the theory they developed, published in 2011, gave scientists no reason to expect such a strong directional preference when protons were colliding with larger nuclei, let alone a complete flip in the direction of that preference
This theory must be very deep one, if it could be turned to its head by logic of single sentence..
Merrit
not rated yet Jan 14, 2018
The quantum world is much stranger than our everyday world. They are likely just missing something. They should test as many different atoms as possible not just one or two more.
milnik
not rated yet Jan 14, 2018
Does science know what spin is and how does it arise?
According to all the previous presentations of various "knowledge" it can be seen that science did not understand what spin is. Each tiniest particle has a spin that occurs as a result of converting the kinetic energy of radial velocity into a conjunction of two spins of the same size and different directions. This is what science calls an electric charge, although this is not valid for all elements.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 14, 2018
Does science know what spin is and how does it arise?
According to all the previous presentations of various "knowledge" it can be seen that science did not understand what spin is. Each tiniest particle has a spin that occurs as a result of converting the kinetic energy of radial velocity into a conjunction of two spins of the same size and different directions. This is what science calls an electric charge, although this is not valid for all elements.

As it also can be seen that you have no idea as to the relationship of kinetics to radial velocity...
You need to lay off the vodka...
milnik
not rated yet Jan 15, 2018
@WG,
Wherefore do you have the courage to deny someone else's knowledge, and you have defied speed and energy.
To educate you little: when moving celestial bodies along the conic section, other than circular motion, the resulting velocity breaks down to the radial and transferal speed of the body's movement. and both speeds have their kinetic energy.
WARNING THESE, LEARNING AND DOING NOT RIGHT TO "BUDDLE IN THE DOMAIN OF PHYSICS, AND PROVIDE MECHANICS"
mackita
3 / 5 (2) Jan 15, 2018
@Milnik: You're typical troll, who understands neither aether concept (it's not only about electromagnetism but also scalar waves), neither mainstream physics (gluons=magnetism). Occasionally you have relevant ideas (nobody is completely wrong here) - but most of time you're twaddling off-topic nonsenses (God, religion). Aether is not supposed to be a new religion replacing the quantum mechanics and relativity - but a new way of thinking and LOGICAL REASONING, which is COMPLEMENTING it. As a general clue, once you cannot explain your ideas in coherent LOGICAL way supported by links, you should refrain from their posting here, as other readers have no chance to verify them and you're risking deletion of all your posts at once..
milnik
not rated yet Jan 15, 2018
@mackita,
It's your view of who I am and what I offer, the same is "good and accurate" as everything you spend in vain time and enjoy the stupid theories about which there is a bunch of fabrications. It is no wonder that you are such, because if one does not believe in God and does not want to know the truth, what else should he expect, than to blame truth, honesty, spirituality. That's what you do, because you do not own any of it in yourself and your own being. And this for MAGNETISM: I see you do not understand anything. You wrote: magnetism = gluon. It's the same nonsense as Einstein's Fatamorgana that time and space "lead love: they intertwine and thus form an" Ainstein network "
milnik
not rated yet Jan 15, 2018
@mackita It's your view of who I am and what I offer, the same is "good and accurate" as everything you spend in vain time and enjoy the stupid theories about which there is a bunch of fabrications. It is no wonder that you are such, because if one does not believe in God and does not want to know the truth, what else should he expect, than to blame truth, honesty, spirituality. That's what you do, because you do not own any of it in yourself and your own being. And this for MAGNETISM: I see you do not understand anything. You wrote: magnetism = gluon. It's the same nonsense as Einstein's Fatamorgana that time and space "lead love: they intertwine and thus form an" Ainstein network "
milnik
not rated yet Jan 15, 2018
Let me educate you about magnetism: MAGNETISM IS A MEANINGFUL RELATIONSHIP OF AETHER AND GLUON. And these gluons are free, and not those who link quarks.
Free gluons are found in neutrons, and chemical elements that have excess neutrons in relation to protons, the only ones that show the properties of magnetism.
THIS MANDATORY CHECKS, WARRANTIES, AND NOW, THAN YOURSELF TO BE TREND, THERE IS NO LIFE FOR UNDEFINITION AND CONTINUATION, NOT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE UNIVERSE OF THE CONSTITUTION. I'm sorry that I have to tell you this, because sometimes you can figure out some phenomena, but now some "anti-consciousness" is dragged into your "dark matter"
mackita
3 / 5 (2) Jan 15, 2018
MAGNETISM IS A MEANINGFUL RELATIONSHIP OF AETHER AND GLUON
Even is someone would be able to derive something meaningful from it (which isn't because the "relationship" is very broad term), the gluons, neutrons and protons subjects are safely off topic in this thread. If you have nothing to say about topic of this thread, you shouldn't waste the space here for people, who would occasionally have something to say about subject. Maybe you're smart, maybe not (I'd rather guess the later) - but anyway your smartness has no usage here..
milnik
not rated yet Jan 15, 2018
@mackita,
Take Mendele's table of elements and see which chemical elements have more neutrons than protons.
If we are talking about a spin effect, this can only be understood as an energy relationship between particles and AETHER, but nobody is guilty of refusing to persuade you, you will realize this one day if it is not too late!
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Jan 15, 2018
Yep, but what it has to do with article subject? Which logical conclusion follows from it? The ability to concentrate to subject (and the ability to realize it) is one of measures of intelligence and coherent thinking. Nobody refuses Aether here - I just object the off-topic remarks...
milnik
not rated yet Jan 15, 2018
Does the article talk about spin?
And this spin occurrence is caused by the interaction between Aether and all forms and sizes of matter. If it has not been studied by science to this day, I do not blame you for not understanding it, but I say it is pointless to talk about the views on spin behavior, if you do not know what is spin and who challenges it.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 15, 2018
Does the article talk about spin?
And this spin occurrence is caused by the interaction between Aether and all forms and sizes of matter. If it has not been studied by science to this day, I do not blame you for not understanding it, but I say it is pointless to talk about the views on spin behavior, if you do not know what is spin and who challenges it.

Spin occurrence is result of particle interaction. A carrying medium would suck up all the energy required to enable spin characteristic transfer between bodies.
A LACK of medium has no such restrictions, allowing increasingly lowered characteristics to still be effective. Empty space is the most efficient means of transfer, magnetic, gravitational or otherwise.
The Universe is one, efficiency minded mofo...
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 15, 2018
Let me educate you about magnetism: MAGNETISM IS A MEANINGFUL RELATIONSHIP OF AETHER AND GLUON. ...

No. It is a meaningful relationship of charge polarity. Empty space is the most efficient transfer modicum of that relationship.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2018
@Whydening G.,
it means you think that an empty space is something like that before BB. If something is empty, it can be understood by two: there is no substance in that space, or there is nothing there. What is an empty space for you? You say spin is caused by interaction with particles. This empty space is filled with a substrate, from which matter is formed, and everything from that matter has a "family relationship" with Aether, and these are gravity and magnetism, mostly. And all movements are set so that Aether is a "propulsion" means, having electromagnetic properties, which alternate with the properties of matter, and thus exchanges various energies through this Aether. If there is an empty space, how are the electric and magnetic fields formed or around the magnet or conductor through which the current flows?
Merrit
not rated yet Jan 16, 2018
@milnik empty space is called a vacuum. While it is not entirely empty due to quantum fluctuations, it is not enough of a medium for sound waves to propagate. The four forces of the universe, however, do not require a medium to propagate. Aether is unnecessary and unproven.
milnik
not rated yet Jan 16, 2018
@Merrit,
people who are drugged with stupid and unnatural theories, it is impossible to explain what are the natural laws. You are talking about some quantum fluctuations and forces and you say that their action does not require the existence of anything in space. But you forget that all forces and these fluctuations have been created by something, and you do not understand from what and how they were created. So it's not clear to you either what quantum fluctuations or forces are. The proof of this is that none of you, even the whole scientific play, knows what gravity is, and magnetism, and what depends on them for you are "Spanish villages."
If you do not know and do not accept what Aether is, then you will never understand any true cause of the phenomenon in the universe.
Merrit
not rated yet Jan 16, 2018
@milnik it is unimportant how the forces were created. It is an interesting question though. Scientists really only care about how the universe works, not who or what created it. Modern science does a wonderful job of making accurate predictions in the real world.

As far as Aether theory, If it is so important to where things came from, then tell me what did aether come from. How was Aether created? From what did it arise?
mackita
not rated yet Jan 16, 2018
In dense aether model the Universe is random mixture of space-time curvatures: density gradients of aether. Aether is permanent and eternal and infinite - it's existence has no further reasoning, being completely random. The people often ask for origin of things - but it's anthropomorphic misnomer as the natural state of reality is randomly dynamic state - not zero or some other particular static state. Such an empty, cleanly void and static state is very improbable and as such unnatural - it's presence raises another questions. Therefore the reality is just random without further explanation so it allows density fluctuations of various degree of size and complexity. Once some fluctuation grows in it and it gains complexity aka Boltzmann brain, then the scope of observable Universe grows with it. This process still continues as our civilization grows but we aren't warranted that this process will continue for ever. It can get reversed any time and our civilization will decline.
Merrit
not rated yet Jan 16, 2018
@mackita how does our civilization have anything to do with the formation of the universe?
mackita
not rated yet Jan 16, 2018
The dense aether model resonates in many other ideas, which are developed independently. The leading concept of AWT is discordianism and dysteleology, i.e. the opposite of mainstream idea of "Mathematical Universe". The main assumption here is, both the observable reality, both the space-time are of emergent character: the Boltzmann gas model just illustrates the emergence process by as random and high-dimensional model as possible from known physical models. Another concept is so-called block universe, i.e. the idea, that the reality is formed by observation of random universe, it doesn't exist as such. In dense aether model the reality is stochastic but not completely random as it allows fluctuations of random degree of order. For particularly ordered fluctuations (so-called Boltzman brains) their neighborhood isn't random anymore as they've tendency to sample the ordered portion of reality from mixture of states.
mackita
not rated yet Jan 16, 2018
Even mainstream physics converges to emergent models recently. The physicists develop entropic and emergent gravity, Horava–Lifshitz gravity based on critical quantum fluid, the dimensionality of formal models increases (holographics and AdS/CFT duality models) and phenomenological models turn to classical physics analogies (like the Unruh models, hydrodynamic analogs of quantum mechanics). The condensed phase physics anticipates many vacuum models: quasiparticles, anapoles and anyons as a photons and dark matter analogs. This trend is quite apparent in recent time.

how does our civilization have anything to do with the formation of the universe
In dense aether model the Universe is eternal, the matter dissolves and condenses all around us randomly. If our part of Universe is of limited age, then because it also behaves like giant fluctuation or fractal cloud which travels from place to place randomly without any well defined beginning.
Merrit
not rated yet Jan 16, 2018
@mackita I don't see the expansion of the observable universe being explained by random fluctuations in an internal universe. Your model wouldn't have a Big Bang or big crouch.
mackita
not rated yet Jan 16, 2018
The mainstream physics still prefers mathematical Universe philosophy, which has all laws and geometry hardwired in Universe of finite age patched by idea of anthropic principle, with all physical constants fitted and well tuned just to us - human observers. But I'm not alone who feels that this philosophy is too Platonist, artificial and inverted in causality - and that it should be possible to extrapolate most these laws from behavior of more primitive stochastic systems. Something like when random gas condenses and it forms density fluctuations of increasing complexity and number of laws driving them.
expansion of the observable universe being explained by random fluctuations in an internal universe
IMO it's not only possible but already quite apparent from existing data, that Universe is static and red shift results from scattering of light by quantum fluctuations of vacuum. If something violates this model, it's just the artifacts which currently violate also Big Bang model.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 16, 2018
In dense aether model the Universe is eternal, the matter dissolves and condenses all around us randomly. If our part of Universe is of limited age, then because it also behaves like giant fluctuation or fractal cloud which travels from place to place randomly without any well defined beginning.

I'm not a firm believer in the "random" label...
I like chaotic better...
mackita
not rated yet Jan 16, 2018
I'm not a firm believer in the "random" label...
Chaotic or stochastic, whatever. There is semantic question, if something is really random when it contains only fluctuations of the same - and rather low - degree of complexity like the sparse gas. You can find explained for example here, that the true random systems are way less egalitarian, than the people tend to perceive them. Therefore if our Universe is fully random in its complexity and determinism, then it also must contain quite a lot hyperdimensional and complex fluctuations - i.e. Boltzmann brains, which would perceive their part of Universe similarly like quite complex and deterministic system. From probabilistic perspective it has no meaning to ask, how/why the Universe did look like, when it was fully zero/nothing in a single point - while the only natural state is, it had all possible states everywhere.
Merrit
not rated yet Jan 16, 2018
@mackita if the red shift was caused by the scattering of photons from quantum fluctuations, then distant objects would like blurry. This is not the case.
mackita
not rated yet Jan 16, 2018
They actually look larger in average (which is what we observe for distant galaxies) Note that expanding Universe model requires exactly the opposite: i.e. the remote galaxies should appear smaller and less luminous: not only they're still shrunken by itself, but their light is also more diluted by expanding space (check the Tolman luminosity paradox for more details). Regarding the scattering of photons, the quantum fluctuations don't really scatter waves like obstacles but rather like metamaterial foam, i.e. mixture of blobs and holes. Such a mixture maintains the size of solitons scattered by balancing their contraction and dilatation along whole path - it just dissipates their energy. A similar effect is responsible for brightness of distant gamma ray bursts, which also has no explanation in mainstream physics - these bursts don't change their size.
mackita
not rated yet Jan 16, 2018
For understanding of light scattering at wast distances of Universe the story of Scott Russell may be useful:
"I was observing the motion of a boat which was rapidly drawn along a narrow channel by a pair of horses, when the boat suddenly stopped—not so the mass of water in the channel which it had put in motion; it accumulated round the prow of the vessel in a state of violent agitation, then suddenly leaving it behind, rolled forward with great velocity, assuming the form of a large solitary elevation, a rounded, smooth and well-defined heap of water, which continued its course along the channel apparently without change of form or diminution of speed. I followed it on horseback, and overtook it still rolling on at a rate of some eight or nine miles an hour, PRESERVING ITS ORIGINAL FIGURE some thirty feet long and a foot to a foot and a half in height. ONLY ITS HEIGHT GRADUALLY DIMINISHED after a chase of one or two miles"
mackita
not rated yet Jan 16, 2018
As most of you knows, at the free sea the ripples tend to spread and dissolve but once they reach the limited depth near the coast, then they actually shrink instead and they tend to collapse. Scott Russel was just lucky to observe solitary wave spreading along a flat channel which had the right width and depth in particular, which exactly balanced the spreading of soliton by its braking and collapse against the bottom of channel - so that these solitons exhibited red shift only, but no visible scattering.

We can just ask, why the photons should behave like well balanced Russel solitons during their spreading through quantum vacuum? Well, they don't have to - but after then they will not also manage to pass the large distance. What we observe from distant galaxies are just these most careful and well balanced portion of photons, which wouldn't collapse neither spread during their travel across vast cosmic space.
Merrit
not rated yet Jan 16, 2018
@mackita friction causes the water wave to lose energy. This is not an issue with photons as they propagate. Photons have no mass though, so any change in energy comes in the form of a change in wavelength. I don't necessarily buy that the red shift is caused by space time expansion either. Not because I think it is fantastical, but because the proof isn't there that the red shift is from space time expanding versus just actual velocity. But, following that the matter is spreading out in any case, the there is also a red shift from gravitational forces. Earlier universe would be more dense they todays universe.
mackita
not rated yet Jan 16, 2018
The Hubble deep view displays as sparse galaxies as galaxies around us, no indicia of metric expansion is observable there. This is also what Hubble himself observed and noted in 1936 already:
if redshift are not primarily due to velocity shift […] the velocity-distance relation is linear, the distribution of the nebula is uniform, there is no evidence of expansion, no trace of curvature, no restriction of the time scale ...and we find ourselves in the presence of one of the principles of nature that is still unknown to us today … whereas, if redshifts are velocity shifts which measure the rate of expansion, the expanding models are definitely inconsistent with the observations that have been made… expanding models are a forced interpretation of the observational results.
In another words: while the metric expansion of space appears to be implied by Hubble's 1929 observations, Hubble himself disagreed with the expanding-universe interpretation of these data whole his life
mackita
not rated yet Jan 16, 2018
Photons indeed don't face friction of vacuum, but they face the materialization (pair formation) during their repeated collisions with CMB photons. The crossection of this interaction is indeed small for long wavelenght photons but above so-called GZK limit most of photons will get absorbed by vacuum anyway. The absorption of photons with quantum fluctuations and CMB photons can be therefore considered also as a sort of friction. The absorption of gamma ray photons by thick layer of vacuum around us has the similar protective effect for terrestrial life, like the absorption of UV by terrestrial atmosphere, so we could say, the vacuum around us is quite human friendly.
Merrit
not rated yet Jan 16, 2018
@mackita photons are bosons and can stack infinity. I am not an expert, but I think they will only interact with leptons.

As far as the universe goes, it makes perfect sense that the further distance away objects are moving away faster. That is how they got further away in the first place. Really, I feel it could go either way or a combination of the two, but I am not going to buy cosmic inflation without more definite proof. Specifically measuring increases in red shifts over time for distance objects. While changes density could account for some of it, cosmic inflation would cause red shifts to increase at an exponential rate as they got further away while red shift due to actual velocity would remain constant or decrease possibly due to gravity.
Merrit
not rated yet Jan 16, 2018
In any case, scientists should try to pin down the exact extent to which cosmic inflation is occurring, assuming that it is, so that we can subtract that factor out of our observations to discover the actual relative velocities if the galaxies in our observable universe. Probably need even better technology for this.
milnik
not rated yet Jan 17, 2018
@ mačkita,
I see you mentioning some dense Aether, which is smart, but there is no dense, because it is neither matter nor energy. We will not talk about the Creator of this substance, and whether this is what the cat has said, it looks more like a philosophy with the use of more and more foreign words, which do not correspond to phenomena in the universe. There is no spread of the universe, because it is infinite. There are no virtual particles, because it is a fabrication. All that science sees in various variants is the epitome of the relationship between the substance Aether, which fills the infinite universe and the various states of matter, which is in two consonant states: the "solid state" of the matter is quarks and separate separate electrons and positrons, and " "are free gluons.
milnik
not rated yet Jan 17, 2018
GRAVITATION appears as a "solid state" relation and Aether, and MAGNETISM is the relationship between the "liquid state" of matter and Aether, and these are free gluons found in neutrons. Why do not you figure out what the magnets and neutron stars are and why are they so powerful magnetic fields? This should focus on science on the knowledge of the universe. So there are so many philosophies and stupid theories and stories.
What could be foolish of the claim that space and time were "cluttered" or, by chance, from "love" as two homosexuals, and could not have a progeny that matter does not go into their network and GRAVITATION is born. You watch these series and enjoy these "true" occurrences, for which you would never know that Einstein did not give you the pills that awakened you to "Ainstein's consciousness."
Merrit
not rated yet Jan 17, 2018
@milnik neutron stars have such a strong magnetic field because they are very dense and are spinning very rapidly. Kinda obvious actually.
Merrit
not rated yet Jan 17, 2018
@milnik your Aether theory makes no provable predictions. It is unnecessary, all of our predictions are the same regardless if Aether is true or not.

You say it is necessary to understand Aether theory to understand the universe yet scientists make accurate predictions every day without it. It is science that doesn't need your Aether theory. It has no purpose or usefulness. Yet, you proclaim we need an explanation for everything like why electrons have an intrinsic spin and you claim Aether is the answer for everything, but you have no explanation for where the Aether came from. That makes you a hypocrite.
Aroryborealis
not rated yet Jan 17, 2018
So, is it then "what goes around.....goes around"?

To everything....turn, turn, turn~
milnik
not rated yet Jan 17, 2018
@Merrit,
you are asking me to prove to you where Aether is coming from and how. I read, listen and watch thousands of stories and various fabrications related to the explanation of the phenomenon in the universe, but never has anyone explained what your dark energy is, what and how virtual particles form, which form gravity, magnetism, light, spin, ko causes movement of the body and the like. The big problem is that you are all accustomed to "ingesting" the raw food of science, and therefore you can not understand things that have simple explanations. I know who causes spin both with the planet and any particle. And you, instead of Aether, who is logical and natural, you take some surrogates over surrogates and want to explain them, but only in a "virtual" way.
You will understand one day what Aether is, but someone is outraged and you can not help it.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jan 19, 2018

Err, would this be before the "bull$hit" of

Quantum teleportation (1992)
The creation of the first Bose-Einstein condensate (1995)
The discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe (1997)
Experimental proof that neutrinos have mass (1998)
The sighting of the Higgs boson at Cern (2012)
?

Don't try to answer me. Quantum Source? Condensate, compute the minimum energy state with B/E, the universe is not expanding, we see red shift cause the stream of galaxies are moving into a really big hole. Do the correct math. Neutrinos are the field wrinkle produced during separation of the neutron into the electron and the proton, take another look. Higgs Boson, ya gotta be $hitting me!

Does any know that if New, then what you used to theorize the new is completely false? By the way, what built your instrumentation and exactly WTF!?

Spin? Of a point source? Really? Show me how that is done.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.