Spin or Die?

[lewcos]

It seems to me that celestial objects need to spin or they die. <br /><br />We experience this on earth also with tornado's and hurricanes - when they stop spinning, they essentially die. <br /><br />Is it that spinning sustains celestial life by creating energy and gravity?<br /><br />Could a galaxy that no longer had spin sustain life?

 

[heyscottie]

Well, there is nothing mystical about "spin". <br /><br />If a galaxy stopped spinning, then this is the same as saying that all the stars and dust in the galaxy have stopped revolving about the center of the galaxy. Gravity would then cause the entire galaxy to collapse in on itself, which would of course be very bad for any life within the galaxy.<br /><br />A planet that stops revolving around its star will fall into the star. Bad for life.<br /><br />Tornados and hurricanes don't die because the stop spinning; rather they stop spinning because they die. Once there is no more energy to sustain the vortex, the system stops spinning.

 

[lewcos]

"Rotation is a manifestation of kinetic energy, it does not "create" energy, nor does it have anything at all to do with gravity"<br /><br />Well spinning creates a form of gravity - no?

 

[lewcos]

"If a galaxy stopped spinning, then this is the same as saying that all the stars and dust in the galaxy have stopped revolving about the center of the galaxy. Gravity would then cause the entire galaxy to collapse in on itself"<br /><br />So then cluster galaxies are actually spinning?

 

[jcdenton]

<font color="yellow">Well spinning creates a form of gravity - no?</font><br /><br />If you're talking about spinning centrifuges which are used to simulate gravity, that's an entirely different force. Besides it wouldn't work in an infinite vacuum environment like space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nacnud]

No spining does not creat a form of gravity, what you feel is centripetal force.

 

[igorsboss]

I thought you were talking about Republicans...<br /><br />Oops! I thought this was free space! Sorry!

 

[newtonian]

lewcos - I don't think we know what causes gravity. <br /><br />If I remember correctly, most sub-atomic particles have spin - but I am not aware of any connection between this spin and the obvious mass-gravity connection.<br /><br />BTW- differential gravity can cause spin, but I do not know what causes sub-atomic particles to spin exactly.<br /><br />Certainly gravitational interaction between the sun and moon, more specifically tidal interaction, causes increased spin of the moon around the earth - which totally prevents the moon's orbit from decaying.<br /><br />To me this is evidence of awesome design. Have humans been able to create satellites as stable in orbit (spin) as our moon?<br /><br />Is the speed of spin of subatomic particles constant or stable?

 

[nacnud]

Spin of sub atomic particles is quantised and a property of the particle. It is only called spin because these particles behave as if they were spinning in certain circumstances, they may not actually be spinning.

 

[newtonian]

nacnud- Hi!<br /><br />Now why would you doubt particles have spin? If not, then what causes the effect?<br /><br />OK, if the effect is as if there was spin, what else beside spin could cause that effect - in view of the fact that spin angular momentum has been experimentally observed and measured (including orientation or angle or polarization), if my rapid reading of the following article seems to indicate (I need to study it, but for now am responding quickly):<br /><br />Scientific American, July 1999, page 62, discussing “The mystery of nuclear spin,” states:<br /><br />“For studies of the spin structure of nucleons,<br />the spins of the particles in both<br />the beam and the target must be polarized—<br />that is, aligned. The basic interaction<br />between the lepton and the target<br />quark is still the exchange of a photon,<br />but if the spin axis of the lepton beam<br />points along the beam, the leptons will<br />primarily exchange photons with quarks<br />having the opposite spin. Thus, from<br />the deflections of the leptons, experimenters<br />learn how quarks with a specific<br />orientation of spin are distributed in<br />the nucleon. In particular, measurements<br />made first with one polarization<br />and then with the beam (or target) polarization<br />reversed reveal the asymmetry<br />of the quark spins—the imbalance of<br />parallel and antiparallel spins.”<br /><br />The article goes on to show that about 30% of the proton’s spin is caused by quark spins (shown by experimental observation) and then adds theoretically:<br /><br />“The missing 70 percent of the spin no<br />longer constitutes a “crisis.” It can<br />come from gluon spins (each gluon has<br />a spin of one) and from the orbital angular<br />momentum from the motion of<br />all the quarks and gluons within the<br />nucleon. Indeed, present-day theoretical<br />models of spin structure can match<br />the experimental data provided that the<br />total gluon contribution is about one to<br />two quantum u

 

[nacnud]

From Wikipedia<br /><br /><font color="yellow">In physics, spin is an intrinsic angular momentum associated with microscopic particles. It is a purely quantum mechanical phenomenon without any analogy in classical mechanics. Whereas classical angular momentum arises from the rotation of an extended object, spin is not associated with any rotating internal masses, but is intrinsic to the particle itself. Elementary particles such as the electron can have non-zero spin, even though they are point particles possessing no internal structure. The concept of spin was introduced in 1925 by Ralph Kronig, and independently by George Uhlenbeck and Samuel Goudsmit.</font>/safety_wrapper>

 

[newtonian]

nacnud - Thank you for the quote. <br /><br />Sounds a little like double-talk - please don't take offense.<br /><br />The point I would highlight is that the proton and other microscopic particles have "intrinsic angular momentum."<br /><br />I have doubts about quantum theory, so the quote sends this to theoretical hypothesis rather than scienctific observation, in my opinion.<br /><br />Why call this spin a phenomenon? <br /><br />Now, is this source trying to say that a proton does not have internal masses with spin? If so, I disagree. <br /><br />Quarks are internal (to the proton) masses with spin. <br /><br />I do not know what connection, if any, this has with the origin and operation of gravity or dark energy.<br /><br />There are other forces at work in the atom, notably the strong nuclear force, which exert strong internal interacting tugs (14 tons per a certain quark?) which may cause effects similar to tidal interactions, though the quote implies otherwise. <br />There is another reason I feel the spin is real, the angular momentum is real:<br /><br />Real spin in a charged particle should cause magnetic, or electric, interactions caused by said spin.<br /><br />In this regard, note the following quote from the 1998 Encyclopedia Britannica "Science and the Future" volume, page 358: (Under Physics, First atom laser)<br /><br />"In the past year Wolfgang Ketterle and co-workers at MIT devised a technique for extracting a controled fraction of atoms from a BEC [=Bose-Einstein condensate] of sodium atoms. They applied radio-frequency (rf) radiation to the condensate, which was trapped in a small space by magnetic fields. Each atom in the condensate possesses a property known as spin. The value of its spin describes the way that the atom responds to a magnetic field. Initially all of the condensate's atoms have exactly the same spin value, which corresponds to a state in which they are pushed toward the center of the trap. The rf radiation, which conta

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow"> I have doubts about quantum theory, so the quote sends this to theoretical hypothesis rather than scientific observation, in my opinion.</font><br /><br />Don’t have your doubts about quantum theory, its very accurate had has made many verified predictions, the scientific observations that you ask for. The problems come in trying to translate the mathematics into English.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Why call this spin a phenomenon?</font><br /><br />Because as I said before it is as if the particle is spinning, what would you call it?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">In this regard, note the following quote from the 1998 Encyclopedia Britannica "Science and the Future" volume, page 358: (Under Physics, First atom laser) <br /><br />"In the past year Wolfgang Ketterle and co-workers at MIT devised a technique for extracting a controlled fraction of atoms from a BEC [=Bose-Einstein condensate] of sodium atoms. They applied radio-frequency (rf) radiation to the condensate, which was trapped in a small space by magnetic fields. Each atom in the condensate possesses a property known as spin. The value of its spin describes the way that the atom responds to a magnetic field. Initially all of the condensates atoms have exactly the same spin value, which corresponds to a state in which they are pushed toward the centre of the trap. The rf radiation, which contains magnetic fields of its own, "flips" the spins of some atoms and reverses the magnetic forces on them. As a result, those atoms are expelled from the trap and form a beam." <br /><br />Now, could this have an analogy in the flipping of earth's magnetic field? I.e., is this a manifestation of changes in earth's internal rotation (spin) of charged sections? </font><br /><br />No this has nothing to do with the flipping of the Earth’s magnetic field. It is going to be hard to prove exactly why that happens. The Dynamo Effect is explained http://zebu.</safety_wrapper

 

[newtonian]

nacnud -Now that I have researched spin further, and relevant nuclear physics research involved, I see that most of quantum theory is indeed fairly solid. Therefore, I take back(retract) that statement.<br /><br />There is one aspect of quantum theory which I had researched earlier and which I have doubts about: planck length as a lower limit of length. <br /><br />For example, I suspect the singularity at the origin of the universe had a diameter less than one planck length.<br /><br />However, when it comes to spin in atomic and sub-atomic particles, it is obvious from experimental evidence that these spins come in quanta - or specific units- for whatever reason.<br /><br />Are there any subatomic particles with zero spin? <br /><br />I would simply call spin a property not a phenomenon- but that is unimportant really.(semantics).<br /><br />Well, why would one assume the flipping of subatomic magnetic fields has nothing to do with the flipping of earth's magnetic field when we don't fully understand either?<br /><br />Would you agree the respective magnetic fields have similar causes? (ignoring scale; and granting that earth ismore complex than a quark (as far as we know).<br /><br />Yes, I do need to do more research on my own, but I do appreciate the research of others at SDC, including your research for me.<br /><br />Thank you.

 

[newtonian]

lewcos - you asked a very good question - sorry I missed it:<br /><br />"So then cluster galaxies are actually spinning?"<br /><br />I don't know.<br /><br />I do know some star clusters are gravitationally bound while others are not- Job 38:31,32<br /><br />With hurricanes there is a coriolis effect which causes inflowing air currents to develop spin. However, in the formation stage of a hurricane, spin does not always result - sometimes upper level winds shear the system-elongating the circulation and causing much of the system to escape the circulation.<br /><br />The same is true of some star clusters- though without a coriolis effect to favor spin.<br /><br />For example, supernovae and even ordinary stellar winds can halt contraction with or without spin in the system.<br /><br />OK, you all - do all galaxies have spin?<br /><br />I know the local group (galactic cluster) and supercluster are not spinning. They are on a sort of river in space heading towards a great attractor.<br />

 

[newtonian]

crazyeddie - Are you sure the local group is rotating?<br /><br />I know the magellanic clouds are rotating around the Milky Way as satellites. However, I thought most are on that river.<br /><br />Andromeda is heading for us also, btw. Or are we heading for Andromeda?<br /><br />Our literature notes the ?steadily mounting evidence of "bubbles" in the universe that are 100 million light-years in size, with galaxies on the outside and voids inside. Margaret Geller, John Huchra, and others at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics have found what they call a great wall of galaxies some 500 million light-years in length across the northern sky. Another group of astronomers, who became known as the Seven Samurai, have found evidence of a different cosmic conglomeration, which they call the Great Attractor, located near the southern constellations of Hydra and Centaurus. Astronomers Marc Postman and Tod Lauer believe something even bigger must lie beyond the constellation Orion, causing hundreds of galaxies, including ours, to stream in that direction like rafts on a sort of "river in space."?- ?Awake!,? 1/22/96 p. 5<br /> <br />BTW- a database error (at SDC?) is converting the quote mark into the question mark.

 

[jcdenton]

This illustration of the Local Goup may be of interest.<br /><br />Number of large galaxies within 5 million light years = 3 <br />Number of dwarf galaxies within 5 million light years = 37 <br />Number of stars within 5 million light years = 700 billion <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>They are gravitationally bound, with lesser bodies rotating about larger bodies.....all will probably eventually merge into one enormous, rotating, elliptical super-galaxy. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Obligatory grammatical nitpick:<br /><br />The word "rotate" applies to something spinning. The word "revolve" is more appropriate when referring to something orbiting. For instance, the Earth rotates on its axis, and revolves around the Sun. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

jcdenton- thanks- a picture worth 1,000 words.<br /><br />Another source ("The World of Science," 1991, Volume "The Universe," by Andromeda Oxford Ltd., pp. 6,7) has a variant illustration. It shows the local group as having a radius of 2.5 million ly (=5million ly diameter). The closest galaxies according to this source are Ursa minor and Draco. Then comes Leo 1 and Leo 2. I assume the Magellanic clouds are considered part of Milky Way already.<br /><br />After the Leo?s, (A is not noted) are Sculptor and Carina.<br /><br />Also, my source does not have Milky Way in the center of the local group. Rather, the center is empty and the closest to the center are:<br /><br />1. Sculptor - in the same direction from center as Milky Way, but closer to the center (Ursa Major and Draco are further from center (in the same direction from center as Milky Way) and are near Milky Way?s spiral arms; Leo 1 &2 are still further from center in the same direction.<br /><br />2. Fornx is also about as close to center, but about 80 degrees arc in direction difference.<br /><br />3. NGC 185 is slightly closer to center and nearly opposite in direction from center.<br /><br />Andromeda (=M31) is about the same distance from center (slightly closer), but in exactly the opposite direction.<br /><br />M33 is about the same distance from center as Leo 1 & 2, but nearly opposite in direction.<br /><br />Now, Andromeda is heading towards Milky Way - I was not aware that they were both rotating about the center of gravity of the local group.<br /><br />Gravitationally bound is one thing, revolving (spinning) is quite another matter - can anyone confirm this revolution - and where the center of revolution is?<br /><br />Interestingly., the same source puts Virgo at the center of the local supercluster, with a radius of 50 million ly. NGC 2997 is relatively close to Milky Way. IC 1613 is positioned differently, near Andromeda but further from Milky Way. Someone is wrong!<br /><br />Again, my research c

 

[jcdenton]

This map has the Milky Way Galaxy at the centre because it is designed to illustrate what is around us 5 million light years in all directions. The actual centre of mass of the Local Group would have to be at some point between the 3 large galaxies in the group (Milky Way, Andromeda, Triangulum). Andromeda and the Milky Way are currently headed in a collision course, however the smaller objects such as the dwarf galaxies orbit the large galaxies. So there are really 3 major points of 'spin' in the Local Group.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[newtonian]

jcdenton- logical conclusion - good post.<br /><br />So, perhaps the galaxies and universe are not old enough for the full birth of spin in the local group and also the local supercluster?<br /><br />How long will it take for spin to be fully developed in the many galaxies, including the local group, heading for the great attractor?<br /><br />Indeed, will spin develop in the supercluster? <br /><br />Will any galaxies spin off and escape being gravitationally bound to the supercluster? Perhaps due to dark energy influence?<br />Or simply the sling shot effect NASA has used to propel probes to escape our solar system.<br />

 

[nexium]

Revolving, and rotating produces centripical force, which behaves like gravity in some respects, opposite to gravity in other respects, but is thought to be otherwise different from gravity. Revolving often opposes gravity, preventing celestial bodies from merging. Angular motion is preserved, so low mass bodies are more likely to increase speed than loose speed. An exception is Earth's moon, which is getting farther from Earth, slowing, and the luner month is getting longer. The receeding of the moon is only a few millimeters per year.<br /> Because of the great size of galaxies, and galactic groups, shape changes occur over millions, if not billions of years. Irregular and eliptical galaxies may be rotating slower than average spiral galaxies, or the observed shape may be due to colliding with other galaxies. We probably cannot define stationary in the cosmose, as nearly everything is moving with respect to nearly everything else, almost always in a curved path. <br />If Earth was tidelocked to our sun = keep the same face toward the sun, It would get very cold on the dark side where nearly all the volitiles would freeze out, leaving very little atmosphere on the sun lit side. Temperatures would not be excessive even though the energy input doubled (no night) as heat loss would be much greater with negligible atmosphere. Neil

 

[Saiph]

moon recession is a few centimeters per year actually. but good reply otherswise. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

nexium-interesting 3 month time lapse! Thanks for resurecting the thread.<br /><br />It is interesting that the river heading towards the Great Attractor is not spinning.<br /><br />Will it develop spin around the Great Attractor trillions of years from now?

 

[newtonian]

You all - Again, I ask: <br /><br />Will Milky Way end up spinning around the Great Attractor or merging with the many galaxies within it?<br /><br />Do we have enough information on the speed and trajectory to calculate this?<br /><br />Are any of the hundreds of galaxies within the Great Attractor revolving around the Attractor's center of gravity?