Right Hand Rule - a question

[sjastro]

"..... it upset the conservation of parity P, which assumed the symmetry of the Universe, and suggested instead that space has a kind of twist"

The trouble with references like this is that since it is written for the general public (a Time Life book on scientists), the terminology can be very sloppy.

The violation of parity doesn't prove "that space has a kind of twist" at all.

Regards

Steven

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

"..... it upset the conservation of parity P, which assumed the symmetry of the Universe, and suggested instead that space has a kind of twist"

The trouble with references like this is that since it is written for the general public (a Time Life book on scientists), the terminology can be very sloppy.

The violation of parity doesn't prove "that space has a kind of twist" at all.

Regards

Steven

Wasn't the author using the term "space" as a general term anyway?! I mean, he wasn't inferring that the spacetime continuum had a twist, or that GR needed refinement...he could just of easily used the words, universe or cosmos. That's why I chose the term lopsidedness (room for escape).

Hang-on, you introduced it in the first place...So by association you must take responsibility for;

Crack-Pot Index
2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous


It's only fair!

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Nesti

Wasn't the author using the term "space" as a general term anyway?! I mean, he wasn't inferring that the spacetime continuum had a twist, or that GR needed refinement...he could just of easily used the words, universe or cosmos. That's why I chose the term lopsidedness (room for escape).

Hang-on, you introduced it in the first place...So by association you must take responsibility for;

Crack-Pot Index
2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous


It's only fair!

Nothing vacuous about it at all.

In the context of this thread parity is not even a measurement of lopsidedness.

It is a property of the spatial flipping of a quantum wavefunction or state, not the Universe, cosmos, spacetime etc.

A quantum wavefunction or state can have either have an odd or even parity. If the wavefunction or state changes through a process of say particle decay or collision between particles, parity is either conserved or it isn't.

For example if the initial state has even(odd) parity and the final state has even(odd) parity then parity is conserved.
If the initial state is even(odd) but the final state is a combination of even and odd states then parity is not conserved.

Where parity is conserved you can spatially flip the wavefunctions as the process can proceed irrespective of whether left hand or right hand particles are involved.

Processes involving the weak force cannot be flipped as the final state is a combination of even and odd quantum wavefunctions.

Regards

Steven

[Nesti (Mark)]

I was referring to the Author's comments; the terms "space" and "twist" in the attached quotation, not the concept of Parity or associated math.

Cummon, take the points, "turn to the dark side Luke".

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

The question resonates with me Mark... often ponder about the beauty of fractals and particularly the scalability... often sttttrrruggle with gravity "the force" as the dominant explanation for the largest scale of what our eyes see "the twist", when it (gravity) doesn't even get to sit on the bench and "cut the oranges" for the team (of forces) at lower scales.... probably something for another thread... but resonates with the "whys of nature" direction of your question and how EM participates in fractals and the useful technology recently developed (fractal antenna) from exploring this natural phenomena....

I sense a disturbance... natural philosophy is meeting maths here...

take the points, cmon over

I'm enjoying both your posts and discussions SJ & nesti... a credit to this forum.

[Nesti (Mark)]

Thanks Alex. The one which really gets me, is Young's Double Slit Experiment. But not the usual mystery everyone else seems to focus upon; I don't really care which slit the particle goes through as that's a property of the quantum world, and I can accept that (as most other theories)...the mystery for me isn't super-positioning of states, it's why does one individual particle land in one particular position and not some other position, within the darkening region (interference pattern or not)? How are all the particles distributed in accordance with a particular function? For me, this seems to be related to why event outcomes can be different even though the experiment is identical...even bigger is the question of why does one event go one way in particular? Is it balancing something about the universe - but that would infer knowing, and that's a violation of SR.

ie In the Double Slit; why does a the particle land somewhere in the left band rather than the right band, and vice-versa. You can apply that question to all the bands within the interference patten also.

To say that it is a product of a wave function is fine, and I get that, but that infers guidance, and guidance infers structure and order.

What structure, what order? These are my questions.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Watching photon by photon coming down and "deciding" where to land was an amazing thing to observe... I loved playing around with this experiment at uni... boggled me endlessly. There are some great photon by photon videos around.... brain = ouch! My studies into this have leant me more towards "things" propagating as a wave with a photon representing a point of measurement, not something physical... bit hard to wrap it up here in a post... but more down the line of questions "what is a wave, what is a photon, what does it travel in"... a deep rabit hole towards what is the "speed of the message" . Violating SR is a restriction constantly faced.

I do shy away from "guidance", I'm leaning towards a higher level of nature of which we are seeing the averages of. Thinking more along the lines of SR violation here. SR aside (please dont hurt me SJ), my point here is, I get very uncomfortable with guidance, intelligence, plan, order, as these throughout history have been consistently created to explain the higher level we are oblivious to at that point in time.

You're leading me towards a high score on SJ's card! You going to go 1/2's in my points? haha I can send you a loooong list of my questions, I am encouraged by healthy nature of yours. Good scientists are directly inspired by this type of natural philosophy, numbers are dwindling with the call to young folk being "just solve this last equation and we're all done".

i'll shut up now... we are straying from the thread.

gimme the points

my question: "Is one able to assign their own points? or is this subject to peer review?"

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

we are straying from the thread.

It's not really straying because I posted Young's experiment for a reason, ie a suggestion that particles being guided into position in order to ensure a stable reality, versus, a suggestion that there is pure particle randomness trapped within the confines of a wave equation...and that either one could demonstrate 1. a strict structure/order, or 2. a looser structure/order...I say the terms structure/order simply because when I look out my window at the world, I don't see chaos, I see structure, order, and perhaps remnants of deterministic chaos at far smaller scales.

The connection to the Right Handedness (convention, parity whatever) of the universe, in that, is there a particular way the universe goes about its business. Something which brings about a stable reality, or better yet, something which is conducive to stability...might symmetry be insufficient or non-conducive in creating stability within the universe...this would perhaps explain why the 'Standard Model' of Particles is the way it is and why we have so many of these conventions along the same behavior. OR, perhaps it's simply pure chance combined with how things dynamical fit under stress.

I know these are all out-there ideas and suggestions, but there's enough intelligent people on this forum to understand the sheer implications of what the questions pose in-themselves.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Yes! Couldn't agree more. I see evolutions of systems, organization, structure and resonance. However often vastly at odds with the requirements of the standard rule set and accompanying explanations, this can be confronting when attempting to seriously discuss.

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

Yes! Couldn't agree more. I see evolutions of systems, organization, structure and resonance. However often vastly at odds with the requirements of the standard rule set and accompanying explanations, this can be confronting when attempting to seriously discuss.

True, but at the end of the day, this is simply a forum, and forums are for discussions. You could easily enforce restrictions to discussing what is popularly supported or that which you can make reference too (data)...but how many people would be here?!

Just be mindful that most people are fascinated not by numbers in mathematics, nor the data in science. They are in fact fascinated by the relationship between the numbers in mathematics, and the relationship between data in science.

Similarly, many people (as I am) are fascinated in the relationships between what we see and experience directly, and how science and philosophy connect to them. I feel the desire to know such details rests in the desire of the individual to understand the connection between themselves and the big picture.

The Right Hand Rule is simply piece of an overall puzzle, but the implications of a convention, or parity are far greater.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Might i suggest looking into lenz' law... it has to do with the resistance of change of magnetic flux or "opposing change".

"An induced current is always in such a direction as to oppose the motion or change causing it"

(sorry took me a bit to recall... wasnt sitting right with me... direction is also covered here... hope this helps )

but yeah from there we are getting down to physical characteristics of our universe, use ya left you get the force on ya thumb, use your right you get the current etc. but this resistance to change is the whole reason we are here, conservation of energy etc... otherwise it would be a runaway...

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by snas

The right hand rule does not only apply to electromagnetism etc as have been discussed here. It also applies in chemistry and biology. As has already been pointed out here,most people are right handed. DNA is a right handed double alpha helix. Organic molecules such as glucose etc etc can have either right handed or left handed versions. Right handed versions vastly predominate over left. In fact, some organic molecules have vastly different properties between the right and left handed versions to the extent that if the left handed version was the predominant version, the biology of Earth would be quite different.
Stuart

Stuart, a Chemistry teacher from Monash resigned to take a position with us here in Perth. He's teaching Organic Chemistry as part of our Herbal Medicine course (I'm sitting-in for RTO stuff). We covered it today, and you're right about the L and D Glucose molecules...when we produce them in the lab we get a 50/50 split between the L (left) and D (right) Glucose molecules, but in nature it's almost always D-Glucose (right).

There's actually a tonne of stuff in organic chemistry which has a heavy right foot.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Here, I'm going through a huge spanner in the works....what's wrong with having an intelligence behind it all. Regardless of how "unsound" and "religious" it might seem, having some sort of higher sentience/intelligence behind the works doesn't mean it has anything to do with religion, or faith or anything else. It's just a natural part of the order of things. Just because it feels "unscientific" and that you have no empirical evidence for its existence, doesn't mean it's a load of crock. Maybe you do have all the empirical evidence you need, you just can't see the forest for the trees. Or, you don't have the means to prove either way because you don't have the tech to do so, as yet. Yes, it may not exist, but we just don't really know...do we But, then again, maybe we do know it exists but just don't want to accept the possibility because in our head long rush to become smarter and more enlightened, we've actually lost sight of the most important aspect of the whole exercise of wanting to learn more and become more knowledgeable....to become more enlightened

You can learn much, but still know very little.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Just because it feels "unscientific" and that you have no empirical evidence for its existence, doesn't mean it's a load of crock.

all sounds cute... but i'm still pretty pissed i don't have a hoverboard yet...

I don't see how this is guna get me one...

It's still the whole plan yeah? hoverboards for everyone right? They lied to us! This was supposed to be the future!
http://vimeo.com/8661544

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

all sounds cute... but i'm still pretty pissed i don't have a hoverboard yet...

I don't see how this is guna get me one...

It's still the whole plan yeah? hoverboards for everyone right? They lied to us! This was supposed to be the future!
http://vimeo.com/8661544

Just a few more years, and you'll get one

Just need a small enough power source

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Parity (spatial coordinate flipping) is conserved for gravity, electromagnetic and strong forces. Not so with the weak force.

A mirror Universe would be a very strange place, if it was able to exist.

Regards

Steven

We were just contemplating the rules for electromagnetism and their concomitant forces not the parity of the Universe. It is just a convention so your electric motor rotates in the direction your customer wants.

Bert

[avandonk]

If you all think that Young's experiment is counter intuitive. It has been with done with Buckyballs C60 going through two slits as a wave function and then producing a diffraction pattern wth itself! It is really a measure of reality. Nothing actually exists as matter, just wave functions until it interacts. All possible paths are being followed until you take a peek and then the whole lot collapses into your reality. A bit like when you check to see what your kids are doing.

I don't really exist until my next post!

As for an intelligence behind it all in the words of John Mackenroe? ' you gotta be kidding!'

It is our puny animal minds where a hierarchy exists in our very primitive social order that a natural extrapolation comes up with a mythical being with more power than the alpha individual. Generally a psychopath. Hence all the fire and brimstone through a lot of history.

Resorting to any sort of mythical intelligence to explain the unknown is a major itellectual copout. Feeble at best misinformed at worst.

Bert

[Geoff45 (Geoff)]

Originally Posted by Nesti

My question really is, why is there a lopsidedness? Get what I mean, or am I missing something obvious here?

F

I think what Mark is getting at here is something like the following. Electrons moving along a wire from A to B produce a certain magnetic field--call it MA. If the electrons go from B to A they produce a magnetic field in the opposite direction--call it MB. These are all perfectly concrete testable phenomena and have nothing to do with convention. So Mark's question is why did the electrons moving from A to B produce MA rather than MB?
Geoff

[adman (Adam)]

This whole thread seems to have missed the point to me. It started off with a question about the right-hand rule and why the field is generated in that direction rather than the other. Then others chimed in about how there is a whole lot of right-handedness in nature and this was extrapolated to there being some guiding intelligence behind the workings of the universe....

Now as far as i can see there is only one connection between the handedness of glucose isomers, the direction of a field generated by an electric current, the direction water goes down a plughole in the southern hemisphere and the swirl of hair growing on the back of your head - and that is the human being that has named them as right handed. *

You can't compare such disparate structures and say there is some unifying power behind their right handedness because it is just a human way of describing them. No more, no less. There is nothing inherently right handed about the D-isomer of glucose, (they could just as easily have been called Isomer Type 1 and Isomer Type 2) and the only thing right handed about the DNA helix is the fact that it happens to rotate the same direction as the radius and ulna bones in the human forearm when you supinate your hand!*

The original question about why the field goes one way and not the other around an electric current is meaningful - but at the moment the answer is "that's just what it does".

Adam *

[mithrandir (Andrew)]

Back in the mists of time near the start of this thread, several people including me, said it was all to do with conventions.

By convention, electric current goes from positive to negative. The fact that electrons go the other way is immaterial.

By convention, magnetic fields curve from north to south.

It comes down to whether the conventions were made up to suit a right hand rule, or someone noticed that a right hand rule fitted the conventions.

Reverse the electric current convention and retain the magnetic field one and you get a left hand rule.

Reverse the magnetic field convention and retain the electric current one and you get a left hand rule.

Reverse both the magnetic field convention and electric current one and you get a right hand rule.