could the BB event have angular momentum?
26943
It appears that the question period has expired.  If you have received an answer that meets your needs, please choose one of those as a 'best answer.'  If you haven't received a good answer for your question, you may want to consider the following,\n\n1) Re-post your question.  Newer questions get more activity on Yahoo! Answers than old ones.\n2) If you do re-post your question, consider why it wasn't answered the first time.  Could it be more specific?  Could it be worded better? Were there grammatical or spelling errors? Was it in the best category?\n\nIf it doesn't seem likely that re-posting your question will help you, then here's a listing of my favorite 'answer sites'.  Maybe one of them will help you.\n\nAnswers.com http://www.answers.com/\nBartleby http://www.bartleby.com/\nYahoo Reference http://education.yahoo.com/reference/\nHowStuffWorks http://www.howstuffworks.com/\nWikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page\n\nSince I really haven't answered your question, it is not necessary to give me any points.  Regards.
811637
Here we need to clarify the concept of angular momentum as it applies to sub-atomic particles. The key concept is called "spin", which refers to the angular momentum "intrinsic" to a body, as opposed to orbital angular momentum, which is the motion of a body's center of mass about an external point.\n\nIn classical mechanics, the angular momentum of a body is associated with the rotation of the body around its own center of mass. In quantum mechanics, spin is particularly important for systems at atomic length scales, such as individual atoms, protons, or electrons. Such particles and the spin of quantum mechanical systems ("particle spin") possesses several unusual or non-classical features, and for such systems, spin angular momentum CANNOT be associated with rotation but instead refers only to the presence of angular momentum, which is a truly intrinsic physical property, like electric charge and mass.\n\nIn atoms, the atomic orbitals are the quantum states that electrons surrounding an atom may exist in. These quantum states can be described by 3 sets of orbital quantum numbers: n, l, and m, where n is the principal quantum number which determines the size and energy of the orbitals, l is  azimuthal quantum number which determines an orbital's shape, and m is the magnetic quantum number which determines its orientation. So here "l" is NOT equal to the "angular momentum" or "spin" of the atomic orbitals.\n\nSo to answer your question, yes, it is possible for 2 electrons to occupy the same energy states, beause they have different spin. For electrons, it's spin can be ±1/2.
74435
Try reading this, it should answer your question.\nhttp://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node58.html
128210
mm very interesting, yes, you see the subatomic particle has a mediaotian nucleus, this way induced in the heat of the radius of the positive electron makes the velocity of the Radiupositivum acelerate to almost the same speed as the particle inverse. This way, when the sub-nucleus reaches a temperature equal to the electron, the magnetic implosion "jumps start (like in a car) " the particle to have strenght and velocity, and the thing that makes is rotate is because the weight of the electron is always opposing the subnucleus.\n\nYou can see this ilustriated in the 1986 issue of Sports and Physics Illustrated. page 45\n\nHope is useful.
480443
I have not read the article but this sound it weird enought I thought I mention it.\n\n\nBurkhard Heim claimed it is possible to convert electromagnetic energy into gravitational and back again, and speculated that a rotating magnetic field could reduce the influence of gravity on a spacecraft enough for it to take off.
1100050
Galaxies, planets, stars and some moons only spin under gravity and gravitational influence. If the universe is spinning it would require a massive gravational core or gravity core. If so then we will be swallowed by such a force that we wouldn't be here now.\nIn the looks of galaxies, they are being thrown away from the centre of the universe by a force rather than a spin. So if everything is pulling away then if there is a spin there would be gravity and we wouldn't be going outwards we would be going inwards. Nothing else could cause such a force for a spin but gravity and that's impossible and anything else would not function to physics.
383428
It's an interesting idea, but subatomic particles that do not have electrons are also affected by time dilation (cosmic rays for instance).  And electrons do not literally spin around a nucleus (as far as we can tell) there is a potential for it to be anywhere in a give shell at any given time.
981339
Stars and planets form as a result of the gravitational collapse of accreting material. Any net translational motion of that initial material is accelerated as its radius of rotation decreases. This is due to the same conservation of angular momentum principle that makes skaters and divers spin more rapidly when they bring their arms closer to their bodies. In its extreme, this effect can make collapsed neutron starts spin many times each second, creating the regular beat of pulsars as observed from Earth. \n\nOnce an initial spin was established for the Earth, the same conservation principle says that its angular momentum will continue unless it can be transferred to another object. With no significant frictional forces to allow that to happen, the Earth can continue to spin indefinitely without any further prodding.\n\nColliding with Mars? I don't think so!!!!!
158254
Universe is not exactly rotating or spinning... it is said to be constantly expanding... and sorry i don't know about the big band
924845
Interesting.  Since muons, even at near-light speed, are likely to decay before hitting Earth-local detectors, it seems difficult to believe that any have been detected.  At least I've seen no articles on muon radiation from black holes in the major science publications.\n\nAlso, if you were indeed a walking black hole, the circumference of your event horizon would probably be comparable to the size of a proton or maybe smaller.  In which case, you wouldn't really be walking or typing or reading this answer.  <sigh>.\n\nAnd we even shouldn't go anywhere near considering the effects of stellar-equivalent energy flux around your navel.  Does the term "massively extra crispy" begin to communicate the state of your body not to mention your surrounding area for miles?  Thought so.
723349
Neglecting particle/anti-particle annihilation events, it should be about the same.  Just as an beta particle (high energy electron) is going encounter other electrons and scatter off of them (imparting energy to them in the process)  so will the positron.  The only difference is the sign of the deflection: for a single scattering with positions and velocities of the positron and beta particle being the same relative to the scatterer (an electron) the scattering will be in the opposite direction. Averaged over multiple scatterings within a material, this won't matter. \n\nBut, for positron-electron interactions, there is a finite cross section for annihilation to take place, destroying both particles and producing a pair of gamma rays. In general, this cross section is comparable to the classical cross section (which you might think of as the electromagnetic scattering cross section) of an electron, so before many scatterings, the positron will annihilate.  It will therefore not penetrate nearly as far as a beta particle. The gamma rays produced are another story. . . .
589235
A lot of answers, a lot of wild guesses, really! For heaven's sake, please talk physics here!!!\n\nOf course energy can be converted into mass. Have you heard about the process called 'pair-production'?\n\nPair production refers to a process of creation of an elementary particle and its antiparticle, usually from a photon or neutral bosonic fields (which are just energies). This is allowed if the following conditions are satisfied:\n1. There is enough energy available to create the pair: at least the total rest mass energy of the two particles. \n2. Linear momentum, angular momentum, electric charge, etc. must be conserved during the process. Therefore, the created particles must have those quantities to be exactly opposite (say, if one particle has spin +1/2 then another one must have spin −1/2).\n\nPair production from an energetic photon:\nFor example, pair-production occurs when a 1.022 MeV gamma-photon interacts with a heavy atomic nucleus, and produces an electron and a positron without violating conservation of momentum. Pair production cannot occur in empty space out of a single photon because the momentum of the initial photon must be absorbed by something, and the heavy nucleus is thus required to conserve both momentum and energy.\n\nThe energy of the photon 1.022 MeV, as described above,is the total energy of twice the electron mass. If we have much more energetic photons, heavier particles may also be produced. These interactions were first observed in Patrick Blackett's counter-controlled bubble chamber, leading to the 1948 Nobel Prize in Physics.\n\nPair-production in a neutral bosonic field:\nIn semiclassical general relativity, pair production is also invoked to explain the Hawking radiation effect. According to quantum mechanics, at short scales short-lived particle-pairs are constantly appearing and disappearing in a region of strong gravitational tidal forces, the two particles in a pair may sometimes be wrenched apart before they have a chance to mutually annihilate. When this happens in the region around a black hole, one particle may escape, with its antiparticle being captured by the hole.
447237
Dark matter provides the gravitational force that prevents galaxies being ripped apart by their angular momentum.  We have no way of detecting it, except from the bending of light around it.
529607
If you have access to the Journal of Applied Physics, this should help:\nhttp://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JAPIAU000076000009005380000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
643953
depends on the direction of the force
446986
Yes, it does, but by a very negligible amount.\n\nDue to the law of conservation of angular momentum, the Earth has some over all value for its angular momentum (and for that matter, so does the solar system and our entire galaxy, ... as well).  As thr plane is flying around the Earth, it has some angular momentum too, different from its original value just sitting still on the surface.  In order for the overall angular momentum of the Earth to remain constant, the Earth's rotation is effected ever so slightly.\nHowever, the effect is so small, it is not even noticible when we are talking about objects as miniscule as an air plane compared to the Earth.\nAlso, since, over all, on average, for every plane flying one way, there is another plane flying the other way (or when the plane returns), so the effects are all canceled out.\n\nIt is the same principle at work is your on a merry-go-round and you move closer in to the center or farther away (or in this case, around while spinning on the merry go round), angular momentum needs to be conserved, it is the law.
346027
Spin is a property of the electron like it's charge and it's weight.  I don't think it would change from a collision.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_%28physics%29