I wasted a few weeks of time by making the wrong searches, I just looked for stuff related to so called Kerr microscopes and all I found every time was that the polarization of the reflected light was rotated. So that was always about linear polarization because it makes not much sense to ‘rotate’ light that is circular polarized. Ok there are of course also all kinds of elliptic polarized photons and there it might make some sense to talk about rotation of polarization but in fact those Kerr microscopes all work (as far as I know) all with linear polarization. And there is nothing wrong with that, I mean it is not forbidden or so but I wanted to see how the visibility of magnetic domains is using circular polarized light. And when I finally searched for that (visibility of magnetic domains using circular polarized light) within a minute or five I got what I wanted.
Let me very short describe what I expected and how I think it all works: 1) Electrons are magnetic monopoles and as such there are two kinds of them. 2) The photons produced by these two types of electrons have their magnetic field phase shifted by 180 degrees. 3) The way these photons react on other electrons depends on what kind of electron it is. Therefore you should see a difference for neighboring magnetic domains in a material that has magnetic domains. Furthermore the magnetic domains have surpluses of one kind of electrons and a deficit of the other kind of electrons. So that’s 4) Domains have surpluses of one kind. And, also very important, the domain walls keep these surpluses/deficits as they are. So if a domain has a surplus of say north pole like like electrons or n-electrons as I name them in the post below, the n-electrons get repelled by the domain wall.
So what are we going to see if we shine a circular light source on a piece of condensed matter that has magnetic domains (I think the authors used a film or a flat kind of material)? I will link my source file below but first we take a look at the four pictures that make up this new post:
As you see the results are very similar but also very different. If you use a standard setup for a Kerr microscope with linear polarized light and also use a so called analyser, that jacks up the contrast. And with using circular polarized light you get a much more subtle picture. What I found very interesting is that the domain walls become darker so that more or less confirms domain walls repel unpaired electrons.
This is the guy that back in the year 2000 together with David DiVincenzo formulated some criteria for qubits for quantum computing. These criteria are, as far as I know, not specific to qubits based on electron spin, but all electron spin qubit people know these criteria. Daniel is strongly interested in qubits based on electron spin, for David I do not know. What I find interesting is that how can you work for half a century on electron spin and never realize there is something wrong with the official version of bipolar magnetism that has to serve as the spin of the electron or as I often say it: It’s magnetic properties. All this garbage like anti-aligned spins in electron pairs or, also very crazy, in chemistry a non-bonding pair like in molecular oxygen has it’s electron spins aligned. All these garbage ‘results’ are only there if you view electrons as tiny bipolar magnets. If on the other hand you simply say: The magnetic properties on an electron are the same as the electric properties in the sense that is it permanent and monopole.
I want to remark that these two people are not selected because of their individual properties like belief in bipolar magnetism, but I let them stand for the entire quantum computing crowd out there. The weirdo’s that think you can explain the result of the famous Stern-Gerlach experiment via electrons that by chance either align their closed magnetic field or anti-align themselves. No my dear crowd: Bipolar magnets large and small do not anti-align themselves because that is a spontaneous rise in potential energy. And nature does not do that; there is a long long list of energy problems related to bipolar electron magnetism buy hey: Try to explain that to the quantum computing crowd in general and those working on qubits based on electron spin in particular.
The video itself contains no new information, anyway not for me. The interviewer is as so often a person from outside physics and as such he has no clue what the quantum computing crowd means with concepts like entanglement. The video is about half an hour long, it is more a social snapshot of how it goes into the world of quantum computing and contains almost nothing worthwhile knowing. So don’t blame me if you think you are wasting your time watching it. There are three intro pictures and of course I also have one of those very famous Figure 1 images included. That makes my hobby work look very professional: Oh he has a Figure 1 in it, wow that really must be something!
Here’s the famous Figure 1 of this post: It is about the fine splitting en atomic spectra due to the monopole magnetic permanent charge each and every electron has. If electron spin was a vector as the quantum crowd always claim, how come these spectral lines are that sharp?
And finally the video itself:
That was it for this post, thanks for your attention and may be meet you again in a future post.
A few years back Nobel prizes were rewarded for all that ‘faster than light’ stuff related to entangled particles (or photons) and the weird belief that particles far apart can more or less instantly communicate with each other.
Last year 2025 (by the way happy new year) we looked in details to the first experiment from John Clauser who used cascading electrons to generate pairs of photons and he got the Nobel prize because he showed that those photons always have the same linear polarization.
Since the year 2015 I started seriously doubting that electrons are indeed tiny bipolar magnets as a possibility to explain the results from the Stern-Gerlach experiment from the year 1922. Back in the time when people tried to explain this result of Otto Stern and Walter Gerlach in the letters they did send to each other it often started with the Gauss law for magnetism and that they ‘should find a solution within this framework of the Gauss law’.
So it never dawned on them that instead of finding a solution within this Gauss framework (magnetic monopoles do not exist) their scientific task should have been: Checking if the Gauss law for magnetism is indeed valid for unpaired electrons. After all, electrons being magnetic monopoles is indeed a perfect explanation for the Stern-Gerlach experiment. But no they did not do it, no one dared to take on the Gauss law that after all is just a fancy piece of math not rooted in any experimental evidence.
That is why even today in this new year 2026 we have crazy stuff like electrons that anti-align themselves with an applied external magnetic field like they did in the SG experiment explanation. And the most crazy thing in my view is the official version of the electron pair where the present day belief is still that because of the Pauli exclusion principle the electrons must have different spin numbers while in practice this simply means the two tiny magnets somehow must be anti-aligned to form a pair while from chemistry we know that electron pairs are very important in keeping molecules together.
But let me stop ranting against the belief that magnetic monopoles do not exist and turn to the beef of why I selected this video: It is all that Bell theorem stuff that says or validates all those ‘faster than light’ kind of collapsing of the wave function that they think actually happens. There is an old proof out that proves that Einstein’s idea’s of so called hidden variables cannot be true. It was only last year in 2025 that I looked into that and guess what? This proof uses the results of a repeated or sequential Stern-Gerlach experiment that gives all those probabilities for measuring electron spin. There is only one little pesky detail: In a century of time there has never ever such an experiment done. And if my idea’s of simply electrons having a permanent magnetic charge, just like their electric charge, are true, in that case measuring electron spin is the same as measuring the electric charge of the electron: It will always be the same no matter what. So that is why John Clauser always had the same linear polarization in his pairs of photons, the root cause or the ‘hidden variable’ if you want to frame it that way of finding always equal linear polarity is that the photons are made by the same electron. You really don’t need all this ‘faster as light’ crazy stuff to explain the outcome of the experiment John Clauser did.
I am more or less planning to look in this new year a bit deeper into all those other experiments done that show the ‘faster than light’ weirdo stuff but almost all experiments use crystals that do the parametric down conversing thing and break down one photon into two lower photons with opposite linear polarization. In my view the only logical explanation using electron permanent monopole properties is that an electron pair gets ejected into a higher energy state and later falls down and as such it will always generate an electron pair with opposite linear polarization.
But lets turn to the video: If electron spin is just a permanent monopole magnetic charge, in that case measuring electron spin is not probabilistic at all and as such the ‘proof’ as presented in the video is clear cut wrong. You can find the video at the end, this post is 3 images and one extra so called Figure 1. Here we go:
Furthermore if electron spin is a permanent monopole feature and depending on the kind of magnetic charge is what gives the two opposite polarization states of the photons they produce. As such the photon pairs as mentioned in the video are never in a superposition let alone that measuring one photon’s polarization leads to a collapse of the wave function and forces the other photon to take on the opposite (linear) polarization. And as such there is no ‘faster than light’ stuff going on at all.
And finally the video:
It has to be remarked that both Mithuna Yoagnathan and Derek Muller do nothing strange here. All physics professionals believe this kind of weird stuff to the extend there are even Nobel prizes handed out for this kind of crap. So both Mithuna and Derik are nice people and do only what is accepted as truth. Even the usage of these faulty probabilities related to a sequential or repeated Stern-Gerlach experiment is what they all do while bragging that physics is the only five-sigma science… Well no it just isn’t, never ever a sequential Stern-Gerlach experiment was performed there is also zero experimental validation for their fantasy that monopoles are tiny bipolar magnets. Another very fundamental piece of experimental validation that is missing is that if it was true that electrons are tiny magnets, in that case they will not be accelerated by a constant homogeneous magnetic field. That is a cornerstone of their thinking but once more: Where is that fucking experimental validation for this?
If you have never looked at these kind of devices, if you want to understand the problem of the anomalous electron transport you can look in figure 01 below. Or look it up on the internet, van Hall thrusters are at present day a common tool or device in satellites. These ion thrusters need much less propellant compared to chemical thrusters for keeping the satellites in their orbit. This post is based on an article on some Japanese website on these kind of space devices. It seems that there is much more electron loss along magnetic field lines as their collision models predict. According to their publication it is up to three orders of magnitude higher as their expectation, that is up to a 1000 times too much. And although their article never says it explicit: of course they make use of the electron as a tiny dipole magnet and as such it is neutral to magnetism. In my understanding of reality that is crazy as hell, why should an electron have only one magnetic charge and two magnetic poles? But electrons being tiny magnets is a deep held belief inside the physics community and that is why observe so many totally crazy explanations when the magnetic properties are a part of the explanation of some set of observed properties.
For example in the case of the explanation of the Stern-Gerlach experiment it is the anti-alignment of the electrons with the magnetic field that explains the split in two beams. And of course when explaining the SG experiment they often tell you about the fundamental probabilistic nature of measuring electron spin and therefore the probabilities of a neutral silver atom going up or down is 50%. We are the 5-sigma science, nothing beats us!
But if the same people have to explain the Einstein-de Haas effect, that is also something with electron spin and a vertical magnetic field, now the explanation is always that all electrons align their bipolar spin because they feel a torque because of the applied magnetic field. So now the logic is all electrons do the same while in the SG experiment it is the fundamental probabilistic nature that explains the experimental results.
If you use the not so hard to understand idea that the electric and magnetic properties of the electron are the same, as such electrons are permanent magnetic monopoles just as they are electric monopoles, if you use that idea stuff like electron pairs make much more sense: They pair up because they have opposite magnetic charges and that’s why the electron pair is neutral under (weak) magnetic fields.
As a funny side note, if you look at the official explanation for the above two mentioned experiments, those explanations are always a combination of things that sound or look logical. But over the different experiments it is always some stuff with electrons and a vertical magnetic field, so the explanations should not differ so very much (from 100% alignment because of torque to 50/50% alignment because of the fundamental probabilistic nature of measuring electron spin. If you look at it, it looks a lot like those modern Large Language Models or LLM’s work: When an LLM gives you an answer all of it is made up stuff. Some parts are true and some parts are just untrue and a whole lot of in between stuff. But the LLM’s can’t tell what part is true and what part is a bit less truthful. It just sound logical like the explanations from physics professors when they explain this or that experiment. But enough of the talk, this post is just 4 images long and there are two additional figures. If you don’t know how van Hall thrusters work, look that up in figure 01 or find something on the internet for yourself. In figure 02 I included a picture of the earth magnetic field and the solar wind because that is another down to earth simple example of how electrons move along magnetic field lines. Ok, let me hang in the pictures and I made a small error with the ‘countdown’ number, it should read 01/04 instead of 01/05 but I leave it as it is and won’t repair it:
Ok this post was more or less based on just one pdf, here it is: Pdf article:
Link used: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/tastj/19/1/19_19.81/_pdf
Ok that was it for this post, let me try to publish it via the method of hitting the ‘Publish’ button. Thanks for your attention and see you in a new post.
In the year 2022 the Nobel prize in physics went partially to John Clauser for the experimental proof or validation of quantum entanglement. This experiment was the first to probe the idea’s of John Bell and as far as I know this experiment differs from all later experiments that often use that so called “Parametric Down Conversion” stuff to get their entangled photon pairs. With the down conversion method where one photon gets smashed in two, the linear polarization of the photons is opposite to each other. So my idea was: Likely sometimes an entire electron pair gets exited and falls back. But it is very very hard to verify such a claim via experiments on the crystals that actually do this down conversion of photon energy. But the original experiment from John Clauser uses calcium atoms and a cascade of one electron going down two energy levels. And, that is important of course, here the two photons always have the same linear polarization. I am now into the 11-th year of looking at electrons as magnetic monopoles, in particular with a permanent monopole charge just like the electric charge of an electron. For years and years it looked logical that circular photons would be produced by these two kinds of electrons and the opposite magnetic charge caused the two different circular (or elliptical) photons. Only this year it dawned on me that the two different kind of linear photons have the same origin: The two different magnetic monopole charges and electron can have. It has it’s own logic, the idea of electrons as magnetic monopoles finally makes sense of say the electron pair where the Pauli exclusion principle (opposite spins) is only a bag of nonsense if you view electrons as tiny magnets or the bipolar magnetic model that is commonly believed in.
Here in the original John Clauser experiment it now has it’s own logical explanation too: John could not control what kind of electron got exited, as such he got different polarization all of the time but these polarizations for the pair of photons were always the same. A guy named Kocher did the first experiment with this calcium stuff I believe it was in the 1960-ties. He summarized the results in a beautiful manner:
(1) If both polarizers are aligned with their axes parallel, coincidence counts will be observed.
(2) If the polarizer axes are perpendicular, no coincidences will be observed.
If you want to read what Kocher wrote, at the end I have a link for you. So now we understand the root source of the experimental results from Clauser, it is also clear that this is not entaglement in the sense of a superposition of photon polarization as often portrayed as a so called Bell state. All of the time the photons had already their polarization.
It is NOT that measuring one photon makes the other have the same polarization, all of the time they already had theirs. And there is also a relative easy way to verify that the photons might be (strongly) correlated but do not influence each other: If you have access to so called entangled photons, send one of them through a quarter wave plate so it becomes an elliptic photon. Now check if the other photon is also elliptic, if I had to bet on the outcome I would say that the two photons do not influence each other.
This post is five images long while I added two additional figures. And after that there is another video from Qiskit IBM quantum computing where it is ‘explained’ that hidden variables explaining the photon correlation do not exist. In figure 3 you see a screen shot of the video. And of course the link to Kocher’s summary paper.
In the next Figure 1 you see what I think are the two linear polarization states of a photon: their magnetic fields are phase shifted by 180 degrees. This introduces all kinds of subtleties that are not discussed now but for example if the electric field of a photon is vertical, you still have two kinds of photons. (Where of course the official version of linear polarization is the direction of the electric field of a photon where it’s magnetic part is always left out and not talked about.) In Figure 2 you can see John Clauser at work and a simplified energy level of calcium atoms for the cascading electron.
I left out stuff like the speed of light and the frequency of the photon.
In quantum mechanics there is also some kind of proof that the so called hidden variables do not exist. I never looked in the (historical) details of it. But the few times I observed such a ‘proof’ it is always that when measured the quantum stuff, there is always that fundamental probabilistic stuff. I think that’s wrong when it comes to say electron spin (the permanent magnetic charge) and as such the photons they produce can also never be in a superposition as say in the Bell state. It is about 13 minutes into the video where the lady does the magical “Hidden variable do not exist” kind of proof. By the way this is the same lady I showed you some weeks ago where she claimed that a repeated or sequential Stern-Gerlach experiment was done many times. But there is no successful sequential SG experiment done ever, if there was it would very very likely be in the annals of the Nobel prize and it’s just not there. A successful sequential SG experiment would not only validate the official belief in the probabilistic nature of measuring electron spin, it would also destroy all my findings into electrons being magnetic monopoles.
So my dear physics community: Bring it on what you have!
For me this is not very convincing.
And now for the video from Qiskit, IBM quantum computers:
And lets not forget the summary to a very early experiment measuring photon linear polarization using the calcium electron cascading mechanism: Quantum entanglement of optical photons: the first experiment, 1964–67 Link used: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/quantum-science-and-technology/articles/10.3389/frqst.2024.1451239/full
Lets me start with my question for you: Likely more than once you have seen a depiction of a photon in terms of it’s electric and magnetic field. And always the magnetic field and electric field are very similar, see for example the first picture below. That is my understanding of a linear polarized photon: It has it’s maxima, minima and zero’s on the same place.
Photons can be made by electrons for example when they accelerate. The official version of the electron is that it is a ‘tiny magnet’ and as such not a magnetic monopole as I think it is. My question is very simple:
If it would be true that an electron has two magnetic poles and is an electric monopole, then how come the electric and magnetic field in a photon are so similar?
That is kind of weird and after a decade of looking at explanations of magnetic stuff by physics people I know that always when something a weird or outright crazy, it is always ignored. They only tell things that at the surface sound logical and all weird stuff simply gets neglected. There are many examples of this, one of the main examples is the electron pair in chemical bonds. The official theory says their spins must be anti-aligned but elementary insights in magnetics say that now the potential energy is maximal while in general nature always strives to the lowest potential energy state. And try to hold two bar magnets with the same poles at each other and it repels: Well the weird things about electron pairs always get skipped by the professional physics professors…
Anyway, below is my understanding of two linear photons made by two electrons with a different magnetic (monopole) charge. I have left out all details that are not needed like the speed of light or the frequency. That is because I want to highlight the difference in the magnetic component they have: A phase shift of pi or 180 degrees if you want so.
So far for the question I had for you. The video is from Qiskit, that’s IBM, and in the quantum computer world David DiVincenzo is a celebrated name. Back in the nineties together with another person he posted some criteria for making something as say a qubit based on the spin of the electron. He has been working of stuff like this for about three decades now, of course there is no working qubit based on electron spin at all and of course David has no clue at all as why this is but like all university people he is extremely good at talking out of his neck.
I took the freedom to make a few screenshots and in the middle of the image below you can see David has strong mathematical fantasies about how such spin qubits should behave. Well David, if you ever read this: Likely they won’t do that in a billion years.
For example in the entiry video of one hour long David never ever touches the delicate detail of how to flip the spin of an electron. Now of course you can always apply a magnetic field and say that the electron will align itself with that magnetic field because it has a torque on it by this magnetic field. On the other hand official quantum theory says that alignment or anti-alignment is fundamentally probabilistic. So this is a problem and people like David never have such problems. Or at least they don’t talk about it…
At last the video, it is a bit long and not suitable for a tiktok video.
Ok, that was it for this post on magnetism. The next post is a math post on how to express the determinant of a 4×4 matrix in terms of a bunch of 2×2 minor matrices. Thanks for your attention.
This video shows that in all likelihood quantum computers will never work, anyway not when it comes to simulating chemical reactions where electron pairs play a role. Let me explain: The SG experiment is of course the Stern-Gerlach experiment from 1922 for readers who do not know that. That was the experimental discovery of electron spin although Stern and Gerlach wanted to prove something very different. Now as far as I know a repeated SG experiment, or a sequential experiment, has never been done. Likely it has been tried a few times but as far as I know nobody succeeded into getting the desired results and as such proving the probalistic nature of measuring electron spin. Since 2015 I have been looking for this but until now I found nothing. In this video at about 08:09 min into the video Katie claims that after the original SG experiment from 1922 countless experiments have been done where a sequence of such experiments was done. See the image below, the Z and X just denote the derection of the applied magnetic field. These kind of experiments just have no result. In video’s like this you always hear the names of Stern and Gerlach but never ever the folks who would have done such a repeated experiment.
And again for readers unfamiliar with what I think of electron magnetism, I think that electron magnetism is just as electron electricity: It is a monopole and permanent charge. So there are two kinds of electrons that have the same electric charge and opposite magnetic charges. On top of that I think the magnetic charge is permanent so it can’t be flipped and measuring the spin is not a probabilistic event. It’s permanent… I made a few screenshots from the usual nonsense in the sense it is not rooted in experimental evidence:
For myself speaking I do not understand why so many people think that these experiments are actually done. Since I was a bit annoyed by the video, with a simple internet search in only a minute or three I found a nice pdf from MIT the Open Courseware stuff. Let me quote from page 5:
Let us now consider thought experiments in which we put a few SG apparatus in series.
To focus the mind and or for new readers; I am of the opinion that electrons are magnetic monopoles and that their magnetic properties are just as the electric properties: permanent and monopole.
Well that is very different from the official version of electron magnetism that involves the Gauss law of magnetism that says magnetic monopoles do not exist and as such the electron must have two magnetic poles. There are a plentitude of what I name weird energy problems with bipolar electron magnetism. For example what makes an electron anti-align with an applied external magnetic field? If you look at it that way, it is easy to find much more weird energy problems and the main example I always use is the electron pair. For example molecular hydrogen is has one bonding electron pair and it’s spins must be opposite or anti-aligned as the wording goes. Well, what explains that this is the lowest energy state? And how can H2 be stable with a magnetic configuration like this? Bar magnets are only stable and in a state of low potential energy if their magnetic fields are aligned, so why is it opposite with the two electrons in an electron pair? If you view electrons as having a monopole magnetic charge, you never run into those problems that are always skipped when in experimental results electron magnetism plays a role. It is just always skipped, look at any explanation of the Stern-Gerlach experiment and you never see it explained as why electrons anti-align with the applied vertical magnetic field.
But lets go to the video: Fermilab’s Don Lincoln explains how an entangled electron pair should behave. Of course he does not have any experimental evidence to back up all the stuff he claims. For 10 years now starting back since 2015 I have been searching for a repeated Stern-Gerlach experiment but there is only talking out of the neck and no results anywhere. Now a repeated SG experiment is just applying differently oriented magnetic fields to an electron and the official theory says that the probability for spin up or down is the cosine of half the angle of the difference in ortientation of the two succesive magnetic fields. So it looks a lot like linear polarization of photons only there you have the entire angle and not half the angle.
Since I became interested in electron magnetism 10 years ago I have seen a few hundred video’s on all kinds of stuff related to electron spin. Also those long video’s of say one hour or longer where researchers explain what they are doing. And often in those presentations there are some theoretical curves and with litle dots or squares the experimental results are given to the audience. So what Don Lincoln is doing in the video is rather misleading; the curves is just the square of a cosine but there are no experimental results as far as I know.
This is pretending experimental results…
I think it was two years back or so that a few Nobel prizes were handed out and one of the recievers Alain Aspect remarked in a video that is was just to hard to do this experiment with real spin half particles like electrons. As such Alain did his experiments with photons. Don Lincoln even shows a picture of Alain and because most physics people always talk out of their neck when it comes to electron spin, he does the entanglement thing with electrons. In this video he does not brag that physics is a so called ‘five sigma’ science where all stuff is validated rigidly. So here is the video in case you are interested in that so called non-locality stuff:
Ok, I have more to do today so let me close this short post on the ususal nonsense of official electron spin.
In this post I want to look at three experiments from physics that all use a vertical magnetic field that is applied to unpaired electrons. The three experiments are: 1) The famous Stern-Gerlach experiment from 1922. 2) The Einstein-de Haas effect. 3) The muon g-2 experiment from Fermilab.
And the two criteria I use is also simple to understand: 1) Are there weird energy problems? 2) Is the electron spin alignment probabilistic yes or no?
You might think “Why should that have any importance at all?” Well the importance lies in the fact that all official explanations for the outcomes of the 3 above mentioned experiments, if you think about it, they all exclude each other.
For example the Stern-Gerlach experiment is often used to point at the probabilistic nature of measuring the direction of electron spin. And it is the 50/50 split in the beam of silver atoms that is the actual evidence of the fundamental probabilistic nature of measuring electron spin with a vertical magnetic field. But in that Einstein-de Haas effect experiment, the results are always explained by all electrons doing the same and it is impossible to find the word “probabilistic” in such explanations. To focus the mind a little bit: If you would have a 50/50 probability in spin alignment with the applied vertical magnetic field, in that case there would be no Einstein-de Haas effect at all. Now what is a weird energy problem? For me it is as simple as the so called anti-alignment of electron spins. It is kinda weird that half of the electrons would align their spins and as such lower their potential energy and the other half weirdly raises their potential energy? Please remark this simplest form of a weird energy problem is a direct consequence of viewing electrons as bipolar magnets, if you skip that assumption and view electrons as magnetic monopoles you do not have this simplest of energy problems. The post is four pictures long and I hope I won’t forget to place a few links to the three experiments although it is very simple to do that yourself. So lets go.
Ok, that was it more or less. So the 3 experiments might be about electrons in some vertical magnetic field, the explanations vary widely. Let me close with a few links to the 3 experiments.
Link 1: A wiki about the Stern-Gerlach experiment: Stern–Gerlach experiment. Link used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_experiment
Halfway in the wiki they show the so called repeated SG experiments, the problem is that for 10 years now I can’t find anyone who did a successful repeated SG according to the stadard theory. But in the wiki the authors seem to think, just like a lot of physics professors, that such repeated experiments have been done. But if it had been done, that would validate the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics when it comes to electron spin and as such the person(s) who did that experiment would have gotten a Nobel prize for that. As far as I know, there is no Nobel prize handed out for such a thing, anyway I never heard of it. So the next picture is total scientific crap as far as I know:
Link 2: The Einstein-de Haas effect. Again a standard wiki:
Einstein–de Haas effect Link used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93de_Haas_effect
In order to show the source of the quote in picture 03 of the main text above, here is the quote once more: Therefore, in pure iron 96% of the magnetization is provided by the polarization of the electrons’ spins, while the remaining 4% is provided by the polarization of their orbital angular momenta.
That abundantly shows they think all electrons do the same.
Link 3: I did some arbitrary choice on the preprint archive about the last results of Fermilab with their g-2 experiment. My main problem with their explanation is of course that while using a vertical magnetic field, they claim the muon spin stays horizontal. So what happens to the good old torque that this vertical magnetic field does remains a mystery. And the pdf from the preprint archive is not that important but I want to show it to you so you can read it yourself and conclude that this all is left out and you get a bunch of hard to understand gibberish.
This post is basically a video about the so called Einstein de Haas effect from the Action Lab (a video channel). This experiment is often mentioned as experimental validation that electrons have so called “Intrinsic angular momentum”. The experimental setup is very easy to explain, look in the next picture:
A metal cylinder is hanging from a wire (the guy in the video uses tooth floss because that has no winding twist in it so the cylinder will not rotate). If placed in a vertical magnetic field or such a vertical magnetic field is flipped on, the cylinder rotates a little bit. Often in the experimental setup a coil magnet is used, but it can be any more or less perfect vertical magnetic field. The effect of the rotation is rather small so in video’s like this you often see some shiny or reflecting metal glued to the cylinder and with a light the rotation is amplified for us to see.
This is all there is; a relatively simple experimental setup.
The explanation you always see is that the unpaired electrons in the metal cylinder align themselves with the applied magnetic field. So that’s the logic for the explanation of this experiment.
How different is it for the Stern Gerlach experiment that is very similar because it is about the behavior of unpaired electrons in a vertical applied magnetic field. In the SG experiment the beam of silver atoms is split in two and now the logic is as next, quote:
This means that when you take a beam of electrons whose angular momenta are all randomly oriented, if you measure the z component of angular momentum you get one of only two different values.
But if your explanation in the Einstein de Haas effect would be this 50/50 percent probability in spin up or spin down, that would imply zero rotation and therefore once more day the physics professors will talk out of their necks and now it must be logical that all electrons align. Source of my above quote: Measuring Electron Spin- the Stern-Gerlach Experiment
Furthermore it is a fundamental basis of quantum computing that it must be possible to have superpositions of quantum states. So if the explanation of the Einstein de Haas effect would be correct, there is no randomness in electron spin measurements via application of external magnetic fields. You just can’t eat it from both sides: either all electrons will do the same or the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is true. Anyway here is the video with the title: Do Electrons Really Have “Intrinsic” Angular Momentum?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ5w4_0S2l4
That was it for this post on magnetism in particular the very different explanations you hear when we are talking about the same thing: The reaction of an electron on a vertical magnetic field.
