This is another very short post, the main text is 2 pictures and there is an additonal Figure 1 added. It is about the impossibility of having both spin and angular moment conserved in the electron-positron pair creation process. This is under the assumption that electrons are actually spinning and that this spinning causes the official version of electron spin: the tiny magnet model.
Of course there is nothing spinning, back in the time Wolfgang Pauli himself calculated that even if you concentrate all the electric charge of an electron on it’s ‘equator’, it must spin so fast that this is a huge multiple of the speed of light. A long time ago I did such a calculation myself, it is not very hard to do but I skipped it in this because that calculation has nothing to do with the content of the post. So you can easily do that yourself, after all it is just some advanced high school physics and if you do that the answer will of course depend strongly on how large you think the electron is if you view it as a tiny billiard ball.
The word ‘spin’ is a terrible wrongly chosen word to describe the magnetic properties of the electron. I have wondered so often as why the physics people think year in year out that the electron is a tiny magnet while you really do not need much brain power to see that this is nonsense. Beside all those fundamental energy problems there are also problems with the above mentioned conservation laws. The fact we have today so many people from the physics community talking about ‘the spinning electron’ is caused in part by that original stupid choice to name it ‘spin’. After all this word strongly suggests that we are dealing with tiny magnets, every electron must be a tiny bipolar magnet while if you view them as magnetic monopoles you don’t have all these weird energy problems.
In case you are new to this website: I think that electrons are magnetic monopoles, just like their electric charge, and furthermore this magnetic charge is permanent and as such it is impossible to flip the spin of an electron.
And if you are from the physics community yourself, may be you need to vomit from the idea that electrons are not tiny magnets. Or may be you pity me because I am a middle aged man and you think I want to save physics or the wider community known as humankind from wrong doing when it comes to electron spin. Well I have to disappoint you: I don’t give a shit about such stuff, ok in the beginning I did but after a few years I realized that likely physics will be trapped a few centuries longer before they start using logical thinking when it comes to electron spin.

In the two pictures below I also experiment a bit with using other backgrounds, here you see something like a big hand made with some generative AI video thing. May be it is time to replace my old background made with my old Windows XP computer by some fresh stuff.

This intro is getting far to long because I wanted this post to be short. So let me hang in the pictures and here we go:

In Figure 1 below all you see are two images I downloaded from the internet while using the search phrases as written above. You just never see those spinning arrows if you search for electron-positron pair creation. It is as so often: As soon as we get into crazyland, the physics people just don’t talk about it.

Well yes, this is indeed the end of this post.

Another short post, this time again on the totally crazy so called bonding and non-bonding pairs in theoretical chemistry. It is one of the many energy problems that come along if you want electrons to be tiny bipolar magnets. And if you view the electrons as magnetic monopoles, in that case all of a sudden you don’t have these kind of weird energy problems.

Lets dive into it, this post is 3 images long and here we go:

That’s more or less all I had to say today, if you view the magnetic properties of electrons as monopole magnets just like their electric properties the standard electron pair becomes the lowest (potential) energy state. Before I close this post let me quote from a wiki an interesting detail about the non-bonding electron pairs: they have a tendency to be outside the so called ‘bonding region’ between atoms in molecules. Once more this only makes sense when electron carry a monopole magnetic charge.

In theoretical chemistry, an antibonding orbital is a type of molecular orbital that weakens the chemical bond between two atoms and helps to raise the energy of the molecule relative to the separated atoms. Such an orbital has one or more nodes in the bonding region between the nuclei. The density of the electrons in the orbital is concentrated outside the bonding region and acts to pull one nucleus away from the other and tends to cause mutual repulsion between the two atoms. This is in contrast to a bonding molecular orbital, which has a lower energy than that of the separate atoms, and is responsible for chemical bonds.

Here is the link to the wiki I quoted from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibonding_molecular_orbital

That’s it, see you in some other future post or enjoy some old posts on say the 4D complex numbers because they are beautiful and that is something we cannot say about the behaviour of the average physics professor with their weird fixation on electrons as tiny magnets…

A couple of weeks back I already showed this video from Dr. Erica Carlson on the other website. I did select that video because in the second half of that video she talks about electron spin configurations that minimize the energy in stuff that is known as spin ice.
Since all those energy problems that I have with viewing electrons as bipolar tiny magnets are always skipped, I decided to use this video as a short post on magnetism. In videos like this the pattern is always the same: at the surface it all looks logical like in this video the spin configuration in that stuff known as spin ice. But video after video I have seen over the last years, always when we need to look at crazyland they always skip that. When the energy stuff gets crazy, they just skip it. Now this is absolutely not some form of a conspiracy, these people like Erica simply believe the bipolar magnetic electron is true and as such they have a blind spot into the problems: They just don’t see the problems because of their blind spot.

In the year 2015 I started to doubt that electrons were tiny magnets with two magnetic poles. I started doubting that after I tried for myself to explain the results of the so called Stern-Gerlach experiment. In my view the results were only explainable if we use magnetic monopole electrons. A few days later reading all those official explanations I understood I had to be cautious. And at the begining back in 2015 I knew nothing about electron spin, all I knew was that people from physics thought they were tiny (bipolar) magnets. It’s been a long journey from there back in 2015 and it will also be a long long journey going from our present year 2024. After all the belief that electrons are tiny macroscopic magnets is deeply rooted in 100% of the physics community.

In this post, for the first time since 2015, I included a simple expression about how the professional physics professors view the potential energy of electrons related to magnetism. It is somewhere below and it is the same as we have for macroscopic magnets like say two bar magnets.
If you hold two bar magnets south to north pole, that is the minimum potential energy because it costs energy to separate them. And if you hold two bar magnets say north pole to north pole, that is the situation of high potential energy.

The post itself is four pictures and two additional figures and of course the perfect video from Dr. Erica Carlson. Say for yourself, this video is a perfect 10 with all kinds of animations I can only dream of. Ok ok, there is just one tiny tiny error in it: electrons are not tiny magnets.
But for the rest it’s a “PERFECT 10” kind of video.

That was more or less the end of this post but I made one more picture depicting another big energy problem that the official version of electron spin has: The behavior of a single electron in an applied magnetic field.

After all if it were true that electrons are tiny magnets, if you apply a magnetic field to electrons shouldn’t they all perfectly align with that magnetic field and as such fall into their lowest potential energy state?

Yes in an ideal world they should, but we live in a world where we not only have a lot of professional physics professors but also television physics professors. And they never talk about the energy problems there are with the electron as being tiny magnets.
So this is a strange strange world where physics just ingores simple problems like the last picture of this post:

Oh yes the stability problems we have if it were true that electrons are tiny magnets. As you see in the video it is always skipped and their brains never go down that route… It is what it is and here is the video:

Lets leave it with that, the next post will be about matrix representations of conjugtes of 2D complex numbers. They are weird and also lovely now I have my new method of understanding the process of conjugation.
And as always thanks for your attention and not falling asleep before you read these last words of this post.

This is now year nine or may be the tenth year that I started doubting that electrons were tiny bipolar magnets because it makes much more sense that they are magnetic monopoles. Over the years I have found out that logic just does not work and given the fact that physics people get a salery from tax payer money, that is weird behavior.
But physics professors behave just like math professors who after 33 years of doing just nothing will keep on doing that and never ever talk about the three dimensional complex numbers. What explains that kind of behavior, after all it’s all tax payer money so they should be a bit more humble don’t you think? The way I see it is that university people like math and physics professors are some elite. And I don’t mean an elite in the sense they are the very best at their science, no it’s just a collection of overpaid snobs. You must not think I am emotional or so by using the word snobs, no it’s a cold hearted classification of their behavior.
It is now 102 years since the original Stern Gerlach experiment and there is boatloads and boatloads of theory of how electrons should behave in case such an experiment is repeated (that is a squence of those magnetic fields) and it is easy to understand the very first experimental physics human that would do such a sequential SG experiment would likely be rewarded a Nobel prize. And in the physics community the Noble prize is what they all dream of. So in a century of time without doubt on many occasions such an attempt must have been undertaken.
But there is no trace of any such experiment in the literature, the only experiment that was done was by Frisch and Segrè where they tried to flip the electron spin and that all failed big time. But when building their experimental setup Frisch and Segre got advice from Albert Einstein and likely because of that they got their (non) results published and as such we can find it back in the present day literature.

What I found strange in the last 10 years is that a lot of scientists actually believe such experiments have been done. That goes for physics but also chemistry, a lot of them talk like such experiments have actually been done. Here is a link that abundantly shows that the author thinks such experiments have actually been done:
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/The_Live_Textbook_of_Physical_Chemistry_(Peverati)/22%3A_Spin/22.02%3A_Sequential_Stern-Gerlach_Experiments

Now why should a succesful sequential Stern Gerlach experiment lead to an almost 100% probability of getting a Nobel prize? That is easy to explain: It would validate in a deep manner that quantum states like spin states are probabilistic in nature and as such would be a fundamental thing in say all the present day attempts there are in building quantum computers.

Another way of understanding there are just no successful sequential Stern Gerlach experiments done in the last 100 years is simple to do: Go to Youtube and search for it, all you find is animations that explain how it “should work”. But none of those videos give a hint of an experiment actually done…

Is it true there are no Nobel prizes rewarded in the last 100 years related to a repeated or sequential SG experiment? Well in this year 2024 the Nobel prize committee has a website and guess what? They have a search applet for their very website. If you search for “Stern Gerlach” you get something like 12 results and if you serach for “Stern Gerlach experiment” you only get 6 results. None of those results says anything about experimental validation of all that spinor crap or anything that shows you can actually flip the magnetic spin of an electron. I made a picture for the other website as you can see below:

If you want you can go to the website of the Nobel prize committee and look for yourself if you can find such a prize rewarded. Here is the link: https://www.nobelprize.org/.
It’s all a big bunch of crap: Electrons are not tiny magnets, they carry magnetic charge just like they carry electric charge.

I am very well aware that logic does not work, but say to yourself about the crap of the electron pair they have over there in the physics community: The Pauli exclusion principle says that those electrons must have opposite spins so what does that mean if it is true that electrons are tiny magnets?
Well if they have anti-parallel or opposite spins, doesn’t it look like this:

But again logic does not work so I do not expect that in this year 2024 the physics people will stop talking their usual bullshit. No way, after all as a social community they are just another bunch of overpaid snobs…

After having said that, after about only one century of time there is only recently an English translation made of the publication of the original Stern Gerlach experiment. The translation is done by Martin Bauer and here is a link to the pdf as you can find it on the preprint archive

The Stern-Gerlach Experiment
Translation of: “Der experimentelle Nachweis der
Richtungsquantelung im Magnetfeld”
Link used: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.11343.pdf

That was it for this post, as always thanks for your attention.

Some time ago I stopped writing posts about magnetism because the number of such posts would exceede the number of posts on the 3D complex numbers. And that was of couse not the long term strategic goal of this website, so I stopped posting it here.
But on the other website I kept on writing small sniplets and what I consider the best two sniplets is now reposted here in a new post on magnetism.

For readers who are new: For the last 9 years I have been trying to figure out if electrons are truly tiny magnets yes or no. About 9 years ago I started to doubt that electrons or electron spin is indeed a bipolar magnet. At the time I tried to explain the results from the Stern-Gerlach experiment and I arrived at the conclusion that very likely electrons were magnetic monopoles. My main argument has been all those years: If electrons are magnetic dipoles, because they are so small they must be neutral under application of (large) magnetic fields.

Since the SG experiment it is know that lone electrons are not magnetically neutral but all and everything observed was always explained by electrons as tiny magnets. Why at the time (1922 and later) they never observed that there are all kinds of problems with electron spin as tiny magnets, is unknown to me. For example the scientists at the time had correspondence between each other and some of those letters literally started with the Gauss law for magnetism and stating that a solution must be found inside the framework of the Gauss law for magnetism…

It never dawned on them that doing science is that you must prove the Gauss law for magnetism does apply for lone or unpaired electrons. But they never did that, no one doubted that magnetism was without magnetic charges and as such even a very small particle like the electron had to be a tiny magnet.

Since last year I often phrase my view on electron magnetism as follows:

The magnetic properties of the electron are just like it’s electric properties: Permanent and Monopole.

It is a bit strange that after 9 years I still have to try and find nice sounding slogans like the above as if I were some marketing bureau.

Anyway one of the big mysteries of the official version of electron spin is that in an electron pair the spins must be opposite. Nobody remarks this is totally crazy because if we allow for that we also give up the observation that opposite charges atract while same charges repel. I made an extra picture for this weird official version of electron spin:

Well take your time to think about it, this is the official version of the electron pair if electrons were tiny magnets. The physics professors never ever mention such details, no you often get a boatload of complicated math but they never ever talk about what anti alignment for tiny magnets actually means.

I also want to remark that journalists never ever ask such questions when they interview physics professors on magnetic related stuff. It’s fucking taxpayer money and we must believe this kind of crap?
Well yes, according to Cornell university we must. The next picture is one I actually used on the other website:

VESPR theory. VESPR stands for Valence Electron Shell Pair Repulsion. This theory comes a bit more from the chemical sciences where they try to explain the shapes of the electron clouds of atoms and molecules.

The important detail is that electron pairs are neutral to magnetism and that as such electron pairs around an atomic nucleus repel each other.

If you use the idea that electrons are magnetic monopoles this all is very logical: Coulomb forces pull electrons in and the electrons form pairs because they have opposite monopole magnetic charges.

If you use the idea that electrons are tiny magnets this all is very crazy: Coulomb forces pull electrons in and they only form pairs? Why not form other configurations that are possible with tiny magnets? Why only electron pairs my dear physics professors?

My dear reader you have a brain for yourself so look in the picture below as why this particular atomic nucleus has two electron pairs that repel each other. And don’t mind the female robot or ponder the question as why there are female robots at all…
Just think a bit around the nonsense that comes along with electrons being tiny bipolar magnets. Here is the picture as used on the other website:

It’s time to publish this post, thanks for your attention and see you in a next post.

Last year the Nobel prize in physics went to a bunch of people that did experiments that gave rise to a so called violation of the Bell inequalities. As a consequence we are told we are living in a so called ‘non local’ universe and if you measure the quantum state of a particle here, this particle can be entangled with a particle in another galaxy and instantly that entangled particle will change or jump into another quantum state.
So the idea is that entangled particles can influence each other at a speed that is infinite so information travel is faster as the speed of light.
Well that is very interesting but when it comes to electrons and their spin state I just don’t buy that kind of crap. Why the Nobel prize committee thinks this is science worthy of their famous prize is unknown to me.

Now what is a ‘violation of the Bell inequalities’? Informally said there is too much correlation observed that cannot be explained by so called ‘hidden variables’ that are unknown. To focus the mind let me give you a simple example:

Two electrons in an electron pair get separated, one electron stays here on earth while the physics professors transport the other electron to another galaxy. It is claimed that if you measure the spin state of the electron here on earth into a particular direction, in that case the spin state of the electron that was transported by the physics professors to another galaxy instantly jumps into the other spin state. And the Nobel prize committee handed out a Nobel prize for that.

Well that is all very interesting but I think electrons carry a monopole magnetic charge and as such it is impossible to flip the spin. Take for example any chemical stuff based on binding via electron pairs, say your own body. Now if we put a magnetic field through your body tissue, does any electron flip it’s spin state? Do half of your electron pairs turn from a binding pair into a non-binding pair? No that never happens, electron spin state is not a fragile thing, it is permanent and cannot be altered.

And that is where all those experiments where they try to violate the Bell inequalities go wrong: They all assume that the photons they produce are coming from an electron that is in a superposition of spin up and spin down. But that is never the case if it is true that electron monopole charge is a permanent feature.

I have a video for you and the preprint pdf from 24 Aug 2015 that was published by the TU Delft group that did this loophole free Bell test. The video is easy and it even has music, what more do you want? The pdf is hard to read and it takes some time to grasp what is going on. I made four pictures from screenshots with a bit comment from me in it. After that the video and the pdf paper.

I do not know if they used the same electrons over and over again. Likely not because in quantum mechanics there is also the idea that if you measure some quantum property of a particle, after that in stays in that quantum state.

If electrons have a permanent magnetic charge, this must have a profound effect on the photons they produce. To be precise, the magnetic phase will be shifted 180 degrees if you compare the two different kind of photons. Without good solid proof I always assume that is why we have left and right circular photons. But information on that important detail is hard to find for years and years.

It has been a while since I updated this website with a post on magnetism. But some months back all of a sudden I would have more posts on magnetism compared to the main category of this website: The 3D complex numbers. So that is why in the last couple of months I did post nothing about magnetism over here but only on the other website.

At the end let me link you to the pdf from the preprint archive

Pdf title: Experimental loophole-free violation of a Bell inequality using entangled electron spins separated by 1.3 km.
Link used: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.05949.pdf

At last I want to remark that even if you think it is very likely there is something wrong with the official version of electron spin (the tiny bipolar magnet model). In that case you must not think that for example the Nobel prize committee will come out saying they were wrong on electron spin in say the next 3 to 5 years. That’s not going to happen and that in itself is an interesting social phenomenon.
Well thanks for your attention and see you in the next post.

I had a bit of computer problems lately, my oldest computer did not allow me to enter the BIOS and as such I could not tell from what hard disk to boot and that was the end of the motherboard in that old computer. It was my last Windows XP computer and looking at the latest Windows 7, 10 or 11 stuff there is not that much progress. Windows OS systems become more and more a fashion thing because most of it is outdeveloped and hard to improve upon… But lets go to this small post about the long title above: total angular momentum.

To put it simple: In an atom or molecule with unpaired electrons in it physics people often think of the spin of the unpaired electrons as vectors that get projected against the vertical direction if a magnetic field is applied. Those projections are treated as scalars and as you might have guessed it is either +1/2 or -1/2. (Here I leave the constant of Planck out for simplicity.)

Ok my version of magnetism is that electrons are magnetic monopoles so they have either a north pole charge or a south pole magnetic charge. Adding these up works just like adding up the electrical charges in an atom or a molecule; because after the humble opinion of your servant electron magnetism looks just like electron electricity: permanent and monopole.
So that is all to know, basically it is very simple once you have seen a few times what they do and mean with that “Total angular momentum in the x-direction” because that sounds so complicated. But all in all the calculations they do are just like adding up monopole magnetic charges so they were on the right track more or less a long time ago.
This post is four pictures and for me that is a bit hard because I always made the backgrounds on the computer that broke down. And that old graphics program can’t run on Windows 7 or higher while modern graphics programs like GIMP just don’t have the features to make such a background in a few clicks. Of course a long time ago this doomsday day was foreseen and I saved a lot of backgrounds as png files. So I opened that folder and what? It’s fucking empty…:(
Well lets go to the pictures:

The most hilaric picture is the fourth one where two electrons with opposite spins are in different energy levels in an atom or molecule. And if you want your electron spin as a vector, how the hell should you get opposite pointing vectors while the electrons are in different parts of the atom or molecule? That is very weird behavior and as such it always goes unexplained to the extend it is never mentioned as a problem. Just like all that other stuff that is wrong with electron magnetism as you view them as tiny magnets and not as magnetic monopoles.

Well thanks for your attention and see you in another post.

This is a 56 year old documentary about the machine depicted below and imitates the original Stern-Gerlach experiment in many ways. Now in the year 1967 (I became 4 years old that year) you could also have used any television they had in those long lost years and split the electron beam with a magnetic field like I once did.
It is all done beautiful, there is even an oven to vaporise the metal, in this case cesium. All these decades the explanation of the result of this experiment has not changed: Everything is explained by tiny magnets that align or anti-align with the applied magnetic field. And, just like at present day, the anti-alignment is not explained at all. How can that happen in the first place and how can it be stable?
From five screenshots I made four pictures and after that I will link to the video that has a length of about 25 minutes.

In the next picture you see the oven, I did not know you could vaporise metal so easily.

Professor Jerrold R. Zacharias is going to do some explanation of how this all is supposed to work and as such you see the well known iron filings and a magnetic field made by these two coils you see below.

As usual a lot of the explanation is swiped under the carpet (just like in 2023) and at the bottom of the picture you see that magnet being alligned or anti-aligned with the magnetic field. But why does that piece of cardboard hang from four lines or four thin ropes? What would happen if he just glued two of the lines at the north and south pole of the magnet? In that case it would be very very hard to get an anti-alignment of the bar magnet with the magnetic field. Just as impossible as balancing a pencil on it’s top for say a few minutes of time. But the physics professors just never talk about stuff like that, it is only “The standard model of particles physics is so amazingly correct” and more of that nonsense. Well I agree that if you swipe all this stuff under the carpet it all looks tidy..

The cesium used has atomic number 55 and a mass of say 133 atomic units. If here just like in the original SG experiment it is only one unpaired electron that causes the effects observed, in that case the electron moves a mass about 250 thousand it’s own electron mass.
On top of that, the electron is very tiny and it is supposed that a magnetic field with a gradient can give a force on the electron. In my opinion that is where fantasyland begins. Viewing electrons as magnetic monopoles removes a lot of what so hard is to understand, like the anti-alignment thing.

As picture number four you see the results of different field strengths of the magnetic field, it is a lovely old fashioned machine.

Here is the video:

The video is only posted on Youtube about 9 months ago, that is why I missed it in the past. After all you don’t go out every month looking for the lastest video about the SG experiment!
Let me end this post with a comical note. For a picture on the other website I combined an idea about electron spin with that old painting known as “The Scream”. Here it is:

That was it for this post. May be it is time to do some math again, now it looks as if I only discuss video’s. Thanks for your attention.

This stuff is supposed to work on 12 of those qubits also known as silicon qubits. Anyway these are loose electrons, so one electron per qubit. It is well known that if you have a computer, the thing must be possible to flip individual bits and on a quantum computer it must be possible to flip the spin of an electron if you want to use that as a qubit.
It is no secret that for a couple of years I think electrons are magnetic monopoles and the last time I have arrived at the conclusion that the magnetic charge of the electron is just as permanent as it’s electric charge.
In particular this means that it is just not possible to flip the spin of an individual electron and therefore this whole Intel 12 electron spin thing can never ever work properly. You cannot flip the spin of an individual electron and since their spin is permanent there is also not much possibility that you can bring any pair into entanglement or stuff like that.
A few posts ago I showed you some kind of rule for electron transitions in atomic or molecular orbitals; the only transitions allowed are those without spin flip. That is very interesting and one of the details that validate spin is a permanent monopole magnetic charge and not some kind of tiny magnet or a vector for that matter.
I made the next screenshot from an advertisement from Intel:

So that stuff will never work as I am correct in my view on electron spin (not tiny magnets but magnetic monopoles). The fact that likely the magnetic charge is permanent has all kinds of far reaching consequences, for example in chemistry you now must often have the right kind of electron at the right time for a chemical reaction to occure or proceed. So it is not true that at the last moment the electron will flip it’s spin if that is needed in the chemical reaction (this despite the tiny tiny energy difference if spin flip would be possible), so if a particular electron just isn’t there the chemical reaction will stop or alter or whatever what.
Here is the advertisment video from Intel:

The whole Intel 12 spin qubit thing is explained a bit by some folks from NYU. Likely NYU will stand for New York University. For this kind of video they found in interesting format; you are looking at a group of people while one of them does the most of the talking. That is far less boing as looking at one person sitting in a room. Here is how it looks:

The interesting thing on the social side is that Intel will send one or more of these spin things to the Dutch unversity of Delft. Of course Delft is famous for discovering the Majorana particle, build a quantum computer on that thing that did never exist, collect 40 million or more US$ from Microsoft, had to withdraw the Majorana particle claim and so on and so on. If some weirdo’s (like in Delft) just do not want to listen to my long list of problems with electron spin, they are always allowed to make a bunch of fools of themselves one more time. A long long time ago Britney Spears sang “Baby hit me one more time” and that beautiful song they must sing once more over there at TU Delft. Here is the video:

That was it for this post, it is about time that I start writing an old fashioned math post instead of all these posts around a video. Well thanks for your attention and lets wait for the likely failure of the TU Delft on this small but important detail.