The next post is about so called Wirtinger derivatives for functions defined on the space of 4D complex numbers. That would also be part 8 in the basics of complex numbers but you can ask yourself if it looks like this is it basic?
It looks like you can rewrite these horrible looking operators always as the Laplacian.
It’s amazing. So that will be the next post.
After that, for the time being it is in the planning, a few numerical results from the sphere-cone equation for 4D complex numbers. That could serve as another post.
In another development I decided to skip all possible preperations for an ‘official publication’ when it comes to electron spin. The bridge between what I think of electron spin (a magnetic charge) and the official version (magnetic monopoles do not exist) is just too large. As such the acceptance in a peer reviewed scientific journal are not that high given the ‘peer review hurdle’.
Beside this hurdle there are much more reasons that I throw this project into the garbage bin. I just don’t feel good about it.
May be in five or ten years I will change my view on this, but I think it is better for every body that the official standpoint on electrons just stays as it is:
Electrons are magnetic dipoles.
No, why should I try to get into some physics scientific journal saying it ain’t so?
Until now all experimental evidence I have is this lousy picture that I made with an old television set, it is from April 2016:
Once more it is very hard to explain this away with the Lorenz force only. By all mathematical standards the Lorentz force is continuous when it comes to electron velocity and the applied magnetic field.
What we observe with this old 12 € television is that the electrons behave not that way; they behave discontinuous…
After a little bit of thinking I decided to open another page on magnetic, mostly the tiny fact that electrons carry magnetic charge and are not magnetic dipoles, covering stuff as it is found in the year 2018.
Of course I will not push that idea for an infinite amount of time but this is about year number four and I still like it to look into the details of all things wrong with the official version of electron spin.
Likely this year will be as the previous years; total 100% silence from all physics professors, you can view that kind of behavior as a combination of being stupid and coward at the same time. This is known as a super position of cowardice and stupidity…
Also this year I will never ever try to attempt to write an official publication on the subject of electron spin, I still estimate the likelihood of rejection above 90% and on top of that I do not like it to be judged by some coward dumb ass.
No, the year 2018 is just another year of strong separation between me and all those university people.
__________
After having said that, here is the link to the new page three:
This year I posted four more reasons as why electrons cannot have magnetic dipole properties of their own, basically most stuff observed like the electron pair in chemical bonding is not based on two magnetic dipoles doing ‘mysterious stuff’ but the pair is a sole reflection of the fact the pair has opposite magnetic charges.
Here is a screen shot from where I am now:
A very short description of the content of the four new posted reasons:
Reason 53: It was observed that in the IBM attempts to craft so called magnetic racetrack memory, the domain walls could not be moved by magnetic fields in those nano structures. Very boldly I simply claimed that in all metals with magnetic domains, the domain walls contain (much) more electron pairs…
This was very bold but if you want to shoot my theory out of the sky, the professional professors have to prove that the magnetic properties of the unpaired electron are more or less the same as the electron pair while at the same time upholding the Gauss law for magnetism (no magnetic charges do exist).
Reason 54: The circular magnetic field around circular (copper) wires when they transport electrical current. In my view, dependent on the magnetic charge of the individual electrons they will spiral at the surface of the wire into two different kind of spirals.
Reason 55: If what the video says is true and this is how the electron spin valve works, that is one more contribution to the simple fact electrons carry magnetic charge. It all boils down to the idea that opposite charges attrack while like charges repel.
That is the way such spin valves work.
Reason 56: After watching a lot of so called ‘spin torque transfer’ video’s I was so completely fed up with these people who only do theoretical blah blah blah but never ever in their lives as perfumed princes touch things like a screwdriver, I decided to do a simple experiment that debunkes a lot of that theoretical ‘spin torque transfer’.
Here is picture number two of my very simple experiment that shows there is no spin torque tranfer observed in a time frame of about 25 hours:
It is not observed: The strongest magnets possible in this year against the weakest macroscopic magnet still in my possesion, no spin torque transfer observed…..
It has to be remarked that the physics folks are very persistant to keep on trying to find the so called Dirac monopole. How this has come to be is still a miracle to me. After all if the electron has one electric charge and for the rest it is a magnetic dipole, it would look naturally to look for a particle that is a magnetic monopole and an electric dipole at the same time…
But I have never heard about such an investigation, it is only the Dirac magnetic monople and that’s it.
Here is a quote from sciencenews dot org:
If even a single magnetic monopole were detected, the discovery would rejigger the foundations of physics. The equations governing electricity and magnetism are mirror images of one another, but there’s one major difference between the two phenomena. Protons and electrons carry positive and negative electric charges, respectively, but no known particle has a magnetic charge. A magnetic monopole would be the first, and if one were discovered, electricity and magnetism would finally be on equal footing.
Comment on the quote: Because in my view I consider the electrons having one electrical charge and one of two magnetic charges, I think we have a nice equal footing of electricity and magnetism… (End of the comment.)
__________
Back to CERN and stuff. Last month it came out that the MoEDAL experiment has failed in the sense that no magnetic monopoles were observed. Here is a small screenshot from the preprint archive stuff:
Comment: No idea what these people are talking about when they talk about 68.5 times the electric charge… Are they talking about electric charge or magnetic charge?
(End of comment)
detector in 2.11 fb−1 of 13 TeV proton-proton collisions at the LHC.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.09849.pdf
After a bit of searching I found back this beautiful video, coming from CERN, explaining how to find magnetic monopoles. It is clear they never ever studied the electron.
Yeah yeah my dear average CERN related human; what exactly is a magnetic monopole?
Does it have electric charge too and why should that be?
In my view where the electrons carry both electric and magnetic charge, a magnetic monopole with zero electric charge just does not exist.
__________
Ok, let me bring this post to an end by observing that at CERN they were not capable in the year 2017 of detecting the magnetic monopole as it should exist following the lines of thinking like Paul Dirac once did.
So that is a good thing because after thinking about four years about magnetism it would be horrible for me to find that at CERN they had a major discovery about magnetic monopoles…
Sorry CERN folks, your failure to find magnetic monopoles your way does not prove that electrons are indeed carrying magnetic charge. It just makes it a little bit more plausible that they do…
So my dear CERN folks, thanks for publishing your failure because for me it is another tiny quantum move into the direction of accepting the electron as it is.
Yesterday I finally looked into the so called Majorana equation and it is easy to find where the Dutch universities have gone wrong. At the technical universities in Delft and Eindhoven they use electrons together with a hole that supposedly has a positive electrical charge so that the overall combination of electron and hole is electrically neutral.
And it is very easy to explain: If I am in the right and electrons also carry magnetic charge, the above constellation of an electron and a hole is not magnetically neutral like, for example, the Cooper pairs of electrons in super conductivity.
They want unpaired electrons because the Cooper pairs live there in the nano wire where the super conductivity is so they do not consider an electron pair together with two holes because that is both magnetic and electrically neutral…
No, I do not think that in Delft they found the elusive Majorana fermion. But time will tell because if this way of quantum computing will keep on failing or never get anywhere, I can use that as a future reason of why electrons cannot be magnetic dipoles.
Here is a wiki about the Majorana equation, already at equation number 2 I am lost in the woods because the mass m suddenly goes to the other term in the equation.
And here is a short video from Youtube where the technical university of Eindhoven explains how they will try to prove the existence of the Majorana fermion as a quasi particle. The video is from 23 August 2017, that is only four and a half months ago.
From the wiki we have this information, what the differential operator with the ‘Feynman slash’ does is actually not important at all. The nice thing here is to understand what they try of find here:
A particle (or a collection of particles, the quasi particles) where all charge is compensated. Apperently the mass related to charge comes in with opposite charge and indeed if you can find solutions to such a wave equation you might hope to find it one day.
Yet in Delft and Eindhoven they hang on to the opinion that electrons are magnetic dipoles and as such they never had a need to put the ‘anti part’ of the magnetic dipole into the problem…
That was more or less what I had to say about the Majorana equation.
Of course I also wish you a happy new year! Till updates.
Already for a few years the folks at the university of Delft are trying to make a quantum computer. They even teamed up with Microsoft and as memory serves the Dutch government is investing about 100 million € over the course of 10 years.
Only recently I dived into that Delft stuff and the spokeswoman from Microsoft was even talking about a Nobel prize for Leo Kouwenhoven because he seemed to have discovered so called Majorana fermions.
And I just felt sooooo proud that my fellow Dutch guy Leo who is sooooo ultrasmart would have a chance of winning such a prestigious prize like the Nobel prize. I will never get a Nobel prize for my stupid finding of the magnetic monopoles, come on that is not important because I am not a university person and Leo is a full blown physics professor.
After having said that it is nice to observe that the Delft team is trying to craft quantum computer with qubits made from Majorana fermions. So what are Majorana fermions because they have never been found since a guy named Ettore Majorana speculated about stuff like that in 1937? Well these are fermions that are their own anti particle.
It is well known that when you have a particle with a particular charge, the anti particle must have the opposite charge. Now our Leo Kouwenhoven genius from the Delft university is putting an electron into entanglement with an electron hole and as such it has no electrical charge if the electron hole has a positive electrical charge.
Furthermore since an electron entangled with a hole is only like half a fermion they cannot exist on their own so our genius folks from Delft figured out that two of those quasi particles would form a Majorana fermion.
Here is a Youtube video of about one hour long where our super hero Leo explains it all:
Majorana Fermions: Particle Physics on a Chip- Leo Kowenhoven – May 28 2015
Anyway, to make a long story short:
The Majorana particles as found by the heroic members of the Dutch university of Delft have a tiny problem: the electrons carry also magnetic charge beside the electrical charge. So a quasi particle made up of an electron and an electron hole cannot have the Majorana property of being it’s own anti particle…
So my estimation is rather simple: As long as the Delft hero’s keep on ignoring that electrons carry also magnetic charge, they will not succeed. On the contrary they will fail and very likely they will keep on failing because they are university people.
Too much money and too much titles & prestige, why should they change and get a more realistic view on quantum computing?
Before we split, here is a wiki on Majorana fermions. For me it is new that when a fermion is it’s own anti particle the wave function is real valued and not complex valued. As a take away you can also conclude that the Delft hero’s also got the wave function of the electron and electron hole completely wrong. Just like all those people in the science of chemistry who cannot model even the hydrogen molecule properly. So the chemistry people say ‘We need quantum computers’ and Leo Kouwenhoven says ‘I have great ideas in topological quantum computing!’
In my view these people are all crazy, but here is the wiki stuff on Majorana fermions:
In a nice article there are three people explaining, for example, electron spin. The reason to post this here is because they are in climbing order of stupidity and explainer number three gives a total retarded explanation.
Recall once more that the name electron spin is one hundred percent misleading because of what we know of the size of the electron it should certainly be rotating much faster than the speed of light even if all electrical charge was concentrated on the equator of the electron.
I hope that by now my dear reader you know that I think electrons carry beside electrical charge also magnetic charge and as such they come in two flavours:
1) Electrons with a negative electrical charge and a north magnetic charge and;
2) Electrons with a negative electrical charge and a south magnetic charge.
Because particles with mass cannot mover faster than the speed of light, all explanations based on the electron spinning are wrong by definition. Therefore it is often said that electrons (and also protons and neutrons) have so called intrinsic spin so the rotation problem can be avoided.
It has to be remarked once more that this is about the fourth year I am writing about electrons having magnetic charge and that as such they are the long sought magnetic monopoles, but until now I have zero reactions from only one of those professional physics professors… That abundantly shows how dumb they actually are and that there is little use in trying to write a real publication because it is still totally impossible to pass the so called ‘peer review barrier’. I mean; read the quotes I will post from these three people as found in the Scientific American and suppose they would be the ones that do the peer review of my article. What would happen?
Very simple: It will be rejected.
Let’s get started, here is the title and link to the small article in the Scientific American:
“Unfortunately, the analogy breaks down, and we have come to realize that it is misleading to conjure up an image of the electron as a small spinning object. Instead we have learned simply to accept the observed fact that the electron is deflected by magnetic fields. If one insists on the image of a spinning object, then real paradoxes arise; unlike a tossed softball, for instance, the spin of an electron never changes, and it has only two possible orientations. In addition, the very notion that electrons and protons are solid ‘objects’ that can ‘rotate’ in space is itself difficult to sustain, given what we know about the rules of quantum mechanics. The term ‘spin,’ however, still remains.”
Comment: From the macroscopic world we do not observe much ‘deflection’ of, let’s say, bar magnets in the presence of other magnets and magnetic fields. If electrons really were magnetic dipoles, because electrons are so small all magnetic forces would cancel out and we would never observe deflection.
And if Morton Tavel would have done some calculations or estimations, it is extremely hard for electrons to get deflected by non-constant magnetic fields. On the contrary, you need magnetic fields with a gradient of millions of Tesla’s per meter in order to accelerate the electron with only one meter per second squared…
No idea is smarthead Morton Tavel will ever read these words I write about him, but in reason number 50 I did such an estimation. Here is the link:
Let’s proceed with the second physics professional, his name is Kurt T. Bachmann and here is the quote from the wisdom he has to share:
“Starting in the 1920s, Otto Stern and Walther Gerlach of the University of Hamburg in Germany conducted a series of important atomic beam experiments. Knowing that all moving charges produce magnetic fields, they proposed to measure the magnetic fields produced by the electrons orbiting nuclei in atoms. Much to their surprise, however, the two physicists found that electrons themselves act as if they are spinning very rapidly, producing tiny magnetic fields independent of those from their orbital motions. Soon the terminology ‘spin’ was used to describe this apparent rotation of subatomic particles.
“Spin is a bizarre physical quantity. It is analogous to the spin of a planet in that it gives a particle angular momentum and a tiny magnetic field called a magnetic moment.
Comment: It is important to know that the original SG experiment was done with evaporated silver ions, this beam of silver ions was split in two parts by just a few unpaired electrons. If the professionals would do the calculations they would find this cannot be explained by inhomogeneous magnetic fields. The fact that no one says this makes clear they have never done the calculations needed…
That is the same as a carpenter that refuses to use the handsaw when needed or simply states: I do not need a screw driver, I just talk to these screws until the matter is resolved. Normally the carpenter would get fired but all those physics professors are glued to their seats living in ‘academic freedom’.
__________
The third person is truly 100% crazy, the term ‘intrinsic spin’ for the electron was used in order to avoid the problems with the spinning of an electron. And what does this weirdo named Victor J. Stenger make from this? Quoting this idiot:
“Spin is the total angular momentum, or intrinsic angular momentum, of a body. The spins of elementary particles are analogous to the spins of macroscopic bodies. In fact, the spin of a planet is the sum of the spins and the orbital angular momenta of all its elementary particles. So are the spins of other composite objects such as atoms, atomic nuclei and protons (which are made of quarks).
“In classical physics, angular momentum is a continuous variable. In quantum mechanics, angular momenta are discrete, quantized in units of Planck’s constant divided by 4 pi. Niels Bohr proposed that angular momentum is quantized in 1913 and used this to explain the line spectrum of hydrogen.
Comment: This is so utterly stupid it is hard to comment upon. By talking about intrinsic angular momentum he only shows that he thinks the electron is spinning. So he is a nutjob for sure.
Ok, end of this post without pictures but with three idiots as found in the Scientific American. Now some people might think I better be a little bit more diplomatic but from 1992 until 2012 I was very very diplomatic about higher dimensional number and thought that if you give people time enough that in the end they will do the right thing.
Two decades of diplomacy are gone, now I know that when confronted with idiots you better explain why they are idiots…
This week I posted reason number 51 and 52 on the other website in the magnetic pages , page 1 contains 41 reasons and is from 2015 & 2016. Page 2 is covering what I wrote this year on the subject.
Very often when professional physics professors start explaining electron spin they do blah blah blah like the earth is spinning around it’s axis and also spinning around the sun. This is a retarded explanation because the strength of the magnetic stuff related to the electron cannot be explained by the electron spinning around it’s axis.
Now I was watching a few video’s from Microsoft where they explain the subject of topological quantum bits. The Dutch based university of Delft is also participating in that project of making topological quantum bits and the researchers from Delft are thinking they have found a quasi particle named the Majorana particle. This Majorana particle seems to be it’s own anti-particle and according to Leo Kouwenhoven such a quasi particle is comprised of a hole and an electron…
The fact they claim this stuff is it’s own anti particle struck me as odd, it is well known that if a particle meets it’s anti particle the result is a violent annihilation of both particles and it is very very hard to imagine that if two holes and two electrons meet there will be violence…
Anyway this made me think of what actually happens when in those high energy particle physics experiments like in CERN we observe the creation of an electron and a positron. The positron is the anti particle of the electron.
And even in such an elementary thing it makes no sense the electron is a magnetic dipole. It might look logical that if one particle has spin up the other created particle must have spin down.
But if we assume there is spinning around an axis, both the electron and the positron must rotate into the same direction, this is a direct violation of the principle of conservation of angular momentum.
So if electron spin is spinning around some axis and we want to preserve the total amount of angular momentum, they should be spinning in opposite directions but that would create two equal magnetic spins and that is also nonsense.
But if you assume that electrons and positrons carry beside electric charge also magnetic charge, all of a sudden the creation of the electron-positron pair becomes much more logical:
If the freshly created electron has north pole magnetic charge, the positron will have south pole magnetic charge…
That makes sense while the professional physics standard explanation does not make sense. Here is a link to the stuff involved in reason number 51:
Reason number 52 covers the fact that the Juno probe around Jupiter has observed that in the aurora’s on Jupiter the electrons also seem to be coming from the atmosphere of Jupiter. That would not be a problem if there were some electrical fields to move the electrons, tiny problem is those electrical fields seem to be missing often.
So all those so called professional physics professors have it straight in their face: how do those electrons get accelerated. I think it is the magnetic fields from Jupiter that do this, just like on the sun and so but before our precious ppp’s will arrive at the same conclusion we will be many centuries later… (Or not?)
In the next picture you can see how this was told in the news as you can find it on Youtube channels like Scishow (often more show than science but anyway they serve some part of the public).
Oh oh Catlin Hofmeister, they are not pulled up but expelled by the magnetic field of Jupiter… Reason number 52:
In the previous post where I tried to demonstrate that it is impossible to accelerate electrons via exposing them to non-uniform magnetic fields contains a tiny error of 1/2.
I did forget to multiply the Bohr magneton with the electron spin number of 1/2.
Is this a serious problem? Not for me, because now the magnetic dipole moment of the electron is halved you need double the gradient of the applied magnetic field. So we need a spatial gradient of only 10 million Tesla per meter in order to accelerate the electron by 1/10 of the gravitational force here on earth.
I have decided to leave the pictures in the previous update unchanged because if a fault of forgetting a factor of 1/2 leads to a rejection by so called professional physics professors, that only shows these people are garbage to begin with.
Here is the correction that I will not show in the previous post:
Lately I viewed a video of some folks who did throw a bureau chair into a medical MRI machine of 3 or 6 Tesla stationary magnetic field. The magnetic field of the MRI machine pulled at the chair with a force of about 1000 kg (ok that would be 10 thousand Newton).
Just imagine what a magnetic field with a gradient of 10 million Tesla would do…
And on top of that, in the original Stern-Gerlach experiment it were not loose unpaired electrons that did get accelerated but silver ions that are many thousands times more massive as our poor unpaired electron that makes the entire silver ion moving…
So instead of 10 million Tesla / meter, 10 billion Tesla per meter should be more reasonable in order to explain the results of the Stern-Gerlach experiment from the year 1922. (That is if you base your theories on the assumption that elementary particles like electrons cannot be magnetic monopoles.)
End of this correction, please take your time in order to understand the content of the previous post because that is much more important! Till updates.
This post is based on a video from Dr. Brant Carlson who is talking about a spin half particle in a magnetic field. I have selected this video because Mr. Carlson is rather good at explaining the stuff so although I hefty disagree with most of his conclusions this post should not be viewed as some kind of character attack on Mr. Carlson.
Let me first give you the video, you can watch it now or later.
Spin 1/2 in a B field:
This post is just about two details;
1) Is electron spin conserved yes or no?
2) The lack of insight Mr. Carlson shows while discussing the Stern-Gerlach experiment.
Let’s start with 1) Is electron spin conserved?
If you read some wiki’s about the Stern-Gerlach experiment you often come across the repeated measurements of electron spin. There are of course infinitely many ways to measure electron spin if it were a vector but the professionals only do it in three directions known as x, y and z.
It is important to never forget all those measurements are done during the application of a vertical magnetic field, the vertical magnetic field is there all the time and within that boundary condition they derive the properties of the spin operators that measure spin into the x and y axis directions.
When you read about the Stern-Gerlach experiment it is often stated that if you measure spin in the vertical direction, half of the electrons go up and the other half go down.
If after that you make a measurement into the x or y direction of the up electrons, once more the beam of electrons will split 50/50.
If after that you make a new z-axis direction measurement, once more it will split into 50% up and 50% down states of the electron.
To put it simple: There can not be conservation of electron spin if a second measurement rams half of the electrons into another spin state… Anyway this is what the official generally accepted knowledge strongly suggests: if changing the applied magnetic field pushes electrons out of their previous state it looks like there is no conservation of electron spin.
From the beginning of the video in the next picture you see the so called Pauli matrices and the two Pauli matrices for the x and y direction have interesting eigenvectors:
These eigenvectors suggest a super position of the two eigenvectors into the z-axis direction and very important:
If you square the probability amplitudes you always get 50%.
This is a theoretical result, I have never found any experimental proof validating these theoretical considerations. Here is the picture that is a screen shot from the beginning of the video:
So if Sz is already measured, suppose it is plus h bar over 2, if after that Sx is measured and it is minus h bar over 2, is spin conserved?
I would say no, but I think the electron has one of two possible magnetic charges and with charge it does not matter in what kind of direction you measure it.
The professional physics professors think that electron spin in the z-axis direction is independent of any direction perpendicular to the z-axis direction. So they will argue that it is irrelevant what the outcome of Sx is because the spin in the z-axis direction will be conserved because it is angular momentum…
As I see it, repeated measurement of electron spin in orthogonal directions should always give the same result. But there are serious problems with an experiment like that:
1) It should be done inside a cage of Faraday because em-radiation reacts with the electrons, 2) It should be done in a vacuum because the electron beam should not interfere with the electrons in the air molecules.
If done properly, in my view you should always measure the same spin for the electron.
So far the pondering if electron spin is conserved, one thing is clear: the last word is not spoken on that detail.
Detail 2 is about the staggering lack of insight Mr. Carlson shows upon that very important experiment: the Stern-Gerlach experiment. The weird thing in this experiment is the fact that half of the unpaired electrons go into the direction of the stronger part of the inhomogeneous magnetic field while the other half goes into the direction of the weaker part.
When I first learned about the SG experiment I was completely puzzled by the fact the electron went into the direction of the weaker part of the magnetic field.
Here is a picture of the Stern-Gerlach experiment, one of the faults that so many physics people expose is that it are ‘silver atoms’. But it is silver vapour and that is over 2000 degrees Celsius. Also silver is a diamagnetic material; at present day we know that if a metal has no unpaired electrons it is diamagnetic and as such repels magnetic fields very weakly… (Cute detail: the electron pairs in a diamagnetic material start to spin in such a way that the outside magnetic field is partly offset, but it does not fade away and as such the spinning electron pair is the smallest scale super conductivity possible. Even at room temperature…)
By the way, silver has 47 protons so there should be one unpaired electron in a neutral silver atom.
One of the problems with electrons being a magnetic dipole is that the electron pair is also a magnetic dipole but there are huge differences between the behaviour of diamagnetic materials (containing only electron pairs) and para & ferro magnetic materials that have unpaired electrons.
Since in the original Stern-Gerlach experiment the beam of silver ions was split in 2 we can conclude that it is likely that only one unpaired electron was responsible for this to happen. To understand the result a bit; the nucleus of a silver atom or ion is about 108 thus 47 protons and 61 neutrons. Different isotopes might have another number of neutrons but anyway: the protons is about 1800+ times as heavy as the electron so one unpaired electron moves the mass of a silver nucleus that is about 108 times 1800 or about 200 thousand times the mass of the electron.
Now why should electrons move to the weaker part of the applied magnetic field?
You always hear explanations like the Larmor frequency that makes the electrons that are anti aligned with the applied magnetic field that prevent them from alignment with the magnetic field.
I think that these Larmor frequencies are much more like a tiny ball on an elastic string, just like electrons can vibrate under the application of an electric field.
If true, in my view only electrons that are part of an atom/molecule or ion will produce this so called Larmor frequency while if you put a magnetic field on a plasma nothing will happen…
Here is a nice picture of some stuff with spin 5/2, that means there are five unpaired electrons. By the way, did you notice that the official professional professors just add up the electron spin like it is a charge and not a vector?
But the official theory says electron spin should be viewed as a tiny vector…
Anyway, in the picture you see that as the applied magnetic field increases one by one the electrons start vibrating. In my view this suggests that at a particular strength of the B field the electron comes loose and vibrates a short time as a tiny ball on an elastic string.
Source of this lovely picture: Electron Paramagnetic Resonance EPR
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Electron+Paramagnetic+Resonance+EPR
The main problem is still not solved: Why do the electrons in the Stern-Gerlach experiment go into the direction of the weaker parts of the inhomogeneous magnetic field???
Why do these magnetic dipoles not turn in order to get attracted by the stronger parts of the magnetic field?
In my view this is because the electron is not a magnetic dipole but a particle that carries a north or a south magnetic charge.
How does Dr. Brant Carlson explain this very strange behaviour of the unpaired electron?
From the video of Dr. Carlson we observe that for inhomogeneous magnetic fields the classical way of calculating the force on a (macroscopic) magnet is given by:
This is easy to understand: The mu is the dipole moment of lets say a bar magnet, B is the applied external magnetic field. If I remember it correctly you should take the inner product against the gradient of B but let not put salt on all snails.
With the above mechanism Dr. Brant wants to explain as why just one electron can pull an entire silver ion from it’s original trajectory. But an electron is very very tiny, it is about 10 to the minus 15 in size. Let us give Dr. Brant the benefit of doubt and suppose the dipole distance in the electron is 10 times the size of the electron or 10 to the power minus 14.
This tiny distance gives rise to almost no difference in magnetic field strength yet the lonely unpaired electron moves the silver ion that is about 200 thousand time as heavy as the electron is.
May be the professional physics professors believe this, but I don’t.
The electron is just too small to give a significant change in the path of the silver ion…
At 28 minutes and 55 seconds in the video I completely loose the line of reasoning as done by Dr. Carlson; we only see some blah blah blah with exponential circles from the complex plane while the main problem that the tiny electron makes a significant change in the path of the silver ion is completely skipped.
Here is scientific disaster in a small screenshot:
Also in this point in time in the video Dr. Brant Carlson mentions the spins into the x and y directions; he claims that the spin relaxation into those directions is so short lived that it does not have any influence…
According to how I view the magnetic stuff as being a charge on the electron, it does not matter if the electron goes through a homogeneous magnetic field or some erratic inhomogeneous magnetic field. If the electron carries a south magnetic charge it will always be attracted to the north pole of the applied magnetic field.
So that is answer 1 to the four questions our brave Dr. Carlson is asking us at the end of this video:
Yeah yeah, check your understanding…
__________
In the next part of this post we are going to use the formula for the force on a magnetic dipole in a non-uniform magnetic field as given by Dr. Brant Carlson above. In order to keep stuff as simple as possible I will multiply the magnetic moment of the electron against the gradient of the magnetic field while demanding the electrons are accelerated with a speed of 1 meter per second every second.
The conclusion is relatively staggering: The gradient of the applied magnetic field must be about five million Tesla in order to get only 10% of the gravitational force on the electron.
It becomes even more staggering if you remark that in the original Stern-Gerlach experiment the moved silver ions are about 200 thousand times as heavy as one unpaired electron. So the applied magnetic field should be also about 200 thousand times as big giving something that likely is not living inside this universe.
Technical details:
1) I used an electron size of 10 to the power -15 meter and
2) I used a dipole magnetic field around the electron that is 10 times as long so 10 to the power -14 meter.
If you do that, the outcome is a staggering gradient of 5 million Tesla per meter so one thing is very very clear: The acceleration as observed in the original Stern-Gerlach experiment from the year 1922 cannot explained by using an unpaired electron having a bipolar magnetic field…
The whole calculation is just two pictures long:
The conclusion is majestic:
If we want the electron to have only an acceleration of one tenth of the earth gravity field while using electron dimensions 10 to the minus 15 and the magnetic field of the electron about 10 times as bit, in that case you need the extreme gradient of five million Tesla per meter…
I was very amazed by this result I found three days back, but I checked and checked my calculations, did I do something wrong or so? Yet I cannot find any fault, furthermore we have to take into account that the professional physics people like Dr. Brant Carlson and thousands and thousands of this colleagues never ever show a calculation like this.
Five million Tesla is so far off the scale, here on earth the strong magnetic field as for example used in MRI scanning in hospitals are about 3 to at most 6 Tesla. We can safely conclude that the acceleration of electrons by magnetic fields in not caused by the supposed electron dipole moment.
For myself speaking I am glad I finally did this easy calculation and I have to thank Dr. Brant Carlson for making this video as shown above because that detail made me irritated enough to finally make the calculation. I am always a bit hesitant when it comes to physical calculation because they are not my first nature, math is often much more simple to me while with physics you also have to keep an eye if your SI units fit properly and so on.
The word count of this post is now over 2200 words, most of the time I try to limit the word count of a post to about 500 words so this is a very long post relative to that.
Lets call it the end and till updates my dear reader.
The last week I have been working on one of those many video’s out there about spin half particles. To be precise it is a video from a guy named Brant Carlson and at the end this guy comes up once more with a way of calculating the force on a dipole magnet in a non-uniform magnetic field.
I had seen stuff like that before but never tried to make the actual calculation, but yesterday I made it finally and the result was just so bizarre that I just checked and checked over where I made some stupid error.
But I cannot find any error in my easy to understand calculations, so what did I do?
Dipole magnets can have a net force on them in a non-uniform magnetic field because the force on the north pole can differ from that on the south pole.
So I just said: I want the acceleration of the electron to be 1 so only 1/10 of the gravitation force. I used an electron size of 10 to the power -15 and a size of the dipole magnetic field around the electron 10 times as big so 10 to the power -14.
The answer is staggering: For an acceleration of one extra meter per second you need a gradient in the applied magnetic field of about 5 million Tesla per meter. This is totally crazy, as a comparison most MRI machines in hospitals use a magnetic field of 3 to at most 6 Tesla.
Furthermore in the original Stern-Gerlach experiment it were silver ions that were accelerated and a silver atom or ion is about 200 thousand times as heavy as one electron. So in order to get the same acceleration you need a magnetic gradient of about one trillion Tesla per meter…
All in all it looks like a have another perfect reason as why electrons cannot be magnetic dipoles. So that is a good thing.
__________
In the meantime I want to make another advertisement for the next video of about one hour long that is a good oversight upon this very important experiment from the year 1922.
The Stern-Gerlach experiment is so important because I have found out that almost one year later the professional physics professors still do not have a clue about what is happening in that experiment.
And from the beginning the understanding of the outcome of this experiment was a disaster. The Stern & Gerlach folks even thought they discovered spatial quantization…
And Stern later became the first assistant to Einstein, yet Einstein never understood the outcome of the experiment either because if an electron carries both an electric and a magnetic charge this has great influence on understanding light and other em-radiation.
If in the morning you look into a mirror to see your pretty face, all light gets mirrored by the free electrons in the metal that makes up the mirror. But if electrons have two magnetic poles, the magnetic parts of the em-radiation cannot react with the electron and no photon would get mirrored…
Anyway, here is the good but long oversight video once more:
Ok, lets leave it with that for the time being. I think that in a few days time the next relatively long post will be ready. So see you around!
