It took an amazing amount of time to finish this post. When I started it you could still bike in the city with your shorts on. And now it is freezing cold at the start of winter. I posted over 220 posts on this website but I never experienced such a long lasting writers block on my behalf.
I think the start was much to impulsive, mostly I take more time before I pick a subject for the next post. This time I did not do that and soon I ran into writers regret: Why did I start this BS that is far to complicated to explain in a few lines of writing?
Even the beginning is dumb to do: It makes the reader think it is something solely on that space and it’s unit ball. And that dumb deed alone is a misrepresentation of what the weird root formula is about.
Anyway it is what it is and may be it is a good thing to show you that I can be very impulsive to. And in the science of math that is not a good thing.
Since it has been a while I posted the last post on the matrix version of our beloved theorem of Pythagoras, readers who are new must use the search function on the website or just look into the category ‘Pythagoras stuff’. The matrix version of the Pythagoras theorem is not that hard to formulate but hard to prove. It goes like this:
Given some n x d matrix A made up of d columns, if the d columns are linearly independent this defines or represents a d-dimensional parallelapiped. What can be said about the d-dimensional volume, or better the square of this volume? It seems that the matrix A has lots of d x d minor matrices and if you take the determinant of these minors, square them they will add up to the desired square of the volume of A.
As you see: The result is not that hard to understand while our small human brain has trouble to cough up 20 proofs in 40 minutes.
The key idea of the weird root formula is that you can apply an alternative way of calculating determinants: Multiplying determinants of minors against determinant of their so called complement. So for the matrix A that should give it’s d-dimensional volume.
But if you expand the matrix A with an extra column perpendicular to all columns of A, say you get AP_1 and of course you normalize P_1 to length 1, you can repeat the whole thing on the expanded matrix. This goes on until the matrix A has been made a square matrix that I denote as AP. In this post I use the notation (AP) for the square matrix so you must never view AP as the product of two matrices or so because that is not what it is…
This post if four pictures long but it has to be remarked I skipped how to find that +/- scheme you need for calculating determinants this way.
So after all this time this Pythagoras stuff is published. All in all it is a cute idea, that weird root formula can be applied not only to that starting matrix A but also on every extension with extra perpendicular columns.
In the last seven years it has taken me a long time to arrive at the conclusion that electron spin is a permanent property of electrons. The only place in this universe where electrons get their spin flipped is in the head of physics professors. For new readers: The last years I work from the hypothesis that electrons are magnetic monoples but every now and then I still try to kill that idea. But I always fail, in the end the electrons having a monopole magnetic charge always wins it from models like the ‘tiny magnet’ model for electrons. Why took it so long for me to finally accept this ‘permanent’ status of electron spin or as I say it: electron magnetic charge? Well there are a lot of video’s out there where people from physics explain how they flip electron spin while building quantum computers. At the end I post a long video from a guy named Lieven Vandersypen who works at the Technical University in Delft. Now I do not hate these people but when I say for seven years on a row ‘Where is you experimental proof that electrons are indeed tiny magnets?’. If seven years on a row just nothing happens over there we can safely conclude that Mr. Vanderlieven is just another UI. And an UI is a person that is an Ultimate Idiot or if you want an Ultra Ignorant.
In the theory of quantum mechanics before a measurment is done, it is assumed that a quantum particle is in a superposition of all possible states the quantum particle can be in.
Physics professors think that all electrons are the same and as such it has to be that before the measurement of the electron spin it is always in a superposition of spin up and spin down.
Remark this is very different from what I think: If the monopole magnetic charge is permanent, repeated measurments should always give the same magnetic charge. Just like measuring the electric charge of an electron always returns that is has one unit of negative electric charge…
In the present hype of building quantum computers, almost 100% of the physics people think that it is possible that the electron is in some super position of spin up and spin down. I think this is not possible because we are having two different kind of electrons in this universe. If true you can wonder how far astray physics has driven from reality; in the next screen shot you see Mr. Vandersypen wonder what kind of qubit is the best for quantum computing. He says that they have been wondering for years what basic configuation of electron spins as qubits is the best. They think that every electron can be in a super position of spin up and spin down. On top of that if you have an electron pair they think it is in a super position of spin up-down with spin down-up, that is that Bell stuff.
If my view on electron spin is correct, all these approaches in quantum computing will never work. Here is how these fantasies look:
Now have you ever heard of an electron triple like in the right of the above picture? Why are there only electron pairs or unpaired electrons found in nature? That is because electrons are magnetic monopoles and that is why the electron pair is magnetically neutral while the unpaired electron is not magnetically neutral.
Compare that to the electric charge of the hydrogen atom. All in all it is neutral because the electric charges cancel each other out. So you can’t accelerate atomic hydrogen with electric fields until the electric field gets so strong it rips apart the hydrogen atoms. So why are electrons accelerated by magnetic fields and electron pairs not? After all if the electrons are ‘tiny magnets’ are they not supposed to be neutral when it comes of magnetic fields?
The title of this post says I have to give you some reasons as why electron spin or magnetic charge is permanent. So lets try a bit:
Reason 1) The official version of electron spin is that if you measure it in one direction, say the direction of an x-axis in a 3D coordinate system, that gives a reset for measuring electron spin in perpendicular directions say the y and z-axis. But any interaction with a magnetic field is a measurement in some direction. So these weirdo’s try to tell us that electron spin flips all the time because after all there are a lot of magnetic fields around us all the time. In the previous post I showed you the weird result that oxygen has a so called non-binding pair of electrons. That’s why it is magnetic. But molecular oxygen O2 is stable, if you apply magnetic fields to it no spin reset is observed. The non-binding pair does not change and all other electron pairs also don’t do weird stuff and the oxygen molecule stays stable under application of all kinds of magnetic fields.
Reason 2) The (hyper, see correction and addendum at the end) fine spectral structure of atomic hydrogen. There are very small differences in energy levels of the electrons in atomic hydrogen. The official version is that the electron spin and nuclear spins are aligned or anti-aligned. Of course it is never explained how an electrons supposedly going around the nucleus with high speed maintains it’s alignment… In my view where electron and proton spin are just magnetic charges, it is all blazingly simple: there must be four variants of atomic hydrogen when it comes to spin. Proton spin up or down combined with an electron with spin up or down. When both proton and electron have the same spin, the electron will be in that slightly higher energy level. And if the spins in atomic hydrogen are opposite, the electron has a bit lower energy because after all magnetic opposite monopoles attract.
Reason 3) A very interesting observation of the ESO (European Southern Observatory), it is about sun spots and different sun spots give different circular photons in the light coming from those sun spots. I have to collect more evidence that circular photons with opposite circular polarization are produced by electrons with opposite spins. But once more it has it’s own logic to it: If electrons are magnetic monopoles it is rather logical that the photons they produce have their magnetic fields shifted by 180 degrees. It is just like in the simple complex exponential from the complex plane: e^it = cos(t) + i*sin(t). As we all know this turns counter clockwise, now if we shift the sine by 180 degrees we get cos(t) – i*sin(t) and as we all know this rotates clockwise. This post is not meant for all the details that go into sun spots; it is more that after seven years of searching it is impossible to kill the idea that electrons are magnetic monopoles. It is a pity that physics professors are just dumb as hell when they say that electrons are ‘tiny magnets’ without any fucking experimental proof for such bold claims. The problem those people have is that they even think it is not a problem there is no such expemental proof. So these weirdo’s build giant theoretical structures like spin waves without proving the very fundamentals of their own science.
But lets not get emotional about the giant stupidity of physics professors, they even explain the giant magneto effect in a highly complicated way and that is funny. You can’t say they are scientists, at best they are weirdo’s trying to craft a theory of everything and of course such theories are all bullshit if electron spin is not done properly. Here is the ESO picture:
The leading sun spot should always have the same magnetic polarity just always… So it does not depend on the solar sun spot cycle.
It is about time to go to the video from Lieven Vandersypen and I have an extra video also from TU Delft where they explain the Majorana fermions. Relatively early in his video Lieven claims that there “Is nothing more a quatum bit than the spin of an electron.” Since in this post I try to explain that the only place in this universe where an electron flips it’s spin is in the head of physics professors like Lieven. It is impossible to have more contradiction as there is now between me Reinko and Lieven. In itself the video from Lieven is not that important, I only post it to show you one of those guys that believe electrons are tiny magnets while there is no experimental proof for that in the entire history of physics.
Video title: Lieven Vandersypen: Quantum simulation and computation with quantum dots – “spins-inside”
By the way in case you are interested: Lieven was the guy that years ago factored the number 15 in 3 times 5 using Shor’s algorthim. At present day we are standing at a factorization of say 21 in 3 times 7.
Back about one decade ago over there at TU Delft they thought they had found so called Majorany particles. These are particles that supposedly are there own anti-particle. That is a funny idea; if two of the same Majorana particles meet they anihilate each other. Why nature would produce such strange things is unknown to me. But if that Majorana shit is also based on electrons being ‘tiny magnets’, wouldn’t it be about time to try and prove via at least one experiment that electrons are tiny magnets?
Give me a break: university people actually using their brain? Please get a more realistic life…
Warning: This is not science! Keep away from children!
That was it for this post, once more since last year I do not try any longer to convince anybody that electrons are not tiny magnets. If the weirdo’s from Delft want tiny magnets if they look at electron behavior, what’s the problem with that? __________ Correction and addendum from 12 Dec: In reason 2 I named it ‘fine structure’ where it should read hyperfine structure of the hydrogen spectrum. So far for the correction. The addendum is a pdf from a 1958 article from the local university, the RUG. The old article is about spin flip in atomic hydrogen, it is about that famous 21 cm line in the hydrogen spectrum.
Now years ago when I was still very intimidated by big names like Mr. A. Einstein who had calculated the probability of a hydrogen atom to do the 21 cm transmission spontaneously. And who was I to say that electron spin was not a vector by a monopole magnetic charge and on top of that this charge was permanent just like the electric charge of an electron?
Back in time I had figured out that a collision with the right kind of electron of the right magnetic charge could also lead to this 21 cm emmision. The old electron of the hydrogen atom is simply replaced by a new one that binds in a somehow lower energy state.
To my surprise in the old article this is all covered in detail. If it is true that my idea of a permanent magnetic charge for the electron is correct, in that case 21 cm astronomy can more or less ‘see’ the galactic streams of electrons. After all if electrons are magnetic monopoles, the galactic magnetic fields play some role into what earth based astronomers see when they look at the 21 cm results.
In the next picture you can see the old text from 1958 while I use a new James Webb Space Telescope picture in the background:
It is funny that the local university has such an old article online…
Ok, left are a link to the pdf and the title of the old article:
Link used: https://www.astro.rug.nl/~saleem/courses/EoRCourse/Field1958.pdf
Ok now I promise you I will not place more updates or corrections on this post. It’s useless anyway, if I was impressed by Einstein just think about the consequences that has for physics professors… The weirdo’s will never stop thinking that you can flip the magnetic charge of an electron. They will never stop thinking you can flip electron spin.
I was watching a video about chiral chemistry and there it was explained that during the electrolysis of water if you coat the electrodes with some chiral coating, the efficiency is much higher. Now I was surprised but the explanation seems to be that oxygen has one so called non-binding electron pair. So that electron pair has two electrons with the same spin. Lately I found out that chiral molecules are able of electron spin selection, I have to admit I don’t understand just one tiny detail of how that works but on the other hand physics professors don’t understand electron spin. So compared to that I am doing fine. For readers who are relatively new: During the last 7 or 8 years I have been trying to kill the insight that electrons are magnetic monopoles. And all that difficult doing of the professional physics and chemistry professors is just plain crap. If electrons are magnetic monopoles, in that case it is of little use to describe the energy in terms of inner products of spin vectors. So a lot of physics models on magnetism are completely crap.
Anyway, oxygen is at first look totally not magnetic. But it seems that chemistry is not a total chaotic science at all because according to their moleluclar orbital theory it is explained that an O2 oxygen molecule has two unpaired electrons. See the next picture:
You can neglect that ‘Bond Order’ stuff.
You can think of many experimental designs in order to prove that electrons are magnetic monopoles. If my insights are correct, each and every O2 molecule must act as a magnetic monopole. That means if you apply the correct magnetic field, you can repel oxygen molecules and attract the same molecules if you flip the applied magnetic field.
If you remark that if oxygen molecules act as magnetic monopole molecules, the scientists would have found out that decades ago… But my dear reader that is not how the human mind works. If the belief is that magnetic monopoles do not exist, that causes the mind to be blind as why electrons or oxygen molecules behave as they do.
For example the electron pair is neutral when it comes to magnetic fields, how do the professional professors explain that? Well they say that the opposite magnetic fields cancel each other out. So why don’t they see they are telling crap? If the electron is a tiny magnet with a north and a south pole, isn’t that magnetically neutral to begin with? So why is the unpaired electron not magnetically neutral? At that point they begin telling stuff like ‘anti alignment’, the Pauli exclusion principle and most of all ‘quantum numbers’. It all doesn’t add up, it is crap.
That is what I had to say on this tiny detail: Likely each and every oxygen molecule with such a non binding electron pair in it will act as a magnetic monopole…
Quantum computing looks like a good idea when it comes to simulation of quantum stuff like chemical reactions. But if your basic assumption of electrons being ‘tiny magnets’ it will all run from the rails if in the future it is found out that electrons are magnetic monopoles just like they are electric monopoles. Lately I have been joking that the only place in the universe where electron spin gets flipped is inside the heads of our professional physics professors. I think there are two kinds of electrons, one with a magnetic north charge and the other with a magnetic south charge. For the time being I think this magnetic charge is permanent so there is no way or mechanism that turns a south charge electron in a north charged and vice versa. Doing chemistry on a computer on the level of individual electrons and nuclei consumes an awful lot of computer resources. To focus the mind say you have a molecule with 100 to 150 electrons and some nuclei. The Coulomb forces alone are hard to simulate. But the way the magnetic forces must be done with the ‘tiny magnet’ model for electron spin is even much more horrible; in principle you have to calculate 100 to 150 vectors representing the bipolar magnetism of the electron. So this is all horribly complicated. Yet if electrons are magnetic monopoles, calculating a simulation for the magnetic forces should be of the same order of computer recourses as the Coulomb forces. That still is not very appealing but it is less worse as the Google engineers do it for the most simple atom there is in our universe: The hydrogen molecule made of two protons and one electron pair (the pair has opposite magnetic charges my dear reader, that is more logical as ‘opposite spins’ or for that matter ‘quantum numbers’). The horror is that physics but also chemistry professors seem to think that in the electron pair every particle is in a super position of spin up and spin down. That is where that stuff like “If I separate the two quantum particles and I take one to the Andromeda galaxy and measure it’s spin in the vertical direction, instantantly the spin of the particle left behind will be the opposite“. And why don’t they never say that for a hydrogen atom? After all these are two quantum particles to but are these two particles that are both in a super position of their positive and negative electrical charges? Is the mass of both particles not defined but is either the proton mass or the electron mass? Most people will say that is mumbo jumbo. The next picture is from a video I will show you below, likely all these Google people think that electrons are tiny magnets. So that is an amzing amount of salary costs wasted year in year out.
The |10> and |01> refer to the super position of magnetic states.
The Google view on electron magnetism is very different from mine where I like to keep it simple by stating electrons are magnetic monopoles. But they can make it much more complicated without any reason at all, in the next picture you see one of those singlet states and the chemistry folks have found out that an electron pair is ‘non binding’ if the two electrons have the same spin. If they have the same spin they don’t bond? And non of the chemistry weirdo’s remark that in a permanent magnet the spins must point in the same direction to make some magnetic bonding… Why does nobody see this is all not very logical and that this ‘tiny magnet’ stuff is just not true because it leads to all kinds of contradictions? Why are they so fucking stupid?
Let’s proceed with the second screen shot ensemble:
The thing with the minus sign is the anti-bonding pair. These people are crazy because a monopole magnetic charge is far more simple and much more logical.
Lets try to hang in the Google video.
So much money and so low in brain capacity.
So far for this Google stuff. Luckily IBM is also very good at donating a coin of quantum wisdom. Lately we had a Noble prize in physics for faster than light quantum teleportation of quantum properties like photon properties… I am not saying all this Bell inequality stuff is impossible, all I am saying is an electron cannot be in a superposition of spin up and spin down because electrons carry a permanent magnetic charge.
The IBM video was so bad that it became funny and some kind of parody. Here is another superposition of screen shots.
Yesterday I did the same explanation on the other website and today I thought why not post that picture on this website too. Years ago when I met this giant effect for the first time I relatively soon figuered out that if my view on electrons as being magnetic monopoles is true, the giant magneto effect is one of the best examples of this. The giant magneto effect is important because this was the basis of making very small magnetic sensors and as such those old spinning hard disk in your computer could suddenly contain much more bits & bytes. So you might think that understanding electron spin is an important thing if it lays at the basis of so much technology. Yet important or not, the weirdo’s from the universities keep on talking about electron spin as it was a tiny magnet.
Anyway, the giant magneto effect is about the resistance an electrical current meets when passing through a multi-layered semi conductor material. If we assume that electrons are not fucking stupid tiny magnets but are always magnetic monopoles that never ‘flip’ their spin, all of a sudden things become logical. I have only one picture to show to you, it was the one I made yesterday and in the upper half of that picture it is supposed there is an electrical current, say electrons going from the left to the right.
The giant magneto resistance effect says that if the two outer layers have opposite magnetic directions, there is more electrical resistance…
Please remark this is logical if electrons are magnetic monopoles; if they meet two different magnetic charges about 100% of these electrons feel some kind of resistance. If the two magnetic layers have the same ‘orientation’ as they say, oops the electrical current is capped by at most 50%.
Let me ask the fucked up physics professors the next question: Can you please use you stupid ‘tiny magnet’ theory explaining why the electrons in the lower half of this picture meet more electrical resistance?
Likely you can’t and that is why you are fucking stupid.
Just like you are fucking stupid when you ‘explain’ why an electron pair must have opposite spin numbers. That is Pauli’s exclusion principle…
Well good luck my dear physics professors with being stupid. Is that the way your brain runs all of the time? I guess it is and it will be for many more years to come.
The last week I have been stuck in a writers block. I started writing on another post on the Pythagoras matrix version stuff and I just don’t know how to proceed. On the one hand I want to tell a cute so called ‘weird root formula’ while I want to avoid using that +/- scheme that is difficult to explain and has nothing to do with what I wanted to say.
May be I put the stuff I don’t want to talk about in a separate appendix or so. That sounded like a good idea two weeks ago but I’m still not working on it…
But it is about time for a new post and because my own Pythagoras stuff is glued to my writers block, the mathologer had a new video out about Pythagoras stuff the mathologer’s way. If you have seen vids from the mathologer before, you know he likes visual proofs to back up the math involved. The mathologer works very differently from me, I got hooked up to that matrix version earlier this year while he is doing stuff like trithagoras in a very cute manner.
Just a picture to kill the time.
The video is about half an hour long, just pick what you like or what you need and move on to other things. Digesting all stuff in a video from the mathologer always takes more time as the video is long! So you are not looking at just another insignificant idiot like me…;)
Take your time, it’s worth it.
The next video is from Michael Penn. Now Michael has that typical American attitude of putting out one video a day. Often they are not bad if you take into consideration this must be done every 24 hours. But his treatment of (x + y)^n = x^n + y^n is just horrible. If you look like Michael for solutions on the real line it is easy to understand this cannot work. Yet last year all my counter examples to the last theorem of Pierre de Fermat were always based on this (x + y)^n = x^n + y^n equation. Take for example the natural numbers modulo 35. In this simple case we already have a cute counter example to the last theorem of Pierre de Fermate, namely: 12^n = 5^n + 7^n mod 35.
Why did Michael choose this fucking stupid space of real numbers for this equation that is the basis of a lot of counter examples to the last theorem of Pierre de Fermat? May be the speed of new videos is a thing here.
The Royal Institution had a new video out from somebody of that Australian group that wants to build a quantum computer based on electron spin. The official version of electron and nuclear spin is that it is a tiny magnet, that is what I name the “tiny magnet model”. I think that is nonsense because this tiny magnet model leads to dozens and dozens of problems that are just not logical if electrons are in fact tiny magnets. The last years more and more I wonder why those physics professors themselves don’t see all those holes in their version of electron spin. It is not a secret that I think electrons are magnetic monopoles, as such they have a one pole magnetic charge and until proven otherwise my understanding is that this charge is permanent. That means there are two kinds of electrons, one kind with say north pole magnetic charge and a kind with south pole magnetic charge.
When about seven years ago I came across the results of the Stern-Gerlach experiment from 1922, after a bit of thinking my estimation was that likely electrons are magnetic monopoles. For years I tried to shoot holes into that idea of magnetic monopoles, but that always failed and after a few years I accepted the idea.
In this post I want to look explicitely at why there are three spectral lines in that what mysteriously is named a spin one particle. With a spin one particle as shown in the video, they mean an atom with two unpaired electrons.
One of the many dozen things wrong with the tiny magnet model is as next: The Stern-Gerlach experiment does a beam of silver atoms split into two beams, the explanation for the opposing acceleration is that an inhomogeneous magnetic field is used together with the very mysterious property of electrons “anti-aligning” theselves with this applied magnetic field. But in a lot of other things, say the energy levels of electrons in atoms under the Zeeman effect, you never see a gradient of the magnetic field but straight in your face the actual strength of the magnetic field. That is one of the many things that is not very logical.
Lets start with some validation that David Jamieson is a believer of the church of the tiny magnets:
No no: it’s not spinning David and is a magnetic monopole…
If you accept that electrons are not tiny magnets a lot of solar phenomena become better understandable. If you realize that if you have a cylindrical shaped portion of plasma and that rotates along it’s central axis, it will spit out a lot of electrons and because that column or cylinder is now very positively charged the magnetic field it creates becomes much more stronger. That is precisely what we observe with all those flares and stuff.
Well for seven years on a row people like David are not interested at all. So one way or the other you just cannot claim these people are scientists, in my view it is a bunch of weirdo’s married to some form of weird groupthink. The groupthink is that all things must be tiny magnets, they have zero experimental proof for that so these people are weird.
But lets not dive into politics and why we pay these weirdo’s a tax payer funded salary, lets go into what they can do good: spectral analysis. Now sun spots are places with strong magnetic fields (rotating column or cylinder kind of stuff) and in the picture below they take a line over such a sun spot and look at the spectrum of a particular frequency. Remark that a line here is the projection of a plane so you can have many contributions into the end result, so why do we see three spectral lines?
In the center of the right picture you see three spectral lines.
Ok, what does David mean with a spin one particle? That’s not a photon but he means an atom with two unpaired electrons. The light you see is from electrons jumping down in energy in those atoms (I don’t know what element, what atom it is). But the situation is easy to understand:
1) Some of those atoms have two unpaired north pole electrons, 2) Some of those atoms have two unpaired south pole electrons, and 3) Some of those atoms have two different electrons.
That would explain the two outer lines, the middle line must be caused by electron jumps where there is much less magnetic field.
Please remark that the ‘line’ is actually a plane so the electron emissions can come from any height.
The sun my dear reader is a complicated thing, but if people like David can’t explain stuff like the corona temperature why should you believe his version of electron spin? It is time to go to the video, at about 32 minutes into the video the spin stuff starts:
Good luck with your superpositions of electron spin David, you will need it.
That was it for this update. Thanks for your attention, think well and live well.
Last week I finally found out after seven years that there is indeed at least one repeated Stern-Gerlach experiment. It is well known in quantum mechanics that the Pauli matrices can be used to calculate the probabilities for finding electrons into a particular spin state. And in a repeated SG-experiment, if you turn the magnetic field 90 degrees the Pauli stuff says it is 50/50 divided. If you example you first applied a vertical magnetic field and after that some horizontal magnetic field, you should get 50% of the electrons having spin left and 50% spin right.
But if you try to do a search on a term like “Experimental proof for the Pauli matrices” or just “Repeated Stern-Gerlach experiment” never ever serious popped up in the last seven years.
Seven years ago I arrived at the conclusion that it is impossible that electrons are “tiny magnets” or for that matter have a bipolar magnetic field. A lot of things can be explained much better and more logical compared to mystifications like the Pauli exclusion principle. If electrons are magnetic monopoles, in that case it is logical that if they form pairs they must have opposite magnetic charges. And with the electron pair we already have a detail where the ususal model of electrons as “tiny magnets” fails; two macroscopic magnets are attracking only if their magnetic fields are aligned. If two macro magnets are anti-aligned, they repel. So how the hell is it possible that two electrons only form a pair if they have opposite spins, only if they anti-align? What I still don’t understand is why people like Pauli, Einstein, Feynman etc etc never remarked that it is nonsense to suppose that electrons are tiny magnets. Remark there is zero experimental proof for the assumption that electrons are tiny magnets. They just projected the Gauss law for magnetism on electrons without ever remarking you must have some fucking experimental proof. In the next picture you can see the experimental setup; you see two Stern-Gerlach experiments and in the middle is a inner rotation chamber where they try to flip the spin of the electrons.
Einstein proposed the use of the hot wire…
So Einstein must have given it a thought, this SG-experiment and never realized the impossibility of the Gauss law for magnetism for electrons.
Last week I found a nice pdf upon the Frisch-Segrè experiment and I would like to quote a few hilarious things from it:
“The physical mechanism responsible for the alignment of the silver atoms remained and remains a mystery” and quoting Feynman, “… instead of trying to give you a theoretical explanation, we will just say that you are stuck with the result of this experiment … ”
This is also the first time that I see this ‘problem’ actually stated; how is it possible that a tiny thing like an electron anti-aligns it’s spin with the applied external magnetic field? That is very very strange, for example water molecules are tiny electric dipoles and if they meet an electric field the only thing they want to do is to align themselves with that electric field. Why do electrons gain potential energy in a magnetic field?
To understand how crazy this is: If you go outside and throw away a bunch of rocks, do half of those fall to earth and the other half flies into space? Nope, in the end all rocks try to get at the state of minimal potential energy.
But if you view electrons as magnetic monopoles this weird detail of climbing in potential energy is’n there any longer: an electron with say a north pole magnetic charge will always go from the north pole to the south pole of a macroscopic magnetic field. And vice versa for an electron with a south pole magnetic charge. The weird energy problem isn’t there any longer. You can compare that to a bunch of electrons and protons entering an electric field; they feel opposite forces and that is how they both lower their potential energy.
At last let me give you the pdf. This pdf is not very useful because it is written by one of those weirdo’s that keep on believing that electrons are tiny magnets…
Once more I want to remark that if you see a physics professor doing his or her blah blah blah thing on electron spin, they just don’t have any serious experimental proof that electrons actually have two magnetic poles. Furthermore, none of them has a problem with that. So why are we funding these weirdo’s with tax payer money?
Ok, that was it for this post. Thanks for your attention.
Of course you can’t correct every typo you make. But now it was in the heart result of the previous post so it must be corrected. In the previous post I showed you a way of calculating the determinant of a 4×4 matrix using 2×2 minors. As such I used things like a ‘complementary minor’ inside a square matrix. The typo is easy to understand, it must not be comp(| AB12 |) but this: | comp( AB12)|. The vertical stripes mean you must take the determinant of what’s between them so the typo is that I took the determinant too fast. First you must find the complementary minor and after that take the determinant…
This correctional post is two pictures long, first I show you the faulty one and after that the correct one.
My guess is most readers who tried to understand the previous update did find for themselves it was very faulty. But I could not just ignore it because it was in the main result although the main result is not earth shaking math. Anyway it is what it is and now it’s corrected.
I remember that in the past a few times I tried to write determinants of say a nxn matrix in determinants of blocks of that matrix. It always failed but now I understand the way the matrix version of the theorem of Pythagoras goes, all of a sudden it is a piece of cake. In this post I only give an example of a 4×4 matrix. If you take the first two columns of such a matrix, say AB, this is now a 4×2 matrix with six 2×2 minors in it. If we name the last two columns as CD, for every 2×2 minor in AB there is a corresponding complementary 2×2 minor in CD. For example if we pick the left upper 2×2 minor in our matrix ABCD, it’s complement is the right lower 2×2 minor at the bottom of CD. If you take the determinants of those minors and multiply them against the determinants of their complements, add it all up with a suitable +/- pattern and voila: that must be the determinant of the whole 4×4 matrix.
This method could more or less easily expanded to larger matrices, but I think it is hard to prove the +/- pattern you need for the minors of larger matrices. Because I am such a dumb person I expected that half of my six 2×2 minors pick up a minus sign and the other half a plus sign. Just like you have when you develop a 4×4 determinant along a row or column of that matix. I was wrong, it is a bit more subtle once more confirming I am a very very dumb person.
I skipped giving you the alternative way of calculating determinants: The determinant is also the sum of so called signed permutations on the indices of their entries. If you have never seen that I advice you to look it up on the internet.
Because I skipped excisting knowledge widely available already, I was able to do the calculation in just four images! So it is a short post. Ok ok I also left out how I did it in detail because writing out a 4×4 determinant already has 24 terms with each four factors. That’s why it is only four pictures long in this post…
(I later replaced the above picture because it had a serious typo in it.)
If you want you can also use that expression as the determinant as a sum of signed permutations. It is a very cute formula. Wiki title: Leibniz formula for determinants. And a four minute video, it starts a bit slow but the guy manages to put in most of the important details in just four minutes:
Ok, that was it for this post. I filed it under the category ‘Pythagoras stuff’ because I tried similar stuff in the past but only with the knowledge into the matrix version of the Pythagoras theorem, it all becomes a bit more easy to do.
