Electron spin?
Michael Wales
The Stern-Gerlach experiment demonstrated the existence of a magnetic
moment associated with a beam of neutral silver atoms. Up till that time it
had been thought, on the basis of the current quantum theory, that such a
beam would be without magnetic moment properties as the arrangement of the
electron orbits would be such as to cancel any magnetic moments arising from
the individual orbital motions of the electrons. ( hydrogen, lithium, sodium
atoms etc would have similar properties.)
It was postulated that the observed magnetic moment must be arising from
the electron spin of the single valence electron of the silver atom. This
view was fiercely resisted at the time but eventually through the weight of
experimental evidence it has now come to be accepted so that it has become
one of the pillars of the modern theory.
Just about every text on physics gives an explanation of the experiment
so there is no need for me to do so. Quantitative results of the experiment
give rise to the value of the magnetic moment as being very close to that of
the Bohr magneton and because the current theory, now and then, implies no
contribution from the orbiting electrons, because of mutual cancellation of
their orbital magnetic moments, the whole of the observed value was used as
the value for the magnetic moment, due to the spin, of the electron alone.
Of course as refinements were made in the measurement the so called g factor
was introduced to enable the hypothesis to be supported that the basic
magnetic moment of the electron was equal to one Bohr magneton and that the
g factor arising from other 'factors' could be used appropriately. The
modern quantum theory denies the possibility of knowledge about the internal
structure and processes of the electron so that a calculated value for its
magnetic moment could not be done. (As an aside; it ought not to be able to
be done for the Bohr magneton either, but the Heisenberg principle is
conveniently forgotten, and it is done.) The only justification, within the
limits imposed by current theory, for the electron spin magnetic moment is
the experiments.
However using my model it is easy to derive the Bohr magneton for the
orbital magnetic moment. More importantly however I am able to derive the
magnetic moment for the spin of the electron which does not support the
current view that its value is equal to the Bohr magneton. An alternative
view arises which interestingly connects directly and logically with the g
factor.
The value I get for Me (Me is magnetic moment for electron spin here.)
Me = |L^2*Q*T^-1| = c^2*te*e/(8*pi^2) =1.0770928528D-26 JT^-1
If I denote the Bohr magneton by Bm and now assume that the
measurement as done by Stern-Gerlach is a measurement of the silver atom but
with a total magnetic moment Bt made up of the sum of one Bohr magneton and
one spin magnetic moment as derived from my model then
Bt = Bm +Me = 9.284782915433120D-24
(CODATA 1986 gives for the electron Be = 9.2847701D-24)
and gives a magnetic moment anomaly of
ae =0 .0011614098 as compared with CODATA 1986 of 0.001159652193
The implication of this is that the magnetic moment given for the electron
(current position CODATA) is in fact, according to the above, the magnetic
moment of the orbit plus the magnetic moment of the spin which if it were
proved would have enormous consequences for the existing theories of the
atom.
Best wishes,
Michael Wales.
Henry Haapalainen
Michael Wales kirjoitti viestissä
<973603457.7339.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
moment of the electron may be much more simple than we have thought. And the
old theory may be severely wrong.
www.wakkanet.fi/~fields
Henry Haapalainen
Michael Varney
"Michael Wales" <mwa...@fervor.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:973603457.7339.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
*rolls eyes*
Bilge
>HH: The experimental results must be accepted, but the truth of a magnetic
>moment of the electron may be much more simple than we have thought. And the
>old theory may be severely wrong.
>www.wakkanet.fi/~fields
In that case, qed will be famous for not only being wrong, but being
the first theory in history to predict the value of the quantity that
it is wrong about, orders of magnitude more accurately than any theory
has ever predicted any value in nature, including the "correct" theory,
by orders of magnitude. Well, I'm going to beat myself over the head with
a ball-peen hammer so I can appreciate this logic more than I seem to
with both frontal lobes intact.
tadchem
"Henry Haapalainen" <mon...@icon.fi> wrote in message
news:by0O5.367$qh4....@read2.inet.fi...
<again>
Hello, Henry.
Tom Davidson
Brighton, CO
Kevin Aylward
news:slrn90hfs...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Quite liked the idea about the atom being a black hole. Blew me away just
thinking about little black holes running about. Mass is just accelerating
space is quite nice also.
Kevin Aylward , Warden of the Kings Ale
ke...@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice "Cheap, No Shit!", a currently free
GUI xspice, unlimited component, mixed-mode Windows simulator with Schematic
Capture, waveform display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Opinions of my employer are not necessarily indicative of my own
Oscillators don't, amplifiers do"
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/emc2.html
sansbury
the difference between the spin magnetic moment and the orbital magnetic
moment. As you know from my postings, it is possible to show that the
electrons and atomic nuclei experience charge polarization inside the
electrons and atomic nuclei due to applied electric fields and this can
account for the magnetic force between current carrying wires.
It also implies that electrons in orbit around a nucleus also experience
charge polarization and that net magnetic moment of atoms eg silver atoms in
the Stern Gerlach applied field or in emission spectra when the emitters are
under the influence of applied magnetic fields etc, is based on the single
magnetic moment of the electron due to its orbital motion as a result of the
various forces on the electron. There are not two separate magnetic moments,
one due to spin and one due to orbital motion.
The fact that electrons on opposite sides of a nucleus have opposite spin is
due to the fact they are moving in opposite directions.
Maybe there is some connection here to your views.?
http://www.bestweb.net/~sansbury
Michael Wales <mwa...@fervor.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:973603457.7339.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
Henry Haapalainen
Kevin Aylward kirjoitti viestissä ...
>> Henry Haapalainen said some stuff about
>>
>> >HH: The experimental results must be accepted, but the truth of a
>magnetic
>> >moment of the electron may be much more simple than we have thought.
And
>the
>> >old theory may be severely wrong.
>> >www.wakkanet.fi/~fields
>>
>>
>
KA:>Quite liked the idea about the atom being a black hole. Blew me away
just
>thinking about little black holes running about. Mass as just acceleratingHH: Most of us tend to reject new ideas out of hand. Kevin seems to be an
exception of the rule. I hope that somebody else will show the similar
courage. You find the theory of gravity of falling space here:
www.wakkanet.fi/~fields
Henry Haapalainen
Jackie & Barry
Kevin Aylward wrote:
> I think the establishment have had long enough to come up TOE, you know,
> Hawking said 20, years ago, we are almost there, his latest quote is that,
> yes are indeed within 20 years of it, but that time starts from now!
Ah, but both pronouncements could be true if they are simultaneous in
some frame.
Perhaps we've finally discovered a Universal Rotating Frame.
Perhaps we (or just the Professor) are permanently situated just 20
years from its centre (or its edge).
Barry
Kevin Aylward
>
> Kevin Aylward kirjoitti viestissä ...
> >>
> >> >HH: The experimental results must be accepted, but the truth of a
> >magnetic
> >> >moment of the electron may be much more simple than we have thought.
> And
> >the
> >> >old theory may be severely wrong.
> >> >www.wakkanet.fi/~fields
> >>
> >>
> >
> KA:>Quite liked the idea about the atom being a black hole. Blew me away
> just
> >thinking about little black holes running about. Mass as just
accelerating
> >space is quite nice also.
> >
> >Kevin Aylward , Warden of the Kings Ale
> >ke...@anasoft.co.uk
> >
> exception of the rule. I hope that somebody else will show the similar
> courage. You find the theory of gravity of falling space here:
> www.wakkanet.fi/~fields
>
> Henry Haapalainen
>
>
>
That's probably because I am too ignorant to know any better, just being a
thick engineer and all. My latest silly idea is that, if gravity can create
accelerations then maybe accelerations can create gravity. I have a thread
in sci.relativity rambling on about it. There's obviously a serious flaw
somewhere in the idea, but it makes a good excuse to keep my posts up
identifying my SuperSpice product, any controversy is usually good for
business, well, except child abuse, that is.
I quite liked the other post here in sci.particle on the TOE. The guy chose
a new affine symbol and out popped everything. Certainly looked impressive.
Did not understand any of the details however.
I think the establishment have had long enough to come up TOE, you know,
Hawking said 20, years ago, we are almost there, his latest quote is that,
yes are indeed within 20 years of it, but that time starts from now!
Kevin Aylward , Warden of the Kings Ale
Henry Haapalainen
Kevin Aylward kirjoitti viestissä
<4hHP5.192156$g6.87...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>...
>"Henry Haapalainen" <mon...@icon.fi> wrote in message
>news:1MFP5.243$Lk3....@read2.inet.fi...
>>
>> Kevin Aylward kirjoitti viestissä ...
>> >> Henry Haapalainen said some stuff about
>> >>
>> >> >HH: The experimental results must be accepted, but the truth of a
>> >magnetic
>> >> >moment of the electron may be much more simple than we have thought.
>> And
>> >the
>> >> >old theory may be severely wrong.
>> >> >www.wakkanet.fi/~fields
>> >>
>> Henry Haapalainen
>> >>
>> >
>> KA:>Quite liked the idea about the atom being a black hole. Blew me away
>> just
>> >thinking about little black holes running about. Mass as just
>accelerating
>> >space is quite nice also.
>> >
>> >Kevin Aylward , Warden of the Kings Ale
>> >ke...@anasoft.co.uk
>> >
>> HH: Most of us tend to reject new ideas out of hand. Kevin seems to be an
>> exception of the rule. I hope that somebody else will show the similar
>> courage. You find the theory of gravity of falling space here:
>> www.wakkanet.fi/~fields
>>
>> Henry Haapalainen
>>
>>
>>
>
a
>thick engineer and all. My latest silly idea is that, if gravity can
create
>accelerations then maybe accelerations can create gravity. I have a thread
>in sci.relativity rambling on about it. There's obviously a serious flaw
>somewhere in the idea, but it makes a good excuse to keep my posts up
>identifying my SuperSpice product, any controversy is usually good for
>business, well, except child abuse, that is.
>
you are in a spacecraft in free fall and you start the engines, the
spacecraft starts to accelerate, and you feel that artificial gravity
pulling you.
Henry Haapalainen
Bilge
>>
>
>Quite liked the idea about the atom being a black hole. Blew me away just
>thinking about little black holes running about. Mass is just accelerating
>space is quite nice also.
A better analogy would be to consider the analogy to phase
transitions and broken symmetries like a ferromagnet as it passes
through the curie temperature. The manifest rotational invariance
above the curie temperature is spontaneously broken down to an
SO(2) which hides the true invariance and in the process, produces
a structure that allows spin waves to propagate through the
ferromagnet.
Kevin Aylward
> >>
> >
> KA:>That's probably because I am too ignorant to know any better, just
being
> a
> >thick engineer and all. My latest silly idea is that, if gravity can
> create
> >accelerations then maybe accelerations can create gravity. I have a
thread
> >in sci.relativity rambling on about it. There's obviously a serious flaw
> >somewhere in the idea, but it makes a good excuse to keep my posts up
> >identifying my SuperSpice product, any controversy is usually good for
> >business, well, except child abuse, that is.
> >
> HH: Acceleration can create gravity. It's called artificial gravity. When
> you are in a spacecraft in free fall and you start the engines, the
> spacecraft starts to accelerate, and you feel that artificial gravity
> pulling you.
>
> Henry Haapalainen
>
>
I do know about that one Henry, but the idea is a bit more than that. Its
the somewhat ludicrous suggestion that an acceleration mass generates its
own inertia. You can have a look for the posings in relativity, somewhere
Bilge
>>
>HH: Most of us tend to reject new ideas out of hand. Kevin seems to be an
>exception of the rule. I hope that somebody else will show the similar
You may reject new ideas out of hand. Many others recognize that analogies
to old ideas are useful analogies, but reject them as more than analogies
while still finding the analogy useful. I reject analogies which are passed
off as identities.
Bilge
> It also implies that electrons in orbit around a nucleus also experience
>charge polarization and that net magnetic moment of atoms eg silver atoms in
>the Stern Gerlach applied field or in emission spectra when the emitters are
>under the influence of applied magnetic fields etc, is based on the single
>magnetic moment of the electron due to its orbital motion as a result of the
>various forces on the electron. There are not two separate magnetic moments,
>one due to spin and one due to orbital motion.
And what do you calculate for the magnetic moment of the neutron?
How about the electric dipole moment of the neutron? How about the
quadrupole moment of the deuteron?
>The fact that electrons on opposite sides of a nucleus have opposite spin is
>due to the fact they are moving in opposite directions.
Gee, ralph. If this were true, you should immediately inform the
hospitals that count on that spin-spin coupling to the nucleus that
does not result from a particle of 10^-56 kg orbiting at 10^56 c
to do mri pictures. Their attornies will be happy to know of the sham.
> Maybe there is some connection here to your views.?
>http://www.bestweb.net/~sansbury
I'd check the local ouija board want ads for agreement.
Henry Haapalainen
Kevin Aylward kirjoitti viestissä ...
>news:%K_P5.353$XC4....@read2.inet.fi...
>
>> >>
>> >
>> KA:>That's probably because I am too ignorant to know any better, just
>being
>> a
>> >thick engineer and all. My latest silly idea is that, if gravity can
>> create
>> >accelerations then maybe accelerations can create gravity. I have a
>thread
>> >in sci.relativity rambling on about it. There's obviously a serious flaw
>> >somewhere in the idea, but it makes a good excuse to keep my posts up
>> >identifying my SuperSpice product, any controversy is usually good for
>> >business, well, except child abuse, that is.
>> >
>> HH: Acceleration can create gravity. It's called artificial gravity. When
>> you are in a spacecraft in free fall and you start the engines, the
>> spacecraft starts to accelerate, and you feel that artificial gravity
>> pulling you.
>>
>> Henry Haapalainen
>>
KA:>I do know about that one Henry, but the idea is a bit more than that.
Its
>the somewhat ludicrous suggestion that an acceleration mass generates its
>own inertia. You can have a look for the posings in relativity, somewhere
>
>Kevin Aylward , Warden of the Kings Ale
>ke...@anasoft.co.uk
>http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice "Cheap, No Shit!", a currently free
HH: Then that is something that goes over my head. Acceleration don't create
new atoms to make new gravity. I used to like many ideas of relativity, but
it was 20 years ago.
Henry Haapalainen
Henry Haapalainen
Bilge kirjoitti viestissä ...
>Henry Haapalainen said some stuff about
>
> >>
> >HH: Most of us tend to reject new ideas out of hand. Kevin seems to be an
> >exception of the rule. I hope that somebody else will show the similar
>
analogies
>to old ideas are useful analogies, but reject them as more than analogies
>while still finding the analogy useful. I reject analogies which are passed
>off as identities.
>
down.
Henry Haapalainen
Bilge
>
>Bilge kirjoitti viestissä ...
>>Henry Haapalainen said some stuff about
>>
>> >>
>> >HH: Most of us tend to reject new ideas out of hand. Kevin seems to be an
>> >exception of the rule. I hope that somebody else will show the similar
>>
>analogies
>>to old ideas are useful analogies, but reject them as more than analogies
>>while still finding the analogy useful. I reject analogies which are passed
>>off as identities.
>>
>down.
>
No. I just realize that it takes lots of bad ideas to ever have
good ones, and prefer to find out which is which, before wasting
time on the bad ones. You seem to think the word "idea" is
synonymous with "original thinking" and "good idea". Just because
you have an explanation of something that you think is novel,
doesn't mean it has any relation to reality. It seems to me,
that you have a lot more difficulty accepting ideas like massless
particles or curvature or quantum mechanics than I. If anyone is
closed minded, it is someone who considers modern physics to be
newtonian mechanics. Like the typical crank, you criticize
people for being "closed minded" when they explain to you, all of
the fallacies in your 300 years old phyics, while you simultaneously
consider all of the physics that "closed mindedness" has produced in
that time to be too far fetched to represent reality, despite the
outstanding agreement with the reality of the mesuring instruments.
What your comments mean is that anything that is too far removed from
the narrow perspective you have of the universe or that you have decided
you are too old or too unmotivated to learn, goes into the category of
"closed minded physics that hasn't advanced in 50 fifty years" while
the superficial concept that your are promoting as "open minded"
and "advancing physics", is nothing but reincarnated versions of
what was known to be incorrect 150 years ago. Basically, you
decide what is onpen/closed minded, modern/archaic as defined
by your theory of the week and change the definitions to fit the
argument you'd like to make.
Henry Haapalainen
Bilge kirjoitti viestissä ...
>Henry Haapalainen said some stuff about
> >
> >Bilge kirjoitti viestissä ...
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >HH: Most of us tend to reject new ideas out of hand. Kevin seems to be
an
> >> >exception of the rule. I hope that somebody else will show the similar
> >>
> >analogies
> >>to old ideas are useful analogies, but reject them as more than
analogies
> >>while still finding the analogy useful. I reject analogies which are
passed
> >>off as identities.
> >>
style. Maybe I had a bad day.
Henry Haapalainen
Gordon D. Pusch
> So, go on Harry, admit it, you plagiarized the idea from Cornel. :-)
Actually, the idea that gravity was due to ``falling space'' dates back
at least as far as the late 19th Century, where it was equated to a radial
inflow of aether; this hypothesis was discussed in detail and given a
mathematical formulation in a paper by Kirkwood published in Phys. Rev.
in (IIRC) 1957. Kirkwood was able to show that his hypothesis satisfied all
three of the ``Classical Tests of GR;'' his hypothesis was only falsified
decades later by the observation of the agreement between the orbital decay
rate of the binary pulsar with GR's predicted gravitational radiation rate
(Kirkwood predicted that gravitational radiation would not exist...).
(Incidentally, the fact that Kirkwood _was_ able to get his paper published
in Phys. Rev. also shows that the ``establishment'' physics community is
not as resistant to such ``revisionist'' notions as some would have one
believe --- or at least, it wasn't in 1957... :-T Of course, one difference
was that Kirkwood worked through all the grungey little details of the math
to show that his hypothesis was consistent with the available data, whereas
most ``revisionists'' (AKA crackpots) simply spew forth endless pages of
handwaving rhetoric, either because they don't _have_ a mathematical
formulation of their `theory' but merely some vague qualitative conceptual
notions, or else they don't know math well enough to work out the details,
and think that masses of qualitative rhetoric will suffice...)
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
Kevin Aylward
>
> Kevin Aylward kirjoitti viestissä ...
> >>
> >> >HH: The experimental results must be accepted, but the truth of a
> >magnetic
> >> >moment of the electron may be much more simple than we have thought.
> And
> >the
> >> >old theory may be severely wrong.
> >> >www.wakkanet.fi/~fields
> >>
> >>
> >
> KA:>Quite liked the idea about the atom being a black hole. Blew me away
> just
> >thinking about little black holes running about. Mass as just
accelerating
> >space is quite nice also.
> >
> >Kevin Aylward , Warden of the Kings Ale
> >ke...@anasoft.co.uk
> >
> exception of the rule. I hope that somebody else will show the similar
> www.wakkanet.fi/~fields
>
> Henry Haapalainen
Quote from http://www.tc.cornell.edu/er/media/1995/superstring.html
Cornell Theory Center Press Release, November 7, 1995
*******************************
However, Greene, Morrison, and Strominger have found that string theory goes
beyond the mathematics of topology and the physics of general relativity. It
allows the fabric of spacetime to tear in a manner analogous to the
transformation of the sphere into a torus. The point at which the sphere
tears is a critical transition. This is the moment when the black hole
becomes infinitesimally small and has no mass.
The transformation shows that, rather than disappearing, the black hole
reemerges in another form, as an elementary particle. Thus they show that
space can "rip" apart and subsequently "reconnect" thereby changing its
basic structure (topology), without breaking the rules of string theory.
*******************************
So, go on Harry, admit it, you plagiarized the idea from Cornel. :-)
Kevin Aylward , Warden of the Kings Ale
Jim Carr
... bogus newsgroup and strange cross-post detected; note followups ...
In article <973603457.7339.0...@news.demon.co.uk>
"Michael Wales" <mwa...@fervor.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>The Stern-Gerlach experiment demonstrated the existence of a magnetic
>moment associated with a beam of neutral silver atoms. ...
<... snip ancient history ...>
>Of course as refinements were made in the measurement the so called g factor
>was introduced to enable the hypothesis to be supported that the basic
>magnetic moment of the electron was equal to one Bohr magneton and that the
>g factor arising from other 'factors' could be used appropriately.
Note well that the "refinements" include measurements that have
nothing at all to do with the atomic physics of silver atoms. For
example, extremely precise measurements are made of both muons and
electrons as individual particles.
>modern quantum theory denies the possibility of knowledge about the internal
>structure and processes of the electron so that a calculated value for its
>magnetic moment could not be done.
It would be more accurate to say that no experiment has detected
any internal structure of the electron down to something on the
order of am (attometer) scales -- and that this has not been for
a lack of trying, since some GUTs predict substructure for quarks
and leptons.
>(As an aside; it ought not to be able to
>be done for the Bohr magneton either, but the Heisenberg principle is
>conveniently forgotten, and it is done.)
Huh? All measurements include both the charge and magnetic
structure functions.
>The only justification, within the
>limits imposed by current theory, for the electron spin magnetic moment is
>the experiments.
You have not heard of QED?
Feynman's little book on it is written for the general public and
is highly recommended.
> However using my model it is easy to derive the Bohr magneton for the
>orbital magnetic moment.
This is a contradiction in terms.
>More importantly however I am able to derive the
>magnetic moment for the spin of the electron which does not support the
>current view that its value is equal to the Bohr magneton.
Then you should be attacking the experiments, not the theory.
--
James Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/
"The half of knowledge is knowing where to find knowledge" - Anon.
Motto over the entrance to Dodd Hall, former library at FSCW.