Mike Smith Cosmos

I must say that the more I dig deeper into intrinsic spin of the electron, there seems to be a lot of difference of opinion as to what is physically going on. The post that "spinjunkie " gave me with a web link as he said led to a personal interpretation, which sounded fairly plausible , though I feel many have different opinions. He referred back to the earlier work of Paul Dirac who was one of the first to try to understand spin. Mr Milo Wolff of the linked article described a spherical fields situation surrounding the electron where "in waves go in and outwaves go out " and this is the cause of the spin , which is only in the presence of a magnetic field. Outside of the magnetic field , say outside the atom, No field No spin. That the spin is reflected onto the three dimensional coordinates ( x, y, z ). and Two complete rotations were required to regain symmetry. He claimed he got most of this from Diracs work, but I am still not sure what the latest thinking is , as to what physically is happening. So capt refremment/ string junkie/ajb/swansont what is going on?

In response to the thread " Something from nothing " I would like to pose a Theory which I have found covers the whole Shebang, namely " the LoT " It is not stated in mathematical form. It is not some fundamental particle , force , etc. It is a lingual or language based statement: It can be built on with other principles and Mathematics as and if required. I have found this works well. Covers Big Bang and before. The whole Shebang, namely " the LoT , ( including Scientific Principles that can be verified)" TRY IT OUT . It works .

I have a theory for this one " Something from nothing ". But in view of the rules of the forum I better put it in the " Do you have a new theory ? " thread at the top of this quantum Physics section. I'll call it " A Lingual / NON-Mathematical THEORY OF EVERYTHING ".

You cant detect the presence of the electron say without looking. To look and see , you need some form of light , even if its ordinary light, UV light or X ray light they are all photons. They all have wave functions, they all have a certain amount of energy. The nearer to x rays the greater the energy. Thats why the dentist runs out of the room when he x rays your teeth. So its like bashing the tortoise with a string of Ping Pong Balls , the tortoise shrinks his head back into his shell. I'm sure there is a mathematical equation for this. Some form of fourier analysis of the two wave functions ( of the observing photon and the electron) perhaps. No doubt Mr Swansont will put me right if not.

Yes !

Ta, Looks interesting. Some good reading for tonight !

Steevey. If I am gaining a good picture of what is going on. I think. The wave function that is associated with the electron is described by Schroenigers equation and plots distance away from ' center of operations' of the electron against the probability of it being there. So I think this fairly wide wave of probability sweeps forward toward the two slits or whatever. If its left alone it sweeps through both slits and interfears with itself the otherside of the slits. Thus producing the interference pattern. I don't think the shreoniger equation brings time into it. Too much messing with the electron ie by shining photons on, or generally intruding on the electrons flight and the wave pattern of the electron gets radically changed, collapsed, or whatever by the wave function of the intruding "thing". If I've got a correct picture that is.

I'm still reading hard. You might like to look at a post I have just placed in the virtual particle thread. Its from wikipedia and says a couple of really interesting things about electrons, virtual photons and spin. Have a look and tell me what you think, as I notice your mind 'ticks' a bit like mine.

I have just read in Wiiipedia today ( Electron subsection virtual particles ) that :-

Is this not to do with the very original basis of Einstein and Plank and the photo electric effect demonstating the quantum effect . The frequency of infra red was not high enough to give the high enough energy for the electron to be emitted. No matter how intense the IR. Yet one photon of Ultra violet had sufficient high frequency to develop enough energy to release an electron. More photons of UV more electron emitted.

Steevey, I am going to do a bit of looking for information on the mechanism of electron to photon conversion within the atom. Similarly for photon absorption by the electron in the atom. If I find anything interesting and understandable I will let you know. I think it is all tied up with this angular momentum Spin issue.

I think its worth remembering that Einstein spent a great deal of time reading peoples ideas and inventions in the swiss patent office. Gazing out the window day after day. Coming up with thought experiments. Riding light beams in his mind , wondering what happened as he approached the speed of light. Being on rocket ships and in elevators. He seemed to come up with some pretty amazing theories. True he later did the maths in conjunction with other mathematicians. Bring back pondering ; observation; postulation; testing by existing theory & experimentation : evaluation; rethinking; argument; discussion: surely that's what we are all about.

These are the really interesting ones ! These are the ones going on under our very noses , in the depths of the atoms, or in the far reaches of the cosmos. Some interesting scientist ( can't remember who) once said " if you look over the edge you will always see something you did not expect, or is interesting". I think we should do more Blue sky research. Bernard Lovelle of Jodrel Bank (The big dish Radio waves) said " If we do not do more blue sky research , we will bankrupt our future of new discoveries and developement." xx So, who's for looking over the edge ? xx

Sorry, I have not got used to the full features of Science Forum yet. I thought a photon was spin (0 zero) . If not what is spin 0 and spin 2 if a photon has spin 1

BoB Could you contact me , when you have a moment. Thanks Mike Smith Cosmos

Things seem to be making gradually a lot more sense with me now I have my little model in my head ( no matter if it is right or wrong ) . I know you are not too keen on these. But I need them as a prop for moving forward. It would seem now to me that the paired electrons in shells , say the first shell, or any other paired electrons in higher shells have a combined angular momentum of 0 ( zero ) , derived from these paired electrons having + 1/2 and - 1/2 spin ( net 0 Zero ). This then is suitable for either a Photon exchange, angular momentum 0 ( zero ) to do some form of exchange and still conserve the angular momentum . Is this a correct interpretation for conservation of angular momentum when moving from Fermion (electron ) to boson (photon ? .

I will need to go away and do a lot more reading and a lot more thinking. I feel more comfortable having some form of model to use as a " litmus paper " in order to see how the model stacks up with things I am studying and maths that keeps rearing its head. I enjoy your comments as I think you have a similar attitude to maths as I do. I have done quite a bit of maths but I always find it difficult unless I have a model to work with (even if it is only a temporary scaffolding ). If you come across "Bob for short" tell him I would love to converse with him in this forum about spin . He supplied the Publicized work on rotating spinning electric fields , inside the electron. Now that is interesting. I have recently read in "Quantum theory can not hurt you " by Marcus Chown Page 71 of wave flipping of Fermions like electrons. Is this the same or tied in with spin flipping ? What is your current ( 5th March 2011 ) overall model of the intrinsic spin of the electron Steevey ? I have followed your comments over the last month or two and in some respects you seem to be groping for a model as I have been. I know some of the mathematicians amongst us do not have as strong a desire to have a model but I get the feeling you, like myself want to know what is actually happening . Is that not so. ?

With all the information coming my way about intrinsic electron spin so far a conceptual model has started to form in my mind. This is only a model on which to test ideas against with further study and when I can get my head around the maths such as Matrix, Div, Grad and Curl, Tensors etc most of which I covered at Uni but remember it hurt my head then. This is not a theory, nor a speculation , only a model for me to work with for the time being while I try and dig ever deeper into intrinsic fermionic spin. I have submitted this for forum discussion only. It is not presented as fact , purely a mental model.

I tend to agree with you Lemur. I have spent the night reading the Isim Model that some of the staff have recomended. That hurt . Its maths gone stir fry. No wonder Boltzman committed suicide. I am currently trying to construct a personal mental concept for intrinsic spin of the electron. I am making progress with these rotating fields within the electrons sphere of action. I would love to discuss this further with you in the coming weeks if at all possible. I thing the marriage of Physical nature and maths support is necessary. But when it becomes pure maths with little or no attachment to physical reality , I personally get nervous to say the least. A quote from the book Quantum by Manjit Kumar Page 185 described Wolfgang Pauli ( exclusion Principal ) as believing " Pauli wanted to emulate Einstein by setting up the underlying philosophical and physical principles before moving on to develop the necessary formal mathematical nuts and bolts that held the theory together "

I will have to think on that one! I am just wading my way through the ISING Model. Has a distinct " homing in " feeling about it. . Degenerate pressure, magnetic moments, circulating charge in a magnetic field, and circulating magnetism in an electric field. I need to read on , think and digest.

Thank you for that little lot of answers. Very helpful. You should write a book . Have you any comments on the 1985 paper on spin four posts back (today by me my 3:26 , provided by Bob for short last November) ?

Thank You ! With all the comments and the paper from 1985 which 'Bob For Short' put forward last Nov 2010 that I missed, I am beginning to formulate a pictorial model. That is important for me personally. I can now cloth the model with maths and further ideas. If the more recent discoveries need for the pictorial model to be changed or updated , that's fine. I find it very difficult to go straight into pure maths, with no framework. I have spoken to mathematicians and some prefer to have no picture but ride the maths. ( not me I find it almost impossible ). Unfortunately your comments pose further questions. Classed as degeneracy who wins, or is it stale mate. Do the electrons allow themselves to become degenerate or part degenerate or just attempted degeneracy. If one free electron was approaching a hydrogen nucleus namely a single proton , some 300,000 years after the big bang, would its intrinsic spin orientation be in a random direction, and on falling into the lowest energy state orientate the electron intrinsic spin in a particular orientation. eg would it align with any magnetic moment from the proton. Later after this particular atom gets into the situation that a second proton ( plus a couple of neutrons through the rather torturous process of tunneling , deuterium, tritium,neutron decay etc ) will an approaching 2ND free electron orientate its spin to be the opposite to the previous electron spin ( say one spin up the other spin down ) an so enter the lowest energy state with the previous electron . Or does it need one plank bar X 1/2 worth of energy to flip its orientation. Sorry !

I have just read an article that ( BoB for short ) flagged up on Spin right at the early days of this Spin thread. It does provide a good analogue picture of SPIN of the electron This is from a paper Hans C Oharian Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Troy new york 12180 received feb 5 1984 Abstract : According to the prevailing beleif , the spin of the electron or of some other particle is a mysterious internal angular momentum for which no concrete physical picture is available, and for which there is no classical analogue. However , on the basis of an old calculation by Belinfante (Physica 6, 887 (1939) ) , it can be shown that the spin may be regarded as an angular momentum generated by a circulating flow of energy in the wave field of the electron. Likewise, the magnetic moment may be regarded as generated by a circulating flow of charge in the wave field. This provides an intuitavely appealing picture and establishes that neither the spin nor the magnetic moment are " internal " they are not associated with the internal structure of the electron , but rather with the structure of the wave field. Furthermore a comparison between calculations of the angular momentum in the Dirac and electromagnetic fields shows that the spin of the electron is entirely analogous to the angular momentum carried by a classical circularly polarized wave. You may have read this previously. unfortunately I was caught up over Xmas with Relatives , Flue, Snow , New house etc and missed the early discussion

Yes, well I'm not sure about all that you say, but you did mention previously about the tremendous forces present in collapsed stars which are held up by the very exclusion principle electrons not accepting to be identical in the same energy band. If this force is so great to operate under those vast conditions the exclusion principle must itself be quite something just between two electrons , being asked to occupy the same energy level with identicle quantum numbers ( which of course they refuse to do. ) So I am still trying to find out off someone What quite is it? ( other than the maths ) that is preventing the two identical electrons ( same quantum numbers ) from occupying the same energy level. I know the Pauli exclusion principle says so ( but a principle itself has no Force , it must work through something ! ) Is it the repulsive charge E1E2/r squared where r is so infinitessimally small that the electrostatic repulsion becomes infinite . [ This is not put forward as fact , just a question ]

Where or what is the Ising model link. I seem to have missed that one. Could you repeat the Link . Thanks.