Why against Stern-Gerlach experiment photons are said to be spin 1?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Recent exchanges Sam Wormly, Uncle Al and johnreed
Next: STOP LHC. A call to reasonable people all over the world.
From: Jarek Duda on 26 Nov 2009 01:32 On Nov 26, 2:03 am, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Water waves are an excellent example that, amazingly, you brought > up. Water waves contain spinning vortexes of water. According to your > logic, a magnetic field should split a water wave into two waves going > in different directions. And again - just oppositely. I've used this example to show that waves carrying angular momentum doesn't have to carry spin! Ok - I'll try to explain mathematically what is the difference between spin which is topological singularity and angular momentum carrying twist-like traveling wave - kind of swing from equilibrum. I will use vector field in polar coordinates - in point (R,Alfa) on the plane there is (r,alfa) vector. The center of coordinates is the center of twist or spin. Traveling twist-like wave is for example alfa = Alfa + Pi/2 there is twist-like swing from equilibrium around the center. It's amplitude can depend on the distance from the center, for example r ~ (R-1)^2 - 1 for 0<R<2, 0 for R>2 that means in the center there is practically no twist, it grows up to some radius (1) and drops back to zero to make it localized. This amplitude of twist can 'travel' along the line going through its center. There is no reasons to 'quantify' these waves - size of these waves is continuous parameter. This vector field is field of 'swing' from equilibrium position which is zero vector. Spin is topological singularity - it requires field of vectors which don't want to vanish R ~ const and it makes rotation while looking at loop around the center alfa = spin * Alfa http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/SeparationOfTopologicalSingularities/ It's not only a swing from equilibrium, but something much more serious - it creates topological restrictions - conservation laws - to destroy such singularity it has to meet with the opposite one. Now it's not parametrized by a continuous parameter, but has to be quantized - be integer multiplicity of some basic spin. Looking for example at magnetic flux quantization in superconducting ring, let's remind that such phase rotation along a loop correspond to magnetic flux going through it - spin corresponds to internal magnetic structure of particle. There appears two problems - there are spin 1/2 particles and in its center there cannot be emphasized and direction - fig. 8 in http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.2724 shows how to simply solve both of them. I'll try to make a table to sum it up twist | spin swing from equilibrium | topological restriction preferred zero vectors | preferred nonzero vectors continuous sizes | discrete sizes (quantized) carry angular momentum | carry magnetic structure Is the difference clearer now? We know that photon can be twist. Why it's also spin?
From: Darwin123 on 26 Nov 2009 02:49 On Nov 25, 1:21 pm, Jarek Duda <duda...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 25, 6:24 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > Yeah, you're correct on that one. Apparently, after re-reading this > > paper, I see that it's based not on the conventional Standard Model, > > but on some sort of extended version of it. Forget about learning The Standard Model. In fact, forget about learning quantum mechanics. You need to learn some electrodynamics. > That's what I meant when > > I said "it would be back to the drawing board", since the conventional > > SM doesn't predict a magnetic moment for the neutrino. You mean it doesn't predict a magnetic dipole for the neutrino. I suspect you are using the phrase "magnetic moment" completely wrong but I am not sure. Maybe a magnetic moment is the same thing as a magnetic dipole. In any case, you probably read something that said that the current theory doesn't predict a magnetic dipole for the neutrino. > People are > > already anticipating new directions in which to take the SM and this > > paper is a good example. > > Current theories are usually made that we observe new phenomena and so > we add new corresponding terms to the Lagrangian ... > For example I have a hypothetic question: can we be sure that electron > isn't extremely weak monopole and the same with proton, but with > opposite sing? The electron is definitely an electrical monopole. It is an electrically charged point particle. The proton is definitely and electrical monopole, two. Their monopole moment have opposite signs because their electric charge have opposite signs. If the electron or proton were also a weak magnetic monopole, there would certainly be some important changes in phytsics. However, the magnetic monopole would be very weak not to have been noticed in any of the electrical devices we use every day. Let me repeat. The Stern Gerlach experiment showed that the electron has a magnetic dipole. A simila experiment showed that the proton has a magnetic dipole. In fact, MRI images prove that proton has a magnetic dipole. Please get the classical electrodynamic concepts down before asking questions about high energy physics..You can't ask a quantum mechanical question clearly if you don't know classical electrodynamics. We can get into an interesting discussion once you know the difference between an electrical monopole, a magnetic monopole, an electrical dipole, and a magnetic dipole. Then we can discuss topological singularities in a Lorentz invariant vacuum |:-)
From: Jarek Duda on 26 Nov 2009 04:01 I apology - in this hypothetical question if we can be sure that electrons/protons aren't extremely weak opposite monopoles, I meant magnetic monopole. I've only used it to show that like with neutrino mass/magnetic moment, there is still a place for many phenomenas we cannot just exclude ... Ok - let's return to photons ... Another very important thing is that with topological singularity should come some internal stress - some minimal energy - mass of the particle ... and photons doesn't have it. It might be nonintuitive that these two kind of phenomenas can appear simultaneously... What we need is for example field of vectors which prefers nonzero length - kind of quantum phase which prefers to choose some phase (angle) in practically all points. It can have some gauge invariance. This property allows it to create topological singularities - spins - for example quantum phase making rotation around spin axis. Now to make twist-like waves we can also use this rotational degrees of freedom, but this time as a swing from equilibrium. For example imagine that all of them are directed in the same way - or that quantum phase is locally constant. So if there would appear twist- like perturbation, it would be swing from equilibrium. It also would have some internal energy, so it couldn't just vanish, but would like to travel, being localized around it's center. Interesting fact is that rotational degrees of freedom of such 'quantum phase extended into three dimensions' gives Maxwell's equations. If we extend it into four dimensions, rotations of such fourth axis gives additionally Lorentz invariant gravitation (see 5th section of the paper)
From: Y.Porat on 26 Nov 2009 04:18 On Nov 25, 7:24 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > On Nov 24, 5:02 pm, Jarek Duda <duda...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 24, 10:09 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 23, 10:16 am, Jarek Duda <duda...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > According to the Standard Model, the neutrino is a fundamental > > > > > chargeless particle, so it should not have a magnetic dipole moment. > > > > > If it ever was discovered that the neutrino has a finite magnetic > > > > > dipole moment, it would be back to the drawing board. > > > > > I've looked at a few papers and they were rather saying something > > > > different...http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0601113 > > > > If you notice, that paper doesn't actually say that the neutrino has a > > > magnetic moment. It only provides a theoretical upper bound based on > > > the most current observations. It's a lot like similar papers on the > > > upper limit on photon mass. > > > What do You mean? In the paper I've linked there are both upper and > > lower bounds ... > > Yeah, you're correct on that one. Apparently, after re-reading this > paper, I see that it's based not on the conventional Standard Model, > but on some sort of extended version of it. That's what I meant when > I said "it would be back to the drawing board", since the conventional > SM doesn't predict a magnetic moment for the neutrino. People are > already anticipating new directions in which to take the SM and this > paper is a good example. -------------------- and now you can see some of those shamles crooks just above that claimed that the experiment described by he op poster WAS DONE AND ***EXPLAINED** 80 YEARS BEFORE "" end of "quote ' !!! and they are supposed to be teachers of physics!! not only yhat they are morons they are shamelsss crooks as well and as i said before : a person without persoanl honesty and integrity CANNOT BE A REAL SCIENTIST!! because you cant cheat every body forever !! now some remars to some morons and crooks above that still steal ideas and relate it to themselves: 1 the electron is not a pint particle most pepel here realized now that spinn is not a sort of a spinning Gyroscope it is some angle rotation around a longitudinal axis 90 deg or 180 deg and then locked at that position now of you are not an idiot mathematician you undesrstad imediately that having a longitudinal axis IS NOT FOR A POINT PARTICLE!! (the head of those pompous mathematician is a blocked forever point particle) 2 it means that a particle that has spin must be subdivided to smaller orbital particles!! or be a single orbital that is planar extending on a plan (one it is on a plan it has definit directions) 3 the more complicated and sub built is the particle it has more descret directions that are done by its sub constituents and that we have bigger particles with more than just 1/2 angular momentum 4 see how particles are built from ligth ones to heavier ones step by step in my abstract: and how it is defined unequivocally by its sub constituents (it is not a 'porridge of antiparticles as the fucken crippled current models suggest by their ignorance ) http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-anbstract (you have to press there on the link 'view' ) ATB Y.Porat ------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 26 Nov 2009 04:39
On Nov 26, 11:18 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 25, 7:24 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 24, 5:02 pm, Jarek Duda <duda...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 24, 10:09 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 23, 10:16 am, Jarek Duda <duda...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > According to the Standard Model, the neutrino is a fundamental > > > > > > chargeless particle, so it should not have a magnetic dipole moment. > > > > > > If it ever was discovered that the neutrino has a finite magnetic > > > > > > dipole moment, it would be back to the drawing board. > > > > > > I've looked at a few papers and they were rather saying something > > > > > different...http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0601113 > > > > > If you notice, that paper doesn't actually say that the neutrino has a > > > > magnetic moment. It only provides a theoretical upper bound based on > > > > the most current observations. It's a lot like similar papers on the > > > > upper limit on photon mass. > > > > What do You mean? In the paper I've linked there are both upper and > > > lower bounds ... > > > Yeah, you're correct on that one. Apparently, after re-reading this > > paper, I see that it's based not on the conventional Standard Model, > > but on some sort of extended version of it. That's what I meant when > > I said "it would be back to the drawing board", since the conventional > > SM doesn't predict a magnetic moment for the neutrino. People are > > already anticipating new directions in which to take the SM and this > > paper is a good example. > > -------------------- > and now you can see some of those shamles crooks > > just above that claimed that the experiment described by he op poster > WAS DONE AND ***EXPLAINED** 80 YEARS BEFORE "" > end of "quote ' !!! > and they are supposed to be > teachers of physics!! > not only yhat they are morons > they are shamelsss crooks as well > and as i said before : > > a person without persoanl honesty and integrity > CANNOT BE A REAL SCIENTIST!! > because you cant cheat every body forever !! > now some remars to some morons and crooks above > that still steal ideas and relate it to themselves: > > 1 > the electron is not a pint particle > most pepel here realized now > that spinn is not a sort of a spinning Gyroscope > > it is some angle rotation around a longitudinal axis > > 90 deg or 180 deg and then locked at that position > now of you are not an idiot mathematician > you undesrstad imediately that > having a longitudinal axis > IS NOT FOR A POINT PARTICLE!! > (the head of those pompous mathematician > is a blocked forever point particle) > > 2 > it means that a particle that has spin > must be subdivided to smaller orbital particles!! > > or be a single orbital that is planar > extending on a plan > (one it is on a plan it has definit directions) > 3 > the more complicated and sub built is the particle > it has more descret directions > that are done by its sub constituents > and that we have bigger particles with more than > just 1/2 angular momentum > > 4 > see how particles are built > from ligth ones to heavier ones > step by step in my abstract: > and how it is defined unequivocally by its > sub constituents > (it is not a 'porridge of antiparticles as the fucken > crippled current models suggest by their ignorance ) > > http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-anbstract > > (you have to press there on the link 'view' ) > > ATB > Y.Porat > ------------------------ typo: http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract hope it is right now Y.P ------------------------ |