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 19 Nov 2009 16:30 > I never said it was. I said you needed both in order to have a > magnetic dipole moment. So what about neutrino?
From: Robert Higgins on 19 Nov 2009 18:38 On Nov 19, 1:15 pm, Jarek Duda <duda...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > You want to see charge as the more fundamental property - but maybe > it's the other way... > Look at the most fundamental, lightest particles - leptons: there is > 'pure spin' particle (neutrino), but there is no pure charge one ... > How to add charge to spin to create electron? Look at fig. 9 ofhttp://arxiv.org/abs/0910.2724 "Quantum mechanics (QM) is probabilistic theory - it can predict only probability of events." Wrong. Take particle with wavefunction exp(i2 phi). There is nothing at all "probabilistic" about its z-component of angular momentum - it is definitely 2 h_bar. "The strongest argument are Bell's inequalities". Lack of subject verb agreement. "The source of the problem are the squares in formulas for probability..." Lack of subject verb agreement.
From: BURT on 19 Nov 2009 22:11 How can a point particle rotate? What wave the Electric or Magnetic is the photon in? The photon was doubted by Einstein in the end. He said he could not reconcile it with the wave. He was right. He won the Nobel Prize for something wrong. He deserved it for another reason. Spin is for a skater pulling in her arms.Steady rotation speed changes sizes in spin in the aether. A particle would have to have a direction of spin orientation and rate of spin. The particle does not spin and better it does not rotate. It has no orientation. Mitch Raemsch
From: Jarek Duda on 20 Nov 2009 00:29 Robert - the fact that sometimes QM can predict with p=1 still makes it probabilistic theory - a tool to estimate probabilities over some most probably deterministically evolving system which we cannot fully measure. In sections 1,2,3 I'm trying to convince that physics is deterministic but it's not for this thread, about spin/charge is section 4 also with general properties like the figures I'm referring - let's focus on it. > How can a point particle rotate? What wave the Electric or Magnetic is > the photon in? > The photon was doubted by Einstein in the end. He said he could not > reconcile it with the wave. He was right. He won the Nobel Prize for > something wrong. He deserved it for another reason. I think that photon is overestimated in modern physics - for example try to imagine that electron goes around proton because of constant exchange of spin 1 photons ... If photon could carry spin, it would split in stern-Gerlach ... and had mass ... The only what these fundamental excitations of each field theory have to carry is attraction/repellence/angular momentum - what we call its spin looks to be only angular momentum.
From: BURT on 20 Nov 2009 00:49
On Nov 19, 9:29 pm, Jarek Duda <duda...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Robert - the fact that sometimes QM can predict with p=1 still makes > it probabilistic theory - a tool to estimate probabilities over some > most probably deterministically evolving system which we cannot fully > measure. > In sections 1,2,3 I'm trying to convince that physics is deterministic > but it's not for this thread, about spin/charge is section 4 also with > general properties like the figures I'm referring - let's focus on it. > > > How can a point particle rotate? What wave the Electric or Magnetic is > > the photon in? > > The photon was doubted by Einstein in the end. He said he could not > > reconcile it with the wave. He was right. He won the Nobel Prize for > > something wrong. He deserved it for another reason. > > I think that photon is overestimated in modern physics - for example > try to imagine that electron goes around proton because of constant > exchange of spin 1 photons ... > If photon could carry spin, it would split in stern-Gerlach ... and > had mass ... > The only what these fundamental excitations of each field theory have > to carry is attraction/repellence/angular momentum - what we call its > spin looks to be only angular momentum. Spin is a misused term. Rotation is right. What wave of the two waves in light; the E and M; is the photon in? Mitch Raemsch |