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 20 Nov 2009 03:06 > Spin is a misused term. Rotation is right. What wave of the two waves > in light; the E and M; is the photon in? Yes - rotation of quantum phase around spin axis - its what spin is - topological singularity. Photons can be traveling clockwise/anticlockwise twist-like wave - but its angular momentum not spin.
From: Jarek Duda on 20 Nov 2009 03:10 > Spin is a misused term. Rotation is right. What wave of the two waves > in light; the E and M; is the photon in? Yes - rotation of quantum phase around spin axis - its what spin is - topological singularity. Charge is also topological singularity but of different type - Gauss law allows to count then number of practically point-like charges (e) inside some volume. Photons can be traveling clockwise/anticlockwise twist-like wave - but its angular momentum not spin.
From: Y.Porat on 20 Nov 2009 03:16 On Nov 19, 11:08 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > On Nov 19, 1:43 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 19, 7:14 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 18, 10:55 am, Jarek Duda <duda...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Spin corresponds to magnetic dipole moment of particle, > > > > This is not true if a particle has no internal charge distribution. > > > So your initial statement is false for a photon. > > > > Besides, you've gotten it backwards. The magnetic dipole moment > > > depends on spin and charge. You need a current loop. > > > -------------- > > Hi parrot > > you speak about spin > > while you dont know ***and dont mind*** > > how and why it is done > > you could as well say that it is done by > > witches on brooms > > the same with your Higgs Bosons > > > Y.P > > -------------------------- > > Crawl back under your rock and let the big insects discuss physics. ------------------ (:-) you have some greetings from your Higgs Bosons and from your 3 quarks per Proton and every day another quark story etc got is IMBECILE MATHEMATICIAN crook PARROT ???!! you cant cheat every body forever !! Y.P ----------------------- Y.P --------------------
From: Robert Higgins on 20 Nov 2009 06:13 On Nov 20, 12:29 am, 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. It seems from a quick Google search that you academic affilitation puts you in a Department of Computer Science. Is this true? What is your level of education in physics or chemistry?
From: Jarek Duda on 20 Nov 2009 07:01
> What is your level of education in physics or chemistry? For me scientific discussion is about using objective arguments not backgrounds, but if You need to know I have 3 master degrees: computer science, math and physics (all theoretical) and finishing PhD studies in cs and physics. > From this, one can deduce that the resulting electron·positron pair is just accelerated photons. No - they have mass and charge/spin. Look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_defect how topological defects having mass decay into nontopological excitations - photons. Playing it backward You get particle- antiparticle creation. |