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: Y.Porat on 20 Nov 2009 07:46 On Nov 20, 10:10 am, Jarek Duda <duda...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. ------------------- right!! but i dont agree with your assertion that say the electron is a point particle (if that is waht you said ) because a point has no specific directions while the lectron does the ver fact that it has 'spin' is a prove for it (SINCE WE ALL AGREED THAT SPIN IS NOT SOMETHING LIKE A GYROSCOPE !!) IE sin is specific dieaction orientated so it is very important to understand and internalize its application meanings ATB Y.Porat ---------------------------------
From: Jarek Duda on 20 Nov 2009 10:23 Y. Porat, if You would sometimes tried not only to spoil discussions but also to read what the second side want to tell ... You would know that no - I don't think that electron is point-like! Pleas look at fig. 9 in my paper to see how to add charge to spin to create electron.
From: BURT on 20 Nov 2009 20:20 On Nov 20, 4:46 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 20, 10:10 am, Jarek Duda <duda...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > ------------------- > right!! > but i dont agree with your assertion that > say the electron is a point particle > (if that is waht you said ) > because a point has no specific directions > while the lectron does > the ver fact that it has 'spin' > is a prove for it > (SINCE WE ALL AGREED THAT > SPIN IS NOT SOMETHING LIKE > A GYROSCOPE !!) > IE > sin is specific dieaction orientated > so > it is very important to understand > and internalize its application meanings > > ATB > Y.Porat > --------------------------------- Point particles do not rotate. Spin is misused for rotation. Point particles in math can have no orientation of rotation or rotation speed. Mitch Raemsch
From: Jarek Duda on 22 Nov 2009 14:38 Tom, You are right - I've omitted charge in formula for quantum phase change ... ... but still quantum phase makes topological singularity around the spin axis - it's not like earth's rotation which is angular momentum. What quantum phase makes around spin axis is: http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/SeparationOfTopologicalSingularities/ How to translate this phase change along a loop around the axis into electromagnetic field? While taking limit of charges going to zero, we see that electromagnetic four-potential should go to infinity... And I completely agree that spin cannot be just pointlike - in the center cannot be chosen any phase - it should somehow deform in continuous way to be able to finally forget about directions in the center. In my paper it's made by ellipse field mechanism - they prefer some shape (radiuses), but are able to deform finally into circle to not emphasize any direction in the center. This enforced deformation cost some energy - giving them mass (see fig. 8 in the paper)
From: Igor on 23 Nov 2009 10:03
On Nov 19, 4:30 pm, Jarek Duda <duda...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I never said it was. I said you needed both in order to have a > > magnetic dipole moment. > > So what about neutrino? 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. |