Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I rarely think about protons as being more than sources of mass/gravity and positive electrostatic charge, but I saw something today that made sure to highlight their transparency as consisting of different-directional quarks. I bet that before protons were known to consist of quarks, a physicist like you would have said that the question of whether protons consist of sub-particles or other constituent mechanics is not physics. It's ALL "potential physics." However, there's no way of knowing whether professional physicists will actually choose one direction or another.

 

Personally, I think it's interesting when some issue is not formal physics (yet) because it allows anyone with tacit knowledge to contemplate how physics would or could approach the problem. I suppose that would be a "speculations" issue, but I still think it is potential physics research. The easy question I was trying to pose with regard to this, however, is simply whether physics is leaning toward establishing primacy for either force or energy. I mean, you could either try to dissect forces for energy-relations that constitute them OR consider force-fields as fundamental entities that express energy but are themselves neither energy nor reducible to it. This sort of gets back to the ever-resurfacing conflict between nouns and verbs, though, I think. I.e. between objects and motion.

 

 

 

 

If you can represent of a force as a composite of numeric values, then if its equal to something, your describing what that is. Like E=mc^2, so the amount of energy is mass times the speed of light squared, which is physics combined with math.

Edited by steevey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can represent of a force as a composite of numeric values, then if its equal to something, your describing what that is. Like E=mc^2, so the amount of energy is mass times the speed of light squared, which is physics combined with math.

"Physics combined with math?" This is making me think about starting a thread about what math actually is. Is it a means of representing quantifiable relationships in an exact manner or something else? And would it be possible to do math if something unquantified would be the basis? E.g. if photons were the basis for force, force could be quantized. But force turns out to be the basis for photon energy, and force-fields turn out to be malleable without constituent particles, how do you deal with that mathematically?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Physics combined with math?" This is making me think about starting a thread about what math actually is. Is it a means of representing quantifiable relationships in an exact manner or something else? And would it be possible to do math if something unquantified would be the basis? E.g. if photons were the basis for force, force could be quantized. But force turns out to be the basis for photon energy, and force-fields turn out to be malleable without constituent particles, how do you deal with that mathematically?

 

Math combined with physics are things put into terms of numeric values which represent something, which is why without physics or something to describe what things in math mean, numbers would be meaningless.

People noticed that atoms are quantized, so right off the bat we can put that into terms of numeric values to describe it, like for describing emitted photons, just take any whole number multiplied by Planck's constant times the frequency of light to get the energy of a photon emitted by an electron. But, the whole number, Planck's constant and the frequency would have no meaning unless we actually told people what they are describing.

The problem arises from the fact itself that math has no meaningless unless you say what it describes, so you could write an equation for something and it would make sense, yet that thing doesn't have to exist since when its being described just by numbers, which is why you have all these extra-dimensional theories.

 

So in physics when you use math, and you have an "equals" sign, you are inherently saying what two things are or are equivalent to. So in the example I showed earlier, it doesn't describe the behavior of anything at all, it describes what the energy of a photon actually is or how is equal to, which is [math]E=nhv[/math]

Edited by steevey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, the whole number, Planck's constant and the frequency would have no meaning unless we actually told people what they are describing.

That sums up my whole problem with the emphasis on the math. To me, the big issue lies in the relationship between photon frequencies, electron frequencies, etc. . . not in the calculation of predictive amounts. Those predictions could come in handy if I had a practical situation to deal with or plan, but for theoretical purposes I want to understand why these various quantum phenomena are related to one another and how they influence the behavior of matter-energy at observable levels.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sums up my whole problem with the emphasis on the math. To me, the big issue lies in the relationship between photon frequencies, electron frequencies, etc. . . not in the calculation of predictive amounts. Those predictions could come in handy if I had a practical situation to deal with or plan, but for theoretical purposes I want to understand why these various quantum phenomena are related to one another and how they influence the behavior of matter-energy at observable levels.

 

 

 

 

If you want to know how this applies on an observable level, you really need to think, because quantum mechanics is all about what you can't actually see, with the exception of the colors of photons.

Otherwise, trying to use quantum mechanics to describe a something like a ball is just too difficult right now because theres literally trillion trillions of atoms in it, its just very complex and in order to use quantum mechanics to completely describe a physical object probably takes some more research in it. What your talking about is essentially like trying to use a single cell of your body to describe your entire body, which can be done to an extent with a ton of work with mapping out the genes and running simulations of those genes and looking at the cell cycle and what other cells it could have become and etc.

 

We still haven't even filled in all the gaps with why fores work the way they do and what they are comprised of.

Edited by steevey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Physics combined with math?" This is making me think about starting a thread about what math actually is. Is it a means of representing quantifiable relationships in an exact manner or something else? And would it be possible to do math if something unquantified would be the basis? E.g. if photons were the basis for force, force could be quantized. But force turns out to be the basis for photon energy, and force-fields turn out to be malleable without constituent particles, how do you deal with that mathematically?

 

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 "

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 didn't see the Ising model until graduate statistical mechanics. What does that mean? It means undergraduate courses (not necessarily just one semester) in general physics, upper-level classes in E&M, thermodynamics, dynamics, modern physics and quantum mechanics, along with calculus and differential equations. At a minimum. Oh, and then a graduate class in dynamics, too. We didn't just show up one day and say "I want to understand this, even if it takes all day"

 

This just in: physics is hard. One does not expect to take up a new sport and quickly be able to play at the professional level. Science is really no different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to know how this applies on an observable level, you really need to think, because quantum mechanics is all about what you can't actually see, with the exception of the colors of photons.

For example, what is the relationship between electron orbital shapes and molecular behavior, e.g. substance density and melting/evaporation temperatures as well as crystallization, etc.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example, what is the relationship between electron orbital shapes and molecular behavior, e.g. substance density and melting/evaporation temperatures as well as crystallization, etc.

 

There are many examples but few are intuitive at face value. That's where the math comes in.

 

Since this thread is about spin, I'll use spin as an example. There are some chemical reactions that are "spin-controlled". If you observe said reaction and time everything meticulously, you can do what's called a kinetic study. Kinetics is the study of the rates of chemical reactions and how these reactions occur at the most fundamental level. There are some reactions, that once you do all the kinetics math you will see the that rate determining step (the "slowest" step that will determine how fast this can happen") is a spin flip. Two electrons that have the same spin can't be paired. A chemical bond contains two electrons that are spin paired.

 

After doing all the math it is observed that these molecules react with each other almost as fast as they can collide with each other in solution minus some very small unit of time. This unit of time in some reactions happens to coincide with the approximate time required for a spin flip to occur.

 

Another, perhaps, even more familiar [but less direct in my opinion] example is magnetism. All the different types of magnetism: ferromagnetism, paramagentism, diamagnetism, ferrimagnetism and the like are all spin related phenomena.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What your talking about is essentially like trying to use a single cell of your body to describe your entire body, which can be done to an extent with a ton of work with mapping out the genes and running simulations of those genes and looking at the cell cycle and what other cells it could have become and etc.

Thinking in wholes bodies makes it impossible to begin to approach how aspects of that body are related to other aspects. It is useful to look at how an individual muscle cell works, how it stretches and contracts and generates heat, and how it connects with other muscle cells and bones, and then use that knowledge to understand various functionalities of the body. I.e. gaining a total understanding of the body as a whole should be a far-off goal if you even make it a goal at all. You don't read a book by reading every page; you read a page or paragraph to get information and process it to get as much out of it as possible - then based on your insight, you can try to navigate the book to mine it for more such insights. In my experience, you get a lot more out of research by doing it that way than burying yourself under the daunting task of understanding everything about everything, or a whole body (i.e. body of knowledge).

 

 

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 assume that is a joke. Be careful, though, because people actually get so attached to their minds and control of knowledge that they become obsessed to the point of serious insanity. You have to balance your focus on science with other simple everyday life activities that remind you that life is more than one kind of knowledge or labor, imo.

 

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 "

That's interesting. Your "construction of a personal mental concept for intrinsic spin of the electron" sounds promising. I watched a youtube video made by something called cassiopeiaproject. where spin was depicted as literal rotation of the probability shell as the electron points did their "dancing" within the rotating shell. But I don't know how effective a model it was if you can't dissect it to get some kind of mechanical insight into how it influences interactions with other electrons and/or other particles.

 

 

I didn't see the Ising model until graduate statistical mechanics. What does that mean? It means undergraduate courses (not necessarily just one semester) in general physics, upper-level classes in E&M, thermodynamics, dynamics, modern physics and quantum mechanics, along with calculus and differential equations. At a minimum. Oh, and then a graduate class in dynamics, too. We didn't just show up one day and say "I want to understand this, even if it takes all day"

 

This just in: physics is hard. One does not expect to take up a new sport and quickly be able to play at the professional level. Science is really no different.

You'd be surprised how much comprehension relies on general levels of intellectual development. I did graduate work in a relatively non-scientific field but I have always maintained scientific interests and dealing with conceptual complexity in social-political theory actually helps in wrapping my head around "foreign" conceptual complexities and engaging them critically in a way that generates comprehension. I think it's like the sport-analogy you mention, which applies to things like playing musical instruments and learning languages, etc. As you develop the basic body fitness, coordination, skills, logic, etc. to perform well in one sport, these skills are somewhat transferrable to other sports, albeit with various forms of interference due to differences as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After doing all the math it is observed that these molecules react with each other almost as fast as they can collide with each other in solution minus some very small unit of time. This unit of time in some reactions happens to coincide with the approximate time required for a spin flip to occur.

That's interesting. I wonder what would govern "the time required for a spin flip to occur." Surely it must have something to do with the relationship between the size of the electron and the speed of light, no?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's interesting. Your "construction of a personal mental concept for intrinsic spin of the electron" sounds promising. I watched a youtube video made by something called cassiopeiaproject. where spin was depicted as literal rotation of the probability shell as the electron points did their "dancing" within the rotating shell.

 

Which video claimed this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which video claimed this?

 

Spin is just the orientation of the magnetic field right? So doesn't that itself spin, even if the electron doesn't? I mean, its a direction and magnitude...

I think that the electron may not spin, but at least the magnetic field does in some way.

Edited by steevey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's interesting. Your "construction of a personal mental concept for intrinsic spin of the electron" sounds promising. I watched a youtube video made by something called cassiopeiaproject. where spin was depicted as literal rotation of the probability shell as the electron points did their "dancing" within the rotating shell. But I don't know how effective a model it was if you can't dissect it to get some kind of mechanical insight into how it influences interactions with other electrons and/or other particles.

 

 

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.

 

Mental conceptual Model not fact : An electron consisting as a fuzzy, fairly ill defined position wise, none-the-less bubble of mass containing (stuff, the mass of the electron ). Inside this fuzzy bubble is a spinning electrical field which induces a magnetic moment (namely a north and south pole , having a definite pointing direction , say north upward .)

Another different electron finding itself in the proximity of the first , would have no option but to orientate itself upside down, namely the north facing downward. These two electrons would be drawn toward one another ( like those magnets that kids throw into the air. ) The negative charge of the electrons will tend to push them apart. They then do an attractive repulsive dance having opposite spins. Should they be in the presence of an overall magnetic field then the couple orientate according to domain theory all in the same direction within the immediate domain. Mike Smith submission only as a temporary postulated model

 

 

 

I have submitted this for forum discussion only. It is not presented as fact , purely a mental model.

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
fix quote tag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which video claimed this?

It wasn't claimed. I was just describing the visual representation used in the video to depict electron behaviors. I don't know how accurately the image was intended to represent the various attributes/behaviors of the concept.

 

 

I have submitted this for forum discussion only. It is not presented as fact , purely a mental model.

What you say sounds similar to what I've read from other sources. I think the ising diagram shows how the spin directions of the electrons orient into patterns of attraction and repulsion. I suppose that ferromagnets are special because they can cool down and lock in a pattern of same-direction spins. In other materials, I guess the spins create patterns of orientation-shifts and these would act like lots of little contradictory magnetic currents that cancel each other out at the macro-level.

 

What I find curious is how the magnetic field of an electron can extend beyond its electrostatic field. This actually confuses me because the positive pole of the magnet would seem to be related to positive electrostatic charge of the nucleus, but I don't think this is the case. On the other hand, a positively ionized particle does theoretically exude positive electrostatic force, but is its range less than that of a magnetic field caused by multiple electrons spinning together?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't claimed. I was just describing the visual representation used in the video to depict electron behaviors. I don't know how accurately the image was intended to represent the various attributes/behaviors of the concept.

 

 

 

 

 

I think that video is representing that the magnetic field is rotating, but it never stated that the electron itself physically spun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you say sounds similar to what I've read from other sources. I think the ising diagram shows how the spin directions of the electrons orient into patterns of attraction and repulsion. I suppose that ferromagnets are special because they can cool down and lock in a pattern of same-direction spins. In other materials, I guess the spins create patterns of orientation-shifts and these would act like lots of little contradictory magnetic currents that cancel each other out at the macro-level.

 

What I find curious is how the magnetic field of an electron can extend beyond its electrostatic field. This actually confuses me because the positive pole of the magnet would seem to be related to positive electrostatic charge of the nucleus, but I don't think this is the case. On the other hand, a positively ionized particle does theoretically exude positive electrostatic force, but is its range less than that of a magnetic field caused by multiple electrons spinning together?

 

 

 

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.

 

Since this thread is about spin, I'll use spin as an example. There are some chemical reactions that are "spin-controlled". If you observe said reaction and time everything meticulously, you can do what's called a kinetic study. Kinetics is the study of the rates of chemical reactions and how these reactions occur at the most fundamental level. There are some reactions, that once you do all the kinetics math you will see the that rate determining step (the "slowest" step that will determine how fast this can happen") is a spin flip. Two electrons that have the same spin can't be paired. A chemical bond contains two electrons that are spin paired.

 

After doing all the math it is observed that these molecules react with each other almost as fast as they can collide with each other in solution minus some very small unit of time. This unit of time in some reactions happens to coincide with the approximate time required for a spin flip to occur.

 

 

 

 

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 ?

 

I think that video is representing that the magnetic field is rotating, but it never stated that the electron itself physically spun.

 

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. ?

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. ?

 

If scientists don't know thats fine, but what it appears to be caused by is some type of way the wave physically acts, which I'm sort of stretching the boundaries of "physical" with because an electron can exist in multiple places at once, or re-appear and disappear, which is what I'm saying are physical events. In the event that the electron exists in no specific region of space, the electron is still a completely physical piece of matter, which is probably what swan doesn't understand about my thinking.

Edited by steevey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't claimed. I was just describing the visual representation used in the video to depict electron behaviors. I don't know how accurately the image was intended to represent the various attributes/behaviors of the concept.

 

Then your description is probably wrong. I'll ask again: which video was it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then your description is probably wrong. I'll ask again: which video was it?

 

 

If I remember what he's talking about correctly, I think its this one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then your description is probably wrong. I'll ask again: which video was it?

I can't remember exactly. There was short clips explaining particles and a six part series explaining everything from energy quanta according to color/wavelength to how the quarks that make up a proton interact and exchange states. I liked it but I will probably only process the concepts over time as they become relevant to my slowly evolving mental model of sub-atomic physics.

 

I think that video is representing that the magnetic field is rotating, but it never stated that the electron itself physically spun.

I have gotten confused by the different approaches to talking about electrons. I originally assumed the Bohr model idea of point-particles that orbit around the nucleus, although I never assumed they moved in perfect circles and didn't change direction. Later I learned that they are described as "clouds" but I still thought of the cloud as something like a point-particle that moves around so fast that the net result is similar to that of molecules making up a cloud. Now I have learned that people don't even call it a cloud or orbit or shell or anything and just refer to the whole field surrounding the nucleus as an electron - but then I don't know what happens to the idea of the point-particle(s) that have no volume. I assume that it is the point-particles that are volumeless centers of the various field-forces surrounding them and that these tunnel around and appear and disappear anywhere but with a higher probability of showing up within a certain wave-pattern that does orbit the nucleus, orbits it in fixed quantities of waves, and is fixed to certain levels that it can climb and drop to when absorbing or emitting energy/photons.

 

In the graphic depiction in the movie, I believe it was the entire exterior of the atom that appeared to be rotating and creating a directional axis that could reverse but always had the same quantity of momentum (which Swanson said was 1/2 but 1/2 of what exactly?

Edited by lemur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't remember exactly. There was short clips explaining particles and a six part series explaining everything from energy quanta according to color/wavelength to how the quarks that make up a proton interact and exchange states. I liked it but I will probably only process the concepts over time as they become relevant to my slowly evolving mental model of sub-atomic physics.

 

 

I have gotten confused by the different approaches to talking about electrons. I originally assumed the Bohr model idea of point-particles that orbit around the nucleus, although I never assumed they moved in perfect circles and didn't change direction. Later I learned that they are described as "clouds" but I still thought of the cloud as something like a point-particle that moves around so fast that the net result is similar to that of molecules making up a cloud. Now I have learned that people don't even call it a cloud or orbit or shell or anything and just refer to the whole field surrounding the nucleus as an electron - but then I don't know what happens to the idea of the point-particle(s) that have no volume. I assume that it is the point-particles that are volumeless centers of the various field-forces surrounding them and that these tunnel around and appear and disappear anywhere but with a higher probability of showing up within a certain wave-pattern that does orbit the nucleus, orbits it in fixed quantities of waves, and is fixed to certain levels that it can climb and drop to when absorbing or emitting energy/photons.

 

electrons exist as physical objects, but they just act differently than anything in the classical world. Electrons can and observably do exist as points or pieces of matter, but because of the uncertainty principal, the observable "size" depends on the energy and mass. The important thing is: You have to be able to see it as a wave and a particle at the same time.

Edited by steevey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the graphic depiction in the movie, I believe it was the entire exterior of the atom that appeared to be rotating and creating a directional axis that could reverse but always had the same quantity of momentum (which Swanson said was 1/2 but 1/2 of what exactly?

 

[imath]\frac{1}{2}\hbar[/imath]

 

[imath]\hbar = \frac{h}{2\pi}[/imath]

 

h is Planck's constant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

electrons exist as physical objects, but they just act differently than anything in the classical world. Electrons can and observably do exist as points or pieces of matter, but because of the uncertainty principal, the observable "size" depends on the energy and mass. The important thing is: You have to be able to see it as a wave and a particle at the same time.

Why is the important thing to see it as a wave and a particle at the same time? Because they interact with each other as if they were multiple points of repellant force simultaneously within the wave distribution? What do you mean when you say the "size" depends on energy and mass? Are you referring to the volume of the atom as it relates to the density of a substance?

 

 

[imath]\frac{1}{2}\hbar[/imath]

 

[imath]\hbar = \frac{h}{2\pi}[/imath]

 

h is Planck's constant

It almost sounds as if "spin" refers to phase-change in an EM wave. If Planck's constant refers to the amount of energy in an EM wave and a wave consists of peak and trough, then changing phase could be viewed as the propagation of the peak to the trough. I know this doesn't make sense in terms of other waves, like ocean waves, but if you looked at a photon in its own frame, couldn't it be seen to oscillate by phase-switching and wouldn't this correspond to 1/2 of Planck's constant? Maybe this is straw-grasping because I want to make sense of the relationship between the electron and photon in terms of their common relation to Planck's constant. It just seems like such an otherwise impossible coincidence that both phenomena are quantized and related in such a simple ratio.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It almost sounds as if "spin" refers to phase-change in an EM wave. If Planck's constant refers to the amount of energy in an EM wave and a wave consists of peak and trough, then changing phase could be viewed as the propagation of the peak to the trough. I know this doesn't make sense in terms of other waves, like ocean waves, but if you looked at a photon in its own frame, couldn't it be seen to oscillate by phase-switching and wouldn't this correspond to 1/2 of Planck's constant? Maybe this is straw-grasping because I want to make sense of the relationship between the electron and photon in terms of their common relation to Planck's constant. It just seems like such an otherwise impossible coincidence that both phenomena are quantized and related in such a simple ratio.

Planck's constant is the quantum of angular momentum, not energy. You multiply it by the frequency to get the energy.

 

I don't know what you mean by phase-switching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Planck's constant is the quantum of angular momentum, not energy. You multiply it by the frequency to get the energy.

 

I don't know what you mean by phase-switching.

By phase-switching, I mean inversion of wave-directionality. I.e. a peak switching to become a trough. It's as if the wave propagates by the energy of the peak transmuting to become its own trough and vice-versa in a linear direction. So it seems as though electron spin is like a non-propagating EM wave oscillation. Then it's as if it propagates as an EM wave by propagating directional-switching of the spin. So the spin would be like actual moving charge that creates current to generate a combined electric-magnetic field. Then that combined field can propagate by oscillating along its axis of rotation. I wonder why electron angular momentum would propagate in that way. It's like it is extremely prone to motion but that its motion is constrained by some internal containment force that requires it to stick to itself whether rotating, propagating, etc. Maybe I'm reading too much into all this, idk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.