What is Meant by Electron Spin State?

The answer is +1/2 and -1/2, according to 34-year-old physics lesson notes.........

Excellent link! GA. Thanks!

Dick

Hello Snaketails

"Spin Theory" of electrons, is just that: A theory.

Kind Regards....

I believe this means that in the case of spin = 1/2 it takes an electron 2 'cycles' to complete one spin.

I might be missing part of the picture, but I've heard that most physicists and physical chemists believe that no actual spinning occurs in the literal sense. If they're correct, then electron "spin" is just a convenient label for a quantum mechanical property so abstract that we can't really explain it in terms of anything familiar. Similar to the concept of quark "flavor". We're probably better off trying to define how electron spin affects observable properties (like magnetism and atomic spectra) rather than what it "is". I think that the reason the original scientists chose the term "spin" was that electrons in atomic and molecular orbitals exhibit a magnetic moment due to the interaction of their charge and their angular momentum. Magnetism results from the relativistic motion of electric charges, and spinning is a type of relativistic motion (I refer to relative motion of reference frames, not relativistic speeds). So they saw "spin" as a good analogy.

Svengali has your answer.

You've heard the word, spin, as applied by politicians and media types when they want to pose a quote, media story, and the like in such a way so as to create an impression favorable to self, or manipulate an impression possibly unfavorable? After the same fashion, spin is a convenient coinage, an abstract construct, not to be taken literally (as in, discrete, rotating planets/particles in orbit)...an agreed upon convention used by physicists to describe/classify/quantify (if memory serves...) a property of subatomic matter known as "symmetry."

Time doesn't permit....but Hawkins gave a fairly easy to follow, qualitative explanation in the popular book, A Brief History of Time. Check that out for a quick "up to speed."

I recall reading in Scientific American that Quarks, in addition to having 'flavors' (up, down, charmed, strange etc) that they also have the same sort of spin I described for Electrons. We learn, in 7th grade, that electrons move in 'orbitals' but this is just one way of looking at how quarks work, i.e. it takes 3 quarks to make one proton.

With electrons the 'orbitals' fluctuate so now we talk about electron clouds.

The problem is that we are discussing something that can only be explained mathematically. This is bound to introduce mis-understandings when dealing with quarks and electrons.

Still it is important to try.

/Ari

I agree that we should try to understand these sorts of abstract concepts, even if all our models only provide rough analogies. Evidently understanding won't come easily, especially when looking at phenomena on very small and very large scales. We need to remember to resists our natural tendency to take our models literally. Sometimes I wonder if the mysteries will ever come to an end. Maybe the closer we look, the more questions will pop up, on and on, forever (as if reality is one giant brain-teaser or prank "intended" to push us to evolve). Could be that reality transcends all discrete models, and all we can hope for are increasingly accurate (practically useful) approximations.

These are no mysteries which word suggests things outside our ability to understand because outside material reality.

They are simply unknowns. Problems arise when we mystify things and forget that all we are talking about is concrete material reality.

There does come a time when we have sufficient knowledge to conclude that we have a firm understanding of material fact.

In general, the unwinding of knowledge of the material universe will of course go on. We will always uncover more details insofar as the material universe is continually developing and changing.

The key is understanding the general rules, the scientific laws, of that ongoing process.

j.

Svengali, my friend,

You are closer to the truth than you know, especially from a Zen point of view!

I agree that we should try to understand these sorts of abstract concepts, even if all our models only provide rough analogies. Evidently understanding won't come easily, especially when looking at phenomena on very small and very large scales. We need to remember to resists our natural tendency to take our models literally.

Don't confuse the road map with the road.

Sometimes I wonder if the mysteries will ever come to an end. Maybe the closer we look, the more questions will pop up, on and on, forever (as if reality is one giant brain-teaser or prank "intended" to push us to evolve).

That is brilliant.

Could be that reality transcends all discrete models, and all we can hope for are increasingly accurate (practically useful) approximations.

Now you've nailed the Buddha's message to the wall.

Problem is, we've spent the last week trying to define what electron-spin is. The question, as it has been posted at the top pf every response is:

"What is the MEANING of electron-spin." Electron-spin does not have an intrinsic meaning. What does "Cat" MEAN not "What is a cat" Do you see the difference?

I believe we have been answering the intended question, but the question is worded incorrectly. I think the question should be:

What is electron-spin and how does it affect our reality and how we perceive electricity?

Wow - what a rush!

/Orpheuse

Yes nicely put....

Sometimes it's easy to get bogged down in the words rather than the understanding.

A Rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Also as scientists we all realise you can only express things qualitatively or quantitatively by their effect on other things which are more manageable to understand.

We only understand the wind because we can feel it and see it's effect....
If it had no effect we wouldn't understand it...but would it exist?
I like the ancient belief, I once read, that it is the trees waving their braches that causes the wind.

Peace and chill

Del

Orpheuse,

How nice to hear from a friend who shares my appreciation for Buddhist wisdom! And I can identify with the Zen aspects -- Philip Kapleau and D.T. Suzuki greatly influenced me in my youth. I wish more people would look into what Buddhism has to say about the material world and human psychology. Many people avoid looking at this amazing body of wisdom because of its religious trappings. But Buddhism has no deity, and does not even require belief in an afterlife, so we really should not consider it a religion, but instead mainly a powerful and practical model of human psychology rooted in direct empirical observation. The Buddha also made some interesting comments that sound like references to atoms and the Big Bang. Those who seek harmony between science and ethics/religion should have a sincere look at Buddhist ideas (which, by the way, do not require giving up one's original religious tradition).

Yes, Svengali, you understand.

I have one question - what is reincarnation if not a form of an afterlife? You might want to look at "The Tibetan book of Living and Dying". Also check Allan Watts, with him you get a record of someone raised in the west, worked with Suzuki and gives you a view of what a westerner can understand about the Buddha.

Om, Namah Shiva

Ari (Orpheuse)

Yep, two up quarks (2 x +2/3) and one down quark (-1/3) equals an electrical charge of 1 for a proton. Where do truth and beauty come in?

Svengali

'We're probably better off trying to define how electron spin affects observable properties (like magnetism and atomic spectra) rather than what it "is".'

I am probably getting in deep way over my, not head, but present level of comprehension. Nonetheless, your above statement suggests that you are trying to have it two ways in terms of actual, observable, phenomena.

To wit; if "electron spin affects observable properties," how then is it itself not an observable, real, concrete, property no matter how indirect. As I read the page posted by Ken the fact of electron spin was determined by measurements of a material phenomenon that suggested that we were "seeing" a continuously changing face of the electron particle, i.e., spin.

I use the word seeing because either the phenomena that we record and plug into mathematical formulas is real, and hence no matter how indirect, material, or just some sort of notion, notion because we are not necessarily getting the data from anything observable, perhaps just from another mathematical function itself not supported by material observations.

This question of observable spin data at the sub-atomic level, I am sure you will all agree, is very much similar to the pulsar phenomenon we observe in space of rapidly spinning stars. We call them pulsars because in their rotation, as I understand it, they flash pulses of energy which we intercept and from which we draw conclusions as to the nature of what we are observing. (A rotating neutron star that generates regular pulses of radiation at its spin rate. Pulsars were discovered by observations at radio wavelengths ...
www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/spacesci/pictures/2003/0702pulsarspeed/0702ssu_glossary.htm - Definition in context)

Why should we consider the "spin" of an electron in any other way?

Again, I am not a physicist, and I don't have the necessary math, but I don't see why physical phenomena cannot be explained in gross, non-mathematical expressions, without implying that the math actually represents an unknown "thing in itself" which Kant would have argued, did argue, is in fact unknowable.

My understanding is that the great physicist Feynman held exactly the same view.

If phenomena are real, that is concrete, how can they be unknowable or put another way abstractions in math not really representative of concrete reality. The math may be necessary as a means of approaching and approximating that which we do not yet fully understand but in the end it must express reality to have validity.

What I have just read, thanks to Ken, says that electron spin is real and concrete, albeit for calculation purposes expressed abstractly in math. We in fact do exactly the same thing when we talk about potential and kinetic energy, i.e., raise actual material functions to the abstract level of math in order to calculate effects.

j.

Hi, Svengali,

Once we get to the atomic level the' gross, material" reality we're used to dealing with sort-of breaks up. It's a little like trying to zoom in too close to a photograph. Once we get beyond the minimum pixel depth, everything starts to pixelate.

Perhaps another exemplar will add more confusion to this. Perpend. There is a sub-atomic particle called a positron. It has all the properties of an electron but a positive charge. One explanation is that a positron is an electron traveling backwards in space-time. Another sub-atomic particle is the tachyon. Space-time doesn't exist for this particle because it is thought to be traveling forward in space-time but at faster than light speeds.

So, you can see the kind of trouble we can get into when we try to talk about high-energy-particle physics - and you thought Newton was a pain. As far as all of this stuff, we are all in over our heads. Pull up a stool and a brew and we'll ruminate on this some more - oh, and pass the pretzels, please.

/Orpheuse

Hello Orpheuse,

I like your analogy about reality pixelating when we zoom in very close. This fits very nicely with all the quantum weirdness that happens at the atomic scale. Have you heard the buzz that space-time itself is probably quantized?

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080514-black-holes.html

(well I've suspected this ever since hearing people suggest that our universe is a vast cellular automaton). And positrons traveling backwards in time?! I see your location listed as south Florida. How far from Tampa? I could really use that beer right now!

East side of I75, my friend. I'm in Lauderhill near University and Commercial Blvd.

I'm not sure what you mean by space-time being quantized. If the three dimensional world is turned 90 degrees then we get space-time. I like to refer to it as a half-dimension because, in all the other dimensions that we perceive, we can travel in both direction. Not so in space-time. Space-time seems to flow around us from 'past' to 'present' to 'future'.

Now imagine that you can perceive length and width but not height. If I stick my finger into your 'plane of reference' what you would perceive is a huge line. So is it with us and space-time. I don't believe we are perceiving time correctly which is why it wasn't chosen as a universal constant.

That honor went to light. No matter where you are in the universe, light always travels the same speed 186,000 miles/second; or does it?

When asked about constants, Einstien said "There are only 2 constants: the speed of light and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about light".

It took me 20 years but I finaly figured out why Einstien didn't trust light. If light is falling into a Black Hole we don't know how fast it's going and there in lies the rub. While the speed of light serves reasonably well as a constant, we have to entertain the idea that the Universe has no constant and everything we see or experience is a product of our physical perceptions. In other words, the Universe looks and behaves as it does because that is how we perceive what it is doing. Unless and until we can turn our minds 90 degrees from the three physical dimensions, we will never experience space-time as it truly exists.

Just an interesting thought on a Saterday night.

So, did I even get close to 'quantized space-time'? Now I'll check out the article you posted.

Your good buddy,

Orpheuse

I don't believe we are perceiving time correctly which is why it wasn't chosen as a universal constant.

That honor went to light. No matter where you are in the universe, light always travels the same speed 186,000 miles/second; or does it?

The constant is the second. Light speed is merely a convenient way to define that constant, namely the amount of time required for light to travel 186,000 miles.

It's interesting (at least to me) that in ordinary parlance, people frequently talk about distance in terms of time: "New York to Europe is about 7 hours." What's the distance, you may press. "Dunno," would be a probable answer. What's the speed of the jet? "Not sure, maybe 350 mph? Maybe 500?

I remember moving (many years ago) from 35 miles outside of NYC (easy commuting time/distance) to 30 miles outside of Pittsburgh where that was considered much too far for a reasonable commute. We mentioned to friends that we were going to dinner just the other side of Pittsburgh, and they wondered if we would be spending the night! We had a neighbor who had only occasionally been outside of his home county, and who thought of 35 miles away as being a weekend trip.

I suppose that when most of us measure a board, we think pretty strictly in terms of distance. The ant crawling up the board probably thinks in terms of time.

I would venture that the ant crawling...rather "thinks" in terms of light.

Orpheuse,

"we have to entertain the idea that the Universe has no constant and everything we see or experience is a product of our physical perceptions. In other words, the Universe looks and behaves as it does because that is how we perceive what it is doing. Unless and until we can turn our minds 90 degrees from the three physical dimensions, we will never experience space-time as it truly exists."

Except for your last sentence, which seems to leave a way out to a concrete, real, "space-time," you sound like what I was pointing out to Svengali.

You seem to be saying, as did the great physicist and not so great philosopher Earnst Mach, that all we have available "is a product of our physical perceptions," i.e., that which Mach expressed as a complex of sensations.

Seems to me that we have more in that we take what our sensations, physical perceptions, seem to tell us about the makeup of our universe and then feed it back in the practice of an experiment thereby putting ourselves in the position of determining if what our perceptions tell us is true, is concrete, is material.

I think this question of how we think and understand about this business of perception is extremely important to the whole business of science, for instance this little discussion in which a question was asked about the meaning of electron spin state and we have some here saying its only model not to be taken literally.

j.

There are several other questions that hinge on this one:

The wave/particle theory of light came about because those scientists who were looking for particles found particles and those looking for waves found waves. If waves, then light doesn't really 'travel' but 'merely' transfers it energy state to the next photon. Do you realize what kind of mess this creates?

Then there's 'proton decay', an experiment that has been running for 30 years, if it's still running, and in all that time not one proton decayed.

Objectivity is an illusion on all but the grossest scale. What does this do to our calculations?

The only statements that gives me any kind of peace is "The environment implies the organism as much as the organism implies the environment." and "The universe 'peoples' the way an apple tree "apples" - Alan Watts: The Book.

Ari (Orpheuse)

Orpheus,

"Objectivity is an illusion on all but the grossest scale. What does this do to our calculations?"

If you meant by this what I think you meant, i.e., concrete reality, then I don't think you really mean it. I think you just saw it as a good opportunity to throw in the Alan Watts stuff.

Surely you don't mean to say that because we have difficulty determining of just what it consists, it is an illusion?

Or do you?

As far as our calculations, if they get screwed up then that is a step further in determining the nature of reality, of matter.

Otherwise you have to give in and get in with the creationists and agree that the fact that much if not most of what scientists postulate is wrong and hence science is wrong.

Was it you or Svengali that cautioned don't throw out the baby with the bath water?

Speaking of creationists; I would have thought they would be jumping all over this discussion. Could it be they stay away from this site because you engineers are just too hard-nosed for them?

The wave/particle stuff usually gets them jumping.

But in that regard we ought to go back and have another look at the Young slit experiments that so many have picked up as seriously questioning the materialist basis for thinking and science.

From what I read wave theory is these days being applied to micro and macro determinations.

Young could have projected a bunch of stones through his slits and got interference patterns.

On the macro scale we know very well that water molecules exhibit wave behavior.

In concrete terms what does it take to set up anew the hardware for that series of experiments. Is it really possible to project a single photon or a single electron? What would we need to generate such? How much money?

Svengali, you teach, at least chemistry, if not physics. Do you ever get near any of this stuff.

How about you Orpheus. I don't think I ever got just what it is you do. Do you get anywhere near such stuff?

Another question. The assertion as to dark matter, if I understand it, derives from a determination of the weight of the universe, and the fact that the bulk of that weight seems to be missing.

Is that correct?

In determining the weight did they take into account all the wave/particle matter that seems to pervade the universe?

How about the weight of the black holes? Does the weight there take into account the continuing accretion of matter by those bodies?

And while we are at it I have not the slightest idea of how they calculated the weight of the universe. Do youse guys?

j.

Dear Jack,

Had to take this one apart almost line by line in order to 'try' to clarify myself.

Jack, you wrote:

Orpheus,

"Objectivity is an illusion on all but the grossest scale. What does this do to our calculations?"

The calculations are correct. What we, as humans, perceive as 'reality', physical, concrete reality, is an illusion when perceived by our gross senses. It is only when we apply the equations that things begin to make sense, most of the time.

There are things about physical reality that seem to be 'plastic', in the sense that it could change, or look different to someone else. There are 'hiccups' in the fabric of reality. This has to do with our native equipment, i.e. our senses, not with reality. Reality simply IS.

I know that there are certain experiments that have been conducted where the subjectivity of the observer changed the results of the predicted calculations.

Why? We don't know but it happens.

If you meant by this what I think you meant, i.e., concrete reality, then I don't think you really mean it. I think you just saw it as a good opportunity to throw in the Alan Watts stuff.

Surely you don't mean to say that because we have difficulty determining of just what it consists, it is an illusion?

Or do you?

No, that is not what I am saying. What I'm saying is that there are more things going on than anything we can imagine. Since the human animal is programmed to look for patterns, we find patterns. I'm sure your familiar with the 23/17 delusion.

As far as our calculations, if they get screwed up then that is a step further in determining the nature of reality, of matter.

Otherwise you have to give in and get in with the creationists and agree that the fact that much if not most of what scientists postulate is wrong and hence science is wrong.

Science is not wrong. It's a bit limited, but, then, it has to be or it wouldn't be science. We are looking for facts, everyone looking for truth should be practising philosophy, not science.

Was it you or Svengali that cautioned don't throw out the baby with the bath water?

That was me.

Speaking of creationists; I would have thought they would be jumping all over this discussion. Could it be they stay away from this site because you engineers are just too hard-nosed for them?

Creationists tend to be concretisits. In Buddhism we have a koan that says "If you meet the Buddha while walking the path, kill him". That's because what you have met is a concertized version of what someone thought the Buddha looked like. We try to avoid concretization like the plague.

The wave/particle stuff usually gets them jumping.

But in that regard we ought to go back and have another look at the Young slit experiments that so many have picked up as seriously questioning the materialist basis for thinking and science.

From what I read wave theory is these days being applied to micro and macro determinations.

Young could have projected a bunch of stones through his slits and got interference patterns.

How so?

On the macro scale we know very well that water molecules exhibit wave behavior.

In concrete terms what does it take to set up anew the hardware for that series of experiments. Is it really possible to project a single photon or a single electron? What would we need to generate such? How much money?

I'm not the Job Costing department. I quit that job when they sold my hotel out from under me.

Svengali, you teach, at least chemistry, if not physics. Do you ever get near any of this stuff.

How about you Orpheus. I don't think I ever got just what it is you do. Do you get anywhere near such stuff?

I don't think that 'what I do' has anything to do with this, or any other, discussion. Is a garbage worker less correct than a scientist if they both believe the same thing? That is out and out snobbery. My vocation is that of programmer. I am teaching myself physics in order in order to get involved in Robotics 'in the home' environment. I am also a musician/singer/songwriter and I've spent 10 years on the regional stage as a thespian.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'that stuff' .

Another question. The assertion as to dark matter, if I understand it, derives from a determination of the weight of the universe, and the fact that the bulk of that weight seems to be missing.

Is that correct?

It isn't missing. We're not sure it exists in the first place, and, if it does, then we just haven't found it yet. Besides, Dark Matter is only important when we ask if we live in a oscillating universe going from big bang to big crunch.

In determining the weight did they take into account all the wave/particle matter that seems to pervade the universe?

How about the weight of the black holes? Does the weight there take into account the continuing accretion of matter by those bodies?

And while we are at it I have not the slightest idea of how they calculated the weight of the universe. Do you guys?

No, not I.

Ari (Orpheuse)

j.

Svengali, you teach, at least chemistry, if not physics. Do you ever get near any of this stuff.

So much going on in these discussions. Please clarify your question.

Orpheus & Svengali,

Orpheus says "Objectivity is an illusion on all but the grossest scale."

To me that's like saying that if we can't see something because it is too small it doesn't exist or anything we can't see because it is too small is an illusion.

I'll take the epistemological issue up later. For now I'll just give you the URL of the refutation of that assertion. I hope video of an electron will make my point.

I spent a long time looking for it and actually had the reference to it here in some papers that I had forgotten. Actually I was looking for stills of electrons I am sure I had seen, or rather stills of the electron clouds around a nucleus. Video is even better.

Because I could not just capture the video, you get with the URL the entire explanation how it was done.

http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=4666.php

j.

Respectfully, you guys are way too smart for me; always blowing me away. Even in the presence of such wisdom the portense of ridicule does not stop the idiot from throwing out inane tidbits such as follows:

But light doesn't travel at the same speed everywhere; at least not through water; this is why reactor cores give off blue light when critical (Cherenkov radiation).

Except in your previous post you demonstrated more knowledge of physics than I have.

The given speed of light is in a vacuum; 186,000 miles per second.

Are you just having us on?

j.

I'm with you on that, Jack. I think Kyoto is 'pulling our leg'. Go on, pull the other one.

/Ari

No, not pulling your leg, the blue glow (Cherenkov effect) is caused by beta particles (emitted from the core fission products) traveling faster than the speed of light through the coolant; water. Because the particle is moving faster than the speed of light in water, it can trigger a cascade of photons which are in phase with each other and can constructively interfere to form the visible blue glow.

Everyone knows the speed of light through a vacuum is 2.998 x 10^8 M/s, but as light is essentially an electromagnetic wave, its speed will be attenuated when passing through a medium of greater density. Indices of refraction (N) are assigned to air, water, and other media (e.g., air 1.02, water 1.333, etc.) and when plugged into the formula v = c/N you derive the average velocity of light.

Not being nearly as smart as you guys, I sucked this data from from online sources.

Kyoto,

If you are dissembling your appearing brilliance simply by pulling stuff up from various web sites you certainly do so better than I.

My base thesis in these discussions is that all that exists is concrete and material despite we apprehend it or not and hence all the theorizing has ultimately to be comprehensible and understandable instead of making things look as though the mystics are right, for instance the collapse from the "super position" upon viewing or in another way the issue as to aging on earth as opposed to travel in space and return.

But that leads me to a question as to your last post. You said in discussing the Cherenkov Effect that it occurs "Because the particle is moving faster than the speed of light in water."

I don't believe so but confirm that you are not saying that the particle is moving faster than the speed of light in vacuum. You are saying that in water the particle moves faster than light moves in water.

Yes?

j.

Yes, er no........what???

Yeah, the second one; beta particles exceed the speed of light in water.

In a nuclear reactor the electrons are emitted at basically the speed of light in a vacuum. The speed of light in water is much lower. There is a rough correlation between material density, speed of light transmission, and refractive index for a material.

The correlation between refractive index and light speed is extremely good and the one between material density and max light speed for a material is weaker.

Chernov's radiation is indeed caused by the electrons emitting light as they slow to their natural speed for transmission through water. The Aurora Borealis is another example of Chernov's.

The frequency of light is also a small factor in its speed. This effect is responsible for rainbow's, prisms, and chromatic aberration.

Best wishes,

Mr. Gee

Svengali,

I see you are near Tampa and teach chemistry. I used to know a young lady who lived in the middle of a swamp near Tampa who also had a degree in botany. She used to pick mushrooms in the swamp, yup, those kind of mushrooms.

Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, neither they nor grass ever had any effect on me and instead of being a stone cold materialist I'd be into mysticism.

j.

Hey, Jack,

Funny you should mention physics and mysticism. I started in mysticism and moved toward physics.

You might want to check out an author named Allan Watts. He studied with Suzuki, who was probably the best Zen master ever to work in the 'States. You would like a copy of :

"The Book: On the Taboo of Knowing Who You Are", by Allan Watts.

Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

/Ari (Orpheuse)

Orpheuse,

I will, but you check out the book I gave the URL for in my post just a moment ago.

With your name, I assume Orpheuse is the French spelling for Orpheus, I am not surprised you are into mysticism.

I did pick up on your dualism early on. Now, when you read that post, you will see that I have begun to understand the movement of some physicists into mysticism, which previously was incomprehensible to me.

j.

Hello Jack,

We are *all* in over our heads on this one! But you raise a very important point when you ask (if I understood you correctly) why I imply that electron spin "is not real", while also suggesting that we observe it indirectly via its effects on observable (presumably "real") properties.

First of all I want to clarify that the phenomenon labeled "electron spin" really does occur -- as a chemist I know that it very obviously manifests as magnetism in permanent magnets. My main point was that the term "spin" serves only as an analogy. Electrons have mass, but they have no structure, and therefore no surface. Without a surface, the idea of"spinning" seems meaningless to me. By contrast, pulsars (and all macroscopic objects) do have discrete surfaces whose rotation we can observe, so I disagree about that comparison.

And then I must also bring up the philosophical question of "is-ness" (ontology). This may sound paradoxical, or even contradictory, coming from a self-proclaimed empiricist, but I lean towards the Buddhist notion that phenomena have no independent existence, but instead only relational correlations. And I even try to reconcile this view with metaphysical objectivism -- the assumption that reality exists even in the absence of observers (which thankfully saves me from falling into the pit of solipsism). You have probably seen other posts of mine encouraging seekers of knowledge to look at what things *do* instead of what they "are". I say this not out of laziness (not to avoid struggling with definitions), but because I really believe this approach makes the most sense. Once in a while, one of my more perceptive chemistry students asks what electric charge or spin is. I have found that the most direct answer consists of explaining that opposite electric charges attract each other, like charges repel, these forces obey Coulomb's law, and that vibrating charges cause waves that we label as "photons", that in turn cause other electric charges to vibrate. As for "electron spin", I explain that the "magnetism" of permanent magnets results from the "spin" of unpaired electrons. I try to give practically useful relational definitions without using the verb "is".

Well enough for now -- I prefer to grapple with these profound and abstract ideas in small doses. I don't want to follow the chain of thoughts too far since I don't fully trust my own models and assumptions.

As a thought exercise, let us begin with your statement:

Electrons have mass, but they have no structure, and therefore no surface. Without a surface, the idea of"spinning" seems meaningless to me. By contrast, pulsars (and all macroscopic objects) do have discrete surfaces whose rotation we can observe, so I disagree about that comparison.

I think we can all agree that the earth has spin. Most of us think we can identify the surface of the earth. OK. Pinpoint the surface. If you touch the ground, I point out that, first of all, the ground is not a continuous surface. Furthermore, specifying the ground as the "boundary" ignores the fact that the atmosphere spins with the rest of the mass. So where does the atmosphere end? I would suggest that the "surface" of the earth, and therefore the structure of the earth, is as ambiguous as that of an electron, or a pulsar. Where is your "discrete surface"? I suspect it is a function of the scale at which one is operating...

Hello cwarner,

I see your point. I stated that spinning has no meaning for objects that have no distinct surface, but after I reading your post I realized my error. You could have chosen a better example than the Earth (which does have a distinct surface defined by the interface between high density crust and its low-density atmosphere). A planet consisting entirely of gas, like Uranus, would provide a better example.

But anyway, your point stands -- the common concept of "spinning" does not require an object with a discrete surface. So now I feel even less certain than before about why the quantum mechanics experts continue to insist that "electron spin" does not involve spin in the usual sense of the word. I suspect that it has something to do with the wave nature of electrons: a wave cannot spin? But what about the particle aspect of electrons? Perhaps we can generalize that the lower the mass of an object, the more pronounced its wave aspect, and the less pronounced its particle aspect. This would seem to agree with the de Broglie hypothesis which specifies that that the wavelength of an object's wave aspect increases as its momentum (and therefore mass) decreases. I would like to hear what experts think about this.

Wow Svengali!

I set out what I thought a contradiction in your expression as to electron spin and seem to have turned loose a monster. Wow!

But, although I am not here going to reply to you, because it deserves far more than me picking it apart as though this were only a debaters club, it is that good and interesting, I will say this.

You do not seem sure about existence although as you say you are "a self-proclaimed empiricist" and underline that uncertainty in my view when you say further that you "lean towards the Buddhist notion that phenomena have no independent existence, but instead only relational correlations."

My first impression was Mach's version of Kant, i.e., only thing available to us is a complex of sensations; if indeed a reality exists it is therefore unknown and unknowable to us.

At the same time your leaning toward the Buddhists suggests, since "phenomena have no independent existence" only what seems to me to be only mental "relational correlations."

That line of thinking, despite your wish to avoid solipsism, seems to put you on the long slippery slope to the good Bishop Berkeley, for whom existence only reality was in the mind of god.

I want to get to the question of electrons and their actual nature, or at least the best we can glean from data up to this point. At the same time I was fully aware that what I was doing was raising issues that have to deal with thinking and thought process related to physics which in the old idealist conception is called philosophy, but if we discard Kant, and Berkeley, or rather negate them, is called dialectical materialism.

To do that I am going to take some time to develop some thoughts to more fully explore what you have set out here, especially as to the physical nature of electrons which query set this all off.

But I will say this further. You ask people "to look at what things *do* instead of what they 'are.'" I like that. Let me paraphrase what a very great man once said, "The object is not to contemplate the world, but to change it."

That of course is what we do with our physical sciences, seek to adapt the world to the purpose of prolonging the existence of our species.

I would suggest that the things "things *do* speaks to what they are. They are inextricably intertwined, doing and being, being and doing.

j.

Hello jack,

I must in return say WOW! about your comments. You definitely caught my attention with the depth and clarity of your writing. You deserve a carefully thought out reply, so I will take some time before making an attempt. But before I spend any more time pondering quantum physics and philosophy, I unfortunately need to pry myself away from CR4 and do some mundane work first. More later ...

Hi, Jack,

Let me assure you that nothing that I've written is meant to denigrate you in any way.

We "know" what electrons do. They are a vector carrying the electro-magnetic force.

By what was written in this post the mystery was over with the sentence before this one.

Do we need to know what "electron spin" is? Do we need to understand the subatomic particles that make up protons and neutrons in order to know what they 'do'? I put a question mark there because, at least in electronics, protons are simply the complement to electrons. That all we need to know in order to use protons in electronics. Why is it important to know that protons are made of three "quarks". We don't know what quarks are , and we're not sure what they do besides bind themselves into protons.

Something we think we know is that protons decay. We did a lot of experiments in underground facilities for a very long time, and in all that time we have never seen a proton spontaneously decay.

What is an electron 'made' of? Are they discrete packets of energy, like photons?

I look at that question and I can still hear my Teacher saying "Life is a squiggle, and some bright fellow placed a grid onto this squiggle and studied each of the squares individually". The Universe is synergistic. It is 'all of a piece' and must be understood that way.

I 'know' one thing: every time we humans have looked for knowledge for it's own sake, we've come out ahead. If that means resorting to certain philosophies then that is where we have to go.

As to Buddhism, Buddhism postulates that what we perceive through our senses is an illusion (Maya), that thought is independent of the body and that the Universe is "self-aware". That there is no separation between what we are and what the Universe is.

My only claim to fame is that I'm a Certified nut case, as opposed to all those nice folks standing in a river in Egypt, and even I and all those nice people in denial are part of this wonderful thing called "The Universe" as are you.

I will tell you one thing: enough of this stuff will make you a pacifist. It is very difficult to kill someone else when you KNOW that all you are doing is temporarily destroying an aspect of yourself.

As Sherlock Holmes said, "This is at least a 'three bowl-er'.

Best wishes

/Ari (Orpheuse)

Hey, Jack,

I'm glad this one ended up in your lap (as it were). You can tackle this much better than I can, and your ego isn't riding on it. Here is the definition of electron spin from Wikipedia. Is there anyone out there who can help us decipher this?

I believe it is important and will be a benefit to all of us if we can "get it". (Sorry, Jack, but I couldn't leave you alone to face this without an appeal for assistance. Forgive me, my friend, for a lack of faith)

I will be starting to take this apart line by line in a little bit. Right now I have to find my "Quanta Aspirin" or my daughter, who is the best medication on Earth. I'll be back McSoon.

/Ari (Orpheuse)

====================================

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_spin#Electron_spin

Early attempts to explain the behavior of electrons in atoms focused on solving the Schrödinger wave equation for the hydrogen atom, the simplest possible case, with a single electron bound to the atomic nucleus. This was successful in explaining many features of atomic spectra.

The solutions required each possible state of the electron to be described by three "quantum numbers", n, l, and m. These were identified as, respectively, the electron "shell" number, n, the "orbital" number, l, and the "orbital angular momentum" number m. Angular momentum is a so-called "classical" concept measuring the momentum of a mass in circular motion about a point. The shell numbers start at 1 and increase indefinitely. Each shell of number n contains n² orbitals. Each orbital is characterized by its number l, where l takes integer values from 0 to n-1, and its angular momentum number m, where m takes integer values from +l to -l. By means of a variety of approximations and extensions, physicists were able to extend their work on hydrogen to more complex atoms containing many electrons.

Atomic spectra measure radiation absorbed or emitted by electrons "jumping" from one "state" to another, where a state is represented by values of n, l, and m. So called "selection rules" limit what "jumps" are possible. Generally a jump or "transition" is only allowed if all three numbers change in the process. This is because a transition will only be able to cause the emission or absorption of electromagnetic radiation if it involves a change in the electromagnetic dipole of the atom.

However, it was recognized in the early years of quantum mechanics that atomic spectra measured in an external magnetic field (see Zeeman effect) cannot be predicted with just n, l, and m. A solution to this problem was suggested in early 1925 by George Uhlenbeck and Samuel Goudsmit, students of Paul Ehrenfest (who rejected the idea), and independently by Ralph Kronig, one of Landé's assistants. Uhlenbeck, Goudsmit, and Kronig introduced the idea of the self-rotation of the electron, which would naturally give rise to an angular momentum vector in addition to the one associated with orbital motion (quantum numbers l and m).

A spin angular momentum, characterized by a quantum number s = 1/2, is an intrinsic property of electrons. In the pattern of other quantized angular momenta, it gives a total spin angular momentum:

where

is Planck's reduced constant (Dirac's constant).

The energy of any wave is the frequency multiplied by Planck's constant. When the electron was being described by wavefunctions in Dirac's equation, it was found that the spin property of all fundamental particles is a multiple . If this multiple is even the particle is a boson and if it is odd the particle is a fermion.

The hydrogen spectra fine structure is observed as a doublet corresponding to two possibilities for the z-component of the angular momentum, where for any given direction z:

which solution has only two possible z components for the electron. In the electron, the two different spin orientations are sometimes called "spin-up" or "spin-down".

The spin property of an electron would classically give rise to magnetic moment which was a requisite for the fourth quantum number. The electron spin magnetic moment is given by the formula:

where

e is the charge of the electrong is the Lande g-factor

and by the equation:

where

g is the Lande g-factorμ_B is the Bohr magneton

When atoms have even numbers of electrons the spin of each electron in each orbital has opposing orientation in different directions. However, many atoms have an odd number of electrons or an arrangement of electrons in which the number of "spin-up" and "spin-down" orientations are not the same. These atoms or electrons are said to have unpaired spins which are detected in electron spin resonance.

Well, as usual, you and I are asking the same questions.

Specifically, I recall reading in Scientific American that quarks have 'spin' and that a rate of spin of 1/2 means that a quark has to make 2 "revolutions" to arrive back at it's original position.

Anything else I might write would not improve what you have already stated.

/Ari (Orpheuse)

What led me to accuse you of the solipsism I was aware you were denying was your statement "This may sound paradoxical, or even contradictory, coming from a self-proclaimed empiricist, but I lean towards the Buddhist notion that phenomena have no independent existence, but instead only relational correlations [Mach would say only a complex of sensations].

Jack, before reading the above passage, I did could not figure out why you accused me of leaning towards solipsism (the belief that all of reality exists only with mind). Especially since I have at least twice already stated that I believe that the universe exists whether or not conscious observers witness it (if a tree falls, and no one is around to hear it, it still makes a sound). This belief is known as "metaphysical objectivism", and is the exact opposite of solipsism!

But I think I now understand why you said that. Your last sentence above implies equality of meaning between my use of the term "relational correlations" and Mach's "complex of sensations". But they mean different things. Mach's "complex of sensations" can be sensations that do not correlate with objective reality. Anyone who has ever recalled a vivid dream, or who has witnessed or studied schizophrenia, fully realizes that our brains can very skillfully manufacture completely believable sensations whose content has no basis in reality. Of course Mach's "complex of sensations" can -- in an awake healthy person -- also accurately correlate to objective reality. The accuracy is probably never perfect, but in common practice our sensory data must represent reality fairly well, or the human species would have died off. Anyway, the term "complex of sensations" is mainly relevant to the question of how our indirect experience of objective reality might be impeded by the limitations the world-mind interface (eyes, ears, skin, etc). This question belongs in the realm of epistemology.

By contrast, I use the term "relational correlations" to emphasize that we most effectively study and relate to phenomena if we focus on their inter-relations (what they do) instead of their static "essence" (what they "are"). This appropriateness of this approach is especially obvious in phenomena involve complex (chaotic) dynamic systems such as ecology, metabolism, neural nets, and flocking/group behavior. My use of this term has nothing to do with the accuracy or inaccuracy of the "lens" of the reality-mind interface, but instead refers to phenomena occurring outside, beyond the lens.

That is why I suggested you held a dualist position because in that statement you are saying there is no way, outside of mind "relational correlations," let alone "no independent existence" to prove, a concrete, material, existence.

I did not write "mind relational correlations", just "relational correlations". By inserting the qualifying word "mind" before my phrase, you imply an extra meaning that I never intended. The relational correlations are really *out there* in objective reality, not just in the mind. In fact, mind itself is out there too, as a dependent part of reality. I reject both solipsism and dualism! And notice that I said phenomena have no "independent existence". But they do have dependent existence. From my point of view, the quality of dependancy does not conflict with the possibility of existence.

Physical objects consist of temporary ("impermanent" in the Buddhist lingo) patterns of energy. When the pattern eventually dissipates, the object ceases to exist (I hope you don't intend to inject "spirit" or other eternal mystical substances here). The universality of impermanence is one of Buddhism's great insights; another is selflessness -- the observation that phenomena have no intrinsic essence because their existence depends on other phenomena. These two concepts of impermanence and selflessness imply each other -- a very natural fit. And they are also very applicable to everyday experience, and to scientific discussion too.

We use inherently limited words to attempt to discuss some very profound and abstract concepts, so we should expect these kinds of misunderstandings.

Svengali,

Good! Your last lines show that you understood my insertion of "mind" outside the quotes was only my sense of what I thought you meant, or at least what I thought was the meaning of what you were saying, and not a deliberate distortion for debaters points.

All too often folks will take perfectly dispassionate statements of mine and read into them malice, etc. I think you and Orpheus understand that my interest here is understanding, agree or disagree. This is dense and often convoluted material and my interest is seeing if these issues can be understood with less convolution as well as what is real.

You have read my unspoken understanding as to the word "spirit" and similar, correctly. Those are my identifying reactions when I read materials of the sort.

This post is even more dense than the last.

Incidentally, issues of epistemology are in my mind often in questions related to high energy and quantum physics. I think we always have to be looking at and tracking our thinking process itself not to go off the rails on some of these issues, electron spin, the issue that started this for instance.

As I have been doing I'm going to print these posts out and get back.

j.

What I'm trying so badly to say is:

Whatever "IT" is that exists, exists. That is what our calculations tell us. What we PERCEIVE is all in the mind.

Can you see the difference between the two statements?

I am also getting the feeling that I'm upsetting you, which was never my intent and I'm sorry if I have.

Thank you, Kyoto, for reminding me to observe the niceties.

I still have a temper, and an ego. Both have to go.

/Ari

Orpheuse)

Orpheuse,

For myself let me say that I have not observed anything that you have said to be offended at. You even go out of the way when you think you have done so to remove any thoughts you think we might have of such.

j.

Orpheuse, absolutely you (et al) did not upset me and I am sorry if I gave that impression.

Try this for "spin states". Arthur Compton theorized that electrons have intrinsic angular momentum, or spin, and act as a tiny magnet. Pauli came along and stated that in statistical thermodynamics the 2 different states of intrinsic angular momentum were quantified by the quantim number s, and that the spin states can only have one of two possible orientations along an axis, where the components in the direction of the axis would have a value or magnitude of 1/2 in one direction and minus 1/2 in the other direction. Or, you can consider spin of the nuclei in a hydrogen molecule. At normal temperature (STP), hydrogen exists as 75 % ortho- and 25 % para-hydrogen. The hydrogen molecules differ by the relative spins of their nuclei (protons). In the ortho hydrogen molecue, the spins of the two protons are parallel (or coupled), and thus form a triplet state, which is the high energy state, while the para-hydrogen protons are anti-parallel and form a singlet state. I don't know if that helps, but to foggy up the discussion a bit, remember that the electrons can also be considered as a wave phenomena, smeared out over a portion of their orbit around the nuclei. Would we consider that the "wave" function has spin momentum numbers? So don't picture an electron as a tiny spinning marble. It all has to do with quantum values and quantum numbers and direction of movement.

Cardio-2,

'I don't know if that helps, but to foggy up the discussion a bit, remember that the electrons can also be considered as a wave phenomena, smeared out over a portion of their orbit around the nuclei. Would we consider that the "wave" function has spin momentum numbers? So don't picture an electron as a tiny spinning marble. It all has to do with quantum values and quantum numbers and direction of movement.'

The basic problem with this kind of discussion is that we tend to forget, because of the necessary use of abstractions, that all this is directed at understanding what is yet unknown but yet is concrete, real. We tend to forget that because we ourselves are concrete, real, we intend to use such information as may be gleaned using these abstract tools, to alter the concrete reality of the conditions of our living environment, the better to preserve our existence.

The quantum abstractions are in the end either a means of understanding the not at all abstract reality in which we live, or a fantasy with no real meaning. I of course reject the idea that they are a fantasy in that they are an attempt, on the basis of insufficient data, to understand our reality in order to be able to change it. They are simply incomplete.

That having been said I was not aware that the abstraction had been applied as "that the electrons can also be considered as a wave phenomena, smeared out over a portion of their orbit around the nuclei." That is interesting and, albeit given my limited understanding, wrong.

As I understand the history the wave function idea as to particle behavior first came up in regard to the observable functions of photons in the Young 2 Slit Experiment which I have long been interested in because of what I perceive as an error in language/concept.

Light is there described as having a dual nature, either as particle or wave function.

I think that is wrong and confusing, and may give rise to a series of errors arising from the series of slit experiments now ongoing over many years.

My own way of looking at the issue, and I think the correct way, is to say that light (Photons) exist as discrete particles of matter that most often in nature travel in groups as waves.

I think that the failure to clearly understand that the so-called wave function is actually an expression of two different categories of behavior as to the singular photon.

Although not at this moment prepared to go deeper into that I think, once again, that the abstractions have led to serious misunderstandings as to the nature of reality such as to give rise to the notion, similar to that of Bishop Berkeley who asserted that existence is not real save it is a thought in the mind of god, that reality is only that which we perceive in our minds, i.e., the super-position until observed argument, etc.

But, this discussion suggests to me that this forum is exactly what I have sought for a long time, a means of hashing out what really goes on rather than accept the supernatural stuff that some tend to make out of what I insist are confusions surrounding, for instance, the series of slit experiments.

j.

Hi, Jack,

You wrote:

"My own way of looking at the issue, and I think the correct way, is to say that light (Photons) exist as discrete particles of matter that most often in nature travel in groups as waves."

I had to do a triple take on that one, but you are right. I thought that photons were not 'matter' because I believed that in order to be massless a photon could not contain matter. After checking with Principia and Relativity, I've had to come to the conclusion that, although a photon is a discrete particle of 'matter' in some form, it has no mass and can't have mass because if it did have mass it would not be able to accelerate to the speed of light, and that, in most cases, like to travel in groups as waves (rumor has it that Photons are afraid of the dark).

Now I have to integrate Hizenberg into this melange of a thread. What does uncertainty tell us about photons and electron-spin? Well, since we almost always know how fast light is moving then we almost never know where it is at any given moment. I don't know what the ramifications if that statement is going to be but, according to Uncertainty, the statement is correct.

Now I have to go and take a couple of aspirin. Getting my mind around the Quanta always seems to give me a headache after a while.

Orpheuse

Hi Orpheuse,

Do they make special quanta aspirin for quanta headaches?

Let me make a suggestion that may help you avoid such headaches.

Anything that is perceivable by our senses is matter. Our senses are material organic instruments that react to various material phenomena. Anything that impinges on them must be matter.

Further, as I am sure you well know, light is subject to the force of gravity, i.e., the gravitational lensing effect that proved elements of Einsteins theories.

I will emphasize once again I am not a physicist nor mathematician and probably getting in way over my head, but it was always my understanding that gravity was a two way phenomenon between material bodies having mass. That suggests there may be something wrong with the issue of photons being massless.

We also know that light only achieves light speed in pure space. In atmosphere or various liquids or gas its speed decreases. Obviously that implies collisions between material bodies of mass.

I am sure you also know about recent experiments wherein photons have been slowed down almost to a standstill and been trapped and enclosed.

I would suggest that we have taken some of these definitions, conceptions, and used them for so long that they become automatic responses and have not reexamined them in light of the latest experience and data.

Somebody here asked what happens when light enters a black hole. Interesting question raising all sorts of questions as to our conception of light. One thing for sure if photons are afraid of the dark they better stay away from black holes.

j.

Well said, very well said.

/Ari (Orpheuse)

Orpheuse,

Your statement "Well, since we almost always know how fast light is moving then we almost never know where it is at any given moment" was true according to the accepted quantum view.

But then these damn, or damned, practical experimenters in their labs in what must be quantum hell, do strange, unheard of things that seem to upset, in my mind, the quantum apple cart.

Surely you have read of these events in which light was stopped and trapped.

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/December/10120701.asp

The clear implication is that since they hold photons in their cells of nano soup, and control that with magnetics, that they therefore can say that they know, Heisenberg notwithstanding, both the speed and location of their trapped photons. For me the simple idea of trapped photons negates the absolute of uncertainty.

For you and Svengali, and everybody else reading this thread, I have been reading. You all have heard me asserting more than once that I am a stone cold hard materialist. That hasn't changed.

Nonetheless, I have to say that I begin to see how otherwise good physicists, given even the slightest subjective departure into one or another desire, can become mystics.

If we start with the big bang and that vast expansion and condensation into the various particles, elements, astronomical bodies, forces, etc., of our universe, recognizing that nothing in existence escapes that historic connection and interconnection, we must recognize that even our individual, discrete, bodies, and physical brain based mentalities, are part of, and subject to the laws of that historic process.

That at least seems to be the rationale for the idea that it is the act of perception that collapses the super position possibilities into actual, discrete, realities.

I ain't going there. If we consider the developing outlook philosophically of that period, i.e., the agnosticism of Kant and then that of Mach, which is today the dominant outlook, it is easy to see how physics, faced with a series of unknowns as they start digging into sub-atomics, could come up with the quantum collapse from the unknowable (Kant and Mach the physicist), to the necessary, for us, knowable, discrete objects of reality.

But, in the nineteenth century, there also came Hegel and the young Hegelians and from that line Marx and Engels who turned Hegel, from standing on his head, to his feet.

I know these days it is not politically correct to even mention the names of Marx, Engels, or even Lenin. Nonetheless, their social views aside, these gentlemen did important work in terms of theory of knowledge. They took Hegel's idealist tracing of thought and its process of change, at the center the negation of the negation, and showed how development and new things could be derived.

Anybody that wants to read a solid exposition of materialism as against idealism and agnosticism and can put aside political issues, because he was writing against the penetration into the Russian Social Democratic Party of Mach's, allegedly "scientific," agnostic philosophical outlook, should read Lenin's Materialism and Imperio-Criticism.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/index.htm

I am in those areas, as in math and physics, far from expert. Still, it is that dialectical, materialist outlook, that says to me that the historic process of material development from the big bang, can also produce mental process that is not materially tied, at least not directly, to the sub-atomic quanta process as apparently many believe. It is why we are not, as some quanta theorists apparently believe, quantum automatons.

I have not yet gotten back to what started this, i.e., the query as to electron spin. But these ruminations (Is that correct) are for me a means of clearing the fog, the hash that has grown up all these years of quantum theorizing.

I hope I at least amuse you. I certainly don't believe that it is the perception of any individual viewer that determines the finite position (Collapses the super position) of any particle phenomena.

j.

I don't recall seeing the directive that you have to amuse me. I take you as you are. I enjoy talking with you and sharing your musings.

I'm not sure about this 'capturing light' in 'nano soup'. From the pictures I saw, there seems to be photon leakage. Besides, although he's been sort of sidelined, I'd still like to know what Hawking has to say about it.

I just happened to be on your post when I got the idea to post the electron spin equations onto the site and see if we could get some help deciphering it.

No fault, no foul. We're good.

Sorry if I upset you but I tend to have that effect in some folk.

Your friend,

/Ari (Orpheuse)

In reply to 56 etc.

Orpheuse, Svengali, etc.,

I have been cogitating the issues and as well searching for images and so silent for a couple of days. No matter how good the browsers they don't necessarily pop up right away what you remember seeing but no longer remember where.

Going back..

When I said that thing about amusing you, others as well, it was because I was not sure what I intended was getting across. I am a rank amateur with nowhere near the formal education of you, Svengali, or some of the others on this site.

At the same time I know I am arrogant about my reasoning powers and well aware that I use tools others may not in that stead. So I am not always sure I am being accurately received.

Orpheuse, have twice made remarks that give me the impression that you think you may have offended me. Unless you are talking, in at least one instance, about your insistence as to us knowing what electrons do, at which I see no reason to take offense, I am mystified. Nothing you have said has offended me.

As a matter of fact I have and am greatly enjoying this discussion with you and Svengali and as well a couple of other folks who have popped in here. One of those Cardio-2 seems to know what he is talking about or at least has stuck in material abstruse enough for me to have to work to get my head at least partly around it.

I have also been spending time printing out the principle material of this discussion because it is getting away from me and because I think we may between us clean up some thinking about these issues.

As to the spin equations Svengali also put up the di Broglie hypothesis. Taken in the context of this discussion , and with the identifiers for parts of those equations, I can almost make out some sense as to what they represent. If I'm not careful I will find myself taking up math so I can solve them.

Nonetheless, to the extent I can understand them as addressing specific aspects of particle motion, and visualizing that motion, they make sense. I know! I know!

You keep saying don't take them as representing an actual model.

I think that is where we fall out. In the long run I think all these abstractions must lead to a materially coherent reality or they are wrong. Consider.

Most of the models we have been taught, at least up to quantum, turn out to be true representations of reality. Certainly down to the molecular level, and if I remember correctly, to the atomic level, where they now have actual pictures.

Indeed, I was first introduced to some o this stuff when I was sixteen, had run away from home in Brooklyn, and had fallen in with a Washington Square lute player in Greenwich Village and taking pity on me gave me a place to sleep. He also happened to be a graduate physics student studying benzene structure by freezing it to create crystals, and then examining the crystal structure with an x-ray beam in a precession camera.

I am firmly convinced that there is nothing mysterious or actually incomprehensible about our universe, nothing that ultimately will not be accessible to all when we acquire sufficient data.

I am even more convinced of that when in reading I discovered that the quantum collapse is, in the minds of those agreeing with that idea, the result of our very mentalities being enmeshed in the material structures of the universe by virtue of the fact that everything, including ourselves, is a product of the big bang. I was startled but it was you Orpheuse, wasn't it, that said to consider the universe as a single unit. Considered as part of the universe result of that explosive expansion I had to agree and even sketched out why.

At the same time my understanding is that although tied to the process of the universe, dialectically and in opposition or contradiction, new things can be plowed. That is why we are not automatons.

A couple of things I want to say here.

In opposition to the idea that our models are not reality, here is an atomic tunneling microscope image of nickel. Obviously what we see in those neat rows are the outer electron shells with interlocking orbits joining the atoms together into molecular structure.

Not far off our classic "mental" image. I imagine the reason the shapes we are looking at are the orbital haze. That of course obscures looking any further into the atoms. There is another reason and that is that the image itself is created from tactile sensing rather than radiation sensing of one sort or another. Anybody know what the speed of those electrons in orbit is or how to calculate it?

I want to go back over some of the things we have talked about but I have a question.

My reading says that as opposed to all the science fiction I read as a youth the idea that travel at light speeds slows down personal objective change so that a person so involved would physically age slower than a person left behind here on earth is considered a reality.

I do not see how that could be true. In order to continue to exist a person at light speed would still have to stay within the physical parameters necessary to stay alive. No matter what the matter might be relative to clocks back on earth, the personal biological clock of such a traveler stays much the save, otherwise he/she dies. Therefore it makes no sense that in that regard there would be any difference than as with the person who stays on earth.

Therein is what I think may be another error in the way we think about some of these things.

In my view time in actuality is not an abstract. If I am wrong somebody show me. Our notions as to time, indeed our units of time, are keyed and arise out of the fact of the motion and change of physical reality.

The equations use a unit "t" for time. What is the referent for that "t." Is it the standard clock or something else?

Just some musings. Now I'll go read some more about what you all have been saying on this topic that started with electron spin.

j.

You keep saying don't take them as representing an actual model.

I think that is where we fall out. In the long run I think all these abstractions must lead to a materially coherent reality or they are wrong. Consider.

Yes, in the long run, "eventually". Until we reach that condition of perfect understanding, we should admit that our models are approximate and not to be taken as literal in the absolute sense. Many people get into all kinds of trouble because they don't realize that their mental picture of the world is not quite complete or accurate.

Most of the models we have been taught, at least up to quantum, turn out to be true representations of reality. Certainly down to the molecular level, and if I remember correctly, to the atomic level, where they now have actual pictures.

Some models certainly seem more complete and accurate than others. But even the best models contain undefined terms. For example, what "is" electric charge? Try to answer in terms of an absolutely independent "essence" -- i.e., without referring to its effects on other phenomena. Not possible. Meaningful (and useful) definitions will always relate electric charge to our human senses, or to the responses of machines that we use to augment our senses. Therefore models always remain incomplete because they cannot explain ultimately what things "are" (their "essence").

I am firmly convinced that there is nothing mysterious or actually incomprehensible about our universe, nothing that ultimately will not be accessible to all when we acquire sufficient data.

You must be on one of the few. Why does anything exist at all? How do interactions between neuro-chemical structures generate subjective consciousness (and also qualia)? What caused the Big Bang? What exists at the center of a black hole? We might eventually find convincing answers to some of these types of questions, but it seems arbitrary (and somewhat arrogant) to assume that, given enough time, we will *always* find *perfectly complete* answers. Some answers may remain out of reach forever due to limitations imposed by physics. Some may be unhidden, but beyond the abilities of our brains to comprehend. We cannot know for sure in advance whether or not an answer will be possible. But of course we should still investigate. I just advocate a bit of healthy skepticism and humility, so that science doesn't turn into a religion where the "final word" is beyond questioning. If you want certainty, go to religion -- you won't find it in real science.

My reading says that as opposed to all the science fiction I read as a youth the idea that travel at light speeds slows down personal objective change so that a person so involved would physically age slower than a person left behind here on earth is considered a reality.

I do not see how that could be true. In order to continue to exist a person at light speed would still have to stay within the physical parameters necessary to stay alive. No matter what the matter might be relative to clocks back on earth, the personal biological clock of such a traveler stays much the save, otherwise he/she dies. Therefore it makes no sense that in that regard there would be any difference than as with the person who stays on earth.

Time dilation is very well established. The GPS depends on daily corrections to compensate for time dilation caused by the Earth's gravity. Time dilation experienced by particles moving at relativistic velocities (i.e., at good fraction of the speed of light) is routinely observed in research using particle accelerators.

In my view time in actuality is not an abstract. If I am wrong somebody show me. Our notions as to time, indeed our units of time, are keyed and arise out of the fact of the motion and change of physical reality.

General relativity (another well-supported theory) includes time as part of the space-time continuum. I see no reason to doubt its reality. What used to perplex people was the question of why time flowed only in one direction. But the "arrow" of time results directly from the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Now why should we have high (but not absolute) confidence in the 2nd law? Because of two very good reasons: 1) the practical reason that no one has, after many tries, apparently succeeded at violating it. 2) the logical reason that the 2nd law can be explained as a direct consequence of statistical mechanics (which in turn relies on well accepted axioms of mathematics). So I agree with you on that one. The relational correlation known as "time" is not imaginary -- it really does exist within reality. But before patting ourselves on the back for "understanding" time, consider that some new models propose two time dimensions (plus 10 or 24 spacial dimensions). Despite numerous scientific breakthroughs, the "end of physics" (when everything finally is supposed to be understood) seems to keep receding into the future.

Svengali,

I'm going to take some time with that but, one thing

"Despite numerous scientific breakthroughs, the "end of physics" (when everything finally is supposed to be understood) seems to keep receding into the future."

If you got the impression from me that I thought we would ever know it all, that was not my intent. The reality of the universe, which is in motion and constantly developing is a few billion years ahead of us.

j.

In terms of atomic theory electrons are elementary particles. In terms of quantum theory they are composed of parts.

Back in the day when the "boy's from Berkley" and I were developing quantum mechanical theory it was known that atomic components like electrons, were in some ways identical and in some ways unique.

Electrons seemed all alike except for spin. Spin could be determined and was related to electron pairing, as in the Pauly electron pairing exclusion principle. Spin actually made some sense. The rest of the characteristics of sub-atomic particles were much harder to understand and there was NO agreement as to how to describe these properties. However, the was an immediate and apparent need to give these properties labels so that we could begin discussing them without spending all our time debating what the hell we were talking about!

The "boys from Berkley" were all grad students at a major US university in the 1960's. (Not Berkley) Although they would probably all deny it now, the truth was after hours these young men would often light up a bit of herbal medication and then sit around talking theoretical physics. I was too young to smoke, but I loved the camaraderie of those people and those days.

In any case, the point is that during these after hours discussions the boys developed some rather fanciful names for the characteristics of subatomic particles which they then began using around the lab during hours. Since the names solved a problem and resolved the debates about what these characteristics really meant they stuck.

They were nick names that became real names when scholarly articles about the work needed to be published. The very great degree of discomfort enjoyed by the boys leader in disclosing to the public the names we had given to these characteristics of sub-atomic particles gave me a some real pleasure.

It has now been most of a man's life time since those days and my pleasure has almost completely faded and been replaced with a strong annoyance with the theoretical physics community. It seems to me that over the decades there has been almost no effort forge a connection between the "real" world and the realms of quantum physics.

The fanciful names we adopted because we fundamentally had no idea what we were talking about when we created quantum mechanics have been universally adopted and it is a common occurrence for some highly intelligent monkey in a suit to publicly discuss the charm or flavor of a quark with perfect seriousness!

On some level, this is still funny, and as I write this and think about those days I still smile and occasionally laugh. In comedy this is called a running gag and when it works it works extremely well. However, as much as I may still enjoy watching some stuffed shirt make an ass of himself in public I do not like the fact that the theoretical physics community has made so little effort to reconcile their work with the rest of the larger scientific community.

So, as a gesture, in an attempt to undo some of the harm that I had some small hand in creating I take this opportunity to try and answer your question.

Electron's are composed of quata. Quanta are subatomic "particles" that are defined by their equation of state with regard to five fields. These are; space, time, electric, magnetic, and thermal. The over all state of given atomic particle sub-atomic particle is determined by the summation equations of state of its sub-atomic parts.

Nature only builds two types of electrons. Those in which the net charge spins up or down. Spin then is a defined relationship for the space time orientation for the rotating electric charge of an electron.

So, the equation of state for all electrons is identical except for the spacial orientation of the net electric charge. About half spin up and the other half spin down. Just like on the macroscopic level there is a orthogonal or "right angle" relationship between charge and magnetism so "up" electrons are identical to "down" electron's except their magnetic fields are opposed.

In magnets opposites attract so oppositely spinning electrons tend very strongly to pair up and orbit atomic nuclei as electron pairs. This pairing is what gives rise to the Pauly principle.

Maser's and lasers emit synchronously because the excited electrons orbiting the atomic nuclei of these materials can be induced to decay in their orbital state and emit a photon due to the small space time perturbation caused by another passing photon. The photon emissions becomes synchronized by this means.

Since the passing photon carries with it a faithful record of the spin state of the electron that created it there is a casual connection between the spin state of a photon from the first electron decay and any subsequent photon created by an electron orbital decay induced by the first photon's passing.

So, the spin state of high valence electrons is an important characteristic of laser materials. However, lasers and masers are often considered useful because these photon's also carry a thermal record of the creating electrons change of state. In photon emission the thermal energy of the electron decreases while the kinetic (space-time) energy increases. Thus the photon carries away with it some of the thermal, electrical, and magnetic energy of the electron that gave it birth. The cohesive concentrated, and transmitted energy of these photon streams is what makes these devices useful.

I hope this helps you understand what you have been reading an I strongly encourage you to continue in your efforts to "make sense" out of quantum mechanics.

Alternatively, I could encourage my peers in theoretical physics to make a stronger effort to make their work comprehensible to the rest of the world but, I think this would be wasting my time. I have come to believe that the majority of these people enjoy the fact that their work is incomprehensible to their peers.

Even worse, I think I know why. Based on a highly cynical view of human nature that has evolved in me over the years I believe that the reason for this attitude is that if ordinary people understood quantum mechanics they would also understand that underneath the flowing robes and flowery crowns some people imagine they wear, these intellectual emperors are very naked indeed!

Sincerely,

Mr. Gee

Dear Mr. Gee,

Thank you for your explanation. You have provided me with a great deal of information I didn't have before I read your post.

With CERN ready to start the new collider in the hopes of finding the Higgs Boson, what else might we find in this unique menagerie?

Thanks for stopping in and, please, don't be a stranger.

/Ari (Orpheuse)

Thank you for your kind words. I would like to add one more thought to what I already have said. Most of the mathematical foundation for quantum mechanics was created as the physical evidence for fine structure in atoms was just beginning to be discovered.

Today there is a great deal more information about fine structure and quite a bit of the new data creates problems for the old thinking. This is particularly true for the charge of an electron and if our understanding of charge changes then our understanding of spin must change also.

Specifically, an electron is assumed to orbit the nucleus because its orbit represents a balance between its kinetic properties and its charge properties. Its charge attraction to the protons in the nucleus is balanced by it centripetal acceleration like any other orbital body. The only qualification to this is that the velocities are near enough to light speed for relativistic effects to be significant the only notable effect of this is that there is a small difference between the "rest mass" and the real mass of a speedy particle wave. Really it is only a wave, or set of waves. Einstein proved to my satisfaction that mass attraction and inertia happen due to space time effects and not some mythical force called gravitation. Apparently, quantum mechanics prefer Newton's theories because even though they are not demonstrably not correct they are apparently simple enough for them to understand.

In order for an electron to be charge bound and have internal cohesiveness a portion of the electron structure carrying charge must be always preferentially oriented toward the protons of the nucleus. Else you will have a charge oscillating in a field and that would cause EM radiation and none is observed. This fact directly conflicts with the idea that one type of electron spins up and another spins down. But, there is abundant evidence from free state electrons and magneto restrictive devices that both free and bound electrons do have spin although subtly different spin.

This means that electrons can not have a single element that carries charge. In order to explain all the experimental data an electron has to be composed of at least three charge carrying structures. It must be composed of one plus and two minus structures to have a net minus unit charge and still have a balanced charge pair that orbit each other.

In up electrons the pair spins one direction and in down electrons they spin the other.

The exciting thing about this is that recent ultra fine structure spectral analysis seems to support this hypothesis and also shows that the energy peaks for these quanta or quarks if you prefer are different in their amplitudes while being normally nearly identical in their frequency. All these new evidences make it very unlikely that our old assumptions about spin are not completely descriptive of real sub-atomic structure.

Just as charge was once seen as unitary for protons and electrons but actually seems to be composed of three units that sum to -1 for an electron it seems likely to me that spin which is seen as being either up or down is really the sum of one up and two downs or two ups and one down.

This new assumption about ultra fine structure allows a person to model a simple ultra fine structure for an electron in which 3 binary state charge elements are bound with 2 or 3 binary state spin elements according to simple rules that give rise to all the differing charms and flavors of electrons of which I am aware.

A couple of words of clarification here. Ultra fine structure and fine structure are different critters. Fine structure is related to the behavior of electrons in hydrogen molecules and ultra fine structure is related to Zeeman type effects for mono-atomic hydrogen emission in very high intensity magnetic fields through which the mono-atomic atom is rapidly passing.

The spin states of a bound electron are represented by a binary spin number because the space time quanta bound to the unbalanced charge quark is pinned by charge attraction to always point toward the nucleus. It does not move relative to the electrons frame of reference and so it is basically undetectable in a bound electron.

A free electron on the other hand is not charge distorted and the space time (inertial) contribution of this quark is then observable. Accounting for the observed differences between a bound and free electron is a great difficulty for quantum mechanics because basically all their numbers only make sense in terms of a bound electron.

Recent work on the distribution of space time in an free electron published in Physics indicates that the probability of detecting space and time in plane orthogonal to the electrons electrical axis is negative at the center of the electron and positive in a toroidal ring about that center. If an opposing charge bound pair of quarks also carry rotating standing waves of time and space then this surprising result makes lots of sense.

The only characteristics of atoms that is then left unexplained are their thermodynamics. These effects are surprisingly, pretty simple. Heat causes things to speed up and cooling causes slowing down.

When an atom is heated a little the electron speeds up. When it is heated a lot the electron is "excited" and jumps to the next allowable valence or quantum state. When the excited atom cools some the electron slows down. When it cools too much the electron jumps back, its speed actually increases as it must substantially conserve its inertia but its thermal change is substantially balanced by its kinetic change as it changes state and radiates a photon.

All this conjecture strongly implies that the fine structure of an electron can be possibly be completely expressed as a triplex binary number that sums to minus one to represent charge, another triplex binary that sums to either plus one or minus one to represent spin and a single fraction comprised of 1/n that represents its thermal energy as defined by the actual orbital occupied by that electron from among the allowed orbitals defined for that species of atom.

This is not standard quantum mechanics and I do not personally believe that quantum mechanics can be brought into agreement with the rest of mechanics, thermodynamics, or electromagnetics. It was originally a very simple mathematical system that explained quite a bit of difficult to explain experimental results.

Over time it has grown into a monster.

In time the group of high energy particle physicists at CERN may announce the discovery of a Higg's boson. They certainly have an enormous incentive to justify their budget by doing so. The question is, who will be able to tell if such a claim is correct?

Personally, I am skeptical about the existence of super massive particles. To me the more likely case is that unexpected and thus unaccounted for internal nuclear energy is likely to exist in terms of spin moments of inertia just as has apparently been the case for the electron, so it will be for the nucleus.

If the electron is indeed composed of three charge elements having an unbalanced net charge of minus one then a proton being much more massive is probably composed of a much larger number of charge elements summing to positive one. When I ran the numbers for the proton I came up with 17.

A neutron came to 18 with a net balanced charge of course, that is why we call it a neutron.

Every one of those charge elements is in motion and has inertia. If they have a strong tendency to come apart in identifiable bits and pieces grouped as either fermions or bosons why would anyone be surprised that you can group numbers into either odd or even and name the groups after anyone you like?

Do these results imply that these bits and pieces are in fact sub-atomic particles? I don't know. If you dynamite a car you could probably correctly identify the mangled remains of the quarter panel or trans axle if you already knew what you were expecting to find.

That does not mean you could build one out of such parts. Nor understand you had to add gasoline to make it run.

As a final note, I would like to apologize for misspelling Mr. Pauli's name earlier. This has been a very long rant for me and that mistake is probably not the only one I have made, but, I content myself with the certainty that I have tried my best to explain my thoughts clearly and disclose the experimental basis for my theories.

I have also tried to tie these thoughts of mine to the better understanding of useful devices like laser and masers. I sense very little of that sort of everyday consideration for common people or respect for common sense coming from theoretical physicists such as work at CERN. I wish them the best and I hope we all learn something from their efforts. Meanwhile, just like yesterday, I'm gonna pick up my guitar and play, and hope.....

Best wishes,

Mr. Gee

Thanks a lot for your contributions!

I taught physics for 32 years, ending in 1995, and in all those years (and still) never felt comfortable with those charming names etc.

I think much of that is due to my very graphic manner of thinking - if I can't form a mental image, then I can't understand it... Thus I stay out of politics, economics, etc.

Your explanations (posts 94 and 97) are the first to allow me to begin to form a mental image of the parts of an electron etc.

Keep it up!

Dick

You Wrote: "In terms of atomic theory electrons are elementary particles. In terms of quantum theory they are composed of parts."

Electrons are fundamental particles, they are not composed of parts (see chart below).

Not to be a stickler here but you wrote:

You Wrote: "Pauly electron pairing exclusion principle"

And you meant "Pauli Exclusion Principle" (Link)

You Wrote: "Electron's are composed of quata. Quanta are subatomic "particles" that are defined by their equation of state with regard to five fields. These are; space, time, electric, magnetic, and thermal. The over all state of given atomic particle sub-atomic particle is determined by the summation equations of state of its sub-atomic parts."

This is just some nonsense you made up. And you didn't even do a good job making it up since you obviously meant "quanta" in your opening sentence.

I can't speak to your whole "boys from Berkely" bit, but you don't write like a physicist. The quark model was developed at Cal Tech which is about 375 miles from Berkely, so it's hard to see the relation. Did the inventors smoke marijuana? Who knows or cares. What I'm saying is , I doubt you were there.

There are a lot of good people who have a lot of interest in a variety of subjects including quantum mechanics and relativity here on CR4. When people like yourself pretend to be something you're not and just make post after post with misinformation, it ruins what this forum is about. Please stop pretending to know things you obviously do not know.

Roger

In your graphic, it has "Mass" as the top value, but thats in Electron volts (eV) and the multiplier (k,M,G)

Shouldn't the charge be the top position, so the charge for "Charm" = 1.27GeV ?