Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Display:
 all posts
 member posts highlighted
 member posts only

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

John Cox: on 12/14/20 at 2:52am UTC, wrote Doc, I just checked in, I've been preoccupied. I thought the paper would...

Steve Agnew: on 12/11/20 at 0:20am UTC, wrote This is fun...a combination of boron nitride quantum dot with double layer...

Stefan Weckbach: on 12/9/20 at 6:55am UTC, wrote Georgina, “For alignment to happen some particles will change their...

Georgina Woodward: on 12/8/20 at 23:32pm UTC, wrote I don't agree Stefan, you have a strange idea that the precise location of...

Stefan Weckbach: on 12/8/20 at 7:52am UTC, wrote Georgina, you claim that in your model the “up” and “down”...

Georgina Woodward: on 12/8/20 at 2:53am UTC, wrote Stefan, my answers to your questions about your experiments are to do with...

Stefan Weckbach: on 12/8/20 at 0:21am UTC, wrote Georgina, you now made it clear as possible with your answers that your...

Georgina Woodward: on 12/7/20 at 23:42pm UTC, wrote The orientation of axis and direction of rotation, of a random individual...



FQXi FORUM
January 27, 2021

CATEGORY: Ultimate Reality [back]
TOPIC: Answering Mermin’s Challenge [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Sep. 28, 2020 @ 15:11 GMT
There's a new paper in Scientific Reports by Mark Stuckey and colleagues showing that the relativity principle responsible for time dilation and length contraction in special relativity is also responsible for Bell state entanglement.

From the abstract:

"In 1981, Mermin published a now famous paper titled, “Bringing home the atomic world: Quantum mysteries for anybody” that Feynman called, “One of the most beautiful papers in physics that I know.” Therein, he presented the “Mermin device” that illustrates the conundrum of quantum entanglement per the Bell spin states for the “general reader.” He then challenged the “physicist reader” to explain the way the device works “in terms meaningful to a general reader struggling with the dilemma raised by the device.” Herein, we show how “conservation per no preferred reference frame (NPRF)” answers that challenge. In short, the explicit conservation that obtains for Alice and Bob’s Stern-Gerlach spin measurement outcomes in the same reference frame holds only on average in different reference frames, not on a trial-by-trial basis. This conservation is SO(3) invariant in the relevant symmetry plane in real space per the SU(2) invariance of its corresponding Bell spin state in Hilbert space. Since NPRF is also responsible for the postulates of special relativity, and therefore its counterintuitive aspects of time dilation and length contraction, we see that the symmetry group relating non-relativistic quantum mechanics and special relativity via their “mysteries” is the restricted Lorentz group."

Thank you to Mark Stuckey for suggesting that we open a forum thread to discuss this paper.

Bookmark and Share

John R. Cox replied on Sep. 29, 2020 @ 14:10 GMT
This should be great! There is so much to argue for much of what we measure that are actually averaged results, and that averaging is what makes physical constants, constant.

Mermin specifies electrons not photons in the SG apparatus, so for a benchtop experimentalist's approach we are looking at attempting to stage time-wise, the projection of two electrons at the same (or near to it) velocity in opposite directions through identical (or near to it) homogeneous magnetic fields. It is those magnets that induce a dipole moment on each electron of the pair, but physically we cannot say that the pair of electrons at origin are entangled. It is all in the time-wise staging and projection velocities that entangle them. And it is physically simply the antipodal directions of the electrons in flight that accounts for the anti-correlation of spin up and spin down when the magnets are both vertically aligned in the same N up S dn orientation to the vertical plane of the source. jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Sep. 29, 2020 @ 00:28 GMT
Thanks Zeeya,

this paper is worth going over repeatedly and is on my favorites bar. Where I think people get confused with SR is that there is NPRF of what the rate of passage of time might be either, it could be anything from nil to light velocity. The LT is just calculated from the relative rates of uniform motion. Does anybody really know what time it is? jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 29, 2020 @ 07:45 GMT
Hi Zeeya, thanks for sharing this paper, it seems very relevant, regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Sep. 30, 2020 @ 03:25 GMT
Hi Steve,

a little help here if you could. If the restricted Lorentz group is a group of coordinates on a hyperbolic space that is tilted to different angles of rotation (that is, each tilt is a seperate measurement of a Lorentz boost of 4 transforms, not an accelerated, or moving rotation) and that those coordinate points on the hyperboloid are connected by a continuous curved line; can we surmise from the figs. and text of the paper that any line for any of the detector settings would be represented on a plane as is the shape of either the upper or lower recursive lines of the 'pattern observed experimentally' in fig.1 . The upper recursive line representing spin up detection transform coordinates; and the lower, spin down detections of the binary choice produced by projected singlet pairs. ??? jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 30, 2020 @ 16:30 GMT
Hi John, It is about the minkowski spacetime and the transformations of Lorentz, if we take this restricted SO(1,3) for the automorphisms, we change just if my memory is good the referentials in conserving the orientations spatio temporals, these transformations are just changements inertial of referentials. If the spin up and down are like binary systems, I cannot answer because for me it is not correlated the balance with the relativity only , I consider a deeper logic with two senses of rotation but not for the photons wich turn in one precise sense , and I balance with the cold dark matter and the anti matter the same in fqct, so it becomes non relativistic and so the lorentz transformations are not the same because it is not about this special relativity, but you can consider an other logic for the quadrimoments and with the lie algebras and these lorentz transformations, that can help I beleive, but I am not a specialist of this method for the rotating light if I can say. Could you be nore precise still please ?regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 30, 2020 @ 17:07 GMT
John, what you tell is very important for the quantum computing and the qubits , my idea is different than the fact to consider only photons or electrons and their spins, moments or others, like I told you I consider a deeper logic than just these photons and so the lorenyz transformations of course are relevant for our relativity , but if we rank the quantum informations with a deeper logic, all...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Sep. 30, 2020 @ 18:26 GMT
I have not actually ever seen the Mermin device before, but am very familiar with the Stern-Gerlach apparatus that Mermin's device models. The Mermin device illustrates quantum superposition for single entangled particles just like the Stern-Gerlach device does for each particle and also illustrates the quantum measurement "problem" quite well too.

The challenge seems to be to explain in...

view entire post


attachments: MerminExperiment.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Sep. 30, 2020 @ 19:25 GMT
Thank you for that Doc, that gives a good start for browsing up a reading list.jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Oct. 1, 2020 @ 00:52 GMT
Dr. Agnew,

The reading I've started referencing SG does make better sense of the operational meaning of superposition than I have been assuming from the common application to photonic probability distribution. Thanks much again. Now I'm as obliged QM-wise, as I am to Tom Ray for peeling the scales from my eyes in GR. Not that I'll abandon a classical model, in fact I was struck with a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Oct. 1, 2020 @ 23:52 GMT
...oh...you did mention phase once..but not quantum. Ok...you love a determinate materialist classical reality so you are not alone...but somehow you are here in a quantum muck...

I love classical physics because classical differentials model reality really well. I also love quantum physics because quantum phase is how the universe really works and quantum field theory works very well.

What surprises me as a working scientist all these years is that the Science community cannot get its collective act in order and get a quantum gravity. Science still cannot describe a common basis for quantum charge and gravity relativity. Even very smart people like Steven Weinberg, Sean Carroll, Lee Smolin, and Sabrina Hosenfelder disagree vehemently about the nature of physical reality. And yet, none of them as a way to derive the universe from a few simple principles much less a way to derive charge and gravity from a the same simple principle...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Oct. 2, 2020 @ 03:07 GMT
Doc,

well... yeh, these days if you shoehorn in a lower case 'h' its quantum. But that lower case 'h' is derivative of Planck's classical distribution theorem and it (reasonably) assumes an equal partition of probability and demonstrates that a path of least resistance provides an escape from the ultra-violet catastrophe. So at some point in the spectrum we might also expect an equipartition of 'h', and we functionally assume that in the reduced Planck constant. In conjugal application, then, we can safely assume that 'h' is the averaged least observable value of action, so while that action by e=hf obtains that value for any observed wavelength, it matters little if a photon is a single phase outcome or a measure of aggregate phase actions. A partition of 'h' proportional to wavelength, into a rest matter phase particle small enough to be accelerated to light velocity would require the remainder of 'h' as the accelerating charge. That combined partitioning would be conserved in the outcome. Again in the interest of theoretical modeling, it matters naught if the reality is a single photon or the work function of many that quantizes the spectral lines. That least observable action per wavelength provides a means for a realistic phase cyclic model to assign requisite densities associated with primary force effects, and evolve a static state matter phase free rest mass. What's not quantum in a continuous function if the result is some observable quantized outcome?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 2, 2020 @ 09:08 GMT
Hi To both of you,

Steve , I agree that the classical model reality is essential and that this universe is simple, we can in logic explain the quantum mechanics with several tools and the quantum phases are important. It exists like universal partitions towards our main codes , but like I said unfortunally we don t know these foundamental objects and also the real philosophical origin of this universe, so what we analyse at this moment are just effects and of course we are very limitated due to problems of knowledges and technologies. I beleive also strongly that these phases and fields are essential, but we have probably a deeper logic to superimpose to reach our unknowns. I really doubt and it is just my opinion that we have just these phtons and relativity like primoridal essence, I don t tell that this relativity is not correct, of course it is relevant, I just tell that we cannot be sure that it is the only one piece of puzzle. Even Einstein told it, he considered a probable deeper logic to all this. The gravitational quantum fields for me are not electromagnetic or emergent from this electromagntism, I really think that it is a n other logic of encoding in our nuclei, this force is different. Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Oct. 2, 2020 @ 14:21 GMT
Steve and Doc,

I thought I'd posted a response but it is probably just as well that it didn't take. Too wordy. The gist was that the Quantum is a measure of action and a multiple of Quanta. And that Quanta is incomprehensibly small to our human experience. It is mentally meaningless to imagine that the fundamental unit of work is roughly equivalent to a decimal point followed by 34 zeroes and a 7 watt incandescent Christmas Tree light bulb.

But given that it IS that small, the prediction by the limitation on degrees of freedom in SR, that at light velocity any inertially bound mass equivalent quantity of energy would become infinite, is definitely a mathematical consequence not the physical reality. The phase action is a function of velocity, and if given a postulate that energy density varies in direct inverse proportion to velocity, then at progressively higher velocities and corresponding lower densities the induction reactance of a charge field to a field intensity propelling acceleration would also become correspondingly lower.

So we can treat physical phenomenon in simple terms of the action of change between a material phase and an energy phase. What may characterize a photon from a subluminal, gravitational mass may well be that the proportional upper density bound of a photon in its matter phase is lower than an empirical density which exhibits inelastic response... hence it is a particle of charge not kinetic ballistic impact. It is still a mass, but gravitational response measured as mass might require an inelastic density characteristic that would be proportional to a greater mass quantity matter phase. :-) jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Oct. 10, 2020 @ 04:31 GMT
I am sorry...this is a word salad.

You need to begin your universe with a very simple principles and show how those principles explain everything.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


William Mark Stuckey wrote on Oct. 14, 2020 @ 16:56 GMT
Here is a summary of the paper for a general audience.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Oct. 15, 2020 @ 13:44 GMT
That paper states that "When the SG magnets are oriented the same way (case (a)), the outcomes are always the same due to conservation of spin angular momentum between the pair of particles."

But that statement assumes that all the "outcomes" of every detection event are in fact correct and thus indicative of the "true" state" of the entity being measured. But it has been demonstrated that such perfectly correct outcomes are not even a logical possibility, in purely classical systems, whenever the system has been constructed such that it manifests only one, single bit of information. In other words, even when the system is constructed with perfectly anti-parallel "entangled particles", the actually detected "outcomes" cannot possibly be anti-parallel in every case ("bit-errors" are inevitable in some detections), and the probability of detections failing to be anti-parallel, is a function of the misalignment between the polarization axis of the entity being measured and the axis of the measuring device.

The paper then says "Instead, what happens in case (b) trials is that Bob's outcomes corresponding to Alice's outcomes for a particular setting correctly average to what one would expect for conservation of spin angular momentum (Figure 4)."

That statement is correct - precisely because the average is based upon coincidence-detection, that systematically fails to detect the entangled pairs most prone to producing the bit-errors; because, the mechanism that causes the bit-errors is the same as that which causes coincidence-detection to fail to detect every particle pair.

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Oct. 17, 2020 @ 16:27 GMT
I love your stubborn "Shannon bit noise explains quantum phase..." argument.

The basic issue with quantum measurements is that once an observer measures two entangled spin states from a single electron outcome, that observer cannot then know what the precursor spin state was for that electron. This means that before observation, quantum spin states exist as a superposition of both spin states.

Classical electron spin states represent revealed knowledge in that the classical observer measures a classical electron that the classical measurement reveals certain the spin states before the measurement, albeit within the classical Shannon noise level of the measurement. In the absence of perturbations, classical spin state outcome coming from a precursor necessarily means that spin state existed prior to the measurement and the measurement simply revealed that hidden knowledge.

The revealed knowledge of classical Shannon noise has no bit limit since a higher resolution classical measurement bit is always possible. Single electrons represent a limit for a Shannon bit, but a single electron is a qubit since it has quantum phase.

A electron simply cannot exist as a classical bit, so this classical explanation for quantum phase simply invents a new particle of matter called a classical bit. However, there is no way to measure a classical bit of noise without quantum phase.

By carefully fitting bit errors as a function of quantum phase angle, a classical bit can fit quantum phase correlations like Bell's. There is of course a classical noise fit to the Stern-Gerlach quantum phase as well. These classical noise fits have no useful predictions for any other measurements. In fact, a classical noise "hidden" function that fits a quantum phase property is a proof of the validity of a hidden quantum phase, not proof of classical noise...here is the figure from 2019jul...

attachments: 1_mceachernCorrelate.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 17, 2020 @ 17:01 GMT
Hi , I liked also, but a question intrigues me, what is really an electron, I have my idea in my model and these spheres but they are intriguing in fact.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Oct. 18, 2020 @ 00:00 GMT
"A question intrigues me, what is really an electron, I have my idea in my model and these spheres but they are intriguing in fact."...Steve Defourny.

An electron definition is really quite tricky since, as a fundamental particle, it is like asking why the universe exists or why matter exists at all. Electrons exist because they exist, which is an identity and hardly helpful. Science says...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 18, 2020 @ 08:17 GMT
Hi Steve, thanks for developing, it is well explained. I like the works of Dirac , the matter action of course seems relevant , we need to know more because like I told we have limitations in knowledges unfortunally about the main origin of our reality and we don t know really also these foundamental mathematical and physical objects , your explainations were a pleasure to read, I study in the same time, thanks still. Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 18, 2020 @ 12:33 GMT
Steve , if we take the matter action and if we correlate with the einstein hilbert action and the fields equations, we consider this general relativity and still these photons like primordial essence, I like these works, but we cannot affirm that this is the main origin of our universe, einstein recognised this, that is why for me they cannot renormalise and quantified this quantum gravitation ,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 18, 2020 @ 15:35 GMT
If we take the charged point particles for the einstein gravitational field, we see the motions and the effects on this spacetime that we observe, but all this is for observations , I beleive humbly that it is the problem when the searchers try to unify this GR and the QM to reach this quantum gravitation, in fact we must consider a different logic because what we searc is not about the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Oct. 26, 2020 @ 00:13 GMT
If the particles produced as a pair have the same orientation of magnetic moment and are then exposed to the same orientation of magnetic field , the same response can be expected from each member of the pair. They remain correlated- shown as 1/2 and 1/2 of the same orientation possibilities. if anticorrelated they remain anticorrelated.)

If instead a pair is exposed to different orientations of field they will respond to the field they individually experience. As only 'spin up" and 'spin down" results are "measured" 1/4 of each kind of pairing is what should be expected for lost correlation-as if random.

Rather than there being two types of the particle with different spin characteristic there is one. Orientation producing the resulting bit is nurtured during exposure to the magnetic field. There is no equivalent isolated bit prior to the execution of the "measurement" protocol.

The Bell's statistics assume the spins to be inherent characteristics, measured not generated by the apparatus.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 26, 2020 @ 08:51 GMT
Dear Georgina,

trying to trace your argument.

Particles are produced as a pair. By production, they always have the same orientation of a pre-measurement property. Then they are exposed to the same physical forces. This then results in the same response. This is the case for the angles 0 degree as well as 180 degree.

If we have a relative angle of 90 degree, it seems that the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 26, 2020 @ 09:52 GMT
Stefan, that is a long reply. I'll read it carefully tomorrow.

As I understand the issue- there are three different angles of orientation of the magnetic fields of the magnets and a choice of same orientation for "measuring" each of the pair OR choice of different orientations for "measuring" each of what was a matched pair but will now not give a certainly same state outcome. The two different environments causes them to be uncorrelated. Though by probability still giving the same/matched state outcome 1/4 of the time.

You ask why only up and down [outcomes}? Because that is the options allowed by the apparatus. The bits, ups and downs are not particles but tell something about the particle's prior behaviour; that led to the outcome.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 26, 2020 @ 11:29 GMT
Dear Georgina,

“Though by probability still giving the same/matched state outcome 1/4 of the time. “

No no, the ¼ you speak of are only the case if the two measurement magnets have a relative angle of 90 degrees (or 270 degrees) to each other. In all other cases the probabilities behave according to the bell curve, not linear. Look at that Bell-curve (roughly speaking the orange line):

https://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/MceachernMisse
dDetections.JPG

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Nov. 5, 2020 @ 14:58 GMT
The extensive discussion shows once again that quantum versus classical precursors and outcomes are no clearer with the Mermin device. The Mermin challenge was:

"To explain in simple language quantum superposition and entanglement by using simple language to explain how the Mermin device works."

My simple explanation is that the Mermin device Case B reveals the nature of quantum...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Nov. 5, 2020 @ 16:15 GMT
Dr. Agnew,

There are many gaps, lapses and contradictions that have compiled in the classical run-up to Quantum Mechanics. One lapse in particular you point out as classical assuming a single spin state. I quite agree, and it relates to the electron-nucleon spin coupling without displaying an external magnetic field. 45 to 40 years ago I was playing with magnets and constructed a number of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Nov. 5, 2020 @ 17:02 GMT
Here's a thought,

maybe the role of a neutron in atoms with more than one electron is because its necessary to modulate bit-flips. Have you read anything about 3-phase alternating current transmission? it incorporates a 'neutral line' that carries no current but without it the phasing can get out of sych and the power factor suffers. I'll brush up and maybe get back on that. jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Nov. 8, 2020 @ 03:58 GMT
...sounds like you want to eat your quantum cake and have it as well...The neutral Ag atom is extremely polarizable and so you are right that there is therefore a significant dispersive attractive force to charge or even to another neutral atom. In fact, there is a whole spectroscopy associated with Ag atom polarizability on conducting surfaces called surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy, SERS.

You are spot on about the role of the neutron in the nucleus to moderate spin angular momentum among charged protons. Charge motion in the nucleus results in nuclear spin magnetism and the neutrons moderate that effect since their motion does not generate spin magnetism. Of course, neutrons do have spin = 1/2, just like a proton, and neutrons are also are much more polarizable than protons.

Notice that quarks only have 1/3 or 2/3 of charge and so do form a three phase gluon current. That three-phase gluon current differentiates protons and neutrons...and I believe that electrons are also made up of three quarks as well. Electrons are no more fundamental than neutrons or protons and it is really quark gluon current that is the basic action that makes up all matter.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 14, 2020 @ 04:30 GMT
John, replying to your post Nov. 13, 2020 @ 17:18 GMT I think your description of how to draw a silver atom is too complicated for me to actually draw and contemplate. Perhaps that was your intention. Besides it would be useful to work back from what happens, to what sort of arrangement would allow that.

How about picturing the atom, like a drone swarm of gyroscopes? Each particle is individual but the whole atom is held together in its form by the attraction of electrons to the nucleus and mutual repulsion of electrons, except for electron pairs with opposite axis of rotation orientation, That allowing a figure of eight dance composed of the two different rotations, which gives stable proximity rather than repulsion. All the electrons are paired thus, except for the lone outer one, that makes it an atom rather than an ion, That outer electron could have either spin. Which one can not be told as it depends on the viewpoint chosen to describe the atom; top down or bottom up.

The gyroscopic spins of the paired electrons will balance and cancel out any movement that would occur with just one. Depending on relative orientation of that single electron, parallel or anti- parallel to the magnetic field encountered, (it will adjust if necessary to be one of those options.) if the atom ensemble is considered weightless, as gravity is minuscule at this scale compared to thee other forces at play, the weightless atom will move with the singlet outer electron. Up or down with the electron not tilting as only a twisting force can change the orientation of the gyroscopic electrons.

You wrote Gyro or stats. I'd say both together looks promising.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Nov. 17, 2020 @ 16:41 GMT
Georgina,

Best of Luck in your efforts to associate gyroscopic effects with the electromagnetic spin states. There exists plenty of evidence that at quantum scales gyroscopic behavior might well be essentially "weightless". Beware, of course, that experiment to date only is capable of observing particulate matter in aggregate, and it is a far stretch to treat a clump of n? particles as exhibiting the characteristics of a hypothetical single particle, be it an elementary particle or the std model of atomic structure. That inconvenient truth is why QM treats a particle as being in multiple states, and refrains from speculation as to what realistically constitutes a primal particle.

Orbital and Spin angular momentum differ in magnitude (generally speaking) but both boil down to a measure of response at right angle to direction of motion in relation to velocity. Spin angular momentum of the electron is said to be 'intrinsic' because it is calculable that the surface of the charge radius would have to be moving in excess of light velocity to exhibit the amount of lateral movement in a measured magnetic field. Obviously, what is lacking is the question of "why" rotation one way or another would produce a lateral response anyway! It's not like is has some kind of traction! So... maybe gyros have something to do with it (?) . :-) jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 28, 2020 @ 03:05 GMT
Quantum explanation of entanglement would also have faster than light communication of particles. Gyroscopic motion can do away with faster than light communication. It could also replace faster than light intrinsic spin. A 'conducting' gyroscope has a propensity to rotate a particular way but also responds to the magnetic environment. It can turn and exhibit a different flow direction, Such as when exposed to a 90 degree field or returning to a vertical field afterwards. I now think geometry is important and not accounted for in the statistics. The rotating essence of an electron is not current or 'anti-current' but can act in such a way that the electron responds to the magnetic field by flowing in a direction that needs adding to the velocity through the apparatus.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 28, 2020 @ 21:08 GMT
Here is the paper at viXra Explaining Results of Stern Gerlach Apparatus Experiments with Gyroscopic Motion, Georgina Woodward

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Nov. 18, 2020 @ 21:57 GMT
Georgi,

A principle problem that confronts efforts to model a realistic elementary particle becomes apparent in such experiments as Stern-Gerlach. It is acknowledged that macro experiments deal with aggregates of n? particles such as neutral Ag silver atoms, so we can deduce only so much applied to single entities. Cutting to the chase, let's look at either a proton or electron. The intrinsic spin, if taken as a real physical rotation would produce a magnetic field with a strength that is coefficient of charge and speed of rotation. If that axil orientation is Up and the rotation is CCW, then when/if flipped so that it is oriented Down, the rotation would be CW. The magnetic field orientation may well be in parallel with the rotational axis but regardless of Up or Down, the right angle deflection on the horizontal plane will always be CW veering towards the right when viewed from overhead of a magnet group with the South pole face of the upper magnet facing upwards. The Up/Down spin does not alter the negative charge response on that horizontal electrical plane. A proton will veer CCW to the left.

So how can we model charge realistically? It really physically behaves as if it were moving in all directions on the surface of the charge radius. Or is there a wobble to a precessing orbital of the rotation axis that is intermediate to the orthogonals of an electron (or proton) moving through an external magnetic field?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Nov. 26, 2020 @ 01:57 GMT
Dr. Agnew,

This might be something you would find interesting, I ran across browsing with an eye for practical applications and developmental research. It cross references with physics.org so its a good start point.

https://www.graphene-info.com/researchers-achieve-dire
ct-visualization-quantum-dots-bilayer-graphene

the site also has an investment guide to players in the emerging field. enjoy-jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Dec. 11, 2020 @ 00:20 GMT
This is fun...a combination of boron nitride quantum dot with double layer graphene. They use an over potential to inject charge into one spot and create a quantum dot as a BN+/graph- trapped polaron.

They can then scan the quantum with a lower voltage and show that there is about 1% charge exchange with the scan. By the math, it seems that there are about 50-60 charge pairs trapped in the quantum dot that they showed. There are also a lot of structure and symmetry, which will take many, many papers to more thoroughly model.

Of course, there are a lot of neat things that are possible at 4.8 K but that do not exist at 300 K...but what the heck...have some fun with charge. They do not measure the dephasing rate and that would be interesting as well as the quantum dot lifetime.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Dec. 14, 2020 @ 02:52 GMT
Doc,

I just checked in, I've been preoccupied. I thought the paper would be in your wheelhouse, and what had immediately struck me was a possible fit with your hypothesis of a three quark electron. The structure visualized, produced three dots rather than previous efforts which displayed concentric rings. I have to admit that it is all well beyond my level of play but am happy to watch and learn. Glad you like it, graphene may well be the energy game changer. Twenty years from now people will be saying, "Can you imagine! they actually burnt the stuff! what a terrible waste of the best source of elemental carbon nature provides! Heavens!" Happy Holidays - stay well, jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.