The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Do electrons rotate?  (Read 28112 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Do electrons rotate?
« Reply #50 on: 22/02/2010 06:05:39 »
Yes JP, I agree, it may be due to me not seeing the concept here. The idea seems to be to illuminate 'many paths' in some quantum way. But when thinking of those experiments where they produce an entanglement I've never seen anyone calling the light 'photons', only waves? Or am I thinking wrong there? Awh, but I still don't understand how you can use use both concepts simultaneously in a experiment? I will look at your link and hope for enlightenment :)
==

Or maybe you can, after all it's the 'same' light ::))
Awwwhh, but the link is really nice JP.. Kudos for that one.
« Last Edit: 22/02/2010 06:34:28 by yor_on »
 

Offline Farsight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 396
    • View Profile
Do electrons rotate?
« Reply #51 on: 22/02/2010 10:39:46 »
Why would you post this? This obviously has nothing to do with electrons?
It has a lot to do with electrons. Read the article:

"Atom smasher shows vacuum of space in a twist
Ephemeral vortices that form in the vacuum of space may have been spotted for the first time. They could help to explain how matter gets much of its mass. Most of the mass of ordinary matter comes from nucleons – protons and neutrons. Each nucleon, in turn, is made of three quarks. But the quarks themselves account for only about 1 per cent of the mass of a nucleon. The remainder of the mass comes from the force that holds the quarks together..."


We don't talk of quarks in the context of an electron, but there is some kind of force that holds it together, and it does have mass. Light doesn't, and long wave radio tells us that light is "ephemeral" - a photon isn't a point particle. Setting gravity aside, it travels at c, in a straight line. After pair production this straight-line motion at c is no longer present, and instead we now see an electron and a positron. Let's imagine we're moving along with the electron to keep things simple. It has no discernible internal structure or surface, but it does have its wave/particle duality, and it does have some form of angular momentum or spin along with magnetic moment. And it also has mass.

The photon has no mass, but it does have energy / momentum, and delivers a "kick" as per Compton scattering. Now remember that motion is relative, so imagine that it was you moving instead of the photon. That momentum would now feel like inertia. There is a symmetry between these two measures - it's difficult to decelerate an object because of its momentum, and it's difficult to accelerate an object because of its inertia. At this juncture you might say that you can't make a photon not move at c. This is true. But after pair production, that straight-line motion at c has gone. The electron exhibits angular momentum and magnetic moment, so now the motion is circulatory, and there's no aggregate motion with respect to you, because in your reference frame the electron is at rest. So you have effectively "stopped" the photon, hence the momentum looks like inertia. Mass. Only we don't call it photon any more. We call it an electron.
 
So how does this explain the wavelike properties?
The electron is just a circulating photon. It's a soliton or "vorton". You could say it's an ephemeral vortex.

How can we take this answer seriously? If it's so easy, please demonstrate how your proposal produces the appropriate Stern-Gerlach magnet effects. It looks like you are merely trying to avoid answering the question, but surely that cannot be the case.
Take a look at my first post on this thread where I talked about two-dimensional spin. If something keeps changing its spin direction, you can only distinguish between two alternatives. It's all simple stuff, PhysBang, you should look into it properly.   
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Do electrons rotate?
« Reply #52 on: 22/02/2010 11:31:40 »
How can we take this answer seriously? If it's so easy, please demonstrate how your proposal produces the appropriate Stern-Gerlach magnet effects. It looks like you are merely trying to avoid answering the question, but surely that cannot be the case.
Take a look at my first post on this thread where I talked about two-dimensional spin. If something keeps changing its spin direction, you can only distinguish between two alternatives. It's all simple stuff, PhysBang, you should look into it properly.  

Farsight, just because a proposed system has two different options it can choose from, doesn't mean that it actually has physical properties that match experiments.  Can you show any calculations that demonstrate how it gives rise to the various properties of the electron that are known from experiments?
« Last Edit: 22/02/2010 11:33:31 by JP »
 

Offline Farsight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 396
    • View Profile
Do electrons rotate?
« Reply #53 on: 22/02/2010 12:34:30 »
Yes, but they aren't mine, see http://www.cybsoc.org/electremdense2008v4.pdf
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Do electrons rotate?
« Reply #54 on: 22/02/2010 16:22:04 »
Yes, but they aren't mine, see http://www.cybsoc.org/electremdense2008v4.pdf
OK, but that paper has absolutely nothing to so with the earlier paper you linked to, a paper that has nothing to do with electrons. Just because two papers use the same word does not mean that they are using that word in even a remotely similar manner. What quarks do is central to the first paper and the construction of quarks is briefly mentioned in the second paper but never actually addressed. Nothing about what quarks do and how their mass is produced is discussed in the second paper. And this second paper does not give us any calculations relevant to the discussion here about the Stern-Gerlach magnets.
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Do electrons rotate?
« Reply #55 on: 22/02/2010 16:23:57 »
Take a look at my first post on this thread where I talked about two-dimensional spin. If something keeps changing its spin direction, you can only distinguish between two alternatives. It's all simple stuff, PhysBang, you should look into it properly.   
Since it is so simple, please give us the calculation.
 

Offline Farsight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 396
    • View Profile
Do electrons rotate?
« Reply #56 on: 22/02/2010 19:15:45 »
I don't know how offhand, Physbang. I'd have to spend a lot of time on it, and that would mean I wouldn't be able to chat with you. Maybe I'll put out the word with guys like David Hestenes, or maybe you should have a crack at two-dimensional spin yourself? Here, check out my first post on this thread then look at the Stern-Gerlach experiment on say wiki, and spot the non-sequitur:

"If this value arises as a result of the particles rotating the way a planet rotates, then the individual particles would have to be spinning impossibly fast. Even if the electron radius were as large as 14 nm (classical electron radius) then it would have to be rotating at 2.3×1011 m/s. The speed of rotation would be in excess of the speed of light, 2.998×108 m/s, and is thus impossible. Thus, the spin angular momentum has nothing to do with rotation and is a purely quantum mechanical phenomenon. That is why it is sometimes known as the "intrinsic angular momentum."

It's a trivial logical flaw, especially when you know about pair production and annihilation. The electron clearly isn't a tiny charged cannonball spinning like a planet. But to then say that its angular momentum and magnetic moment is nothing to do with rotation just doesn't follow. Ditto for scattering experiments that find no cannonballs down to 10-18 m and then consider this to be an upper size limit.
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Do electrons rotate?
« Reply #57 on: 22/02/2010 20:09:32 »
If your proposal cannot account for the operation of the Stern-Gerlach devices, then it does not explain the electron, end of story.
 

Offline Farsight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 396
    • View Profile
Do electrons rotate?
« Reply #58 on: 24/02/2010 23:08:15 »
It does. Two dimensional rotation offers only two alternatives.

Which way does a clock hand rotate? Clockwise? But go round the back, and it's anticlockwise. Keep going round, and it's clockwise then anticlockwise then clockwise then anticlockwise. You can't say which way it's going. But you can tell the difference if the hand is going backwards. 
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Do electrons rotate?
« Reply #59 on: 25/02/2010 03:11:07 »
In their second paper, it's not two dimensional spin.  It's a higher dimensional spin of abstract quantities, but they do claim it only offers two alternatives.  I'm still not convinced the paper actually offers any predictions, since they're not very detailed in their mathematics.  Also, the paper describes the confinement of these photons by means of some extra energy term that they put in by hand so that it gets the right spin.  I'm still not convinced that actually describes the Stern Gerlach effect, again, because they're not very detailed in deriving electron properties in this paper, but at least they claim they get the right spin.

The big problem I have after browsing the paper is that the extra energy term is troublesome, because none of the current models or experiments have detected it.  It seems like it would essentially be giving a gravitation-like force that only applies to light (it attracts two waves together).  Proposing an extra force is going to cause problems because this force has never been observed, and I imagine it should show up in other processes involving either multiple photons or single electrons (beta decay, for example).  Maybe in future papers, the authors will come up with a more detailed analysis of this force and explain why it hasn't been seen before, but until then it isn't a very physically convincing model.
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Do electrons rotate?
« Reply #60 on: 25/02/2010 04:39:46 »
It does. Two dimensional rotation offers only two alternatives.
Then show us a calculation. Either your theory actually explains electrons, in which case it produces the same behaviour for electrons, or it doesn't. Since the experiment that throws the rotation of electrons into question is the Stern-Gerlach magnet experiment, it is a necessary thing to explain. Your continued evasions make you seem dishonest.
 

Offline Farsight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 396
    • View Profile
Do electrons rotate?
« Reply #61 on: 25/02/2010 12:06:40 »
It's tricky Physbang. For example http://www.electronspin.org/6.htm talks about "magnetic charge", and is employing assumptions that aren't supported by the creation of an electron and positron via pair production. The difficulty is perhaps related to "The mystery of the moebius strip", see http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/16/1979151.htm, with the added issue of being three-dimensional and dynamical.

Quote from: JP
In their second paper, it's not two dimensional spin. It's a higher dimensional spin of abstract quantities, but they do claim it only offers two alternatives. I'm still not convinced the paper actually offers any predictions, since they're not very detailed in their mathematics. Also, the paper describes the confinement of these photons by means of some extra energy term that they put in by hand so that it gets the right spin.
Granted. I didn't intend this paper to demonstrate the mathematics of two dimensional spin, but instead rotation as opposed to the "black box" called intrinsic angular momentum.

Quote from: JP
I'm still not convinced that actually describes the Stern Gerlach effect, again, because they're not very detailed in deriving electron properties in this paper, but at least they claim they get the right spin.
No, it doesn't mention it, sorry. Again, I intended this as some mathematics supporting the idea of rotation.

Quote from: JP
The big problem I have after browsing the paper is that the extra energy term is troublesome, because none of the current models or experiments have detected it. It seems like it would essentially be giving a gravitation-like force that only applies to light (it attracts two waves together). Proposing an extra force is going to cause problems because this force has never been observed, and I imagine it should show up in other processes involving either multiple photons or single electrons (beta decay, for example). Maybe in future papers, the authors will come up with a more detailed analysis of this force and explain why it hasn't been seen before, but until then it isn't a very physically convincing model.
I don't think it's new force, JP, I think it's "electromagnetic potential" like we see in the Aharanov-Bohm effect. There was maybe a related article about light beams attracting one another a few months back in PhysicsWorld I think, but I can't find it. I don't know if this helps any: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/23984. I tried to say something about the geometry of electromagnetism on on another thread, but nobody picked up on it. 
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Do electrons rotate?
« Reply #62 on: 25/02/2010 13:35:19 »
It's definitely an arbitrary force or energy term.  They even say it is.  The Aharanov-Bohm effect comes from existing theory.  The force/energy term here is just inserted by hand to make the equations take the form they want. 
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Do electrons rotate?
« Reply #63 on: 25/02/2010 18:19:46 »
It's tricky Physbang.
So first you say it's simple, now you say it's tricky. It seems that what you should have said from the start is that you have a supposition that is, so far, unsupported by empirical evidence.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Do electrons rotate?
« Reply #64 on: 26/02/2010 01:57:26 »
Let us go back to discussing electrons :)

I saw that an electron in a atom could be superpositioned and so have two orbitals simultaneously. That seems somewhat different from superimposed in that quantum logically you now have the possibility to store four numbers. That's due to that you can define the first orbital as .0. and the other as .1. Then you can combine those into 00, 01, 10, 11.

Should I see that as the same as superimposed, no i shouldn't, should I? And if I now imagine two electrons superpositioned in different orbitals like orbital 'A' having A1 and A0 (with different spins +1/2 and -1/2) and A0 is superpositioned with orbital 'B' while 'A1' is superpositioned with 'C'. Would that be possible?
 

Offline Robro

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Do electrons rotate?
« Reply #65 on: 26/02/2010 09:48:40 »
The phase-locked photon model of the electron makes sense to me, so yes electrons do spin.
 

Offline Farsight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 396
    • View Profile
Do electrons rotate?
« Reply #66 on: 26/02/2010 10:11:52 »
PhysBang: the empirical evidence is in the electron angular momentum, magnetic moment, et cetera. The lack of an adequate mathematical description for say pair production is something else.

JP: There's certainly a new term, but I whether it represents a force that has never been observed is debateable. But are we talking about the same thing? On page 8 where Williamson says "As can be seen, the invariant scalar adds terms both to the energy density and to the momentum density. It is these new terms which are the key to understanding how rectilinear photon propagation in the initial state may be transferred to rotational, vortex-like solutions..." I see that as related to the Aharanov-Bohm effect. I don't know if you know The Refractive Index in Electron Optics and the Principles of Dynamics by Ehrenberg and Siday. Figure 2 shows a rotation, and figure 3 shows the "Aharanov-Bohm" effect itself.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Do electrons rotate?
« Reply #67 on: 26/02/2010 10:48:42 »
Farsight, I don't think it can be akin to the Aharanov-Bohm effect.  That effect is derived from the basic equations of QED.  The term in the Williamson paper isn't derived from anything.  It's inserted to get the properties he wants.  How can they then be the same? 
 

Offline Farsight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 396
    • View Profile
Do electrons rotate?
« Reply #68 on: 26/02/2010 12:19:39 »
I'd say it's because that term and the Aharanov-Bohm effect both involve a rotation, JP. Maybe a newer version of the paper will give some justification. See the Aharanov-Bohm effect on wiki where it says "The Aharonov–Bohm effect, sometimes called the Ehrenberg–Siday–Aharonov–Bohm effect, is a quantum mechanical phenomenon in which an electrically charged particle shows a measurable interaction with an electromagnetic field despite being confined to a region in which both the magnetic field B and electric field E are zero". No problem if you can derive it from the basic equations of QED, but it was originally predicted via a different route in the Ehrenberg-Siday electron optics paper of 1948, see http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0370-1301/62/1/303/. Some suggest it's evidence of "spooky action at a distance", but it I think it's better to say the space around the solenoid is affected when the current is turned on, and this deflects the electron path. If you can see figure 2, that depiction looks rotational, a little like the typical depiction of frame-dragging. There's a "field" there of sorts, even though it isn't an electric field and it isn't a magnetic field per se. I'm not sure what you call it, but note this from the wiki article: "With the addition of quantum theory, though, the electromagnetic potential A is seen as being more fundamental or 'real'; the E and B fields can be derived from the potential A, but the potential can not be derived from the E and B fields".

Yor-on: I don't know. It's tricky enough getting to grips with a single electron, and it gets even more complicated when you start looking at the behavour of electrons in atoms.  

Noted, Robro. "Intrinsic" doesn't satisfy me.   

 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Do electrons rotate?
« Reply #69 on: 26/02/2010 16:28:54 »
PhysBang: the empirical evidence is in the electron angular momentum, magnetic moment, et cetera. The lack of an adequate mathematical description for say pair production is something else.
No, the lack of empirical evidence is on the side of you saying that the electron is some kind of mobius strip of photons. We know that the electron doesn't have angular momentum like collections of particles because of the empirical evidence. We also know that you don't have an explanation for the most important and foundational tests with regard to this matter. I do not care that pair production is yet another thing that you cannot explain, all I care to point out is that you haven't got an explanation for the electron and specifically for its spin.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Do electrons rotate?
« Reply #70 on: 27/02/2010 02:19:25 »
From what I can see the electron only exists at its electromagnetic circumference. There is ample experimental evidence that it does exist there. There is no experimental evidence that it exists anywhere else.

This evidence suggests that the electron is the largest of the elementary particles.  The relative sizes are as in the square of the shells:

Calculator Source Code


The electron is comprised of one photon trapped in a resonant pattern spinning at the speed of light.
« Last Edit: 27/02/2010 02:25:43 by Vern »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Do electrons rotate?
« Reply #71 on: 27/02/2010 08:45:39 »
Any one care to answer my Q. ?
:)
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Do electrons rotate?
« Reply #72 on: 27/02/2010 13:41:45 »
Superposition? Superimposed?

I think superposition is a term used to describe a situation where an object can exist simultaneously in two mutually exclusive states. It's a theory. There is no experimental evidence to suggest that it is reality.

I'm not sure what is your understanding of superimposed. I don't know what that means.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Do electrons rotate?
« Reply #73 on: 27/02/2010 13:54:33 »
Vern, there's plenty of experimental evidence to support superposition.  The two slit experiment with electrons, for example.  The electron has to be described as passing through both slits in order for an interference pattern to emerge.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Do electrons rotate?
« Reply #74 on: 27/02/2010 13:59:39 »
I saw that an electron in a atom could be superpositioned and so have two orbitals simultaneously. That seems somewhat different from superimposed in that quantum logically you now have the possibility to store four numbers. That's due to that you can define the first orbital as .0. and the other as .1. Then you can combine those into 00, 01, 10, 11.
Do you have as source for that?  I can kind of see how it could work (you'd hit an atom with a photon that was 50% likely to be in one energy state and 50% in the other).
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Do electrons rotate?
« Reply #74 on: 27/02/2010 13:59:39 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums