[PhysBang]

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.

[Farsight]

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.

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.

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.

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. 

[JP (OP)]

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. 

[PhysBang]

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.

[yor_on]

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?

[Robro]

The phase-locked photon model of the electron makes sense to me, so yes electrons do spin.

[Farsight]

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.

[JP (OP)]

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? 

[Farsight]

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.   

[PhysBang]

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.

[Vern]

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.

[yor_on]

Any one care to answer my Q. ?

[Vern]

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.

[JP (OP)]

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.

[JP (OP)]

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).

[yor_on]

Sure, but it was electrons orbitals and there are several references, the one I first saw the idea on was this site but if you Google there are several discussing and experimenting with the proposition. Here is another description, but it's a pay-site Toward a better understanding of the atom superposition and electron delocalization molecular orbital theory and a systematic test

And this one I think you will find informative. Superposition.

---Quote---

 The empirical support for the superposition principle outlined above validates its use for theoretical interpretation. For example, we can use the superposition principle to understand the electronic ground state of the hydrogen atom, which in atomic units is, < r | Y > = Y (r) = p -1/2 exp(-r). This equation says that the hydrogen atom's electron is in a weighted superposition of all possible distances, r, from the nucleus. It is not orbiting the nucleus in a circular orbit or an elliptical orbit, it is not moving at all in any ordinary sense. The electron does not execute a classical trajectory within the atom. This is why in quantum mechanics we say the electron is in a stationary state, and why, un-like moving charges, it does not radiate or absorb energy unless it is making a transition from one allowed stationary state to another.

The superposition principle also provides a simple interpretation of the covalent chemical bond. In H2+, for example, at the most rudimentary level of theory, we write the molecular orbital as a linear superposition of the 1s orbitals of the two hydrogen atoms: YMO = 2-1/2 (y1sa + y1sb). Adding the probability amplitudes, y1sa and y1sb, is equivalent to saying the electron is delocalized over the molecule as a whole, and just as in the hydrogen atom case it is not correct to think of the electron as executing a trajectory or hopping back and forth between the two atoms. Squaring YMO (the sum of two probability amplitudes) to obtain the probability density yields an interference term, 2y1say1sb, which leads to a build-up of charge in the internuclear region. Thus constructive interference associated with an in-phase linear superposition of atomic states provides an understanding of the mechanism of chemical bond formation..

--End of quote-- And very impressive, to me at least

Especially considering that his main interest is chemistry.
Real good paper that one.

[JP (OP)]

Cool.  Now I get what you're talking about.  I'm still a little confused about what you're asking.  If you have an atom that can be either "0" or "1," then when you measure it it's either "0" or "1," not both.  The advantage of quantum mechanics, as you posted, is that it's in 2 states at once until you measure it (but your measurement still requires that it choose one of those two states.)

I'm a bit lost about your asking if it's in four states. 

[yor_on]

I'm just playing with the concept
If 'one electron' can use two orbitals superpositioned and you can have two possible orbitals with 'oposite spin' in each orbital, I was wondering how far this chain of relations could go. A1 and B1 being in one orbital both superpositioned, each one to a different orbital than the other one, like a chain of possibly superluminal 'information', well not really but more of an 'entanglement', like some chain stretching all around the atoms electrons?

And I wanted us to discuss electrons again
I'm afraid it was me taking us of the subject somewhat..

[Vern]

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.

That only means that there is something wrong with our concept of what an electron is. I can easily describe an electron that will behave that way and there is no experiment that can show that the electron so described is not reality.

[PhysBang]

Are you saying that you can reproduce the two-slit experiment with an electron without superposition?