The Problem of Spin

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

The Problem of Spin

Post by junglelord » Sun May 04, 2008 4:18 am

Recent discussions and a web search reveal that spin is a problem for everyone.

There are over 1000 scientific papers on spin. It is even spoken of as a fundamental force in the mainstream!
:D
I would say thats a step in the right direction, especially with the standard force model being incomplete in my mind. It has also been refered to as a Dimension in APM, an even further and I believe final step.
:D
Until you explain from whence it came and why it is, you do not understand it, you mearly acknowledge it exists. Everyone agrees on that.
8-)
How we define it and quantify it and weave it into the fabric of matter, mass, reality is a very important yet unfinished journey. These are the top three google hits for spin of the proton.
How the Proton Got its Spin
Inside protons are quarks. Experiments can't reveal them directly, but somehow the behavior of these internal constituents generates a proton's properties. Making that connection, however, is no easy matter. A theoretical paper in the 8 August PRL illuminates the proton's interior by turning an esoteric mathematical description of quarks into a visual form. The pictures provide tangible detail on how internal dynamics contribute to the proton's spin.

When the quark picture first emerged in the 1960s, physicists assumed that the three quarks inside a proton each move in a spherically symmetric fashion, creating an object that in many respects acts like a little ball. According to this view, the observed spin of the proton arises simply from the intrinsic spins of the quarks. In the late 1980s, however, experimental evidence began to show that much of a proton's spin comes from so-called orbital motion of the quarks relative to each other, rather than from their individual spins. In addition, it became apparent that quark-antiquark pairs and other particles continually flit in and out of existence inside a proton, all influencing the proton's characteristics.

In 1996, Xiangdong Ji of the University of Maryland in College Park introduced a mathematical tool that he called the Generalized Parton Distribution (GPD) and used it to relate experimental data to the configuration of particles inside a proton. But the GPD, he says, is "abstract [and] hard to understand" in an intuitive way. As a tool to explore the origin of proton spin, he adds, it "seemed to be far more complicated than necessary."

To understand Ji's new way of depicting the internal structure of a proton, recall the behavior of quantum particles. An electron in a hydrogen atom, for example, is often represented by an "electron cloud" image. The dumbbell-shaped "p-orbitals" of a hydrogen atom show where the electron is most likely to be if the atom is prepared in the quantum state called p. Similarly, quarks within a proton are quantum particles occupying some volume of space rather than a specific location. Because of the uncertainty principle, a quark's momentum is likewise "fuzzy."

Ji's latest trick turns his mathematical GPDs into images that look something like orbital diagrams for a hydrogen atom. He calls them "color filters" because they pick out only the quark motion at a certain momentum, just as a filter in photography shows the scene at a certain color of light. To understand this filtering, think of cars moving in or out of a city during rush hour, Ji suggests. If you look at all cars together, you will see a roughly uniform pattern, but if you image only those vehicles moving north at 30 miles per hour, say, a handful of distinct streets will stand out.

Each of Ji's filter images gives a picture of the most likely locations of quarks if one only observes at a specific value of momentum. The pictures show that quarks with some particular momentum do not necessarily occupy a spherically symmetric region. Adding up the pictures from all quark momenta does give an exactly spherical distribution. But the non-spherical shapes of some of the pictures show that quark motion is not entirely random--it depends on location. In general, says Ji, such a connection between quark momentum and position implies an overall rotation of the quarks around one another, which we observe as proton spin.

Ji's latest work is "a real step forward," says Tim Londergan of the Indiana University in Bloomington. By giving a direct idea of quark location, he says, Ji's methods can give physical meaning to mathematical concepts that are not easy to interpret.

http://focus.aps.org/story/v12/st5
The proton has an intrinsic spin; classically one could think of the analogy of a rotating top. How can we understand this spin in terms of the quarks inside the proton? The simplest idea is to trace the proton spin directly back to the spin of the quarks (the quarks also have a spin; this is a fundamental and well understood property of quarks).

However, measurements at SLAC and at CERN showed that this naive picture is wrong. The spin of the proton must have a more complicated explanation. The HERMES experiment at HERA is designed to find out what really produces the spin of the proton. In the HERMES experiment, polarized electrons, i.e. electrons whose spins all point in one direction, are collided with polarized protons. The details of the observed reactions allows one to draw conclusions on the mechanism responsible for the spin of the proton. An important question is, how the different quark species (up, down, sea) contribute. This question has been answered by the HERMES experiment. The figure shows this important result

http://www.desy.de/f/hera/engl/chap5.html
Protons -- Everything revolves around spin
Physics and Numbers ShareThis
Current understanding of the spin structure of protons has been summarised in a single book for the first time. The book examines attempts to solve one of the greatest puzzles of physics. Models and experiments to date have been unable to properly explain a fundamental property of protons spin. Published by Dr. Steven Bass as part of an Austrian Science Fund FWF project, the book summarises over 1,000 publications and the results of a global research programme on this phenomenon.

Many particles rotate around their own axis like spinning tops. However, unlike spinning tops, this spin has a fundamental influence on the properties of the particle – and therefore on our world. Quantum physical interactions mean that spin is responsible for the magnetic moment of protons, and therefore also the stability of the universe. It is a truly fundamental force. This makes it all the more surprising that experiments have so far failed to identify the origin of 30 percent of proton spin.

SPIN DOCTOR
Dr. Steven Bass, from the Institute of Theoretical Physics at the University of Innsbruck and a researcher at CERN (European Organisation of Nuclear Research), has summarised the current understanding of this discrepancy in a new book. Besides referring to 1,000 publications on the theory of spin, he also presents the results of a worldwide research programme that was carried out in the particle accelerators of CERN, DESY (German Electron Synchrotron), BNL (Brookhaven National Laboratory), JLab (Jefferson Laboratory) and SLAC (Stanford Linear Accelerator Centre).

Dr. Bass on the missing spin of protons: "Protons are combinations of more basic entities called quarks and gluons. Each proton is made up of three quarks that are bound together by the gluons. Just like the protons, the quarks and gluons themselves also spin. The spin of the proton is therefore generated by the spin of its constituent parts. For example, current models state that 60 percent of the spin of a proton must originate from the spin of the quarks. The remaining 40 percent would therefore come from other types of movement produced by the quarks within the proton. However, experiments involving some of the most advanced particle accelerators in the world indicate that a maximum of 30 percent of proton spin originates from quark spin. So where does the rest come from?"

The aforementioned global research programme was initiated and a whole range of calculations were published in an attempt to find an answer to this question. These efforts are now beginning to bear fruit and it is these results that Dr. Bass has compiled in his book.

HYPOTHESIS – INACCURATE INTERPRETATION
The results initially seemed to indicate that the apparent discrepancy was the result of inaccurate interpretation, in other words, that in reality there is no discrepancy. The theory behind this hypothesis is that the spin of the gluons – the particles responsible for binding together quarks – screens quark spin in proportion to the gluon polarisation. This would influence any attempts to measure quark spin and distort calculations. But it was not long before other experiments produced data that contradicted this theory. This data shows that gluon polarisation is not strong enough to account for the "missing" 30 percent of quark spin. However, calculations from even more accurate measurements are expected soon and will deliver new findings – or disprove existing ones.

As a result, we need to constantly re-examine our current understanding of what holds together protons – and for that matter the universe. Dr. Bass, who also heads up an FWF project on this subject, therefore believes that his book has been published at precisely the right time: "The results of new and ever more accurate measurements need to be analysed in the light of the latest understanding. I hope that this book goes some way towards helping achieve this."
Clearly no one has the final say on spin until they answer from where it comes and why it is implicit. It is up for members to decide if that is possible for themself. I have come to the conclusion for myself that APM has answered that question by making angular momentum a dimension. That does not mean I am right or that I have any authority too speak for APM other then personally. This is not a thread for APM. If you would like to see the APM model, please go here for a indepth review of that question.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... &sk=t&sd=a

This is a thread for links about spin and maybe some light to the debate and I hope and am sure will grow over time. It is a good question, a healthy question and in a spirit of open minded exploration is good science. This thread is not to prove anyone right or wrong. We all have free will to make up our own minds.

I would say that the vortex is longitudinal and so is spin. I would say that the spiral galaxy and the sub atomic particles are intrinsic spin/vortex longitudinal forms. These forms self express both implicitely and explicitely through all scale domains of the universe. Nature has taught me that. It is my lesson from Tesla I have learned from Meyl. I thank Stefan R for that insight. I thank the EU for bringing electric spin (currents) to the world of cosmology.

Hopefully members can provide links to pertainent insights they might like to share on the subject. Cheers and cool bananas.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Problem of Spin

Post by junglelord » Sun May 04, 2008 7:43 am

Here is wiki for what its worth. It seems clear that any anology to tops, coins, planets, etc to investigate subatomic spin does not equate. Therefore those anologies would be null and void and not concrete in any way shape or form to model or rebute atomic spin theory as currently understood. To validate a opinion of atomic spin on coins, tops or planets as an anology about what it can and cannot be, while seemingly intelligent, is nonsequtar. Subatomic spin does not behave like any concrete system, and therein lies the crunch. If you do not believe in QM, Then please make a thread on it. This thread already concludes QM is valid.

Wiki makes it clear about the above, for what its worth. Then lets investigate spin shall we?
Spin (physics)

In physics and chemistry, spin has a special meaning, representing a non-classical kind of angular momentum intrinsic to a body, as opposed to orbital angular momentum, which is the motion of its center of mass about an external point. Although this special property is only explained in the relativistic quantum mechanics of Paul Dirac, it plays a most-important role already in non-relativistic quantum mechanics, e.g., it essentially determines the structure of atoms.

In classical mechanics, any spin angular momentum of a body is associated with self rotation, e.g., the rotation of the body around its own center of mass. For example, the spin of the Earth is associated with its daily rotation about the polar axis. On the other hand, the orbital angular momentum of the Earth is associated with its annual motion around the Sun.

In fact, in classical theories there is no analogue to the quantum mechanical property meant by the name spin. The concept of this nonclassical property of elementary particles was first proposed in 1925 by Ralph Kronig, George Uhlenbeck, and Samuel Goudsmit; but the name related to the phenomenon of spin in physics is definitely Wolfgang Pauli.

Spin in quantum mechanics
But unlike orbital angular momentum the eigenvectors are not spherical harmonics. They are not functions of θ and φ. There is also no reason to exclude half integer values of s and m.

In quantum mechanics, the non-classical property spin is especially important for systems at atomic length scales, such as individual atoms, protons, or electrons. Such particles and the spin of quantum mechanical systems ("particle spin") possess several non-classical features and for such systems spin angular momentum cannot be associated with rotation but instead refers only to the presence of an 'angular momentum-like' property. (This article, to note, uses the term "particle" to refer to quantum mechanical systems, with the understanding that such actually exhibit wave-particle duality, and thus display both particle-like and wave-like behaviors.)

Precisely, in addition to their other properties, all quantum mechanical particles possess the above-mentioned non-classical kind of intrinsic "spin". This is quantized in units of the reduced action constant , such that the state function of the particle.

The total angular momentum conserved in interaction processes is then the sum of the orbital angular momentum and the spin.

Spin and the Pauli exclusion principle
For systems of N identical particles this is related to the Pauli exclusion principle, which states that by interchanges of any two of the N particles one must have

Thus, for bosons the prefactor ( − 1)2S will reduce to +1, for fermions, in contrast, to (-1). In quantum mechanics all particles are either bosons or fermions. In relativistic quantum field theories also "supersymmetric" particles exist, where linear combinations of bosonic and fermionic components appear. Only in two dimensions you are allowed to replace the prefactor ( − 1)2S by any complex number of magnitude 1
(-> anyons).

Electrons are fermions with S=1/2; quanta of light ("photons") are bosons with S=1. This shows also explicitly that the property spin cannot be fully explained as a classical intrinsic orbital angular momentum, e.g., similar to that of a "spinning top", since orbital angular rotations would lead to integer values of s. Instead one is dealing with an essential legacy of relativity. The photon, in contrast, is always relativistic (velocity , and the corresponding classical theory, that of Maxwell, is also relativistic.

The above permutation postulate for N-particle state functions has most-important consequences in daily life, e.g. the already mentioned periodic table of the chemists or biologists.

After this condensed presentation of some essentials, a broad overview is given:


[edit] Broad overview
One of the most remarkable discoveries associated with quantum physics is the fact that elementary particles can possess non-zero spin. Elementary particles are particles that cannot be divided into any smaller units, such as the photon, the electron, and the various quarks. Theoretical and experimental studies have shown that the spin possessed by these particles cannot be explained by postulating that they are made up of even smaller particles rotating about a common center of mass (see classical electron radius); as far as can be determined, these elementary particles are true point particles. The spin that they carry is a truly intrinsic physical property, akin to a particle's electric charge and mass.

According to quantum mechanics, the angular momentum of any system is quantized. The magnitude of angular momentum, S, can only take on the values according to this relation:


where is the reduced Planck's constant, and s is a non-negative integer or half-integer (0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, 2, etc.). For instance, electrons (which are elementary particles) are called "spin-1/2" particles because their intrinsic spin angular momentum has s = 1/2.

The spin carried by each elementary particle has a fixed s value that depends only on the type of particle, and cannot be altered in any known way (although, as we will see, it is possible to change the direction in which the spin "points".) Every electron in existence possesses s = 1/2. Other elementary spin-1/2 particles include neutrinos and quarks. On the other hand, photons are spin-1 particles, whereas the hypothetical graviton is a spin-2 particle. The hypothetical Higgs boson is unique among elementary particles in having a spin of zero.

The spin of composite particles, such as protons, neutrons, atomic nuclei, and atoms, is made up of the spins of the constituent particles, and their total angular momentum is the sum of their spin and the orbital angular momentum of their motions around one another. The angular momentum quantization condition applies to both elementary and composite particles. Composite particles are often referred to as having a definite spin, just like elementary particles; for example, the proton is a spin-1/2 particle. This is understood to refer to the spin of the lowest-energy internal state of the composite particle (i.e., a given spin and orbital configuration of the constituents). It is not always easy to deduce the spin of a composite particle from first principles; for example, even though we know that the proton is a spin-1/2 particle, the question of how this spin is distributed among the three internal valence quarks and the surrounding sea quarks and gluons is an active area of research.


[edit] History
Spin was first discovered in the context of the emission spectrum of alkali metals. In 1924 Wolfgang Pauli introduced what he called a "two-valued quantum degree of freedom" associated with the electron in the outermost shell. This allowed him to formulate the Pauli exclusion principle, stating that no two electrons can share the same quantum state at the same time.

The physical interpretation of Pauli's "degree of freedom" was initially unknown. Ralph Kronig, one of Landé's assistants, suggested in early 1925 that it was produced by the self-rotation of the electron. When Pauli heard about the idea, he criticized it severely, noting that the electron's hypothetical surface would have to be moving faster than the speed of light in order for it to rotate quickly enough to produce the necessary angular momentum. This would violate the theory of relativity. Largely due to Pauli's criticism, Kronig decided not to publish his idea.

In the fall of 1925, the same thought came to two Dutch physicists, George Uhlenbeck and Samuel Goudsmit. Under the advice of Paul Ehrenfest, they published their results. It met a favorable response, especially after Llewellyn Thomas managed to resolve a factor of two discrepancy between experimental results and Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit's calculations (and Kronig's unpublished ones). This discrepancy was due to the orientation of the electron's tangent frame, in addition to its position. Mathematically speaking, a fiber bundle description is needed. The tangent bundle effect is additive and relativistic, that is, it vanishes if c goes to infinity). It is one half of the value obtained without regard for the tangent space orientation, but with opposite sign. Thus the combined effect differs from the latter by a factor two (Thomas precession).

Despite his initial objections, Pauli formalized the theory of spin in 1927, using the modern theory of quantum mechanics discovered by Schrödinger and Heisenberg. He pioneered the use of Pauli matrices as a representation of the spin operators, and introduced a two-component spinor wave-function.

Pauli's theory of spin was non-relativistic. However, in 1928, Paul Dirac published the Dirac equation, which described the relativistic electron. In the Dirac equation, a four-component spinor (known as a "Dirac spinor") was used for the electron wave-function. In 1940, Pauli proved the spin-statistics theorem, which states that fermions have half-integer spin and bosons integer spin.


[edit] Spin direction
In classical mechanics, the angular momentum of a particle possesses not only a magnitude (how fast the body is rotating), but also a direction (the axis of rotation of the particle). Quantum mechanical spin also contains information about direction, but in a more subtle form. Quantum mechanics states that the component of angular momentum measured along any direction (say along the z-axis) can only take on the values


where s is the principal spin quantum number discussed in the previous section. One can see that there are 2s+1 possible values of sz. For example, there are only two possible values for a spin-1/2 particle: sz = +1/2 and sz = -1/2. These correspond to quantum states in which the spin is pointing in the +z or -z directions respectively, and are often referred to as "spin up" and "spin down". See spin-1/2.

For a given quantum state , it is possible to describe a spin vector whose components are the expectation values of the spin components along each axis, i.e., . This vector describes the "direction" in which the spin is pointing, corresponding to the classical concept of the axis of rotation. It turns out that the spin vector is not very useful in actual quantum mechanical calculations, because it cannot be measured directly — sx, sy and sz cannot possess simultaneous definite values, because of a quantum uncertainty relation between them. However, for statistically large collections of particles that have been placed in the same pure quantum state, such as through the use of a Stern-Gerlach apparatus, the spin vector does have a well-defined experimental meaning: It specifies the direction in ordinary space in which a subsequent detector must be oriented in order to achieve the maximum possible probability (100%) of detecting every particle in the collection. For spin-1/2 particles, this maximum probability drops off smoothly as the angle between the spin vector and the detector increases, until at an angle of 180 degrees —that is, for detectors oriented in the opposite direction to the spin vector—the expectation of detecting particles from the collection reaches a minimum of 0%.

As a qualitative concept, the spin vector is often handy because it is easy to picture classically. For instance, quantum mechanical spin can exhibit phenomena analogous to classical gyroscopic effects. For example, one can exert a kind of "torque" on an electron by putting it in a magnetic field (the field acts upon the electron's intrinsic magnetic dipole moment — see the following section). The result is that the spin vector undergoes precession, just like a classical gyroscope.

Mathematically, quantum mechanical spin is not described by a vector as in classical angular momentum. It is described using a family of objects known as spinors. There are subtle differences between the behavior of spinors and vectors under coordinate rotations. For example, rotating a spin-1/2 particle by 360 degrees does not bring it back to the same quantum state, but to the state with the opposite quantum phase; this is detectable, in principle, with interference experiments. To return the particle to its exact original state, one needs a 720 degree rotation.And a spin zero particle can only have a single quantum state ,even after torque is applied.Rotating a spin-2 particle 180 degree can bring it back to the same quantum state and a spin-4 particle should be rotated 90 degrees to bring it back to the same quantum state.The spin 2 particle can be analogous to a straight stick that looks the same even after it is rotated 180 degrees and a spin 0 particle can be imagined as sphere which looks the same after whatever degrees it is turned.


[edit] Spin and rotations
As described above, quantum mechanics states that component of angular momentum measured along any direction can only take a number of discrete values. The most convenient quantum mechanical description of particle's spin is therefore with a set of complex numbers corresponding to amplitudes of finding a given value of projection of its intrinsic angular momentum on a given axis. For instance, for a spin 1/2 particle, we would need two numbers , giving amplitudes of finding it with projection of angular momentum equal to and , satisfying the requirement



Since these numbers depend on the choice of the axis, they transform into each other non-trivially when this axis is rotated. It's clear that the transformation law must be linear, so we can represent it by associating a matrix with each rotation, and the product of two transformation matrices corresponding to rotations A and B must be equal (up to phase) to the matrix representing rotation AB. Further, rotations preserve quantum mechanical inner product, and so should our transformation matrices:





Mathematically speaking, these matrices furnish a unitary projective representation of the rotation group SO(3). Each such representation corresponds to a representation of the covering group of SO(3), which is SU(2). There is one irreducible representation of SU(2) for each dimension. For example, spin 1/2 particles transform under rotations according to a 2-dimensional representation, which is generated by Pauli matrices:



where α,β,γ are Euler angles.

Particles with higher spin transform in a similar way using higher-dimensional representations; see the article on Pauli matrices for matrices generating rotations for spin 1 and 3/2.


[edit] Spin and Lorentz transformations
We could try the same approach to determine the behavior of spin under general Lorentz transformations, but we'd immediately discover a major obstacle. Unlike SO(3), the group of Lorentz transformations SO(3,1) is non-compact and therefore does not have any faithful unitary finite-dimensional representations.

In case of spin 1/2 particles, it is possible to find a construction that includes both a finite-dimensional representation and a scalar product that is preserved by this representation. We associate a 4-component Dirac spinor ψ with each particle. These spinors transform under Lorentz transformations according to the law



where γμ are gamma matrices and ωμν is an antisymmetric 4x4 matrix parametrizing the transformation. It can be shown that the scalar product



is preserved. (It is not, however, positive definite, so the representation is not unitary.)


[edit] Spin and magnetic moments
Particles with spin can possess a magnetic dipole moment, just like a rotating electrically charged body in classical electrodynamics. These magnetic moments can be experimentally observed in several ways, e.g. by the deflection of particles by inhomogeneous magnetic fields in a Stern-Gerlach experiment, or by measuring the magnetic fields generated by the particles themselves.

The intrinsic magnetic moment μ of a particle with charge q, mass m, and spin S, is


where the dimensionless quantity g is called the g-factor. For exclusively orbital rotations it would be 1.

The electron, despite being an elementary particle, possesses a nonzero magnetic moment. One of the triumphs of the theory of quantum electrodynamics is its accurate prediction of the electron g-factor, which has been experimentally determined to have the value 2.0023193043768(86), with the first 12 figures certain. The value of 2 (not 1!) arises from the Dirac equation, a fundamental equation connecting the electron's spin with its electromagnetic properties, and the correction of 0.00231456893... arises from the electron's interaction with the surrounding electromagnetic field, including its own field.

Composite particles also possess magnetic moments associated with their spin. In particular, the neutron possesses a non-zero magnetic moment despite being electrically neutral. This fact was an early indication that the neutron is not an elementary particle. In fact, it is made up of quarks, which are electrically charged particles. The magnetic moment of the neutron comes from the moments of the individual quarks and their orbital motions.

The neutrinos are both elementary and electrically neutral, and theory indicates that they have zero magnetic moment. The measurement of neutrino magnetic moments is an active area of research. As of 2001, the latest experimental results have put the neutrino magnetic moment at less than 1.2 × 10-10 times the electron's magnetic moment.

In ordinary materials, the magnetic dipole moments of individual atoms produce magnetic fields that cancel one another, because each dipole points in a random direction. Ferromagnetic materials below their Curie temperature, however, exhibit magnetic domains in which the atomic dipole moments are locally aligned, producing a macroscopic, non-zero magnetic field from the domain. These are the ordinary "magnets" with which we are all familiar.

The study of the behavior of such "spin models" is a thriving area of research in condensed matter physics. For instance, the Ising model describes spins (dipoles) that have only two possible states, up and down, whereas in the Heisenberg model the spin vector is allowed to point in any direction. These models have many interesting properties, which have led to interesting results in the theory of phase transitions.


[edit] The spin-statistics connection
The spin of a particle has crucial consequences for its properties in statistical mechanics. Particles with half-integer spin obey Fermi-Dirac statistics, and are known as fermions. They are required to occupy antisymmetric quantum states (see the article on identical particles.) This property forbids fermions from sharing quantum states - a restriction known as the Pauli exclusion principle. Particles with integer spin, on the other hand, obey Bose-Einstein statistics, and are known as bosons. These particles occupy "symmetric states", and can therefore share quantum states. The proof of this is known as the spin-statistics theorem, which relies on both quantum mechanics and the theory of special relativity. In fact, the connection between spin and statistics is one of the most important and remarkable consequences of special relativity.


[edit] Mathematical formulation of spin in quantum mechanics

[edit] Pauli matrices and spin operators
The quantum mechanical operators associated with spin observables are:




In the special case of spin-1/2 σx, σy and σz are the three Pauli matrices, given by:





[edit] Measurement of the spin along the x, y, and z axes
Each of the (hermitian) Pauli matrices has two eigenvalues, +1 and -1. The corresponding normalized eigenvectors are:

, , , , , .

By the postulates of quantum mechanics, an experiment designed to measure the electron spin on the x, y or z axis can only yield an eigenvalue of the spin operator (Sx, Sy, Sz) on that axis, and . The quantum state of a particle (with respect to spin), can be represented by a two component spinor:


When the spin of this particle is measured with respect to a given axis (in this example, the x-axis), the probability that its spin will be measured as is just . Correspondingly, the probability that its spin will be measured as is just . Following the measurement, the spin state of the particle will collapse into the corresponding eigenstate. As a result, if the particle's spin along a given axis has been measured to have a given eigenvalue, all measurements will yield the same eigenvalue (since , etc), provided that no measurements of the spin are made along other axes (see section compatibility below).


[edit] Measurement of the spin along an arbitrary axis
The operator to measure spin along an arbitrary axis direction is easily obtained from the Pauli spin matrices. Let u = (ux,uy,uz) be an arbitrary unit vector. Then the operator for spin in this direction is simply . The operator σu has eigenvalues of , just like the usual Pauli spin matrices. This method of finding the operator for spin in an arbitrary direction generalizes to higher spin states, one takes the dot product of the direction with a vector of the three operators for the three x,y,z axis directions.

A normalized spinor for spin-1/2 in the (ux,uy,uz) direction (which works for all spin states except spin down where it will give 0/0), is:



The above spinor is obtained by normalizing the left column of the matrix where "1" is the 2x2 unit matrix. This trick of writing the eigenvectors of the Pauli matrices depends on certain details of the density matrix representation of quantum states.


[edit] Compatibility of spin measurements
Since the Pauli matrices anticommute, measurements of spin along the different axes are incompatible. This means that if, for example, we know the spin along the x-axis, and we then measure the spin along the y-axis, we have invalidated our previous knowledge of the x-axis spin. This can be seen from the property of the eigenvectors (i.e. eigenstates) of the Pauli matrices that:


So when we measure the spin of a particle along the x-axis as, for example, , the particle's spin state collapses into the eigenstate . When we then subsequently measure the particle's spin along the y-axis, the spin state will now collapse into either or , each with probability . Let us say, in our example, that we measure . When we now return to measure the particle's spin along the x-axis again, the probabilities that we will measure or are each (i.e. they are and ). This implies that our original measurement of the spin along the x-axis is no longer valid, since the spin along the x-axis will now be measured to have either eigenvalue with equal probability.


[edit] Direct and indirect applications
Well established direct applications of spin are nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy in chemistry; electron spin resonance spectroscopy in chemistry and physics; proton spin density with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in medicine; and GMR drive head technology in modern hard disks.

A possible application of spin is as a binary information carrier in spin transistors. Electronics based on spin transistors is called spintronics.

But finally we remind to the many indirect applications based on spin and the Pauli principle, e.g. the periodic table of Dmitri Mendeleev.


[edit] See also
Angular momentum
Helicity
Pauli equation
Pauli matrices
Rarita-Schwinger equation
Representation theory of SU(2)
Spin-1/2
Spin magnetic moment
Spin multiplicity
Spin quantum number
Spin tensor
Spinor
Spintronics
Yrast

[edit] References
Griffiths, David J. (2004). Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-111892-7.
Shankar, R. (1994). "chapter 14-Spin", Principles of Quantum Mechanics (2nd ed.). Springer. ISBN 0-306-44790-8.
Lawden, Derek (2005). The Mathematical Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Dover. ISBN 0-486-44223-3.
"Spintronics. Feature Article" in Scientific American, June 2002

[edit] External links
Goudsmit on the discovery of electron spin
Nature magazine Milestones in the field of 'spin' since 1896
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_%28physics%29"
Categories: Fundamental physics concepts | Rotational symmetry | Quantum field theory | Spintronics
Hidden categories: Wikipedia cleanup | Wikipedia articles needing style editing | All articles needing style editing
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

User avatar
StevenO
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: The Problem of Spin

Post by StevenO » Sun May 04, 2008 3:18 pm

I do not think we should define Spin as a "problem". It is an intrinsic property of the building blocks that compose matter. For most properties, where we need so much words to explain, we most likely find we still do not how it works.

We know that at the(sub-) atomic level matter has wave properties. At his level we should stop thinking about particles and imagine waves lining up. Spin describes how these waves line up to form a standing wave structure. e.g. a "particle" with Spin 1/2 (e.g. electrons) will line up with themselves after 180 deg., "particles" with Spin 1 will line up only after 360 deg.

Since the waves themselves are spherical standing waves, the combinations of multiple of these waves to form a stable structure is more complicated then we can imagine. It can be found that if the nucleus structures are build from spherical tetrahadron waves a lot of these composite spin properties could be easier understood. Here is an explanation of one of my favorite authors:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-magic.asp
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Problem of Spin

Post by junglelord » Sun May 04, 2008 4:38 pm

Thanks so much StevenO, I really apprciate your link and thoughts. You always bring much to the plate. I will review and respond. I know we have very much the same linear thoughts on this subject. The conversation is very much open to redirection and I hope will be, so we can expose all the possible angles. One must remain forever searching, truth and knowledge is forever growing.
8-)
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

User avatar
polarityparadox
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm

Re: The Problem of Spin

Post by polarityparadox » Sun May 04, 2008 5:22 pm

This is a thread for links about spin and maybe some light to the debate and I hope and am sure will grow over time. It is a good question, a healthy question and in a spirit of open minded exploration is good science. This thread is not to prove anyone right or wrong. We all have free will to make up our own minds.

I would say that the vortex is longitudinal and so is spin. I would say that the spiral galaxy and the sub atomic particles are intrinsic spin/vortex longitudinal forms. These forms self express both implicitely and explicitely through all scale domains of the universe. Nature has taught me that. It is my lesson from Tesla I have learned from Meyl. I thank Stefan R for that insight. I thank the EU for bringing electric spin (currents) to the world of cosmology.

Hopefully members can provide links to pertainent insights they might like to share on the subject. Cheers and cool bananas.
Hey forum,

This man's synthesis of various scientist's info in regard to the quantum realm (and its associated spin qualities) is quite well done and though-provoking:
The pictures he has to illuminate his discussions are very educational and will open your eyes to the whole embedded-ness that JL has talked about so much. Keep in mind you may completely disagree with his spiritual context for all this study but the info speaks for itself and you can check out all the work of the individual scientist's on your own...

Take a look, these are quotes from three different consecutive chapters from his series of free on-line books.

http://www.divinecosmos.com/index.php?o ... &Itemid=36
BASICS OF AETHERIC QUANTUM MECHANICS

Dr. Kozyrev’s experiments give us a radically different view of matter, and its interaction and connection with the surrounding environment, than that which is taught in the scientific mainstream.

Therefore, a new model of quantum mechanics is required to account for matter being able to subtly increase and decrease in its weight, based on its interaction with a non-electromagnetic, fluidlike energy source.

The more esoteric questions related to how torsion fields connect with consciousness and spirituality shall be relegated to later chapters; at this point, our main concern is to establish a working system of physics that explains exactly what matter is. If nothing else, Kozyrev’s findings show us that we still do not have an adequate model to answer that question.

Thankfully, many adept thinkers are tackling the problems with quantum physics and have come up with aether-based models that answer these nagging questions, which have been almost completely ignored in the Western mainstream scientific community.

These pioneers would include Dr. Milo Wolff, Dr. Vladimir Ginzburg, Dr. Volodymyr Krasnoholovets, Charles Cagle, “Smart 1234,” Dr. John Nordberg, Lt. Col. Tom Bearden, Dr. Henry Myers, Dr. Harold Aspden, Dr. R.B. Duncan, Buckminster Fuller, Dr. Oliver Crane and many more.

Each of these sources contain different pieces of “the puzzle”, however we feel that the work of Rod Johnson is needed for all remaining paradoxes to be completely accounted for – and it shall be introduced in Chapter Four. Although it is certainly possible for future authors to present a complete, unified model, we will just cover enough interesting highlights here to show that such a model can and does indeed exist.
http://www.divinecosmos.com/index.php?o ... &Itemid=36
PLATONIC SOLIDS AND “SYMMETRY” IN PHYSICS

The mystery and significance of the Platonic Solids has not been completely lost to modern science, as these forms fit all the necessary criteria for creating “symmetry” in physics in many different ways.

For this reason, they are often seen in theories that deal with multi-dimensionality, where many “planes” need to intersect in symmetrical ways so that they can be rotated in a number of ways and always remain in the same positions relative to each other. These multi-dimensional theories include “group theory,” also known as “gauge theory,” which consistently features various Platonic models for “infolded” hyperdimensional space.

These same “modular functions” are considered to be the most advanced mathematical tools available for the study and understanding of “higher dimensions,” and the “Superstring” theory is entirely built off of them.

In short, the Platonic Solids are already known to be the master key to unlock the world of “higher dimensions.” Remember that we have only briefly mentioned the above points, as they have been well-addressed in our previous volumes, and the key is symmetry.

When we keep in mind the symmetrical quality of the Solids as we have indicated, Dr. Wolff’s words from Chapter 5 entitled On the Importance of Living in Three Dimensions should make good sense to us:

Pg. 71 – As your advisor in exploration, I can tell you, “Whenever you see a situation of symmetry in a physical problem, stop and think! Because you will nearly always find an easier way to solve the problem by using the symmetry property.” This is one of the rewards of playing around with symmetry. The ideas are neat…

In mathematics and geometry, there is a need to be precise; so there symmetry is defined to mean that a function or a geometric figure remains the same, despite: 1) a rotation of coordinates, 2) movement along an axis, or 3) an interchange of variables.

In physical science, which is our main concern, the existence of a symmetry usually means that a law of Nature does not change, despite: 1) a rotation of coordinates in space, 2) movement along an axis through space, 3) changing the past into the future such that t becomes –t, 4) an interchange of two coordinates such as exchanging x with y, z with –z, etc. or, 5) the change of any given variable. [emphasis added]

The Platonic Solids have the greatest geometric symmetry of any shapes in existence, though Dr. Wolff does not call them by name here. In the next excerpt from Dr. Aspden, he refers to the Platonic Solid forms in the aether as “fluid crystals,” and explains how they can have an effect similar to a solid, even while they are appearing in a fluidlike medium:

…19th century physicists were puzzled by the aether because it exhibits some properties telling us it is a fluid and some telling us it is a solid. That was the perception from a time when little if anything was known about ‘fluid crystals’.

The displays in many pocket calculators use electrical signals and rely on the properties of a substance that, like the aether, exhibits properties characteristic of both the liquid state and the solid state as a function of electric field disturbances. [emphasis added]

This gives us a “solid” explanation for why Tesla said that the aether “behaves as a liquid for matter, and as a solid for light and heat. The Platonic Solids actually do act as if they were structural frameworks within the aether, organizing the energy flows into specific patterns.

Hence, the Platonic Solids are the simple geometric forms of “crystallized music” that will naturally form themselves in the aether when it pulsates. Another important point to remember is that as the hierarchy of Platonic Solids “grow” into each other, the movement will always occur along spiral pathways, predominantly rooted in the classic “phi” ratio.

Torsion waves have been seen to follow the “phi” pattern as well, which shall be more fully explored when we discuss the under-appreciated “pyramid power” phenomenon and the “cavity structural effect” pioneered by Dr. Victor Grebennikov in Chapter Nine.
http://www.divinecosmos.com/index.php?o ... &Itemid=36
We have indeed seen the evidence to suggest that the atom is an aether-vortex with spherical symmetry and a central axis, thus forming a spherical torus.

The Biefield-Brown effect proves that the grand solution to the mystery of “charge polarity” is that aetheric energy is flowing through the electron clouds into the nucleus.

Dr. Ginzburg made a few simple and acceptable adjustments to relativity equations and produced a model that perfectly explains the behaviors of matter observed by Kozyrev in the laboratory, wherein it sheds energy and mass as it is accelerated towards the speed of light.

Through the conventional crystal molecule formations of the tetrahedron, cube and octahedron, and especially with the introduction of microclusters, icosahedral and dodecahedral quasi-crystals and the phenomenon of Bose-Einstein condensates, we now see the importance of Platonic Solids in the quantum realm.

We can no longer deny that these forces exist, as we now have irrefutable physical evidence. These new findings also reveal that we no longer need to think of atoms as individual units, but rather as harmonic aether vortexes that can merge together into greater levels of unity and coherence, such as in quasi-crystals.

And with this data in place, we now have a valid solution for all the “loose ends” of the puzzle by introducing the work of Rod Johnson.



4.1 BASICS OF JOHNSON’S “SEQUENTIAL PHYISCS”

What we ultimately see in Johnson’s model is the following:

* There are no “hard” particles, only groupings of energy.
* Every quantum measurement can be explained geometrically, as a form of structured, intersecting energy fields.
* Atoms are actually counter-rotating energy forms in the shape of the Platonic Solids, specifically rooted in the counter-rotation of the octahedron and tetrahedron, each vibrational / pulsational shape corresponding to a different major density of aether.
* All levels of density or dimensions in the entire Universe are structured from these two primary levels of aether, which are continually interacting with each other.

Significantly, an increasing number of advanced theorists have already been striving towards a “particle mesh” model of physics, based on the Superstring theory, where all matter in the Universe is somehow an element of an interconnected geometric matrix.

However, since conventional scientists have not yet visualized Platonic Solids that are nested within each other, sharing a common axis and capable of counter-rotating, they have missed the picture for the quantum realm.

Again, in this chapter we will try to keep things simple by presenting an overview of Johnson’s model for “what’s going on” in the quantum level first, and then discuss the scientific evidence to prove it afterwards.

We begin our outline of the core principles of the model with a pencil-shaded illustration of the interlaced tetrahedron, which we created to show very clearly what it looks like as a three-dimensional sculpture.

It is important that we have a good visual image of this structure before we try to imagine an octahedron that fits inside of it.

We can clearly see that there are two tetrahedrons in the image, one with the tip pointing upwards and another with the tip pointing downwards. Also remember that it fits perfectly inside a sphere:



Figure 4.1 – The interlaced tetrahedron.



With this structure in mind, consider the following points of the model:

* The tetrahedron and octahedron are counter-rotating within each other at the quantum level.
* Both have spherical symmetry around a shared center.
* The tetrahedron and octahedron represent two primary levels of aether density that must exist in the Universe, which we shall refer to as A1 and A2.
* The octahedral field fits perfectly in the center of the tetrahedral field, and is therefore smaller in diameter, as we can see in the next diagram:



Figure 4.2 – The octahedron ® and its fit inside the interlaced tetrahedron (L).



Figure 4.2 shows us the octahedron inside of the interlaced tetrahedron, which in turn is inside the cube. It is quite confusing at first to try to imagine the octahedron being a free agent that can counter-rotate inside the interlaced tetrahedron.

Indeed, in this form, the two geometries are completely balanced and integrated. However, the most important part of Johnson’s physics is to see that the octahedron is “detached,” acting separately from the tetrahedral field, by rotating in the opposite direction.

There are only eight possible “phase” positions that the two geometries can fit into before they again reach the harmony that we see above.

In order to have a phase position, the two geometries must have some degree of direct contact with each other, such as line to line or point to point. This is graphically illustrated in the next “phase” diagram:



Figure 4.3 – The eight “phase positions” created by the
counter-rotating octahedron and tetrahedron.



What we see in this diagram are two basic waves: the smaller wave that fits in each of the four main circles, representing the rotation of the octahedron, and the larger wave outside the main circle boundaries as the counter-rotation of the tetrahedron.

This diagram is by far the easiest way to show how and where the tetrahedron and octahedron will connect, and it is based on the science of “phase physics,” which was first pioneered by Kenneth Geddes Wilson as a means of mapping out large-scale geometric relationships as wave motions.

Each of the eight “phase positions” represents a different element, and this is shown in the next figure:

Figure 4.4 – The eight “phase positions” as they relate to basic crystal structures
formed by the elements.



So, to continue:

* The tetrahedron and octahedron are both under high pressure – the tetrahedron is pushing in towards the octahedron, much as the negative electron clouds press in towards the nucleus.
* This pressure can only be released when either a node or line on one of the solids crosses a node or line on the other solid, opening up a gateway for the energy to flow.

The easiest way to visualize such a “gateway” opening would be if you cut out a hole in a piece of cardboard, and then turned on a hair dryer and held the nozzle flat against the cardboard, then sliding it towards the hole.

Until the nozzle actually reached the hole, the air has nowhere to go, and the engine will quickly run hard and overheat; but once the nozzle reaches the hole, the air has somewhere to go and the pressure is released, with the engine then relaxing.

Inside the atom, via the Biefield-Brown effect, the pressure in the electron clouds is always trying to rush towards the nucleus, and unless the counter-rotating geometries connect, that pressure is blocked.

In this sense, the lines and nodes in the geometric forms could be seen as the “holes” that are “popped” in the nested spherical fields, which will allow the in-streaming pressure to flow through.

This solves one “pressure” problem, but we must also remember the pressure that is created by the counter-rotating forces of the tetrahedron and octahedron.

(These are the geometries that form in the “field bubbles” of what we shall now call aether 1 (A1) and aether 2 (A2) respectively. Ancient traditions often referred to A1 and A2 as “positive and negative force.”)

Until the greatest number of “holes” have lined up between both geometries at the octave point of geometric balance, the full amount of outside pressure cannot flow towards the center.

So, when the two forms “lock” together in valence periods that are not at the “octave” point, the counter-rotation of A1 and A2 is not fully balanced, causing additional pressure and lack of symmetry. A1 and A2 will then remain “stuck” in that unbalanced position if they are undisturbed by outside energy.
Truth is higher than everything but higher still is true living.

- Nanak

Complexity leads to perplexity and simplicity leads to Eternity.

- Kirpal Singh

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Problem of Spin

Post by junglelord » Sun May 04, 2008 5:35 pm

Wow! Meyls dual vortex electon model with the innear vortex pressure, Buckminsterfullers Tensegrity, Aether Physics, Platonic Solids, Sacred Geometry, Liquid Crystals all rolled into one package of Symmetry. Nice find. Wave vs Particle conclusions and revised QM corrections. Very cool...nice non linear, linear post. Kudos to you. It is being placed as a quote in the Comparative Mythology concept thread I made in mad ideas
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... f=10&t=500
which is dedicated to a gathering of TOE's for comparative analysis. It is there you can take apart or build up any TOE on the forum or the internet.
8-)

PS Polarityparadox this information would serve a distinct purpose as non linear TOE thread on its own. It stands alone and deserves to be placed in its own wholistic form. I hope you take that task and do that for us. Thanks again.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Problem of Spin

Post by junglelord » Mon May 05, 2008 7:45 pm

Feynman on momentum and the disconnect between "concrete spin" and atomic angular momentum. I knew in my gut that in no way, shape or form can one talk about concrete coins and gyroscopic spin momentum and equate that to electron angular momentum as a valid anology or a rebuttal to anything about an electron or its angular momentum. They do not and are not equal from the Cassical Scale to the Quantum Scale. To even begin that way shows a acute case of misunderstanding and of not being aware of the facts. (I refer of course to the APM debacle).

Lesson #1

Classical Scale Concrete Momentum is not Quantum Scale Sub Atomic Angular Momentum, no matter how anyone tries to say it is in any way. You have to read along in the Carver Mead book to begin to understand that number one, almost no one even understands these issues, dispite what they claim they know, or what they can prove with coins and of those that do know, very few even get it. I would hedge a bet that Feynman and Mead are correct about all of this and that most of us really have no idea of what is what. We have been taught much but we know very little. As for myself, I can truly say I am just beginning to truly understand electronics. I feel no shame in saying that dispite the fact I have a degree and ten years experience and a life time of reading physics. Anyone with any ego will lose it at the floor by page XX. Please take the time to read the link at least 20 pages.
We would expect that corresponding to the mechanical momentum p = mv, whose rate of change is the applied force, there should be an analogous quality equal to I whose rate of change is V. We have no right, of course, to say that I is the real momentum of the circuit; in fact it isn't. The whole circuit may be standing still and have no momentum.
http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0 ... 0#PPR18,M1
Carver Mead is clear that hindsight is 20/20, but how far do we need to back up? Mead went back before Maxwell to arrive at his thesis where EM is just an expression of QM. He does not even need Maxwells formulas. He has reworked phyiscs from back in time if we knew what we know today. After all Maxwell did not even know what an electron was. Ernst Mach says we need to go back quite far. This may shock some but read it and weep. You can leave your concrete ideas at the door....coins gladly accepted.
:lol:

quote by Ernst Mach
The view that makes mechanics the basis of the remaining branches of physics, and explains all physical phenomenon by mechanical ideas, is in our judgment and prejudice.

The mechanical theory of nature, is, undoubtedly, in a historical view, both intelligible and pardonable; and it may also, for a time, had been a much value. But, upon the whole, it is an artificial conception.
http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0 ... 0#PPR18,M1
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Problem of Spin

Post by junglelord » Mon May 05, 2008 8:55 pm

I am really learning a lot from the Carver Mead book Collective Electrodynamics. This quote will either mean nothing to you or cause a nonlinear paradigm shift in your world. Classical Mechanics is Dead!. I believe the whole issue in APM, over spin, was what is fundamental? This paradigm would indicate that angular momentum is fundamental, any classical mechanical approach to solve it is "fundamentally flawed" as I kept pointing out in that thread over issue of angular momentum as a fundamental dimension. Since Plasmatic tried to prove with classical mechanics that Quantum Spin is not a fundamental, I think we can lay that argument to rest now. Classical Mechanics is what is not fundamental. Any attempt to say QM or Quantum Strutucture (APM) is not fundamental from a classical mechanics model is not logical.
Thats what I meant by his double worded statement. He really thought he was using logic, but as we can see the circle (double worded sentance that using as a rebuttal acutally proves the case) logic of classical mechanics gyroscopic spin does not apply and is not even fundamental in and of itself.
Classical mechanics is an inappropriate starting point for physics because it is not fundamental; rather it is the incoherent aggregation of the enormous number of quantum elements.

Feynamn wrote
there are many changes and concepts that are important when we go from classical to quantum mechanics. Instead of forces we deal with the way interactions change the wavelengths of waves.

To make contact with the fundamental nature of matter, we must work in a coherent context in which the underlying quantum reality has not been corrupted by incoherent averaging process. Traditional treatments of quantum mechanics universally confused results that follow from the wave nature of matter with those that follow from the statistical nature of the experiment. In the usual picture, these aspects are inextricably intertwined. Einstein himself had a massive case of this confusion, at a cost in the debate with Bohr. Had he stuck to his hunch that the fundamental laws are continuous, he would have fared better; but to do that he would have needed a model quantum system in which statistics play a vanishingly small role. At that time, no such system was known. Today we have many such systems. Of these, none is more accessible than the superconductor itself; it is a quantum phenomenon/system on a grand scale. And, all by itself, provides us strikingly direct access to a near perfect coherent system/state.

Despite the muddle and fuss over theory, the past 70 years have been an age of enlightenment on the experimental front. On the astounding experimental discoveries made during that period, a number are particularly important for the present discussion:

1933, Persistent Current in Superconducting Ring

1933 Expulsion of Magnetic Field by Superconductor

1954 Maser

1960 Atomic Laser

1961 Quantized Flux in Superconducting Ring

1962 Semiconductor Laser

1964 Superconducting Quantum Interface Device

1980 Integer Quantum Hall Effect

1981, Fractional Quantum Hall Effect

1995 Bose-Einstein Condensate
http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0 ... T0#PPA7,M1
Last edited by junglelord on Mon May 05, 2008 9:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

User avatar
StevenO
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: The Problem of Spin

Post by StevenO » Mon May 05, 2008 9:33 pm

I have been studying the Mead book(let) for about 2 years now and I still learn something out if it every day. Even though it is a mere 120 pages, it assumes that the reader knows about Maxwell and QM, even though it is intended as a new freshman guide: "To develop a way of thinking such that the law is evident." (The Feynman method).

So, what is the really new insight from his work?: that coherent phenomena are more fundamental for physics than statistics. Einstein intuitively understood that, but was not able to defend this view against the statistical approach, which was supported by the experimental methods at his time (early 20th century). Now in hindsight we know better and we can develop this way of thinking such that we can grasp QM phenomena at an intuitive level and that is what Mead has done in this book.

It is better explained by himself in this interview: http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson ... erMead.htm
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Problem of Spin

Post by junglelord » Mon May 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Since you do learn something new everyday after two years of reading Collective Electodynamics Steven, how much do you think you really understand as opposed to work in the industry? I am sure you know what I mean.

I feel I am just starting to get a grasp on my days in electronics only now. Feynman is like a voice in the wilderness. I doubt most of us truly know what we are doing, even if we are deep in the industry, cause it kinda runs itself.

I am curious as to your own position on your own ability to grasp what the universe is at a fundamental level due to your work as an EE. I was just talking to Dave Smith about Fields, Forces and Particles, Atoms, Waves. Man its hard to get your head around Fields without seeing the Discovery Channel Einstein Space/Time representation of railroad tracks. What is a Field in your mind? Is a Field a way to get out the box of action at a distance without a structure? How does a charge field express itself over space? In what structural form does this energy condensate over empty space? I keep going back to Howard Johnsons Secret World of Magnets and dual vortices. If a Field is projected by a "point particle" or a "wave packet" why is it so? Can your knowledge of these fundamental questions dig me out of this hole with the work of Mead?

What do you think of APM having Angular Momentum as a Dimension?

Have you tried to rebuild the universe with Dimensions that produce the product? I refer to Wilbert Smith and Dave Thomsons work. They both reconfigure the universe from basic dimensions that are the construct for all the products and units. That is fundamentally more sound then 4 D space having Fields and Forces just magically appear to fill that empty space. I wonder if Mead went back far enough? I wonder what he would think of a new dimensional construct. APM has found universal constants instead of variables. I am hoping to have some insight from your experience and your personal journey on these difficult subjects.

Thanks so much for turning me on...
:D
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

User avatar
StevenO
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: The Problem of Spin

Post by StevenO » Tue May 06, 2008 1:05 am

junglelord wrote:Since you do learn something new everyday after two years of reading Collective Electodynamics Steven, how much do you think you really understand as opposed to work in the industry? I am sure you know what I mean.

I feel I am just starting to get a grasp on my days in electronics only now. Feynman is like a voice in the wilderness. I doubt most of us truly know what we are doing, even if we are deep in the industry, cause it kinda runs itself.
Feynman was one of the last to still have an intuitive understanding of physics plus the mathematical ability, while still having the humbleness to admit when he is wrong. Still, the whole "natural philosophy" principles of physics seem to have been abandoned since the acceptance of QM.
I am curious as to your own position on your own ability to grasp what the universe is at a fundamental level due to your work as an EE.
I think everybody has the same problem. The problem is caused by misconceptions about "electricity" and the way it is teached, which does not allow people to get a intuitive understanding of the phenomena. That is what I have found with Mead. Billy Beaty has some nice web pages about this: http://amasci.com/miscon/whatis.html
I was just talking to Dave Smith about Fields, Forces and Particles, Atoms, Waves. Man its hard to get your head around Fields without seeing the Discovery Channel Einstein Space/Time representation of railroad tracks. What is a Field in your mind? Is a Field a way to get out the box of action at a distance without a structure? How does a charge field express itself over space? In what structural form does this energy condensate over empty space? I keep going back to Howard Johnsons Secret World of Magnets and dual vortices. If a Field is projected by a "point particle" or a "wave packet" why is it so? Can your knowledge of these fundamental questions dig me out of this hole with the work of Mead?
Fields and particles cannot be separated. They describe the same phenomena from different aspects. A field is basically a map of interaction between particles for our convenience. The forces described by the field are instantaneous.
What do you think of APM having Angular Momentum as a Dimension?
Sorry, I don't know anything about APM and have no ambition to learn about it. Since dimensions are human concepts we are free to choose them, but we should pick them wisely. In that sense I don't think it is wise to select Angular Momentum.
Have you tried to rebuild the universe with Dimensions that produce the product? I refer to Wilbert Smith and Dave Thomsons work. They both reconfigure the universe from basic dimensions that are the construct for all the products and units. That is fundamentally more sound then 4 D space having Fields and Forces just magically appear to fill that empty space. I wonder if Mead went back far enough? I wonder what he would think of a new dimensional construct. APM has found universal constants instead of variables. I am hoping to have some insight from your experience and your personal journey on these difficult subjects.
I can't see why 12 dimensions would be easier than 4. For me,the Wilbert Smith work is just gibberish and unfortunatley I don't know anything about Dave Thomson.
Thanks so much for turning me on...:D
[/quote]
You're welcome :D I just think electricity is fascinating.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.

User avatar
StefanR
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: The Problem of Spin

Post by StefanR » Tue May 06, 2008 4:25 am

Vortex Ferroelectric Domains
Abstract
We show experimental switching data on microscale capacitors of lead-zirconate-titanate
(PZT), which reveal time-resolved domain behavior during switching on a 100-ns scale. For
small circular capacitors, an unswitched domain remains in the center while complete
switching is observed in square capacitors. The observed effect is attributed to the formation of
vortex domain during polarization switching in circular capacitors. This dynamical behavior is
modeled using the Landau-Liftshitz-Gilbert equations and found to be in detailed agreement
with experiment. This simulation implies rotational motion of polarization in the xy-plane, a
Heisenberg-like result supported by the recent model of Naumov and Fu [Phys. Rev. Lett. 98,
077603 (2007)], although not directly measurable by the present quasi-static measurements.

Over the past 60 years several physicists have considered the possibility that magnetic
spins or electric polarization vectors might order not rectilinearly but in circles or toroids.
These vortex domain structures (sometimes called “closure domains”) in ferroic materials were
first predicted by Landau and Lifshitz in 1935 [1] and by Kittel in 1946 [2], who showed that
formation of circular domains was likely in ferromagnetic nanodots due to the surface
boundary conditions. In 1979, Mermin [3] analyzed their two-dimensional structures in terms
of winding numbers, which was extended by Muxworthy et al [4] to three-dimensional
"vortex" domains. Such domain patterns are well known in nano-ferromagnets, such as Fe/Ti
ilmenite, and are best studied by electron holography [5], but have not been reported in
ferroelectrics experimentally, although predicted very recently [6, 7]. The extension to
ferroelectrics was made around 1984 by Ginzburg et al [8] and was recently further developed
using ab initio calculations by Naumov et al [9]. We note parenthetically that toroidal domains
can arise for two unrelated physical reasons: (1) finite size effects and boundary conditions
(present work); (2) magnetoelectric coupling in multiferroic materials [7, 8, 10, 11, 12]. The
present work does not involve magnetism.

Here we report the direct observation of polarization patterns attributed to vortex
domains appearing during polarization reversal in ferroelectric capacitors via ultra-fast
piezoresponse force microscopy (PFM) [13]. The switching experiments were carried out by
using a conducting probing tip, which was in contact with the top electrode deposited on 50-
nm thick PZT film. The PZT layer underneath the top electrode was partially switched by
applying a short (less than total switching time) voltage pulse. Then the entire capacitor was
scanned in the PFM mode to visualize the resulting domain pattern developed in the capacitor.
The field was then applied for a longer time interval and the imaging PFM procedure repeated.

The snapshots of instantaneous domain patterns with vertical component of polarization
Pz developing in circular and square PZT capacitors during polarization reversal are shown in
Fig. 1. It can be seen that in the circular capacitor domains nucleate at the top electrode edge
and propagate around the circular circumference forming a doughnut type or “vortex” structure
in just a few microseconds (Fig. 1(a)). However, the vortex structure remains for > 1 s, after
which the vortex collapses to leave a uniformly polarized ground state. The final collapse
follows from Maxwell’s equations, particularly
-^ x D = dB/dt, (1) (still troubles with getting those greek stuff copied))
which implies that any vortex is unstable against decay unless ^ x D = 0. In contrast, the
square shape capacitors never exhibit a vortex domain structure (Fig. 1(b)).

Instead, switching proceeds via randomly distributed nucleation events with subsequent isotropic lateral domain
growth. In general, the observed features of domain kinetics can be summarized as following:
1. The vortex domains occur only in small circular capacitors (<1 !m in diameter) and
never in larger square-shaped capacitors.
2. There are always several nucleation sites and all the nucleation occurs near the walls,
but none occur at the domain walls.
3. The doughnut type domain structure develops within the time period of several
microseconds, lasts for several seconds and then transforms to a single domain state.
Vortex domains are well known in magnetism. Three-dimensional micromagnetic
modeling by Muxworthy et al [4] predicted that magnetostatic interactions can generate vortex
states in submicrometer size grains which strongly depend on the grain size and anisotropy.
The nucleation and evolution of these vortex domain states is unclear due to periodic boundary
conditions imposed in the modeling, which obscures the inhomogeneous surface nucleation
process in real materials. Note that in ferroelectrics, polarizations do not generally rotate
continuously in space, so that the structures shown in [4] with magnetization vectors curling
around a central core are only qualitative in the description of ferroelectrics. The ferroelectric
case can be approximated in magnetic models by letting the anisotropy/exchange ratio become
very large. The metastable nature of the vortex domain state was not emphasized by
Muxworthy et al [4] but is probably another reason why vortex domains have not been reported
before in ferroelectrics: they are only metastable, lasting a few seconds. Note however that this
is ten million times longer than the switching time required to produce the state.

In summary, we report for the first time the polarization patterns during switching in
micron-diameter ferroelectric disks on a 100 ns time scale. The observed domain pattern with
an unswitched circular domain at its center is attributed to a vortex domain which develops
during dynamic switching. This vortex domain does not occur for square ferroelectrics of the
same size. Numerical switching simulations using the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equations agree
very closely with experiment for both disks and squares. The simulations also predict a
significant in-plane polarization during switching, which agrees with the model of Naumov and
Fu [7] but is beyond present experimental detection.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0802/0802.0186.pdf
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Problem of Spin

Post by junglelord » Tue May 06, 2008 5:46 am

Hi Steven.
:D

I would like to take that last post and quote it over into the dimesions linear thread. I hope we can have a little public debate on that issue in that thread. I am trying to keep items of importance flowing and in the right compartments, Of course everything is linked and reductionism is a human construct, but since angular momentum is in and of itself a single vexing problem, I am also interested in your help in this thread to explain why is spin intrinsic, why is it impossible to stop a electron from spinning? From where does this spin arise?
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Problem of Spin

Post by junglelord » Tue May 06, 2008 8:05 am

It seems to be tied into superconductivity, the solution to spin. Stefan R has a new thread going on that. I find it extremely interesting that the Vortex is implicit in the QM Superconductor work. Nice going StefanR.
8-)
I guess the question is wrapped up in what is the electron, particle point or wave, again another thread.
I think that to find the solution to what is angular momentum and why is it fundamental to reality we need to finish the debate about the electron structure. APM onta is not a Wave, yet not a Particle. Carver Mead says Wave.

Carver Mead, Collective Electrodynamics.
Magnetic Interaction of Steady Current.

I Feel That It Is a Delusion to Think of the Electrons and the Fields as Two Physically Different, Independent Entities. Since Neither Can Exist without the Other, There Is Only One Reality to Be Described, What Happens to Have Two Different Aspects; and the Theory Ought to Recognize This from the Start Instead of Doing Things Twice. Albert Einstein

In Atomic Theory, We Have Fields and We Have Particles. The Fields and the Particles Are Not Two Different Things. They Are Two Ways of Describing the Same Thing, Two Different Points of View.
P.A.M. Dirac (squared)

Model System
our model system, is a loop of superconducting wire-the two ends of the lube are collected in space in either shortage, or insulated, depending on the experimental situation. Experimentally, the voltage V. between the two ends of the loop is related to the current I and flowing through the loop by

L I = delta V dt = PHI

Two quantities are defined by this relationship: PHI called the magnetic flux, and L, called the inductance, which depends on the dimensions of the loop.

Current is the flow of charge. Each increment of charge carries an energy increment into the loop as it enters. The total energy, W, stored in the loop is thus.

If we reduce the voltage to zero by, for example, connecting two ends of the loop to form a closed superconducting path, the current I will continue to flow indefinitely: a persistent current. If we open the loop and allow it to do work on an external circuit we can recover all of the energy W.

If we examine closely the values of currents under the variety of conditions we find the full continuum of values for the quantities I, V, and PHI, except in the case of persistent currents, were only certain, discrete values occur for any given loop. By experimenting with loops of different dimensions, we find the condition that describes the values that occur experimentally.

PHI = delta V dt = n PHI0

Here, n. Is any integer, and PHI0 = 2.06783461 X 10 exponent (-15) volt-second is the flux quantum or fluxoid; its value is accurate to a few parts in 10 exponent (9), independent of the detailed size, shape, or composition of the superconductor forming the loop. We also find experimentally that a rather large energy - sufficient to disrupt the superconductor state entirely - is required to change the value of n.

The more we reflect on this equation, the more remarkable the results appear. The quantities involved are the voltage and the magnetic flux. These quantities are intergrals of the quantities E and B that appear in Maxwell's equations and are therefore usually associated with the electromagnetic field. Experimentally, we know that they can take on a continuum of values-except under special conditions when the arrangement of matter in the vicinity causes the flux to take on precisely quantized values. In Maxwell's theory, E and B represent the state of strain in a mechanical medium (the ether) induced by electric charge. Einstein had a marked different view, as illustrated by the opening quotation. At the most fundamental level, the essence of quantum mechanics lies in the wave nature of matter. Einstein's views suggest that electromagnetic variables are related to the wave properties of the electrons. Quantization is a familiar phenomenon in systems where the boundary conditions give rise to standing waves. The Quantization of flux is a direct manifestation of the wave nature of matter, expressed in electromagnetic variables.
http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0 ... T0#PPA9,M1
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Problem of Spin

Post by junglelord » Tue May 06, 2008 5:22 pm

I would like to post a quote here by Dave Thomson and APM
Spin is not a physical thing you can put in a bucket, but that does not mean spin is any less
real. The same goes for magnetic, electric, and gravitational fields. The fields are measurable, yet there is nothing physical being measured. Thus the fields have non-material reality. Spin also has non-material reality.

For that matter, the dimensions of mass, length, time, and charge are clearly quantifiable and measurable, as dimensional analysis clearly shows. Although all of these dimensions are necessary for quantifying physical behavior, none of these dimensions are physical. They are all non-material. The non-material reality of dimensions is used to quantify the physical reality of matter.

How can that be if non-material existence is not real?

Primary angular momentum is not a fundamental building block of
Aether. Primary angular momentum is a fundamental building block
of matter. Only when primary angular momentum is absorbed by an
Aether unit, and thus charge and mass are united, there is a
subatomic particle.

Empirically, the angular momentum of a quantum electron is equal
> to the angular momentum of a quantum photon. The photon radiates
> from an atom in the pattern of a cardioid, as shown in the
> Compton experiments. The APM shows the electron and positron are
> directly linked to photons in all respects except that photons
> are equal to electrons times the speed of light. You can't say
> something like that from the Standard Model, but it is fully
> quantified in the APM.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests