What is Electron Spin? by Kamal L Rajpal

Dear Kamal L Rajpal, you have done a good analysis of the essence of electron spin. Your analysis would be even better based on the identity of space and matter of Descartes. Look at my essay, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows this principle. Evaluate and leave your comment there. Then I'll give you a rating. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Dear Kamal L Rajpal,

FQXi.org is clearly seeking to confirm whether Nature is fundamental.

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

An isolated electron does not generate any field. This is one of the flaws of the field-theoretic approach to interactions. The electromagnetic interaction there exist only when there two or more electrons. This multiparticle interaction is which we can write as the product of a potential and a current or density. In the one-particle limit the potentials vanish and there is no fields associated. So all the difficulties (self-reaction, divergences, violation of inertia,...) traditionally associated to field-theory are here eliminated from physics.

The popular concept of a wave-particle nature of the electron is physically meaningless. First, the wavefunctions of quantum mechanics are mathematical functions, not waves, and they only formally resemble waves in the one-particle limit, where the wavefunction is defined in a space isomorphic to the ordinary space, where waves travel; once we add a second particle, the superficial analogy between wavefunctions and waves is broken. Second, quantum mechanics can be formulated without wavefunctions. Third, the wavefunction formulation is only valid for a restricted class of systems; e.g., the quantum state of a molecule in a heat bath cannot be described by any wavefunction, because the system is open.

Electrons are always particle and behave as particles, as quantum particles. Check this answer on why wave-particle duality does not exist.

A model of oscillating electron due to self-force is physically meaningless. First, the total energy of the electron plus self-field is infinite. Second, that electron has infinite masses and charges. Third, the law of inertia is violated.

Whereas an electron has only two quantum mechanical states for the spin, "spin-up" and spin-down", an acurate description of a photon needs four states, not two. Those four states correspond to the different ways we can split the electromagnetic interaction.

Finally, the idea that electrons move in a circular path on a 2D surface around nucleus is an oversimplification. The motion of electrons is more complex than that, even when we consider only the ground state of Hydrogen atoms.

Dear Mr. Rajpal,

Your title asks a good question: "What is Electron Spin"? What is your answer? Your essay is not entirely clear.

Are you saying that spin is associated with rotational motion of a point electron around a central point in space, at a frequency mc^2/h? (Is that what you mean by the Compton frequency?)

I agree with you that electron spin is associated with rotation, and not rotation of a solid body around its axis. In my neoclassical picture, the electron is a distributed vector wavepacket, like an electromagnetic field. And like an EM field, the electron wave may be circularly polarized, corresponding to coherently rotating vector fields, at a rotational frequency mc^2/h.

You might be interested in reading my essay, "Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics". I argue that both GR and QM have been fundamentally misunderstood, and that something close to classical physics should be restored, reunifying physics that was split in the early 20th century. QM should not be a general theory of nature, but rather a mechanism for creating discrete soliton-like wavepackets from otherwise classical continuous fields. These same quantum wavepackets have a characteristic frequency and wavelength that define local time and space, enabling GR without invoking an abstract curved spacetime.

Alan Kadin

Thanks for reading my essay , I will read yours and come back to you.

Dear Kamal L Rajpal I agree that "Spin is a fundamental property of atomic & subatomicparticles, like its mass or charge. It is present both in moving and in particles at rest. OAM results from the motion of a particle around some object, like an electron around a nucleus." We cannot say that the particle itself rotates, when we don't want to know that it rotates. And only New Cartesian Physics claims that it rotates the space that is matter. Look at my essay, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes. I hope you will not leave without attention to this principle and appreciate good New Cartesian Physics

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Hi Kamal L Rajpal Ji

Very nice fundamental discussion ... "An isolated static electron in free space is not a fixed particle at rest. It is always oscillating in a SHM in its own electromagnetic inertia field, rest frame even at zero kelvin temperature. This is non-thermal, standing wave, resonance Compton frequency, oscillation along a linear path or, along an elliptical or a circular (clockwise or anti-clockwise) path which results in the electron's intrinsic magnetic moment (spin up or spin down). ..........."

I hope you will not mind that I am not following main stream physics...

By the way...Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed................ yours is very nice essay best wishes .... I highly appreciate hope your essay ....You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

-No Isotropy

-No Homogeneity

-No Space-time continuum

-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

-No singularities

-No collisions between bodies

-No blackholes

-No warm holes

-No Bigbang

-No repulsion between distant Galaxies

-Non-empty Universe

-No imaginary or negative time axis

-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Here:

-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

-Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

-All bodies dynamically moving

-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

-Single Universe no baby universes

-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

Best

=snp

Dear Kamal L Rajpal,

Thanks for your comments in my Essay page and for inviting me to read your Essay.

You wrote a nice Essay, despite it is a bit speculative. You indeed released new insights on a quantum object, the electron, that it is not still completely understood. In my Essay, I describe the "electron" of the "gravitational atom" as being the oscillations of the black hole event horizon. Till now, I have only applied a semi-classical approach without considering spins. Maybe you Essay could be a guide for my future, more detailed analyses.

In any case, your Essay was a pleasant reading. It deserves my highest score. Good luck in the Contest!

Cheers, Ch.

Kamal,

That is an interesting description of a particular, basic aspect of quantum mechanics.Though I'm not a viable expert on QM.

Kamal

Good work, fundamental, well conceived written and illustrated. Pencilled in for a high score. Perhaps not entirely complete and maybe with the odd flaw but those are not scoring matters, and common to all theory! I also analyse the electron and have done in past papers.

Have you analysed the 3-axis OAM components of rotation yet? I use a similar model to yours and find a 'way in' to a clssic description of QM from electrons in static fields (polarisers etc) which rotate with field direction.

I think you'll like my essay. (see also Declan Traill's code and plot).

Well done for yours.

Very Best

Peter

Kamal,

Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay.

I have not been schooled in electron motion but do wonder about different simple harmonic motions (shm) of electrons in different atoms -- non-hydrogen with more than 1 electron or molecules electoral-statically impacted by adjoined electrons in other atoms. What is fundamental in all environments? We all contribute in this difficult question of fundamentalism and can help one another.

Jim Hoover

Dear Kamal

You wrote on my thread that "Quantum Mechanics claims that an electron can be both spin-up and spin-down at the same time. In my conceptual physics Essay on Electron Spin, I have proved that this is not true." And you gave references to some of your papers.

I have read your contest paper and your vixra paper on electron spin. I note that you referred to zbw or zitterbewegung in your vixra paper. Your attribution of SHM motion to the electron seems to fit nicely with zbw.

I also do not believe that an electron can be simultaneously spin up and down at the same time. But, in my preon model, parts of an electron can be spin up and parts can be spin down simultaneously. But it is a simple count of spin up and down parts which determines the net spin. A higgs field/particle will contain an equal number of components with up and down spins.

Just as the quantum chiral spin of an electron does not mean that an electron is spinning like a top, the preons, or components, in an electron are also not simply spinning like a top. Chiral quantum spin seems to be inherent in the smallest parts of an electron, in the fashion of a fractal property. It is present no matter how far you zoom in.

Best wishes

Austin Fearnley

Kamal,

Made it as promised. Electron spin is indeed very important. Interesting read and ideas. Did you see Peter Jacksons electron model; allowing OAM and additional; vector states with the Poincare sphere, demystifying QM and the usual confusion like in Austins post above.

Well done.

Best

Richard

Hi Kamal,

Thanks for your essay on the electron, a particle that is so basic and yet so elusive. I also consider an electron at rest an impossibility.

My own essay is a rather non-standard view of space-time and gravity. Do take a look.

Thanks for your essay,

Don Limuti

Dear Rajpal

I agree many points including;

"The electron rest mass is equivalent to the energy of a photon of wavelength equal to the electron Compton wavelength. An analysis of the oscillating electron is also given by Petr Beckmann [1]".

I believe de Broglie and Compton wavelengths tells some important effect about the matter ratios namely, ratio between electron and photon.

Here you may read,

my essay

Kind regards

Bashir

Kamal,

I post here not above as it's easier to find. Thanks for your kind comment on mine on 16th & viXra link which I'll follow after scoring. (Your little boost was my score). Well done.

Best of luck in the run in.

Peter