Re: Energy exchange with Intrinsic Electron Spin

Dear Uncle Al,


Uncle Al wrote:
> > Well, yes it is, lol. The net magnetic field is the same shape as
a
> > spin of charge, right.
>
> More phsyics, less idle speculation. Magnetic field is a QM
> phenomenon. Classical approximatiosn break down.

No speculation. In real life an electron spin magnet moments generate
a magnetic field that is pointing in a direction, period.


> > > Disorder is induced in the permanent magnet - domain shifting and
> > spin
> > > flipping. Sufficient applied field will demagnetize a magnet
below
> > > its Curie temp. If you look at magnet specs you will see two
> > > important quantities: Field Intensity and hardness. Look up the
> > > formal terms and the energy product.
> >
> > Again, that's besides the point. Take a single electron that is
> > aligned with the magnetic moment of the wires current flow. The
> > question is, is the electrons spin void of the EM force? The
electron
> > spin is generating the magnetic field. The 1 meter loop of wire is
> > generating an EM force in the opposing rotational direction. How
does
> > the electron handle this?
>
> One electron? It flips or it doesn't flip. It's aligned spin is
> quantized. EPR spectrometry.

And it must have x,y,z axis. Anyone can take a magnet and point the
North/South pole in any direction on a x,y,z vector.



> An ensemble of electrons? They obey statistical thermodynamics.

That has nothing to do with my post.



> A physical magnet? It obeys quantum mechanics at small scale and
that
> averages out to classical physics macroscopically - the
Correspondence
> Principle.

OK, that's fine. How does that happen in detailed steps? How do a
million electrons, which you claim have no directional poles caused by
the spin, equate to a net averaged classical physical macroscopically
magnetic field pointing in a specific direction.


> QM contains no internal errors.

Wow, what an arrogant statement. Man kind has finally found the final
and perfect flawless theory. I must have missed that headlines. Hmm,
seems to me that QM is in the process of being replaced by M-theory,
possibly. If not, then something else. :)


> If you want to find a problem
> with QM (as opposed to a superset of theory that wholly includes it),
> the only possible alternatives are
>
> 1) Make a new falsifying observation.

You might want to explain how making a falsified observation is going
to find a problem with QM. Why list that as a possibility if it's not
a valid option. Are you trying to be facetious?


> Not likely. Tenured faculty
> desperately seek such. Pentium and Athlons work, now with material
> dimensions hard against single unit cell thicknesses of stuff. Ditto
> LEDs, laser diodes, and NMR spectrometers. An NMR spectrum taken in
> 1970 is indistinguishable from one taken in 2005 at the same
frequency
> (larger signal-to-noise in the 21st century). A different batch of
> chemical in completely different hardware (electromagnet (A-60,
> A56/60), permanent magnet (T-60) vs. supercon; 60 MHz CW sweep vs.
> microwave pulse and FFT) with completely different data manipulation
> within wildly different electronics (the Varian A-60 contained vacuum
> tubes) give results identical to parts-per-billion. This is a
> powerful vindication of the science.

Well isn't that nice, but could you answer the question then, lol.
Still you've thrown a bunch of data that hardly even attacks the issue.
You're dancing around a simple question. EM is real. It can be
observed to force a charge in a direction. The electron spin magnetic
moment is mathematically in Amp units. Mathematically a force can be
applied to the electron spin. So please answer the question if you
wish to reply. What effect will the EM force have on the electron
spin? If you do not know, then that is fine.


> 2) Attack a founding postulate. Postulates cannot be defended or
> they would not be postulates. Postulates are fair and defenseless
> targets. Euclid's Fifth (Parallel) Postulate was successfully hit by
> Riemann and Bolyai/Lobechevsky. Then plane, hyperbolic, and elliptic
> geometries were crunched by Thurston's eight simply-connected
> geometric 3-manifolds with compact quotients. Counterdemonstrate
> Lorentz Invariance and QM must be rewritten. It's easy to say. Who
> bells the cat?

Sorry, but you must have missed my previous post. It mathematically
and shows the electron spin moment is mathematically current. Nobody
in a controlled well-publicized debate will risk their career and say
that the electron spin magnetic moment is not equal to Amps. I don't
see why you're being so defensive against your QM. When it's replaced
it won't be the end of the world. Work together, not against everyone.


> A whole lot of physicists with a whole lot of budget in a hundred
> different countries (varying cultural biases) have invested the last
> 100 years looking for and patching holes. You must do better than
> their summed efforts. That requires either extraordinary luck or
> eldritch mentality, and probably both.

Well, so far nobody has been able to answer the question. It's right
there mathematically. Yet with all the fancy QM they still can't
equate some things to real life world. My question still stands.


> Ed Witten got M-theory assembled, but even Ed Witten cannot make it
> predict something measurable.

I agree. So are you suggesting that QM is the perfect theory and will
never be replaced by M-theory? Of course you're not. So what's your
point in the above statement? You sound so defensive. I just asked a
simple question. You know, if you want to get defensive then I can get
defensive. That helps nothing.

Sincerely,
Paul

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Detecting Space-Time
    ... but what does this have to do with spinning electrons? ... What poles of an electron? ... : the electron spin. ... behaviour of the atomic nucleus in an external magnetic field. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Detecting Space-Time
    ... but what does this have to do with spinning electrons? ... It is pure concidence that the poles of an electron ... the electron spin. ... behaviour of the atomic nucleus in an external magnetic field. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Detecting Space-Time
    ... :> Neither depends on spin. ... that we have three bodies, Electron, Neutron and Proton? ... component of an electrons charge must have a very tiny diameter. ... :>: magnet each directly act on the other objects. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Detecting Space-Time
    ... > What poles of an electron? ... So a magnetic field can exist without a moving charge too. ... I can suspend a human being on a permanent magnet. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Detecting Space-Time
    ... What poles of an electron? ... Nuclear spin is significant however. ... So a magnetic field can exist without a moving charge too. ... No current inside the magnet, and it is NOT a superconductor. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)