Dear all, According to my previous comment in “How do you visualize the spin?” “The magneto-static energy is divided into two equal parts and this introduces one half Bohr magneton, a result which establishes that there is just one way for an electron to turn around the proton. As also recall in my previous comment this is also the result of the analysis of the different quantum states solutions of the equation of Dirac. This explains why I have changed my question “How do you visualize the two kinds of spin?” in "How do you visualize the spin?”

Where is the error? The word intrinsic means “Belonging to the real nature of the thing; not dependent on external circumstances.” But a motion must be defined in comparison to another object. To suppose an intrinsic motion is an error.

I report this comment in “How do you visualize the spin?”

Magnetism has nothing to do with anything "dipolar".

I recall you that the magnetic forces on a loop of current are a relativistic effect. Re-read Feynman, his lectures at Caltech.

The correct equation of the electron (= electron wave) is the Dirac's one, 1928.

Even though not advanced, a simple effort towards the answer is made as follows. Electrons have spin and orbital motions in a magnetic field; and hence, possess corresponding angular momenta. The angular momenta in the field are then responsible for the corresponding magnetic moments (magnetic moment proportional to angular momentum as per standard well-known gyromagnetic mechanisms).

So a BEC should not have magnetic moment?

Just a bit of history.

The name spin magnetic dipole moment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_magnetic_moment) was given due to the initial attempt to explain the rest magnetic dipole moment of the electron using the initial assumend spin of the electron which is not real, around it axis (like a planet spin) and since then we are stuck with this name.

The electron is not physically spining.

Besides this theoretical model was resulting in a spin velocity with speed greater than the speed of light ! The theoretical calcultion of the rest magnetic dipole moment came out short by a factor of 2!! (i.e. x2 less than that was found experimetally).

In order to rectify this "small error" hahahaha! :) a dimensionless correction g-factor about x2 was forced into the equation to match theoretical calculations with experimental data.

This alone tells me that their schizophrennic sphere electron electric monopole - magnetic dipole model is not working in this case and there is a gap in the theory in general and they don't have a clue what the electron really is and their model does not translates to the physical 100% correct and so also for electricity and magnetism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsSI0sQpWmI (video)

Emmanouil

A classical electrodynamic model for an electron can work and explain the electron's magnetic field when done with all the correct assumptions. An electron not only has spin but also precession and is radiating and absorbing electromagnetic energy continuously exchanged with the sea of electromagnetic standing waves created by all precessing charged particles. Electrons in atoms sense a magnetic field from the nucleus due to relative motion and this relative motion through a perceived magnetic field sets the precession frequency. Even free electrons can precess due to interactions with the established sea of standing waves. When there is relative motion then the characteristics of "mass" and "inertia" come from electromagnetic forces when phase differences arise between precessional motions and the sea of standing waves. Only a portion of an electron's energy stays with the electron while the rest is continuously radiated away and simultaneously received from the sea of standing waves. These are the "pilot waves" that cause quantum behavior to arise.

There are two sources of magnetic field, currents and magnetic moment, and you do not ignore either one. Magnetic dipole moment from spin is a quantum effect.

Currents arise at the macroscopic level as a collective effect of one particle charged motion. Similarly magnetism may arise from a collective effect of individual magnetic dipole moments.

But a tiny current loop is I believe a better model for the particle dipole magnetic moment than a true dipole.(because the monopole is not there)

The orbital motion of electrons in an atom give rise also to angular momentum,

same kind of entity as the spin. Same commutation rule for the operators.

Read about theory of angular momentum in Quantum Physics.

The Dirac model predicts a g factor of 2, rather close to the actual value.

BEC means Bose Einstein Condensate, means that it is made from Bosons

with spin 0 or 1 or 2. Electron with spin 1/2 are Fermions.

Once again. How is the spin magnetic dipole moment created in an electron?

Predictions will have little to no effect on answering my initial question.

An electron just has spin, charge, magnetic dipole moment, mass.

Particle physics has only very few answers as to why. You just take it for granted.

If not you are back to metaphysical questions.

You can tell all the properties, how things work. Not that detail.

Dear Juan Weisz,

I'm not certain we know how things work...are you sure?

Telling me a wall is blue and hard doesn't tell me really anything about the wall...does it?...Sorry for my engineering attitude in physics but in order to master it and go beyond I must know all down to the slightest detail. Else my knowledge is incomplete and prone to false assumptions and deadlocks like the one I asked and today science can not answer.

Your model has a hole... a large one!

That's okay. That what is not okay is that I hear today more and more seldom the phrase "We don't know yet" which is the correct attitude to make science.

I'm afraid pretending to know all and just giving and assigning physical properties to phenomena without explaining fully causality mechanism will not get us much further and we will be stuck for another 50 years burning fuels for rocket propulsion.

That what I was hopping in this thread I made was first to hear that we don't know and start a discussion.

This threads are made to discuss the unknowns and not the "knowns".

Thank you.

That is right. A lot of things we do not know, that is why I cannot answer.

Maybe find your own answers. Particle Physics in particular is primitive.

96 percent of the universe made out of something unknown.

However there is some body of stuff we should know well.

Dear Emmanouil: How is the spin magnetic dipole moment created in an electron?

It is possible to add the following point: Supposing the electron coming from the infinity and being stabilized on the first QS. The electron loses a photon, then there is a balance between the energy of the electron and that of the photon and the same for the momentum. This first step can be associated to that we can call the spin.

The equation of Dirac suppose positive the energy and the momentum h for the electron associated to this first step. The momentum is divided into two equal parts corresponding to the motion of rotation and of translation. The motion of rotation need a negative contribution for the momentum in such a way to get the equilibrium between the energy of the two motions. It is the reason of the negative values of k for this subshell, with k = -l -1 and l=0, according to the solutions of the equation of Dirac.

Let me add that according to the small grains mass hypothesis to describe the interaction I do not see a discrimination between magnetic and electric field as you say in his recent comment.

@Emmanouil Markoulakis

You see the electrons as corpuscles or spheres. You pretend that a magnetic field B has something dipolar or monopolar. You forget to use the Dirac's equation for the electron, with its four components. All that is wrong.

The magnetic field B is the quotient of two perpendicular vectorial quantities, so it is itself an antisymmetric tensor, of rank 2, with nine coordinates. More briefly said: a gyror.

An electron never has an intrinsic shape. When stationary around a nucleus, it has fuzzy "limits". It never ceases to be a wave, with four components. It never ceases to have two intrinsic frequencies, the de Broglie's one, mc²/h, and the Dirac-Schrödinger one, 2mc²/h. It never transmutes into a corpuscle, nor a sphere.

Xavier,

Really nonsensical, one thing is linear momentum, another angular momentum, connot mix both that lightly.

h has units of action or angular momentum, not linear momentum.

Spin has nothing to do with what you describe, its just an intrinsic property of the particle. Even if what you say has its origin in some advanced theory we do not know about, it will just confuse people.

(on an advances level spin will result from the dirac eq, for the electron) but this is inconvenient as a first description.

Jaques

Much the same for creating confusion.

Fortunately writer of text books do not know your theory that B is a tensor.

There happens to be an antisymmetric tensor in ENM, but it contains components of both electric and magnetic fields, and is 4 by 4

And the restriction to space only, 3 x 3, remains antisymmmetric 3 x 3.

This tool is the only one which respects the symmetries of the magnetic field B.

While A is a true vector. In LaTeX notations : vec A vs breve B

Proof by the symmetries in 1894 by Pierre Curie.

On which side is the confusion?

@ Jacques Lavau and All ,

quote:

"You see the electrons as corpuscles or spheres. "

No. I see them as 3D waves of energy inside Euclidean space and such is all the matter essentially which is a more condensed form of energy waves..

Therefore , electrons subsequently have a 360 degrees of influence in 3D space and thus spherical torus shaped force fields as any dipole 3D force field in nature.

In that sense described above the spherical model suits the electron and describes it well however I admit to assign to it a radius r by definition and not by physical measurements (which is not possible by today's technology) may serve practical purposes but is in vane and unreal.

An electron is a dipole magnet with an extending field in 3D space like any magnet as such, its magnetic field is dying off with the inverse cube law, nevertheless its field of influence is practically extending out many times more than the assigned by definition to ir radius r.

To assign to it a physical radius to the electron since it is not microscopically a solid entity is at least stupid and have lead to many wrong interpretations and explanations and assumptions that hindered us to fully understand other quantum phenomena and essentially their macroscopical results like superposition and double slit experiment which all are quantum decoherence phenomena which are macroscopically faulty interpreted by modern science by replacing the actuall causality mechanics by convenient but wrong assumed randomness.

quote taken from below link:

https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/DannyDonohue.shtml

(you can from the above also read how divergent the opinions about an electron radius is? For me it is wrong to assign to the electron actuall macroscopical physical dimensions since it is not a solid but a singularity dipole energy field)

An electron is a negatively charged subatomic particle. They are responsible for the formation of chemical compounds. Electrons are considered to be fundamental units of matter (they are not made up of smaller units). Although scientists have been studying electrons for quite a while, the exact diameter of an electron is unknown. According to Malcolm H. Mac Gregor,

The electron is a point-like particle-that is, a particle with no measurable dimensions, at least within the limitations of present-day instrumentation. However, a rather compelling case can be made for an opposing viewpoint: namely, that the electron is in fact a large particle which contains an embedded point-like charge.

Emmanouil

I do not see how "energy" could have the properties of an electron : spin, frequency, charge, magnetic moment, fermionic symmetry.

I do not see what may be "dipolar" in the properties of an electron.

We have an idea of a planet, and have an idea of its gravitational interactions with the other celestial bodies. But we have no experimental results supporting the planetary mental representation of an electron. But maybe its intrinsic frequency and its fermionic symmetry, all the other properties are relational.

I agree.

An electron is a dipole magnet with an extending field in 3D space like any magnet as such, its magnetic field is dying off with the inverse cube law, nevertheless its field of influence is practically extending out many times more than the assigned by definition to ir radius r.

To assign to it a physical radius to the electron since it is not microscopically a solid entity is at least stupid and have lead to many wrong interpretations and explanations and assumptions that hindered us to fully understand other quantum phenomena and essentially their macroscopical results like superposition and double slit experiment which all are quantum decoherence phenomena which are macroscopically faulty interpreted by modern science by replacing the actuall causality mechanics by convenient but wrong assumed randomness.

quote taken from below link:

https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/DannyDonohue.shtml

(you can from the above also read how divergent the opinions about an electron radius is? For me it is wrong to assign to the electron actuall macroscopical physical dimensions since it is not a solid but a singularity dipole energy field)

An electron is a negatively charged subatomic particle. They are responsible for the formation of chemical compounds. Electrons are considered to be fundamental units of matter (they are not made up of smaller units). Although scientists have been studying electrons for quite a while, the exact diameter of an electron is unknown. According to Malcolm H. Mac Gregor,

The electron is a point-like particle-that is, a particle with no measurable dimensions, at least within the limitations of present-day instrumentation. However, a rather compelling case can be made for an opposing viewpoint: namely, that the electron is in fact a large particle which contains an embedded point-like charge.

Emmanouil

An electron has a lot of common properties with a loop of current. A loop of current has nothing dipolar, and the magnetic field B has nothing vectorial. It remains a something of rotation.

In 1941, Wheeler and Feynman had proved that an electron is always coupled with the other charges of the universe. Its mass comes from that.

http://authors.library.caltech.edu/11095/1/WHErmp45.pdf

Jaques

If you admit that A is a vector field, you know that B= curl(A), why not B also?

A dipole made of what, since the monopole does not exist.?

From above you get div(B)=0, do you know what that means?

The curl of a vector field is a gyror (= antisymmeric tensor).

The algebra is on the wiki :

http://deontologic.org/geom_syntax_gyr/index.php?title=Les_quart-de-tours_entre_vecteurs_:_gyreurs

\vec{Div} (\breve B) \hspace{5}=\hspace{5} \mu_0 \vec J \hspace{5}+\hspace{5} \frac 1 {c^2} . \frac {\partial \vec E}{\partial t} \hspace{5}(\hspace{5}=\hspace{5} \frac{\partial B^{\mu\lambda}}{\partial x^\lambda} \hspace{5}\vec {e_\mu}\text{, en coordonnees.)}

div \vec E \hspace{5}=\hspace{5} \frac \rho {\epsilon_0}

\frac{\partial B_{\mu\nu}}{\partial x^\lambda} \hspace{5}+\hspace{5} \frac{\partial B_{\nu\lambda}}{\partial x^\mu} \hspace{5}+\hspace{5} \frac{\partial B_{\lambda\mu}}{\partial x^\nu} \hspace{5}=\hspace{5} 0

r\breve ot (\vec E ) \hspace{5}+\hspace{5} \frac {\partial \breve B}{\partial t} \hspace{5}=\hspace{5} 0

In some cases a vector is also a tensor(a one tensor), if it transforms well.

The tensor can either be cartesian or general.

From my knowledge however I simply get a 1 time 3 object, not a 3 by 3, when I take the curl or rot. That is how it is defined. So I insist on vector terminology, even when in some cases you can refer to it as tensor, but this is not customary.

A determinant, first line i, j, k; then partial derivatives respect to x, y, z;

then A(x) A(y) A(z).

If we are talking about the same thing, you are needlesly creating confusion.

Juan Weisz. Do not forget to compare the yields of the two methods of teaching.

When the students have the choice of the representation of the experiments, they choose the gyror one. Without any more "cross product".

Here is a sample of the results :

http://citoyens.deontolog.org/index.php/topic,1991.0.html

It was the subject of the scientific series baccalauréat, given in 2012 in Pondichéry.

" The tensor can either be cartesian or general".

A tensor is not a list of numbers ; it is a geometrical object, descriptor of something physical.

A list of coordinates has a meaning only when the basis is specified.

In crystallography, the space is always euclidian, but few lattices are cubic. In silicates especially, the metrics of the unit cell is not comfortable if you do not use fluently the metric tensor.

Of course, when you change the reference system , you also change the components of the same object. That is why you examine how the object transforms. When a vector to be also a tensor, I mean that there are rules of how it transforms with reference system. So yes, it is not just a list of numbers.

For cartesian vectors there is no difference between covariant and contravariant,

but there is for general tensors. The so called metric tensor plays an important role in GR.

When you express the cost of gasoline in dollars per gallon or in dollars per liter, the covariance matters. When you compare the pesos per gallon to the dollars per gallon, the contravariance matters.

So on with any coordinates of any geometrical object.

Again a failure of the standard teaching : to confuse the coordinates with the components. Again a heavy price exacted on the students and the yield.

Im used to saying components of a vector in a given frame.

It means what is in place at positions x, y, z

this is how it is expressed in a given coordinate frame.

If you rotate the frame these change.

Mathematicians use something that avoids components

altogether, but do not expect me to explain this.

Ill take the rest with a touch of humor.

When we teach the basis of the mechanics in the beginning of the lycee (about 15-16 years old), we use ropes and strings for the static mechanics.

For instance, we decompose a force into its horizontal and vertical components. These components remain forces, physical forces.

Next, we may divide a component by the unit vector on the same direction. The quotient is the coordinate, in this basis.

If the unit vector is of the same nature - here a force - as the component, the coordinate is a number. Otherwise, the coordinate is a full physical quantity. If the unit vector is a length, the coordinate of the force is in kg.s-2.

http://deontologic.org/geom_syntax_gyr/index.php?title=Les_grandeurs_physiques

Jacques Lavau

I think it would be fair to say that Wheeler and Feynman 'conjectured' rather than 'proved' their absorber theory of radiation. Their math was impeccable - I can find no fault with it - however in the past (almost) 80 years it has largely been forgotten. Probably for very good reason.

The particular problem I have with this theory is that any relationship between radiator and absorber must be predictive at both the microscopic and macroscopic scales, where the more accepted and simple statistical relationships break down.

E.G. When my eye 'absorbs' photonic radiation emitted from a distant star many thousands of years ago, the matter that makes up my eye then existed in some far distant location. I cannot see a mechanism in the paper for predicting exactly where I will be in the future at the time when the radiation is generated.

I have to admit that there is no (I.E. I do not know of a) plausible explanation for coherent reflection from a mirror of up to 98% of light but the thought that such reflection depends on me being there to see it (absorb it) doesn't sit well with my experience and observation.

Ian

Our predictive power is limited. In some static configurations, we may be able to map the admittances from each potential emitter to each potential absorber. Not easy however to manage an iterator and a way of storing this double quasi-infinity...

But even in these simplified cases, we will never predict when nor which of the possible transactions will succeed, as we will never monitor nor shield the de-Broglie-Dirac ground noise. We can only hope that on great numbers, the random perturbations from the ground noise will cancel.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_astigmatism_of_the_eye_some_quantic_problems_Ideas_and_experiments

Moreover, large-base interferential astronomy works. It proves that the causality flows also from the space and bosonic interactions of the photons, to the emitters on surface of the stars.

The simple explanation: electrons have a magnetic field well, 2 magnetic pairs of N-S fields to get the symmetry correct (720 degrees). This explains the Stern-Gerlack experiment.

Article STOE model of the electron spin 1/2 observation

Article Structure and spin of the neutrino, electron, and positron

John,

Very interesting hypothesis!! A magnetic dipole pair (two magnets joint together) creating the 1/2 intrinsic magnetic spin of the electron.

Can you please give here a concise small explanation how this magnetic dipole pair topology you suggest creates the 720 degrees symmetry for the electron?

Emmanouil

It's in one of the papers.

Actually 4 dipole pairs held by the structure like bar magnets, joined in the center but only 2 work in any one experiment. The poles stick out.

As the structure passes a inhomogenous field, the magnets rotate the structure first about one axis, then the momentum and continued movement cause the structure to rotate about the neighboring pole for another 360 degrees, then repeat so the total is 720 degrees to get back to the initial orientation.

The presuposition of the original question is crap because magnetic field from charge motion will not stop just because

the charges also have magnetic moment. I do not have any idea how such false notion could have arisen.

This is true even with one charge motion. Spin and magnetic moment itself has to do with the quantum level.

Dear John,

"The STOE proposal is that the hod has a magnetic field rather than a ro-

tating electric field."

I agree. The intrinsic magnetic spin of the electron is not an induced phenomenon.

In your paper Article STOE model of the electron spin 1/2 observation

I believe you don't need a multipolar configuration to prove your point. It should go always diagonally on your setup even with a single magnet. Since the field is inhomogeneous and given the short time it has to align it would be impossible to hit the equilibrium point for perfect anti parallel alignment with the external applied field during the passage.

For me the magnetic spin of particles is all about the magnetic anisotropy property of their single magnetic dipole fields meaning that they can have a preferred axis of magnetization but also other secondary axes each, thus magnetization axis is not very spatially narrow defined leading for example to the 1/2 spin of the electrons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_anisotropy

Nevertheless, ingenious experiment.

Emmanouil

Emmanouil:

You raise a good point. My method was to conceive of a single model to explain many observation, among the observations was the spin 1/2 of electron. Also see the photon have spin 1 (ie a single bar magnet type result). Also note the STOE description of photon movement to describe diffraction and the speed of a photon was to have the photon move perpendicular to its magnetic axis. So, this approaches your other question, the orientation of the electron relative to its direction of motion is established just as the the photon. From this orientation we get the precession but it takes more than one pole. Next the positron must have same mass but different charge which suggest different structure but still need at least 2 magnets. The orientation of electron moving in a conductor also produces one of the 2 types of magnetic field about the wire as the Biot-Savart Law (with modification) requires.

To describe one observation requires us to go around the barn because none of the observations is fully, satisfactorily explained.

quote: "Next the positron must have same mass but different charge which suggest different structure but still need at least 2 magnets."

For me the positron is just a free antiparallel polarity electron. During their join with the electron a gamma radiation burst is produced but they don't annihilate as believed but form a Cooper pair. I bed that during a brief moment where a superconducting material becomes superconductor a gamma radiation burst can be measured.

@ Emmanouil Markoulakis. False ! The annihilation positron-electron gives TWO gamma rays, each of 511 keV. That is this way the PET imagery works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography

That is correct. Did you also check for Copper pair? Or else put did the energy release equals this of the two particles? Obviously you are telling me it does... with a conversion rate 100%.

Checking... this results to energy rest mass for the electron at 8.1871222472e-14 J. The reported value for the electron energy rest mass is at 8.18710565(10)×10−14 J.

Never a photon will transmute into what you mean when you write "particle". It still has a length, and a frequency, whose values depend on the frame. And a polarity whose value depends on the absorber + the emitter + the optical devices in-between. It always remains a unit of electromagnetic radiation.

Emmanuel

Yes a pair of gamma rays to conserve momentum, opposite directions.

A cooper pair has to do with two bound electrons in superconductivity, not these gamma ray pairs.

You seem to have a fabulating imagination. A superconducting material only superconducts when the conditions are right,

say low enough temperature, these are totally different topics.

A radioactive material leads to gamma ray emission, in heart studies. For PET a short lived radioisotope, for no damage to the human body. Similar in heart studies.

(Positron emission tomography) This is to detect cancer. Thus positrons and gamma ray pairs can be a product of radioactivity.

" Never a photon will transmute into what you mean when you write "particle".

You couldn't possible ever know what I mean by "particle".

Doesn't mean to me anything. Just semantics.

Also loosing all of its rest charge doesn't mean to me anything either and is not a definitively proof for annihilation.

Agree with you. The magnetic dipole moment is an intrinsic property of the electron.

Here https://www.academia.edu/22885698/What_is_the_nature_of_magnetic_fields

I wrote about the the intrinsic spin and the magnetic dipole momen:

Magnetic dipole moment and intrinsic spin

The intrinsic spin and the (also intrinsic) magnetic dipole moment are "two sides of a coin". The spin axis and the direction of the magnetic dipole moment of an electron are always parallel AND pointing always in the same directions. To label the directions is arbitrary (clockwise or anticlockwise, north-south or south-north) nor, but once labeled, the relation is the same for all electrons. And all positrons have the "anti"-relation of intrinsic spin and magnetic dipole moment.

Electron accelerations and induced magnetic field

It is this relation between intrinsic spin and magnetic dipole moment that causes

Lorentz force and Ampere's law.

The deflection of electrons in a non-parallel to the moving electrons magnetic field could be explained so: The magnetic dipole moment of a moving electron will be aligned by the external magnetic field. It should be recalled, that the magnetic dipole moment and the axis of intrinsic spin of an electron are parallel. And it should be recalled, that the (really performed) Einstein-de-Haas experiment has shown, that the intrinsic spin has the properties of a momentum. Furthermore, it is known from classical mechanics, that an external force, that tries to change the direction of a spinning gyroscope, causes that the axis evades perpendicular to the direction of this force. The analogy is obvious. That is the reason, why in a magnetic field the electron moves in a spiral path and comes to rest in the center of the spiral. ... Any deflection, caused by the alignment of the magnetic moment of the rotating electron, is also an acceleration process. Furthermore, the electron's acceleration is associated with the emission of photons. This, the electron's photon emission in a magnetic field, causes a deceleration of the electron's velocity. This time the photon emission

causes the electron’s magnetic dipole moment axis to falls back from its alignment to the magnetic field.

All discoveries about electric and magnetic induction were made with accelerated electrons (or non-static to the charges magnetic fields). Even the repealing of attraction of two parallel wires was developed with varying electric currents. Coils are the devices to induce magnetic fields, in the coil the electrons flow in loops and by this naturally are accelerated (a circular motion is always an acceleration). To say it shorter, any induced magnetic field from the flow of electrons is due to the alignment of the electrons magnetic dipole moments during their accelerations.

@ Juan Weisz. A Cooper pair = 2 electrons + a phonon.

Jacques

Yes, the BCS (bardeen cooper schriefer) theory has in that the bound pairs of electrons (Cooper pairs) are held together by phonon exchange.

Phonons are not considered real particles but quanta from lattice vibrations. For example at high temperature there are more phonons than at low.

More recently with the advent of the high temperature superconductors, compatible with liquid nitrogen temperature,

these are still Cooper pairs, but bound probably by some other mechanism than phonons. (still under study)

Dear Holger,

I am not sure i f you aware of, but you just have explained all EM as pure magnetic phenomenon coupled with motion.

I totally agree to all of your points, which I rarely do.

And yes of course the electron is physically spinning on its axis contrary to the general belief about magnetic spin that it is not. It could be no other way . I have experimental evidence for the spin using a quantum optic device and no, it does not violate relativity by braking the light speed c but in reality it is the reason that the light speed exists in the first place.

I am impressed with your intellect and your conclusions like these:

" It is this relation between intrinsic spin and magnetic dipole moment that causes

Lorentz force and Ampere's law."

and

" To say it shorter, any induced magnetic field from the flow of electrons is due to the alignment of the electrons magnetic dipole moments during their accelerations. "

I describe as legendary.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

Dear Jacques Lavau,

and

Dear Juan Weisz,

We can continue this discussion about this particular Cooper pair issue here:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Has_anyone_confirmed_a_very_brief_gamma_radiation_burst_during_superconductivity_transition

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

Emmanuel, Holger

This weird point of view does not consider the set up of electric field by charges, or that the lorenz force arises as a force

felt by moving charges in a magnetic field, leaving apart the fact that magnetic moments are oriented in a magnetic field.

Spins(magnetic moments) can be separated in inhomogneous magnetic fields.

All EM without mention of an electric field? Come on, you know better.

Holger

Many of your remarks are true, ie, for spin and magnetic moment, until you get to the Lorenz force later on. This surprises me.

Maybe you mean that spin only involves h, but when you talk about magnetic moment e comes in also.

Spin has the intrinsic property of angular momentum.(not momentum)

You can have a flow of electrons without acceleration, and still feel the Lorenz force. Why complicate things?

Emmanuel contagion?

Dear Emmanouil,

You wrote: "The spin magnetic dipole moment, is approximately equal to a μB Bohr magneton. Classical Electrodynamics can not explain this and therefore Quantum Electrodynamics comes the rescue... Did it? How is the spin magnetic dipole moment created in an electron?"

Exact, even Quantum Electrodynamics does not explain it.

In fact, it can be mathematically demonstrated that the so-called electron dipole moment is the electron "carrying energy dipole moment" and not the dipole moment of the electron itself, describe in this paper titled "On the Electron Magnetic Moment Anomaly":

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue3/E0703021025.pdf

Moreover, from the trispatial electromagnetic geometry angle, the intrinsic magnetic field of an immobilized electron constantly oscillates by structure timewise, so within the electron mass, the energy is still in standing motion.

Described in Section 14 of this paper titled "On the Hydrogen Atom Fundamental Resonance States":

https://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2018042716061246.pdf

Note also that cyclic standing reciprocating motion and rotation can be described by the same equations (speaking of electromagnetic particles spin here).

Best Regards

André

Magnetic moment of e-, is something you just have to accept, same as the electron charge.

Personally, I don't have to accept just by using semantics, anything if it is not fully physically explained. And by explained i don't mean what? but rather why? And how?

The spinning magnet model is the one capable explaining the electron and almost all of its interactions:

They don't want to admit it yet because the implications on SR but the experimental proof is undeniable, conservation of angular momentum doesn't lie:

https://phys.org/news/2019-01-einsteinde-haas-effect-insight-puzzling.html

Article: Article The Ultrafast Einstein-De Haas Effect

arxiv pdf: https://tinyurl.com/yayamxac

The electrons physically spin on their magnetization axis.

I told you so... electrons are magnet spinning tops:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4h8nrU1dsQ

This here demonstrates fermionc repulsion (physical angular spin) and magnetic moment attraction equilibrium meat resulting to stabilization in space:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu1jEWLZVug

This physical spin of the magnetic dipole field is also shown in the ferrolens as a static imprint of a light Doppler shift effect (lighthouse effect). Notice left half of the field flux appears more illuminated than right hand side suggesting relative ccw rotation of the magnetic dipole field of the permanent magnet. Also notice the dip on the right arm of the field indicating flux whirling into the screen and coming out from the left, see figure 2.

Andre, Holger

The present question should be addressed within the context of an overall model of many other questions and observations. The STOE suggests:

A photon is a column of disc magnets of zero thickness held together by the magnetic field. Photons travel perpendicular to the axis of the magnets

https://www.researchgate.net/project/STOE-photon-diffraction-and-interference

Photons can assemble in a structure which are neutrinos. The direction of travel of neutrinos is perpendicular to the magnetic axis because this presents a zero cross-section to the travel direction. Therefore, photons and neutrinos speed is the fastest matter can travel (speed of light).

The electron and positron is a structure of neutrinos of such that the positron is less likely to form (accounts for rarity). They also travel in a direction determined by least surface area and the force turns the electron to this direction. The electron and positron has at least 2 magnetic N-S poles.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329130715_Structure_and_spin_of_the_neutrino_electron_and_positron

The Stern-Gerlach experiment tend to exert a force to turn the electron. A gyroscope action ensues to give the electron 2 possible net orientations relative to the travel direction and a 720 degree symmetry (rotation around one axis then the other).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329130599_STOE_model_of_the_electron_spin_12_observation

The Biot-savart (Ampere's) Law is slightly disproved by experiment.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329371487_Magnetostatics_relation_to_gravity_with_experiment_that_rejects_Biot-Savart_Law

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327157853_Another_experiment_rejects_Ampere's_Law_and_supports_the_STOE_model?_sg=DfAC4PaSc4FGHQieNzeuMrV0NQ4ZJpTmealAa5XZBW4gIGIPtJhmsoeTq5ndm_5hvFxFrGrJ2LAgz6Os52-Z9HEmfosmbJkwxbUID45d.GP3CuPqCoiuPrqUMv5O_Jwo4M0d-9jZ_kN6VMqD1LHLbl_loKqRl9nRPYS09qgky8s25ruMGTzPZYKaK7rYhzg

This and magnetic induction to cause an electric field suggests 2 different types of magnetic field to solve a long recognized paradox ( Einstein"s " moving magnet and conductor problem")

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327158807_Two_different_types_of_magnetic_field?_sg=qX9aeQG3GZdxwyQdS8aDN9WEhEFZ9_GW7RfoAFq_lZ7t52Poh30AoC0sDC5W9djoqgQVrVe2qhY39eOjszRZoRtRixWQk3OZuMH9iFth.xwFHgnJP6XyeA_y4QN4y94yi1d0mj-McVnHL9KI7i0EFVgh2XnmDRlQGuXorV8tAOIGXXI2S4_XMkUjGTzjqLg

Thus, free disc magnets are the speed limited EM field for one type of magnetic field. This is related to photons only in the number (energy) of the disc magnet assembly.

video of 3 experiments an amateur can do reject some accepted physics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFDB-K_sSjU

(I hope all these links work.)

Hodge

John.

I am a little confused by your logic. If the magnetic fields are of zero thickness why is it important that they travel in the direction of least surface area? Is there some kind of 'friction' force impeding speed if they do not?

@Ian Proffitt

The model suggests the "hod" is a discontinuity in the plenum (spacetime, aether, etc.). The hod is also a discontinuity in the magnetic field - N on one side, S on the other. I suggested it had zero thickness so there would be no surface area in the direction of movement. Hod is smallest particle, so it can have "friction" only by interacting with other particles. But it can impart energy to the plenum. The forces that (in the model) can influence the hod are normal to the surface. Well, this was the assumption to produce the simulation of interference.

I don't suggest we're talking ontology, just experimental description.

something like that maybe?!

Emmanouil:

More like in the center of picture. In STOE, hos is source of magnetic field. Well, that is the thought. It has disadvantages.

You are right on spot! Believe me. Your theory is more than fine.

Emmanouil:

Thanks,

Hodge

Emmanuel

Yes, there are problems in em not completly and consistently worked out.

Consult last chapters of Jackson.

A challenge for you.

People crazy enough to make a prime- electron mix up?