The Science Forum Dilemma: Nutcases on Physics and Chemistry Forums

[andrewgray]

Why is it about physics forums always bring out such nutjobs?

I just wanted to point out that when Einstein first came out with his postulates of special relativity, the establishment tried to fight him for years. So in essence, Einstein himself was a nutcase for a few years in the eyes of the consensus establishment.

Also, Einstein himself never accepted quantum reality as anything but statistical mechanics-like physics. Einstein said of quantum mechanics

The more success it has, the sillier it looks.

Just get on Google and search for Einstein and sillier. So Einstein himself thought all of you quantum theorists were nuts.

Here is a quote from the great P.A.M. Dirac about the use of "renormalization":

I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because this so called good theory does involve neglecting infinities which appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small - not neglecting it just because it is infinitely great and you do not want it!

Next, here is what Feynman himself said about "renormalization":

But no matter how clever the word, it is what I call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self consistent.

I suspect that renormalisation is not mathematically legitimate.

I also have noticed that there are many criticisms that certain "nut-like" theories are "not self-consistent" and "do not follow the scientific process". Care to take a look in the mirror?

Here are a few new quantum inconsistencies that I have discovered while doing my own new theoretical work.

1) The photoelectric effect is assumed to be an inelastic absorption of a "photon" by an electron. All the kinetic energy of the "photon" is assumed to be transferred to the electron. The inconsistency here is that in an inelastic collision, it is always momentum that is conserved, not kinetic energy. Saying that all the kinetic energy is transferred in an inelastic absorption contradicts definition and is never seen. (Look up the definition of inelastic collision or absorption in an elementary physics textbook).

2) The momentum paradox continues for Bremsstahlung cutoff frequency experiments. The usual explanation for the xray Bremsstralung cutoff frequency is that all the electron's kinetic energy is completely converted into a high frequency xray "photon". This seems unlikely because this limiting frequency is emitted in all directions, making conservation of momentum impossible, especially for "photons" emitted at 90 degrees with all the kinetic energy. (Why hasn't anyone noticed this discrepancy before?)

3) The electron acts like a point all the way down to 10E-15 cm. Did most of you know that it is impossible to concentrate a 1/2 quanta of angular momentum into this volume without something exceeding the speed of light? I did not know this a few years ago. Consequently, quantum theorists had to pedagogically announce that "electron spin" is not "something spinning" (too many paradoxes). Electron spin is now simply the eigenvalue of the spin operator, and is not thought of as "something spinning". I repeat: electron spin is NOT something spinning.

4) Inconsistency: In the photoelectric effect, an inelastic photon-electron collision is used. In the Compton effect, an elastic collision is assumed. In between visible light and x-ray frequencies, semi-elastic collisions are assumed.

5) It is possible to view xrays as visible light and visible light as xrays with a simple velocity boost. If one views visible light as xrays, will these "photons" have "elastic collisions" with electrons in this frame?


Old Chinese moral: People who live in glass houses should not throw stones too strongly.

Another Chinese moral: Can we all be just a little more courteous and just helpful in this crazy world?

Andrew Gray
andrewgray AT modelofreality.org

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by andrewgray

1) The photoelectric effect is assumed to be an inelastic absorption of a "photon" by an electron. All the kinetic energy of the "photon" is assumed to be transferred to the electron.

No, that is not assumed. What is assumed is that the most energetic electrons are those that have received all the kinetic energy of a single photon.

2) The momentum paradox continues for Bremsstahlung cutoff frequency experiments. The usual explanation for the xray Bremsstralung cutoff frequency is that all the electron's kinetic energy is completely converted into a high frequency xray "photon". This seems unlikely because this limiting frequency is emitted in all directions, making conservation of momentum impossible, especially for "photons" emitted at 90 degrees with all the kinetic energy. (Why hasn't anyone noticed this discrepancy before?)

You're right, it is unlikely that any given electron will give all its KE to the creation of a photon. That is borne out experimentally by the smaller signal near the cutoff frequency. Actually, the signal is zero at the cutoff frequency, so I don't see any discrepancy at all.

3) The electron acts like a point all the way down to 10E-15 cm. Did most of you know that it is impossible to concentrate a 1/2 quanta of angular momentum into this volume without something exceeding the speed of light?

Yes, that is a calculation that every beginning student of modern physics is asked to do.

I did not know this a few years ago. Consequently, quantum theorists had to pedagogically announce that "electron spin" is not "something spinning" (too many paradoxes). Electron spin is now simply the eigenvalue of the spin operator, and is not thought of as "something spinning". I repeat: electron spin is NOT something spinning.

Boy, have you got the wrong idea. You seem to think that this interpretation of quantum mechanical spin is needed as an ad-hoc extension to the theory, once it is realized that nothing that small could actually be "spinning". Anyone who knows quantum mechanics (like me) can tell you that that is patently false. Once the theory was developed, it could easily be inferred that spin does not correspond to "spinning" because of the multivaluedess of the rotation operator.

Specifically for spin-1/2 operator acting on a general spin state |a>, we have:

D(θ=2p,z)|a>=exp(-iS_z(2p)/(hbar))=-|a>

Since the state |a> picks up a minus sign after a 2p rotation, we know that quantum mechanical spin is not associated with "spinning", even before considering the size of the particle.

4) Inconsistency: In the photoelectric effect, an inelastic photon-electron collision is used. In the Compton effect, an elastic collision is assumed. In between visible light and x-ray frequencies, semi-elastic collisions are assumed.

That is not an inconsistency, and it is really rather obvious why the former is inelastic and the latter is not.

In the photoelectric effect, the photon ejects an electron from a material in which there is an effective binding potential. The KE cannot be conserved, because some energy must be used to overcome that binding.

In the Compton effect, the electron is free, and no such binding potential is present.

5) It is possible to view xrays as visible light and visible light as xrays with a simple velocity boost. If one views visible light as xrays, will these "photons" have "elastic collisions" with electrons in this frame?

Obviously that will depend on whether there are attractive EM forces acting on the electron.

Old Chinese moral: People who live in glass houses should not throw stones too strongly.

Another Chinese moral: Can we all be just a little more courteous and just helpful in this crazy world?

New American Moral: Go and learn some physics before trying to rewrite it.

edit: fixed quote bracket

 

[andrewgray]

New American Moral: Go and learn some physics before trying to rewrite it.

OK.



Now, for reply:

1) The photoelectric effect is assumed to be an inelastic absorption of a "photon" by an electron. All the kinetic energy of the "photon" is assumed to be transferred to the electron.

No, that is not assumed. What is assumed is that the most energetic electrons are those that have received all the kinetic energy of a single photon.

OK. OK. What I was referring to, of course, were the electrons that emerge with the maximum kinetic energy. And of course, we are not forgeting the small "work function" energy, either. The main point is that the electrons that emerge with the maximum kinetic energy are assumed to have "absorbed" the entire kinetic energy of the "photon", (and to have lost a bit to the surface "work function"). THESE electrons contradict the very definition of inelastic absorption where the entire KE of one particle is given to another. Again, it is the entire MOMENTUM that is given to the other particle, NOT kinetic energy, according to the definition for "inelastic collision" for particles. Also, if you further study the photoelectric effect, these maximum kinetic energied electrons also emerge at 90 degrees to the light beam, perhaps yet another problem for conservation of momentum.

The momentum paradox continues for Bremsstahlung cutoff frequency experiments.

You're right, it is unlikely that any given electron will give all its KE to the creation of a photon. That is borne out experimentally by the smaller signal near the cutoff frequency. Actually, the signal is zero at the cutoff frequency, so I don't see any discrepancy at all.

Well, take for example the xray signal at 99.999999999% of the maximum frequency. There are plenty of xrays here, as the the dropoff is quite abrupt (see for example the diagram at www.modelofreality.org/Sect5_3 ). Now consider that these xrays were emitted at 90 degrees to the flight of the electrons hitting the aluminum target. You still cannot resolve the momentum problem with THESE xray "photons".

Since the state |a> picks up a minus sign after a 2p rotation, we know that quantum mechanical spin is not associated with "spinning", even before considering the size of the particle.

OK. I was just trying to identify inconsistencies in quantum theory so maybe we can realize that we need to cut some slack to people just trying to participate in physics forums. There is no doubt in my mind that the inventors of electron spin, Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck, intended electron spin to be "something spinning". Using all the mathematics of "spinning" to develop a theory, then reversing direction and now claiming that it is not actually "something spinning" seems inconsistent to me. Why would one person with a higher knowledge of something want to be anything other than encouraging to other people who want to learn about physics, even if their direction might seem a little inconsistent?


Andrew Gray
New American Tradition: More Courteous, Just Helpful in this crazy world.

 

[heumpje]

That's not inconsistent, andrew. It's the way real science develops. I had my education at the University of Leiden (where Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit also had their education. As a matter of fact I got my Master degree doing research in the same Lorentz insitute) where the idea of spin was developed. It is not an inconsistency... I'm not sure but from your posts it seems that you missed out on angular momentum (generally associated with the spinning). The electron has both angular momentum and spin (=magnetic moment) and therefore there is nothing inconsistent (that is: they were never thinking about spinning things).

I think it might help a bit to read this:
http://www.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/history/spin/spin.html
to start with (gives a hint about how things work in science).

More important, since it precisely shows how discoveries are made and more specifically how electron spin was discovered, You can read his own story (quite a nice one) here

http://www.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/history/spin/goudsmit.html

Goudsmit did NOT intend to describe something "spinning". He intended to clarify an experimental observation and worked and thought really hard about it.

I copied a small piece from the article since it might contribute to the current discussion:

And this, of course, is something I want to say again; people don't believe it. In the beginning when you do something you never know whether it is important or not, and we absolutely had no idea that a new interpretation of the hydrogen spectrum was important. Therefore, this was published in "Physica", in Dutch [5]. We also had an article about those quantum vectors L and S, the coupling of quantum vectors, all that tommy rot, I don't know how you call it, and that was sent off to the "Zeitschrift für Physik". Do you note the difference? We did not know what was important. Everyone worked on those quantum vectors and that was published in the "Zeitschrift für Physik". The hydrogen spectrum was published in "Physica", but you note, this spectrum pointed in the right direction

The difference between these guys and "nutcases" (I actually prefer something less offending but only know a dutch word for it...)
is that they come with something brilliant and before bothering other people with it, genuinly think about where and if there are flaws in their arguments. More important: they generally don't seem to find their own discoveries very important (untill they retire that is. After retirement they are allowed to boast about it)

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by heumpje
It is not an inconsistency... The electron has both angular momentum and spin (=magnetic moment) and therefore there is nothing inconsistent (that is: they were never thinking about spinning things).

Sceintists are just weird - I mean, "up," "down," "charm," and "strange" quarks? What the heck is that?

 

[andrewgray]

It is not an inconsistency... The electron has both angular momentum and spin (=magnetic moment) and therefore there is nothing inconsistent (that is: they were never thinking about spinning things).

You say that the electron spin not spinning is not an inconsistency.

OK then.

So the inconsistency is that the electron's magnetic moment is not a "moment"?

moment n. The product of a quantity and the distance to a particular axis or point.

 

[heumpje]

One of the properties of an electron is that it has a magnetic moment...
What is inconsistent about that?

You do an experiment involving a magnet and an electron beam. It turns out the electrons react to the field. They want to line up to it due to their mag. moment (i.e. they experience a torque). I don't see the inconsistency in that.
Perhaps I'm not catching what you mean by inconsistent...

To refer to feynman: "We thought about it, very hard. I can tell you what we found. You don't like it? Tough. Go somewhere else, to a different universe where the rules are simpler, or nicer or more philosophical"

(quote taken from the video taping of his QED lectures in Auckland, New Zealand, first lecture. Haven't seen them before?...it's a must)
http://www.vega.org.uk/series/lectures/feynman/index.html

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by heumpje
video taping of his QED lectures in Auckland, New Zealand, first lecture. Haven't seen them before?...it's a must)
http://www.vega.org.uk/series/lectures/feynman/index.html

Thanks. Great stuff.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by andrewgray
You say that the electron spin not spinning is not an inconsistency.

OK then.

So the inconsistency is that the electron's magnetic moment is not a "moment"?

moment n. The product of a quantity and the distance to a particular axis or point.

No, I think (I'm a little thin on this one) that an electron has a magnetic moment AND a property called "spin." They are two different properties.

 

[heumpje]

Auch... That IS sort of a miss there russ. The spin IS the magnetic moment.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpinMagneticDipoleMoment.html

 

[heumpje]

Originally posted by pelastration
Thanks. Great stuff.

Yes, amazing isn't it. That you can find this sort of stuff on the web for free...let's just say I tought that, that only applied to porn

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by heumpje
Auch... That IS sort of a miss there russ. The spin IS the magnetic moment.

D'oh.

 

[Loren Booda]

Isn't the measured magnetic moment predicted here by Dirac (accurately but approximately) proportional to (not the same as) the spin?

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
Isn't the measured magnetic moment predicted here by Dirac (accurately but approximately) proportional to (not the same as) the spin?

Yes, that's right. The magnetic moment is not identical to the spin. A particle with spin has a magnetic moment because it also has a charge.

 

[russ_watters]

So then I wasn't completely wrong?

 

[heumpje]

To be completely, entirely clear on this:

(mu)_S=-g_s*(mu)_BS/hbar

So, the magnetic moment of an electron is proportional to the spin S, with in the proportionality factor g_s=2 (the gyromagnetic ratio), [mu]_B=9.2*10^-24 A*m² the Bohr magneton and hbar Planck's constant divided by two pi. (BTW: somehow you can't do math symbols anymore...The mag. moment and the spin are vectors)

Although the Spin points in the opposite direction as the mag. moment (observe the minus sign) I called it equal since there are only some constants as proportionality factors...

 

[andrewgray]

You say that the electron spin not spinning is not an inconsistency.

OK then.

So the inconsistency is that the electron's magnetic moment is not a "moment"?

moment n. The product of a quantity and the distance to a particular axis or point.

One of the properties of an electron is that it has a magnetic moment...
What is inconsistent about that?

You do an experiment involving a magnet and an electron beam. It turns out the electrons react to the field. They want to line up to it due to their mag. moment (i.e. they experience a torque). I don't see the inconsistency in that.
Perhaps I'm not catching what you mean by inconsistent...

Reply:

Well, in addition to the impossibility of concentrating angular-momentum inside an electron's volume to make electron "spin", there is no room inside an electron for any electric current to have a large enough "moment" to make up a "1/2 quanta of magnetic moment".

Therefore, the electron's magnetic "moment", if it exists, is not a "moment".

Seems inconsistent to me.

P.S. You cannot do your experiment with a magnet and an electron beam (the Stern-Gerlach experiment). This experiment can only be done with electrically neutral particles. In addition, we have proposed a "Stern-Gerlach Killer Experiment" that allows the recovery of the continuous (non-quantized) nature of microscopic angular momentum. See www.modelofreality.org/Sect8_1.html


andrewgray AT modelofreality.org