return to homepage
return to updates

A New Experiment Proves
my Quantum Spin Equation

by Miles Mathis

A very astute reader just sent me a link to a paper at announcing the results of an experiment measuring electron motion. Using fast lasers in attosecond absorption spectroscopy, these researchers timed oscillations between "simultaneous quantum states." We are told that these oscillations drive electron motion.

I am here telling you this because this experiment is direct confirmation of my spin model, and a direct contradiction of quantum math, which tells us that particle spins are not real. You will say that we have an oscillation here, not a spin, but that is false. What we have, as data, is neither. What we have, as data, is an interval between simultaneous states. We have a time gap. These scientists interpret that gap as an oscillation, but they have no evidence of that. A gap can be caused by any number of motions, only one of which is an oscillation.

But there are even more problems with the current explanation. To start with, this interpretation of data conflicts very strongly with what we are told about electron clouds and probabilities and so on. According to these scientists, we can measure the real motion of a real particle, so we are not dealing with a probability in the data. We are dealing with an actuality. At least down to the accuracy of an attosecond, we can tell where the electron is. Not only where the electron is, but where in its “oscillation” it is. It is in one place and not another. Any “smearing” can be ignored. I would say that is fairly damning, since it prevents the smearing dodge and the cloud dodge, at least down to this level of accuracy. In future, we can ask our questions with this addendum: “Down to the level of accuracy of these lasers, where is the electron? And why isn't it attracted all the way into the nucleus? And so on.”

I point this out early on in this paper, because you must remember that quantum physicists love to dodge any mechanical questions by telling us that the electron acts as a cloud or a smear. We can't ask old fashioned questions about the electron and photon and so on because these tiny particles are not really particles, with real position. Also, their spin quantum numbers are not real spins, and their angular momentum quantum numbers are not real angular momenta. This is what we are told. All that must be out the window now, since we have just been shown the data proving that electrons have real position and motion and “oscillation.” A laser cannot interact with a cloud or a probability, it must interact with a real particle; and when it does so, those time gaps we are measuring are not in the math only, they are in the real field. With some tiny margin of error, those electron oscillations must be in once place and not another. If we can follow the electron for some some small distance with these lasers, then the electron must have position. If it has position at one time, it has position at all times, and we should be able to track it. It is a real particle with real motion, and therefore we can ask mechanical questions about it.

Another huge problem is that if the electron has either a spin or an oscillation, it can no longer be defined as a point particle. This is clear with spin, so I will just address the oscillation. We have just been shown how the oscillation creates an interval in the data, but to create an interval in the data requires that the electron create an interval in the field somehow. If it has created an interval in the field, then that interval must be defined as a length. A length is not a point. An oscillating electron must take up some space over the oscillation, you see, and any extension contradicts the point particle hypothesis.

You will say that the electron is only defined as a point at an instant, and that the oscillation must take time, saving the math. But this is strictly illogical. First of all, a point is a nothing, and it is not clear how a nothing can oscillate. Second, an instant is also a nothing, since it is no time. Defining a particle at an instant and point is contradictory, since the definition of a particle is “a thing.” A thing cannot exist at no time and in no space, simply by definition of thing, space, and time. Those who are defining particles like this simply don't understand what words mean.

As soon as we give time or space any extension, the electron begins to take up both space and time. That is precisely what this new data is telling us, with its “oscillation.” Therefore, the electron is not a point.

But if the electron is not a point, then it is also illogical to call this gap in the data an oscillation. It is an oscillation only if the electron is a point; but since the electron is not a point, the gap cannot be an oscillation. And once we jettison the whole idea of point and instant from our math and field, the spin model falls right into our laps.

Like this: If the electron is not a point, it must have extension. If it has extension, it has radius. If it has radius, then the most logical cause of our interval is spin. As I have shown in a series of papers, the appearance of an oscillation or gap between states can most easily be created with two stacked spins, with no other postulates or motions (see the wav. file,especially). The two spins create a wobble with simple mechanics, and the wobble is the gap or oscillation. In this way, we do not have to propose an uncaused oscillation. The oscillation has a simple and straightforward mechanical cause.

You will say we still have an uncaused spin, but that is not true either. I have shown that the cause of the spin is a collision between quanta. Since quanta are not points, they have size. Since they have size, we can propose off-center hits. Off-center hits will cause spin, by simple poolball mechanics. We have causes for everything, and do not need to postulate mysterious oscillations, generated by nothing.

For this reason, the new experiments with lasers must prove my spin theory. They cannot prove current theory, because current theory is based on the point, and the point is illogical. You cannot prove illogic with any amount of data whatever.

We have even more evidence for my spin theory in the half cycle difference between the probe pulse and the pump pulse:

By varying the time delay between the pump pulse and the probe pulse, the researchers found that subsequent states of increasing ionization were being produced at regular intervals, which turned out to be approximately equal to the time for a half cycle of the pump pulse. (The pulse is only a few cycles long; the time from crest to crest is a full cycle, and from crest to trough is a half cycle.)

"The femtosecond pulse produces a strong electromagnetic field, and ionization takes place with every half cycle of the pulse," Leone says. "Therefore little bursts of ions are coming out every half cycle."

The reason that indicates a spin is that a spin would naturally produce a half cycle difference here. As I have shown, we have multiple spins, even with an electron, with outer spins doubling inner spins simply due to gyroscopic rules. Since it is the charge field of the electron that is interacting with the photons of the laser, and since the photonic charge field is being emitted through the spins, we will naturally obtain ionization in a wave, with maxima and minima.

If that still doesn't convince you, we can use the actual numbers to prove my theory. We are told in this article that the gap was on the order of 10-18s. In my paper on the Bohr magneton, I showed that by correcting the angular momentum equations, I could find a moving electron radius of 4.48 x 10-17m and an electron angular momentum of 5.8 x 10-5m/s. In 10-18s, an electron would spin 5.8 x 10-23m. But as I also showed, this spin motion would be stretched out by the linear motion of the electron. If we assume that motion is at speed c, we just multiply by c, which gives us 6.96 x 10-14m. Since the spin gives us a circumference, not a radius, and since I have shown that pi=4 in this situation, the effective circumference is 3.58 x 10-16m. Which means we are off by a factor of about 194. [6.96 x 10-14m/3.58 x 10-16m = 194] Which means the electron is actually not travelling at c, it is travelling at .0051c. To make the equations work with these numbers, we have to assume the electron is not going c. Why does that prove anything, you will ask? Because the number .0051 is not an accident. I will show you how to get it from the other direction.

Since we are dealing with the interaction of the electron and photon (laser) here, we can use the scaling constant G (right out of Newton's gravitational equation). I have shown that G is actually a scaling constant between photons and atoms, and the electrons are embedded in krypton atoms during this experiment. If we take the fourth root of G (times 2), we get .0057. Not a direct match, you will say, but we used a rounded number when we used 10-18s. To get an exact match, we only have to use the number 3.61 x 10-18s as our attosecond time. The article does not tell us the exact time, but we will assume it is close to that number.

You will say, “Even if that math is true, and even if we discover that is the real time for the gap or oscillation, what does that prove? Why take the fourth root of G?”

Well, .0057c is a scaling of velocity. We are finding the speed of the electron relative to the photon, right? But G is a scaler of size, or radius. The photon size is G times the atomic size. So we need an equation to relate velocity and size. Do we have one? Yes:

E = ½mv2

It is not masses or velocities that are interacting in this experiment, it is energies. For instance, the scientists don't know the velocity of the electron here. I can calculate it, but they have no way to do so. No, it is masses with velocities that are interacting in the experiment, and a mass with velocity is an energy. Therefore, we can use this equation in a new way. We can use it as a scaling equation rather than in the usual way. All we do is let energy stand for size. With spins, a particle must get larger to gain energy. So we can rewrite the equation as

2G = mv2

That is where the “times 2” comes from in my math above [If we take the fourth root of G (times 2), we get .0057.] Then we just remember my latest paper, where I show that the mass of the quantum is its radius squared. More specifically, the mass is the change in the radius, which is the velocity of the radius over a defined interval. Therefore, mass can be written as velocity squared. So we can rewrite the equation again

2G = v4

That is why the electron in this experiment is going .0057c. It is strictly a matter of size and energy. The electron is hit by a photon, and the energy differential determines the escape velocity. Which means I have a simple way to calculate the attosecond interval. By working my equations backwards, I can tell you that the interval must be on the order of 3.61 x 10-18s. Not only does the article avoid telling you this number, it is clear from the results announced that these scientists have no idea why the interval was around an attosecond rather than any other small time. Not only can they not calculate the number 3.61 x 10-18s, or the velocity of the escaping electron, they cannot even say why it is on the order of 10-18s. Why not 10-21s or 10-24s? I have just shown you why, with both math and mechanics.

A reader replied to this math by telling me the measured time of the experiment contradicted my prediction here, since a check of the full article shows a pulse of about 150 attoseconds. Problem there is that the time of the pulse is not measured directly. As I have shown elsewhere, it is impossible to measure time directly, since time is always dependent on length. As with the time of a cesium wobble, the scientists have to assume a length of the wobble to calculate a time. In the magneton paper, I showed that all length calculations at the quantum level are off by 170x, since the math is wrong. Well, if we apply that here, we must multiply my number by 170 to get their number (time and length are inversely proportional in equations). If we do that, we find a remainder of almost precisely 4x. Again, I have also explained the genesis of that error, since current physics doesn't understand the size differential between an electron at rest and an electron moving. A moving electron is four times as large as an at-rest electron, since it gains a spin from the field. My numbers take this into account; theirs don't. Their size is too small, therefore their time is too large.

You will say, “Still, even if all that is true, it doesn't prove anything about spins. All it shows is that you have a clever way of using G that no one else has. That is impressive, but it doesn't prove squat about spins.” Ah, but it does. My use of G is not just a clever trick. The fact that my math works implies very strongly that my mechanics is correct. My math is tied to my mechanics at every point in my theory and in my explanations, as you see. I explain every mathematical step with a real motion. Mine is not an airy heuristic math, it is a fully kinematic math, supported by “poolball” mechanics. I am not using higher math to generate numbers, I am showing how the numbers come right out of real collisions of real particles. I have shown again and again how spins determine the radius of particles, by obeying gyroscopic rules, so anytime I show correct size scaling, I have also shown correct spin scaling. Everytime I solve problems like this, concerning sizes and energies, I have proved my quantum spin equations. This is because my quantum spin equations are simple multiples of 2, not esoteric equations based on gauge fields or curved space or complex math. When these spin equations work so smoothly, they must imply spin. Either that, or someone else must show why quantum particles would increase in radius in this gyroscopic manner, without spinning.

One final comment on this article: we are told that these oscillations, which I have shown are spins, “drive electron motion.” Is that true? No, it isn't. Current science has no evidence for that claim, and this experiment provides no evidence for that claim. It is simply a tack-on. What causes electron motion is photon motion. Electrons are carried along by photons, as in a wind. What causes electron spin is collisions. Electrons can gain spin from photon vortices or from edge hits with other larger quanta like electrons, mesons, or nucleons. An electron at rest can be spinning (or not), and a moving electron can also lack spin (although this would be very rare). This means that spin does not cause linear motion.

In fact, it is closer to correct to say that mass causes linear motion, since we can see from the last equation above how closely they are linked. Mass does not cause linear motion, it determines it. Meaning, if the particle has not been stopped for some reason, it will tend to travel at a velocity determined by its mass. In relative or scaling equations, the mass and the velocity can even be treated as equivalent, as we have seen. This is because mass is a motion itself.

You will say, “If electron motion is determined by photon motion, what determines or causes photon motion?” Unknown. It may be residue of a big bang, or c may be the groundstate of the universe. Every theory hits a wall at some first cause, and mine hits the wall here. Even if I showed some cause of c, I would have to show the cause of that cause. Like Einstein, I am satisfied taking c as a first postulate, and going from there.

For more on this, you may now go to my newest paper on the Electron Radius, where I show that the radius is just 1/c2. I show that the classical electron radius equation has always lacked a scaling constant, which makes the current estimate about 252 times too large.

If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many noms de plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33 cents for each transaction.