return to homepage
return to updates
THE STERN-GERLACH EXPERIMENT
by Miles Mathis
The Stern-Gerlach experiment was performed in 1922 on silver atoms passing through an inhomogeneous magnetic field. This is the experiment that gave us the current ½ spin values for fermions. I will show that the experiment was badly misinterpreted, and still is, compromising all of QM and QED in many ways.
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.
The first thing we find when studying the experiment is that the physicists assumed going in that the electron was a classical dipole. After the experiment, they decided that the electron was not a classical dipole, but they only threw out the “classical” part of that, keeping the dipole assumption. Only by keeping the dipole assumption could they come to the conclusions they did. If they had discarded the dipole assumption, then none of the current conclusions of the experiment would hold, as I will show.
A dipole is a spinning object that is charged differently on each end. The Earth is common example, since we have a north pole and a south pole. Macro-objects that are charged are dipoles, so physicists simply assumed that the electron, being charged, was also a dipole. It turns out this is false, and it can be shown very easily, with simple mechanics.
Modern physics has still not provided us or itself with any field mechanics to explain electromagnetism. They have not explained how force is transferred in the field. The current mechanism is the virtual messenger photon, which can tell a quantum to move nearer or move farther away, depending on whether it is “talking” to a proton or an electron. Since particle physics is in such a naïve state, we should not be surprised that it gets itself into bigger jams every decade.
I have shown2 that charge requires real photons with real mass and real spin to mediate it. Yes, not only are the electrons really spinning, the photons are, too. Charged particles like protons and electrons are carried along and pushed around by photons, by direct bombardment.
Once we create a real mechanical field, many of the problems of QM and QED evaporate. We don't allow virtual fudges or borrowing from the vacuum or any other magic. This explains the current problem in this way: in macro-objects the dipole is created by the motion of electrons through one pole and not the other. This is already known, and requires no revolutionary theory to confirm it or explain it. But this can hardly be the case with an individual electron. An individual electron cannot be a dipole in this way, since we cannot propose that electrons are moving through or to or around the poles of the electron. The standard model buries this question, having no answer for it and therefore no motive for unburying it. But I have proposed that the electron creates the charge field by recycling charge photons through the poles (and emitting them at the equator). Although they are spinning, photons cannot be defined as having charge, since they create charge. In the same way, the electron is the cause of dipoles, therefore it cannot be dipole itself. If the electron is dipole itself, we create a reductio ad absurdum, since we must then explain what gives the electron a dipole. We have an infinite line of causes, and therefore no cause.
We cannot assign a dipole to the individual electron for yet another reason of logic. The entire E/M field has been explained as a potential difference between positive charge and negative charge. Franklin defined it like that, with pluses and minuses, Faraday and Maxwell confirmed it, and beneath QED that is still the only surviving pseudo-mechanics. The electron is assigned a minus sign. Well, if we make the individual electron a dipole, then the minus sign has just been transferred to one end of the electron, while the other end is positive. This makes the electron as a whole neutral, like we are told the Earth is. It would also mean that only one end of the electron is attracted to the nucleus, while the other end should be repelled. We can't have that. No, physicists should never have logically been allowed to assume the individual electron was dipole, since it contradicts their first postulates and their fundamental field mechanism (such as it is). The E/M field may show dipole characteristics, but the electron itself cannot be a dipole.
If the electron is not a dipole, this changes all the expectations of deflection by homogeneous or inhomogeneous fields. For instance, Wikipedia tells us, “If the particle travels in a homogeneous magnetic field, the forces exerted on opposite ends of the dipole cancel each other out and the trajectory of the particle is unaffected.” Well, if the electron is not a dipole, then the trajectory of the particle is also unaffected, but not due to any canceling. There are no forces on opposite ends, so there is nothing to cancel. The particle is unaffected simply because the field is homogeneous. If the field is inhomogeneous, then the silver particles are diverted simply because the atoms have not been made coherent. Some of the atoms are upside down, and the field simply sifts the upside-down atoms from the others.
In other words, in choosing silver atoms for this experiment, “a beam of neutral atoms each having an unpaired electron is used.” Well, since we have an unpaired electron, we have a given state with a certain chirality. If that electron is spinning, then it is emitting photons that are also spinning, and we have a normal field. But if we turn the atom over, the electron is spinning in the opposite direction relative to the device, and so are the photons. We then have an inverted field. And so we have two possible states. We can have atoms either upside-up or upside-down, relative to the measuring device. If the charge field emitted by the silver is upside down, it must react in the opposite way to the device. Only if we made the silver coherent before the experiment, by making sure all the atoms were upside-up, could we avoid this.
You see, the problem is that we are told the classical expectation of the Stern-Gerlach was a broad band from 1 to -1, going through and including zero. But that is assuming the electron is a dipole, and that is not really a “classical” expectation, it is an illogical expectation. The Stern-Gerlach experiment did not show that classical E/M theory was wrong, it showed that all E/M theory based on the electron dipole was wrong.
Even with quantum theory, the assumption was still illogical, since with a quantized charge, the experiment should have yielded (we are told) three quantum results at 1, 0, and -1. We do not see that, but it isn't because the spin quantum is less than 1. It is because the prediction of a 0 angular momentum is illogical. It is based on a dipole configuration for the individual electron that does not and cannot exist. No result of zero should have ever been expected, since the spin of the electron cannot be zero. That unpaired electron is either emitting an upside-up field of charge photons or it is emitting an upside-down field of charge photons, but it cannot be emitting both.
You will say that if we have silver atoms that are either up or down, then the charge field will sum to zero; but that isn't how it works. If that were the case, then the only expectation would be zero. We could not also have results of 1 or -1.
The spin or angular momentum of the charge field can sum to zero, but only in the case that we have a charge field meeting another charge field head on. But these silver atoms are all moving in the same direction through the machine. In other words, the two values for the charge field are moving parallel, with the same positive vector motion. They therefore cannot interfere with one another, or sum to zero. One atom will be moving in one charge field and another atom will be moving in another charge field, but the charge fields don't mix mathematically or physically, so there is no summing to zero in that way.
You see, it is once again the refusal of physicists to analyze the mechanics of the motions and forces that has doomed them. They have been satisfied with a mathematical analysis, or a cursory physical analysis. They will not go in and actually visualize the motions and forces, to find out the real logic of the situation, because they have been forbidden from doing so. The Copenhagen interpretation has doomed particle physics almost from the beginning.
In fact, E/M field theory has been doomed since 1864, the year Maxwell decided to give up a mechanical explanation of the field in favor of pure math. In response to criticism from Kelvin and others of his mechanical model of rotating vortices, Maxwell saw the best way to dodge this criticism was to retreat into equations. If you didn't offer a mechanical model, no one could criticize it. This has been the "scientific" method ever since, and it basically took the physics out of physics. After decades of quick advancement, E/M field theory immediately lost its legs, and, becoming mathematical only, began a long slow retreat into mysticism and dogma. This retreat was eventually institutionalized by the Copenhagen interpretation, and the 20th century made nowhere near the progress in theory that was made in the 19th century. If it weren't for the engineering advances of people like Tesla and others, we could write off the 20th century as a mini dark age. As in art, the 20th century was a reversion into infantilism, magic, and gross authority. Not only do we not know much more about the E/M field than they did, in many ways we know less. At least the 19th century physicists avoided the permanent ignominy of virtual particles or borrowing from the vacuum.
But back to Stern-Gerlach. The entire reason we now have spin ½ particles is due to this experiment, and this terrible interpretation of this experiment. Because the expectation of 1, 0, -1 did not happen, the physicists at the time thought that the quantum could not be 1. They thought a quantum of 1 would necessarily cause a value at zero. Therefore, since zero was not observed, the quantum must be less than one. That is so irrational it is difficult to stomach. I have shown why the value of zero was not observed, and could not be observed; but beyond that, the idea of a quantum of less than one is idiotic. You should always be able to assign any number to your quantum that you like, since the quantum is your unit. It is like saying that you are not free to assign the number 1 to the first integer. If you are not able to assign the number 1 to your first integer, your brain is some terrible state of disarray.
If you don't understand what I mean, just consider that a quantum is a one. A quantum is defined as a lowest divisor, something that cannot be further divided. If you are going to start dividing a quantum into halves, you might as well not have a quantum. Once you go below 1, you are into sub-quanta.
If spin is quantized, as I agree it is, then the spin quantum is 1. If you discover a lower quantum, then you should re-assign your integer 1 to the lower quantum, and make your old larger quantum a multiple of that lowest quantum. Any theory that has a spin ½ is a sign of theorists who don't understand the definition of quantum, or of 1.
Another way to say all that is that since there should have been no expectation of zero, the quantum expectations were not split three ways. Since they were not split three ways, the quantum was free to be 1 from the beginning.
The only thing the Stern-Gerlach experiment really proved was that the spin was quantized. It should have been quantized at 1 and -1. But it should have been defined as a real spin. Instead the experiment was used as proof that the spin was not real. Why? We are told that it is because if the spin were real, the energy of the electron would imply a spin speed well above c. More specifically, we are told by Wiki that if the radius of the electron were 1.4 x 10-8m, then the rotational velocity would be 2.3 x 1011m/s.1 But those numbers are found with a bunch of false equations. The writers at Wiki may be aware of the status of those equations, since they don't include them. We only get a footnote to a book published in part at Google books. The equations in question are on page 35. Is it a coincidence that pages 27 to 36 are not included?
Notice that these numbers at Wiki imply that charge is determined by the period of rotation, since those numbers can be found this way:
charge = 1/frequency = λ/c = πr/v
But of course the radius of the electron is nothing like that large. The classical electron radius is about 10-15m, not 10-8m, so it is unclear why Tomonaga would even be talking about the larger number. In my paper on the Bohr magneton3, I corrected early equations, and calculated that the electron radius is closer to 2.24 x 10-17m. Correcting the corrupted equations v = rω and L=mvr, we get
L = mω = h/2π
μB = eω/2
ω = 2(9.283 x 10-24)/1.602 x 10-19
ωe = 1.16 x 10-4m/s
v2 = (ω4/4r2) + ω2
v = c
Once we correct the equations, the velocity of the spin is not above c, it is precisely c. So there is no reason to claim that the spin of the electron is "a purely quantum mechanical phenomenon" or that is it some sort of "intrinsic angular momentum." Those are just two euphemisms for "we don't know what is happening mechanically, so we just refuse to talk about it anymore." Tomonaga's book1 should be titled, "The Story of Virtual Spin, or How a Bunch of False Equations Doomed Us."
Another thing is interesting about the Stern-Gerlach experiment. It is known that the Stern-Gerlach apparatus works like a polarizer. If we stack fields in sequence, we get mysterious outcomes as in superposition experiments. We are told these outcomes can only be explained with quantum laws, not with normal mechanics. But just as I solved the problem of superposition4 and detectors in sequence5, I can solve the Stern-Gerlach mystery. Both mysteries are solved with spin, in the same way. We simply have to closely monitor possible spins states, as above.
My analysis also gives us a straightforward mechanical explanation of the Rabi oscillation. This oscillation can be explained only in complex and mathematical terms by quantum mechanics, but with my mechanics of spin it can be explained as a flip of the initial spin state. The applied field acts to reverse the entire quantum, which of course reverses its emitted photons as well. That this is what is happening is confirmed once again by Ramsey's use of a similar device to polarize hydrogen molecules to create a maser. This is just the coherence I was talking about above. If we weren't dealing with real spins, then a polarizer could not possibly work. A polarizer can't work on "intrinsic" or non-physical properties. To polarize you have to have a real polarity, and I would think this is obvious. This polarity is not a dipole, it is just a pole: it is a spin about a real axis, with a real radius.
And once we have a real spin we can analyze, we don't need all the ridiculous Alexandrianisms of von Neumann measurement schemes or decoherence. It is the misinterpretation of this Stern-Gerlach experiment in the 20's that has led to 90 years of stacked misinterpretations and fudged corrections. If we go back and make some simple theoretical and mathematical corrections to these early experiments, we can throw out nine decades of very smelly garbage, collecting in ever greater piles. Something has long been rotten in Denmark, and we now should know it is the Copenhagen interpretation. When will the ghost of the dead King (Bohr) quit haunting us with his false tutelage? When will all the poor Yoricks and their bleached and blanched skulls quit oppressing us with their bad postulates and worse equations?
1 Tomonaga, S.-I. (1997). The Story of Spin. University of Chicago Press.
2 Mathis, Miles. A Reworking of Quantum Chromodynamics. 2008.
3 Mathis, Miles. The Bohr Magneton. 2008.
4 Mathis, Miles. Superposition. 2005.
5 Mathis, Miles. Superposition Again. 2009.