Introduction: In this html page on magnetism we will focus on a weird detail of the so called Stern-Gerlach experiment from the year 1922 where they managed to separate a stream of silver ions into two parts. 
And the culprit was one loose unpaired electron that did split this stream of silver ions. 

I was 50 years of age when I read these weird results for the first time and I did not understand them: 
The experiment used an inhomogeneous magnetic field so how could electrons choose the way of the weaker magnetic field?  

Within two days I had the answer: Electrons are magnetic monopoles because only monopoles can be repelled by the stronger side of a magnetic field. 

I was very surprised by my own result because I too was indoctrinated by 'Magnetic monopoles do no exist' kind of thinking. 

Anyway, two years back that was the starting point of the 'electrons are magnetic monopoles'. 

Have fun reading it and hopefully you will learn something from it. 
And for those who know my math pages on higher dimensional complex numbers: Here I will avoid math most of the time. 


Page 1 containing updates from Oct 2015 till Dec 2016: 

27 Oct 2015: Ten reasons why electrons are magnetic monopoles   
12 Dec 2015: Reason 11 is found: Lamor precession versus the violin string 
21 Dec 2015: Reason 12: Nuclear fusion & the plasma instability problem  
30 Dec 2015: Reason 13: Experiments with a television tube  
08 Jan 2016: Reason 14: Even numbered atomic elements are more stable 
10 Jan 2016: Reason 15: Superconductivity explained as a monopole effect 
25 Jan 2016: Reason 16: Even numbered atomic elements are more stable. part 2 
27 Jan 2016: Reason 17: Dia-magnetism explained via magnetic monopoles 
29 Jan 2016: Reason 17.5: The combed universe  
02 Feb 2016: Reason 18: Para-magnetism explained via magnetic monopoles 

15 Feb 2016: Reason 19: The temperature of the solar corona 

17 Feb 2016: Reason 20: The plasma instability problem according to MIT 
25 Feb 2016: Reason 21: The way plasma magnetic mirrors work 
05 March 2016: Reason 22: Birkeland currents  
07 March 2016: Reason 23: Behavior of DIY plasma in a magnetic field 
20 March 2016: Reason 24: The energy levels in cosmic rays 
28 March 2016: Reason 25: Because Pauli said so 
03 April 2016: Reason 26: First evidence of particle acceleration by magnets 
23 April 2016: Reason 27: The SI units for magnetic and electrical fields 
27 April 2016: Reason 28: Localization of charge and linear polarization of light 
03 May 2016: Reason 29: Because Germans say neutrons carry magnetic moment 
12 June 2016: Reason 30: New photo's from a television experiment 
12 July 2016: Reason 31: Experimental results from JET show non confinement
11 Aug 2016: Reason 32: Why does the plasma start spinning asks Steve Cowley 
19 Aug 2016: Reason 33: Vertical displacement events in nuclear plasma's 
13 Sept 2016: Reason 34: Two famous physics professors telling nonsense
17 Sept 2016: Reason 35: Some Tokamak explosive discharges explained
03 Oct 2016: Reason 36: Solar corona temperature explained via the bonkers force
05 Oct 2016: Reason 37: Old and new experiments upon the bonkers force 
10 Oct 2016: Reason 38: The Hendrik Casimir effect and the vacuum catastrophe
14 Oct 2016: Reason 39: The acceleration of the solar wind 
27 Oct 2016: Reason 40: Electrons must conserve linear momentum, but they don't 
24 Dec 2016: Reason 41: The vacuum catastrophe part 2 
Page 2 covering stuff found in 2017:  

07 Jan 2017: Reason 42: A 60 minutes documentary on the Stern-Gerlach experiment 
31 Jan 2017: Reason 43: The way a Faraday box and other mirrors work 
06 Feb 2017: Reason 44: The way qubits from Dwave work
15 Feb 2017: Reason 45: The critical magnetic threshold in super conductivity 
19 March 2017: Reason 46: BCS theory says electron pairs are bosons...
19 April 2017: Reason 47: The acceleration of the solar wind, Part 2
24 July 2017: Reason 48: The failure of IBM's racetrack memory  
07 Sept 2017: Reason 49: The amazing strength of the Jupiter aurora's 
14 Oct 2017: Reason 50: A calculation on electron acceleration by a magnetic field 
17 Dec 2017: Reason 51: Spin properties of the positron 
19 Dec 2017: Reason 52: Jupiter aurora's without the electrical field acceleration
Go to Page 3 that covers the year 2018. 

07 Jan 2017: Reason 42: A 60 minutes documentary on the Stern-Gerlach experiment.

On the video channel Youtube I found this very interesting documentary, or historical oversight, on the Stern-Gerlach experiment. This is very important because it was the Stern-Gerlach experimental results that drove me to the insight that those results can only be explained if electrons have a net magnetic charge.
For simplicity I name that magnetic monopole charge but if, for example, the north monopole is also spinning it might have a tiny bit of south pole stuff too...

The historical oversight is given by Sandip Pakvasa, he claims that he has taught quantum physics for about 40 years and now when he is retired he did dive into a bit of history known as the Stern-Gerlach experiment. 
The documentary contains a treasure trove of information, sometimes it is just plain bizarre like Otto Stern his goal with the experiment was to prove that space was quantasized.   

It is worth to view the entire 60 min video at least once but better after a few days see it again, all in all it really contains a lot of stuff. Here is the link and the https thing: 

The Stern-Gerlach Experiment And The Discovery Of Electron Spin - Sandip Pakvasa [2016] 

This update contains 10 screen shots from the video, all I do is place my comments around them. 
So let's start with just one of the things I did not know:

Screen shot 1 @08,31 minutes is about Einstein. The last three years I have been wondering what Einstein knew and thought of the Stern/Gerlach experiment, it is obvious Albert Einstein never understood what was happening over there. Also Einstein never understood why electrons must have electrical and magnetical charge located at the same position otherwise electro/magnetic radiation would be very different. 
For more on this see Reason 28 where I discuss the emergence of linear polarized light and localization of charge.  


Screen shot number 2@16.00: Here you see a bit of how they struggled to get those quantum numbers a bit straight, for example those quantum numbers denoted with m refer to the total magnetic charge an atom or molecule can have. If an electron jumps from -1/2 to +1/2 the quantum number m is raised by 1.

A relative good explanation when it comes to chemistry is given by professor Dave in the next video:
Quantum Numbers, Atomic Orbitals, and Electron Configurations 


Screen shot number 3@21.04: This is just some stuff that Stern and Gerlach thought it was important. For example they thought it was important that the applied magnetic field is as inhomogeneous as possible. After all a gradient of 10 Tesla per centimeter is impressive even by today's standards. 

At present day, as far as I know reality, in the atomic clocks in the satellites that circle the earth for your GPS system they still use inhomogeneous magnetic fields to separate the 'spin up' electrons from the 'spin down' electrons.  

But if my version of electrons is true in the sense they carry one form of electrical charge and two forms of magnetic charge all this difficult doing is not needed at all and you can just use any kind of magnetic field to separate the electrons when needed in you particular engineering challenge...  


Screen shot number 4@33.01: Oh oh oh the Zeeman effect, so horribly hard to understand if you believe that electrons are magnetic dipoles because WTF explains the small differences in energy levels radiated by those pesky electrons?

But if you accept that electrons beside electrical charge also carry two magnetic charges, albeit at slightly different energy levels, the Zeeman effect is much more easy to understand.

For example if you have an atom with five unpaired electrons and each of those five unpaired electrons could be a magnetic monopole north or down and if there is a small energy difference between being north or south, it is to be expected you get a more or less binomial distribution over the observed spectrum. This is caused by the fact that when looking at a spectrum you see the combined result of many atoms, that is why you get those binomial looking disrtributions.


Screen shot number 5@33.50: 

One of the main objections against the concept of electron spin is the fact it should rotate faster than 100 times the speed of light in order to explain the measured magnetic strength. You can also turn this around: electron spin can only at most explain about 1% of the magnetic properties of an electron.
Of course this varies with the size of the electron, but again we should not think of an electron as a tiny planet circling a tiny sun that represents the nucleus. At present day in 2017 it is still anybody's guess about the 'size' of the electron.
But the Compton radius did not survive the 20-th century, that is the reason I show you this screen shot so that you do not think there is actually something spinning when we talk about electron spin.  


Screenshot 6@35.25: Of course I knew the evil Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck have done; they proposed to name the stuff 'electron spin' and after that every body got trapped into this kind of language. Weirdly enough the evil was done by the university of Leiden and ha ha ha, that is in my home country.
Of course it has no scientific value but for me it is funny to know that the theoretical nonsense known as electron spin originated here in Leiden...
So for the intellectual paladin's from the Leiden university I propose the next new quantum operator for you:
Instead of the wonderful spin operator S that measures the spin of an electron in a particular direction, I Reinko Venema, propose the new quantum operator C that measures the electrical charge of an electron into a particular direction.
Once you get used to it you can also craft preutons; that are unmeasured particles that are a super-position of protons and neutrons. Very handy if you want to fire up your quantum computer; please do not worry about any violation of the law of conservation of charge because in the quantum realm everything is magical by definition...


Screen shot 7@40.41: This is a very important screen shot because if you basic assumption is that electrons are magnetic dipoles in that case a Stern Gerlach experiment makes no sense because 100% of the electrons should fly into the direction of the strongest part of the magnetic field. 

Or as present day physics professors formulate it: The spin of the electron gets projected into the direction of the gradient of the magnetic field... (This is pure nonsense because if spin is a vector what happens to vectors that are perpendicular to the gradient? Once more: is quantum physics a science or do we just mumble around that it is mythical and magical?) 

The sole fact that electrons will go into the direction of the weaker parts of an inhomogeneous magnetic field is caused by the fact this particular electron is repelled by the stronger parts of the magnetic field. Hence if must have a net magnetic charge and it is not a magnetic dipole...  


Screen shot 8@42.36: This screen shot is important because it shows that Mr. Niels Bohr and Mr. Wolfgang Pauli based their reasoning on the Gauss law for magnetism. I guess if you are reading this you know that the Gauss law for magnetism says there are no magnetic monopoles, now at the time of Gauss this was impossible to validate. All they had were macroscopic magnets indeed it is very hard for a macroscopic object to have magnetic charge. 

For example the electron pair follows the Gauss law for magnetism but an unpaired electron does not.
One of the reasons that we are in this spin mess in the 21-th century is the fact that electrons were only discovered many years after Gauss crafted this law for magnetism.  

And what about Maxwell? At the time Maxwell crafted his famous equations the existence of the electron was also unknown. Of course you cannot repeat history but sometimes I muse what could have happened if Maxwell knew of the outcome of the Stern Gerlach experiment... 


Screen shot 9@44.10: In the future I will definitely write more on this guy named Dehmelt because he is responsible for the constant that has the greatest significance in validation between theory and experiment.  

As a matter of fact it is claimed by professional physics professors that the Dehmelt guy has found a coupling constant for the magnetic dipole moment that is accurate to many digits. It is important to remark that, as far as I know, Hans Dehmelt never tapped into the electron being some magnetic dipole when conducting his frequency experiments that allowed him to estimate the coupling constant with such high accurancy.

On the website of the Nobel prize commitee you can find a nice pdf, do not worry this pdf looks so ancient because back in the year 1989 all that computer stuff was not that advanced as it is today. Just look at his so called 'ion trap' if you scroll down in the pdf; it just does not differentiate between electrons being magnetic monopoles or dipoles.


Let's leave it with that because monopole magnetism can also perfectly explain so called 'magnetic resonanse'. 


Screen shot 10@: In this last screen shot we observe that my insights and those of the professional physics professors align when it comes to the role mass plays. 

The weird thing about electron and proton magnetism is that it is inverse proportional to the mass of the particle in question. 

We know that the proton is much more heavy compared to the electron and that makes the electron king & superior when it comes to understanding it's magnetic monopole properties. So at the end of this update I would like to declare Otto Stern as one of my heroes in physics because one way or the other he kept on trying to find the magnetic properties of protons. (Protons are also classified as spin half particles, as far as I know reality also neutrino's are classified as spin half particles although nobody explains that in an understandable fashion.) 

Here is the latest screen shot number 10: 


Ok, end of reason number 42 as why it is very very hard for electrons to be magnetic dipoles. 


31 Jan 2017: Reason 43: The way a Faraday box and other mirrors work. 

Most people know what a mirror is: If you look at it you see a reflection of yourself. But since people cannot see magnetic fields or electrical fields, stationary or oscillating, the fact you see your mirror image says that the light that is just an electric-magnetic wave is reflected. Both the oscillating electrical field and oscillating magnetic field get reflected. 

A so called Faraday box is a box of metal and inside the box there is no em-radiation. 

Another example is your magnetron oven; if you look through the window of the door you see a metal sheet with al lot of small holes in it. The microwaves generated in your magnetron over are em-waves with a wavelength of let's say 12 cm. The small holes in the metal shield in the oven door are just too small and as such the em-radiation stays inside the oven. 


In this update we are going to try and explain as why metals reflect electro-magnetic radiation; the official explanation of the professional physics professors make a very very sloppy use of the Gauss law for magnetism. 
And since this Gauss law of magnetism is just not valid for free electrons that are abundantly found inside all conducting metals, it is more or less my obligation to share my own views on this subtle detail of daily life: 

Why does em-radiation get reflected by metal surfaces? 


Originally I planned this reason number 43 to be about spin waves, but thinking on spin waves I realized that if the official theory of electrons being magnetic dipoles that em-radiation hitting metal would repel the oscillating electric field but not the oscillation magnetic part of the em-radiation.

But that means we would get spin waves in the metal and the reflection of light in a mirror would be much more like your reflection in glass or so. Yet your mirror image is more or less perfect em-radiation ready to be processed by your eyes and it is very very hard to see the difference between original light and reflected light by a mirror...

Suppose the official version of an electron is true so it is a magnetic dipole. In that case the oscillating magnetic part of the em-radiation would only make the electron rotate on it's place and that would hardly sap any energy out of the em-wave. Professional physics professors also state that the electrical part of the em-radiation makes the electrons accelerate (and that acceleration is perfectly 180 degrees out of phase with the incoming light and that is the root source of the reflection).

A relatively good video of 34 minutes is the following:

Effect of Electromagnetic Radiation on Metals 

I will cut and paste a few screen shots from the video here in this update, the first screen shot is from 12.11 min where drphysicsa tries to 'explain' that there are no oscillating magnetic waves going into the metal.
It is based on the second law of the Maxwell equations, that is the Gauss law for magnetism, so the explanation cannot be right because for unpaired electrons the ideas from Gauss are not correct.

Here is the screen shot: 


Although DrPphysicsA is a relatively good lecturer here with the Gauss law on magnetism (that is magnetic monopoles do not exist) he goes a bit too fast: from the theory he derives that no magnetic field oscillation go into the metal because of the Gauss law on magnetism. 

Now the conclusion is right but it is not done by the math of the Gauss law stating no magnetic monopoles exist.
Further down in this video drphysicsa gives the best explanation even as why a mirror works. Because if you view it from an atomic point of view all atoms are more or less spherical so why do the photons of light get reflected so perfectly? 

Why is angle in = angle out for em-radiation reflection??? It makes no sense when you view photons as small particles that bounce into metal atoms that are also small spheres. What explains this behavior of light? 

Later in the video DrPhysicsA is explaining the effect of electro-magnetic radiation on a sheet of metal.
Here is a screen shot from 21.47 minutes but the discussion starts at 19.12 minutes and a few seconds later DrPhysicsA makes the unforgettable words that say:

The electrical field E and the associated magnetic field B are in phase.  

This detail is very important to understand because it means that when the electron is doing it's acceleration, or oscillation, the spatial localization of electric and magnetic charge are the root cause as why in electro-magnetic radiation we have this perfect 0 phase shift.

Here is how DrPhysicsA is drawing the stuff; the impending electro-magnetical wave is going in the direction of the z-axis: 


With ET = 0 he simply means that electrons inside the metal shield start accelerating in order to compensate for the impending electrical field.

DrPhysicsA does not draw the magnetic field denoted by B or, with the coordinates as given here, By because to standard physics theory it does not make electrons accelerate...

I disagree with that, it is not some weird Gauss law for magnetics that without any experimental validation is applied to unpaired electrons; no it is the simple fact electrons can carry two magnetic charges that also accelerates these very electrons in the metal. 

Suppose the energy in the two fields, the magnetic and electrical one, are equal.
In that case the electrons at the surface of the metal will start oscillating along the directions as given by x = y and x = -y. 

So monopole north electrons will do the one thing and monopoles south electrons will make a move that is perpendicular to the north pole electrons...

You must view it as that the energy gets reflected; if the energy in the magnetic oscillating field does not accelerate the free electrons in the metal, it would not get reflected and as such the magnetic field component of em-radiation should penetrate all metals deeper compared to the electrical field component of the em-radiation. 

In practice I have never heard of such an effect; in practice if you look in the mirror you see perfect em-radiation just like it went into the mirror. This important day to day observation means that the Gauss law for magnetism is correctly formulated within the framework of the Maxwell equations. 

Let's leave it with that but if it is a Faraday box keeping em-radiation out or a magnetron oven keeping dangerous em-radiation in or the mirror you look in every day, they all work the same: it are the free electrons that mirror back the energy in the em-waves...

Till updates.  


06 Feb 2017: Reason 44: The way qubits from Dwave work

Somewhere in the back of my mind I remembered that the qubits from Dwave are macroscopic devices that had two spin streams going against each other. If you work from the hypothesis that electrons carry monopole magnetic charge like north and south, it is easy to explain how you can make two currents going against each other:

You must apply a magnetic field that is parallel to the way the electrons move around.
On the website from Dwave I could not find a good explanation, all I found was this picture: 


This picture is a bit vague but that can be forgiven because the goal of the page I found it was only to explain how their quantum computer work. And of course it is often better to keep it simple in the beginning and only later add the details that explain as why such spin currents can exist and how to make them. 

Source of the picture:
Introduction to the D-Wave Quantum Hardware 

Yet via a Google picture search it was also found that indeed they use magnetic fields directed into the direction of the way the electrons move: 


Picture source: 
Figure 1: Superconducting flux qubit.

I have to admit that I still have to study the Josephson junction details so also for me the above picture is a bit vague because all I know is that such a Josephson junction is a thin insulating layer that only let's through pairs of electrons. 

So unpaired electrons do not pass such a junction... 

But spin currents like shown above consist only of unpaired electrons, the electron pair is magnetic neutral and as such is not able to get accelerated by magnetic fields... 

A year ago on 10 Jan 2016 I explained super conductivity as a electron monopole effect or better; as a lack of electron monopoles because the super conductivity current is done by so called Cooper pairs (these are just electron pairs). 
Now I have to be as vague as possible because I still have not studied the Josephson junctions in detail, but it might very well be the same stuff that allows only electron pairs crossing the junction: electron pairs are magnetic neutral. 


At the end of this reason number 44 I would like to stress how easy it is to understand that electrons carry two different magnetic charges: inside a magnetic field you can argue that a north charged magnetic electron is attracted by the south part of the magnetic field. But it is also repelled by the north part of the magnetic field this electron is exposed to. 

And for myself speaking; it baffles my mind that scientists can find the 3 color charges of quarks but all the time hang on to silly stuff like the electron is a magnetic dipole...

It just baffles the mind. 

But not all is bad, for example there seems to be some kind of resonation as how these electron pairs cross the Josephson junction, I like to finish with a small screen shot that also baffles my mind:

Why do the electron pairs do this?


The only reason I post the above picture is that there is 2e in the frequency formula above, I do not have a clue whatsoever about how this all works but the 2e is easy to explain: it is the electrical charge of the electron pair... 

End of reason number 44, see you around & till updates. 


15 Feb 2017: Reason 45: The critical magnetic threshold in super conductivity. 

Super conductivity is extremely important in practice because it allows for much stronger magnetic fields like, for example, used by CERN in their quest for finding magnetic monopoles.  

An important feature of super conductivity is that first the electron pairs have to form and only those pairs are the electrons that have zero resistance in the particular super conducting material. 

For super conductivity to occur three things must be there:  

1) A low enough temperature,
2) A weak enough magnetic field, in a strong magnetic field it does not happen &
3) Not too much current through the super conducting material.

There are basically two types of super conducting materials, they are known as Type 1 and Type 2, the difference is that Type two materials become super conducting at a higher temperature so that you no longer are dependent on cooling with helium but instead can you the plentiful nitrogen. (Nitrogen is cheap while helium is expensive.)  

The reason conductors have resistance is caused by the interaction between electrons and positively charge nuclei of the atom making up the conductor; they bounce into the nuclei and that generates heat and as such loss of energy transport.
So it is logical that you need a very low temperature. 

It is also logical that in thing number 3) the material might be super conducting, but you cannot send an infinite amount of electrical current through it. There are only so many pathways the electron pairs can take and if you apply more current something has to give and that is the super conductivity... 

Thing number 2) is highly weird, anyway according to the official theory we have that electrons are magnetic dipoles and as such carry no magnetic charge. That is the official version of stuff: 

They cannot explain as why electrons only pair in two.
You never see an electron triple... 

But if electrons carry two magnetic charges, one kind of electron carries the north charge and the other kind of electron carries the south charge all of a sudden it is very logical that if the outside magnetic field is too strong the pairing of the electrons just does not set in... 


Also I would like to remark that just over three years back when I for the first time observed the outcome of the Stern-Gerlach experiment, after a few days of thinking about it I arrived at the conclusion that electrons had to be magnetic monopoles.
But you can derive the same conclusion from this reason number 45: Electron pair formation does not set in if there is a too high magnetic field around...


At last let me show you a picture from CERN where is so called 'phase space' is shown where the interaction between temperature, applied magnetic field and electrical current is shown: 


Picture source is slide number seven from: 

So if from the get go the (average) magnetic fields are just too strong, electron pair formation will never set in... 

It is as simple to understand as it is; electron pair formation does not set in.
With electrons carrying magnetic charge you can explain it while the official theory of electrons being magnetic dipoles only lead to the nonsense situation that is mainstream physics in the 21-th century. 

Till updates my dear reader and thanks for your attention. 


19 March 2017: Reason 46: BCS theory says electron pairs are bosons...

Ok, it is a very weird name for a theory but BCS is standing for the three people that more or less explained why super conductivity sets in. BCS theory stands for Bardeen–Cooper–Schrieffer theory who in 1957 proposed a possible explanation for super conductivity. 

The good thing is the Cooper part, even today we name electron pairs often Cooper pairs and for Mr. Cooper it must have been mind boggling: How can it be that electrons that after his beliefs were magnetic dipoles could form electron pairs and only those electron pairs can do the super conducting thing????? 

The bad thing about BCS theory is that you constantly read about electron pairs being like bosons, this is such a nonsense that at first I skipped it and skipped it until I realized this boson stuff is really a part of the 'official explanation'. 

But if electrons are also magnetic monopoles coming with the two magnetic charges, in that case the electron pair is magnetically neutral and will have no interference with other electron pairs. 

Bosons, unlike Fermions, do not apply to the Pauli exclusion principle. A goof example of the boson is the photon or the particle of light. You can stack any amount of photons into the tiniest of spaces, you can always add much much more photons. With Fermions you cannot do that, particles like electrons, protons and neutrons simply must have a little bit of space to exist and that is why stuff like atoms or molecules are so very large compared to nuclear size and the giant electron cloud.  

Even BCS theory itself implies the electron pair is not a boson like thing because we still have the critical currency threshold; if you put too much electrical current through a super conducting wire the super conductivity breaks down.
That simple fact proves that electron pairs are just like unpaired electrons and as such they are not bosons... 

And in a broader explanation; just look in the science of chemistry how the electron shells behave in atoms and molecules. Every thing hangs together with electron pairs but when some shell if full no more electrons are allowed, paired or unpaired.

So the boson side of BCS theory is one hundred percent bogus nonsense.
I think it is only repeated because everybody says so... 

My main explanation for electron pairs contributing to the super conductivity is given by the fact that electron pairs are magnetically neutral, especially when it comes to interaction with other electron pairs. Ok ok electron pairs will always repel because of the same electrical charge but in a metal there is always that crystal lattice structure of positive ions; hence there is not a lot of repelling to do. 

Another example as why the magnetic neutrality in my view is playing an important role is, for example, the hydrogen molecule. Here you see the binding energy between two hydrogen atoms: 


Picture source:  About hydrogen

As you see on inspection: if two hydrogen atoms with the same spin state for the electrons meet, they will never bond. They only bond into a hydrogen molecule if the electrons carry opposite magnetic charges.  


Let me give you a link and let me quote a bit of the nonsense about electron pairs following the rules of boson like particles (once more: electron pairs are not bosons but fermions, once a atomic or molecular orbital is filled no more pairs can enter that orbital): 

BCS theory 

Here is the quote:

Evidence of a band gap at the Fermi level (described as "a key piece in the puzzle")the existence of a critical temperature and critical magnetic field implied a band gap, and suggested a phase transition, but single electrons are forbidden from condensing to the same energy level by the Pauli exclusion principle. The site comments that "a drastic change in conductivity demanded a drastic change in electron behavior". Conceivably, pairs of electrons might perhaps act like bosons instead, which are bound by different condensate rules and do not have the same limitation.  

Comment: All that Fermi level stuff is something I still havd to study but one thing is clear; even the great Fermi had no clue whatsoever about what electron spin actually is. There is nothing spinning around it is just magnetic charges, one named north pole charge and the other named south pole charge... 


On one of those popular science websites named Quora I found the standard explanation of why Cooper pairs (electron pairs) form in the first place. It is a strange explanation because if an unpaired electron has electrical resistance in the first place, two electrons will only meet more resistance. Remark the crystal lattice is made of positive ions... Quote: 

Lattice ions are positively charged. Hence when a negatively charged particle like electron zips through the lattice, the lattice in that region contracts a little and the positive ions come close together in that region. An electron moves much faster than the positive lattice ions can respond so lattice response is a bit sluggish and even after the electron is gone, the positive region remains for a while and causes attraction for another electron. This is the picture behind Cooper pair formation. 

Source of the quote: Condensed Matter Physics: In the BCS theory of superconductors, why is it that the formation of Cooper pairs is most favoured when the electrons are moving in opposite directions?

And from the same source a picture that 'explains' why super conductivity emerges is the next picture that shows so called 'electron phonon scattering': 


The above explanation misses an important thing: Why are there only electron pairs observed in all super conductivity materials? If this 'electron phonon scattering' explanation has any meat on the bone, why should it stop after that passage of the second electron in all kinds of materials?  

While using the idea that electrons carry one electrical charge and two possible magnetic charges is a far better explanation of things observed in reality... 


Ok, this was reason number 46 as why electrons cannot be magnetic dipoles. 
Till updates my dear reader. 


Updated on 05 April 2017: After watching a couple of video's where you have all those professional physics people decrying stuff like 'WHY DO ELECTRONS FORM PAIRS BECAUSE THEY REPEL EACH OTHER BECAUSE OF THE SAME ELECTRICAL CHARGE THEY HAVE!!!'  

Those very people never get tired of stating that 'Quantum physics is so strange that if you think you understand it, you do not understand it'.  

But what I did forget to mention in the above reason number 46 is the during the super conducting phase of a material, the electron pairs are magnetically neutral to other electrons pairs as found in the electron shells of the ions of the super conducting metal. 
Yet they will also follow a path that is neutral for the electrical forces on them; the path will be such that the attractive forces from the positive atomic nuclei is neutralized by the repelling forces from the electron clouds surrounding those nuclei.

This evening I made a very very simple model and about 15 to 20 minutes of calculations say that those 'electrical neutral paths' even go right through the electron clouds surrounding the nuclei... 

That was a surprise to me because I expected the both magnetic and electric neutral path for an electron pair to be outside the electron shell. And if you think about that you more or less have the key to understanding super conductivity on both the low temperature scale and those modern high temperature materials known under names like cuprates and stuff:

Find the path with the least magnetic and electric forces as acted on the electron pairs.
This sounds easy but now we know that electrons also carry magnetic charge, more and more paths are available to an electron pair if you realize the magnetic force and electric force can cancel each other out.
And beside that, ha ha ha, the electron pair might loose some speed or gain some speed if there is no perfect cancellation of all forces as long as it's initial speed is high enough. 

It is a beautiful process if you try to figure out how it works; and that stupid stuff with so called 'phonons' that are only vibrations of the metal lattice where the electron pairs travel through is just nonsense. 


Back to 1911 and the guy named Heike Kamerling Onnes who discovered super conductivity for the first time as history knows it. Let's look at Mercury, it is number 80 on the list of periodic elements so it has 80 protons in it's atomic nucleus.

The stuff is frozen very cold and the mercury is in a lattice.

Suppose the official BCS theory is true; a loose or unpaired electron wanders through this lattice of mercury atoms. 

Let's say at some point in time the loose electron is surrounded by 8 mercury atoms, can this loose electron cause lattice vibrations that cause other electrons to join that loose electron?

Now 8 mercury nuclei carry 640 positive electric charges.

How much of a lattice disturbance will this give? Come on the BCS theory based on lattice disturbances is a no starter from the year 1957 on. It is nonsense, one electron can never displace 8 mercury atoms. 

Let me repeat the nonsense once more: 


Ok, now you are really at the end of the tiny tiny faults in the BCS theory of super conductivity. 

Till updates my dear reader. 



19April2017: Reason 47: The acceleration of the solar wind, Part 2.

Last year on 14 Oct 2016 we already looked at the possibility that spin half particles like electrons and protons get accelerated by the magnetic fields from the sun. For example the picture below was posted in that update.

There is only one mystery particle in this solar wind: Helium.
Helium consists of 2 protons and 2 neutrons and as such it often will be magnetic neutral.
But even if not, the strong force holding the nucleus together has absolutely no problem with dealing with a few protons or neutrons that carry the 'wrong magnetic charge'; it is not like the electron where the so called anti-bonding pair is almost double at repelling each other...

In the last line of the picture there is an important omission: 
The source of the fast solar wind is indeed (large) coronal holes but also the magnetic north and south pole of the sun.
Once more this validates that the stronger the magnetic fields, the more speed stuff has. 


Now I wasted a whole lot of evenings trying to find a good oversight of the distribution of speed of the solar wind inside our solar system but nowhere I could find a source that covers it all. Likely the solar wind is never properly mapped through our solar system, this is not strange because scientists to not understand why the solar wind accelerates.
And if you do not have a clue whatsoever, why map out the solar wind speed?
If you do not understand your stuff, you also have no hypothesis to test it against.... 


Why this update? 

I found a nice pfd where a guy named Andrew Jordan (at the time back in 2001 he was working at the university of New Hampshire). So although 16 years old I decided to post a few screen shots of an amazing but easy to understand calculation he did in order to estimate the acceleration of the solar wind right at the beginning. 

Ok ok, for these easy to understand calculations you need a few assumptions like a constant force acting on the particles (so that the acceleration is constant), such an assumption can be doubted but anyway it is just a rough estimation.

Pdf source of the screen shots: Acceleration of the solar wind;jsessionid=4230179abe86ed49135d4c204

Here we go with a few screen shots: 


Observe how easy Andrew removes the unknown acceleration time t and if you plug that into the average acceleration you get that amazing thing that is related to the difference between two kinetic energy measurements... 

Once more; this is based on an assumed constant acceleration because of the way the average acceleration is estimated, but this is more or less allowed because of the tiny distances the plasma particles have traveled.  

The crude estimated calculations say that: 


Now Andrew Jordan expresses this in G (the earth gravitational constant for measuring acceleration) and thinks that 0.5 G is not a problem. Yet at the surface of the sun the gravitational pull is something like 28 G (giving rise to a so called 'escape velocity' of about 620 km/sec) so in practice the slow and fast wind particles get accelerated by about 28.5 and 34 G. 

In my view the bulk of the acceleration is done by magnetic fields, if might very well be that the sun also has a large electrical field but as far as I know this is only studied by side-stream scientists like the weirdo's from the Thunderbolds project that think all galaxies hang together from electrical forces only... 

NASA has a relatively good fact sheet upon solar stuff, here is the link: 

Sun Fact Sheet 

From the NASA fact sheet another strong clue that spin half particles are indeed accelerated by magnetic fields is the next screen shot: 


About 3000 Gauss for sun spots looks tiny for what must be happening locally with all those arches of solar plasma coming out and falling back again into the sun, but some NASA satellite from far away can only measure the average magnetic strength over a wide area so that is all we have. 

So the polar field might look very very weak but at least it keeps on transporting the solar wind while the more strong sunspots might give rise to flares that very often bow back into the sun. You can compare this to silver ions Ag+ where one or more unpaired electrons caused all that fuss in the Stern-Gerlach experiment from 1922. 

As a comparison, the strength of the earth magnetic field is in between 0.25 and 0.65 Gauss.
Weirdly enough the polar field of the earth is of the same order of magnitude as the sun...


At the end of this update I would like to close with two screen shots from 2 video's from the Rice university because it is always funny to observe those 'professional people' wondering why the plasma in the solar system accelerates. 

From the viewpoint of social sciences it is amazing that a collection of relatively high IQ people decade in decade out never arrive at the idea it must be the magnetic fields; this is the damage done by the Gauss law of magnetism.

Here are the links to the two video's: 

Rice University Physics and Astronomy: Space Plasma Physics part 1 of 2 

Rice University Physics and Astronomy: Space Plasma Physics part 2 of 2 

From the first video the screen shot is a highly laughable question, it is at about 3 minutes and 40 seconds in the video.
The hilarious question is: 


Answer from Reinko: Just wait another 10 years and the people from ITER in France will be asking the same question when it comes to the failure of their precious fusion reactor...  

From the second video I have a screen shot of a SIMULATION, the simulation says that as the electrons zoom in on planet earth they go faster and faster. They are accelerating! 

Please DO NOT TRUST SUCH SIMULATIONS because such computer simulations might mimic the actual behavior of the plasma so those people have to get rid of the Gauss law for magnetism in a sneaky way until they have the result they simulate in the first place. 

But it is a good joke: relativistic electrons coming from the sun and all those university people year in year out they do not have a clue whatsoever... 



Also interesting to read is a hypothesis from a group of researchers who proposed back in 2013 that is was ion cyclotron waves that cause the heating of the sun's atmosphere and the different velocities of the diverse plasma particles. If I understand it correctly, ion cyclotron waves is em radiation caused by the Lorentz force on ions that make them go round and round and as such radiate em radiation. Source:

Solar Wind Energy Source Discovered

In my view this only (partially) explains the high temperature of the solar atmosphere and solar wind but not the acceleration or the lack of deceleration. After all that is said and done; that is best explained via spin half particles carrying two different magnetic charges. (But we must keep an open mind of course because at a certain plasma density it is very logical the Lorentz force starts contributing to the temperature...)


Ok, you are now at the end of reason number 47 as why electrons cannot be magnetic dipoles. 

Let's leave it with that, till updates. 


24 July 2017: Reason 48: The failure of IBM's racetrack memory.

After about 3 months it is about time to post another update in these magnetic files where we mostly compare the official version of electrons as being magnetic dipoles to my version of electrons as carrying one of two magnetic charges. 

Back in the year 2004 IBM patented a so called racetrack memory; the goal is to leave the two dimensional structure of for example spinning hard disks behind and go three dimensional with nano wires that go vertical. Just like in a city where you get all those high rise buildings; going 3D is a way of storing much much more information into a small space. 

It is now 2017 and in all those years they made zero point zero progress because they keep on holding to the idea that electrons are magnetic dipoles and as such they run into all kinds of problems that they do not understand. 

In a broader sense this is also what plagues the entire field of so called spintronics; in spintronics they try to use the spin of an electron but decade in decade out you only get the bla bla bla and never any device that works properly. 

The only thing that I know of and works properly are those tiny read & write heads into spinning hard disks, that is based on the so called Giant Magneto Resistance effect. That was a great job in making computer hard disks having much more capacity but if you study the details once more the Reinko Venema version of reality is a much better model as why it works compared to electrons being magnetic dipoles. 

More info on the GMR effect: Giant magnetoresistance 

So the entire academic field of spintronics has only one giant success: Huge capacity increases in computer hard disks but if based on electrons being magnetic dipoles it was only a lucky find.

The idea of racetrack memory is about magnetic domains moving up and down nano wires where there are magnetic domains carrying the binary information. The binary information passes a read & write head and that's it.
The electron spin is supposed to be in the direction of the nano wire.  

Here is a picture from an IBM video that explains the concept, I have chosen this IBM failure because in this kind of spintronics technology the two visions on electron clash hard and only one will prevail for future use: 

1) IBM version (and all other professional physics people) viewing electron spin as a bipolar magnet that can be represented by a vector, or
2) The Reinko Venema version that says electrons have one magnetic charge, always negative, and one of two magnetic charges known as north charge and south charge. 


According to Stuart Parkin (an IBM fellow) the magnetic domains move into the direction of the injected spin. 
This suggests there is no spin transport but only the transport of electrons that carry that particular type of spin. (I state this explicit because inside the spintronics community a lot of people think you can have movement of spin without movement of electric charge, as usual you never hear about a device working that way).  

In IBM's view where electron spin is a magnetic dipole it has to be that each blue and red part of the nano wire is a magnetic dipole on it's own. For example the relatively large blue area at the right bottom should be rather stable because all electrons have their spins aligned into the same direction. 

In my view large blue or red spots are instable by definition because you get too much magnetism of the same kind concentrated in just one tiny spot.

In the next picture you see a very very vague explanation of how the write cycle on this kind of magnetic material is supposed to work: A stream of read electrons make a red domain on the nano wire turn red... 


Please remark that turning a red domain into a blue domain in this way only validates that electrons carry two different magnetic chages. Since same charges repel, it is not much of a miracle that the red domain gets wiped out.
The only tiny little thing the IBM engineers got wrong: The red magnetic charge that was once concentrated in that tiny red domain is now pushed into the larger blue domain at the expense of blue magnetic strength and as such unreliable future readouts of that section of the nano wire... 

Source of the above two pictures: 

IBM Introduces Racetrack Memory Concept (the video is only 60 seconds long and dates back to 2008) 

Now are posting links to easy to understand video's anyway, why not post also the next video with only 919 views in six years of time, it is from ABC news and we have zero nano wire magnetic memory now in the year 2017.
Click on the picture for the video: 


Ok ok, the above video is highly simplistic so the average obese US citizen can understand it with the tiny brains they have. But at Glasgow university they also have trouble understanding any clue whatsoever about magnetic spin. 

Click on the next picture of how to not use nano wires in relation to the storage of information into the tiniest possible magnetic domains (they got the spin still up and down but the magnetic tape horizontal; just another case of university people getting money for talking nonsense). 


Title of the last video from the Glasgow university people: 
Let's talk about spin 

My simple advice to the Glasgow university people is: Why not cough up some experimental evidence that electrons are indeed magnetic dipoles before you do your talking on electron spin? 


In another video with an interview with IBM fellow Stuart Parkin I found the next even more confusing picture; there is some pink thing going back and forward and that turns a small part of the nano wire from red to blue or blue to red. 

It might be that this weird pink thing represents a coil because the professional physics people know that with the application of magnetic fields you can make tiny magnetic domains just like for example in magnetic tape. But they think that it are the electrons that all align themselves into the same direction while I think it is the displacement of electrons that makes these magnetic domains tiny macroscopic magnets. 

And, just by the way, if you look it up how they make permanent magnets, one the the methods is just applying a very strong magnetic field for a short time and you permanent magnet is ready to go. But the magnets get very warm by doing this, if it was just a case of stamping electrons into the right direction you cannot explain the heat because heat is the vibration of the ions in the metal lattice...
But if electrons get replaced, that is a kind of process that indeed makes the ions shake hard so also that small detail is much much more in favor of a model where electrons carry magnetic charge. 

Anyway, here is the link to the 8.18 minute lone video: 

Racetrack Memory with Stuart Parkin 

And here the picture with the weird pink thing, it is about 3 minutes into the video: 


But at 7.20 minutes into the video there comes a monkey out of Stuart his sleeve: 

We can manipulate the spin state of magnetic domains in the nano wire by a nano second long pulse of spin polarized current. 

Comment: So the weird pink thing is not a coil, it is indeed based on the repelling of red electrons in the nano wire by red electrons in the write device. This must be one of the places where this whole concept runs out of the rails because those red electrons will pollute the blue magnetic domains next to them...
Remark that in my view of electrons carrying one of two possible magnetic charges, in a red domain the majority of electrons is red and in a blue domain the majority is blue. So if you add just a tiny amount of red electrons to a blue domain it might swap the binary information or the blue information will be harder to read because adding red to blue weakens the blue... 

At 7.40 minutes into the video Stuart estimates that it will take 5 to 7 or 8 years before there is a kind of prototype, the interview was from 2010 and now in the year 2017 there is no prototype at all... 


How would I set up a nano wire racetrack memory system using electrons carrying only one electric charge and two possible magnetic charges? 

I would store information much more like the way CRISPR DNA is encoding the information about enemy virussus: 

CRISPR DNA is repeating DNA with small slices of the information you want to store in between. 

The repeating part on the nano wire could be 10 binary digits long like NSNSNSNSNS, after that a few magnetic domains where in the middle the actual information bit is stored. So one bit of information could look like: 


The N = North magnetic domain in the middle contains the actual information you want to story.
The repetition NSNSNSNSNS is only to align the read/write head in the correct position, in the BBNBB we have 4 magnetic domains that can handle the transport to and from the middle N magnetic domain in order this information domain needs to be swapped to a S domain. The B stands for buffer so BBNBB has 4 buffer magnetic domains.

Of course repetition size and buffer size will depend on the actual materials used, that would be a job for those solid state matter folks and not for the theoretical kind of guy I am. 

That is how I would set the stuff up instead of all those nonsense with electron magnetic moment being a vector.  


Ok, end of this reason number 48 as why electrons cannot be magnetic dipoles.  



 07 Sept 2017: Reason 49: The amazing strength of the Jupiter aurora's. 

Jupiter is much further away from the sun and as such it might be expected that the solar wind that causes the earth aurora's has lost much steam when it arrives at Jupiter. If the solar wind particles would all be magnetic dipoles, the magnetic field of Jupiter would never be able to accelerate the solar wind particles. 

It is no secret that on these magnetic pages we slowly have arrived at the conclusion that things like electrons cannot be magnetic dipoles and as such it should be capable for the magnetic field of Jupiter to accelerate the solar wind and sucking it into the magnetic north and south pole of the gas planet Jupiter. 

By the way, Jupiter has a very strong magnetic field. Here is a wiki on that detail: 
Magnetosphere of Jupiter 

Yesterday at space dot come we had the next news article: 

What's Powering Auroras on Jupiter? NASA's Juno Probe Finds Puzzling Clues 

A few quotes from the space dot com article; quote 1: 

Jupiter's auroras are hundreds of times more energetic than those on Earth and don't radiate in wavelengthsthat are visible to the human eye. But both Jupiter's and Earth's light shows are manifestations of the same fundamental phenomenon: accelerated particles colliding with atoms in the atmosphere, releasing energy in the form of light. 

Comment: Once more, if electrons were magnetic dipoles they cannot be accelerated by magnetic fields because the forces acting on the north and south pole of the electron would always cancel out (assuming of course the magnetic field is homogenous but because the electron is so small this is always assured in most magnetic fields let alone magnetic fields of the earth or Jupiter...). 

Inside astronomy (or better inside plasma physics) there is a strange theory that individual electrons get accelerated by waves in the plasma. The idea is that many small accelerations combine to giving electrons and or protons relatively large energies. Here is quote number 2:  

"The wave exchanges just a little bit of energy with the electron. And then [the electron] goes on to exchange energy with another wave. And slowly but surely the particle gains a huge amount of energy by interacting with thousands of different waves," Mauk said. "The result of that is a statistical distribution of energy. Some particles have intermediate energy, some have very high energy, so you get a broad distribution of energy. That's what we see in the energy fluxes." 

Comment: In free space most of the time the plasma is collision less, this means that the density of plasma is so low there are no significant collisions between plasma particles. In such an environment it is hard to see how plasma particles could get a serious acceleration anyway... 

From the space dot com article two pictures of the southern and northern auroras, of course the colors are changed here and there because the em-radiation falls mostly outside the human eye: 


So all in all reason number 49 serves as a strong clue that solar wind particles actually get accelerated by the strong magnetic field of the gas giant Jupiter. 

Till updates my dear reader. 

Updated on 14 Sept 2017: After reading a bit more on the subject of the Jupiter aurora's (they are named Jovian aurora's) I completely missed the fact that the strongest aurora's on Jupiter created by another process than on earth. Here on earth scientists think there is an electrical field parallel to the earth magnetic field that causes the electrons going down into the earth atmosphere and there interact with the air molecules. But on Jupiter the electrons have so much energy that the interactions with the air molecules is not in the visible light but it is uv radiation.
Furthermore it is expected the solar wind is not very fast so far out in the solar system, so the official theory says 'we do not know how this is possible'.

There is absolutely no reason to panic because if my insights into electrons and protons being magnetic monopoles where the force on the electrons generated by magnetic fields is 1830 times as strong as on protons, during the evolution of the solar system it is expected the sun has a giant positive electric potential while all planets with a magnetosphere are highly negatively charged. 

It is well known that Jupiter acts as a giant vacuum cleaner when it comes to comets and stuff like that; the gravitational pull cleans up the solar system and that gave life on earth the possibility to flourish. But may be Jupiter is also a large cleaner of the solar wind... 

If it is true that electrons are far more attracted to magnetic fields, in that case the remains of the solar wind behind Jupiter should contain much less electrons. Of course Jupiter cannot build up limitless amounts of electrons because they have only one electrical charge and if the planet as a whole becomes to negatively charged the electrons think about getting away from Jupiter... 

And, by the way, the news reports indicate electrons having energy levels of up to 400 thousand eV suggesting Jupiter has an electric potential of 400,000 Volts if the energy of the electrons was only from electrical fields....

By the way, the earth has a surplus of electrons just as you might expect if electrons carry magnetic charge. 
It goes under the bewildering name of fair weather electric field:

Natural electric field of the Earth  

Here are a few more links that contain not very much information but anyway, from 10 Sept: 

Enigma of Jupiter’s powerful auroras 

What drives Jupiter’s brightest auroras? 

In order to show to you that present day physics have absolutely no idea that magnetic fields can accelerate electrons let me quote you the next text:

Observations of auroral precipitation characteristics (and the resulting ionospheric ionization profiles) have shown that, within discrete auroras, field-aligned acceleration of the precipitating electrons plays an important role (inverted-V electron precipitation). It seems likely that upward directed electric fields are formed to create this effect (e.g., Weimer and Gurnett, 1993), although different wave-related schemes have also been suggested (e.g., Bryant et al., 1991).  

Comment: Here you see a lovely example of how our limited human brain works because 'It seems likely that upward directed electric fields are formed to create this effect'. But it is well known that electrical fields are caused by separation of electrical charges, only when a body of mass has a surplus or deficit of electrons it creates an electrical field... 

Source of the quote: Field-aligned potential drops

And the last link but not the least one is from Nature:

Discrete and broadband electron acceleration in Jupiter’s powerful aurora  

Ok, let me bring this reason number 49 as why electrons cannot be magnetic dipoles to an end now I have more or less corrected the giant speed I composed the first part of it: it was only 20 minutes of labor to produce the above reason nr 49 from 07 Sept 2017 but oh oh Reinko how can you make a serious update in just 20 minutes upon stuff that has needed billions of years to evolve like solar wind and the reaction of a giant gas planet like Jupiter on that.....

End of this update to reason nr 49 as why electrons cannot be magnetic dipoles. 


14Oct2017: Reason 50: A calculation on electron acceleration by a magnetic field.  

On the other website as part of a larger post I tried to calculate how strong the gradient of a non-uniform magnetic field should be in order to accelerate the electron with a = 1m/s^2. I used the classical result where the resulting force on an electron equals the magnetic moment times the gradient of the magnetic field. 

The results are staggering: If the electron diameter is of the order of 10 to the minus 15 meters, you easily need a gradient of 5 to 10 million Tesla per meter in order to accelerate the electron with only about 10% of the earth gravity. 

Of course if you would confront professional physics people by that, their criticism will be as shallow as their thinking. They will remark that you cannot use a classical result like the net force on a bar magnet because in the quantum realm 'everything is different'. 

In my view bipolar magnetism (as described by Gauss's law of no magnetic monopoles) is typical a property of macroscopic things. And at the beginning of the previous century without much thinking people simply assumed this also to be true for particles like electrons and protons. The smallest scale possible where magnetic dipole is observed is the electron pair, this is not a macroscopic thing but most of the time bipolar magnetism is related to relatively large things.

Of course it is no problema at all when the same pro's explain the result of the Stern-Gerlach experiment because of the net force electrons feel in a non-uniform magnetic field. But they never give you an actual calculation because it is every body's guess what the electron size actually is. Here is a picture of the blah blah blah these people do, it is from a video that will link at the end of this update:

And when you do not view the electron as a particle but a wave function, talking about 'size' or a diameter or a radius becomes much more confusing; what is the radius of a wave function?


There are a few results out there on the size of the electron, let us look at a few of them: 

1) The Classical electron radius is about 2.82 times 10 to the -15 meter. Therefore I used a difference of 10 to the -14 meter in my calculation for the distance between the north and south pole of the electron; this distance gave the 5 to 10 million Tesla per meter as needed gradient for the inhomogeneous magnetic field.  

2) Collision experiments suggest the radius of the electron should be less then 10 to the -18 meter. So that is over one thousand times as small as the classical electron radius and because it is an experimental result, for me this is the most reliable one.  

3) The Dirac equation says in the order of 10 to the -13 meter but there is a tiny problem here: that is after 'renormalization'. When professional physics folks get a infinity in their calculations they do not say we are on the false track but they replace this infinity by some finite number...
For example if in the calculation something like 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + ..... shows up they replace it by -1/12.
So one thing is clear: We can safely throw the result based on the Dirac equation into the garbage bin.  

4) String theory says the electron radius should be about the Planck length...
That would be about 10 to the power -35.
No comment because no insight of that whole system of string theory has ever been validated by experimental results. 


I cannot say enough that you should not be fixated on the actual outcome of the calculation that says many millions of Tesla gradient needed, given the fact the electron size is simply unknown it is important to understand that this story of electrons being a magnetic dipole is in fact not possible.
With only very weak magnetic fields you already get an acceleration, see for example how the solar wind reacts on the earth magnetic field, often this is viewed as only deflection of the solar wind by magnetic fields but I view these kind of pictures as proof that electrons with already an initial speed get accelerated and therefore miss the earth: 


At last it is about high time to show you that very easy calculation where I use the distance between the magnetic north and south pole of the electron to be 10 to the power -14 meter: 




Actually the above calculation still contains an error; I was forgotten to multiply the electron magnetic moment by the spin value of 1/2. If you take that into account the applied magnetic field should even have a gradient that is twice as strong. 

If you would use the electron size as based on the results of collision experiments the electron size must be below 10 to the power -18 and if electrons were really magnetic dipoles you would need a ten thousand times bigger gradient in the applied magnetic field...

Let me skip the nonsense from string theory that says electrons should have the size of the Planck length because now you would get gradients that are just as crazy as string theory is. 

And at the end of this update a link to a 31 minute video of a guy named Brant Carlson who is very good at blah blah blah when it comes to the acceleration of electrons; you just sketch a picture (see above) do some blah blah blah about non-uniform magnetic fields and expect the audience to be swooped by how smart you are... 

Spin 1/2 in a B-field

In case you are thinking that only retarded people think that 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + ... = -1/12, in April 2016 I wrote a piece to counteract that kind of 'renormalization' as done by professional physics professors:

Debunking the Euler evaluation of zeta at minus one

Ok, let's leave it with that, in reason number 51 rather likely we will look at Jupiter and her aurora's because it seems the electrons come from outer space but also up from Jupiter and voila there even seems to be electron turbulence (just like in the nuclear fusion reactors by the way).  

So till updates! 


17 Dec 2017: Reason 51: Spin properties of the positron. 

This is more a future experiment; when an electron-positron pair is created, for example at the LHC at CERN, it is always told that it must be needed that the electrical charge of the positron is positive because of the conservation of charge. 

I still haven't figured out if magnetic charge also obeys a conservation law, a lot of things point into that direction but repeated Stern-Gerlach experiments where magnetic spin is measured in other directions say that spin up / spin down is 50 / 50.  

But if in the creation of the electron-positron pair there are always opposite electrical charges, why should that not hold for the magnetic charges of the electron & positron?

From this wiki I got the positron properties as shown in the picture below:



It is amazing how fast the discovery of the positron was done; it was there within four years...

Now I am talking about electrons having magnetic charge for about the same time, I don't recall it exactly when I found it out but it must be about four years ago.

Until now I am unaware of only one person at a university taking it up anyway, there is nothing happening over there.   

But let me not complain of how I am treated by those university people, they are scum anyway so why waste time and emotion on those non-performers??? 


The interesting observation here is that since every electron has one of two magnetic charges, the same charges are also found on the positrons. In that sense electrons and positrons are partially their own anti particle...

It is for sure a pity I do not have access to experimental setups like the large hadron collider but I more or less expect the next: Every creation of the electron/positron pair always has opposite charges, whether it is electric charge or magnetic charge...

What also is of interest: Of all created electrons, has about 50% of them the north charge and thus also about 50% has the south charge? (The same will go for the positrons of course). Or has nature some asymmetry preference in this detail?


For those who think electron spin is actually based on the spinning of the electron itself:
For the electron and positron to have opposite magnetic spins (as a vector I mean) they must be rotating in the same direction, but that would be a violation of the conservation of angular momentum. 

Ok, let me end this highly speculative update with reason number 51 as why electrons cannot be magnetic dipoles.
It will take many years of waiting for experimental evidence, I really hope I am still alive when these experiments are done and that the results are hopefully as expected (always opposite charge for both the electric and magnetic charge).

Till updates. 


19 Dec 2017: Reason 52: Jupiter aurora's without the electrical field acceleration.

The Jupiter probe Juno has observed huge aurora's (the biggest in the entire solar system) but they are without the accompany of electrical fields parallel to the magnetic field like here on earth. 

Because these pages should also be funny to read I often portray the professional physics professors as one hundred percent retarded people like for example donald trump voters (I voted for donald trump and now my health care insurance is gone, my wife is deported to Mexico and likely my taxes will not go lower). 

But we must also give some credit to the professional professors because they invented the electrical potential and as such the energy unit called the electron Volt or eV.  

In the next picture you can see by how much an electron gets accelerated if it's initial velocity was zero: 


Yes only one Volt potential difference, in a vacuum of course, makes one electron go about 600 kilometer per second. And one Volt is just a tiny electrical potential... 

This huge acceleration must be one of the reasons that the ppp held on for so long to the magnetic law of Gauss that just does not apply for elementary particles that carry magnetic charge like the electron does. 


Now for the Jupiter aurora's, here is a nice Youtubber with a very enthusiastic female host named Caitlin Hofmeister.
This website is so ancient it is difficult to embed Youtube video's but if you click on the picture you should get a new page where Caitlin tells it all:



Of course the electrons are not 'pulled up' pulled up from Jupiter but they are expelled because at that particular pole, let it be north or south, there will always be electrons that get repelled. 

Apparently the magnetic field of the planet Jupiter is strong enough to do this, my estimation is that the Jupiter aurora's are mainly driven by the magnetic fields over there because, ha ha ha, that is where they are. Just like on earth by the way; only at the magnetic north and south pole we have 'electric fields parallel to the magnetic field' that cause the most hefty aurora's on earth....  

Really true, electrical fields just hate the equator and stuff like that...  


Nearing the end of this small post, let me give you a NASA file upon this stuff.
This file is from 06 September this year: 

Jupiter’s Auroras Present a Powerful Mystery 

The quote of interest is: 

Jupiter has the most powerful auroras in the solar system, so the team was not surprised that electric potentials play a role in their generation. What’s puzzling the researchers, Mauk said, is that despite the magnitudes of these potentials at Jupiter, they are observed only sometimes and are not the source of the most intense auroras, as they are at Earth.

“At Jupiter, the brightest auroras are caused by some kind of turbulent acceleration process that we do not understand very well. 

Comment: Since I am talking about four years of electrons getting accelerated by magnetic fields my estimation of NASA 'not understanding things' is in the order of about 4 centuries. 

After all the professional physics professors will keep on worshipping the Gauss law for magnetism on the level of individual electrons. If electrons do not behave at all like the Gauss law for magnetism, the physics professors do not blink their eyes, do not ask questions, do not think but only expose their religious belief in the Gauss law for magnetism. 

End of this reason number 52 as why electrons cannot be magnetic dipoles.