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
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.
11 Jan 2019:
Reason 68 Elevator pitch for electron magnetic monopolism.
An elevator pitch is a very short thing, for as long as the elevator is going up you are allowed to explain as why rich people should invest in your internet startup. The phrase 'elevator pitch' dates back to just before the turn of the millennium when the internet was released on humanity and stock markets went crazy far and deep.
May be a sudden endless supply of free porn was not a good thing... ;)
Ok, but I am starting to ride beside the rails because this page is not a discussion or a study of free internet porn on the behavior of entire societies. No no, we only check year in year out if electrons can be magnetic dipoles yes or no.
Official physics theory says even electrons are magnetic dipoles, see for example the Gauss law on magnetism. But a cute blanket of math from Herr Gauss is of course not the same as experimental results that can be repeated. As far as I know there is no physics experiment that 'proofs' or validates that electrons are magnetic dipoles.
After all, if electrons are magnetic dipoles they are magnetically neutral and as such are not influenced very much by magnetic fields. Just like non-ion molecules or atoms are not very much moved by electrical fields.
My 20 second long elevator pitch goes as next:
If a chemical element has only
electron pairs, it is always dia magnetic.
End of the elevator pitch, at present time this is the shortest way I could think of explaining there is something wrong with the current understanding of electrons always be magnetic dipoles.
14 Jan 2019:
Reason 69: At least he shows the Lorenz force.
From the Youtube channel Brainiac75 there is a nice video about the dislocation (repelling) of a candle flame by those strong permanent magnets. It is actually a very nice video although on details I would formulate it a bit different. For example the burning flame is indeed a plasma but I don't think it is 100% ionized in the sense the atomic nuclei still have electrons bound. So I would not name it a plasma.
But anyway, the video guy also has giant magnets and about 4 minutes into the video he even tries them out on an old television set. It is a pity he is doing it from the side, likely he wants to maximize the Lorentz force that is perpendicular to both the magnetic field and the direction of the electrons.
If he would have put that giant magnet before the screen he should have a very different picture: Also in the center there should still land electrons on the television screen.
The next picture if from 4:26
minutes into the video. Title of the video: Monster magnet meets flames...
The brainiac 75 guy holds the giant magnet at the side of the electron stream inside the old television. That maximizes the Lorenz force. (The Lorentz force is in the direction of the outer product of the electron stream and the applied magnetic field, so the Lorenz force is always perpendicular to the electron stream and the applied magnetic field.).
Without doubt the brainac guy also has hold hid giant permanent magnet in from of the television screen, but since what you see is rather hard to explain this away with the Lorenz force and as such the human brain simply ignores it... Anyway that is what happens in most people I think: you just ignore the stuff you don't understand until you have to change course.
So I tried to make a bit more photo's myself because I still have those magnetron magnets and they are ring shaped. And indeed with the camera mounted on an old tripod I was able to make the next photograph:
Click on the picture for a larger version. I changed nothing in the photo. As you see on inspection: the middle spot is very bright indicating a lot of electrons are landing there.
Of course it is hard to draw definitive conclusions from just one photo, after all you can still have Lorenz force fantasies by this but the general view that electrons are just always deflected by magnetic fields is simply not true.
In that case we would not observe the dark ring where no electrons land.
In my view, as stated clearly for the new year, is that electrons carry magnetic charge and as such are magnetic monopoles and not magnetic dipoles. That is what I had to say for this simple update in the magnetic pages.
Feb 2019: Reason 70: Comparison with ions in an electric field.
This page is a bit going to the backburner because, like said before, after over 66 of these 'reasons' it is not longer a matter of cognitive brain functioning but only emotional stuff. And if people want the electron to be a magnetic dipole because of emotional reasons, let it be...
Suppose back in the time a few
years after it was discovered that ions existed and that they had
So the same experimental setup but now with ions instead of uncharged atoms and a vertical electric field instead of a magnetic field.
And the scientists from a previous era where it was just discovered that ions had 'electric properties' found out the ions landed mostly on two spots. And they concluded:
This proves that all ions are electric dipoles with a + and a - side. And the electric dipole is either aligned with the applied electric field or it is anti aligned.
Back to the present time: We now know elementary particles are never electric dipoles, ok ok molecules can have some electric dipole but that is always related to the position of the electrons in some spatial configuration.
At present day we would say the spots on the screen are explained by the amount of electric charge the ions carry, ok the ion mass is also important but you get the point.
Now for myself speaking:
Looking at explanations like the SG experiment is very funny because all
of a sudden those physics professors no longer say 'Electrons can only
move along the magnetic field lines'.
You only get a bunch of weird math, ok ok those Pauli & Dirac matrices are funny from the math point of view. But if electrons carry magnetic charge, it might not be the best of math models to use in the first place.
I want to keep this update short so let our attention go to the video that was the source file of the above picture. It is a relatively good video more or less explaining what the official version of spin is. The video is not carefully thought through because in the original SG experiment they used silver vapor and that is of course highly ionized while solid silver at room temperature is not very magnetic.
Here is that famous picture once more, if you click on is you can view the video from the viascience guy:
Youtube: Quantum Mechanics 8a - Spin I
Ok, that was it. Till updates.
March 2019: Reason 71: Rabi freq = 0.5*Lamor freq in this experimental
In a nice video about quantum computation I finally found the perfect explanation for the Rabi frequency stuff. Almost all Rabi frequency explanations talk about some rotating magnetic field and if you read those explanations it is only confusing. Before turning to the video let me describe the experimental setup that often serves as a theoretical model of how spin resonance works. At present day spin resonance also has important medical applications like in those NMR machines. The video is about electron spin while those NMR machines more or less map out all those lonely hydrogen atoms that are bound to carbon and stuff in the organic molecules that make up your body.
A relatively good wiki on
relaxation times is the next: Relaxation(NMR).
This experimental setup is easy to understand: According to the standard model the electron is a magnetic dipole and as such in can point into any direction. The applied magnetic fields push the spins into alignment or anti-alignment with those magnetic fields. An important feature is that electrons are not accelerated by magnetic fields, the observed radiation caused by the application of the magnetic field(s) that gives rise to that precession.
My view is a tiny bit different: Each electron carries one of the two possible magnetic charges, as such they can be accelerated by magnetic fields and this acceleration is the root cause of the observed em-radiation.
Ok, after having said that the Lamor frequency is understood by me as acceleration of bounded electrons in condensed matter that start to resonate because they are bounded. Magnetic resonance only occurs in bounded stuff like condensed matter, in an electron cloud or ultra heat plasma you should never find those resonance frequencies...
Let us turn to the video: The video is about crafting a quantum computer and may be you skip that because often proposed possible quantum computer basics like the qbits they need are electrons that are in a super-position of having spin up or down. I don't think that is possible, that does not mean I can prove electrons cannot change their magnetic spin status. I only think that each and every electron cannot have a superposition of magnetic charges because the same goes for the electrical charge of the electron.
So may be neglect the quantum computing details a bit, in case you want to understand the present explanations of the Rabi frequency (caused by the variable magnetic field perpendicular to the steady field), after about 13 minutes you get the perfect explanation of those virtual rotating magnetic fields.
Here is a link to the video:
16 2 SPIN RESONANCE
A bit confusing might be the use of ac and a dc magnetic field, usually acdc is reserved for electrical currents but ok in this video an ac field is an alternating magnetic field... I placed the relevant stuff in two small Latex inserts into the screen shot with the hand writing from the video. If you want you can click on the picture for a larger version that is more readable:
The key idea from the video is: The alternating magnetic field, let's for simplicity say it goes into the x-direction, is viewed as a superposition of two rotating magnetic fields. Ok, I can go along with that because simple math says e^(it) + e^(-it) equals a cosine thing. So far for the official explanation.
What is the explanation if you view the electrons as having both an electric charge and a magnetic charge?
Answer: The alternating magnetic field B_1 can only accelerate the electron via it's magnetic charge. The Lamor frequency related to the constant magnetic field B_0 is made up of photons that are created by accelerating electrons that produce photons with a magnetic and electric part.
The frequency of the alternating magnetic field can only interact with the electrons via the magnetic charge of the electrons, so the applied force on the electrons is only one half because there is no interaction with the electric charge of the electron.
Assuming the electrons can swing freely as caused by the alternating magnetic field, they will spit out photons with half of the frequency that the applied magnetic field has.
To put it simple: The work done by the alternating magnetic field per electron is half of the energy from the Lamor photons.
That is what I had to say on this perfect explanation of where those weird rotating magnetic fields come from when you try to read explanations for what Rabi frequency is.
I hope my own explanation is a little bit better to understand.
Let me leave it with that.
April 2019: Reason 72: The spherical electron and formation of the
In an old video from the year 2011 professor Ed Copeland explains there is experimental validation for the electrons having a very very spherical shape. It is only the electrical charge of the electron but anyway.
From electron pairs common knowledge (or the standard model) it says electrons are magnetic dipoles while electron pairs can only form when they have opposite spins.
From the macroscopic world (our daily experience) we know that bar magnets can click together in an anti-alignment manner if they are long enough. You simply put the two sides against each other in the anti-alignment fashion.
From the macroscopic world we know that if we tried we could buy spherical magnets online. I have not done that but if you put two spherical magnets close to one another, could they click in an anti-alignment manner?
Of course not, on the contrary you can easily form long chains of them. Just buy them online and try for yourself...
That leaves us with a very simple question:
Can the electron pair form in an anti-alignment manner while the electrical charge is as spherical as could be?
Here is the old video, click on the picture or the link below where the electron spherical electric charge is explained by professor Ed Copeland:
Or click: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYZhNBYYmLk (Spherical Electron - Sixty Symbols)
Ok that was it for this month of April:
If you want you can think a bit about two spherical electrons and if they are magnetic dipoles, why is the electron pair anti-aligned when it comes to magnetism? Or think about electrons having one of two possible magnetic charges.
You can also think about more important problems. Problems like why are there almost no females with a perfect ass? You must of course never forget about your priorities in problem solving: Is it asses before electrons or electrons before ass problems?
Ok, let me leave it with that. (Updated on 07 April).
Addendum (the update); If that electrical charge distribution is so spherical, why do we only observe electron pairs?
You never hear physics people bragging about cubic electron structures inside a Penning trap.
(Added 24 April:) I found another short video on the spherical electrical charge properties of the electron;
electron is still round. And the universe is still safe.
The electron is still very round (anyway the electrical charge is). But again: spherical magnets just don't anti align as electron spin in electron pairs does. The roundness of the electrical charge serves as one more reason (nr 72 to be precise) that electrons cannot be magnetic dipoles.
On the other website, on 11 April I posted some thoughts and simple calculations about a supersized electron. Say an electron of one cubic centimeter. If you use a diameter of the spherical electron of 10 to the -16 meter, the supersized electron has about the same mass as 1.7 cubic kilometer of water... The 11 April post is a continuation of Reason nr 50 about the impossibility that electrons can be accelerated by inhomogeneous magnetic fields. This magical acceleration cannot be explained by tiny differences in magnetic field strength like the standard line of reasoning is.
On the other website, 3dcomplexnumbers.net:
On this website reason nr 50:
Ok, let me close this reason 72. Till updates.
May 2019: Reason 73: In his own words; S. Goudsmit on the discovery
of electron spin.
A few weeks back I found a beautiful translation of a speech by Samuel Goudsmit dating back to 1971. Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck are known because they at one point in time proposed the idea that electrons have 'intrinsic spin'. It is an amazing piece of writing, I have read it 3 times by now and I still fall from one amazement into the other.
For a few years already I have been wondering how this strange sudden and fast acceptation of the Goudsmit & Uhlenbeck did occur, after all it is no secret that I think electrons carry magnetic charge and are not magnetic dipoles. And I always thought those guys had for some strange reason some kind of 'lucky shot'. And the translation of the speech indeed says so but the Goudsmit & Uhlenbeck also have some beef done. They came up with the +1/2 and -1/2, let me put in a small screen shot honoring the way those quantum numbers are still done today:
Ok, here is a link to that nice historical detail:
The discovery of the electron spin
Let me keep this update short and only post a few hilarious quotes from the translation of the lovely speech. All text quoted is in a blue font color. Just a random selection:
When the day came I had to tell Uhlenbeck about the Pauli principle - of course using my own quantum numbers - then he said to me: "But don't you see what this implies? It means that there is a fourth degree of freedom for the electron. It means that the electron has a spin, that it rotates".
But later we read:
We had just written a short article in German and given to Ehrenfest, who wanted to send it to "Naturwissenschaften". Now it is being told that Uhlenbeck got frightened, went to Ehrenfest and said: "Don't send it off, because it probably is wrong; it is impossible, one cannot have an electron that rotates at such high speed and has the right moment". And Ehrenfest replied: "It is too late, I have sent it off already".
Comment: And the rest is history.
By sheer coincidence on the other website we have this from 01 May of the year 2019:
A classic: Imitation of the Pauli calculation given the results of the
Before I close this reason number 73 as why electrons cannot be magnetic dipoles, let us take a deeper look at the beef that Goudsmit & Uhlenbeck found with that electron spin number m_s. If you look at present day use of the so called quantum numbers you find always that the value of m_s always runs from minus s to plus s. Here is a screenshot and a wiki link to focus the mind a little bit:
Link (it is a bit of vague
wiki but that is all present day quantum mechanic knowledge):
How does a 'spin projection quantum number' makes sense when it comes to electrons having a magnetic charge instead of the usual blah blah of the electron being a magnetic dipole? Very simple:
If an atom has 2s unpaired
electrons, if all magnetic charges are south pole style you get the -s for
Once more: show me just one f*cking detail where the idea of magnetic charge fails and I will instantly stop thinking about that...
Ok, let me leave it with that. Till next update my dear reader.
June 2019: Reason 74: A simple experiment & magnetic domain
It is an amazing feature that when you have a relatively small metal strip (say iron or so it has to be ferromagnetic so to say), you can put two permanent magnets on each side in the repelling mode. So when normally on this relatively short distance from each other, the magnets still are attracted to the thin iron rod and that overcomes the repelling force of the other permanent magnet on the other side.
I have six neodymium magnets and I put them pole against pole on the metal part of an axe. After that I slide them both to the thinner part until the horizontal configuration becomes unstable. (It does not fall apart, one of the triple of magnets slide back to a lower position. This is about as high as it can get on my simple experimental setup:
To get a vague idea of the strength of the magnets; if I place them all serial I can lift an iron halter of five kilogram with it.
In the previous year 2018 in February I finally found what magnetic domains are if my view on magnetism is correct: The domain walls have surpluses of electron pairs while the magnetic domains themselves have surpluses of unpaired electrons. Furthermore, adjacent domains will always have surpluses of opposite magnetic charge. So domain walls separate the magnetic charge, it is an active dynamical process.
I found this very important result when studying how IBM tried to make so called racetrack memory, the idea was to 'race' magnetic domains through nano wires and that could serve as some form of computer memory: fast and low in energy. It failed because the IBM engineers kept on believing that electrons are magnetic dipoles and as such did not understand what they did wrong...
But the IBM failure made me
realize the 'structure' of magnetic domains, the IBM folks told that
domain walls cannot be moved by magnetic fields (anyway not in a nano wire
they used) and in my head the same day the quarter fell:
The difference with the accepted version of magnetic domains is simple: The official version of magnetic domains says that they, just like the electrons, are magnetic dipoles. In my simple to understand theory where magnetism comes in magnetic charges, the domains have surpluses of such magnetic charges.
Because this should be experimentally verifiable, after all magnetic domains can be relatively large so it is not as difficult as trying to find out via experiment that the electron has a magnetic charge. For example there is still plenty of magnetic tape in use for data storage, if you can create a relatively large magnetic domain and from all sides a tiny magnet always points with the north or south pole to that magnetic domain, in that case there would be experimental evidence that magnetic domains have net magnetic charge.
If a magnetic medium like a thin piece of iron or commercial magnetic tape has magnetic domains, it should look more or less like this: Alternating +1/2 and -1/2 domains.
If true, this brings also a lot of topology around: If you apply an external magnetic field you will get all kinds of deformation of a particular magnetic domain configuration: some electrons will get attracted by the applied external magnetic field, the others get rejected by the magnetic field. I consider these as 'topological transformations' because the electron transport that comes with the applied external magnetic field changes the picture 'electron by electron'.
In normal magnetic materials (I mean not flat but just 3D condensed matter) the magnetic domains will also be 3D and not flat but we still will have that principle that the domain walls separate two adjacent domains.
If true, this idea also explain super conductivity: If you cool the magnetic material further and further the magnetic domains should grow in size and when cool enough all disappear. Most unpaired electrons are now paired and the conditions for super conductivity are there...
Let me leave it with that.
So that is the update for this month: Thinking about magnetic domains & the dynamics that might drive it all. It is for sure a pity I cannot make experimental proof for myself. Ok, that was it. See you in the next month of July.