Rationale and importance of physical rotation for quantum particles
v. 5 n. 19
That quantum objects might or might not actually rotate is a decades old question, and supposedly put to rest by noting, for one, that assuming a size of the classical electron radius (r=ke^2/mc^2), the electron "surface" would have to be rotating at some ten times the speed of light to explain certain observations. [1]
Further, according to experiment the electron has no internal structure and behaves like a mathematical point as far as experiment is concerned so far. How can a point, an entity with no extent, rotate?
Therefore, it is assumed in quantum mechanics that electrons do not actually rotate. However, since electrons have a magnetic moment and respond to magnetic fields in a certain manner, they must somehow have "intrinsic angular momentum" that somehow induces a magnetic field from its intrinsic electric charge.
Instead of a physical rationale for magnetism, apparent lack of rotation is defined in quantum mechanics as "spin." And therefore the weight, connotation, of this word "spin" is said to induce the observed magnetism, along with the manner in which the wave aspect of the electron fits around an atomic orbit in terms of (1/2)? regarding the electron. And that's that. As long as calculations are possible, the matter is settled. But the matter is not settled, because other questions are raised. There is then no physical rationale for the existence of magnetism, nor for the absence of magnetic monopoles.
Magnetism is not an independent property in physics; it is the wishful thinking of equanimity between electricity and magnetism (electromagnetism). Magnetism is dependent on the unit charge and electric field, which must change, i.e., rotate, for magnetism to be induced from the electric field; magnetic monopoles are not observed and hypothetical, not physical as are electric monopoles (the unit charge). Only the electric monopole is physical and independent. Magnetism is the relativistic contraction and/or expansion of the electric field; there is no "magnetism" nor "magnetic field" per se apart from the electric field, but there is an electric field apart from a "magnetic field." [2][3][4]
Magnetism is the relativistic contraction and/or expansion of the electric field.
In addition, point particles, i.e., electrons and quarks, have been described as gravitational sinks instead of sources, which is falsifiable, by noting whether or not new particles have gravitational fields that move outward at finite speed or are immediately connected to the ambient gravitational field. [5]
If an electron, for instance, is a sink instead of source, its mass is everywhere except where anticipated. The mass is in its field, which extends to infinity from particle inception. The "point particle" is instead a point absence of the ambient gravitational field. This field is spacetime itself. [6] The center of mass axis drawn through this point absence is the center of mass of the electron that extends to infinity. How fast must such an entity rotate to generate the indicated magnetic moment of the electron? Certainly not at ten times the speed of light as featured decades ago, after assuming the electron has a surface, and that surface has size according to the likes of the classical electron radius, contradicting experimental evidence. At any rate, it is the field about the point that rotates given a gravitational sink, not the point absence, as a whirlwind rotates about the absent eye.
The "eye of the storm" is calm, non-existent with reference to its active surroundings, flitting here-and-there, not present until "grounded" -- until "measured," suggesting an explanation of the quantum measurement problem. "Measurement" or "collapse of the wave function," then, is just the momentary location of a massless absence; after the measurement, the "eye of the electron" is elsewhere, even if the wavefunction is no longer present, has "collapsed."
领英推荐
The electron in its entirety is physical, but its wavefunction is not.
This is not to downplay the wavefunction for practical calculation purposes, rather to suggest quantum particles may indeed physically rotate and provide explanations where none existed without this proposed physical rotating condition of quantum particles. [7]
[6] A. Einstein, Relativity, Crown, New York, 1961, p. 155
Image: composite of https://www.svgrepo.com/svg/335815/whirlwind plus Linkedin designer
Image caption: Representation of a proposed electron with no center, yet present to infinity from its inception, so that "non-locality" is a misnomer here.
How can a point with no volume spin in any conventional sense?