Quantum mechanics is the theoretical framework that describes physical phenomena on the microscopic scale. In particular, it is used in those situations in which Planck's constant h , approximately equal to 6.62 × 10 -34 Js, cannot be assumed to be negligible, despite its apparently tiny magnitude. Macroscopic phenomena, on the other hand, involve magnitudes that are so large that h can be set equal to zero without appreciable error. As an illustration of this in the macroscopic context, consider the following example: a ladybug ( Hippodamia convergens ) of mass 1 g moves radially at a speed of 0.01 ms -1 on a turntable rotating at 10 rpm. In the rotating frame of reference, the ladybug has a kinetic energy of about an erg, and, in the laboratory frame, its angular momentum is roughly 10 -5 Js when it is at a distance of 0.1 m from the center of the rotating turntable. The latter angular momentum is of the order of 10 28 h . Thus, relative to this value, h is well approximated by zero and, indeed, only classical mechanics is needed to describe the ladybug's motion. In contrast to the preceding example, an electron in the “2p” level of hydrogen has an energy of about 10 -25 J and an angular momentum whose magnitude is approximately h /(2π) = ħ (pronounced “h-bar”). Here, h cannot be ignored and only a quantum description can accurately account for the properties of this system.
Quantum mechanics is the theoretical framework that describes physical phenomena on the microscopic scale. In particular, it is used in those situations in which Planck's constant h , approximately equal to 6.62 × 10 -34 Js, cannot be assumed to be negligible, despite its apparently tiny magnitude. Macroscopic phenomena, on the other hand, involve magnitudes that are so large that h can be set equal to zero without appreciable error. As an illustration of this in the macroscopic context, consider the following example: a ladybug ( Hippodamia convergens ) of mass 1 g moves radially at a speed of 0.01 ms -1 on a turntable rotating at 10 rpm. In the rotating frame of reference, the ladybug has a kinetic energy of about an erg, and, in the laboratory frame, its angular momentum is roughly 10 -5 Js when it is at a distance of 0.1 m from the center of the rotating turntable. The latter angular momentum is of the order of 10 28 h . Thus, relative to this value, h is well approximated by zero and, indeed, only classical mechanics is needed to describe the ladybug's motion. In contrast to the preceding example, an electron in the “2p” level of hydrogen has an energy of about 10 -25 J and an angular momentum whose magnitude is approximately h /(2π) = ħ (pronounced “h-bar”). Here, h cannot be ignored and only a quantum description can accurately account for the properties of this system.
Elementary particles are found in two different situations: (i) bound to metastable states of matter, for which angular momentum is quantized, and (ii) free, for which, due to their high energy-momentum and leaving aside inner a.m. or spin, the h-quantization step is completely harmless. Perhaps Quantum Mechanics can be seen just as the simplest mathematical formalism where angular momentum (the magnitude of each of its three orthogonal projections) is by construction quantized: all possible values are taken from a discrete set. Indeed: (i) This idea finds support in very reasonable, completely classical physical arguments, if we place ourselves in the framework of Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED): there, all sustained periodic movement of a charge must satisfy a power balance that restricts the value of the average angular momentum, on each of its projections. (ii) It gives a natural explanation of the concept of "photon", as a constraint on the observable spectrum of energy-momentum exchanges between metastable physical states, in particular also for its discreteness. QM would be, in this picture, a semi-static theory, transparent to all the (micro)-dynamics taking place between apparently "discrete" events (transitions in the state of the system). For instance, (the magnitude of the projections of) quantum angular momentum would only reflect average values over a (classical) cyclic trajectory, a fact that we regard as almost obvious given the particularity of the corresponding addition rules in QM.
Since its very beginning, quantum mechanics has been developed to deal with systems on the atomic or sub-atomic scale. For many decades, there has been no reason to think about its application to macroscopic systems. Actually, macroscopic objects have even been used to show how bizarre quantum effects would appear if quantum mechanics were applied beyond its original realm. This is, for example, the essence of the so-called Schrödinger cat paradox (Schrödinger, 1935). How-ever, due to recent advances in the design of systems on the meso- and nanoscopic scales, as well as in cryogenic techniques, this situation has changed drastically. It is now quite natural to ask whether a specific quantum effect, collectively involving a macroscopic number of particles, could occur in these systems. In this book it is our intention to address the quantum mechanical effects that take place in properly chosen or built “macroscopic” systems. Starting from a very naïve point of view, we could always ask what happens to systems whose classical dynamics can be described by equations of motion equivalent to those of particles (or fields) in a given potential (or potential energy density). These can be represented by a generalized “coordinate” φ( r , t ) which could either describe a field variable or a “point particle” if it is not position dependent, φ( r , t ) = φ( t ).
Most students of science and engineering know that every elementary particle, such as electrons, neutrons, photons, neutrinos, etc., has a quantum mechanical property called “spin” which can be measured (perhaps not easily, but at least in principle) and has a quantized value, including zero. The vast majority of these students mentally visualize spin as the angular momentum associated with the elementary particle spinning or rotating about its own axis (like a top or a planetary object). This mental picture, although convenient and comforting, is actually somewhat crude and certainly incomplete. Landau and Lifshitz, in their classic textbook on quantum mechanics [1], wrote “[the spin] property of elementary particles is peculiar to quantum theory. [It] has no classical interpretation... It would be wholly meaningless to imagine the ‘intrinsic’ angular momentum of an elementary particle as being the result of its rotation about its own axis.” The simplistic notion of self-rotation about an axis, shown in Fig. 1.1, can- not explain many features of spin, such as why its magnitude cannot assume continuous values and why it is quantized to certain specific values. It also causes serious problems if taken too literally. As we will see later (Problem 1.2), if we think of an electron as a solid sphere of radius equal to the Lorentz radius e2/(4πǫ0m0c 2) (where e is the electron’s charge, m0 is the mass, c is the speed of light in vacuum, and ǫ0 is the dielectric constant of vacuum), then the velocity on the surface of a rotating electron would have to be many times the velocity of light in vacuum if such a rotation were to generate an angular momentum equal to the electron’s spin. Obviously that would not be permitted by the theory of relativity. Indeed, a deep understanding of quantum mechanics is required to understand how the spin property comes about. Its origin is in relativistic quantum mechanics and really was first appreciated by Paul Andrew Maurice Dirac when he derived the Dirac equation which is the cornerstone of relativistic quantum mechanics. Richard Feynman, noted for his distaste for mysticism in physics, wrote about the notion of “spin”: “It appears to be one of the few places in physics where there is a rule which can be stated very simply, but for which no one has found a simple and easy explanation. The explanation is down deep in relativistic quantum mechanics.
Spin is an intrinsic form of angular momentum carried by elementary particles, composite particles, and atomic nuclei. It is wildly believed that spin is a purely quantum mechanical concept and has no classical analogue. In fact, elementary particles are conceived as point objects which have no axis to “spin” around. Therefore, there is no explaining how spin arises at the fundamental level, why particles have the values they do, and what underpins the Pauli Exclusion principle and Bose-Einstein behavior. However, spin is like a vector quantity; it has a definite magnitude, and it has a “direction”, in order to spin should be composite. In this paper we propose a physical explanation for spin of the electron at the sub-particle level, relying on the vortex model of the electron. The electron is described as a superfluid frictionless vortex which has a mass, angular momentum and spin to provide a complete explanation of all properties of the electron: it composite, spinning around its own axis, produces a tiny magnetic fields independent of those from its orbital motions. The classical hydrodynamic laws are used to describe the quantum properties of the electron, such as spin, angular momentum, magnetic momentum and a magnetic dipole. The circulation in the vortex is constant, and the angular momentum of the vortex is conserved and has the same value of Planck constant. The direction of the angular momentum of a spinning electron vortex is along the axis of rotation and determined by the direction of spin. The spin quantum number 1/2 has a fixed value which represents the gap between the circulation rate of the core of the vortex and the boundaries of the vortex. The changeable values +1/2 “spin-up” or -1/2 “spin-down” indicate the direction of the magnetic dipole of the vortex. The relation between spin and Planck constant is discussed and the origin h/4pi angular momentum units are revealed.
The motion of macroscopic objects such as soccer balls, vehicles and planets can be well described using classical mechanics. However, classical mechanics is inadequate to describe the movements or the structure of microscopic objects such as atoms, molecules or nuclei. To properly describe the properties of microscopic objects, the theory of quantum mechanics was developed. While quantum mechanics can be applied to macroscopic objects, it turns out that for objects of large dimensions the quantum mechanical laws evolve naturally into classical mechanics. In general, solving a problem in quantum mechanics is far more difficult than solving it in classical mechanics. Therefore, the laws of classical mechanics are employed when they can be applied safely.
The radial velocity formula and the Planck-Einstein relation give us the zbw frequency (E = ħω = E/ħ) and zbw radius (a = c/ω = cħ/mc2 = ħ/mc) of the electron. We interpret this by noting that the c = aω identity gives us the E = mc2 = ma2ω2 equation, which suggests we should combine the total energy (kinetic and potential) of two harmonic oscillators to explain the electron mass. We do so by interpreting the elementary wavefunction as a two-dimensional (harmonic) electromagnetic oscillation in real space which drives the pointlike charge along the zbw current ring. This implies a dual view of the reality of the real and imaginary part of the wavefunction: 1.The x = a·cos(ωt) and y = a·sin(ωt) equations describe the motion of the pointlike charge. 2.As an electromagnetic oscillation, we write it as E = E·cos(ωt+π/2) + i·E·sin(ωt+π/2). The magnitudes of the oscillation a and E are expressed in distance (m) and force per unit charge (N/C) respectively and are related because the energy of both oscillations is one and the same. The model – which implies the energy of the oscillation and, therefore, the effective mass of the electron is spread over the zbw disk – offers an equally intuitive explanation for the angular momentum, magnetic moment and the g-factor of charged spin-1/2 particles. Most importantly, the model also offers us an intuitive interpretation of Einstein’s enigmatic mass-energy equivalence relation. Going from the stationary to the moving reference frame, we argue that the plane of the zbw oscillation should be parallel to the direction of motion so as to be consistent with the results of the Stern-Gerlach experiment.