The origin of the spin concept was probably the most complicated of all the quantum physics. Indeed, after Bohr's triumph in 1913, Bohr and Sommerfeld's "old quantum theory'', based on the idea of quantum restrictions applied to classical magnitudes, gave a unified explanation of the spectroscopic data. Atomic physics shows that it is not possible to account for the observed effects if we assume that the electron, a point particle, and the three degrees of freedom of translation in space that we have considered up to now. In quantum relativistic mechanics, the structure of the Lorentz group reveals the kinetic momentum to any particle as an intrinsic attribute, which is defined in the same way as its electric charge and its mass. There are several possible representations of the states, accompanied by corresponding representations of the observables, whose use can be more or less convenient according to the problem under consideration.
The origin of the spin concept was probably the most complicated of all the quantum physics. Indeed, after Bohr's triumph in 1913, Bohr and Sommerfeld's "old quantum theory'', based on the idea of quantum restrictions applied to classical magnitudes, gave a unified explanation of the spectroscopic data. Atomic physics shows that it is not possible to account for the observed effects if we assume that the electron, a point particle, and the three degrees of freedom of translation in space that we have considered up to now. In quantum relativistic mechanics, the structure of the Lorentz group reveals the kinetic momentum to any particle as an intrinsic attribute, which is defined in the same way as its electric charge and its mass. There are several possible representations of the states, accompanied by corresponding representations of the observables, whose use can be more or less convenient according to the problem under consideration.
The entropy approach to a description of quantum processes, represented like the Markov chain, is elaborated. It is supposed that at an atomic scale the law of the conservation of entropy holds. From this principle issues the simple explanation of the different behavior of bosons and fermions in experiments with scattering particles, proved by Pauli. Introducing in consideration Markov’ chain, applied to a motion of particles, made possible to write an equation, determining the change of their states. This pure logical result, completed by physical laws, brought to a new equation, generalizing Schrödinger one. It includes electric and magnetic fields as well as the spin of particles. Analysis of its solution for a case of only electric field, led to the formula of tunnel effect. Consideration of the motion of a particle in magnetic field gave the fundamental expression of Lorentz force without any mention of electrodynamics. Addition of an angular momentum in the reasoning by including Hamiltonian, allowed deducing the result, which coincides with the spherically symmetric Schrödinger equation for hydrogen atom. In general case there is the system of equations. If the atom is put in a weak magnetic field, without a possibility of flipping, the classical formulas of Bohr radius orbits and Rydberg energy obtained. The property of intrinsic quantization of electron spin ħ/2 is explained easily as a solution of the proposed system. These equations do not repeat the known arguments only, but can predict the new phenomena. They describe the effect of spin depolarization of electrons in a strong magnetic field, earlier considered been related to vacuum polarization. The obtained solution gives its magnetic induction equal about 1012 Gs, that corresponds well with experimental data.
The difficulties of the old quantum theory were largely dispelled by the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. First Heisenberg (1925) developed the rather abstract matrix mechanics and soon after Schro¨dinger (1926; see also Eckart, 1926) developed the physically more appealing wave mechanics. Subsequently he showed them to be mathematically equivalent. The physicists were greatly relieved; now they had once again a mathematical formalism that enabled the results of experiments to be calculated. It was possible to move forward. It is certainly a very elegant and indeed beautiful formalism, and does enable the results of many physical measurements to be calculated with great accuracy. It is used daily by atomic and nuclear physicists; there is no other way to make calculations. From the earliest days there has been intense debate about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and it shows no signs of being settled; if anything it is becoming more intense over the years. As Penrose has remarked, no one understands quantum mechanics. Feynman (1967; see also Sykes, 1994) also admitted that ‘nobody understands quantum mechanics’, and Einstein once remarked: ‘I have thought a hundred times as much about the quantum problems as I have about general relativity theory’ (Pais, 1994, p. 57). It should therefore be evident that the most that can be done here is to try to show where the real difficulties lie, and how the failure to recognize that quantum mechanics is an essentially statistical theory has led to a series of confusing quantum paradoxes. It is just these paradoxes that have often been used to support theological speculations. It is useful to ask what ‘understanding quantum mechanics’ actually means. Certainly it means being able to calculate the results of many measurements. The same applies to Newton’s theory of gravitation, which we understand in the sense that we can use it as a basis of calculation, although we do not really understand the gravitational force itself. Very often, especially in modern physics, the mathematical formalism does not give us the sort of intuitive physical feeling for what is going on that we often obtain from classical mechanics. Perhaps we can never achieve more than this for quantum mechanics. In classical mechanics we can assume that a property that is measured objectively exists prior to the interaction of the measuring apparatus with the observed system. Quantum mechanics, however, ‘is incompatible with the proposition that measurement discovers some unknown but pre-existing property’ (Peres, 1997, p. 14). There is an important distinction between mysteries and absurdities. We may be forced to live with mysteries, but there is no reason why we should put up with absurdities such as the wave-particle duality, tunnelling through potential barriers, acausal events and the collapse of the wave function. These are the quantum paradoxes that will be discussed later on. They arise within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and are solved by other interpretations. These alternative interpretations enable us to make conjectures about what is going on, even though we cannot understand it in detail. This is acceptable and a stimulus to further research. It is certainly difficult enough to understand quantum mechanics, but there is no need to try to visualize logical absurdities in the effort to do so. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical formalism that makes it possible to calculate the results of some experiments. Anything more than this, such as questions about the interpretation of what is measured and whether it tells us what is actually going on in the system being studied, belongs to philosophy. Thus we are concerned here with what is essentially a philosophical debate; if it were just a matter of physics the debate would have been settled long ago. One of the difficulties is that it invokes the results of experiments and uses the language of quantum mechanics. Inevitably this language uses philosophical terms and then it is easy to give the impression that the philosophical propositions are in some way entailed by the physical results. These in turn can influence theological thinking. In order to be quite clear which arguments are justified and which are not, it is essential to separate the three levels of discourse: physical, philosophical and theological. Our task is to relate these together, and this immediately raises the traditional problems of the philosophy of science, including the relation of experiment to theory, and of theory to explanation. We begin by discussing experiments, distinguishing between those that are real and those that are imaginary.
The concept of electron spin has a broad application prospect. However, after a century of efforts, the essence and specific form of electron spin have not been revealed. The reason is probably that it is constrained by the concept of point particle material structure. In order to solve the problem, one way to initiate the quantum mechanics revolution on the concept of material structure is to establish the concept of wave element material structure. Assuming that the composition of electrons is waves, the inherent motion of electrons (the spin of free electrons) is "the rotation of mass equivalent to the energy of waves". This rotation is not the rotation of a sphere, but similar to the rotation of a ring-shaped substance along a ring. This assumption breaks the concept of point particle structure. According to it, the angular kinetic energy and spin magnetic moment of electrons can be accurately calculated by classical force electrodynamics method. Other applications are also very successful, which has led to the revolution of quantum mechanics and material structure theory. The electron spin magnetic moment and electron spin angular momentum both originate from the motion of the waves that make up the electrons along the phase trajectory, providing a highly unified explanation for the fact that "discrete waves make up localized electrons and electrons have spin magnetic moments".
Up to this point, our study of quantum mechanics has concerned itself with the behaviour of particles that inhabit a Galilean spacetime. For many purposes, in atomic, molecular and condensed matter physics, this theory is quite adequate. We saw in earlier chapters, however, that our actual spacetime has a structure which is much closer to that of the Minkowski spacetime of special relativity and that more general structures must be considered when gravitational phenomena are signicant. From a purely theoretical point of view, it is therefore important to formulate quantum theory in a way which is consistent with these more general spacetimes. The benets of constructing a relativistic quantum theory actually go far beyond the aesthetic satisfaction of making our geometrical and quantum-mechanical reasoning compatible. For one thing, we shall discover that the relativistic theory provides a deeper understanding of spin and the distinction between fermions and bosons, which in the non-relativistic theory appear simply as facts of life that we must strive to accommodate. Also, of course, there are many situations in which relativistic eects become observable, for which non-relativistic theory provides no explanation. The most obvious are high-energy scattering experiments, in which particles acquire kinetic energies comparable with or greater than their rest energies mc2, and the correct 4-momentum (3.33) must be used. There are, however, more subtle eects, such as the spin-orbit coupling that is essential for interpreting atomic spectra, which are also of relativistic origin.
The atom model of Niels Bohr is commonly considered as antiquated even if it describes the atomic spectrum of hydrogen quite accurately. The later published relation of Louis De Broglie could arithmetically be implemented into Bohr’s formulation, leading to the concept of standing waves as the existence cause of excited electron states. However, at that time it was not possible to find well defined electron trajectories being classically describable. As a consequence, the »quantum mechanics« were developed by several authors, particularly by Schrodinger and by Heisenberg, but delivering a hardly under¬standable formalism where the classical physical laws appear being abrogated while abstract terms replace concrete and imaginable ones, abandoning the particle perception of mass points. In particular, Heisenberg’s »uncertainty principle« and the assumption of state probabilities seem to be in a striking variance to the idea of standing waves. In contrast, a formulation is given here which exactly describes the electron trajectories in the exited states solely by applying classical physical laws. Firstly, the original Bohr-model - in combination with De Broglie’s relation - is rolled up. From this formula system a vibration frequency - corresponding to the De-Broglie frequency – is deduced which is n-times larger than the rotation frequency of the Bohr-model. Furthermore, a direct coherence between that vibration-frequency of the electron and the frequency of the involved light is evident being explainable as a resonance effect. Then, a three-dimensional model is proposed where the electron oscillates and pulses perpendicularly to a virtual rotation plane i.e. rotating around a vertical axis, accompanied by a perpetual energy exchange between potential and kinetic energy. This leads at the excited, metastable energy states to well-defined, three-dimensional and wavy trajectories winding up on a surface similar to the one of a hyperboloid, whereas at the ground state the trajectory is planar and stable.