This paper aims to provide a thorough critical analysis of two foundational concepts in modern physics — the Landé g-factor and the electron spin quantum number 1/2. Through meticulous historical examination and logical analysis, this paper argues that these concepts are essentially mathematical fitting parameters introduced to bridge the gap between the old quantum theory and experimental data, lacking a solid foundation in physical mechanism. The core contradiction lies in the subsequent development of wave mechanics, which concluded that "the orbital angular momentum of the hydrogen atom ground state is zero," a conclusion that fundamentally conflicts with observational facts such as the Stern-Gerlach experiment, forcing the spin concept to assume a "remedial" role it never needed to bear. As a solution, this paper presents a new framework based on the "Great Tao Model" and the "Unified Theory of Atomic and Molecular Structure." This framework firmly returns to the realism of classical physics, affirms the orbital motion of electrons around the nucleus and their intrinsic angular momentum, and interprets spin as a real mechanical motion. Crucially, this theory naturally derives the universal magnetic moment-angular momentum relation μ = (e/m) L from the "Existence Field" principle, eliminating the need for any artificial correction factors. Based on this, the paper successfully provides a unified and self-consistent explanation for key phenomena such as the Stern-Gerlach experiment and the normal and anomalous Zeeman effects, thereby achieving a simpler and more fundamental description of physics at the atomic scale.
This paper aims to provide a thorough critical analysis of two foundational concepts in modern physics — the Landé g-factor and the electron spin quantum number 1/2. Through meticulous historical examination and logical analysis, this paper argues that these concepts are essentially mathematical fitting parameters introduced to bridge the gap between the old quantum theory and experimental data, lacking a solid foundation in physical mechanism. The core contradiction lies in the subsequent development of wave mechanics, which concluded that "the orbital angular momentum of the hydrogen atom ground state is zero," a conclusion that fundamentally conflicts with observational facts such as the Stern-Gerlach experiment, forcing the spin concept to assume a "remedial" role it never needed to bear. As a solution, this paper presents a new framework based on the "Great Tao Model" and the "Unified Theory of Atomic and Molecular Structure." This framework firmly returns to the realism of classical physics, affirms the orbital motion of electrons around the nucleus and their intrinsic angular momentum, and interprets spin as a real mechanical motion. Crucially, this theory naturally derives the universal magnetic moment-angular momentum relation μ = (e/m) L from the "Existence Field" principle, eliminating the need for any artificial correction factors. Based on this, the paper successfully provides a unified and self-consistent explanation for key phenomena such as the Stern-Gerlach experiment and the normal and anomalous Zeeman effects, thereby achieving a simpler and more fundamental description of physics at the atomic scale.
Intrinsic spin is a core foundational concept of quantum mechanics and the Standard Model of particle physics. It is regarded as an inherent property of fermions, based on which core laws such as spin angular momentum conservation and lepton number conservation have been established. However, through an experimental traceability and logical deduction of the spin concept, this paper finds that the spins of electrons and protons have never been directly measured. All spin conclusions are indirectly inferred from the macroscopic magnetic effects of neutral atoms and atomic nuclei. In beta decay, protons and neutrinos with a mass difference of more than 6 orders of magnitude participate in conservation with the same spin quantum number, which is only a formal numerical matching and lacks support from real physical mechanisms. The inclusion of neutrinos in the lepton family is essentially a post-hoc expansion to satisfy conservation laws, rather than an essential classification based on the origin of matter. In response to these contradictions, this paper proposes a classical orbital circulation magnetism model: the essence of atomic magnetic moment is the circulation effect formed by electrons orbiting the nucleus, and there is no "intrinsic spin" independent of the orbit. The energy level splitting in the Stern-Gerlach experiment is the statistical result of the orientation of the instantaneous orbital angular momentum of the s orbital in a magnetic field, rather than the manifestation of the intrinsic spin of electrons. Based on this model, this paper further explains the microscopic mechanism of ferromagnetism: whether the atomic magnetic moment can be reversed by an external magnetic field depends on the degree of orbital confinement. Inner orbitals are too strongly bound to turn, while the outermost free electron orbitals have too weak coupling to maintain orientation. Only the sub-outer orbitals of iron group elements are in the critical interval of "reversible and maintainable", thus exhibiting ferromagnetism. This model can self-consistently explain related experimental phenomena without introducing ad-hoc quantum concepts such as intrinsic spin and exchange interaction, and provides an alternative explanation path of classical mechanics for electromagnetic and magnetic phenomena. (本文在英文正文后附有完整中文版,内容与结构完全一致。)
Abstract In 1921, Otto Stern conceived the idea for an experiment that would decide between a classical and a quantum description of atomic behavior, as epitomized by the Bohr–Sommerfeld–Debye model of the atom. This model entailed not only the quantization of the magnitude of the orbital electronic angular momentum but also of the projection of the angular momentum on an external magnetic field – the so‐called space quantization. Stern recognized that space quantization would have observable consequences: namely, that the magnetic dipole moment due to the orbital angular momentum would be space quantized as well, taking two opposite values for atoms whose only unpaired electron has just one quantum of orbital angular momentum. When acted upon by a suitable inhomogeneous magnetic field, a beam of such atoms would be split into two beams consisting of deflected atoms with opposite projections of the orbital angular momentum on the magnetic field. In contradistinction, if atoms behaved classically, the atomic beam would only broaden along the field gradient and have maximum intensity at zero deflection, i. e., where there would be a minimum or no intensity for a beam split due to space quantization. Stern anticipated that, although simple in principle, the experiment would be difficult to carry out – and invited Walther Gerlach to team up with him. Gerlach's realism and experimental skills together with his sometimes stubborn determination to make things work proved invaluable for the success of the Stern–Gerlach experiment (SGE). After a long struggle, Gerlach finally saw, on 8 February 1922, the splitting of a beam of silver atoms in a magnetic field. The absence of the concept of electron spin confused and confounded the interpretation of the SGE, as the silver atoms were, in fact, in a 2S state, with zero orbital and spin angular momentum. However, a key quantum feature whose existence the SGE was designed to test – namely space quantization of electronic angular momentum – was robust enough to transpire independent of whether the electronic angular momentum was orbital or due to spin. The SGE entails other key aspects of quantum mechanics such as quantum measurement, state preparation, coherence, and entanglement. Confronted with the outcome of the SGE, Stern noted: “I still have objections to the idea of beauty of quantum mechanics. But she is correct.”
In the introductory remarks to Chapter 5 mention was made of the 1925 proposal of Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit that to an electron there should be assigned an intrinsic angular momentum or spin S = (S x , S y , S z )—this in addition to its quantum angular momentum (or orbital angular momentum) M = (M x , M y , M z ) defined in (5.4.4). This is not to be taken to mean that an electron actually spins about an axis in some physical way. Experiments (in particular the noted Stern-Gerlach experiment) have provided adequate justification for the proposed concept of spin, a proposal also made by R. Bichowsky and H. Urey. Dirac has shown that the notion of spin is necessary if quantum mechanics and Einstein relativity are to be consistent theories. Chemical properties of atoms, and their ability to combine and form molecules, the splitting of spectral lines by a magnetic field applied to an atom (i.e., the Zeeman effect, which we discuss later), all depend on this important notion.
Thus far we have concentrated on the postulates, on their ramifications, and on the means and methods by which they are applied. Connections with classical physics have been featured, and primary notions other than those of Chapter 5 have not been needed. We deviate from this path in the present chapter, introducing a new and extremely important concept; it is based on one of the most significant and fruitful experiments of the quantal era. This experiment was performed by O. Stern and W. Gerlach (1921) and subsequently interpreted by G. Uhlenbeck and S. Goudsmit (1925). The experiment and its elucidation led to the new concept of “intrinsic spin” (in particular to spin “½”), a development that was one of the major turning points in modern physics. The consequences have been monumental, and include primary theoretical developments; the interpretation of data related to, and an understanding of, empirical rules concerning a wide variety of physical systems (e.g., the periodic table of the elements/atomic structure); and the generation of new experimental techniques and of innovative measurements. Our study of intrinsic spin and its correlative, two-state systems, introduces the reader to one of the most profound topics in quantum theory. The Stern–Gerlach experiment and its interpretation The experiment of Stern and Gerlach was designed to test the “spatial quantization” of neutral atoms, i.e., to determine whether the (orbital) angular momentum was quantized. The basic ideas are as follows. Associated with the atom's orbital angular momentum would be a magnetic moment, as in the Bohr model of hydrogen.
The mainstream interpretation of quantum entanglement and its derivative phenomena has long relied on concepts such as non-locality and superposition, leading to a lack of dynamical mechanism description for wave function collapse and creating profound conflicts with physical causality. This paper, based on the "Great Tao Model" and its "Existence Field Theory," proposes a systematic and unified interpretation of quantum entanglement phenomena, exemplified by the experiments recognized by the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics. First, it analyzes the erroneous presuppositions in the derivation of Bell's inequality based on Existence Field Theory and establishes a general classical interpretation framework grounded in "static initial correlations" and "local interactions." Subsequently, through a classical physical reconstruction of milestone experiments such as Aspect's, it demonstrates that this framework is sufficient to explain all observed phenomena self-consistently, without introducing "non-local superluminal action." Building on this, the paper successfully extends this interpretative framework to core quantum phenomena such as quantum decoherence, teleportation, and many-body entanglement, revealing that they also originate from classical conservation law constraints and local field interactions. Furthermore, this paper compares the Great Tao Model with hidden variable theories, finding that although both belong to the classical realism camp and oppose non-locality, the Great Tao Model requires no introduction of any hidden variables. Instead, it explains phenomena directly based on the specific physical properties (charge, mass) of elementary particles and the local dynamics of their existence fields, thus providing a more physically realistic and unified theoretical framework. This study offers a unified, causality-compliant classical explanation for a series of quantum phenomena claimed to exhibit "non-locality," fundamentally challenging the conceptual foundation of related quantum information technologies and providing a new path for physics to return to a theoretical paradigm based on realism, locality, and clear dynamical mechanisms.
In 1925 the concept of electron spin was introduced to explain two experimental observations: the splitting of silver atom beams in an inhomogeneous magnetic field (Stern–Gerlach, 1922), and the fine structure of atomic spectra. The physical picture proposed — an electron spinning on its own axis — was immediately shown by Hendrik Lorentz to require surface velocities exceeding the speed of light. The paper was published anyway. Dirac subsequently rescued the two-valuedness mathematically, whereupon the physical question was declared irrelevant. For one hundred years the field has been unable to state what spin physically is. This paper traces the sequence of observations, inferences, and decisions that produced this situation and identifies two distinct wrong turns. The first wrong turn was publishing a model known to be physically impossible. Lorentz's calculation was correct — at the classical electron radius (2.818 fm), the required surface velocity is 274 times the speed of light. But the classical radius is not the electron's physical rotation radius. The correct rotation radius, derived from the Sagnac closure condition, is 285.5 fm — 101 times larger. At that radius, the rotation velocity is 0.822c, the bare magnetic moment is 0.608 μB, and Lorentz's objection does not arise. Both values are computed explicitly with no free parameters. The second wrong turn was a conflation. The closure geometry of the electron involves two independent numerical facts, both related to the number ½: (1) the least-work oscillation path that closes the Sagnac phase condition is a two-lobe ellipse, giving a winding number of n = ½ in the mass equation; (2) the electron's S³ closure surface presents two poles to the external field, giving a topological factor of 2 in the g-factor. In 1925, both facts were numerically present in the spectroscopic data, but they were collapsed into a single postulate: intrinsic angular momentum ℏ/2. That collapse created a half-integer angular momentum with no classical analogue, forced Dirac to construct the SU(2) spinor formalism to accommodate it, and caused the spinor to appear as a new kind of mathematical object requiring new physics — when it was always a description of closure surface topology. Every experimental result attributed to spin-½ as an intrinsic quantum property — two spots in Stern–Gerlach, the electron magnetic moment, Pauli exclusion, and fine structure — is reproduced by real rotation with two stable orientations, without superluminal motion, without abstract mathematical structure disconnected from physical content, and without the hundred-year admission of ignorance that has accompanied the standard treatment. The mathematical apparatus of quantum mechanics — the Dirac equation, the Pauli matrices, the SU(2) structure — remains valid. What changes is the interpretation. The spinor is not a mysterious new object. It is the natural representation of the two-pole topology of the S³ closure surface. The conflation of 1925 prevented this from being seen. Related work: The Sagnac closure condition and the γcause invariant used in this paper are derived in: D. J. Hallman, "The Sagnac Formula Inverted Reveals Mass, Gravity, and Particle Structure," Zenodo (2026). doi:10.5281/zenodo.20193279