“Could we not reject the concept of matter and build a pure field physics? We could regard matter as the regions in space where the field is extremely strong. A thrown stone is, from this point of view, a changing field in which the states of the greatest field intensity travel through space with the velocity of the stone.” [1] Albert Einstein We propose a real experiment to falsify the geometrization of matter concept [2],[3]. A source emits a right-handed photon, the photon impinges almost perpendicularly a mirror being reflected to a detector set up to measure the spin of particle. The simplicity of the result of experiment (only two possible outcomes: spin is the opposite or the same ), and the fact that the experiment produces result that is direct evidence of the laws of physics makes it a very attractive and easy task even for students. However the result seems to be so obvious that no one has ever tried to do that!
“Could we not reject the concept of matter and build a pure field physics? We could regard matter as the regions in space where the field is extremely strong. A thrown stone is, from this point of view, a changing field in which the states of the greatest field intensity travel through space with the velocity of the stone.” [1] Albert Einstein We propose a real experiment to falsify the geometrization of matter concept [2],[3]. A source emits a right-handed photon, the photon impinges almost perpendicularly a mirror being reflected to a detector set up to measure the spin of particle. The simplicity of the result of experiment (only two possible outcomes: spin is the opposite or the same ), and the fact that the experiment produces result that is direct evidence of the laws of physics makes it a very attractive and easy task even for students. However the result seems to be so obvious that no one has ever tried to do that!
The enigma of the wave-particle duality of photon has remained unimpressively explained for a century since Einstein presents the concept of the photon in 1905. This article establishes a classical geometric structure model of a single photon based on fleld matter, educes a formula for the size of a photon; assumes that there only are two kinds of photon of right hand and left hand circular polarized, and suggests the frequency ! of photon polarization rotated to be its spin frequency. It ascribes the wavelike of photon to its spin motion and the particle-like to its translation motion. From the point of photon particle instead of wave view to re-analyze Young's double-slit interference and polarizer experiments, gives reasonable mechanism. It deflnes the phase velocity and the group velocity of a photon. It gives a unifled and consistent understanding of quantum particle of light and classical electromagnetic waves fleld. Evidently, such a precisely deflned conceptual model is reasonable, objective and easy to accept for classical physicists. The puzzle (1) of the wave-particle duality of light has remained unsatisfactorily explained nearly a century since Albert Einstein flrst proposed the photon, the quantum unit of light ‡ E=~!; ~=~ ~ ·
Spin, still a concept or property not fully exploited, has already impacted the world in many ways with its many applications. The history of how spin came to light and how it was interpreted and developed as investigations were conducted is of particular interest with the many odd outcomes of experiments concerning this intrinsic property. This article will sort out the historical outline of how spin was first indicated in theories and how it was eventually embraced as a fundamental property of quantum particles in an attempt to holistically review the process of recognition of this remarkable concept. Through this review, it becomes apparent how the recognition and development of a concept involves the intellect of a broad range of physicists who are willing to view things from both classical and quantum perspectives particularly when it comes to new concepts as spin. How elements like luck and chance play a role will also be revealed. As it turns out, our intuitions about the world around us may not be the ultimate truth, especially when it comes to Quantum Mechanics. Space Quantization was once thought of as no more than a theoretical outcome, however, experiments anyway impose this reality on physicists requiring them to abandon stubborn biases. Admittedly, not every speculation was correct, the analogy of “Spin” was an unfortunate one. But this article shows that this is just how understanding the mysteries of the quantum world really unfolds.
In relativistic mechanics the time-like vector characterize the motion in spacetime with speed faster than the speed of light in vacuum c in which the line element ds2=c2dt2-dx2-dx2-dz2 is less than zero (where is infinitesimal change in time, and are infinitesimal change in space), thus the time in relativistic mechanics can instantaneously flow [1], however in quantum mechanics although the time is treated as unobservable parameter (without any Hermitian observable operator have engine-value equivalent to time) any two physical quantity described by two non-commuting observable operatorsand fulfill , the knowledge of one immediately produce the knowledge of the other [2], thus in quantum mechanics if two particles interacted in finite temporal epoch and then separated in space the gaining of knowledge by the local measurement of physical quantity runs on one them (for example the measurement of spin direction of one particle using Stern-Gerlach experiment) immediately produce the knowledge of the complementary physical quantity of the other particle (for example the opposite spin direction of the other particle), this simply called quantum entanglement the concept that so much advanced after publication of the Jon Bell’s 1964 celebrated paper [3] in which he illustrated that we can add parameters to quantum mechanics to determine the results of individual measurements, without changing the statistical predictions, and then he conclude “there must be a mechanism whereby the setting of one measuring device can influence the reading of another instrument, however remote. Moreover, the signal involved must propagate instantaneously so that such a theory could not be Lorentz invariant”. The question now what these signals that can propagate instantaneously? The answer in this paper will be the time signals field which is defined for each constituent matter particle M and at each space point P as the measure of the total length of all occupation and leaving epochs of P by M which is representing a sequence function compactly supported only at the space point occupied by it and indexed by the number of occupation epochs of P by M, thus the flow of this time signal field from the far future to near future through the present to the near past to the far past inferable by the flow of matter particles constituting the system(such as sun, moon earth and clocks hands). Thus the present will represent in this paper a local absolute feature of time signals field defined at each space point as the set of all occupation epochs of it by matter particle, however the past and future will represent relativistic non-local features of the time signal field defined at each space point as a set of all leaving epochs between each two sequential occupation epochs, so the future after one occupation epoch is representing a past of the next one. Thus according to current representation of time, the two Mc-Taggard’s A and B series of time [4] will exist together as temporal set and then the time is real, the A-series in current theory is a set of all occupation and leaving epochs of space point by the matter particle that is consisting of the present, past and future epochs, and the B-series is the set of all leaving epochs of space points between each two sequential occupation epochs which are taking position before or after the discrete occupation epochs between them and then before or after each other.
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.
Abstract 1. As soon as it was appreciated that the phenomenon of the "spinning electron" was to be attributed to the existance of simultaneous wave functions, the question naturally arose as to how far there would be an analogy with the polarisation of light, and in particular whether in diffraction by a slit or grating or in reflexion from a mirror, electrons would be selected having a preferential direction of magnetisation. Dynamical conceptions suggest that it would require a magnetic force to produce a change in the polarisation, so that the general indication was rather strongly negative, and it seemed hardly worth while to verify the fact by direct soultion. I believe, however, that recently experiments have been undertaken to search for such an effect (by means of successive diffractions from two crystals), and in view of this I have examined the question more closely. The result, broadly speaking, bears out the first conjecture that no effect could be observed in practice, but in certain cases (of a rather hypothetical kind) an effect might be found and the whole problem is interesting as an example of the wave theory. The essence of the matter is sufficiently represented by taking a line grating instead of a crystal, and, furthermore, by limiting the electric and magnetic forces of the grating in such a way that there shall only be first order spectra on each side, two reflected and two transmitted. The grating is supposed made out of periodic distribution of electric or magnetic material. Actual crystals will consist of almost purely electric material, but the magnetic case is as easy to treat and, though unpractical, gives rise to interesting results. It will appear that when a polarised electron wave falls on such a grating, the direction of magnetisation may be changed in the diffracted rays. It is a true polarisation effect in that the change in direction is independent of the strength of the field in the grating, which only determines the total intensity.