It is utterly wrong to say "we will dismiss evidence unless it is accompanied by mathematical rigor". That's not a scientific approach, it's an excuse used to cling to fallacies that are unsupported by experiment. Hence some here hold a conviction that pair production and the electron are adequately modelled, that spin is intrinsic and electrons are elementary, and that a changing electric field generates a magnetic field. Some are oblivious to the fact that mathematics cannot explain the reality that underlies mathematics. Some won't pay attention to Maxwell's original work and read about his screw mechanism and his vortexes, and some have an unshakeable belief that he wrote down four vector equations.
This gets to the heart of it. It's a circular argument and a catch-22 dismissal to defend a status quo. Just like we see in a theocracy.
The point was a simple demonstration that you've never read the original Maxwell. If you had, you'd know about the screw mechanism and the vortexes, and you'd know that those four "Maxwell's equations" are Heaviside's equations. So it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about.
I didn't lie, saying I did is an ad-hominem. Now you've made it clear that you've got no sincerity, and nothing to discuss, and merely seek to stifle discussion. So butt out.
No there isn't. The spiral does not depict lines of force. It depicts a slice through a three-dimensional vortex that causes force.
What are you on about? There's only one field. The electromagnetic field.
Straw man. This isn't fluid dynamics. It's dynamical stress-energy.
Go and read the original Maxwell. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations#Maxwell.27s_On_Physical_Lines_of_Force_.281861.29 for starters. And remember that I said he thought the vortexes were in the space rather than in the particles.
No, just a few. Then ask yourself how a point particle can exhibit angular momentum. Do not settle for the "intrinsic" cop-out that offers no answer. Think for yourself, don't let your text books do your thinking for you.
WP said:
No, out of the bond.
Out of the kinetic energy. Look at Compton scattering to understand that when the electron acquired a high speed with respect to the positron, it acquired additional action. As a result the electron stress-energy follows a helical rather than a circular path with respect to the positron. And look at pair production to understand that you can split a photon into two or more portions.
Pay attention to optical spanner, Miles Padgett of tying light in knots, and the reality of twisted electron waves, and therefore of electron orbital angular momentum.
Stop spouting your mystic textbook bible. The scientific evidence says it's a real rotation. That's why the electron has a magnetic dipole moment. Pay attention to that non-sequitur in the Stern-Gerlach article and the rotation in two orientations. See post #386, and this time, read it. Then think about it, then discuss it. Don't dismiss it because it doesn't fit with what your textbook told you.
You are the one attempting to stifle discussion here. You don't like my questions so you are attempting to ignore them.
This article is about interference patterns, not some bizarre theory of twisting paths for individual photons. Please show us, using the original paper, how the (mathematical) physics used supports your claim that the electron has angular momentum. Your claim that Miles Padgett supports your position looks to be a lie.
Why do you place wikipedia above physics textbooks as a source? Can you show us exactly where a popular physics textbook has the Stern-Gerlach experiment wrong? (I assume that you have one or two physics textbooks on the subject. Otherwise you wouldn't make these claims about what the textbooks say, since you would have no evidence.)
