Stern Gerlach experiment 1922

Introduction

My reference is the Wiki page on the famous Stern Gerlach experiment. It describes 3 stages where a silver atom beam was (supposedly) redirected 3 times by an applied inhomogeneous magnetic field. Interesting! Yet further research seems to reveal that stage 2 and 3 described in the wiki page were never ever actually performed. In fact it was later experiments like Frisch and  Sevre which had the relevent second and third stages. Not the original 1922 Stern Gerlach experiment.

Original Stern Gerlach experiment:

The original Stern Gerlach experiment applies an inhomogenous magnetic field to a beam of silver atoms and ‘splits’ the beam. No other experimental setup is described beyond this in the original paper. Below is described a classical explanation for the observed beam deflections in the 3 stages.

Classical explanation for S-G

How to do this? To start with do not use the rather antiquated classical theory of what in 1925 was thought as the basis for a “classical” explanation. A centuries old outdated classical model where imaginary electrons and imaginary spin were invoked to describe what appears under scrutiny to be a simple case of the dipole magnetic fields of atoms interacting with the applied inhomogenous fields of the experiments.

Use simple logic based on facts only. Instead one must use only observed macro “ real life” behaviour of magnets reacting to externally applied magnetic fields.

In the original experimental 3 stages using the Stern Gerlach apparatus the beam is split into two in stage 1. Unaffected in stage 2. And split again into 2 beams in stage 3. 

To explain this classically using magnetic fields only is as follows:

At the experiments source the beams silver atoms on emission have their atoms magnetic field directions point in random directions. On average 1/2 have their N poles point towards the S part of the inhomogenous magnetic field generated by the S-G apparatus. And 1/2 have their N poles point towards the North Pole of the field in the S-G apparatus.

What logically would one expect to happen based on actual experimental observations of moving magnets interacting with external magnetic fields? Logically the silver atoms in the beam with their North poles facing the north pole of the S-G apparatus would be repelled from the North Pole of the S-G apparatus. And the other half then would be attracted to the South Pole of the S-G apparatus. This is facilitated by the fact that the beam is not an infinite narrow beam. It has width. Which implies that each silver atom is always slightly closer to one pole or the other of the external applied field. A 50/50 divide. And so an atom which is slightly closer to the North Pole of the applied external field but whose North Pole also points more towards the North Pole of the applied field, will have a net repelling action on the atom. And its path will be deviated at a certain angle towards the South Pole of the applied external field. Any of the other atoms which are closer to the North Pole of the applied external field but whose magnetic south pole faces the externally applied North Pole...will attracted to the external North Pole  in equal amounts and be deviated at the same angle but towards the North Pole of the externally applied field. Which allows a classical model using magnetic fields only with no imaginary spin or electrons, to correctly model and predict the split beams observed in stage 1.

To make stages 2 and 3 also consistent with a classical model one then assumes that after stage 1, as outlined above, all the silver atoms are aligned with polarities that match the inhomogenous field of stage 1. So when travelling through stage 2 which is also has the same direction of applied external magnetic field as stage 1, no overall repelling or attracting magnetic forces will be observed on the particle beam in stage 2. Seeing as the beam of silver atoms polarities are now lined up with both the stage 1 and 2 fields. And the silver atom beam would then proceed unchanged to stage 3. And this confirmation of classical model is observed in stage 2 in Frisch and Segre.

After which the alignment process resets in stage 3 and starts over again to repeat the process seen in initially in stage 1. Because the beam entering stage 3 has all atoms polarities in the beam now aligned at right angles to the applied inhomogenous field in stage 3. And therefore in stage 3 the beams atoms magnetic fields will all have to be flipped again either + or - 90 degrees, ie orthoganally as they were flipped in stage 1, to form the two new + and - beams to make them realign to the externally applied inhomogenous magnetic field in Stage 3.

And this is what is observed. The single beam in stage 3/is split in two. And depending on the strength of the applied field the split lines vary in distance and width from the Center. The stronger the magnetic field. The stronger the attraction to each pole and the larger the deviation from the path for each beam. One doesn’t need QT to explain the behaviour of interacting magnetic fields of varying strength.

Sunspot magnetic field modelled with a variable speed inner core solar dynamo

Current theory on solar magnetic fields posits that the overall solar and local sunspot magnetic fields are created by thermal convection heating in the convection zone. Which then creates the overall solar dipole magnetic field and also the observed Magnetic field loops at the photosphere which then drive the physical rotations of the plasma in sunspots.

The novel Variable speed core solar dynamo model described in this paper here proposes exactly the opposite. In that it is the differential rotation of the solar plasma in the convection zone due to the suns rotation, that is the mechanism that produces the dynamo that induces the observed solar magnetic field. A model where the suns dipole polarity reverses depending on whether the inner core rotates slower or faster than the plasma in the outer convection zone. A cycle of 11 year slower, then 11 year faster periods called the solar cycle. In each cycle this differential rotation also creates local eddy currents or vortices in the plasma. These vortices are observed at the photosphere as sunspots.

For sunspots, where the rotation axis of the plasma vortex of the sunspot is at right angles to the suns surface (pointing straight up from the suns surface), then the direction of the local induced dipole magnetic field of the sunspot predicted by the Variable speed core solar dynamo model will be parallel to the rotation axis of the plasma in the sunspot. The sunspot magnetic field in this model is thus predicted to be orthogonal to the suns surface. That is, it should point straight up from the suns surface. This is confirmed in Borrero et al 2014, where the authors found that there is also a further link between sunspot magnetic polarity and direction and the physical rotation of the plasma vortex that creates the sunspot. They observed that the polarity of the sunspot magnetic field is dictated by the direction of rotation of the sunspot vortex. Clockwise gives positive polarity, counter clockwise negative. This rotation direction/polarity relationship is also consistent with and predicted by the Variable speed core solar dynamo model. 

Borrero et al also confirm that the sunspot magnetic field is at it strongest and points directly outwards-upwards from the surface of the photosphere at the center of the the rotating sunspot, the umbra, and declines in strength and to more tangental directions relative to the suns surface the farther out from the center of the rotating sunspot one looks. Confirming the Variable speed core solar dynamo model’s predictions. Which propose that the differing velocity gradient across the rotating plasma of the sunspot produces a N-S magnetic field parallel to the axis of the rotating plasma that is also strongest at the center of the axis of rotation.

We also know from various studies including Yan et al, 2008 that not only do sunspots vortices rotate, they also have opposite sunspot rotations and magnetic polarities between the hemispheres. In that if in any solar cycle there are more positive magnetic polarities in the northern hemisphere then will always be more negative polarities in the Southern Hemisphere. And vice versa for subsequent cycles. This further confirms predictions made by the Variable speed core solar dynamo model which posits that differential  rotation of the plasma will induce, on average, opposite rotations of sunspots in opposite hemispheres. And in turn these rotational directions of the sunspot plasma will induce opposite polarities depending on whether the rotation is CW or CCW.

This relationship between rotational velocity of the sunspot plasma and its its induced magnetic field in the variable speed model is additionally confirmed in Li and Liu 2015 and Wang et al. 2016: “There is a direct relationship between rotations and the triggering of solar flares. Across all of the active regions examined, there are a number of commonalities observed in the rotational behaviour of sunspot groups. As expected, the higher-flaring regions show much higher average angular velocity values”.

Another study by Brown, Nightingale et al, found a connection between the increased activity of a coronal loop with a speeding up of the rotation of a sunspot. Further confirming that the physical rotational period of the dynamo of the rotating sunspot plasma dictates not only the direction of the induced field but its strength.

And in this following paper it is also found that sunspot rotations reverse rotational directions and polarities between solar cycles.  Consistent with the variable speed model where it is predicted that the slowing down or speeding up of the inner core relative to the convection zone between 11 year solar cycles will reverse the direction of the differential rotation every 11 years. In other words clockwise rotation of the plasma induces an opposite polarity to counter clockwise rotation. Further confirming that the physical rotation of the convection zone  plasma is the dynamo driver that induces the overall solar and local sunspot magnetic fields.

And in their 2016 paper Zheng et al also observed the following: “In the year of 2003, the α sunspot groups and the preceding sunspots tend to rotate counterclockwise and have positive magnetic polarity in the northern hemisphere. In the southern hemisphere, the magnetic polarity and rotational tendency of the α sunspot groups and the preceding sunspots are opposite to the northern hemisphere. From 2014 January to 2015 February, the α sunspot groups and the preceding sunspots tend to rotate clockwise and have negative magnetic polarity in the northern hemisphere. The patterns of rotation and magnetic polarity of the southern hemisphere are also opposite to those of the northern hemisphere.” Zheng et al, 2016.

These observations are also consistent with the Variable speed core solar dynamo model. In that not only are the polarities of sunspots dictated by the direction of sunspot rotation, but that the average overall direction of rotation of sunspots for each hemisphere reverses between each succesive solar cycle. 

Summary

These various data cited above confirm predictions made by a Variable speed core solar dynamo model that the more solid solar inner core rotates faster and then slower than the outer part of the convection zone at the photosphere. Producing an equatorial east west reversal* in the rotation direction of the convection zone plasma every 11 years. And in turn inducing local eddy currents in the plasma and observe as sunspots at the photosphere

*A reversal in the direction of the rotation of the convection zone in an observer frame that rotates with the suns mass around its axis. (Imagine hovering above a sunspot on the sun as it rotates around the suns axis of rotation.) 

This is not the same frame as the heliocentric frame where the sun rotates around its axis in the observer frame and the inner core is then said to be rotating faster then slower than the outer convection zone plasma.

Fast radio bursts: bright FRB 20190203 detected at 111 MHz

Mystery remains for GRB theorists as to why no gamma ray transients can be found for non repeating FRB’s. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.13561

This lack of a gamma transient for this FRB is easily accounted for in my proposed theoretical model Here which describes the physical mechanisms responsible for the observed GRB  and FRB transients. An FRB in my model, is proposed to be simply a very fast, very short timescale GRB. 

FRB’s are just very short Gammaraybursts. Their observed activity in all frequencies are compressed proportionally on the timescale compared to their larger relative, the GRB. As an FRB has at most a second long transient in radio, it will have a proportionally much smaller transient time length in gamma. The observed total luminosity in each frequency would also in turn be proportionally less the shorter the observed transient length.

My model predicts here and on other pages of this blog that instead of the usually observed; seconds for gamma, minutes to hours for optical and days for radio transients normally seen in GRB’s, single FRB’s should have all their frequency transients durations on  much shorter timescales length. Notice that the entire observed radio transient for FRB20190203 was only in fractions of seconds. One only has to see that if a fast radio burst is only seconds long in radio frequencies, not for days as observed in the GRB radio transient, then it is clear that under my model, outlined in the link above, an FRB optical transient is predicted to be only on the order of a thousands of a second long. And in turn this model predicts that the FRB Gamma transient must  last for even shorter timescales in many order smaller than a thousandth of a second timescale. 

No wonder they can’t find optical or gamma transients for FRB’s. They are far too short to be recorded with our current technology

Quantum Magic: How Scientists Are Untangling the Universe’s Weirdest Mystery. Carl Kocher

I’m glad Carl admits QT is just magic. As he explains further at the end of his article with the following question, quoted below:

“Take another look at predictions #1 and #3 above. If we draw on our experience of life in a non-quantum world, we may notice something very strange when the polarizers are “crossed” at 90 degrees. If each photon has a 50% chance of transmission through its polarizer, why don’t we get coincidences 25% of the time? Instead, we observe none at all. At first consideration, this does seem to qualify as a paradox. One possible explanation could involve a missing component of quantum theory – perhaps a causal mechanism that could allow one photon, or one measurement, to communicate with the other. However, despite extensive research, no evidence has been found for such a mechanism.” Carl Kocher

https://scitechdaily.com/quantum-magic-how-scientists-are-untangling-the-universes-weirdest-mystery/

It may be a magical mystery for Carl Kocher. But the reason behind Carl’s mystery is that he believes in Einsteins fantasy photons and QT’s magical mystery tour. Because a traditional Young Huygens wave only classical model of light and an understanding of polarisation can fully explain the ‘no coincidences’ recorded when the polarisers at the two detectors are crossed in Carl’s experiment. Without having to resort to magic or mystery.

First of all one must understand how the source light is polarised. Carl confirms that the source beams of 551 and 423 nm from the excited calcium source are unpolarised. However he also admits that both beam paths will always have the same polarisation state when they arrive at the detectors at any one point in time. As long as both path lengths are equal. (“More generally, if one of the photons passes through a linear polarizer at any orientation, the remaining photon will then be in the same polarization state, pending future measurements.” Kocher)

And so when the two beams (423 &551nm) arrive at the two detectors, both detectors will receive light at any one point in time that will always be in the same polarised state. As long as both path lengths are identical. (This incidentally is the purpose of the coincidence counter. It records all counts over the time span of the experiment, but collates counts from both detectors to match them both to the same time of emission to check for coincidences. Which is also defined as the same path length)

And therefore, as Carl says in his article, if he crosses the polarising filters by placing a horizontally polarised filter in front of detector A, and a vertically polarised filter in front of detector B then only one of the two detectors can detect any incident wave light that left the source at same time. Unfortunately for Carl, real physics doesn’t use QT magic. And light is wave only. So instead of 2 imaginary magically entangled photons arriving at the detectors, it is just 2 same polarised points in the wave-only light beams (423 &551nm). With the proviso, as Kocher admits above, that both these beams when emitted will always be emitted with the same state of polarisation. And therefore they both arrive at the detectors with the same polarised state. Provided the two path lengths are identical.

For example if both detectors are receiving the same vertically polarised part of the lightbeams simultaneously, but only one detector can receive vertically polarised light due to the crossed filters, then obviously only one detector will detect any light at any one time.

Hence no coincidences will or can be recorded. Exactly as observed. 

Not only is this a physical mechanism that can explain the experimental results, no QT magic is needed either. Just a plain old classical theory of wave only light as described by Young and Huygens

For further examples of how QT magic can be explained by a wave only classical model read Here

Attosecond delays in X-ray molecular ionization

“Here we report measurements of the X-ray photoemission delay of core-level electrons, with unexpectedly large delays,..”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07771-9

As usual, Einsteins theory on photoelectrics is being proven once again to be pseudoscience. As the above quote from the linked papers abstract reveals. Problem is the theorists including those writing this paper just can’t bring themselves to admit that Einstein invented imaginary photons in 1905 purely as an excuse to validate the ludicrous claims in his soon to be published paper on special relativity. Knowing that the wave only theory of light accepted at the time was not consistent with his soon to be published fantasy of imaginary photons always travelling at c in all frames in his next paper on special relativity. 

The photon model is possibly one of the greatest obstacles to our understanding of the universe. Hubble, Planck and many other leading theorists at the time never accepted cosmological redshift was due to expansion. But because Einstein and his ludicrous quasi religious fantasies had by the 1920’s become to be worshipped and revered, nobody could accept that Hubble had just discovered that photons DID indeed lose energy over distance. A discovery that invalidated both of Einsteins 1905 Photoelectric and Special Relativity papers. And the continuing dogmatic adherence to anything Einstein published still prevents today’s theorists from understanding this basic fact: That light isn’t a photon. It is a wave only phenomena. And further to that...Electrons are also fantasies. Electric current can be much better modelled as variations in strength and orientations of adjacent atoms magnetic fields.

I have argued for many years on this blog that the photoelectric effect can be easily explained as a non relativistic classical wave only effect. Where light is a wave that gets “quantised” into packets of wave only electrical current by the detector atom. Using well documented and still scientifically accepted understanding of resonance in those resonating systems called atoms. No need for imaginary particles like photons or electrons. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H9kx9_sQYA

Detailed study of a rare hyperluminous rotating disk in an Einstein ring 10 billion years ago

A new paper titled “Detailed study of a rare hyper luminous rotating disk in an Einstein ring 10 billion years ago” has come to my attention.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-024-02296-7

This paper is a good example of how the more pages of theory based on assumptions only, increasingly byzantine maths and a good load of devious data crunching the paper has, the more fantastical and pseudoscientific its conclusions will probably be. 

As usual the BBT theory consistently fails to explain why predictions of (the lack of) star and galaxy formation in the early universe don’t match the observations. A serious problem now for BBT theorists with the new JWST data. However the fantastical BBT can still be saved by pretending even more imaginary dark matter exists in the early universe than previously predicted. (As Narayanan et al postulated in 2015) These sort of very mature old galaxies have been recently observed in hi redshift surveys and cause a serious existential problem for the BBT. They shouldn’t exist! There’s not enough time for them to form after the beginining of time in the BBT fantasy universe. One get out for supporters of this failed theory has been that there were multiple fast occuring mergers of early galaxies. However the authors of this paper admit...no such evidence of any mergers is observed in this particular hi redshift mature galaxy studied in this paper. 

But the authors of this 2024 paper now cite Narayanan and pretend even larger than expected, or allowed, imaginary dark matter existed in the early universe and fortunately can be invoked to save the continually failing BBT. Thank heavens for brilliant mathematicians. They can turn a sows ear into a silk purse. And it is this pseudoscientific sleight of hand of that is used to save their cherished BBT. The rule seems to be: If the observation contradicts your preferred theory, then make up imaginary observations of imaginary new never before observed particles and your theory will be saved. For a few weeks at least until JWST comes up with new data that contradicts your theory once again.

When will supporters of the BBT theory admit that their favourite theory has never yet made a successful prediction. Starting with Gamows 1940’s prediction of a ridiculous 50k temp for the CMBR. (when a CMBR of 2.8K was measured in the 60’s, suddenly everyone forgot how wrong Gamow, LeMaitre or Apher and Herman’s predictions actually were) And JWST in particular has been a trying time for Big Bang fantasists. Every week some new JWST early universe data contradicts the Big Bang theory. Yet rather than admit the BBT is a quasi religious fantasy devised by a catholic priest desperate to reconcile his faith with a science that wouldn’t conform to his religion (LeMaitre) the theorists can always rely on Dark Matter. The phlogiston of the 21st C.

Physicists measured Earth’s rotation using quantum entanglement

Physicists measured Earth’s rotation using quantum entanglement! Since when has classical wave interference become “Quantum interference”?

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/earth-rotation-quantum-entanglement

The experimental setup as described in the original Silverstein et al 2024 experiment is fairly complex compared to the original Sagnac version. However complexity here does not mean it is no longer a basic time of flight Sagnac interferometer with observations consistent with a classical wave only model of light.

I’ve seen similar flights of fantasies of supposed ‘proof of QT’ from other very well known “Quantum” experiments. For instance the Kim et al 1999 Delayed Choice quantum eraser experiment. Where on analysis they had only confirmed the classical model of light. Where light is a wave only and not a photon. 

The technique is also used here. QT ‘researchers’ also have made the experiment as complex as possible so as to disguise the fact that the experiment can still be explained classically without referring to relativity or QT. I have comprehensively dissected Kim et al’s Delayed choice experiment setup and shown how adding complexity is also used to prove Quantum fantasies, at this following link http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-main-illustrationbelow-is-schematic.html

The same applies to this current 2024 experiment. They manage to pull off this Quantum trick by pretending that somehow ...classical polarised states of wave only light and wave interference are signs of the light being a particle and subject to quantum nuttiness!! 

The fact is that in this experiment there is still only just a path difference detected. And it is detected, as usual for any Sagnac interferometer, via interference patterns. Nothing more. They even admit this is all thats observed. The sleight of hand here is QT dogma at its greatest. They pretended that classical wave interference, observed and documented for centuries by Young and others... is somehow now called “Quantum Interference”

Laughable nonsense as usual from establishment physicists.