Stern-Gerlach Experiment

[charlieangkor]

But the Stern Gerlach experiment didn't use two pointy pole pieces. It used one pointy pole piece and one cupped pole piece.

[SpotterVideo]

Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:

When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are actually a part of the quarks. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" make sense based on this concept. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else.

[tomclancyya]

question from commoner,
the original exp result has vertical smile shape with different size of the "lips". how it can be projected it to the "just two dots" explanation?

[protocol]

The supposed classical outcome never made any sense to me. Magnets, regardless of orientatation, should be deflected either with or without an applied torque depending on intitial orientation. Spin along the magnetic pole axis should cause something roughly equivalent to the angular inertia of a magnet. How much it deflects should vary with velocity and initial orientation as any torquing of the magnet should reduce the deflection and the less time spent in the field, the less deflection. It doesn't seem like there should be a single peak in the middle except possibly if the magnets are moving fast enough (or the field strength is low enough) to make things barely diverge even when aligned (or anti-aligned) with the experiment. There should be a direct tradeoff between path curvature and orientation change leaving two peaks in most cases. The torque should mean the deflection is always more than you'd expect if you didn't take torque into account but not as much as if it instantly flipped. I'd expect the experiment to be effectively bistable depending on velocity and field strengt tuning. Does that not follow?