Robin, the question and perhaps some of the following comments made here lend evidence to you being correct.
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 5:34 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Robin, for what its worth I think you are probably right. > > A free electron having a magnetic moment makes no sense to me. > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> Where does the photon get its angular momentum, when it and its twin >> appear from positron-electron enillalation? >> >> I am not familiar with what line splitting the cyclotron frequency is. >> >> Bob Cook >> >> -----Original Message----- From: mix...@bigpond.com >> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 7:43 PM >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Magnetic moment .vs motion as source of magnetic >> field >> >> >> In reply to Bob Cook's message of Mon, 14 Dec 2015 19:29:26 -0800: >> Hi, >> [snip] >> >>> IMO free electrons have no magnetic moment, because they have no "spin", >>>>>>> which >>>>>>> >>>>>> is not an intrinsic property of the electron, but rather a direct >>> consequence of >>> being bound to an atom.<<<< >>> >>> Now I would say that is a departure from conventional thinking. >>> >> >> Yup. >> >> >>> Can you further explain this conclusion? I would guess that you would >>> say >>> that an electron has no intrinsic angular momentum as well as photons >>> having >>> none. >>> >> >> No, I think photons do have angular momentum, though I don't think >> electrons do. >> But it's just a hunch. One of the things that makes me think this is the >> fact >> when a free electron circles in a magnetic field, you get cyclotron >> radiation, >> but I would expect line splitting of the cyclotron frequency if free >> electrons >> also had an intrinsic magnetic moment. >> >> >>> Bob Cook >>> >> Regards, >> >> Robin van Spaandonk >> >> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html >> >> >
