Spintronics 3

Continued from page 2

I consider the experimental behaviour to exhibit wave like characteristics (see figure Spintronics Wave 1 and 2).
At first I though this could be the F wave but now I believe that it is related to the V wave and mass to energy conversion.
In the figure “Spin Hall Effect 1” I imagine what the possible effect upon an isolated electron could be upon a waveform.
Then in the figure “Spin Hall Effect 2” I try to develop this hypothesis to a case resembling the experiment results more closely. Notice that I imagined the spins contrary to the experimental data.
The figure “Spin Hall Effect 3” comes in line with the experimental data.
The figure “Spin Hall Effect 4” suggests that alternative paths 3 and 4 might work in a similar manner but then the paths would not be trapped by the iron atoms that drive this process.

We are not yet ready to put forward a new interpretation. We need to establish a reason why the path in the hyperbolae follow the directions found in experiment. The figure “Spintronics Decay 3” gives an explanation based upon the geometry of the hyperbola being linked that assumes a predisposition to spin in one direction.

Now I can start to create my own interpretation. In the figures “Spin Hall Effect 5, 6 and 7” I show some possible scenarios. The diagrams are not entirely accurate but schematic. There does not need to be 75% mass for example but between, say, 50% and 75%.

The figure “Spin Hall Effect 5” is my first attempt to explain why the electrons in diagram (b) end up with reversed spins.
The figure “Spin Hall Effect 6” is an alternative attempt to explain why the electrons in diagram (b) end up with reversed spins.

The figure “Spin Hall Effect 7” is much closer to the picture that I believe explains the Spin Hall experiment. What I now believe is happening is that the electron on one side is following a V wave trough with a minima for energy at the hyperbolic cusp while the opposite side is following an inverted V wave trough with a maxima for mass at the hyperbolic cusp.
So relating this behaviour back to the iron atoms (which have a reversed spin to each other) then a single F wave around that atom would interact with the V wave patterns in this figure.
Both electrons at A and F have spin but no charge in the Spin Hall experiment so a final correction is made in figure “Spin Hall Effect 8”.

continued on page 4

The different phases presented to the electrons following paths ABC and DEF by the iron atoms account for their different behaviour. I expect that since these paths (top picture) are both outward towards A (from C) and F (from D) and not continuous from FEDCBA (that also represents a complete wavelength) then this could be an induction factor (caused by the iron atoms having reversed spin and polarity) reversing the expected behaviour along DEF. However this is a chicken and egg scenario and I expect that the truth may well be that either circumstance (cause or effect) can be present depending upon circumstances.
Spin and Charge Currents
The original diagram (a) for the experiments is also difficult to interpret but now I have some basis for doing so.

In figure “Spin and Charge Currents” the ratios of mass to energy are schematic and not available from experimental data. However using this scheme it is possible to get the same outcome as the Spintronics experiments! For the charge current the initial electrons may have a 50%+ energy ratio to mass while for the spin current the initial electrons may have a 50%- energy ratio to mass. This seems more likely for the charge cuurent to allow the energy/charge to accumulate.
Conclusion
There is now a basis for re-interpreting Spintronics in Complex QM terms. It is far too early to comment any more comprehensively and I would appreciate comments from physicists working in this field. I am pleased that I have found some correspondence although it could be argued it lies more in Mass to Energy conversion than in Complex QM terms.
I have previously considered charge as a surfeit of energy over mass. Spin can be considered as the reverse and seems to act in a similar manner to a skater who pulls in their arms and legs to revolve faster. This is not to automatically equate a smaller mass radius with increased angular momentum but to suggest that there is a link.
I am beginning to see that when I stated that that spin can be associated with a mass rich particle and charge can be associated with an energy rich particle. I was nearly correct. I am believe that angular momentum can be associated with a mass rich particle or energy to mass transfer and magnetic momentum can be associated with an energy rich particle or a mass to energy transfer. So at present a more complicated picture seems to be emerging and perhaps this may be clouding the issue but some correspondence could exist and I mention the possibility here. I expect that spin generally will not change in an electron unless it is subject to outside forces. So we can still associate spin with the amount of mass present in the electron while charge can be with the amount of energy present in the electron. However if we accept that the mass to energy transference is defined by the V wave then spin and charge must vary (ay least slightly).
When we consider this alongside angular momentum and magnetic momentum a more complicated picture emerges that still needs clarifying.
Perhaps spin and charge may hold constant (as a combined dynamic system) because angular momentum and magnetic momentum maintain a constant magnetic field resulting in no observable difference?