(Fig.S) Electron spin is an unreal faster-than-light spinning.
Electron spin is unrealistic because a tiny (point-like) electron must be spinning much faster-than-light to generate the observed magnetic moment ( this lower ).
So quantum mechanics paradoxically started to claim this unphysical electron spin is Not actual spinning, though it allegedly has spin angular momentum.
This paradoxical nature of electron spin makes us realize we can explain all the experimental results based on this fictional electron spin by realistic electron's orbital motion, because both electron's orbital motion and fictitious spin are said to have the same indistinguishable magnetic field called Bohr magneton (= μB = only this magnetic field is measurable ). ← Electron spin is unnecessary ( this p.2 ) with No experimental proof.
↑ Unphysical spin's angular momentum-1/2 or g-factor-2 can Not be directly measured (= spin-g-factor=2 has to be guessed from measured Bohr magneton divided by unmeasurable spin-1/2 angular momentum allegedly caused by Not-real rotation, this p.4-2-obstacle ). ← No evidence of electron spin-1/2.
In addition to the unphysical faster-than-light electron spinning ( this p.2-1.1 ), the electron spin unrealistically can Not be slowed down or accelerated no matter how many times electrons collide or interact with other particles ( this-1st-paragraph, this 3rd-paragraph, this 13th-paragraph ). ← Quantum mechanics provides No reason why the electron spinning speed is Not slowed down or changed.
On the other hand, the realistic electron's orbital motion can naturally explain the constant angular momentum or Bohr magneton based on the experimentally-verified de Broglie wave theory keeping the same angular momentum = an interger × ℏ ( this p.6 ) to avoid destructive interference of de Broglie wave.
In spite of these fatal contradictions of electron spin, the science media repeatedly made false hyped claims like ( this 4-5th-paragraphs ),
"The work at VCU has also shown that assemblies of such magnetic species could (= just uncertain speculation ) lead to novel electronic systems with potential applications (= talk about vague future, so still useless now ) in spintronics ! .. The theoretical prediction had identified Na8V as a superatomic species with a magnetic moment of five Bohr magnetons (= caused Not by the unreal spin but by electron's realistic orbital motion )"
(Fig.Q) Unscientific quantum mechanical interpretation of physical properties of materials based on fictitious quasi-electrons with fake mass, quasiparticles, abstract meaningless equations lacking real particle figures hampers real science and innovation.
The important point is that (useless) quantum mechanics is unable to describe physical phenomena of materials and molecules by using real particles or concepts, which fatal defects of quantum mechanics cause the current deadend mainstream science.
Quantum mechanics has to rely on fictitious quasiparticle model or unrealistic quasi-electron with fake effective masses ( this p.2, this p.5-4th-paragraph ) to (meaninglessly) explain electromagnetic properties in metals, semiconductors, insulators, molecules and (misleadingly-overhyped) spintronics.
The paradoxical quantum mechanical Pauli principle requires every electron to unrealistically spread and exist in all different atoms inside materials by the unphysical exchange energy lacking real exchange force.
This is why the current most-widely-used only mainstream quantum mechanical approximation called density functional theory (= DFT ) or Kohn-Sham theory tries to describe the whole materials as one pseudo-electron ( this p.2-3 ) or fictitious quasiparticle model with unrealistically-changeable effective masses and pseudo-spins using artificially-chosen pseudo-potentials or exchange functionals whose universally-exact form is still unknown ( this p.3-5, this p.6-7, this 3rd-paragraph ).
So quantum mechanical most popular DFT method (= the current only choise for solid or semiconductor physics ) just artificially choosing approximate exchange-energy functionals or pseudo-potentials often giving wrong results is an incorrect theory with No ability to predict any physical values ( this p.4(or.3),p.13(or p.12) ) which means there is No such thing as a correct quantum mechanical prediction, contrary to the media-hype.
↑ Artificially-chosen pseudo-potentials or (fake) basis wavefunctions with freely-adjustable parameters show quantum mechanics is unable to predict any physical phenomena, meaning quantum mechanical methods are just "fake ab-initio" or ad-hoc empirical theory artificially fitted to experimental values ( this p.23-last-paragraph, this p.3-3rd-paragraph, this p.2-right, this p.4-2nd-paragraphs ), and it lacks real particle picture ( this-last-paragraph, this p.3-2.2 ).
↑ Quantum mechanical wavefunctions and its most widely-used DFT approximation are unable to give real atomic or electron picture with concrete shape or size usable as practical parts for building useful nano-devices or treating diseases.
Actually, quantum mechanics often relies on unphysical band model (= using one fictitious quasi-electron approximation) that has to be based on wrongly-average pseudo-electron with fake effective mass and fictional crystal quasi-momentum (= or wavenumber k ), energy ( this p.3, this p.12-14 ). ← Band model can Not designate the precise positions of electrons due to unrealistically-spreading electron band model (= an actual individual electron must be bound to one atom at a time instead of the unrealistically-spreading band or electron's plain wave picture, this p.12-13 ), so useless.
Quantum mechanics can only express each electron and (fictitious) quasiparticle by using nonphysical math symbols such as creation and annhilation operators ( this p.3, this p.3, this p.2-Results, this p.2-Results ) and abstract (useless) 100-year-old equations called Heisenberg or Hubbard spin models where the fictitious (exchange) interaction parameter J, U or t must be artificially adjusted ( this p.5-6, this p.12, this p.4, this p.2-right ) with No realistic, consistent theoretical basis ( this p.3-last-paragraph ).
↑ The fact that the current mainstream atomic theory or quantum mechanics is unable to describe physical phenomena by real particles with real physical shapes and masses means scientists in all fields are unable to use real atomic or molecular models with real shapes and sizes as parts for designing and building useful molecular nano-machines for curing diseases.
This is why all the current applied science such as biology, medicine and manufactuing industry is deadend, as shown in still-incurable cancers, still-impractical hyped quantum computers, impractical green-new technology, already-dead Moore's law (= this is true, though many companies that want subsidy tend to refuse to admit it ) in semiconductor industry..
The lack of real particle picture with concrete shapes forces scientists to rely on one-pseudo-electron DFT approximation and extremely-time-consuming molecular dynamics based on artificially-chosen pseudo-potentials, which impractical mainstream molecular simulating methods are main culprits of stopping science and innovation now.
↑ The fact that we cannot utilize real practical atomic or molecular models, hindered by the harmful quantum mechanical model lacking reality means researchers have to rely on the extremely-time-consuming trial-and-error approach only from macroscopic viewpoint such as measuring ordinary electromagnetic propeties or light interacting with materials to find lucky objects out of infinite choices (= very time-consuming ! ), which can Not design or build sophisticated useful molecular nano-machines (= like enzymes killing cancers ) by manipulating and combining each atom one by one with knowledge of each atomic shape.
Discovery of transistors is based on this classic trial-and-error approach ( this-lower trial and error ), Not on (imaginary overhyped) quantum mechanical prediction, contrary to the media-hype = more complicated and more compact nano-devices need real microscopic atomic interaction picture for using each atom as a realistic component or tool, Not just macroscopic trial-and-error approach.
↑ It means all the current physics, chemistry and biology researches lacking real atomic picture are just waste of time (= due to extremely-time-consuming trial-and-error approach blind to real microscopic atomic mechanism ), by which reseachers just destroy their precious careers stuck in these fruitless useless pseudo-scientific concepts as slaves to greedy academic journals constantly hyping and misleading us.
Because the curent research's only purpose is to publish papers in top journals by wasting an enormous amount of time and taxpayers' money in meaningless pseudo-concepts or nonphysical useless equations instead of really aiming to create useful things or cure diseases.
In order to hide this inconvenient truth of the current deadend science, the media and academia have to constantly spread the baseless overhyped news about all the current hopeless science fields including the (unreal) electron spin such as,
"The 'spins' of electrons (and holes) in semiconductors have potential applications (= the use of word 'potential' means still No practical application now ) in spintronics, spin-based quantum computing (= already dead ), and topological systems ( this-1st-paragraph ) !"
"We are excited about our results, that could (= meaning just baseless speculation ) be helpful for future (= talking about 'future' means still useless now ) research for spintronics ( this 6th-paragraph ) !"
↑ The basic mainstream atomic physics has been actually deadend due to fantasy quantum mechanics. → All applied science fields have stalled, too. → Constantly spreading baseless overhyped science news is necessary to hide this incovenient fact that the current science and innovation have already stopped progressing. → People are deceived by this hyped news into wrongly believing the current (deadend) science may still hold promise. → A lot of taxpayers' money is wasted for this meaningless useless pseudo-science, creating and spreading more fake hyped science news, which misinformation prevents real useful science or curing cancers, and destroys researchers' careers. ← tragic vicious cycle now.
Also about (fictional) quantum computers, which is deadend and impractical forever, overhyped science news ( this 2nd-paragraph ) always over-exaggerates like
"The innovation marks a significant stride (= or step ) towards fault-tolerant quantum computing (= which can Not even correct errors of small numbers of qubits, so useless ), promising (= just speculation, still unrealized) to revolutionize (← ? ) the design of quantum computer processors (= full of unfounded hypes )."
The 6th and 10th paragraphs of this science news about the alleged research offering insights into the metal-to-insulator transition say
"Quantitative determination of the interaction parameters in the Schrodinger's equation of real materials has been a very difficult task.. (= quantum mechanical Schrodinger equation has been useless for any multi-electron materials )"
"However, when the materials are quasi-one-dimensional (= Not real model ), the atomic lattice often violently fluctuates.."
↑ They ( this p.8-9, Fig.9, p.12-left ) tried to explain this mechanism using fictional quasiparticle models such as exciton and phonon, expressed those particles by nonphysical math operators with No realistic shapes using one-pseudo-electron DFT model with empirically-chosen exchange functional and many freely-adjustable parameters artificially fitted to experimental results. ← No quantum mechanical prediction, and useless pseudo-models lacking real particle figures or shapes hamper science development .
↑ This p.8-VII-electrons are expressed as nonphysical math operators (= c† ) with No shapes whose interaction parameters were artificially fitted to experiments, this-p.9, Fig.9-fictitious phonon, exciton quasiparticles' nonphysical math operators lack real shapes, this-p.12-left= one-pseudo-electron DFT with semiempirical correction, with No quantum mechanical prediction. ← useless quantum mechanical pseudo-model.
So the last paragraph of this hyped news just vaguely says
"Once we have their quantum DNAs in hand, these complex materials will (= just about speculative future, still useless now ) be a lot more tameable for predictive materials engineering (?)"
(Fig.E) Unrealistic electron (faster-than-light) spinning is unnecessary to explain any experiments which just detect electromagnetic field naturally explained by electron's orbital motion.
In fact, No experiments allegedly measuring electron spin can prove the existence of electron spin, which spin is just an imaginary concept.
Electron spin (magnetic) resonance (= ESR ) or electron paramagnetic resonance (= EPR ) is said to be the method of detecting electron spin (= Not spinning ).
But of course, it is impossible to see the unrealistic electron spin (= faster-than-light spinning ! ) or its angular momentum (= or g-factor ) directly.
In ESR, all researchers can measure is energy level splitting (= through detecting light emitted from or absorbed into atoms ) under applied magnetic field B where the measured energy interval is equal to Bohr magneton (= μB ) × the magnetic field B × 2 (= difference between two orbits of upper and down magnetic directions ).
This ESR energy splitting can be naturally explained by the realistic electron's orbital motion whose magnetic moment is equal to Bohr magneton or the electron spin whose (spin) magnetic moment is also Bohr magneton ( this p.2, this 3rd-paragraph ).
Because the magnetic moment is equal to g-factor × angular momentum.
Electron's orbital motion's magnetic moment = g-factor (= 1 ) × orbital angular momentum (= 1 ) × Bohr magneton = one Bohr magneton (= μB ).
Electron's spin magnetic moment is also spin-g-factor (= 2 ) × spin angular momentum (= 1/2 ) × Bohr magneton = one Bohr magneton (= μB, this p.3 ).
As a result, ESR can be naturally explained by the realistic electron's orbital motion, and the unrealistic electron spin is unnecessary (= the concept of Bohr magneton originally came from the successful Bohr's atomic orbit without spin ).
One of methods for allegedly detecting (fictional) electron's spin magnetic direction is the detection of the (classical) light (= Not electron spin ) reflected from magnetic field of material, which (magnetic field) has nothing to do with electron spin, though.
Light or electromagnetic wave is known to change its polarization after being reflected by magnetic materials (= Not spin ), depending on the direction of magnetic field (= magnetization or magnetic moment ), which phenomenon is called magneto-optical Kerr effect (= MOKE ) or Faraday effect, which had been alreadly known long before (unrealistic) quantum mechanics was born ( this p.20 ), so electron spin (or quantum photon particle ) is irrelevant to this light reflection.
These Kerr or Faraday effects can be naturally explained by classical electromagnetic theory and the realistic electron's orbital motion whose magnetic moment or Bohr magneton (= which modifies the light polarization ) is equal to that of (unreal) electron spin.
Actually, in Kerr effect, only when the material's magnetic field includes the component parallel to the incident electromagnetic light wave's propagating direction (= polar or longitudinal ), this light's (magnetic) phase is modified, and resultantly the light's polarization is changed like linearly → elliptically-polarized light ( this p.3-5, this p.13-14(or p.7-8) ).
↑ This Kerr effect just agrees with classical light wave theory = when the parallel component phase of electromagnetic wave changes, the light polarization (= linear ↔ circular ) is known to change.
Another main method of allegedly detecting electron's spin magnetic direction is inverse spin Hall effect (= ISHE ), which has nothing to do with electron spin, contrary to that name.
In the inverse spin Hall effect, the magnetic current (= caused by electron orbital motion or unreal spin ) is said to be changed into electric current which slight electric voltage change (= Not spin magnet ) in material can be detected ( this p.2-Fig.1 ). ← The unreal electron spin itself is directly undetectable in this method.
Spin Hall effect (= causing slight magnetic field induced by electric field where spin is irrelevant and undetectable ) and inverse spin Hall effects (= magnetic → electric ) can be naturally explained by the electron's orbital motions which are scattered toward left or right depending on the orbital direction due to classical Magnus effect (= rotating objects turn their directions depending on the rotating directions causing different frictions with the surrounding, this p.3-2nd-last-paragraph ), which causes slight electric current or voltage when electrons with the same orbital motion causing magnetic field in the same direction are flowing.
On the other hand, the unrealistic quantum mechanical spin is a point particle (= No orbital motion ), and electron spin is Not real spinning (= due to the faster-than-light spinning, so No friction in unphysical electron spin like Magnus effect ), hence, the (Coulomb) scattering depending on the (point-particle) spin's magnetic direction can Not happen.
So physicists started to say Einstein relativistic spin-orbit magnetic interaction causes this spin Hall effect ( this p.12 ), ignoring fatal relativisic electromagnetic paradox.
But this relativistic spin-orbit effect is clearly paradoxical, so wrong and impossible, because this relativistic spin-orbit effect is said to occur only from the viewpoint of the rest electron's frame (= where heavier nuclei are unrealistically moving instead, which moving nuclei allegedly cause fictitious magnetic field seen from the stationary electrons ).
And this (fictitious) spin-orbit magnetic interaction does Not occur in the normal lab frame where electrtons are naturally moving, and heavir nuclei are at rest (= the normal stationary nuclei do Not cause magnetic field nor spin-orbit magnetic interaction, this p.2-Fig.3 ) according to experimentally-observed Lorentz magnetic force law.
↑ This means their unscientific claim that moving electrons may feel (fictitious) magnetic field from the stationary nuclei (= stationary nuclei do Not generate magnetic field ! ) is wrong and paradoxical, and spin-orbit (fictitious magnetic) interaction or spin Hall effect does Not happen in electron spin.
Furthermore, even the original relativistic spin-orbit magnetic interaction is too weak to cause this spin Hall effect.
So they unreasonably changed the definition of original Einstein's relativistic effect (= so their spin-orbit-based spin Hall effect contradicts the original Einstein relativity ), and used the pseudo-relativistic spin-orbit effect that is allegedly far stronger than the original relativistic spin-orbit effect, and is the opposite direction of the original Einstein relativistic efect ( this p.6, this p.2-right-4th-paragraph, this p.2-left-1st-paragraph ). ← nonsense
Actually, there are many discrepancies between quantum theory and the observation, and this (too faint) spin Hall effect is useless with No practical application.
This p.11-8.Conclusions say
"However, the number of experimental papers is still about two orders of magnitude
less than the number of theoretical ones.
At present, it is difficult to predict whether
this (spin Hall) effect will have any practical applications, as many people believe, or it will
belong only to fundamental research as a tool for studying spin interactions in
solids."
Small energy splitting called fine structure was perfectly explained by realistic Bohr-Sommerfeld atomic model's electron orbital motion without the unphysical spin, which was later copied by unphysical quantum field theory based on paradoxical spin-orbit effect.
In (impractical) spin researches, (unreal) relativistic pseudo-potentials are artificially chosen to seemingly express this paradoxical relativistic spin-orbit (= SO ) effect with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.8-upper, this p.2-3, this-abstract, p.7 this p.15-16 ).
Magnetoresistance (= MR ) also just detects electric resistance (= Not spin ) depending on directions of magnetization of materials, which can be naturally explained by electron's orbital motion-dependent-electric-resistance or scattering. Unreal electron spin is unnecessary and undetectable.
Researches based on this unrealistic spin are completely useless, waste of time forever due to the lack of real electron's spinning picture, so science news about spin is filled with unfounded hypes to hide this stalled, hopeless electron spin science.
For example, the 2nd-last paragraph of this hyped spin news just vaguely says
"the researchers presented the first spin field-effect transistor at room temperature using the spin precession strategy they developed. In the future (= meaning "still useless now"), their work could (= this word means just baseless speculation ) pave the way towards the practical implementation of energy efficient spin-based logic (= never happen ) !"
↑ Actually this hyped allegedly-first spin field-effect transistor research just detected electric voltage (= method called spin valve which is one of magnetoresistance that does Not see spin itself ) after applying electric field, and tried to explain it by using artificial spin model containing free-fitting parameters with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this-p.18-Figure S8, p.23-24-model-parameters ).
In order to roughly estimate (fictional) electron spin, the current physicists often rely on very unreliable instruments called spin-ARPES (= angle resolved photoemission spectroscopy ) based on measuring electrons (= scattering directions instead of measuring electron spin's magnet itself ) ejected by (classical) light through photoelectric effect.
The point is it is impossible to measure the (unrealistic) electron spin's magnetic direction directly. ← Stern-Gerlach experiment (= just measuring silver atomic magnetic moment, Not electron spin ) cannot measure electron's spin's magnetic moment directly ( this spin detector at Bloch, this p.9 ).
This p.6-2. says
"Unfortunately, the concept of a simple Stern–Gerlach type
spin separator does Not work for charged particles like electrons."
So they try to (baselessly) 'guess' the (imaginary) electron's spin direction by vaguely seeing the directions or intensities of electrons scattered by some metals like Au target, which method is called spin-ARPES.
Spin-ARPES is said to scatter electrons in different ways depending on the electron's spin magnetic direction (= which is just speculation with No direct experimental evidence, though ).
But in fact, electrons easily change their original (fictitious) spin magnetic directions when they absorb the incident light's energy (= so they cannot know the material's original electron's spin state by this method ), and they are also affected by the material's other electrons' magnetic fields.
And the directions in which electrons are scattered are very uncertain, unpredictable, and easily influenced by the irrelevant multiple Coulomb scattering with other electrons and nuclei.
↑ Electrons tend to be ejected in almost random directions, so electrons flying in slightly-different directions easily affect the scattering directions or intensities of spin-ARPES result in a way irrelevant to spin magnetic direction, which is very unreliable method of estimating (fictitious) spin direction indirectly.
This p.2-2nd, 4th paragraphs-p.3 say
"we cannot simply use the spin of the electrons as a tag and measure
independently the photoelectron spectra for spin-up and spin-down electrons..
In practice, one therefore exploits the spin-dependence in
a scattering experiment (= insead of directly measuring spin's magnetic direction )
"
"Does the spin-polarized spectrum (= of spin-ARPES ) reflect the true spin polarization of the
electronic states in the system under study ? Unfortunately, this is Not necessarily true
several different mechanisms inherent in the photoemission process are discussed that affect the spin polarization that is experimentally observed"
"All these effects can hamper the characterization of spin-resolved bands in the ground state. They are in most cases not well known (= many unknown factors make spin-ARPES results unreliable )."
The mechanism of electron spin direction affecting (Coulomb) scattering is said to be based on relativistic spin-orbit effect (= called Mott scattering ) or fictitious exchange interaction (= VLEED scattering, this p.49-52 ) lacking real exchange force ( this-lower-our approach ).
Though quantum mechanical aritificial pseudo-model cannot predict it due to various freely-fitting parameters ( this p.10 ).
As I said, the relativistic spin-orbit effect is paradoxical and physically impossible, because they say moving electrons do Not experience (fictitious relativistic) magnetic field from the stationary nuclei, and only when seen from the electron's rest frame, the stationary nuclei appear to be moving and causing fictitious relativistic magnetic field that may affect spin-scattering direction through (fictitious) spin-orbit magnetic interaction.
↑ The fact that whether relativistic spin-orbit interaction may happen or not depends on observers' viewpoint (= seen from electron's rest frame or moving frame ) means this relativistic spin-orbit (fictitious) magnetic effect is paradoxical and wrong.
Furthermore, this spin-ARPES based on the fictitious spin-orbit effect (= Mott detector ) has very bad detection efficiency due to multiple uncertain scattering and accelerated electrons easily penetrating target metals without being detected ( this-middle-spin-resolved photoemission spectroscopy ).
This p.5-right-last-paragraph says
"However this effect is weak and cannot
be easily resolved at all scattering angles or energies..
At low energy the electron
cloud shields the nucleus reducing the Mott effect,
and for softer scattering angles the electron is likely
to multi-scatter (= this spin-ARPES cannot measure electron spin easily )"
Spin-ARPES based on (fictitious) quantum mechanical exchange energy (= called VLEED ) is said to distinguish the electron spin direction based on the ( unfounded ) assumption that electrons with different spin directions may be reflected by target magnetized metal with slightly-different probabilities → different reflection intensities depending on electron spin direction.
But the detection efficiency of this spin-ARPES is also bad, and easily affected by many other irrelevant factors.
The detection efficiency of spin-ARPES is called Sherman function (= S ) which must be artificially and experimentally determined by fitting many free parameters, because different materials with different shapes and thickness, different incident lights, different angles easily change the measured electrons, and undermine the reliability of spin-ARPES or Sherman function ( this p.14-4. ).
The typical Sherman function or spin-ARPES detection efficiency is only about 0.2 ( this p.3-left ) which means spin-ARPES easily misinterprets the electron spin direction with 80% error rate.
This p.1-right says
"the estimation of Seff (= Sherman function ), however, is Not an easy task
The absolute calibration can be achieved by the usage of spin-polarized electrons,. but the setup of the spin-polarized electron source itself is hard work (= it is impossible to prepare electrons with some desired spin direction, because the applied magnetic field changes the electron spin direction randomly up or down ).
"
Even when this spin-ARPES was performed against the ferromagnets such as Fe, Co, Ni (= which should ideally show 100% spin polarization ), they often failed to show spin polarization ( this p.13-2nd-paragraph ).
Even in the latest research, the observed magnetic polarization asymmetry against ferromagnet nickel (= Ni ) is only less than 3.0% (= 97% electrons showed random irrelevant spin or magnetic directions, this-p.16-right-lower-green-line-asymmetry, this p.1-right obtained only 3.2% polarization asymmetry in magnetized ferromagnet Ni ).
This p.5-(2) showed Sherman function (= SFEL = non-error rate ) is only 0.1 (= 90% error rate ) and this p.6-Fig.2 says estimated polarization P is about 17% means the observed (fictitious spin) asymmetry is only 17% × 0.1 = 1.7% (= 98.3% of scattered electrons showed irrelevant random spin directions after absorbing incident light ).
↑ The directions of electrons' scattering are easily affected by positions, various conditions such as incident light, so this spin-ARPES based on uncertain electrons' scattering to roughly estimate (fictitious) electron's spin direction is very unreliable.
The 1st, 2nd, 4th paragraphs of the recent hyped news say
"An international research group has discovered a new state of matter characterized by the existence of a quantum phenomenon called ( nonphysical ) chiral current"
"In the quantum phenomenon discovered, the chirality of the currents was detected by studying the interaction between light and matter, in which a suitably polarized photon can emit an electron from the surface of the material with a well-defined (fictitious) spin state."
"The discovery of the existence of these quantum states may (= just speculation, still useless research ) pave the way for the development of a new type of electronics that employs chiral currents (= mixing electron's spin and orbital motion ) as information carriers in place of the electron's charge."
↑ This research tried to measure electrons of some material (= Sr2RuO4 ) ejected by incident polarized (classical) light ( this Fig.1c ) using spin-ARPES ( this p.8-left-VLEED ) that can Not measure (fictional) electron spin, and tried to interpret the measured results using pseudo-particles expressed as nonphysical math operators with No shapes and No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.2-p.15 ), which is useless.
The original paper (= p.4-right-lower ) also admits
"We emphasize that a quantitative analysis is difficult and the signals
detected are subtle (= No experimental evidence of quantum mechanical electron spin )"
(Fig.M) two electrons whose orbital directions are opposite tend to crash against each other, causing larger electric resistance. ← Unreal electron spin is unnecessary in magnetoresistance.
Spin-polarized scanning tunneling microscopy (= SP-STM ) just detects electric resistance (= Not spin ! ) depending on magnetization (= explained by electron's orbital motion ) using magnetoresistance mechanism ( this Figure.3 ) which does Not need the (unreal) electron spin or fictitious quasiparticles ( this p.1-1st-paragraph ).
In magnetoresistance (= MR ), when directions of magnetic fields of two materials are parallel (or antiparallel ), the electric resistance between these two magnetic materials is lower (or higher ).
↑ This magnetoresistance can be perfectly explained by the realistic electron's orbital motions as shown in the upper figure. When two electron's orbital directions are the opposite between two materials, these electrons tend to crash into each other, causing larger electric resistance.
Giant magnetoresistance utilized in hard disk drives symbolizing spintronics was accidentally, unexpectedly discovered, and inconsistent with the exising quantum mechanical spin theory even now ( this p.1-left, p.6-brief history, this p.1-right, this p.6-right, this p.8-lower ).
Actually. This p.3-2nd-3rd-paragraphs say
"The general
consensus (= based on quantum mechanical spin ) in the 1980s was that it was Not possible to significantly improve on the performance of
magnetic sensors based on magnetoresistance.
Therefore it was a great surprise when in 1988 two research groups independently discovered materials
showing a very large magnetoresistance, now known as giant magnetoresistance (GMR)."
This-introduction-2nd-paragraph says
"Nowadays the underlying physics of GMR (= giant magnetoresistance ) and the interlayer exchange coupling are broadly understood. Nevertheless, when it comes to detail, discrepancies between experimental observations and theoretical models can arise."
Unlike realistic electron's orbital motion, the point-like electron's spin can Not utilize the mechanism of (strong) Coulomb scattering or crashing between different spin directions, hence electron spin cannot explain giant magnetoresistance.
Quantum mechanics has to rely on unrealistic negative kinetic energy in tunnel current over extremely narrow space (= ~ nm ).
↑ In such a narrow space, their estimation of the potential barrier is wrong, and electrons can realistically flow over very short distance by thermal fluctuation or de Broglie wave interference pressure (= de Broglie wave has 'power' to push electrons and cause interference pattern ) even without the impossible negative kinetic energy (= so tunneling is Not the occult quantum mechanical phenomenon but realistic electron's current with positive kinetic energy along real de Broglie wave ).
The last paragraph of this hyped news (about quantum dot combined with spin valve based on magnetoresistance ) unscientifically insists
"This new approach to spintronics should now enable direct measurements of spin correlations and spin entanglement and shed new light on many old and new physical phenomena.
In the future (= the use of this word means "still impractical spin now" ), the concept could even prove useful in the quest to use electron spins as the smallest information unit (quantum bit) in a (already-dead) quantum computer."
↑ This research just measured electric resistance (= Not spin ) by tunnel magnetoresistance, and used artificially-adjusted parameters or g-factors ( this p.6-left=adjustable parameters, this p.6 ) with No quantum mechanical prediction or No evidence of electron spin.
The 3-4th-paragraphs of this hyped news about measuring electric conductance (= Not spin ) of some bacterial proteins using magnetoresistance just vaguely says,
"Researchers..have found that protein "wires" connecting a bacterial cell to a solid surface tend to transmit electrons with a particular spin.
This ability to select an electron's quantum spin could (= just baseless speculation ) have implications for the use of bacteria in the biotechnology industry and in burgeoning efforts to create bacteria-based energy cells, as well as future (= still useless now ) electronic technologies (= full of hypes )."
↑ This research just measured some electric current (= Not spin ) without quantum mechanical detailed explanation or prediction. ( this Fig.1,2, this p.1-3= No quantum mechanical calculation ).
The 5th-paragraph of this hyped news just speculatively says
"This work has extended the ESR experimental platform from single atoms to a much broader class of matter—magnetic molecules, which brings many more possibilities (= still uncertain speculation ) to perform quantum control on single magnetic molecules."
↑ Manipulation of a single atom has been already possible for a long time, so the current science stops progressing (= they cannot move forward from manipulating a single atom to building useful molecular nano-devices ) due to the unreal quantum mechanical spin model.
↑ This experiment just artificially fitted interaction parameter J or other parameters to experiments.
One-pseudo-electron DFT model + artificial pseudo-potential was also used to roughly estimate these J parameters which calculation results disagreed with experiment ( this p.13-Fig.3d=DFT calculation disagreed with experiment, p.14,16, p.19=DFT-artificially-chosen-pseudo-potential ).
The 6th and 11th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"whereas the motion of spin does not intrinsically dissipate as much heat. This characteristic could potentially (= just speculation, still useless ) allow for lower-power device operation.
The researchers fabricated ultrathin black-phosphorus-based spin valves (= magnetoresistance explained by electron's orbital motion, Not spin )
"
↑ This expeiment just measured electric resistance (= magnetoresistace, No spin was measured ) under some magnetic field, and tried to explain it using artificially-created model with free parameters fitted to experiments with No quantum mechanical prediction.
This p.3,4,5-last used experimental values for fitting artificial parameters of magnetoresistance models (= by Fert, this p.2-left-2nd-paragraph-unknown parameters ) that has No relation to quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.6-1st-paragraph ).
(Fig.M) Small magnetic fluctuation generated in magnetic material illuminated by light is misinterpreted as unreal magnon quasiparticle by quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics tries to explain small magnetic fluctuation generated in some materials illuminated with laser light by using imaginary spin wave consisting of fictitious magnon quasiparticle in vain.
Quantum mechanics can only show abstract nonphysical math symbols (= creation, annihilation operators a†, b†.. ) with No concrete shape or size as this fictional magnon quasiparticle ( this p.2-lower, this p.9-(55), this p.6-(26) ).
↑ This quantum mechanical bad habit of always describing physical phenomena by unphysical abstract symbols or models lacking real particle picture is clearly culprit of the current deadend mainstream science.
This tiny magnetic fluctuaion or (unseen) spin wave (= or fictional magnon quasiparticle ) is too weak and too fragile to be useful ( this 3rd-paragraph ). Its life time is said to be only nanoseconds ( this p.8 ), and its moving length is only micrometer.
↑ This fictitious magnetic magnon spin wave cannot be amplified or sent over long distance, because spin wave cannot be increased or manipulated by ordinary electric field like the stable electric current, so the practical use of this (too weak) spin wave that cannot be manipulated nor amplified is impossible.
The 2nd-3rd paragraphs of this exaggerated news say
"Devices based on magnonic currents—quasi-particles associated with waves of magnetization, or spin waves, in certain magnetic materials—would (= meaning "speculative future", still
"Engineers.. have made an important step toward the development of practical magnonic devices.." ← these sentences mean "still impractical magnon". Infinite steps will be needed to be practical ?
↑ This research just generated some electromagnetic field oscillation (= spin wave or magnon quasiparticle ) by antenna, and detected the polarization change of light (= No spin ) scattered by this material using classical Kerr effect without directly detecting (unphysical) spin nor making quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.12-upper, p.13-Brillouin ). ← No evidence of magnon or spin wave
The 3~4th paragraphs of this exaggerated news say
"researchers have demonstrated a new way to measure the quintessential properties of spin waves in graphene.
This is an extremely important tool that we can use to explore new ways of generating magnons (= unreal quasiparticle ) and get closer to achieving spin superfluidity (= still has Not achieved )
"
↑ This research used two fictional quasiparticle models of magnon and skyrmion to explain the generated faint magnetic fluctuation, and just fitted free parameters to experiments without any quantum mechanical prediction ( this-p,6-left-skyrmion model, p,6-right, this p.2-3 = fitting parameters = No quantum mechanical prediction ).
The 4th and 9th paragraphs of this exaggerated news say
"X-rays (probe) strike the material almost immediately after the laser pulse (pump). By measuring the energy and angle of scattered particles of light (= Not spin ), scientists can determine the material's electronic structure and thus magnetic configuration (= fictitious quasiparticle magnon ?).."
"Next, the team plans to (= still useless now ) look at related materials and hopes (= just baseless speculation ) to manipulate magnetism in more targeted ways—for example, changing how strongly two neighboring spins "talk to" each other."
↑ This research tried to (mis)interpret some transient excitation (= only picosecond lifetime ) of magnetic material by laser light as the phenomenon involving fictitious quasiparticle magnon and pseudo-spin ( this p.2-transient evolution, p,4-right= pseudo-spin, phonon-quasiparticle, p.5-right-parameters were varied freely ) with No quantum mechanical prediction. ← No evidence of spin
This p.2-5 used artificially-fitting parameters and chose the (fictitious) spin-magnon interaction parameter J with No quantum mechanical prediction (= "quantum mechanics predicted anything !" turned out to be a lie and hype ).
The first paragraph of this exaggerated news says
"Researchers.. have developed a new device for spintronics.. and mark a step towards the goal (= still Not reached goal, so still useless now ) of using spintronics to make computer chips and devices for data processing and communication technology that are small and powerful (= never happen )"
↑ This research just tried to detect some meaninglessly-tiny short-lived magnetic fluctuation, which was deliberately misinterpreted as spin wave or fictitious magnon quasiparticle, by detecting the polarized light's small change (= they did Not detect spin itself ) using classical Kerr effect, artificially-fitting parameters with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.2-left=magnon, p.8-9-methods=Kerr, fitting paramters ). ← Not that they detected (unphysical) spin or quasiparticle itself, which are just imaginary things.
The 8th paragraph of this exaggerated news says
"The use of thin NiO layers for transfer and amplification of ac spin current at room temperature and gigahertz frequencies may (= just baseless speculation ) lead to more efficient future (= still useless spin now ) wireless communication technology."
↑ This research just detected the X-ray's polarization small change (= spin and quasiparticle themselves are undetectable, but this indicates fictitious magnon quasiparticle !? ) after reflected from some magnetic material using x-ray-linear-dichroism resembling classical Kerr effect, and artificially-fitting parameters with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.7=fitting parameters, p.11= magnon, X-ray-polarization ).
The 1st and 4th paragraphs of this exaggerated news say
"The discovery could (= just baseless speculation ) help miniaturize the detection equipment on microchips and enhance sensitivity.."
"The researchers.. generated a spin current (= fictitious magnon quasiparticle !? ), an important physical quantity in spintronics, in an antiferromagnet and were able to detect it electrically (= fictitious spin magnetic wave itself is undetectable ). "
↑ This research just detected electric current (= Not fictitious spin current or magnon ) by the method called inverse spin Hall effect (= ISHE ), used classical Bohr magneton (= μB ), and fitted free parameters to experiment with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.2, p.12=ISHE-artificial fitting failed, p.19=magnon, p.22=fitting adjusted parameters with No quantum mechanical prediction ).
The 1st and 3rd paragraphs of this exaggerated news just say
"This effect, which the researchers call "paramagnon drag thermopower," converts a temperature difference into an electrical voltage (= fictitious spin or magnon quasiparticle themseleves are undetectable ). This discovery could (= just baseless speculation ) lead to more efficient thermal energy harvesting—for example, converting car exhaust heat into electric power to enhance fuel-efficiency, or powering smart clothing by body heat ?"
"..spins are not entirely random in paramagnets: they form short-lived, short-range, locally ordered structures—paramagnons—which exist for only a millionth of a millionth of a second and extend over only two to four atoms" ← Spin wave or (para-)magnon quasiparticle is too short-lived, too unstable to be useful.
↑ This research used artificially-fitting parameters, fictitious paramagnon quasiparticle model with unreal effective mass (= m* ), one-pseudo-electron DFT with artificially-chosen pseudo-potential + LDA-U parameter, and neutron scattering that just roughly measured magnetic field (= caused by orbital motion, Not spin, this p.1-right-2nd-paragraph=adjustable parameter, p.5=effective mass m* , p.6, this p.2=DFT-pseudo-potential is chosen ).
The first paragraph of this exaggerated news says
"Researchers at Northeastern have discovered a new quantum phenomenon in a specific class of materials, called antiferromagnetic insulators, that could (= just baseless speculation ) yield new ways of powering "spintronic" and other technological devices of the future (= still impractical now )"
↑ This research just detected electric voltage (= Not spin nor quasiparticle ) generated by heat using inverse spin Hall effect (= ISHE ), artificially-fitting parameters (= so No quantum mechanical prediction ), fictitious magnon, phonon quasiparticle models, one-pseudo-electron DFT with pseudo-potential ( this p.2-right=fitting parameter, p.4-right-ISHE, p.7-DFT-pseudo-potential, this p.14=nonphysical magnon operator, p.16-17=artificially-chosen parameters ).
The 4th and last paragraphs of this hyped news says
"The research team aimed to explore the magnonic properties of Mn5Ge3, a 3D centrosymmetric ferromagnet. Through a combination of density functional theory calculations, spin model simulations, and neutron scattering experiments, they unraveled the material's unusual magnon (= fictitious quasiparticle ) band structure."
"The implication of the research not only expands our understanding of magnons but also paves the way for harnessing their unique quantum properties in future (= uncertain future, still useless ) technologies."
↑ This experiment tried to explain some material magnetic properties (= Not spin ) measured by neutron scattering by using fictitious magnon quasiparticle, one pseudo-electron DFT model with artificial scalar-relativistic approximation potentiel energy, and their theory disagreed with experiments.
↑ This Fig.1C,p.5-discussion-DFT-spin model disagreed with experiment, This p.13-B-fictitious scalar relativsitic approximation (+ artificial equation of magnetic exchange interaction J based on spin-dependent potential V, this p.4 ), p.16 nonphysical magnon model with No shape, p.23-E. DFT disagreed with experimnetal magnon model.
The 3rd paragraph of this hyped news says
"Scientists have been studying how these magnons (= fictitious quasiparticle ) act under strong magnetic fields.. researchers..have unveiled a new, unexpected behavior in the quantum material strontium copper borate, SrCu2(BO3)2. The study challenges our current understanding of quantum physics but also hints at exciting possibilities for future technologies (= uncertain future, still useless )."
↑ This experiment measured some material's magnetic property (= Not spin ) by neutron scattering, and tried to explain it using fictitious magnon-triplon quasiparticles and artificial old SSM model ( this p.2-(1) = No real particle's shape ) whose parameters J were artificially chosen with No quantum mechanical prediction.
↑ This p.2-left-fictitious magnon-triplon quasiparticle, p.8-right-artificially chose interaction parameters J and D in artificial nonphysical SSM model with No quantum mechanical prediction nor calculation.
Other latest fictitious magnon news is here.
(Fig.N) NV center just causes small energy splitting related to electron's orbital motion or Bohr magneton (= μB ), fictional electron spin is irrelevant.
Nitrogen vacancy (= NV ) center in diamond consisting of multiple electrons was often cited as a potential quantum magnetic sensor based on (imaginary) electron spin, but actually, this NV center is too fragile to be practical, and it does Not prove the existence of (fictitious) electron spin.
NV center tries to exploit the tiny energy splitting (= detected as light interaction, Not as spin ) excited by external magnetic field (= B ) whose energy levels' interval is roughly equal to 4 × Bohr magneton (= μB, this p.1-right-lower, this p.2-left-[1] this Fig.1, this p.3-left-3rd-paragraph ).
Quantum mechanics tries to explain this energy splitting by two electron spins' magnetic moments, which can be naturally replaced by two electrons' orbital motions (= instead of spin ), because both electron's orbital motion and spin are said to have the same magnetic moment equal to Bohr magneton ( this p.2 ).
So this NV-center in diamond can Not prove the existence of (fictitious) electron spin (= quantum mechanics cannot explain its detailed mechanism even now, this p.3-2nd-paragraph, this p.5-left-last, p.5-right. p.11-left, this p.3-intro-1st-paragraph ). Ordinary electron's orbital motion can perfectly explain this.
Furthermore, this NV center is too fragile, and easily broken, degraded (= become inactive called decoherence, this p.2-2nd-paragraph, this p.1-left, this abstract, this-1.introduction-3rd-paragraph
).
And due to its susceptibility to a lot of irrelevant noise, precise detection of small magnetic field by NV center is impossible ( this p.1-right-top, this 2.3 ).
This p.2-upper says
"One of the current serious problems is noise, which reduces sensitivity of
NV center diamond sensors by broadening of the spectral linewidth and reduces
spectral resolution of the device"
And it is impossible to produce NV centers in precise positions (= which affect their sensitivity to external magnetic fields ) inside diamond (= which means uncertain NV center sensitivities make it impossible to precisely measure the absolute value of the target magneic field ), which fact makes the NV-center impractical as magnetometer.
↑ Because the sensitivity of NV center to magnetic field changes depending on the uncertain positions of NV centers or distance from diamond's surface ( this 1.introduction says distribution of NV centers at diamond is random, this abstract ).
This p.6-right-1st-paragraph says
"Since there is No precise control of the NV center density and their proximity to the surface, NDs (= nano-diamonds ) suffer from variability in their sensitivity. Factors such as local strain anisotropy and crystal impurities also lead to spin and optical properties variations. This inhomogeneity results in inconsistent measurements among different NDs."
As a result, the idea that this too unstable NV sensor may become quantum magnetic sensor is unrealistic, and just baseless hype.
The last paragragh of this hyped news says
"Wide-field magnetometry based on NV centers is an alternative, non-invasive method that operates at room temperature. This opens up new possibilities (= still speculative possibilities, Not realized yet ) for insights into the microscopic magnetic field distribution, which has great potential (= still uncertain potential, realized nothing yet ) for material analyses"
The 2nd and 2nd-last paragraphs and of this hyped news say
"a team of researchers at MIT has found a way to tune the spin density in diamond, changing it by a factor of two, by applying an external laser or microwave beam.
The finding could open up many new possibilities (= still uncertain possibilities, Nothing is reailzed yet ) for advanced quantum devices"
"While some applications may require much more research to develop to a practical level.. (= still impractical )"
↑ This research tried to use fictitious quasi-state and one-pseudo-electron DFT approximation with artificially-chosen exchange functional ( this p.2-right=quasi-state, p.5-right-V-experiment disagreed with first-pricniple calculation, p.6-7-method-DFT ), which often disagreed with experimental results despite trying various ad-hoc models and parameters ( this p.6-Fig.5, p.7-left, Fig.6 ).
The 2nd and last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"detecting the thermally excited magnons (= fictitious quasiparticle ) by heat using N-V centers is difficult.. "
"These findings could not only open up new possibilities (= just possibilities, nothing is realized now ) in quantum sensing but also pave the way for its integration with spin caloritronics. "Our work could (= just baseless speculation ) lay the foundation for spintronic devices controlled by heat sources."
↑ This research tried to measure fictitious spin wave or magnon quasiparticle excited by heat, as electric voltage (= spin itself cannot be detected ) using ISHE, and measure NV-center-energy levels modified by this heat by using microwave where artificial-fitting parameters were used with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.13(or p.12)=artificial fitting parameter ).
The 8th and last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"In this proposed device, the magnet receives the microwave from the NV center and transmits it via "magnon (= unreal quasiparticle )" to the NV on the other side."
"I think it's a really powerful approach which could (= just baseless speculation, nothing useful is realized yet ) also be applied to other solid state qubit systems in principle"
↑ This research tried to explain interaction between NV centers and magnetic field using fictitious magnon quasiparticle model and artificial fitting parameters with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.3-left-2nd-paragraph-fitting-papramater-M. p.5-discussion-other fitting paramters for magnon, this p.49,53=nonphysical magnon quasiparticle operators, this p.21,Fig.10=artificial damping parameter ).
Contrary to a lot of hypes baselessly claiming nitrogen vacancy (= NV ) centers in diamond may be a "promising" candidate (= which means "still useless" ) for quantum magnetic sensor, the NV center is still too unstable and far from practical application (= still in the development stage forever ) despite longtime researches across the world. Why ?
This abstract says
"However, the sensitivity of the diamond magnetometer needs to be improved for weak magnetic measurement"
This introduction-2nd-paragraph says
"However, the most excellent results of NV center magnetometers were achieved in a lab (impractical) environment with a bulk device. It is necessary to develop compact, integrated, and mobile NV sensors for industrial applications."
Reason why the NV-center in diamond is still useless with No progress is that physicists automatically try to apply unrealistic quantum mechanical pseudo-models to (mis)interpret the measured properties.
In order to explain NV-center's phenomena, they try to rely on fictitious quantum mechanical pseudo-models such as unreal monopole (= fictitious tensor monopole model, this p.1-right-last-paragraph ), fictional quasiparticles such as exciton-polariton and phonon expressed as nonphysical math operators with No physical shapes ( this-p.2-(3)-exciton, this p.4-(3)-phonon ).
One of those quantum mechanical pseudo-models is abstract useless energy concept called non-Hermitian Hamiltonian energy, which is just fictitious energy system called pseudo-Hermitian violating energy conservation law due to forgetting energy flowing to different places ( this p.3 ).
The 1st and last paragraphs of the recent research using this quantum mechanical pseudo-concept say
"Researchers have systematically studied the relations between symmetries and high-order non-Hermitian exceptional points (EPs = impractical quantum mechanical concept ), and observed the third-order exceptional line (EL = out of touch with reality ) in a nitrogen-vacancy (NV) spin system."
"This work is of fundamental importance to non-Hermitian studies. It can be further applied to explore high-order EP-related topological physics at the atomic scale and shed light on quantum control and quantum-enhanced metrology (= No mention of practical use, so still useless NV-center )."
↑ This research tried to use nitrogen vacancy center in diamond as a platform for useless quantum mechanical pseudo-concept = non-Hermitian energy equation, which is full of freely-adjustable parameters with No quantum mechanical prediction nor calculation.
↑ This p.2-left-non-Hermitian Hamiltonian (= pseudo-energy equation) contains several free parameters (= No quantum mechanical prediction ).
This p.15 says
"The eigenvalues of the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian are obtained from the experimentally retrieved parameters γ,
h, µ and ν based on the form of non-Hermitian Hamiltonian H(µ,ν)
(γ, h). Parameters µ and ν can be
independently retrieved from the measurement of the symmetry-related conserved quantities. Then, γ and h
can be obtained from the population evolutions (= this is also experiment, No quantum mechanical prediction ) of two different sets of initial states"
↑ This population evolution means changing and controlling atomic energy states of nitrogen vacancy center using freely-adjustable electromagnetic fields and lights ( this p.13-14 ), which means all these parameters of non-Hermitian energy equations can be freely adjusted to experimental results. ← No quantum mechanical prediction, hence, this theory is meaningless.
↑ As seen here, the current nitrogen vacancy center in diamond is just used for describing impractical quantum mechanical pseudo-concepts, and the hype such as "promising quantum sensor" is used as an excuse for hiding the inconvenient truth of the current deadend unrealistic quantum mechanical concepts.
(Fig.Q) Silicon spin qubit detects only magnetic field expressed by classical Bohr magneton (= μB ) caused by electron's orbital motion, Not by unphysical spin.
Silicon-type spin quantum bit or qubit is said to use electron spin up (= 0 ) and down (= 1 ) as each bit state trapped in quantum dot in silicon, which can be manipulated by electromagnetic field.
But the electron spin is unrealistic, it needs faster-than-light spinning to cause the observed magnetic field equal to Bohr magneton.
↑ The experimentally-observed electron spin's magnetic moment is equal to Bohr magneton (= μB, this p.5-left-1st-paragraph, this p.6-left-2nd-paragraph ), which can be perfectly replaced and explained by the realistic electron's orbital motion that also has Bohr magneton magnetic moment.
So the unrealistic electron spin is unnecessary also in spin qubit.
Researches on (unrealistic parallel-wold) quantum computers are so hopeless and deadend that their practical use will never happen.
The future practical quantum computer is said to require more than millions of qubits ( this 2nd-paragraph, this 3rd-paragraph, this 1st-paragraph, this p.3-1.introduction ).
But the current silicon spin qubits are only several~12 qubits, which are far from practically-required millions of qubits.
↑ To hide the inconvenient truth that the current quantum mechanical technology has been deadend and unrealistic, a lot of baseless media-hypes about the quantum computer-pseudo-science and fictional electron spin need to be created and spread every day.
The 2nd-last~last paragraphs of this hyped news about only 6 (fictitious spin) qubits, which are far from practically-required millions of qubits, say
"Once realized at scale, quantum computers would (= still unrealized ) differ from traditional supercomputers in that they use a fragile feature of quantum mechanics called quantum entanglement to perform certain calculations in a very short time that would (= just baseless speculation ) take traditional computers years or decades.."
"Quantum chemistry simulations could (= just baseless speculation, again ) dramatically impact many technology directions from materials development to drug discovery to the development of processes for mitigating climate change (= all of these are hypes and lies )"
↑ This research used only impractical 6 qubits (= 6 electrons' orbits, Not spins ) with still high error rate, and interaction parameter J between spins are just freely-adjustable by external electric field, which cannot be prediced by quantum mechanical spin theory ( this p.2-Fig.2=only 6 qubits, p.3-right-lower-voltage arbitrarily changes exchange energy J, p.8-left ).
The 4th paragraph of this hyped news about only (impractical) two qubits says
"Researchers at University of Rochester have recently introduced a new strategy to coherently manipulate either single or multiple electron spins in silicon quantum dots. This method could open new possibilities (= just baseless speculation, nothing useful is realized yet ) for the development of reliable and highly performing quantum computers (= fake news )."
↑ This research used only two (fictitious electron spin) qubits, and their interaction parameter J can be freely changed by applied voltage (= various fitting parameters had to be extracted from experiement ) with No quantum mechanical prediction or No proof of spin ( this p.2=only 2 qubits, p.13-lower=voltage artificially changes exchange coupling, p.14=fitting parameters ).
The 6th paragaraph of this hyped news insists
"A universal gate set with fidelity above 99.5% is an important step for semiconductor spin qubits. Independent studies have shown spin qubit readout with a fidelity above 98% in only a few µs, with further improvements underway.. we are optimistic (= just baseless speculation, still far from reality ) that the individually demonstrated advantages of semiconductor spin qubits can be combined into a fault-tolerant and highly integrated quantum computer."
↑ This research just used two (impractical) electron qubits (= far from useful millions of qubits ) with still high error rate (= fidelity 98.42% or error rate is 1% or 10-2 is impractical, far worse than practically-required error rate of 10-15 ), and artificially fitted qubit interaction parameters to experiments with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.4-Fig.4c = only two qubits with high error rate, p.7-right-upper=fit parameters to experiment ). ← No evidence of electron spin.
The 5th and 8th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"In our new study, we set out to use these electron-activated spin waves (= fictitious magnon quasiparticle ) to change the state of the nuclear ensemble and to read it out.."
"The researchers' method of observing many-body systems using a 'proxy' electron spin qubit opens new and interesting possibilities (= still baseless speculation, nothing useful is realized yet ) for probing nuclear ensembles without relying on individual spin readouts."
↑ This research used only a few electron (fictitious spin) qubits and nuclei (= controled by light through hyperfine energy state ) expressed by fictitious magnon quasiparticle model and artificially-fitting parameters with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.2-Fig.1b,c-magnon, this p.5=artificial model, p.20=artificially fitting parameters to experiment )
The 3rd paragraph of this hyped news says
"The technique makes it possible to send highly fragile quantum information optically to a nuclear system for storage, and to verify its imprint with minimal disturbance, an important step (= still useless, infinite steps will be needed to realize something ) in the development of a quantum internet (= impractical forever ) based on quantum light sources."
↑ This research unscientifically claims a single fictitious magnon quasiparticle excited by laser light could affect the surrounding nuclei via hyperfine state using artificially-fitting parameters (= instead of deriving values from quantum mechanical theory ) with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.2=single magnon in artificial equation, p.18-19=artificially-fitted parameters, this p.7=magnon fitted frequency, p.11-right-fit parameters ).
The last pragraph of this hyped news says
"Now we "are looking forward" to (= meaning "still impractical now" ) continuing this work and to unite photonics and spintronics, using a common platform for light-based and spin-based quantum technology,"
↑ This research just vaguely measured the magnetic polarization (= due to electron's orbital motion, Not unreal spin ) in quantum dots using fake effective mass model, abstract nonphysical effective Hamiltonian energy equation, and various (empirically) fitting parameters with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.19-Fig.S16=unreal effective mass, p.30(p.29)= fit parameters in abstract equation including Bohr magneton ).
The last paragraph of this hyped news says
"This breakthrough of using pulsed spin resonance on arrangements of atoms gives us an analog quantum simulator to test a host of quantum magnetic properties that could (= just baseless speculation, still useless ) lead to new computing techniques (= never happen )".
↑ This experiment measured two atomic magnetic field (Not spin) using ESR, and relied on abstract nonphysical equation with various fitting parameters and No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.2-4=ESR with fitting parameters, this p.3 parameters obtained from experiment ). = quantum mechanics is useless, No experimental evidence of electron spin
The first paragraph of this hyped news about meaninglessly-disorderly magnetic state (= so useless ) called spin liquid says
"scientists have found evidence for a quantum spin liquid, a state of matter that is promising as a building block for the quantum computers of tomorrow (= about uncertain future, still useless now )".
↑ This research just generated random disorderly magnetic state (= so useless for building correct computers ) expressed by Bohr magneton μB (= caused by electron's orbital motion, Not by fictitious spin ) and abstract nonphysical equation with No quantum mechanical prediction or calculation ( this p.12. p.16-scaling ).
"a team of researchers has now presented a molecular model with three different coupled qubit centers (= far from practical million qubits ). As each center is spectroscopically addressable, quantum information processing (QIP) algorithms could (= just baseless speculation, still unrealized ) be developed for this molecular multi-qubit system"
↑ This research just measured a few molecular magnetic field (= Not distinguishing fictitious spin and realistic electron's orbital motion ) by ESR using artificially-fitting parameters and one-pseudo-electron DFT model needing scale fitting parameters (= to artificially eliminate discrepancy between theoretical prediction and experimental valuee ), which means No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.9=ESR with fitting parameters, p.14=artificial scale fit ).
The last paragraph of this hyped news says
"While the coherence was observed only for nanoseconds (= a qubit state is broken only in nanoseconds, so impractical, this 3rd-paragraph ), the findings will (= uncertain future, still useless ) pave the way for designing materials for the generation of multiple qubits at room temperatures. “It will (= just speculation ) be possible to generate quintet multiexciton (= unreal quasiparticle ) state qubits more efficiently in the future by searching for guest molecules that can induce more such suppressed motions (?)"
↑ This research just measured light interacting with some molecule, and estimated molecular two ground and excited energy levels (= used as imaginary qubit 0 and 1 states which does Not see spin ) using fictitious exciton quasiparticle, artificial model with fitting interaction J parameters ( this p.6-left, parameter J, exciton, this p.28-29 artificial exciton parameters, this p.6-lower-paramater from experiments ) with No quantum mechanical prediction.
↑ They just measured some light interacting with molecule, and still No single qubit ( for imaginary quantum computer that is impractical forever ) based on this fictitious exciton molecule was realized.
↑ One pseudo-electron DFT model with artificially-chosen exchange energy functional ωB97X with empirically-optimized ω parameter (= Not from quantum mechanical theory, this p.3-left-lower ) is also used to estimate a part of those energies ( this p.2-Results, this p.2-right-lower= artificially optimize ω parameter ), which often disagreed with experiments ( this p.9-left-lower ), and lacks realistic practical atomic picture.
The 4th, 13th and last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Their latest findings, show that the so-called valley degree of freedom in BLG (= bilayer graphene ) is associated with quantum states that are extremely long-lived (= but only less than a second ) and are thus worth considering further as an additional resource for solid-state quantum computing (= deadend )."
".. valleys in graphene are commonly called pseudo-spins (= Not real spin ).
"
It's clear that a more complete understanding of the mechanisms affecting valley and spin relaxation times is needed to identify which variables may work best for manipulating future (= uncertain future, still useless ) valley qubits."
↑ This experiment tried to use electrons trapped in graphene as quantum-dot spin qubits (= correctly, unreal pseudo-spins ), but they made only two impcractical electron qubits that are far from practically-required millions of qubits, so useless.
This p.2 measured just electric voltage (= Not spin ) of only two impractical electron qubits under some electromagnetic pulses.
This p.3-left (and Fig A1) says "As the valley g-factor (= 22 ) is much larger
than the spin g-factor (= 2 ), the (0,2) ground state changes
at around 450 mT from a spin-triplet valley-singlet to a
spin-singlet valley-triplet (= these are pseudo-singlet-triplet energy splitting, which does Not see spin, by pseudo-spin with g factor = 22 far larger than spin g-factor 2 ), which means their so-called electron-spin-qubit uses the electron's large orbital motion with large g factor (= instead of unreal spin ) that may affect electric current and voltage."
(Fig.F) A single electron 'breaks' into two fictional quasiparticles of spinon carrying only spin and holon carrying only charge !? ← this ridiculous impractical quasiparticle model stops science from advancing
Useless, unphysical quantum mechanical theory needs fictitious unreal quasipartice model with fake effective mass and charge ( this 3rd-paragraph ) to explain the observed electromagnetic properties such as electric conductance, which unscientific quantum mechanical method clearly prevents the development of science and curing diseases, forever.
↑ To hide this inconvenient truth of the present deadend science, the news media tends to overhype (nonexistent) effectiveness and (illusory rosy) prospect of (hopeless) quantum mechanical technology based on fictitious quasiparticle models.
Quantum mechanics ridiculously claims that a single electron, which must be indivisible ( this p.2 ), could split into spin magnetic moment expressed as fictitious spinon quasiparticle and electron charge expressed as fictitious holon quasiparticle, illuminated by ordinary light inside some materials through unrealistic process called "spin-charge separation" ( this p.3-15 ).
↑ Of course, a real electron can Not be divided (just by being illuminated by ordinary light), so this quantum mechanical spinon quasiparticle model is unreal and paradoxical, hence impractical forever.
The 5th and last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"about composite (quasi)particles of spin and charge—commonly dubbed spinons and holons..
It may (= just baseless speculation ) also now be applied to logic devices that harness spin (spintronics). "
↑ This experiment just measured the tunnel electric current (= Not fictitious spin nor quasiparticle ), but tried to explain it using artificial quasiparticle spinon model with fake effective masses (= m* ) and freely-adjustable parameters. That's all, No fictitious spin or quasiparticle has been detected, and No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.2=measure electric voltage, p.3=spinon,holon, p.8=No quantum calculation, this p.13-lower-p.14= artificially choose parameters such as fake effective mass ).
The 2nd, 6th, 15th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Generally, heat flows in the same direction as the temperature gradient, but in the presence of a magnetic field, some flows in the transverse direction, too; this is known as the thermal Hall effect"
"Spinons (= fictitious quasiparticle ) carry spin but no charge, and hence represent a natural source of the observed large thermal Hall response (= unscientific explanation )"
"We hope that the insights of our recent work will (= just speculative future, still useless ) prove useful for the extension to the doped system"
↑ This research just proposed the abstract nonphysical model based on fictitious quasiparticles such as spinon, massless Dirac, Majorana fermions with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.2-3= spinon, Dirac fermion with artificial parameters, this p.7=Majorana fermion ).
The 4th and last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Electrons normally carry a charge and a spin, a quantum mechanical angular momentum. However, in 1-D, they stop behaving like normal electrons (= unreal science ) due to their strong interaction. Instead, they divide into two types of quasi-particles that have either spin or charge"
"The scientists are now planning to (= still unrealized ) investigate the behaviour of the electrons in one-dimensional cages even more closely."
↑ This research just measured electric (tunnel) current (= Not measure spin nor quasiparticle ), and falsely interpreted it using fictitious quasiparticle model of spin-charge separation expressed as nonphysical creation operators, fitting parameters.
↑ They also used one-pseudo-electron DFT theory that eventually disagreed with experimental results ( this p.4-C.failure = DFT disagree, D = quasiparticle nonphysical operators, p.7-Discussion = discrepancy between theory and experiemnt, p.10-left-artificially fit U parameter to experiment ).
Quantum mechanics is unable to explain the normal thermal (or sound ) vibration of material realistically, instead, it relies on fictitious quasiparticle model called phonon that is expressed just as a nonphysical math symbol with No physical figure or shape ( this p.4 ), which cannot be used as practical tools to build useful nano-devices.
The first paragraph of this hyped news says
"Researchers used chiral phonons (= fictitious quasiparticle ) to convert wasted heat into spin information—without needing magnetic materials. The finding could (= this word means just baseless speculation, still realized nothing ) lead to new classes of less expensive, energy-efficient spintronic devices for use in applications ranging from computational memory to power grids (= full of imaginations )."
↑ This research just measured light interacting with material (= No spin nor photon was detected ), and used various fitting parameters, fictitious phonon quasiparticle model with fake effective mass with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.2=phonon, effective mass p.3=artificially choose parameters, this p.8,24.p.27-lower=fitting parameters, p.24-classical Kerr light effect ).
The 6th paragraph of this hyped news says
"spin scattering off atomic vibrations, and spin precession modified by atomic vibrations. This unified treatment allows us to study the behavior of the electron spin in a wide range of materials and devices essential for future (= imaginary spin is still useless now ) quantum technologies"
↑ This research tries to explain fictitious phonon quasiparticle behavior using artificially-chosen (paradoxical relativistic spin-orbit) pseudo-potentials, effective (pseudo-)spin wavefunctions with DFT, artificial models, parameters obtained Not from the original quantum mechanical theory.
↑ So No quantum mechanical prediction ( this-Fig.1=phonon, p.5-right-top=quasiparticle, p.11-right=DFT with artificially-chosen-pseudopotential, this p.3-left=effective pseudo-spin, p.6-discussion= theories are still in their infancy, this p.6-left=DFT deviated from experiment ).
The 5th and last paragraphs of this hyped news say
" they report that they were able to lower the temperature of a sound wave in an optical fiber initially at room temperature by 219 K using laser cooling, ten times further than had previously been reported. Ultimately, the initial phonon (= fictitious quasiaprticle ) number was reduced by 75% at a temperature of 74 K, -199 Celsius.
because of the applications this could (= speculation ) have in quantum communications schemes and future (= meaing "still useless" ) quantum technologies."
↑ This experiment tried to explain laser cooling by using fictitious phonon quasiparticle expressed as nonphysical math operators with No shape (= this p.4-right ) and artificially-fitted parameters (= this p.5-upper ) with No quantum mechanical prediction.
See more latest hyped news about fictitious phonon quasiparticle.
Magnetic monopole, a hypothetical particle with only one north or south magnetic pole, does Not exist.
Despite this unreal monopole, physicists are trying to use fictitious quasiparticle model to explain and create fake magnetic monopole in various magnetic materials called spin ice (= unreal spin itself is unseen, only magnetic moment equal to electron's orbital motion can be measured ) in vain.
This fake monopole quasiparticle is Not a real monopole, but just a collection of multiple magnetically-polarized electrons or atoms ( this 6th-last-paragraph ).
Pursuing this fictional meaningless monopole quasiparticle in the current mainstream condensed matter physics clearly obstructs tenchnological innovation, and spawns many unfounded hyped news to hyde its unreality and impracticality.
The 7th and last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"With tiny amounts of heat, the ice rules get broken in a small number of sites and their north and south poles, making up the flipped spin (= just magnetic moment, Not real spin ), separate from each other traveling as independent magnetic monopoles (= just fictitious quasiparticle )"
"The capacity of spin ice to exhibit such striking phenomena makes us hopeful (= just talk about uncertain future, wishful thinking, still realized nothing ) that it holds promise of further surprising discoveries in the cooperative dynamics of even simple topological many-body systems"
↑ This research just measured some magnetic field of material ( Not fictional monopole nor spin ), and tried to explain it using an abstract nonphysical meaningless operators with artificially-chosen effective exchange parameter J with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.1-right-2nd-paragraph=monopole quasiparticle, Fig.1,p.2-left=fit parameters, this p.2-(S1)=artificially chose parameters ).
The current condensed matter physics heavily relies on tons of fictional concepts such as Berry phase or Berry curvature which is just fictitious magnetic field (= Not real magnetic field ) generated around imaginary monopole ( this p.1-left, this p.4-1st-paragraph, this p.4-5, this p.1-left ).
↑ As long as the current mainstream physics or quantum mechanics uses these unrealistic concepts, clarifying true atomic mechanism usable for building useful molecular devices is impossible forever.
↑ To distract people's attention from this inconvenient truth, a lot of unfounded hyped news must be constantly created and spread.
The 1st and 10th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"kagome magnets are thought to have electronic properties that could be valuable for future (= still useless now ) quantum devices and applications"
"A flat band structure indicates that the electrons have an (fake) effective mass that is so large as to be almost infinite (= unreal ). In such a state, the particles act collectively rather than as individual particles ?"
↑ This research just used fictional ad-hoc models such as Berry curvature, effective mass, artificially-chosen DFT-pseudo-potential, Wannie pseudo-wavefunctions to explain some (negative) magnetic field (= using Bohr magneton μB, which is Not spin ) of material.
↑ Their calculation often disagreed with experiments ( this p.5=Berry curvature, p.10-Fig.4e=experimental magnetic moment 3μB disagreed with first-principle calculation-Fig.4h, this p.2, this p.4-B, p.10-left-4th-paragraph=pseudo-wavefunction, p.11-B-3rd-paragraph=different chosen pseudo-potentials give different results. ).
The 1st and 2nd paragraphs of this hyped news say
"An international research team has succeeded for the first time in measuring the electron spin (= for the first time !? then, electron spins allegedly discoverd so far were fake ? ) in matter.."
"The results obtained—published in Nature Physics—could (= just speculation ) revolutionize the way quantum materials are studied in the future (= still useless now ), opening the door to new developments in quantum technologies, with possible (= just baseless speculation ) applications in a variety of technological fields, from renewable energy to biomedicine, from electronics to (deadend, parallel-world) quantum computers."
↑ This research just measured energies of electrons (= Not quasiparticle nor spin ) ejected by light by ARPES, and tried to (mis)interpret the observation as fictitious magnetic Berry curvature and Dirac (cone) quasiparticle using one-pseudo-electron DFT model with No mention of whether their calculation agreed with experiemnt or not ( this p.2-5 ).
The last paragraph of this hyped news says
"Their study highlights the potential (= still unrealized now ) of Berry phase monopole (= fictitious, this p.5(or p.4)-2nd-last-paragraph ) engineering to effectively use the SHE in non-magnetic materials, and provides a new pathway for the development of high-temperature, ultrafast, and low-power SOT spintronic devices ?"
↑ This research tries to explain some observed electric resistance or conductivity (= neither fictitious spin nor monopole was observed ) of material, which could Not be explained by the existing theory, using new fictitious Berry phase monopole (quasiparticle) model and artificially fitting parameters with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this-PDF-p.12(or p.11)-artificially-fitting parameters σ, p.13-Berry phase monopole, p.17-Fig.2-electric resistance R, ).
Quantum mechanics often tries to use fictitious quasiparticle model called skyrmion to express some swirling magnetic field patterns allegedly consisting of (imaginary) electron spins.
Impractical quantum mechanics can only describe this fictitious skyrmion quasiparticle using fake effective mass and abstract nonphysical math symbol operators (+ adjustable parameters ) with No concrete shapes ( this p.4-5, this p.5 ), which pseudo-models clearly obstruct the applied science development.
Actually, attempts to utilize this tiny magnetic votex or skyrmion quasiparticle for some practical application such as data storage are impractical, facing many challenges ( this-lower challenges ahead, this-abstract-still No skyrmion application ).
↑ This skyrmion easily breaks (= unstable ) in room temperature ( this-6th-paragraph ). Furthermore, precise creation and control of elusive skyrmion's magnetic state are impossible, hence useless for devices ( this p.1-right, this p.16(or p.15)-conclusion, p.16(or p.15)-right-upper, this p.1-left-middle ).
Then, hyped news is needed to hide the deadlocked science.
The 1st paragraph of this hyped news says
"For about ten years, magnetic skyrmions—particle-like, stable magnetic whirls (= Not spin ) that can form in certain materials and possess fascinating properties—have been a focus of research: easy to control electrically and only a few nanometers in size, they are suitable for future (= still useless now ) applications in spin electronics, (deadend parallel-world) quantum computers or neuromorphic chips."
↑ This research just detected some small electric current using magnetoresistance or SP-STM (= instead of detecting urneal spin itself ), and tried to explain it using fictitious skyrmion quasiparticle and one-pseudo-DFT model combined with artificially-chosen spin model with No mention of whether their calculation agreed with experimental results quantitatively or not ( this p.2-left-skyrmion, SP-STM, p.5-right-DFT ).
The last paragraph of this hyped news says
"We are very excited about his finding, and plan (= uncertain future ) to continue our work to manipulate skyrmions and antiskyrmions (= unreal quasiparticles expressing some magnetic states ) in new and more efficient ways, including the thermal control of antiskyrmion motion, with the goal to build actual thermospintronic and other spintronics devices that could (= just speculation, still unrealized ) be used in our everyday lives. To make better devices we need to thoroughly explore various device designs and geometries."
↑ This experiment tried to explain some material's magnetic field pattern measured by electron microscopy affected by magnetic field (= Not spin ) using fictional quasiparticles skyrmion, antiskyrmion and experimental parameters with No quantum mechanical prediction.
↑ this p.1-lower using Lorentz transmission electron microscopy (LTEM) to measure magnetic field (= Not spin ) = (fictional) skyrmion ?, this p.2-right-3rd-paragraph= artificial scale T parameter to match experiment, p.6-micromagnetic simulation = artificially chosen parameters obtained from experiments ( this p.14 ).
↑ The measured magnetic field models used fictitious skyrmion quasiparticle theory are based on classical magnetic model fitted to experimental parameters ( this p.49, this p.1-right, p.4-left-2nd-paragraph ), Not on quantum mechanical prediction.
The 1st and 9th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Researchers..have discovered co-existing magnetic skyrmions and antiskyrmions (= fictitious quasiparticle ) of arbitrary topological charge (= fake charge ) at room temperature in magnetic Co/Ni multilayer thin films. Their findings have been published in Nature Physics and open up the possibility (= just possibility, so still useless ) for a new paradigm in skyrmionics research."
"Lorentz transmission electron microscopy (= which just measured electrons deflected by material's magnetic field through Lorentz force, Not detecting fictitious skyrmion quasiparticle nor spin itself ) was used extensively in the study"
↑ This experiments just measured transient magnetic pattern of some material under electromagnetic field, and tried to explain it using unreal quasiparticle models such as skyrmion, antiskyrmion (= depending on different magnetic patterns ), and fictitious topological charge (= Not real charge but some magnetic pattern, this-(1) ) with No quantum mechanical prediction nor practical application.
This p.9-right-p.10 used artificially-chosen parameters (= so No prediction ) and fictitious nonphysical model for skyrmion quasiparticles with No quantum mechanical prediction nor calculation, this p.6-left-last- the lifetime of fictitious skyrmion (=SK) is only 100ns, very impractical.
See this page for new hyped skyrmion quasiparticle news.
Unscientific quantum mechanics cannot explain physical phenomena using real particles or concepts, which bad habit obstructs science.
Quantum mechanics has to use a fictional exciton quasiparticle model ( this 6th-paragraph, this 3rd-paragraph ) to ostensibly describe some transient electron's state bound to positive hole excited by light.The problem is these fictitious exciton quasiparticles expressed as nonphysical math (creation or annihilation) operators have just fake effective masses and No physical shapes ( this p.3, this p.5, this p.3 ), which quantum mechanical pseudo-model inapplicable to designing useful technology is a culprit of the current deadent mainstream science.
Hype news needs to be created to conceal this deadlock science.
The 8th and 11th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"they made the surprising discovery that light triggers a key magnetic property (= Not spin but orbital motion ) within the normally nonmagnetic material. Photons provided by the laser "excited" (unseen) excitons (= unreal quasiparticle ) within the laser beam's path, and these excitons induced a type of long-range correlation among other electrons (= just imagination ), with their spins all orienting in the same direction."
"That discovery also illuminates relationships between a material's structure and its magnetism that could propel future (= still useless now ) advances in computing, data storage and other fields ?"
↑ This experiment just measured the polarization change of light (= Not electron spin ) reflected from the magnetic material based on classical Faraday effect (= unreal spin itself is undetectable ), and tried to (mis)interpret it using fictitious exciton quasiparticle expressed as nonphysical math operators and artificially-chosen parameters with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.2-upper-varying parameters, p.2-last-excition, laser, p.9-choose excion artificial parameters, this p.4,p.5=select artificial parameters ).
The last paragraph of this hyped news says
"The capability to optically manipulate magnetic memory and generate spin amplification in TMDs—materials widely studied for next-generation technologies—will (= still unrealized now ) push optoelectronics and spintronics in new directions ?"
↑ This research also just measured light interacting with some magnetic material (= Not spin ), and tried to explain the observation using fictional exciton and trion quasiparticle model with fake effective mass m* + fitting parameters and No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.2=exciton+fitting parameter, trion, p.3-lower=even fitting failed, p.18=fitting trion parameter, this p.1= effective mass, using light. p.3-left-last-exciton ).
The 5th and last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"This caused the intrinsic angular momentum (spin = undetectable) of all free electrons to point in the same direction, and the spin could be "switched" to the other direction by reversing the magnetic field (= they just measured magnetic field, Not spin itself ). Known as "spontaneous spin polarization.."
"The results show how exciting experimental physics can be, and how we're constantly learning new things about two-dimensional materials (= No mention of realizing any useful things )."
↑ This research also just measured the polaized light interacting with some magnetic material (= spin itself is undetectable ), and tried to explain it using fictitious excton- polaron quasiparticles with fake effective mass and artificial parameters, No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.1, p.4-left=exciton-polaron, detect light, p.11=effective mass, p.12 Fig.11=using artificial parameters ).
The 8th and last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"The team's technique.. combines spectral filtering and photon-correlation analysis to reveal interactions between semiconductor exciton-polaritons, which are (fictitious) quasi-particles made up of both photons (light) and matter (excitons).
This technique will (= uncertain future, still useless ) allow us to gain valuable insights into the quantum properties of solid materials."
↑ This experiment tried to explain the interaction between light and some semiconductor by using fictitious quasiparticles such as (bi or tri)excitions and polarition expressed as nonphysical shapeless math operators, and artificially-chosen parameters with No quantum mechanical prediction.
↑ This p.2-(1)=fictitious polariton interaction constant g, p.5-left, p.19-lower-artificially-chosen parameters for fictitious bi(or tri-)-exciton, polariton quasiparticles, p.13,18- quasiparticle nonphysical math operators with No shape ( this p.9 ).
The 7th-9th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"When an electron is excited to a higher level by a photon, it leaves behind a hole. If the electron and hole are bound, an exciton (= fictitious quasiparticle ) is created (← ? )."
"using density functional calculations (= one-pseudo-electron model ).., the team was able to observe anomalous terahertz light amplification, which uncovered some of the hidden properties of the TNS exciton condensate.
This may (= just speculation, still useless ) have implications in the emerging field of entangled light sources"
↑ This experiment just measured some material's light reflectivity under artificially-chosen temperature and incident light frequency (= 4.7 Thz ), and tried to explain it using fictitious exciton-phonon quasiparticle, one-pseudo-electron DFT model with No quantum mechanical prediction.
↑ This p.5-reflectivity data artificial fitting, p.7, p.27-lower-p.30-classical Fresnel-Floquet theory based on Maxwell theory artificially fitted to experiment ( this p.25 ), p.8-9-artificially-created phonon-electron effective energy equation, p.31-parameter ω0 (= phonon frequency ) was chosen as 4.7 THz = p.36 No prediction of one pseudo-electron DFT model that artificially chose Born effective charge and fictitious pseudo-poteitnal ( this p.3-(5), p.12-left=pseudo-potential ).
See other latest exciton quasiparticle news.
Dirac fermions (or Dirac cone, Dirac semimetal ) and Weyl fermions are all unreal quasiparticles caused by misinterpreting the measured momentum and energy of electrons ejected by light in the method called ARPES ( this p.4 ).
Majorana fermion is also an imaginary quasiparticle model artificially created to explain some electric conductance (= unreal quasiparticle itself can Not be measured ).
None of these fictitious quasiparticle have concrete shapes or size, hence, obstructing the real science, which dire facts must be covered up by overhyped news.
The 6th and last paragraphs of this news say
"The authors show how spin-orbit coupling affects the velocity of the electrons within the electron bands of solids, effectively acting like a magnetic field that depends on the electrons' spin"
"This work serves as a platform for a better understanding of the link between spin-orbit coupling, spin current, topology, and electron dynamics in solids driven by strong fields—a crucial step towards the development (= still unrealized ) of petahertz electronics based on quantum materials."
↑ This research just proposed the hypothesis trying to explain some material using imaginary Dirac quasiparticle, fictitious (effective) magnetic Berry curvature and one-pseudo-electron DFT model with artificially-modified pseudo-potential with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.7-8 ).
The first paragraph of this exaggerated news says
"Physicists at Forschungszentrum Jülich have made a significant step towards (= still unrealized ) the realization of new types of electronic components. Using a special four-tip scanning tunneling microscope, they were able to directly measure the extraordinary electrical properties that exist in ultra-thin topological insulators for the first time"
↑ This research just measured some electric conductance (= Not spin ) and tried to explain it using fictitious Dirac fermion quasiparticle with fake effective mass and various fitting parameters (= artificially adjusted to experimental values ) with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.2,p.3=Dirac fermion with effective mass, p.3-right-disagree with experiment, p.4-right-unknown parameters, p.6-left-lower-disagree with experiment ).
The 1st and 6th paragraphs of this exaggerated news insist
"A research team led by professors from the Department of Physics and Astronomy have created a serpentine path for electrons, imbuing them with new properties that could be useful in future (= just baseless speculation, still useless now ) quantum devices."
"Missing is a sufficiently strong "spin-orbit interaction" that can (unscientifically) produce the conditions for Majorana fermions (= unreal quasiparticle )"
↑ This research just measured some electric conductance (= Not detected fictitious quasiparticle ) of wire, and tried to explain it using imaginary Majorana fermion quasiparticle with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.3=measured conductance, p.5-left-last-paragraph= imaginary Majorana fermion ? ). ← No evidence of spin or quasiparticle
See other latest hypes news about fictitious Majorana quasiparticles.
The 1st and 4th paragraphs of this exaggerated news say
"researchers described an important theoretical finding that may (= baseless speculation ) contribute to the development of (deadend, parallel-world) quantum computing and spintronics ?"
"These systems can be considered three-dimensional versions of graphene and are associated with very peculiar kinds of objects called Weyl fermions. These are massless, (fictitious) quasi-relativistic, chiral particles"
↑ This research just proposed a hypothesis trying to explain some electromagnetic property (= Not spin nor quasiparticle ) of materials using fictitious Weyl, Dirac fermion quasiparticle models with free parameters artificially adjusted to experiments instead of deriving them from (useless) quantum mechanical theory, so No quantitative quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.2=Dirac, p.5=quasiparticle, p.7=Results using model parameters ).
The first paragraph of this hyped news says
"In a finding that will (= uncertain future, so still useless now ) help to identify exotic quantum states, RIKEN physicists have seen strongly competing factors that affect an electron's behavior in a high-quality quantum material."
↑ This research tries to explain some band energies using fictitious quasiparticle model with fake effective mass and one pseudo-electron DFT, which chosen exchange energy functional disagreed with experiments after all ( this p.4-left-2nd-paragraph=Not quantitative agreement, p,5-left=unknown quasiparticle, p,5-right-band-structure=DFT failed ).
The 2nd-last paragraph of this exaggerated news says
"I can potentially work at, say, 200 Kelvin, or possibly even 300 Kelvin, or room temperature. So, from a functionality perspective, it is extremely promising (= just about uncertain future, so still useless now )"
↑ This research just proposed a hypothesis trying to use fictitious quasiparticle with pseudo-spin expressed as abstract nonphysical model and free parameters artificially adjusted to experiments with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.1, p.3-left- tuning u parameter, pseudo-fermion ).
The 3rd and last paragraphs of this exaggerated news say
"The interesting thing about these alloys is that individually, the metals are not magnetic, but when combined, they become magnetic."
"The team hopes (= about uncertain future, so still useless now ) to develop metallic magnetic junctions with much larger magnetoresistance than the current record at room temperature, realizing a next-generation memory for a sustainable society"
↑ This news is a review about Heusler alloy based on fictitious quantum mechanical concepts such as unreal Magnon quasiparticle ( this p.11-right-2nd-paragraph ).
The 2nd-last and last paragraphs of this exaggerated news say
"They also conducted continuous-wave, field-induced electron spin resonance (FI-ESR) to study polaron (= unreal quasiparticle ) spin dynamics and gain insight into the corresponding charge dynamics of the materials"
"Such systems can retain the unique rigid-rod nature of these polymers to achieve lower energies of disorder and reorganization energies to facilitate the potential (= still useless now ) to reach even higher charge carrier mobilities".
↑ This research just measured light and electric current using ESR (= which can be explained by electron's orbital motion, Not spin ), and tried to explain it using fictitious polaron quasiparticle model and one-pseudo-electron DFT including freely-adjustable parameters ω and β (= artificially fitted to experiemntal results ) which mean No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.11-right-Theoretical calculations rely on DFT with artificially-adjustable ω β parameters ).
(Fig.O) Quantum mechanical atoms inside materials are just unreal quasiparticles with fake effective masses and pseudo-spin. → applied science stops progressing → hype news is necessary to hide the deadend science
The 1st and last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Researchers have unveiled a representative effect of the anomalous dynamics at play when an electric current is applied to a new class of magnetic materials called non-collinear antiferromagnets."
"this work should (= still useless now ) form a solid basis (= just basis ? then, still nothing is realized now ) for the development of functional devices with non-collinear antiferromagnets"
↑ This research used only nonphysical abstract model and various fitting parameters that can be artificially adjusted to experimets with No quantum mechanical spin prediction ( this p.17(p.16), p.24(p.23)=fitting parameters ).
The 10-11th and last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"We designed a set of corroborative experiments in which we shot ultrafast laser pulses at this layered material and measured the resultant changes in material properties with optical, X-ray, and electron pulses"
"The team found that the pulses change the magnetic property of the material by scrambling the ordered orientation of electron spins. The arrows for electron spin no longer alternate between up and down in an orderly fashion, but are disordered (= just measured disorderly fluctuating magnetic field, Not spin )"
"we envision (= just speculation ) that the ability to control this motion by changing the magnetic field or, alternatively, by applying a tiny strain will (= still useless now ) have important implications for nanoscale devices"
↑ This research just measured the X ray (= Not electron spin ) interacting with some material, and No quantum mechanical prediction has been made ( this p.5(p.4)-last-paragraph says "Without resorting to ab initio calculations to quantify" ).
The 5th paragraph of this hyped news says
"Our research will (= about uncertain future, still useless now ) eventually allow information to be transmitted in the form of spin currents. This is a new generation of electronics (= just pipe dream ).."
↑ This research tried to use fictitous magnetic Berry curvature and one-pseudo-electron DFT model with artificially-chosen exchange-energy funcional, but after all even straightforward DFT calculation was unrealistic ( this p.5-right=DFT failure, p.8-left= DFT is impossible, p.9-left=parameter, this p.20-last-model failed ).
The 1st paragraph of this hyped news says
"The quantum-mechanical exchange interaction between electrons, a consequence of the Pauli exclusion principle, can be specifically modified with intense infrared light fields on time scales of a few femtoseconds, as time-resolved experiments on sulfur hexafluoride molecules show. In the future (= still useless now ), This finding could (= just speculation ) lead to bottom-up control of chemical reactions with lasers based purely on electrons"
↑ This research tried to use fictitious (Pauli) effective exchange energy parameters to fit experimental results by "artificial scale fitting" compensating for the original disagreement between experiment and ab initio simulation ( this p.4-right-quantitative agreement is shown by linearly scaling- shortcoming of ab-initio, Fig.3b-artificial-scaling fit ) . ← No quantum mechanical prediction
The 2nd paragraph of this hyped news says
" A research collaboration.. has now presented a method in the scientific journal Science, the pump-push-pulse technique, which for the first time allows the temporal course of the ( paradoxical ) singlet/triplet settings to be determined optically (= just detected light, Not spin ). This opens up new avenues (= No mention of realizing anything useful now ), for example in the field of organic solar cells, but also for qubits in (deadend) quantum computers ?"
↑ This research just used artificial fitting parameters such as fictitious exchange energy J with No quantum mechanical prediction (= hence, No evidence of quantum spin ), and measured just light interacting with materials, Not confirming (fictitious) spin itself ( this p.3-middle=parametrization, p.4-left-middle~lower-even fitting failed ).
The 2nd and 4th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Proposed almost two decades ago, the phenomenological spin current theory of magnetically induced electric polarization has been a big step advancing our insights about multiferroic activity in spiral magnets. However, this theory remains largely phenomenological and often fails to account for various possible multiferroic scenarios that are realized in real materials, causing in some cases severe misinterpretations of their microscopic origin."
"Importantly, the authors showed that the phenomenological spin-current theory, commonly used for the analysis of spiral multiferroics, can be regarded as the special case of a more general spin-current theory proposed in this study."
↑ This research just tried to aritificially create and modify pseudo-spin model expressed as abstract nonphysical equation to fit experimental results based on chosen parameters.
↑ The mainstream DFT method often failed ( this p.1-right-2nd-paragraph = artificial model or DFT failed, p.3-left-pseudo-spin, p.4-right-lower where caclulated value of P=55 disagreed with experiment 150 this p.1-abstract-lower where theory often failed, this p.4-3rd-paragraph=DFT needs to artificialy change U parameter ).
The 7th paragraph of this hyped news says
"Finding alternative organic structures to silicon that are capable of modulating their spin state may (= just baseless speculation ) represent, through spintronics, a necessary solution to the current energy problems"
↑ This research just measured the light (= Not spin ) interacting with some molecules, and tried to explain it using one-pseudo-electron DFT with highly-parametrized empirical M06-2X functional with artificial spin correction, even this artificially-adjusted value (= 2.95 kcal/mol ) deviated from experimental value (= 3.68 ) after all (= this-p.4-right-2nd-paragraph, p.1, p.7-DFT ).
The first paragraph of this hyped news says
"Scientists..detected and mapped the (imaginary) electronic spins moving in a working transistor made of molybdenum disulfide. This research may (= just baseless speculation ) lead to much faster computers that take advantage of the natural magnetism of electrons"
↑ This research just measured the energy splitting through light (= Not spin ) due to magnetic field by ESR (= which can be explained by electron's orbital motion, Not spin ), tried to explain the fictitious electron spin g-factor = 2 (= g-factor itself is unmeasurable, only magnetic moment equal to Bohr magneton can be measured by ESR ) by fictitious quasiparticle phonon spin scattering, nonphysical abstract particle operators with fake effective mass.
↑ They also used one-pseudo-electron DFT's artificially-chosen pseudo-potential, which eventually disagreed with experimental g-factor (= about 2 ) especially in S2 and MoS3 vacancy cases ( this p.2-5, this p..6-right-4th-paragraph= S2,MoS3 disagreed with experimental g-factor=2 = p.7-Fig.6b, p.8-DFT used pseudo-potential ).
The last pragraph of this hyped news says
"Establishing that changes in spin states are correlated with device performance has significantly broadened our understanding of perovskite solar cells, We hope that our findings will (= uncertain future, still useless now ) provide a valuable new starting point for the continued development of solar cells and help accelerate the reality of cost-effective green energy (= never happen as long as the currnet paradoxical mainstream science is accepted )"
↑ This research just conducted ESR, which measured magnetic field, Not (fictitious) spin itself, and they did Not make any quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.7 ). ← so No evidence of (fictitious) electron spin
The 3rd and 6th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"The researchers used a laser to monitor the magnetization of this hot, chaotic gas (= just detected laser light interacting with atomic magnetic field, Not spin ). The magnetization is caused by the spinning electrons (= fictitious spin itself is unseen ) in the atoms, and provides a way to study the effect of the collisions and to detect (unreal superluminal) entanglement ?"
"We hope that this kind of giant entangled state will (= talk about uncertain future, still useless now ) lead to better sensor performance in applications ranging from brain imaging to self-driving cars to searches for dark matter (= full of hypes )"
↑ This research just measured laser light (= Not spin ) interacting with randomly-fluctuating atoms (= so these random disorderly atomic motions are inapplicable to useful precise devices ) using artificially-fitting parameters, No quantum mechanical prediction has been made ( this p.2,p.4-methods ). ← No evidence of spin nor (fantasy) entanglement
The 3rd-last ~ last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"This knowledge is particularly useful for the precise control of electron spins, as, e.g., in quantum computers (= impractical forever )."
"One of the biggest difficulties during the investigation was the huge amount of computer power that was required for the simulations. Although for small organic molecules one can nowadays carry out very accurate simulations already with a modest amount of computational effort, metal complexes present a much bigger challenge... This is equivalent to about 100 years of computer time on a typical personal computer (= impractical computer simulation )."
↑ This research just tried to simuate some molecular behavior by unrealistically-time consuming molecular dynamics (= MD ) with artificially-fitting parameters and one-pseudo-electron DFT with artificially-chosen functional, Hamiltonian, basis set, and their simulating methods disagreed with experiments, if they didn't conduct artificial fitting ( this p.2-3= MD,DFT, this p.4-right~p.5, Fig.2a-experiment disagreed with simulation of 2b ).
The 13th paragraph of this hyped news says
"We shine light of one color on the material and we get photons of another color back," Bassett says. "The magnet controls the (unseen) spin and the spin controls the number of photons that the defects in the h-BN emit. That's a signal that you can potentially (= still useless now ) use as a qubit (= impractical forever )."↑ This research just measured light (= Not spin ) interacting with some material under magnetic field, and tried to explain it using artificially-fitting empirical parameters with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.3-right-1st-paragraph=empirical parameters, this p.4=artificially-fitting parameters, p.18-19=model parameters ).
The last paragraph of this hyped news says
"This would (= uncertain future, still useless now ) provide better control of spins. Being able to construct metallic germanene with both excellent conductivity and strong spin-orbit coupling should (= just speculation ) therefore pave the way to spintronic devices (= imaginary hyped spintronics, again )."
↑ This research just measured electric current (= Not spin ) of material called Germanene, and tried to explain it using artificially-fitting parameters, fictitious phonon-scattering with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.5-right=fitting parameter, this p.7-lower=electron-phonon scattering, fitting ). ← So No evidence of electron spin in spintronics.
The 3rd and last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"One of the leading models for studying 3-D frustrated quantum magnets is the Heisenberg model (= very old abstract nonphysical spin model with No real particle picture ) on a pyrochlore lattice—a simple cubic crystal structure. Nevertheless, it has so far been extremely difficult to derive practical predictions, i.e. for specific materials and temperatures, from this theoretical model."
"The work published deepens our understanding of solids and contributes to the systematic advancement of the search for 3-D spin fluids in quantum materials (= No mention of practical use )."
↑ This research tried to explain some fictitious spin using fictitious pseudo-fermion, spinon quasiparticle, abstract math operators with No real particle picture, and artificially-fitting paramters. No quantum mechanical prediction has been made ( this p.3-A.pseudofermion, p.7-right-2nd-paragraph-parameters, p.24-left-lower-spinon ).
The 2nd-last paragraph of this hyped news says
"There remains many unsolved questions in the field of high-temperature superconductivity. Our work provides new knowledge to better understand the cuprate superconductors, which can be a building block to resolve these questions (= No mention of practical use )"
↑ This research just measured electron's energy (= Not spin ) ejected by light using ARPES + electron's Coulomb scattering (= Not spin ) under magnetic field, and tried to explain it using fictitious quasiparticle model and fitting parameters with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.1-middle=ARPES, quasiparticle, p.3-right-quasiparticle momentum, this p.9=artificial parameters ). ← No evidence of spin in superconductor, either.
The 5th and 6th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Researchers..conducted magnetization and powder neutron diffraction (PND) experiments on the non-Heisenberg Tsai-type 1/1 gold-gallium-terbium AC..
For the first time, the phase diagrams of the non-Heisenberg Tsai-type AC have been unraveled. This will (= just about uncertain future, still useless ) boost applied physics research on magnetic refrigeration and spintronics (← ? )"
↑ This experiment tried to explain (or reproduce ) the magnetic properties (= Not spin ) of some materials measured by neutron diffraction by using nonphysical abstract Heisenberg spin model (= with No real particle shape ) with artificially-fitted interaction J1 and J2 parameters with No quantum mechanical prediction nor calculation ( this p.21 ).
The 3rd 5~6th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Instead of dealing with actual superconducting materials (= meaning fake superconductor ), the scientists harnessed the behavior of strontium atoms, laser-cooled to 10 millionths of a degree above absolute zero and levitated within an optical cavity built out of mirrors."
"Thanks to their simulation, the researchers observed three distinct phases of superconducting dynamics, including a rare "Phase III" featuring persistent oscillatory behavior (= but this is fake superconductor, so meaningless )"
"These findings could (= just speculation, still useless ) pave the way for a deeper understanding of superconductivity.. it holds promise (= uncertain future ) for enhancing the coherence time.."
↑ This experiment tried to mimic some superconductor's property (= oscillating phase III ) using fake superconductor consisting of cold atoms trapped in light between mirrors, and fictional pseudo-spin model ( this p.2-Fig.1 ), so useless.
(Fig.H) Spin Hall effect is Not by (paradoxical) relativistic spin-orbit interaction but by classical Magnus (= rotating ball or orbiting electrons feel friction from the surrounding ) effect.
In spin Hall effect, electrons moving in x direction under applied electric field are said to veer toward left (= y direction ) or right (= -y direction ) depending on up or down spin directions of the electrons due to Einstein relativistic spin-orbit magnetic interaction ( this p.10-14 ).
But electron spin itself is unrealistic and unobservable.
And Einstein relativistic spin-orbit (fake) magnetic interaction is paradoxical and illusion.
Because in the normal lab frame with nuclei at rest, moving electrons cannot feel magnetic field from the nuclei at rest, hence, No spin-orbit magnetic interaction happens.
Only in (unphysical) rest frame of electrons, heavier nuclei appear to be moving and causing (fictitious) magnetic field that may be felt by electrons with spins, which is said to cause relativistic spin-orbit magnetic interaction, and spin Hall effect.
↑ Depending on different frames or different viewpoints (= seen from nuclei at rest or from electrons at rest ), the spin-orbit magnetic interaction happens or Not, which is clearly paradox and wrong (= fictitious relativistic spin-orbit effect depends on observers ).
In the realistic mechanism, spin Hall effect is caused by orbiting electrons scattered toward left or right depending on their orbital directions by classical Magnus force effect ( this p.3-lower ).
Actually, relativistic spin-orbit magnetic interaction is unrealistic, far weaker than classical Magnus-effect scattering or the observed spin-Hall effect.
The fictitious magnetic field's strength is v/c2 × atomic electric field where c is light speed, and v is very slow electric current speed (= usually less than 1mm/s ).
On the other hand, the classical Magnus effect's scattering is much stronger due to very fast electron's orbital motion and acceleration of applied electric field.
To solve this discrepancy, quantum mechanics unreasonably changed the original Einstein spin-orbit (fake) magnetic interaction constant (= vacuum ) to 106 times stronger and the opposite sign ( this p.6, this p.24, this p.2-right, this p.2-left-1st-paragraph ) by using fake effective mass ( this p.5 ) or fictitious magnetic Berry phase ( this p.4.2 ).
So it means the (fictitious) spin-orbit interaction allegedly causing spin Hall effect is inconsistent with the original Einstein relativistic theory, and wrong.
The unrealistic electron spin itself is unobservable.
Physicists could only detect the directions of magnetization (= caused by electron's orbital motion, Not spin ) by seeing scattered light polarization change called Kerr rotation effect ( this p.2-right-lower ).
The 1st and last paragraphs of this hyped news just say
"A group of researchers have made a significant breakthrough which could (= just baseless speculation ) revolutionize next-generation electronics by enabling non-volatility, large-scale integration, low power consumption, high speed, and high reliability in spintronic devices (= full of hyped imaginations )"
"This will (= uncertain future ) hopefully accelerate the development of ultralow-power-consumption spintronic devices, marking a pivotal step toward the future (= still useless now ) of electronics."
↑ This research just measured electric (Hall) conductance (= caused by electron's orbital motion, Not spin ) with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.5-right-last-paragraph ). So No evidence of electron spin.
The 5th and last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"They proved that the nontrivial electronic topology anticipated at the weak coupling limit led to an anomalous Hall effect (AHE = which just detected electric conductance, Not spin ), and a giant magnon (= unreal quasiparticle ) gap"
"The strategy of controlling gauge-dependent-invariant complex hoppings through artificial design provides valuable insights for investigating topology-related physics in other correlated materials (= No mention of practical use )"
↑ This research just measured electromagnetic properties and light (-= Not spin ) interacting with some material, and tried to explain it using fictitious pseudo-spin, Berry curvature, abstract math operators lacking real particle picture with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this abstract = pseudo-spin, magnon quasiparticle, p.1-right = fictitious magnetic field, Berry, p.2, p.8=No quantum calculation ).
The 2nd paragraph of this hyped news says
"(Fictitious) Spin is the intrinsic angular momentum of the electrons that creates a magnetic moment. This generates the magnetism that will (= still useless now ) ultimately be used to process information."
↑ This research just measured electric voltage (= Not spin ) by the method called inverse spin Hall effect (= ISHE ) that can be explained by electron's orbital motion's scattering, and tried to explain it using DFT with artificially-chosen pseudo-potential and fitting scaling parameters with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.2-ISHE, p.3-left-1st-paragraph where they artificially scaled two data set or parameters, this p.3=DFT with pseudo-potential, parametrization ).
The 2nd-last paragraph of this hyped news just says
"We are quite lucky to discover the spin-valley flavored Rashba physics and the related exotic quantization phenomena in BAs, which may (= just baseless speculation ) become an unprecedented platform for exploring topological quantum computation and for novel spin-based electronics in the future (= still useless now )"
↑ This research just measured electric (Hall) conductance (= Not spin ), and tried to explain it using empirical model (= Not derived from quantum mechanics ), fictitious Dirac quasiparticle and one-pseudo-electron DFT with artificially-chosen pseudo-potential with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.3-right-2nd-paragraph-empirical formula, p,4-effective mass, p.4-right-Berry,Dirac fermion, p.6-DFT pseudo-potential, this p.8-2nd-paragraph says discrepancy between DFT and experimental results ). ← No evidence of electron spin
The last paragraph of this hyped news says
"they provide relevant information on the fundamental physics of the phenomena involved and open the door to new applications (= Not specify what this research will be useful for )"
↑ This research just detected electric voltage (= Not spin ) by the method called ISHE, and tried to explain it using fitting parameters combined with one-pseudo-electron DFT model, which (pseudo-)ab-initio calculation that eventually disagreed with experimental values ( this p.2=ISHE, fitting parameter, p.10-lower-Table-I-discrepancy between ab-initio DFT and effective or experimental parameters ).
As a result, contrary to the media-hype, there is No evidence that quantum mechanical electron spin exists.
2023/1/6 updated. Feel free to link to this site.
