Without bullshit analogies or schizobabble about symmetries
>>16825554Explain what? You already found the wikipedia page which is a good place to start.
>>16825555tf is intrinsic angular momentum of a point particle/field
>>16825556It is what it is.
>>16825557Yeah I don't know either
>>16825554Certain particles have something that *behaves like* a quantized version of spin angular momentum, but which is a purely quantum mechanical effect.That's the extent to which the concept is understood.
>>16825557this is what I'm talking about
>>16825556So like you have a ball. Make it spin. It has some angular momentum. Imagine if that ball were infinitesimally small. It still has that angular momentum despite having a zero radius. That's spin.
>>16825564>>16825568>>16825557>>16825554it doth be that which doths'd it to be, perforce
this thread
Magnets, that's the best analogy.
>>16825580that's part of what I'm trying to understand. Everywhere else magnetic fields are caused by current/changing E field, but then particles can just pull "intrinsic" angular momentum out of their ass
>>16825578made me lol, thanks anon
>>16825582Well, spin of a photon is related to the phases of the electric and magnetic relative to the each other.
>>16825588I know. But the more I learn about photons the more they piss me off. I don't get how a wave in a vector field can become a photon of you go small enough
As with all things in science, "what it is" is less important than "how you measure it."Introducing: The Stern–Gerlach experiment.Silver atoms were shot through a polarized magnetic field. Some atoms shoot up. Others shoot down. "Spin" is a measure of the feature which determines the direction and magnitude of this shift in direction. This was how it was discovered and is basically how it is measured in fundamental particles today.
>>16825618that's a bitchmade view of science
>>16825621Nah. You're just gay.
>>16825554You can't spin?Do you have Trump cankles or something?
Spin is a social construct fitted to a unknown parameter.
There is no accepted view of what spin is in quantum mechanics; but interestingly, because spin is a generic property of conservative fields, it can be formulated and experimentally created in other media like water and acoustic sound waves.In all other media apart from quantum mechanics and electromagnetism, spin is always an angular momentum point particles have at every point in space which causes them basically to perform tiny little elliptical orbits in space. That is what spin is. You can manipulate these orbits so on one end you have perfectly circular "polarization" of water particles and on the other perfectly linear "polarization" which is just a particle oscillating back and forth in a line.
spin--a not so subtle anagram for nips--is an archaic word invented by rich, sexist white men to devalue the contributions women made to particle physics.
>>16825618So the atoms act like monopoles with random polarity? How is it not just magnetism?I only know of polarized electromagnetic fields, or is it "polarized" as in "it's a dipole", are they doing some weird woo fuckery?
>>16825554>schizobabble about symmetriesnobody can help you if you insist on being retarded
>>16825554>schizobabble about symmetriesI guess conservation of energy, momentum, and angular momentum is too schizo for you too huh? Just say God did it and leave real knowledge to the big boys
>>16825554>Explain spin>Without bullshit analogies or schizobabble about symmetriesSo, don't dumb it down, but dumb it way, way down. Got it.
>>16825554Actually spinning objects in magnetic fields have certain properties like resisting outside effects of other magnetix fields. 'Spin' for particles have similar properties.1/2 vs 1 spin is much more annoying to explain
>>16825556QM fields bubble so hard that points waviate in the ripples when you look for them.And you are quite dizzy so that the reference frame seems to be rotating. That's the alcohol talking.
>>16826156How many spin fractions exist?
>>16826156>1/2 vs 1 spin is much more annoying to explainno way one could explain that without using the concept of rotational symmetries of wave functions
>>16826156>1/2 vs 1 spin is much more annoying to explainDirac belt trick bro
>>16826132It's a dipole.Spin is the "why" for magnets.
>>168261610, 1/2, and 1
>>16825556https://youtu.be/6UyJqDzaQUs?si=XnM59Ed_vVYYSMCY
>>16826177Then why one bonked up and other bonked down by rocknetic field, is because pico rock align with field? Is spin 1/2 trajectory not bonked by rocknetic field? Grug confused.
>>16826182explains nothing. macroscopic rotation is just particles in orbital rotation. Spin is fundamentally different.
>>16826190Smaller thing spin more
>>16826195I understand conservation of angular momentum in the macro case. this is all classical. Spin is fundamentally different, you can't explain it with classical physics.
>>16826199we know, that's why we're trying to find a theory of everything you sperg.
>>16826203so your answer for what is spin is "we don't know"? seems to me like physicists have a pretty good grasp on what spin is, I just find the explanations vague
>>16826205smaller thing spin more
>>16826187bonk
Everytime someone references "particles" i drown a kitten.
>>16826187Up side of rock bonk up side of other rock.Down side of rock bonk other down side rock.Up side rock stick to down side rock.
How fast does It spin?
>>16826215Sound like normal sticky iron rock? Won't pico pebble turn around so up side point to down side very fast, and go in direction closest to sticky cobber? That's what sticky iron rock would do.
>>16826218they aren't actually spinning, spin is more of an abstract value
>>16826214It's that sort of behavior that made me lose faith in you, Lord.
>>16826226Abstract particle, Abstract spin.Abstract viewer?
Is this a Jojo reference
>>16826226youre so full of shit, please dont open your mouth
>>16826225Yeah. It's kinda like that.If you leave an iron bar in a strong enough magnetic field for long enough, the iron bar will become a "permanent" magnet because the spins align.
>>16826316explain what is spinning
It is a portion of the dynamics of an electron which can only be described by quantum mechanics.Now, the thing with quantum mechanics is that you cannot describe the dynamics of a particle as you would do with the flight of a butterfly. You can see what the butterfly just did and say whatever about it, but you can never really see what the electron does. Instead, you merely interact with it.There are deep consequences about this fact into which I will not get. For our purposes, it is sufficient to say that our language struggles greatly to describe that which we do not see. The best we can do is to accept uncertainty.Read the wikipedia article about the discovery of spin, and you will get a taste of how people use ordinary language to describe it. To me, the first thing to notice about spin is that, I repeat, it is an important part of the dynamical description of an electron which cannot be provided in any way by classical mechanics.Sure, there is photonic spin, which sorta manifests classically as the vectorial character of the electromagnetic field. But that description fails to apply to electronic spin, since the electronic field (whatever that may be) is not observable.You might be tempted to start away working on a better explanation of spin. You would fail, much like I did when I tried to do the same thing while ignoring the previous facts I stated earlier. I took me a long time to see it as I do know, so don't feel bad if you struggle with understanding.
>>16825554it says it right there in your picmomentum
I think, that spin has something to do with magnetism.
>>16825570>zero radius but also has momentumthis shit sounds like schizobabble but infinitely smarter people than me insist it makes sense so I guess im just fucking retarded idk
>>16826392classical angular momentum is defined from mass rotation around a point. Spin isn't like this at all, just saying it's momentum says next to nothing.
The big bang happens so often that it obligates inertial coalescence of the energy it spewsThe tidal waves of energy churned outwards at 360 degrees in all directions, until all that remained was that which did notThe only shape in which that spewed energy may coalesce is a spinning sphereTo be any less geometry would contain insufficient energy to be a meaningful unitization of existence for that speck to be worthy of recognition as an individual, a piece separated from that initial burst of energy, designating it as matter, here on earth known as hydrogen
>>16826425
>>16826417>So like you have a ball. It has some mass. Imagine if that ball were infinitesimally small. It still has mass despite having a zero radius. That's particle mass.Nta, but the same deal. But that's under the assumption that all particles are infinitely small. What if they're actually strings? Who knows. Mass and momentum and ang momentum and energy are just properties of stuff that make up the universe. Is what it is, they exist without us here. It's up to us to describe them, they don't have to conform to our own experiences and prior definitions.
bump. none of you faggots gave a good answer
>>16825556>intrinsicExplain. What is the origin of spin.
>>16825554Good question. Follow up question, WTF is "color" when it comes to particles when it's impossible to see any colors at that miniscule scale? Why do they call it quantum chromodynamics when it has nothing to do with chromodynamics?
>>16827273It's just a word physicists co-opted because they vaguely resemble RGB color math. QCT has nothing to do with actual color though, it's about the strong force which is between quarks and gluons
>>16827199It's basically dark matter of particle physics. Nobody has seen it, nobody knows what that is or where does it come from and in general it makes no fucking sense at all, but it gives you physically correct results if you use it so everyone just make an important face and go along with it.
>>16827376QCD* typo
>>16827383That’s dumb, you could say the same thing about any inherent property of a particle.
>>16827389And I do
Stern gerlach. Electrons in magnetic field get sent either up or down. No physical property explains this. Call it spin. Einstein de haas effect + Barnett effect in tandem show a changing spin induces a changing rotation and vice versa, confirming this spin is a component of angular momentum. >>16827376How else would you describe an SU(3) symmetry where (+,+,+) = 0?
>>16825618This
>>16825554it's literally just rotation (and yes, it's superluminal)
>>16827404>Electrons in magnetic field get sent either up or down. Okay, so they're inherently magnetic>Call it spin.But why?? Explain.
>>16828428Spin is a measure of the orientation of the magnetic moment.
How can something have a magnetic field without moving charge or changing E? Does spin actually mean the particle (or particle field) is moving in some way?
>>16828448>How can something have a magnetic field without moving charge or changing E?Ask your refrigerator magnet.
>>16828455dummy that literally is caused by spin, which is what I'm asking about.
Spin is potential angular momentum. That's it. The more spin something has, the more angular momentum it can get from rotation.
>>168299663.999...
>>16829966What is intrinsic angular momentum
