Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Spin


  • Please log in to reply
329 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Smith Cosmos

Mike Smith Cosmos

    Primate

  • Senior Members
  • 2,977 posts
  • LocationU.K. / ITALY

Posted 12 November 2010 - 01:33 PM

I find this subject interesting , yet at the heart of quantum theory. If anyone has any eureka feelings about " spin" at the quantum level please could you share them !
  • 0

 I have retired to a quiet place to think. ! ..................................................EUREKA !  ...........................I have it ! 


#2 pioneer

pioneer

    Protist

  • Senior Members
  • 1,145 posts
  • LocationSeabrook, New Hampshire

Posted 12 November 2010 - 03:22 PM

If you look at energy quanta and light waves, they have wavelength and frequency. Wavelength is connected to distance and frequency is connected to time. For energy, the product of the two is connected to C (speed of light).

Spin contains loosely similar characteristics. The spin is connected to frequency or time, but the wavelength or distance is not related in the same way to C, since any size object (radius, diameter or circumference) can spin at different frequencies. However, there will be a sweet spot where the size and spin frequency can actually equal C, for inertial spin. That is a theoretical possibility, which I would assume creates a state where inertial spin becomes more like energy. But as long as the time and distance characteristics of the spin are not C, we have inertial spin. Just a theory.
  • 0

#3 Bob_for_short

Bob_for_short

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 344 posts
  • LocationGrenoble, FRANCE

Posted 12 November 2010 - 08:18 PM

I find this subject interesting , yet at the heart of quantum theory. If anyone has any eureka feelings about " spin" at the quantum level please could you share them !


See http://jayryablon.fi...hat-is-spin.pdf

It represents spin as the energy flow of a wave packet of limited size around z-axis. However the spin does not depend on the packet size. Factually it is shown that a vector field has spin 1 and spinor field does 1/2. We knew this without wave packets.

Edited by Bob_for_short, 12 November 2010 - 08:19 PM.

  • 0
Vladimir Kalitvianski

#4 swansont

swansont

    Evil Liar (or so I'm told)

  • Moderators
  • 36,080 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 12 November 2010 - 08:55 PM

If you look at energy quanta and light waves, they have wavelength and frequency. Wavelength is connected to distance and frequency is connected to time. For energy, the product of the two is connected to C (speed of light).

Spin contains loosely similar characteristics. The spin is connected to frequency or time, but the wavelength or distance is not related in the same way to C, since any size object (radius, diameter or circumference) can spin at different frequencies. However, there will be a sweet spot where the size and spin frequency can actually equal C, for inertial spin. That is a theoretical possibility, which I would assume creates a state where inertial spin becomes more like energy. But as long as the time and distance characteristics of the spin are not C, we have inertial spin. Just a theory.


!

Moderator Note

Hypothetical musings belong in speculations. The are not appropriate as answers to questions outside of speculations.


  • 1

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum          To go to the fortress of ultimate darkness, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 


#5 Mike Smith Cosmos

Mike Smith Cosmos

    Primate

  • Senior Members
  • 2,977 posts
  • LocationU.K. / ITALY

Posted 10 February 2011 - 11:52 AM

I have been absent over the Xmas and new year, but am returning to the subject of spin. Surely the early founders of quantum mechanics such as Pauli used spin to derive the exclusion principal necessary for orbital or energy band structure for all ( the entire universe ) atoms. If the spin was not there, surely the universe would fall apart ! Although spin appears in all studies on quantum theory and is indeed used in ideas leading to quantum computing. It seems less spoken about in connection with quantum mechanics than perhaps the other aspects. Is this due to the fact that there is less understood about spin in the way that "wave particle duality " seems to leave many mystified ?
  • 1

 I have retired to a quiet place to think. ! ..................................................EUREKA !  ...........................I have it ! 


#6 ajb

ajb

    Physics Expert

  • Resident Experts
  • 9,905 posts
  • LocationLuxembourg City, Luxembourg

Posted 10 February 2011 - 12:09 PM

In standard non-relativistic quantum mechanics spin is simply "bolted-on" to the theory. It appears as a requirement from nature with little mathematical justification.

Only when one considers relativistic systems does spin appear naturally. Loosely, you can think of spin as a relativistic counterpart to angular momentum. Making the last statement requires a bit of knowledge about Lie groups, their Lie algebras and Casimir operators.
  • 1
"In physics you don't have to go around making trouble for yourself - nature does it for you" Frank Wilczek.


Mathematical Ramblings.

#7 Mike Smith Cosmos

Mike Smith Cosmos

    Primate

  • Senior Members
  • 2,977 posts
  • LocationU.K. / ITALY

Posted 10 February 2011 - 12:39 PM

Thank you for your comments. I, perhaps foolishly, would like to do some research around the subject of "spin". Perhaps as Frank Wilczec voiced I am making trouble for myself. However I have a hunch ( eek ! ) that some goodies lay deep within this particular aspect of quantum mechanical arena.
  • 0

 I have retired to a quiet place to think. ! ..................................................EUREKA !  ...........................I have it ! 


#8 steevey

steevey

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 634 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 11:59 PM

I don't know exactly what it is, but from what I can derive it sounds like how the poles of an electron or proton are oriented or the way its actually spinning. Someone else care to explain?

Edited by steevey, 11 February 2011 - 12:00 AM.

  • 0

#9 lemur

lemur

    Primate

  • Senior Members
  • 2,844 posts

Posted 11 February 2011 - 03:55 AM

I find this subject interesting , yet at the heart of quantum theory. If anyone has any eureka feelings about " spin" at the quantum level please could you share them !



[modnote]Hypothetical musings belong in speculations. The are not appropriate as answers to questions outside of speculations.[/modnote]

The OP's call for "eureka feelings" somewhat invites a broad spectrum of expressions. Perhaps it is the OP that belongs in speculations, along with any earnest responses that describe such "eureka feelings." If the OP wants non-speculative responses, I think they should ask more specific questions with more concrete parameters.
  • 0

#10 steevey

steevey

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 634 posts

Posted 11 February 2011 - 04:05 AM

The OP's call for "eureka feelings" somewhat invites a broad spectrum of expressions. Perhaps it is the OP that belongs in speculations, along with any earnest responses that describe such "eureka feelings." If the OP wants non-speculative responses, I think they should ask more specific questions with more concrete parameters.


It involves people's own opinions/"feelings", so no all the things in here can be considered scientific consensus.
  • 0

#11 steevey

steevey

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 634 posts

Posted 11 February 2011 - 04:05 AM

The OP's call for "eureka feelings" somewhat invites a broad spectrum of expressions. Perhaps it is the OP that belongs in speculations, along with any earnest responses that describe such "eureka feelings." If the OP wants non-speculative responses, I think they should ask more specific questions with more concrete parameters.


It involves people's own opinions/"feelings", so no all the things in here can be considered scientific consensus.
  • 0

#12 lemur

lemur

    Primate

  • Senior Members
  • 2,844 posts

Posted 11 February 2011 - 04:19 AM

It involves people's own opinions/"feelings", so no all the things in here can be considered scientific consensus.

The OP was asking for speculations in the way of phrasing the question, imo. They basically expressed a vague sense of strong potential in the concept of "spin" and asked for validation. Such a question lends itself to musings about how significant "spin" could be or become. How can someone, purely on the basis of established facts, confirm or deny such a "feeling" about the (potential) significance of "spin?" If they didn't want speculation, they should have stated their "feeling" and then asked for delineation of the extent to which existing knowledge supports or contradicts such a feeling. Then someone with expertise could have said either, "no, current discourse does not hold any potential for further relevance for "spin," or "yes, there is a lot of discursive attention paid to 'spin' and its spectrum of potential implications." Beyond that, all people can do is speculate, based on their own knowledge and thinking, about the potential future applications of the concept of "spin," right?

Edited by lemur, 11 February 2011 - 04:20 AM.

  • 0

#13 ajb

ajb

    Physics Expert

  • Resident Experts
  • 9,905 posts
  • LocationLuxembourg City, Luxembourg

Posted 11 February 2011 - 08:19 AM

I don't know exactly what it is, but from what I can derive it sounds like how the poles of an electron or proton are oriented or the way its actually spinning. Someone else care to explain?


You should not think of it as the electron spinning about some axis. Spin behaves like an "additional angular momentum", but it does not have such a simple interpretation.
  • 1
"In physics you don't have to go around making trouble for yourself - nature does it for you" Frank Wilczek.


Mathematical Ramblings.

#14 swansont

swansont

    Evil Liar (or so I'm told)

  • Moderators
  • 36,080 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 11 February 2011 - 11:26 AM

It's a vector so there is a direction, but it does not represent a physical spinning such as a top. But in a coordinate system, for a spin 1/2 particle you have "spin up" and "spin down" representing the projection of the angular momentum vector onto the axis.
  • 1

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum          To go to the fortress of ultimate darkness, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 


#15 alpha2cen

alpha2cen

    Organism

  • Senior Members
  • 1,099 posts

Posted 11 February 2011 - 11:53 AM

Is electron spin speed reduced in the magnetic field?
  • 0

Little is more.

My Blog  http://blogs.science....net/alpha2cen/

 


#16 ajb

ajb

    Physics Expert

  • Resident Experts
  • 9,905 posts
  • LocationLuxembourg City, Luxembourg

Posted 11 February 2011 - 12:09 PM

Is electron spin speed reduced in the magnetic field?



Spin is an intrinsic part of a particle properties. It cannot be interpreted as a particle spinning or something similar. Fundamental particles have no internal structure, so it cannot be something to do with some substructure spinning around some axis. Therefore, I think your question is ill posed.

Spin can be viewed as part of a total angular momentum, and as swansont has said you can look at the components along an axis. For fermions, such as the electron this is always plus or minus 1/2 (in appropriate units).

For example, an electron "whizzing around" the hydrogen nucleus has orbital angular momentum. It also has an intrinsic angular momentum which we call spin. This spin is "built into" the electron and has nothing to do with its motion.

Edited by ajb, 11 February 2011 - 12:09 PM.

  • 0
"In physics you don't have to go around making trouble for yourself - nature does it for you" Frank Wilczek.


Mathematical Ramblings.

#17 alpha2cen

alpha2cen

    Organism

  • Senior Members
  • 1,099 posts

Posted 11 February 2011 - 12:30 PM

Spin is an intrinsic part of a particle properties. It cannot be interpreted as a particle spinning or something similar. Fundamental particles have no internal structure, so it cannot be something to do with some substructure spinning around some axis. Therefore, I think your question is ill posed.

Spin can be viewed as part of a total angular momentum, and as swansont has said you can look at the components along an axis. For fermions, such as the electron this is always plus or minus 1/2 (in appropriate units).

For example, an electron "whizzing around" the hydrogen nucleus has orbital angular momentum. It also has an intrinsic angular momentum which we call spin. This spin is "built into" the electron and has nothing to do with its motion.


When iron bar is in the strong magnetic field, the iron become a magnetic bar. Does this case the magnetic field only change the electron turning direction?
And, is hydrogen 21CM line transition the same?

Edited by alpha2cen, 11 February 2011 - 12:43 PM.

  • 0

Little is more.

My Blog  http://blogs.science....net/alpha2cen/

 


#18 ajb

ajb

    Physics Expert

  • Resident Experts
  • 9,905 posts
  • LocationLuxembourg City, Luxembourg

Posted 11 February 2011 - 02:08 PM

So, because of it's intrinsic spin an electron has a magnetic dipole moment. In most materials the spins are arranged in a random orientation and so no net magnetic field. In magnets the spins are aligned coursing an overall magnetic field.

It is the alignment of the spins that is important.
  • 0
"In physics you don't have to go around making trouble for yourself - nature does it for you" Frank Wilczek.


Mathematical Ramblings.

#19 Mike Smith Cosmos

Mike Smith Cosmos

    Primate

  • Senior Members
  • 2,977 posts
  • LocationU.K. / ITALY

Posted 17 February 2011 - 05:07 PM

Some famous maths person once said something to the effect that "if you cant jump off the back of a bus and go up to the first person you meet and explain in simple terms your theory, it is likely that it is not understood by yourself or others correctly " or something to that effect. Surely the fact that spin is so difficult to explain means , it is likely we don't yet fully and simply understand the subject of "Spin ". Is this not at the root of maths ( beautiful equations ) itself and symmetry.
I would still like a simple and beautiful explanation of " spin " as applied to quantum mechanics . If possible .
  • 0

 I have retired to a quiet place to think. ! ..................................................EUREKA !  ...........................I have it ! 


#20 swansont

swansont

    Evil Liar (or so I'm told)

  • Moderators
  • 36,080 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 17 February 2011 - 05:49 PM

Some famous maths person once said something to the effect that "if you cant jump off the back of a bus and go up to the first person you meet and explain in simple terms your theory, it is likely that it is not understood by yourself or others correctly " or something to that effect. Surely the fact that spin is so difficult to explain means , it is likely we don't yet fully and simply understand the subject of "Spin ". Is this not at the root of maths ( beautiful equations ) itself and symmetry.
I would still like a simple and beautiful explanation of " spin " as applied to quantum mechanics . If possible .


Spin is intrinsic angular momentum, but not physical spinning. That's pretty simple. The difficulty arises, I think, because people can't accept a model other than a physically spinning top, and that model fails when applied to QM spin; it's a problem of continuing to want a classical model or explanation for a nonclassical phenomenon.
  • 0

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum          To go to the fortress of ultimate darkness, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users