TheCosmologist

It's a bit strange I admit. You are either a particle or an antiparticle. Saying you are your own antiparticle, is like saying a photon is both a particle and an antiparticle, but when we talk about antiparticle particle annihilation, which is a special delay process, we don't observe these properties in a photon. That's why I said, "whatever that is supposed to mean," because I would prefer to say, that the photon is simply a fluctuation with no mirror image that is interpreted as going backwards in time. Mathematically, antiparticles are synonymous with time reversed physics - though not highly popular, this mathematical analogy still remains true to this day. And of course, photons do not experience time, they do not possess any inertial frame of reference. A lot of people here consider themselves as regular bullies, don't they? My skin is thick, so don't worry. If I was speaking nonsense, then I wonder what I could say about half the statements I've read since being here and have seemingly been glossed over by the family of posters here. But I'm not like you people, I don't go out my way to intellectually attack people, but I will defend myself. Thus is more a reflection on the behaviour of others here, not me.

I'm not being funny, but are you unaware of what "infer" means? It's definition is a deduction.

Well we didn't. We simply gave a definition of what the word chirality means. I mean look, quantum mechanical lingo isn't easy. It never is, and sometimes people will use a phrase and it may not mean the same thing to another person. In the Susskind lectures, when Sussind described antiparticles and the solutions therein obtained of them from the Dirac equation, he asks the audience, "what do we mean by chirality?" After a brief moment of silence, he continues, "We just mean it's handedness, whether it is right handed or left handed." Obviously when we speak of left handedness or right, we are literally talking about the spin orientation of the particle/system. When you decompose the DIrac equation, finding negative solutions, we end up writing out wave functions of either [math]\psi_L[/math] and [math]\psi_R[/math]. The universe is literally filled with left handed particles, not right handed particles and has been dubbed the antimatter problem. Or another phrase, Baryon problem.

This is just additional information. The spun cannot be superimposed when you have antiparticles, for example. Yes that is important, I would never deny this. For instance gauge theory have massless bosons in which it doesn't matter if you superimpose, simply because they are their own antiparticles, whatever that means. To me it simply makes more sense to say there are no antiparticles, than saying they are their own. For massless radiation, the chirality is said to be the same as the helicity. Nevermind.. however, without going into the superimposed bit, chirality literally means handedness, and yes we can use it to describe the spin of right or left moving particles. Clearly this is heavily investigated under the spinor formalism of Dirac. The physics is exotic, as you will know, when antiparticles are thrown into the mix. The handedness of a particle can only be up or down, but as soon as we establish what chirality a particle has, we immediately deduce the spin of the antiparticle. So when I use the word chirality, I literally mean it's observable spin, getting into other technicalities is just fun, childsplay. I take a quote to point this out, "In physics, chirality may be found in the spin of a particle, where the handedness of the object is determined by the direction in which the particle spins." Notice here we didn't need to infer on superimposed arguments. We simply say, "Yes, chirality is the property of handedness of a system, for a particle, this refers to the directionality of its own spin."

I think you're mistaken quite badly. What do we mean by handedness? It means we are talking about whether a particle has a spin right or a spin left (or up and down) configuration, indeed before anything collapses, it has both. What do we mean that a particle is polarized? It means that a particular spin state is attributed to a particle. Hence I take a quote from Google for you: "Spin polarization is the degree to which the spin, that is, the intrinsic angular momentum of elementary particles, is aligned with a given direction." Sorry what was your question? All I see is "No one mentioned bipolar," ... I was trying to make a funny here. Take a look here how these terminologies are used https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.2c07088 In the context of spin we see here how it applies more directly to particles, since the last link dealt with molecular spin, or polarization https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(physics)#:~:text=A chiral phenomenon is one,is the same as chirality.

Sorry, I'll read more closely.

No you're not to call me Gareth at all. We are not friends and therefore not on first term name calling, understand?

Spin polarisation is how the angular momentum is aligned to a given direction. We have a fancy name to talk about the spin of particles, it's called its chirality. Literally it means handedness. Do I mean to be cheeky here? Of course I do, are there any polite posters here at all? You slander my knowledge of physics when in reality I don't see much physics being argued. Some answers I've read since being here, have been either straight out wrong or highly questionable. I'm becoming bipolar 😐 Well you were not aware that Einstein was so involved with QM's, so forgive me if I point out that a lot of his work actually centered round it.

Polarity is chirality which means "handedness." Do not call me Gareth BTW.

Polarity means it spins one way. Well he invented a lot of quantum mechanics, such as the photoelectric effect, including other contributions. His main objection was the interpretation of the wave function...

Sorry but bipolar ain't my thang lol Now to have a dipole, you need a sense of quantum compatibility in regards to how spin is distributed as an observable.

I don't agree, it is not wrong in the human domain. We are made from genetic materials, we can even alter our genetics to create babies that are born with advantages. We do the same thing with cattle. So give me some concrete examples as to why you do not think genetics do not play at the very most, the larger contributions, to looks, gender, orientation and intellect? Because I cannot follow your objections, objectively.

True enough, I concur.

You are speaking about the human biological condition so I thought it would be a given that when I said "everything is determined by our genetics," would infer on the human condition.

My goodness, people are very argumentative against me here yes... there are. I'll give you a respectable science site which explains this. https://www.livescience.com/20350-successful-life-genes-study-suggests.html I may just start ignoring people objecting to things here if they are not willing to investigate the counterarguments. If someone challenged me on something, I'd double check. Asking Dr. Google gives multiple reports on genetic disposition. "Nobody is asking you to abandon your own heterosexual preferences and become a practicing homosexual. " im sorry, but this sounds like an argument of choice. The only way it could be a choice is that everyone is bisexual. Tell me something... if someone identifies as straight, when did you choose to be straight? To have a choice means technically you are orientated both ways. This is implausible for people who are orientated one way and are not aroused by another.