Question on spin - split from antimatter/backward time

[SamBridge]

2 pi in the denominator? There are in fact an infinite number of solutions that correspond to different spin and momentum states of the particle, but they can all be expressed in terms of the two unique solutions.

But that's what I'm saying, the range of the solutions that you categorize them are limited by that, I guess to nail it down I would have to see the process in actio

 

 

I

As far as I know the graviton could have a spin of 2. Atoms can have spins of any integer multiple of 1/2 or 1, for example 3/2, 4, etc. Spin is just the intrinsic angular momentum of a particle. If you have a particle completely at rest, that is it has zero momentum, then you still measure a discrete angular momentum. It also behaves like a vector, in that it can have a direction and magnitude and points in the same direction as the orbital angular momentum.

Well I haven't seen a particle with a spin greater than one, and it makes total sense because the spin is to do with the angle of the vector, and if you go around in a circle of all the different angles you eventually arrive back at the start, 360 is the same as 0 or 720, so spin has to be modular at some point, it wouldn't make sense if it wasn't.

[MigL]

Actually spin is not represented by vectors as is classical angular momentum, but by spinors which behave differently under co-ordinate rotations. In effect, an electron of spin 1/2 needs 720 deg. to get back to its original orientation. See the Wiki page on electron spin.

 

Gravitons are theorized to have spin 2 ( if they exist and are ever found ).

[SamBridge]

Actually spin is not represented by vectors as is classical angular momentum, but by spinors which behave differently under co-ordinate rotations. In effect, an electron of spin 1/2 needs 720 deg. to get back to its original orientation. See the Wiki page on electron spin.

 

Gravitons are theorized to have spin 2 ( if they exist and are ever found ).

The way I had interpreted it, that's the way I use to originally think about it, but after looking at how its used in diffraction, maybe not so much, the 720 degrees thin would make sense if it was the coefficient of function modeling the oscillation, but then again I don't see any particles with a spin of over 1.

[beefpatty]

But that's what I'm saying, the range of the solutions that you categorize them are limited by that, I guess to nail it down I would have to see the process in actio

 

 

Well I haven't seen a particle with a spin greater than one, and it makes total sense because the spin is to do with the angle of the vector, and if you go around in a circle of all the different angles you eventually arrive back at the start, 360 is the same as 0 or 720, so spin has to be modular at some point, it wouldn't make sense if it wasn't.

 

I was just confused by what you meant by 2pi . I think I see where the confusion is. By rotating the spin you can indeed return back to the original state, so in that sense it is modal. But in terms of a spin 3/2, 4, etc. particle it just arises from their spin states lining up.

 

Actually spin is not represented by vectors as is classical angular momentum, but by spinors which behave differently under co-ordinate rotations. In effect, an electron of spin 1/2 needs 720 deg. to get back to its original orientation. See the Wiki page on electron spin.

 

Gravitons are theorized to have spin 2 ( if they exist and are ever found ).

 

Thanks for the clarification, although as far as I understand it spin can be represented in physical space as a vector, for example when talking about helicity, or in spinor space as a spinor, which exhibits the properties you mentioned.

[swansont]

The way I had interpreted it, that's the way I use to originally think about it, but after looking at how its used in diffraction, maybe not so much, the 720 degrees thin would make sense if it was the coefficient of function modeling the oscillation, but then again I don't see any particles with a spin of over 1.

 

There are composite systems with larger spins. Cs-133, for example, has nuclear spin of 7/2. Rb-85 has spin 5/2

[SamBridge]

There are composite systems with larger spins. Cs-133, for example, has nuclear spin of 7/2. Rb-85 has spin 5/2

Hmm, well I've seen the experiments where spin was discovered or extrapolated, but I still don't see exactly where it comes from. Is there a specific equation than you can use for a 3-D modeling software in either cartesian or polar coordinates where you can actually see some kind of relation between variables that would cause those values?

[SamBridge]

It's angular momentum, so it adds together. Two spin-1/2 particles can combine to form a spin-1 or a spin-0 system, because it's quantized. The more particles you have, the higher the possible potential spin. You don't need 3-D modeling for this. (A table of Clebsch-Gordan coefficients can be helpful, though)

Yeah it's angular momentum, but as we've established it's not really a physical phenomena. It's something to do with how the vectors work, but at the same time the electron isn't physically rotating in the direction of those vectors. So where do I actually see it occurring?

[swansont]

Yeah it's angular momentum, but as we've established it's not really a physical phenomena. It's something to do with how the vectors work, but at the same time the electron isn't physically rotating in the direction of those vectors. So where do I actually see it occurring?

 

It is a physical phenomenon, it just isn't physical spinning. The particles do have angular momentum. You see the effects in the reactions the particles undergo, and even in the ones they don't, because angular momentum must be conserved.

[SamBridge]

It is a physical phenomenon, it just isn't physical spinning. The particles do have angular momentum. You see the effects in the reactions the particles undergo, and even in the ones they don't, because angular momentum must be conserved.

How exactly does a particle not lose any angular momentum from all sorts of small interactions?

[swansont]

How exactly does a particle not lose any angular momentum from all sorts of small interactions?

 

Angular momentum is conserved when there is no external torque, and also quantized.