• egerlach@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    16 hours ago

    My understanding is that the “rotation” or “turning” of fundamental particles isn’t analogous to macroscopic objects, and that’s where I start to lose things. (not seeking an explanation today, just pointing out where QM goes all fuzzy for me)

    • justme@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 hours ago

      The problem here is that rotation makes only sense for objects that have a size. So you can say “this is the left side” and “now this part rotated to the right”. This concept doesn’t make sense for a particle that is a literal dot. The spin is a characteristics of particles that mathematically behaves like a rotation (freely speaking), therefore we treat it like that. That doesn’t mean it is a rotation.

      • i_love_FFT@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        The only thing to keep in mind is that although particles are dimensionless (as far as we know), the do not exist without context. Spin relates to how a particle is linked to the rest of the world.

        One way of seeing it is that spin can be represented by a “rotational polarisation” of the surrounding cloud of virtual particles.

    • rockerface🇺🇦@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      11 hours ago

      There are geometrical objects called spinors which are basically vectors with a half spin. Interestingly, they were introduced before we realized they could describe spin of electron and other particles like it. Sometimes a purely theoretical mathematical concept suddenly turns out to be describing very real things.