• justme@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    6 hours ago

    There is the line between knowing and understanding. Or understanding is based on experienced, mainly your everyday life. And quantum mechanics can’t be represented with everyday life examples. But if you work with it everyday, you gain be experience, which leads to understanding. Is just impossible to share with other people. That’s like asking somebody what the word “existence” means

  • T3CHT @sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    11 hours ago

    I see your spin question and raise “how does a quantum particle have angular momentum” plus “does the observer paradox imply many universes or action at a distance?” (Yep that’s all in. I’m confident there are no answers available to these questions in this language.)

  • 87Six@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    ·
    17 hours ago

    It’s funny to be in this community as someone that is science illiterate because I always learn that I’m too stupid to even understand the joke but I still laugh

    • rockerface🇺🇦@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      72
      ·
      16 hours ago

      So you know how you can turn any object around 360 degrees and it will return to its original position? With symmetric objects, that angle can be smaller, like you can turn an equilateral triangle by 120 degrees and it’s still looking the same. You could assign numbers to these facts by saying that a normal asymmetrical object has a spin of 1 and an equilateral triangle has a spin of 3 (as in, it resets to its original position 3 times in one full rotation).

      Now imagine an object that needs to be turned 720 degrees to return to the same position. Some particles are actually like that (electrons, for example). This is designated by a spin of 1/2 (as in, one full rotation flips it around, and it needs a second full rotation to reset).

      This is obviously oversimplified, but then again, everything about quantum mechanics is.

      • dave@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        6 hours ago

        This normally applies to microscopic particles, but it’s been shown that the spin of a USB-A plug is 1/√2 and the fact this could be taught and demonstrated in schools is why we all have to move to USB-C now.

      • Kraiden@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        Know of any good visualizations of this? Because I have no idea what something has to look like in order to be spun 360 and be inverted from where it started. That has to be some 4th spatial dimension tesseract shit, surely. That breaks my brain!

        eta: saw @rockerface@lemmy.cafe posted spinors which has some great illustrations… surprisingly less 4th dimensional than I was expecting, but still brain breaking

        • i_love_FFT@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 hours ago

          There is the famous “belt trick”, plus this PBS Spacetime really explains it well!

          https://youtu.be/pWlk1gLkF2Y

          All macroscopic examples of spinor involve an object attached to the exterior world. Electrons having spin 1/2 therefore imply that they don’t exist “by themselves” and are embedded in a larger field.

          I’m not sure whether that would be the electron field of the electromagnetic field, or maybe all of the fields?

      • 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.

    • happybadger [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      17 hours ago

      The only thing I learned from multiple physics classes was that I’m not a physicist. People would die if I had to do physics. It’s nonsense made up by nerds to feel smart when real geniuses just eat the apple that falls on their head. Free apple.

  • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Look, we might not be able to tell you what spin is but we’re actually quite sure that it is not spinning but it is nonetheless angular momentum.

    That’s spinning, you say?

    Wrong, idiot. You absolute buffoon.

    • i_love_FFT@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      This is bad popular science. Look at PBS Spacetime for a better way if doing it.

  • FiniteBanjo@feddit.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Spin is a funny way of saying Minute Differences in Polarity and Potential. The tiny balls aren’t actually spinning. They’re also not actually tiny balls. Everything is a field of energy which pools in some spots and spreads in others.

  • OpenStars@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Is it that special something between 6 and 7?

    and...

    Where you can find Saddam at. 😜