Electron spin

@kazetnagorra said
No, it's an intrinsic form of angular momentum.

So spin is not really spin? Please explain.

@metal-brain said
So spin is not really spin? Please explain.

You asked "Electron spin is a rotational spin, right? " and NOT just "Electron spin is a spin, right? " therefore his reply of "No, ...." doesn't say/imply your moronic "So spin is not really spin?".

@metal-brain said
So spin is not really spin? Please explain.

Spin implies that the electron carries angular momentum, but nothing is "rotating" in a classical sense or the analog thereof.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)

@humy said
You asked "Electron spin is a rotational spin, right? " and NOT just "Electron spin is a spin, right? " therefore his reply of "No, ...." doesn't say/imply your moronic "So spin is not really spin?".

He is saying spin is not spin. If I asked him what Angular Momentum is he would predictably post the wikipedia page since he doesn't understand it himself. Then he will say spin is not really spin.

If you understood much of what you are pretending to you would know that.

@kazetnagorra said
Spin implies that the electron carries angular momentum, but nothing is "rotating" in a classical sense or the analog thereof.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)

Then it isn't really spin.

@metal-brain said
Then it isn't really spin.

"Spin" is literally the name, so yeah, it is.

It's like you're saying a sandwich isn't really a sandwich because there is no sand in it.

@kazetnagorra said
"Spin" is literally the name, so yeah, it is.

It's like you're saying a sandwich isn't really a sandwich because there is no sand in it.

You are saying an electron is one dimensional. How can a particle be one dimensional?

@metal-brain said
He is saying spin is not spin.

No, he isn't.

@metal-brain said
You are saying an electron is one dimensional.

That isn't what was implied by his assertion from his lost post even if he believes an electron is one dimensional so don't know why you suddenly brought that subject up or may have thought he did.

How can a particle be one dimensional?

Why cannot it be?
How can a three dimensional particle be three dimensional?
Why cannot it be?
There is no logical self-contradiction in either unless you obstinately insist on completely arbitrary defining the meaning of the word 'particle' as necessarily implying it must be 3D by definition but then you would be just moronically arguing the toss over useless uninformative semantics as opposed to arguing over what might exist in the real physical world.

As it happens, science is currently unclear on the subject of whether an electron has a meaningful non-zero 'diameter' but, even if it DOES have a meaningful non-zero 'diameter', it wouldn't be a 'diameter' in the same sense as large object such as wheels etc have 'diameter' which would imply they can 'rotate' like a wheel, which electron can't, and thus you mustn't take the word 'diameter' in the context of an electron too literally.

@kazetnagorra said
"Spin" is literally the name, so yeah, it is.

It's like you're saying a sandwich isn't really a sandwich because there is no sand in it.

There's nothing like a picnic on the beach.

@metal-brain said
You are saying an electron is one dimensional. How can a particle be one dimensional?

I'm not saying that at all.

"Spin" is a word, it is a way to give a label to a precise, consistent mathematical description of physical phenomena. If you want to criticize the concept of spin, your criticism needs to be directed there, not at the label. If you want to understand at a more fundamental level what spin is, you likewise need to study the mathematical framework. A gifted instructor might be able to teach a layman some degree of intuition about these concepts, but you will never ever be able to reach the required level of understanding to fully grasp or criticize the state-of-the-art without understanding the mathematical framework. That goes more generally beyond physics, as I have noticed you are quite prone to ill-informed soapboxing.

@kazetnagorra said
"Spin" is literally the name, so yeah, it is.

It's like you're saying a sandwich isn't really a sandwich because there is no sand in it.

I'm just going by the wikipedia links you keep referring me to. It isn't really "spin".

"Because of this, it turns out that the notion of a quantum particle literally "spinning" about an axis does not exist."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum

"In quantum mechanics, angular momentum (like other quantities) is expressed as an operator, and its one-dimensional projections have quantized eigenvalues. Angular momentum is subject to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, implying that at any time, only one projection (also called "component"😉 can be measured with definite precision; the other two then remain uncertain. Because of this, it turns out that the notion of a quantum particle literally "spinning" about an axis does not exist. Nevertheless, elementary particles still possess a spin angular momentum, but this angular momentum does not correspond to spinning motion in the ordinary sense"

@metal-brain said
I'm just going by the wikipedia links you keep referring me to. It isn't really "spin".

"Because of this, it turns out that the notion of a quantum particle literally "spinning" about an axis does not exist."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum

"In quantum mechanics, angular momentum (like other quantities) is expressed as an operator, and its one-dim ...[text shortened]... ar momentum, but this angular momentum does not correspond to spinning motion in the ordinary sense"

It is still correct to call that property of an electron 'spin' and that electrons have spin and the above wiki quotes don't in any way imply otherwise. If you think the above wiki quotes DO imply otherwise then all that simply means is that you don't understand them.

@humy said
It is still correct to call that property of an electron 'spin' and that electrons have spin and the above wiki quotes don't in any way imply otherwise. If you think the above wiki quotes DO imply otherwise then all that simply means is that you don't understand them.

Define "spin".

@metal-brain said
Define "spin".

Just look it up in wiki and you see how I define it.
I define it whichever way science does, just like I should.
Unlike you, I don't make crap up.