Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Quantum particles aren’t spinning. So where does their spin come from?

#1
C C Offline
https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...come-from/

EXCERPT: . . . But despite appearances, electrons don’t spin. [...] Yet spin is deeply important. If electrons didn’t seem to spin, your chair would collapse down to a minuscule fraction of its size. You’d collapse too—and that would be the least of your problems.

Without spin, the entire periodic table of elements would come crashing down, and all of chemistry would go with it. In fact, there wouldn’t be any molecules at all. So spin isn’t just one of the best tricks that electrons pull; it’s also one of their most crucial. And like any good magician, electrons haven’t told anyone how the trick is done. But now, a new account of spin may be on the horizon, one which pulls back the curtain and shows how the magic works...

[...] But all of these fabulous discoveries, applications, and explanations still leave Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck’s question on the table: what is spin? If electrons must have spin, but can’t be spinning, then where does that angular momentum come from? The standard answer is that this momentum is simply inherent to subatomic particles, and doesn’t correspond to any macroscopic notion of spinning.

Yet this answer is not satisfying to everyone. “I never loved the account of spin that you got in a quantum mechanics class,” says Charles Sebens, a philosopher of physics at the California Institute of Technology. “You’re introduced to it, and you think, ‘Well, that’s strange. They act like they spin but they don’t really spin? Okay. I guess I can learn to work with that.’ But it’s odd.”

Recently, though, Sebens had an idea. “Within quantum mechanics, it seems like the electron is not rotating,” he says. But, he adds, “quantum mechanics is not our best theory of nature. Quantum field theory is a deeper and more accurate theory.”

[...] Quantum field theory handles this phenomenon by describing particles as arising out of fields that pervade all of spacetime, even empty space. These fields allow particles to appear and disappear, all in accordance with both the strict dictates of Einstein’s special relativity and the probabilistic laws of the quantum world.

And it’s these fields, according to Sebens, that may contain the solution to the puzzle of spin. “The electron is ordinarily thought of as a particle,” he says. “But in quantum field theory, for every particle, there’s a way of thinking about it as a field.” In particular, the electron can be thought of as an excitation in a quantum field known as the Dirac field, and this field may be what carries the spin of the electron. “There’s a real rotation of energy and charge in the Dirac field,” Sebens says. If this is where the angular momentum resides, the problem of an electron spinning faster than the speed of light vanishes; the region of the field carrying an electron’s spin is far larger than the purportedly pointlike electron itself. So according to Sebens, in a way, Pauli and Lorentz were half-right: there isn’t a spinning particle. There’s a spinning field, and that field is what gives rise to particles.... (MORE - missing details)
Reply
#2
Kornee Offline
Quote (4th lst para):

"So far, Sebens’ idea has made ripples, not waves. When it comes to whether electrons are spinning, “I don’t think it’s an answerable question,” says Mark Srednicki, a physicist at the University of California, Santa Barbara. “We’re taking a concept that originated in the ordinary world and trying to apply it to a place where it doesn’t really apply anymore. So I think it’s really just a matter of choice or definition or taste whether you want to say the electron is really spinning.” Hans Ohanian, a physicist at the University of Vermont who has done other work on electron spin, points out that Sebens’ original version of his idea doesn’t work for antimatter."

The way they quote Ohanian, he is a skeptic of 'particle' physical spin, but in fact he wrote an article back in 1986 explaining how it could be true (as field wave circulation):
https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.14580
I doubt anyone here has enough interest in actual physics details, but a dedicated search will dig up the full article if really interested.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Are virtual particles real? Magical Realist 6 65 Feb 7, 2024 07:07 AM
Last Post: Kornee
  Spin Time Questions Zinjanthropos 82 2,311 Dec 8, 2023 12:10 AM
Last Post: confused2
  Article The electron is so round that it’s ruling out potential new particles C C 0 85 Apr 11, 2023 04:47 PM
Last Post: C C
  Black holes could reveal their quantum-superposition states, new calculations reveal C C 0 180 Nov 20, 2022 06:12 PM
Last Post: C C
  Does consciousness change the rules of quantum mechanics? C C 9 368 Nov 11, 2022 05:41 PM
Last Post: Ostronomos
  So Where Does the Extra Square Come From? Yazata 0 165 Sep 18, 2022 01:53 AM
Last Post: Yazata
  Quantum particles can feel the influence of gravitational fields they never touch C C 1 138 Feb 17, 2022 01:28 PM
Last Post: Kornee
  X particles detected + How infinite series reveal the unity of mathematics C C 0 76 Jan 25, 2022 06:20 PM
Last Post: C C
  Does superdeterminism save QM? Or does it kill free will and destroy science? C C 31 1,035 Dec 25, 2021 01:31 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Why "pilot wave theory" failed + Why BHs aren't made of DM + Wormholes may be viable C C 1 96 Nov 17, 2021 05:37 PM
Last Post: Syne



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)