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
this post was submitted on 05 May 2026
315 points (100.0% liked)
Science Memes
20630 readers
1935 users here now
Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Meta Post Tags
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
If you are here asking: "Is this a science meme?"
Probably, yes. We use the Dawkins definition of meme: a replicating idea, not just an image macro with a fact on it. A good post here doesn't need to teach you something. It needs to make you ask something: who, what, where, when, and especially why or how.
Science isn't a filing cabinet of facts, it's a conversation. For example, a photo of an eel or other localized wildlife counts because most people never see one, and wonder is the first step of inquiry. A car meme counts if it makes you curious about what's under the bonnet. If you want to talk about something you noticed in the world, chances are someone else wants to talk about it too.
We moderate for vibe, not category. Pruning is light, especially where a post creates interesting discussion. Experimenting is encouraged.
See the pinned paper on Shitposting as Public Pedagogy if you want the academic case for why this works.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
I've always known the USB-A plug is some kind of 4 dimensional and/or quantum bullshit
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)
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.
So quarks are möbius strips? Got it. 😛
What you've got there is string theory
Wait, how close is that to true? Does string theory really just boil down to "quarks are möbius strips"?
I feel like it was a joke; I don't think Moebius strips are at all relevant to string theory
Most of this stuff is really not amenable to language, and can only really be understood in the mathematics that physicists use
Not specifically Möbius strips, but the main premise is that all elementary particles are in fact strings in high dimensional space, and all of their unique properties come from the way those strings are shaped and moving.
Maybe there would be a particle that corresponds to a string tied in a Möbius loop, for all I know.
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.
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.
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
There is the famous "belt trick", plus this PBS Spacetime really explains it well!
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?
Why is my brain being fucked
quantum mechanics
Ah
Also, really fucking interesting. Jesus christ.
Oh fuck
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).
why the hell this is bringing me traumatic flashbacks of when i went in a rabbit hole learning why and how 4 dimensions rotations are used in 3d software to avoid gimbal locking
Ah, quaternions, good old fun. You can use them to describe these, too.
Have you tried spinning? That's a good trick!
Are you suggesting I do a barrel roll?
Use the boost to get through!
No, what if I have a spin of 1 sqrt 2, my friends will think I'm weird
You're actually charming!
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.
What I learned was W = A * V and later I found out that's not even true
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.
This is bad popular science. Look at PBS Spacetime for a better way if doing it.
The joke is that imagine an electron is a ball that is spinning around, only that it is not a ball and it is not spinning.
Obviously spin is how the electron feels about being observed
It’s a good trick.
Excellent point, FartMaster69.
🙂↔️
Spin is how a particular particle be vibin'
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
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.
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.)
As an Australian:
It's added to weed to make your bongs rip better.
It also "spins out" a small amount of pot so you can share it with more people
Is it that special something between 6 and 7?
and...
Where you can find Saddam at. 😜