A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
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.)
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
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.
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
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.
Have you tried spinning? That's a good trick!
Are you suggesting I do a barrel roll?
Use the boost to get through!
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.
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.
It’s a good trick.
Excellent point, FartMaster69.
Spin is how a particular particle be vibin'
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.
Is it that special something between 6 and 7?
and...
Where you can find Saddam at. 😜