I think it's like the magnetic charge of the thing?
this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2025
722 points (99.2% liked)
memes
15502 readers
5866 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Nope, distinct property. I don't think there's any good analogy really (that I've heard).
Particle spin and charge are different properties
Whenever any of this comes up I remember that physics professor's speech on first day of quantum mechanics that got viral:
“Nobody understands quantum mechanics. The people who came up with it don't understand it. I will do my best so that by the end of this course you don't understand it either, and so you can got out to the world and spread our ignorance.”
Or something to that effect.
I'm so good at not understanding stuff. My time has come.
Quantum mechanics is illogical and stuff that happens makes no sense but can be recrcreated through experimentation....as long as you don't look at it.
The end
load more comments
(7 replies)
I'd say we understand quantum mechanics better than most things.
We know more about the behaviour of an electron than we know about the oceans, the Earth, the sun, the weather, the stock market, the human body, prime numbers, and so on.
We generally have a grasp of "why" for that stuff though, even if the whole picture is currently hidden or too complex.
Do you mean "why" as in "why did X cause Y" or as in "why are things the way they are"?
In the former case, quantum mechanics is our most precise theory for coupling causes and effects, predicting the outcome of experiments to an incredible degree.
In the latter case, do we really have a grasp of that for anything? Why is the gravitational constant the value that it is? Why is pi the ratio of a circle's circumference and it's diameter? Mostly we ultimately have to say that it is so because we can observe that it is so. For quantum mechanics it is the same.
Or do you mean "why" in some other way?
We understand the "how" better than most things. Quantum mechanics is extremely well-supported mathematically and experimentally. I think that's what they mean. The "why", an understanding of what a system that generated those results looks like at a macro level, basically no clue.
The consensus seems to be that the math works, don't try to figure out why.
That is a somewhat narrow definition of "why", I'd say. But indeed, the transition from quantum mechanics to classical mechanics is unclear.
There are several interpretations of quantum mechanics, but they are empirically equivalent, so you can just pick your favourite and move on. That's not necessarily a big mystery. The math works, as you say, and that's the whole point of a physical theory.
There are also several interpretations of statistics. Does that mean we don't understand "why" a dice rolls results with a certain frequency?
Note that superconductivity and the quantum Hall effect are both macroscopic quantum effects, so we do know what a macroscopic quantum system looks like.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
Imagine a mathematical concept that approximates a particle across a spherical plane. Now imagine a force emitted from this sphere in a field. Okay, we're ready to talk about why this is wrong, too.
There's no analogy for any of this that doesn't have some flaw.
All analogies have flaws. If they didn't, they wouldn't be an analogy, they would be describing the very thing itself.
Something something map territory
load more comments
(4 replies)
Sounds like a class with an attribute called spin.
It does however also have repercussions that are inline with it being a sphere that is spinning.
The universe is a digital simulation confirmed
there's lots of physics that cannot be described in algorithmic terms, and (as best I misunderstand it) quantum is the most that
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
There was great episode on PBS space time about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWlk1gLkF2Y
In short it doesn't rotate, it just has magnetic field that behaves as if the source was spinning charge
The electron is rotating in the sense that it resists a tilting force.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdN1mweN2ds
Disclaimer: My knowledge of physics ends at the high school level.
Apparently there is an experiment where they get an object suspended in water to rotate when being bombarded by electrons with the same spin.
Although my physics knowledge is probably less than the average highschool level.
load more comments
(1 replies)
- Ok, so is it correct to say it has some rotation properties?
- Hahaha, oh no. Nonononono. No. Not at all correct no. However, it's the best we've got so yeah that's what we're going with.
A ball, however tiny, has 3 dimensions, it has a surface that moves around a mathematical point at the center of the sphere.
A point of zero dimensions has no diameter nor perimeter, no surface with which to spin. Yet when influenced by a magnetic field, a point-like indivisible particle behaves as if it does spin.
As Chief Brody might say, we're gonna need a bigger math!
How about imaginary numbers and the complex plane?
Now add the Uncertainty Principle, just for shits 'n' giggles!
Probability space! Probability amplitudes and polarizations!
It's only half spinning too.
The way I understood it (probably wrong): imagine if a point like thing, but is actually a wave, hits something else. It will leave a trace on the detector curving in a certain direction. This is interpreted as angular momentum aka spin.
There are also things like Hydrogen Fine Structure , that behaves as though it is a ball that actually spins. 🤷
...that is f*cking brilliant...
Ah yes the spin
I've always understood it more like a cake that's moist, but it's not a cake and it's not moist.
The middle finger is for B field. The thumb is reserved for force. The index finger is for current. 🎵
load more comments
(2 replies)