A Question for Cjlr
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-09-2015, 09:56 PM (This post was last modified: 18-09-2015 11:13 PM by The Organic Chemist.)
RE: A Question for Cjlr
(18-09-2015 07:59 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Zoraprime, the reason I was so quick to just accept Cjlrs explaination about electrons is because I admint I don't understand quantum spin.

That is what we have been trying to tell you for the last several pages!!!!!!!!

(18-09-2015 07:59 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I know it concerns angular momentum, but I don't know if it concerns a transformation or not. Seems more like a charge to me.

NO IT DOES NOT!!!!!!! Not in the sense you think it does. Remember that crack you made at me when I brought up electrons and the magnetogyric ratio on page 1? The seventh fucking post in?!!! That comment where you told me that I should let the adults talk (which I forgive you for even though you are the child here)?! That is exactly what spin gives us and how we use it to observe things with spin. If you had actually bothered to look up what I said then even wikipedia may have set you straight. Charge has nothing to do with it. An electron has a spin of 1/2 and so does a proton.

(18-09-2015 07:59 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  It seems you are contradicting Cjlr who said "Spin refers to angular motion about a single axis. That's how it's defined - it can't be anything else." Can a 4D dust cloud have 2 spins? Yes or no?

No. You still do not understand the difference. The disk you are picturing would have formed due to gravity, not at all due to nuclear spin. For example, the dust particles that make up Saturn's rings probably have a ton of elements with various spins in it. Hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, sodium, whatever all have different nuclear spins but the spins of the elements have absolutely no effect on the shape of the disk as nuclear spin does not work like that. Nuclear spin even has no affect on the chemistry of an element. If the chemistry of an element has not been affected, then it is not going to effect another "dust" particle a few millimeters (or nanometers for that matter) away.

(18-09-2015 06:56 PM)ZoraPrime Wrote:  Just to make this argument end, I went ahead and took the unfortunate task of computing the damn commutator (i'm ignoring iћ, it's an annoying constant that doesn't change the main result). In the end, you have non-zero terms that remain even if you're talking about orthogonal planes. I honestly think you're going to open up the work, think it's alphabet soup, and never look at it again. The point is, even in higher Euclidean dimensions, the spin operators do not commute. Work here.

Unless I made arithmetic errors (which anyone is welcome to check) that commutation relationship basically ends this discussion.

I seriously doubt he knows what "orthogonal" even means. Nice work though, gave me awful flashbacks.....

Edit: Fixed spelling errors.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: