Recent content by VantagePoint72

That makes sense, and is in line with what I was thinking. Thanks.

Follow up: I've poked around a bit more, and from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_angular_momentum_of_light it seems like my confusion did indeed stem from taking the similarity of two level helicity systems with two level spin systems (and, of course, all other two level systems) too...

I'm not following. What do you mean two fields? I was just asking a separate question to try to see if I was understanding your previous answer, sorry if that was not clear. Forgetting about neutrinos, suppose we had a particle that was like a neutrino—massless and left handed—but that also has...

I'm not following, this is just repeating what Vanadium said. I'm still not fully understanding the implications of this statement. As I asked after his post: "So there's just no possible experiment that would allow you to measure the spin of a neutrino orthogonal to its momentum? Like, only the...

So there's just no possible experiment that would allow you to measure the spin of a neutrino orthogonal to its momentum? Like, only the component that determines helicity can couple to matter? Or is it just not right to think about the spin of a neutrino, period, and we should only be talking...

No, I'm well aware of the distinction. Standard Model neutrinos, being massless, are left handed in both the chirality and helicity sense. I'm obviously talking about helicity. Edit: Judging from the time stamps, maybe you did not see my edit in the original post in which I clarified I was...

Neutrinos are always left handed* and so, if you set up a coordinate system with the z-axis pointing in the direction of a neutrino's momentum, any measurement of its spin's z-component will always yield ##-\hbar/2##. What if you measured the spin of the neutrino along the x or y axes? Or is...

You do not need imbalanced forces for current to able to pass. The ideal inductor has no resistance, forces are supposed to balanced. In any case, that has nothing to do with my question—my question is unchanged even if the forces are only nearly balanced in the less than ideal case. I feel...

This doesn't really make my question go away, it just complicates it (which is why I avoided adding such details in the OP). If you have a more realistic inductor and battery that each have resistance (or, equivalently, an RL circuit with ideal components) then at the instant the voltage is...

Kirchoff's current law says that. Kirchoff's voltage law says that the sum of voltages over components in a loop is zero, and hence requires the magnitude of ##V_L## to equal the magnitude ##V_b## in this scenario. I am not rewriting anything; you are apparently unaware of, and mistaken about...

It's either zero or ##2V_b## depending on the sign convention you're intending (which you've been inconsistent about) since, as I've said several times, the magnitudes of ##V_L## and ##V_b## are equal by Kirchoff's law. With the sign implied by your comment that, "If the current tries to rise...

This "driving voltage" you're talking about does not sound like a very coherent concept, and is not present in any discussion about induction I've read before. There is the voltage across the inductor that you can actually measure with a voltmeter. This is ##V_b##. There is the emf that opposes...

Also: your expression is not correct. The total voltage across the inductor is simply ##V_b##. Again, this is necessarily true by Kirchoff's law.

##V_L## absolutely has something to do with applied voltage—in the example in my OP, it's equal to the applied voltage. That must be true for Kirchoff's voltage law to be satisfied. Connecting an ideal inductor to a battery that supplies voltage ##V_b## causes a current whose growth satisfies...

OK, well, my confusion was not over the direction of the current, though in any case I think we're just using different sign conventions for what directions are positive for the EMF and the current. You're using the passive sign convention, I was just using the same positive direction for both...