Proof of Higgs Boson: Particle Spin Q&A

[whosyurdady]

Possible proof of a Higgs Boson?

Well everyone knows fermions have a 1/2 spin. Well, if 2 fermions were swapped one would have a positive spin and the other would have a negative spin unlike bosons who would both have the same spin. Well at the singularity of a black hole the matter is condensed into in infinitely small point which would force fermions to occupy the same space even though they are not supposed to be allowed to. Well if 2 fermions were taking up the same space they, in a sense, would be interchangeable if you think about. Well if that were the case one fermion would have the positive spin and the other would have the negative spin and they essentially would cancel out to create a particle with no spin what so ever, or a Higgs Boson. Well if this is the case a Higgs Boson would have to exist in the singularity of a black hole and thus would have to exist. Does this sound feasible to anyone or is it completely preposterous?

 

[Ben Niehoff]

A particle with zero spin would be a boson. It would not have any intrinsic angular momentum; only orbital angular momentum. That's it, really...I mean, it would just follow the standard Schrödinger equation.

 

[whosyurdady]

Not all bosons have zero spin, only the unproven Higgs Boson. Bosons have an interget spin

 

[Ben Niehoff]

You edited your OP to completely change its text, title, and general direction, after I had responded. That is extremely bad form.

 

[Fredrik]

Well everyone knows fermions have a 1/2 spin. Well, if 2 fermions were swapped one would have a positive spin and the other would have a negative spin unlike bosons who would both have the same spin.

Let's say it's an electron. An electron always has spin 1/2, even when you exchange it with another electron, so I don't know what you're talking about. Maybe you're confusing the two spin quantum numbers. One of them, usually called j, is part of what identifies a particle species (e.g. the electron). The other one, sometimes written as m, sometimes s, sometimes \sigma (and probably other letters as well) can be measured to have any value between -j and +j that can be expressed as "-j plus an integer". This quantum number is a part of the information required to specify the state of the particle.

Well if this is the case a Higgs Boson would have to exist in the singularity of a black hole and thus would have to exist. Does this sound feasible to anyone or is it completely preposterous?

The second option.

 

[Frame Dragger]

You edited your OP to completely change its text, title, and general direction, after I had responded. That is extremely bad form.

Not only is it bad form, but it means that now the rest of us can't (or won't) offer help and advice to you (Whosyurdady). Ben is right, what you did is bad form anywhere online, and ANY scientitic community is going to frown on editing. If you have to edit, make a note saying what you changed if it has an impact on the person you're making out to look like a fool.

 

[SpectraCat]

Not all bosons have zero spin, only the unproven Higgs Boson. Bosons have an interget spin

Well, perhaps that's true for elementary particles, but there are plenty of spin-zero bosons at the atomic level ... that's how BEC's are made after all.

 

[ytuab]

Well at the singularity of a black hole the matter is condensed into in infinitely small point .
Well if that were the case one fermion would have the positive spin and the other would have the negative spin and they essentially would cancel out to create a particle with no spin

I think the state (spin up + spin down = spin 0) is difficult to imagine concretely. It is one of "mathematical" models, I think.
For example, the hydrogen atom has the magnetic moment, and the helium atom has no magnetic moment.
But the two electrons of the helium atom are not condensed into one particle. So, to be precise, the magnetic fields are produced in space because the two electrons with up or down spin are apart. And if they move to cancel the magnetic fields out, they radiate the (electro)magnetic waves (if we imagine this state concretely).

Well, if 2 fermions were swapped one would have a positive spin and the other would have a negative spin unlike bosons

This is also difficult to imagine.
Because the fermions don't return by the 2 pi rotaion (by the 4 pi rotaion, they return).
But this fact was experimentally observed. (see this thread)
Of course, we can't confirm whether the fermions actually rotate or not in this experiment.
They estimate the fermion's rotation angle using the spin angular momentum 1/2hbar ( if this angular momentum is hbar, the estimated rotaion angle becomes half of the case 1/2hbar.)

The "spin" was relativistically defined by Dirac . But since then, the spin has had more "mathematical" properties.

In page 61 of The Story of Spin
----------------------------------
Dirac, by using 4 x 4 matrices, has done this quite simply. Thus Dirac has derived everything about electron spin through Lorentz invariance and that the wave equation must be first order without using a model at all.
It may be since this work of Dirac's that we started not to think about self-rotaion or rotaion from words electron spin. (It is a different matter for nuclear spin.) In any case, if the real nature of electron spin is something like this, it is truly "classically indescribable", is it not?
------------------------------------

 

[Frame Dragger]

I think the state (spin up + spin down = spin 0) is difficult to imagine concretely. It is one of "mathematical" models, I think.
For example, the hydrogen atom has the magnetic moment, and the helium atom has no magnetic moment.
But the two electrons of the helium atom are not condensed into one particle. So, to be precise, the magnetic fields are produced in space because the two electrons with up or down spin are apart. And if they move to cancel the magnetic fields out, they radiate the (electro)magnetic waves (if we imagine this state concretely).



This is also difficult to imagine.
Because the fermions don't return by the 2 pi rotaion (by the 4 pi rotaion, they return).
But this fact was experimentally observed. (see this thread)
Of course, we can't confirm whether the fermions actually rotate or not in this experiment.
They estimate the fermion's rotation angle using the spin angular momentum 1/2hbar ( if this angular momentum is hbar, the estimated rotaion angle becomes half of the case 1/2hbar.)

The "spin" was relativistically defined by Dirac . But since then, the spin has had more "mathematical" properties.

In page 61 of The Story of Spin
----------------------------------
Dirac, by using 4 x 4 matrices, has done this quite simply. Thus Dirac has derived everything about electron spin through Lorentz invariance and that the wave equation must be first order without using a model at all.
It may be since this work of Dirac's that we started not to think about self-rotaion or rotaion from words electron spin. (It is a different matter for nuclear spin.) In any case, if the real nature of electron spin is something like this, it is truly "classically indescribable", is it not?
------------------------------------

There are consequences of 'Spin' that are Classically describable, but beyond that it's completely unimaginable by humans. Hawking's old "rotate a playing card" analogy is great until one full revolution no longer resets the state of the card. Spin is best understood through a study of the math... nothing else really makes sense AND is accurate.