I How should we interpret the Möbius-strip image of spinors?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter pellis
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Image Spinors
pellis
Messages
80
Reaction score
19
TL;DR Summary
Should we read the Möbius-strip image as being embedded in spinor space, rather than in the 3D space of every-day experience?
On first coming across the Möbius-strip image of spinors, it seemed natural to interpret it as referring to the 3D space of everyday experience, especially as e.g. the Dirac belt and the Penrose book demonstrations appear to occur ‘naturally’ in the world of our phenomenal experience.

Doubts emerged on coming across material pointing out that spinors live in complex spinor-space, e.g. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/528826/what-kind-space-does-spinor-lives-in

From an alternative perspective: thinking about vectors in real space e.g. the magnetic moment or angular momentum vectors of an electron, I don’t see them as inverting under a 2-pi rotation of spatial coordinates, as would be expected of spinors; so the arrows in the Möbius-strip image shouldn't be taken to represent ordinary vectors.

Recent versions of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinor , open “In geometry and physics, spinors /spɪnər/ are elements of a complex vector space that can be associated with Euclidean space. ... Unlike vectors and tensors, a spinor transforms to its negative when the space [my bold] is continuously rotated through a complete turn from 0° to 360° (see picture [not showing here in PF]).”

The important bit there seems to be “the space”, which I now believe must be referring to “the [spinor] space”.

QUESTION: Should we take the arrows on the Möbius-strip image of spinors (as showing in the above-cited wiki article) as being more suggestive of a complex vector in spinor-space, rather than as ‘ordinary’ vectors in the space/spacetime of experience?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
UPDATE: It's now clear to me that the answer to the question posed in the original post, above, is not as simple as I first thought.

Being unable to edit or delete/rewrite the original post, I will try to post an amended (more detailed) answer within the next 24 hours, or below this one if later.

Meanwhile, please feel free to post your own answer.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
Back
Top