I Interpretation of photons having zero spin

Tio Barnabe
What is the interpretation of the fact that photons have spin zero? Does it has do to with the fact that their proper time variation is zero?

Or let's go a bit deeper into the math. If it's possible to write down an eigenvalue equation for photons as it is possible for electrons, then we should have something like

S ketψ = λ ketψ, where ψ is a photon general state, S is the spin operator and λ the spin eigenvalue.

For this to be zero, I think one way is if the operator S is a null operator. But operators in QM are the mathematical translation of observables. So a null operator corresponding to a given observable means that that observable is not actually observed, correct? We would conclude that the photon has no observable spin.

This doesn't answer my initial question if it's related with the proper time of the photon though.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Tio Barnabe said:
What is the interpretation of the fact that photons have spin zero?

Where are you getting that from? Normally, I would say that photons have spin one.
 
Tio Barnabe said:
What is the interpretation of the fact that photons have spin zero?
Photon has spin 1 and Higgs boson has spin 0. (Source: Wikipedia)
You may find this thread on spin 0 particle helpful.
 
  • Like
Likes Tio Barnabe
stevendaryl said:
Where are you getting that from? Normally, I would say that photons have spin one.
Mistake. Indeed photons have spin 1.

arpon said:
You may find this thread on spin 0 particle helpful.
Indeed very helpful. I don't know how I could have forgotten it. I have read about it in the great Sakurai's book.
 
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...
Back
Top