# Quantum spin, wavelength and frequency

• I
• Peter J Carroll
In summary: No one is saying that mathematics is difficult. What is difficult is finding concepts to fit the maths in the quantum realm. This is where quantum physics becomes tricky, as we do not yet have a good understanding of concepts that can accurately describe the behaviour of quanta.Who's "we" in this context?I'm new to this site, and I have an interest in the nature of reality. I also have a question.In summary, "In quantum mechanics, the spin of a particle (its intrinsic angular momentum) has nothing to do with its wavelength and frequency."
Peter J Carroll
TL;DR Summary
Does the quantum spin of a particle (its intrinsic angular momentum) have anything to do with its wavelength and frequency?
Greetings, I'm new here, I have an interest in the nature of reality, and a question.

Does the quantum spin of a particle (its intrinsic angular momentum) have anything to do with its wavelength and frequency?

One of the experts on Quora said no, and I cannot find anything about it on the web, however a simple relationship has occurred to me which I attach below, does it make sense? Regards, Pete.##h/4\pi=\lambda mc=vmc/f##

Peter J Carroll said:
does it make sense?
No, it does not.

Peter J Carroll
Just because you can find Planck's constant in some expression and isolate it doesn't mean the variables on the other side of the equals sign relate to spin. If you study quantum mechanics, you will find that Planck's constant appears... well... everywhere.

Peter J Carroll
Peter J Carroll said:
Does the quantum spin of a particle (its intrinsic angular momentum) have anything to do with its wavelength and frequency?
Obviously not, since you can have different particles with the same spin but different wavelength (momentum) and frequency (energy).

Peter J Carroll, PeroK, Vanadium 50 and 1 other person
For a massive particle, in both non-relativistic and special relativistic QT the spin (0, 1/2, 1,...) tells you how the single-particle states in the rest frame of the particle transform under rotations. So spin is defined independently of the momentum of the particle and thus the wavelength of the corresponding one-particle mode.

The details are pretty subtle representation theory of the Galilei or Poincare groups and can be found nicely in

L. E. Ballentine, Quantum Mechanics, World Scientific,
Singapore, New Jersey, London, Hong Kong (1998).

R. U. Sexl and H. K. Urbantke, Relativity, Groups, Particles, Springer, Wien (2001) (for relativistic local QFT)

or for the most general case of arbitrary spin (for relativistic QT):

S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields, vol. 1, Cambridge University Press (1995).

Peter J Carroll
Thank you for your replies and the links from vanhees71 which I will seek out.

As Peter Donis notes “you can have different particles with the same spin but different wavelength (momentum) and frequency (energy).”

Indeed, and this simple formula

##h/4\pi = \lambda mc = vmc/f##

applies only to spin one half fermions such as electrons. Yet it shows the dependency of the reduced Compton wavelength on mass, and the dependency of frequency on momentum, and relates them all quantitatively to the accepted value of their quantised angular momentum.

Quantum physics seems full of accurate mathematical descriptions, but such descriptions often do not provide explanations.

So, can we dismiss this as a purely mathematical coincidence, or does it suggest an intriguing connection between certain properties of quanta that could reveal mechanisms and explanations?

Regards, Pete.

weirdoguy and PeroK
Peter J Carroll said:
Quantum physics seems full of accurate mathematical descriptions, but such descriptions often do not provide explanations.
Like the rest of physics from Newton's laws to the present day. Where's the explanation for ##F = ma## or ##F = \frac{GMm}{r^2}##?

The mathematics is the explanation.

Peter J Carroll and vanhees71
Peter J Carroll said:
this simple formula
(1) Does not even contain the spin;

(2) Is not the formula for "the wavelength" of the particle, it's the formula for the Compton wavelength of the particle, which does not depend on its actual wavelength (momentum) or frequency (energy).

Peter J Carroll said:
the dependency of frequency on momentum
Is given by the simple equation ##E^2 - p^2 = m^2## (in natural units where ##c =1##), plus the QM definitions of ##E## and ##p## in terms of frequency and wavelength and Planck's constant. And that works for particles of any spin, so it has nothing to do with spin.

Peter J Carroll and vanhees71
PeroK, your example of Newton’s laws nicely illustrates the difference between a description and an explanation. F = ma acts as both. It works as a tautology that fits, (for moderate velocities) by defining each term in terms of the others.

However, Newton’s formula for gravity works only as a description that implies an incomprehensible action at a distance. This troubled Newton deeply, and it troubled many that followed him. The description worked well but it didn’t explain how. Eventually Einstein realized that matter curves spacetime and spacetime makes matter move. This provides a high level tautology that fits even better, and which acts as both a description and an explanation.

So, I don’t always accept that ‘The mathematics is the explanation’, particularly in the quantum realm.

Thank you all for your feedback on this topic.

Regards, Pete.

vanhees71
Well, in the quantum realm the only way to express the results is mathematics. There's no other way to talk in a concise enough way about how to describe matter on the most fundamental level.

Peter J Carroll
Indeed, mathematics remains invaluable, but if science depends on a dialogue between mathematics and concepts, then quantum physics becomes particularly tricky when we have difficulties finding concepts to fit the maths.

Thanks for your responses, no further questions at present. Regards, Pete.

weirdoguy
Peter J Carroll said:
Indeed, mathematics remains invaluable, but if science depends on a dialogue between mathematics and concepts, then quantum physics becomes particularly tricky when we have difficulties finding concepts to fit the maths.

Thanks for your responses, no further questions at present. Regards, Pete.
Who's "we" in this context? I don't find mathematics unduly tricky. I like using mathematics. That's the way I think.

DrChinese, vanhees71 and weirdoguy
Peter J Carroll said:
Indeed, mathematics remains invaluable, but if science depends on a dialogue between mathematics and concepts, then quantum physics becomes particularly tricky when we have difficulties finding concepts to fit the maths.

As PeroK says, "tricky" is in the mind of the beholder. Your concept of what physics should explain reflects a Pollyanna viewpoint of science. The first job of science is to describe. "Why" questions, especially in quantum physics, tend to go in circles. Presumably, there is no answer to why the laws of physics are as they are. Why is c about equal to 300,000 km/sec, rather than 350,000 km/sec? Science is about finding useful descriptions of patterns and pattern exceptions. If an answer appears to a "why" question, and provides something useful to our knowledge in the process, then that is a true advance.

Lord Jestocost and vanhees71
PeroK said:
I don't find mathematics unduly tricky.
Work some more combinatorics problems. You'll come around.

vanhees71
Work some more combinatorics problems. You'll come around.
They are my speciality!

Well as you ask PeroK, I speak for myself but perhaps also for a lot of people who wonder what the maths implies in terms of concepts. For example, does the intrinsic angular momentum ‘spin’ of a fermion involve the concept of anything moving or storing energy in circular motion, or is it just an arbitrarily chosen word for something that submits to a mathematical description only? Is anything expressed in words or images about quantum physics basically meaningless?

Regards, Pete.

Peter J Carroll said:
Eventually Einstein realized that matter curves spacetime and spacetime makes matter move. This provides a high level tautology that fits even better, and which acts as both a description and an explanation.
That’s just another (better, which is what makes the exercise worthwhile) description still without explanation. Why does matter curve spacetime? Why are the paths of massive objects not subject to external forces spacetime geodesics? The theory says nothing about these questions; like Newton’s theory it “worked well but it didn’t explain how”.
Is anything expressed in words or images about quantum physics basically meaningless?
Not necessarily meaningless, but likely to be misleading if taken seriously. Natural language evolved to describe the classical phenomena that surround us so works pretty well for describing these. It’s not as well-suited for describing quantum behavior: for example “the particle goes through both slits” and “the particle goes through neither slit” are both defensible natural language descriptions of the double-slit experiment.

vanhees71 and Peter J Carroll
Hi Nugatory, for me, GR does explain ‘Why does matter curve spacetime? Why are the paths of massive objects not subject to external forces spacetime geodesics?

If it means that Matter Is Curved Spacetime, and that Geodesics Are the true shape of Spacetime in which matter moves.

I can understand the double slit experiment in non-contradictory natural language if the wave passes through both slits but the particle passes through only one of them, or more precisely in terms of TIQM, if retarded waves pass through both slits but an advanced wave returns through only one of them, completing the particle exchange, if the particle Is the result of a combined retarded and advanced wave.

Regards, Pete.

## 1. What is quantum spin and how does it differ from classical spin?

Quantum spin is an intrinsic property of subatomic particles, such as electrons, that determines their angular momentum. Unlike classical spin, which can take on any value, quantum spin is quantized and can only have discrete values.

## 2. How are wavelength and frequency related in quantum mechanics?

In quantum mechanics, the wavelength of a particle is inversely proportional to its momentum, while the frequency is directly proportional to its energy. This relationship is described by the famous equation E = hf, where h is Planck's constant and f is the frequency.

## 3. Can quantum spin, wavelength, and frequency be measured simultaneously?

No, according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, it is impossible to measure the exact values of these properties simultaneously. This is because the act of measurement itself affects the state of the particle, making it impossible to know all of its properties at once.

## 4. How does quantum spin affect the behavior of particles?

Quantum spin is responsible for many unique behaviors of subatomic particles, such as their ability to have multiple spin states at the same time and their interaction with magnetic fields. It also plays a crucial role in determining the chemical and physical properties of atoms and molecules.

## 5. Can quantum spin, wavelength, and frequency be manipulated or controlled?

Yes, through the use of advanced technologies such as quantum computing and quantum cryptography, scientists are able to manipulate and control these properties to perform tasks that are not possible with classical systems. However, the exact methods and limitations of this manipulation are still being researched and developed.

• Quantum Physics
Replies
36
Views
3K
• Quantum Physics
Replies
8
Views
5K
• Quantum Physics
Replies
5
Views
3K
• Quantum Physics
Replies
17
Views
2K
• Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
2K
• Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
1K
• Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
1K
• Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
2K
• Quantum Physics
Replies
16
Views
1K
• Classical Physics
Replies
2
Views
990