B Reduced Planck Constant vs Dark Matter?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the implications of the Reduced Planck Constant in relation to the existence of matter and dark matter. It questions whether matter can exist with spin lower than the Reduced Planck Constant, suggesting that such matter might be classified as dark matter. The conversation also touches on the spin characteristics of the Higgs boson and axion, debating their existence at energy states below the Reduced Planck Constant. Participants clarify that Planck's constant does not denote an energy state, emphasizing its distinct units. The thread concludes with a consensus that the Reduced Planck Constant does not define a minimum energy state for particle existence.
jwb44
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
Is the Reduced Planck Constant the minimum frequently/movement/spin matter can have to exist?
Is the Reduced Planck Constant the minimum frequently/movement/spin matter can have to exist?

So if a matter were to spin lower than 1.054 571 817... x 10-34 J s, it when cease to exist?
Or would matter falling below the Reduced Planck Constant by classified as Dark Matter?
I heard that Higgs boson and axion have 0 spin. But are we sure that the Higgs boson and axion have 0 spin? that would mean 1.054 571 817... x 10-34 J s x 0 = 0. How could they exist with an energy state lower 1.054 571 817... x 10-34 J s? And what would be the lowest energy state possible for a particle to exist? And is it theoretically possible to reduce the 1/2 spin of fermions to 0 spin? what would happen?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No.
No,
No.
No.
Yes.
See above.
Its mass.
No
See above.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, etotheipi and berkeman
The response by @Vanadium 50 appears to cover it. The only note I would add is that Planck's constant does not represent an "energy state"; its units aren't units of energy.

Thread closed.
 
For the quantum state ##|l,m\rangle= |2,0\rangle## the z-component of angular momentum is zero and ##|L^2|=6 \hbar^2##. According to uncertainty it is impossible to determine the values of ##L_x, L_y, L_z## simultaneously. However, we know that ##L_x## and ## L_y##, like ##L_z##, get the values ##(-2,-1,0,1,2) \hbar##. In other words, for the state ##|2,0\rangle## we have ##\vec{L}=(L_x, L_y,0)## with ##L_x## and ## L_y## one of the values ##(-2,-1,0,1,2) \hbar##. But none of these...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
8K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K