Spin 1/2 vs Spin 2: Does 360 Degrees Change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter alphachapmtl
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Spin Spin 1/2
alphachapmtl
Messages
81
Reaction score
1
As mentionned in the "A question about nonlocality" thread,
the electron (a spin 1/2 particle) must turn twice to be back in its original position (so that its complex wave function is identically restore).

Now my question is this:
If a spin 1/2 particle must turn 2*360 for it's wave function to be identical, can we say that a spin 2 particle must turn 360/2 for it's wave function to be identical ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
alphachapmtl said:
Now my question is this:
If a spin 1/2 particle must turn 2*360 for it's wave function to be identical, can we say that a spin 2 particle must turn 360/2 for it's wave function to be identical ?

Yes, it is like a two-headed arrow. And spin-1 particle looks the same only if one turns it a 360 degrees, it is like an arrow. Do you know how to represent a spin-0 particle?:cool:

sam
 
Here is a related quote for those interested.
(but it's a bit more than what I can understand myself)
from http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week109.html >>

The spin-0 representation is the trivial representation. Physicists call vectors in this representation "scalars", since they are just complex numbers. Particles transforming in the spin-0 representation of SU(2) are also called scalars. Examples include pions and other mesons. The only fundamental scalar particle in the Standard Model is the Higgs boson - hypothesized but still not seen.

The spin-1/2 representation is the fundamental representation, in which SU(2) acts on C^2 in the obvious way. Physicists call vectors in this representation "spinors". Examples of spin-1/2 particles include electrons, protons, neutrons, and neutrinos. The fundamental spin-1/2 particles in the Standard Model are the leptons (electron, muon, tau and their corresponding neutrinos) and quarks.

The spin-1 representation comes from turning elements of SU(2) into 3x3 matrices using the double cover SU(2) → SO(3). This is therefore also called the "vector" representation. The spin-1 particles in the Standard Model are the gauge fields: the photon, the W and Z, and the gluons.

Though you can certainly make composite particles of higher spin, like hadrons and atomic nuclei, there are no fundamental particles of spin greater than 1 in the Standard Model. But the Standard Model doesn't cover gravity. In gravity, the spin-2 representation is very important. This comes from letting SO(3), and thus SU(2), act on symmetric traceless 3x3 matrices in the obvious way (by conjugation). In perturbative quantum gravity, gravitons are expected to be spin-2 particles
 
No guys i think you are making something wrong...
Representations on wavefunctions by SU(2) is siglevalued on integers spin (s=1,2,3..)
and double valued on half integers (s=1/2,3/2..).
Thats the only motivation...


regards marco.
 
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!
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript: Is that true? Caveats I see: The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might...

Similar threads

Replies
61
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
7K
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
40
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
71
Views
16K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top