I What do you need to establish that spin is conserved?

Click For Summary
To establish that spin is a conserved quantity, it is essential to recognize that total angular momentum is the conserved quantity, not spin alone. Spin conservation occurs only in specific scenarios where orbital angular momentum is either zero or conserved independently. The discussion highlights that spin should not be vaguely classified as "some sort of" angular momentum, as it specifically represents the portion of total angular momentum that is not orbital. References to authoritative texts, such as Leslie E. Ballentine's "Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Development," are suggested for further understanding. Overall, clarity on the distinction between total angular momentum and its components is crucial for discussing spin conservation.
Old Person
Messages
31
Reaction score
10
TL;DR
What do you need to establish that spin is a conserved quantity?
Hi.

Question as in the summary.
Spin has no obvious classical interpretation but it is often a conserved quantity and considered as some sort of angular momentum. What do you need to establish that spin is a conserved quantity? I'm finding references to situations where spin is not a conserved quantity in general but only in some processes. Hence, what is needed to assert conservation?

Any replies or references to existing discussions or proofs would save me time and be appreciated. Thank you for your time.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Old Person said:
Spin has no obvious classical interpretation but it is often a conserved quantity and considered as some sort of angular momentum.
No, spin by itself is not "often" a conserved quantity. Total angular momentum is the conserved quantity. Only in situations where orbital angular momentum is either identically zero or is conserved on its own can spin be considered a conserved quantity by itself.

As for spin being "some sort of" angular momentum, that's much too vague. Spin is whatever part of total angular momentum is not orbital angular momentum. See, for example, Ballentine, Chapter 7.
 
  • Like
Likes topsquark, hutchphd, vanhees71 and 1 other person
Thank you. I'll look for that when I get to a library.
Found: "Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Development" by Leslie E. Ballentine.
No great need to reply - I'll assume it's that book unless you say otherwise.
 
Old Person said:
Found: "Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Development" by Leslie E. Ballentine.
Yes, that's it.
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...