What is spin for neutral particles

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ArielGenesis
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Neutral Particles Spin
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of spin in neutral elementary particles, exploring its definition, implications, and the relationship between spin and magnetic moments. Participants address theoretical aspects, definitions, and the nature of spin in both relativistic and non-relativistic contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that electron spin is intrinsic and linked to its magnetic moment, while questioning how neutral particles can possess spin.
  • Others clarify that spin is independent of charge, using photons as an example, and suggest that the term "spin" may carry misleading classical connotations.
  • A participant explains that particles have spin due to their definition as physical systems described by irreducible representations of the restricted Poincaré group, implying that the question of why electrons have spin is inherently complex.
  • It is noted that neutral particles, such as neutrons, have both spin and an associated magnetic moment, raising questions about the source of this magnetic moment.
  • Some participants discuss the nature of spin as a vector that obeys angular momentum commutation relations, with one expressing uncertainty about the underlying principles until further education.
  • There is a distinction made between the origins of spin in non-relativistic and relativistic systems, with some arguing that spin is well-defined in both contexts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of spin, its relationship to charge, and the implications of relativistic versus non-relativistic definitions. The discussion remains unresolved with no consensus on several points.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations include the dependence on definitions of spin and representations, as well as unresolved questions about the magnetic moments of neutral particles.

ArielGenesis
Messages
238
Reaction score
0
I understand that an electron spin is intrinsic. We call it spin because electron has a magnetic moment, which would be naturally produced if the electron is physically spinning. All we know is that for whatever reason, electron has a magnetic moment.

My question is, how do we know if neutral elementary particle have spin?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ArielGenesis said:
I understand that an electron spin is intrinsic. We call it spin because electron has a magnetic moment, which would be naturally produced if the electron is physically spinning. All we know is that for whatever reason, electron has a magnetic moment.

My question is, how do we know if neutral elementary particle have spin?

The magnetic moment is not the electron spin. Particles have spin independent of charge. An example would be the photon. As a general rule, particle spin is not assumed to be directly associated with physical spinning motion. A particle is not a ball which spins or turns in a direction. Probably the term "spin" should not be used, as that has classical connotations.
 
Particles have spin because they're defined as the physical systems that can be described by irreducible representations of the restricted Poincaré group, and spin is one of the numbers that label a particular irreducible representation. So asking why electrons have spin is kind of like asking why Champagne is made in France. It's just much more difficult to see that the answer is contained in the question. To really understand this, you'd have to go through the relativistic version of the argument I posted here, plus the actual construction of the representations. Chapter 2 of Weinberg's QFT book is a pretty good place to read about those things.
 
Last but not least, also neutral particles, like the neutron, not only have spin, but also an associated magnetic moment.
 
does neutron have magnetic moment due to non neutral quark?

Umm... thanks fredrik, I checked ur link but... I don't really understand it. So, for all purpose and intention, spin is just a vector that all elementary particle has, and it obey angular momentum commutator relation?

And it arise from some fact that I don't have to know about until I go to grad school?
 
ArielGenesis said:
So, for all purpose and intention, spin is just a vector that all elementary particle has, and it obey angular momentum commutator relation?

And it arise from some fact that I don't have to know about until I go to grad school?
Yes that's right. You should know that that fact is the assumption of rotational invariance of space, but you won't have to know the details for at least a few years.
 
Fredrik said:
Particles have spin because they're defined as the physical systems that can be described by irreducible representations of the restricted Poincaré group, and spin is one of the numbers that label a particular irreducible representation. So asking why electrons have spin is kind of like asking why Champagne is made in France. It's just much more difficult to see that the answer is contained in the question. To really understand this, you'd have to go through the relativistic version of the argument I posted here, plus the actual construction of the representations. Chapter 2 of Weinberg's QFT book is a pretty good place to read about those things.

Spin is well-defined in non-relativistic systems as well, so it's not entirely correct to state that it arises from the principles of relativity. At best, you can say that it is compatible with relativity (although you need to invoke on infinite dimensional representations). But spin is definitely not limited to relativistic systems alone.
 
xepma said:
Spin is well-defined in non-relativistic systems as well, so it's not entirely correct to state that it arises from the principles of relativity.
I didn't say that it does. You might want to click that link. :smile:

I think of "electrons" (and particles in general) as being defined relativistically, but I suppose we could define particles in non-relativistic QM as well, as systems represented by irreducible representations of the Galilei group.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
905
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K