What is the complete non-mathematical explanation for spin in particle physics?

[elas]

From the table of particles in 'The Particle Explosion' I observe that:
Leptons and quarks have spin 1/2.
Bosons have spin 1.
Mesons, have zero spin; except for quark/antiquark pairs found by electronic detectors, that have spin 1.
Baryons of with more than one type of quark have spin 1/2. Baryons with only one type of quark have spin 3/2.
But the table only lists a small number of particles and I would like to know if there are exceptions to the above observations. (PDG does not come up in a clear readable form on my computer and I cannot find a simple 'table of particle spin').
All the articles on spin, that I have found so far, have one thing in common; very early on, they switch from interpretation and theory to theory only. It is as if, after a certain point, they are unable to explain in words exactly what the numbers mean. Indeed I get the impression that there is no agreed method of explaining spin in a non-mathematical manner. So I would be interested in any article on the subject of spin that includes a non-mathematical explanation (I appreciate that such articles must also include the mathematics).

 

[dextercioby]

From the table of particles in 'The Particle Explosion' I observe that:
Leptons and quarks have spin 1/2.

Correct.

Bosons have spin 1.

VECTOR BOSONS have spin 1,among the fundamental particles/fields...

Mesons, have zero spin; except for quark/antiquark pairs found by electronic detectors, that have spin 1.
Baryons of with more than one type of quark have spin 1/2. Baryons with only one type of quark have spin 3/2.
But the table only lists a small number of particles and I would like to know if there are exceptions to the above observations. (PDG does not come up in a clear readable form on my computer and I cannot find a simple 'table of particle spin').
All the articles on spin, that I have found so far, have one thing in common; very early on, they switch from interpretation and theory to theory only. It is as if, after a certain point, they are unable to explain in words exactly what the numbers mean. Indeed I get the impression that there is no agreed method of explaining spin in a non-mathematical manner. So I would be interested in any article on the subject of spin that includes a non-mathematical explanation (I appreciate that such articles must also include the mathematics).

That's true.In quantum physics,spin is the most difficult thing to explain.My advice:learn math & read Sakurai.

Daniel.

 

[marlon]

Bosons have integer spin, which is not necessarily equal to 1, dexter

marlon

 

[Hurkyl]

The problem is that SU(2) is a perversion of "real" geometry. It takes a 720 degree rotation to return any object to its starting position, not the 360 degrees it's supposed to take.

However, a spin 1 object is symmetrical -- 360 degrees is enough. It's similar to how a square is symmetrical, and only requires 90 degrees to return it to its original state. It's like a spin 4 object, except spin 4 objects can be rotated 90 degrees in any direction.

 

[juvenal]

Bosons have integer spin, which is not necessarily equal to 1, dexter

marlon

He did use the term "vector boson".

 

[dextercioby]

Oh,man,u spoiled his joy...

Daniel.

 

[juvenal]

Oh,man,u spoiled his joy...

Daniel.

Can't you Europeans get along? EU?

 

[dextercioby]

What's EU got to do with 2 individuals' personalities...?Nothing.

Daniel.

 

[elas]

Thanks for the advice which I will follow, meanwhile I have been trying to get to the heart of the problem and keep hitting statements like this one from a recent paper that originated at CERN:

However it seems to us that SM is still unsatisfactory theoretically to be a truly fundamental theory.

So I would like to change the question to:

What experimental observations indicate the presence os spin?

 

[zefram_c]

Thanks for the advice which I will follow, meanwhile I have been trying to get to the heart of the problem and keep hitting statements like this one from a recent paper that originated at CERN:

However it seems to us that SM is still unsatisfactory theoretically to be a truly fundamental theory.

I don't know which paper that is, but I'm sure the context is more enlightening than just that quote. (Do they suggest why it is unsatisfactory, or how to improve upon it? There are valid and invalid reasons for saying that. I'm sure they don't just make that statement and move on.)

So I would like to change the question to:

What experimental observations indicate the presence os spin?

Fair enough - which particle are you interested in? For the electron, I will suggest off the top of my head the spectrum of hydrogen - complete with spin-orbit corrections, relativistic effects, Lamb shift and hyperfine splitting. I'd love to see an explanation of all those things without spin.

 

[juvenal]

I don't know which paper that is, but I'm sure the context is more enlightening than just that quote. (Do they suggest why it is unsatisfactory, or how to improve upon it? There are valid and invalid reasons for saying that. I'm sure they don't just make that statement and move on.)

Yeah - I think spin is probably one of the least controversial topics out there.

 

[marlon]

He did use the term "vector boson".

Still he was "wrong" . Vector bosons are not the only bosons out there...



marlon

 

[juvenal]

Still he was wrong. Vector bosons are not the only bosons out there...

marlon

He never made that claim. . .

 

[marlon]

He never made that claim. . .

Yes he did...But what do you care ?

QUOTE :
"VECTOR BOSONS have spin 1,among the fundamental particles/fields..."
/QUOTE

and what does "among the fundamental particles" mean ?

Not all bosons with spin 1 are vector bosons and they are not all fundamental.

Can't you see this ?

marlon

 

[dextercioby]

Yes,but the statement is still correct.Vector bosons DO HAVE SPIN ONE.And vector bosons (like the gluon octet,the photon & the W+/-/0) are "AMONG FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLES"...

So how about cutting the **** out...?

Daniel.

 

[marlon]

Yes,but the statement is still correct.Vector bosons DO HAVE SPIN ONE.And vector bosons (like the gluon octet,the photon & the W+/-/0) are "AMONG FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLES"...

For the 1000th time. I did not say you were wrong, i just say you were incomplete... Please, get over it...

So how about cutting the **** out...?

Daniel.

Nice one...Thanks...We are indeed the best of friends

marlon :zzz:

 

[dextercioby]

Yes,u did...You edited the post and put the word wrong between " " ...But you couldn't edit Juvenal's post...In which the same word appears without the " "...

Daniel.

P.S.Marlon,who are u trying to fool...?Me? :

 

[marlon]

Dexter, i clearly answered as to why you were WRONG in your original post. How long do i need to repeat myself ?

marlon

 

[dextercioby]

I wasn't wrong in the original post.

Daniel.

 

[marlon]

I wasn't wrong in the original post.

Daniel.

Yes you were and i told you why...
marlon

 

[dextercioby]

Do you know what??I'll just do that.Ignore you,that is.Everytime when u missunderstand someone,you think he's wrong.That says everything about you.

Daniel.

 

[marlon]

Do you know what??I'll just do that.Ignore you,that is.Everytime when u missunderstand someone,you think he's wrong.That says everything about you.

Daniel.

Let's just ignore each other

marlon

 

[ahrkron]

PLEASE do ignore each other.

Shall we go back to spin? That was a much better topic.

 

[dextercioby]

I'm waiting for further questions from the OP.

Daniel.

 

[juvenal]

Yes he did...But what do you care ?

QUOTE :
"VECTOR BOSONS have spin 1,among the fundamental particles/fields..."
/QUOTE

and what does "among the fundamental particles" mean ?

Not all bosons with spin 1 are vector bosons and they are not all fundamental.

Can't you see this ?

marlon

Marlon - I care in the sense that if someone makes an illogical claim, then I will refute that logic. I'm not taking sides.

According to my understanding of the English language, if one says "A is B", that does not imply "B is A". Maybe that's the source of the confusion here?

For example,

The statement:

"White male Republicans are gun lovers, among the people of North America"

does NOT imply that

"All gun lovers are white male Republicans".

Nor does it imply that

"White males are all from North America".

 

[elas]

zefram c

I use downloadStudio, the record shows the address as http://doc.cern.ch/temp/c
but I cannot get this address to work, sorry.

The full details of the paper are:
NUP-A_95-14
Nov 95
Composite weak vector bosons in a left-right symmetric preon model.
Motoo Sekigichi, Shin Ishidi and Hiroaki Wada.
Atomic Energy Research Institute
College of Science and Technology
Nihon University
Tokyo 101

Fair enough - which particle are you interested in? For the electron, I will suggest off the top of my head the spectrum of hydrogen - complete with spin-orbit corrections, relativistic effects, Lamb shift and hyperfine splitting. I'd love to see an explanation of all those things without spin.

Thanks for the comment on electron, can I ask you for one example using a baryon and (if possible?) one example using a quark.
I am not trying to do away with spin. My position is a little difficult, my ideas published on Theory Development Forum pages were severly criticised and banned. So I am now trying to work my way through Elementary Particle Physics (starting with Griffiths 'Introduction to Elementary particles) with the aim of re-writing my proposals in a manner that demonstrates that they do not require a change in any of the Quantum theories (only in the interpretation of those theories). That is to say I am trying to write a new (simplified) interpretation.
PF is the best place for answers about the Standard Model (the current interpretation of the four Quantum Theories), but it is intended for students and I have to be careful not to involve students in my way out ideas, so I have to ask questions without going into the reason.
Having got to 'spin' I cannot find any interpretation or analogy beyond magnetic deflection which is stated to be an incomplete explanation of spin, but where is the complete non-mathematical explanation?