B What is the relationship between spin and angular momentum in quantum mechanics?

Click For Summary
The discussion clarifies that quarks do not literally "spin" like macroscopic objects, but they possess intrinsic angular momentum, which contributes to the total angular momentum of a system. Spin is described as an SU(2) property, independent of space-time, while angular momentum is a space-time concept. The relationship between spin and angular momentum is complex, as spin can be interpreted as angular momentum only within a specific space-time frame. The conversation emphasizes the need to understand these concepts beyond the classical notion of rotation. Overall, the distinction between intrinsic spin and angular momentum is crucial for understanding quantum mechanics.
Ontophobe
Messages
60
Reaction score
1
The "color force" doesn't actually change the color of quarks because they don't actually have any color. We use the word "color" non-literally here. Now, I'm told that quarks don't "actually" "spin" either, so again, I infer that it's a term used out of convenience, but I'm also told that they do "actually" have angular momentum. How am I to divorce the concept of angular momentum from spin? In what sense do spinless entities have angular momentum? What do we even mean by "actually" in this particular context?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Angular momentum is a conserved quantity, so when we talk about angular momentum of particles and of macroscopic objects, we are talking about the same conserved quantity. To flip the spin of a large number of particles, you have to apply a torque somehow, so if you are in a closed system, the opposite reaction torque must go somewhere, perhaps causing the macroscopic structure to start rotating.

How do we tell if something is spinning? For a macroscopic object, we look at the object at successive points in time, and we see that it has rotated. But this technique doesn't work for a point particle like a quark or electron, since rotating a point does nothing. We need another definition of spin for quantum objects
 
Ontophobe said:
Now, I'm told that quarks don't "actually" "spin" either
What you have been told (correctly) is that they are not little tiny balls rotating about their axis the way the Earth rotates about its axis. However, they do have an internal angular momentum that contributes to the total angular momentum of the system of which they are part.
How am I to divorce the concept of angular momentum from spin?
You don't. Instead you have to divest yourself of the idea that only little balls rotating around an axis can have internal angular momentum.
 
The difference between intrinsic spin and angular momentum is that spin is an SU(2) property that exists independently of any space-time frame. Angular momentum, on the other hand, is a space-time concept. Spin can be interpreted as angular momentum only in a space-time frame. Angular momentum in a CM frame can be interpreted as spin in an SU(2) context.
 
What is a CM frame and and SU(2) context?
 
CM = center of momentum. (Net momentum is 0.)
SU(2) is a symmetry group that specifies the behavior of certain quantum numbers and how they combine (interpreted as angular momentum in a space-time context). It is mathematically related to the 3d spatial rotation group.
You should be able to find a more detailed explanation in any standard QM textbook.
 
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...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
First, I need to check that I have the 3 notations correct for an inner product in finite vector spaces over a complex field; v* means: given the isomorphism V to V* then: (a) physicists and others: (u,v)=v*u ; linear in the second argument (b) some mathematicians: (u,v)=u*v; linear in the first argument. (c) bra-ket: <v|u>= (u,v) from (a), so v*u . <v|u> is linear in the second argument. If these are correct, then it would seem that <v|u> being linear in the second...

Similar threads