The answer is +1/2 and -1/2, according to 34-year-old physics lesson notes.........

Excellent link! GA. Thanks!

Dick

Hello Snaketails

"Spin Theory" of electrons, is just that: A theory.

Kind Regards....

I believe this means that in the case of spin = 1/2 it takes an electron 2 'cycles' to complete one spin.

I might be missing part of the picture, but I've heard that most physicists and physical chemists believe that no actual spinning occurs in the literal sense. If they're correct, then electron "spin" is just a convenient label for a quantum mechanical property so abstract that we can't really explain it in terms of anything familiar. Similar to the concept of quark "flavor". We're probably better off trying to define how electron spin affects observable properties (like magnetism and atomic spectra) rather than what it "is". I think that the reason the original scientists chose the term "spin" was that electrons in atomic and molecular orbitals exhibit a magnetic moment due to the interaction of their charge and their angular momentum. Magnetism results from the relativistic motion of electric charges, and spinning is a type of relativistic motion (I refer to relative motion of reference frames, not relativistic speeds). So they saw "spin" as a good analogy.

Svengali has your answer.

You've heard the word, spin, as applied by politicians and media types when they want to pose a quote, media story, and the like in such a way so as to create an impression favorable to self, or manipulate an impression possibly unfavorable? After the same fashion, spin is a convenient coinage, an abstract construct, not to be taken literally (as in, discrete, rotating planets/particles in orbit)...an agreed upon convention used by physicists to describe/classify/quantify (if memory serves...) a property of subatomic matter known as "symmetry."

Time doesn't permit....but Hawkins gave a fairly easy to follow, qualitative explanation in the popular book, A Brief History of Time. Check that out for a quick "up to speed."

I recall reading in Scientific American that Quarks, in addition to having 'flavors' (up, down, charmed, strange etc) that they also have the same sort of spin I described for Electrons. We learn, in 7th grade, that electrons move in 'orbitals' but this is just one way of looking at how quarks work, i.e. it takes 3 quarks to make one proton.

With electrons the 'orbitals' fluctuate so now we talk about electron clouds.

The problem is that we are discussing something that can only be explained mathematically. This is bound to introduce mis-understandings when dealing with quarks and electrons.

Still it is important to try.

/Ari

I agree that we should try to understand these sorts of abstract concepts, even if all our models only provide rough analogies. Evidently understanding won't come easily, especially when looking at phenomena on very small and very large scales. We need to remember to resists our natural tendency to take our models literally. Sometimes I wonder if the mysteries will ever come to an end. Maybe the closer we look, the more questions will pop up, on and on, forever (as if reality is one giant brain-teaser or prank "intended" to push us to evolve). Could be that reality transcends all discrete models, and all we can hope for are increasingly accurate (practically useful) approximations.

These are no mysteries which word suggests things outside our ability to understand because outside material reality.

They are simply unknowns. Problems arise when we mystify things and forget that all we are talking about is concrete material reality.

There does come a time when we have sufficient knowledge to conclude that we have a firm understanding of material fact.

In general, the unwinding of knowledge of the material universe will of course go on. We will always uncover more details insofar as the material universe is continually developing and changing.

The key is understanding the general rules, the scientific laws, of that ongoing process.

j.

Svengali, my friend,

You are closer to the truth than you know, especially from a Zen point of view!

I agree that we should try to understand these sorts of abstract concepts, even if all our models only provide rough analogies. Evidently understanding won't come easily, especially when looking at phenomena on very small and very large scales. We need to remember to resists our natural tendency to take our models literally.

Don't confuse the road map with the road.

Sometimes I wonder if the mysteries will ever come to an end. Maybe the closer we look, the more questions will pop up, on and on, forever (as if reality is one giant brain-teaser or prank "intended" to push us to evolve).

That is brilliant.

Could be that reality transcends all discrete models, and all we can hope for are increasingly accurate (practically useful) approximations.

Now you've nailed the Buddha's message to the wall.

Problem is, we've spent the last week trying to define what electron-spin is. The question, as it has been posted at the top pf every response is:

"What is the MEANING of electron-spin." Electron-spin does not have an intrinsic meaning. What does "Cat" MEAN not "What is a cat" Do you see the difference?

I believe we have been answering the intended question, but the question is worded incorrectly. I think the question should be:

What is electron-spin and how does it affect our reality and how we perceive electricity?

Wow - what a rush!

/Orpheuse

Yes nicely put....

Sometimes it's easy to get bogged down in the words rather than the understanding.

A Rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Also as scientists we all realise you can only express things qualitatively or quantitatively by their effect on other things which are more manageable to understand.

We only understand the wind because we can feel it and see it's effect....
If it had no effect we wouldn't understand it...but would it exist?
I like the ancient belief, I once read, that it is the trees waving their braches that causes the wind.

Peace and chill

Del

Orpheuse,

How nice to hear from a friend who shares my appreciation for Buddhist wisdom! And I can identify with the Zen aspects -- Philip Kapleau and D.T. Suzuki greatly influenced me in my youth. I wish more people would look into what Buddhism has to say about the material world and human psychology. Many people avoid looking at this amazing body of wisdom because of its religious trappings. But Buddhism has no deity, and does not even require belief in an afterlife, so we really should not consider it a religion, but instead mainly a powerful and practical model of human psychology rooted in direct empirical observation. The Buddha also made some interesting comments that sound like references to atoms and the Big Bang. Those who seek harmony between science and ethics/religion should have a sincere look at Buddhist ideas (which, by the way, do not require giving up one's original religious tradition).

Yes, Svengali, you understand.

I have one question - what is reincarnation if not a form of an afterlife? You might want to look at "The Tibetan book of Living and Dying". Also check Allan Watts, with him you get a record of someone raised in the west, worked with Suzuki and gives you a view of what a westerner can understand about the Buddha.

Om, Namah Shiva

Ari (Orpheuse)

Yep, two up quarks (2 x +2/3) and one down quark (-1/3) equals an electrical charge of 1 for a proton. Where do truth and beauty come in?