Timeline for Does spin have anything to do with a rate of change?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
27 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 10, 2019 at 20:23 | answer | added | Andrew Steane | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 4, 2017 at 10:13 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Jan 28, 2017 at 15:01 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Dec 23, 2016 at 12:20 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| S Nov 11, 2016 at 17:50 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S Nov 11, 2016 at 17:50 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| Nov 8, 2016 at 18:25 | comment | added | dahemar | Related: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/167469/… | |
| Nov 6, 2016 at 19:02 | answer | added | dahemar | timeline score: 4 | |
| Nov 6, 2016 at 18:00 | answer | added | user91411 | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 6, 2016 at 13:59 | answer | added | glS | timeline score: 0 | |
| Nov 5, 2016 at 15:51 | comment | added | Terry Bollinger | @ACuriousMind, this is intriguing, I did not realize how different the mental mappings of this topic could be. Because particle spins (electrons in particular) due to Pauli exclusion are powerfully energetically inclined to pair up in antiparallel combinations, there's a break point at about spin 1 where most particle spins stop adding up in composite systems. But try this: What is the full set of possible angular momentum states of a large molecule, say maybe a C60 buckyball, in a vacuum? It will have a couple of quantized states at or near 0, subject to quantum rules and statistics. | |
| Nov 5, 2016 at 15:29 | comment | added | ACuriousMind♦ | @TerryBollinger Yes, you can convert between spin and classical angular momentum by getting the photons absorbed. But a spin-2000 object still doesn't rotate classically (at least, I see no reason why it should). If you can demonstrate that quantum mechanics predicts it would, then that would constitute a good answer to this question. | |
| Nov 5, 2016 at 15:25 | history | edited | Keshav Srinivasan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 326 characters in body
|
| Nov 5, 2016 at 14:36 | comment | added | Terry Bollinger | Literally? Well, for step 1 take an electron, add a parallel spin position, and voila, you have spin 1 positronium. In other words, I was referring to composite spins, since of course the fundamental particle spins stay invariant. But the very existence of spin 1 positronium would seem to say that you can indeed add even half-spins meaningfully. Also, I need to look it up, but I'm pretty sure that you can use spin +1 photons (circular polarization) cumulatively to induce real spin in small objects. Re: "morph", a thought experiment: What does a spin +2000 composite object look like? | |
| Nov 5, 2016 at 14:17 | comment | added | ACuriousMind♦ | @TerryBollinger What do you mean it "morphs into ordinary classical angular momentum"? How does one "add" half-units of spin? Spin is an intrinsic property of a quantum object, you can't "add" spin to something. | |
| Nov 5, 2016 at 13:53 | answer | added | John Duffield | timeline score: -7 | |
| S Nov 3, 2016 at 16:23 | history | bounty started | Keshav Srinivasan | ||
| S Nov 3, 2016 at 16:23 | history | notice added | Keshav Srinivasan | Draw attention | |
| Nov 1, 2016 at 18:27 | answer | added | Amara | timeline score: 3 | |
| Nov 1, 2016 at 14:23 | history | edited | Keshav Srinivasan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 11 characters in body
|
| Oct 31, 2016 at 11:56 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/793059148401434624 | ||
| Oct 31, 2016 at 8:10 | history | edited | Keshav Srinivasan |
edited tags
|
|
| Oct 31, 2016 at 5:33 | comment | added | Terry Bollinger | I always find it very odd when folks assert that spin has "no" connection with rotation, given that if you keep adding more half-units of it it eventually morphs into ordinary classical angular momentum and rotation. If someone has ever explained how that curious transition works, I surely have never seen it. Pauli, in his inimitable aggressive style, got frustrated with that little conundrum and so of course declared it unsolvable, and that everyone should therefore shut up about it. Too bad, that. | |
| Oct 31, 2016 at 5:09 | answer | added | Prasad Mani | timeline score: -1 | |
| Oct 31, 2016 at 2:41 | comment | added | Count Iblis | Einstein–de Haas effect | |
| Oct 31, 2016 at 2:07 | history | asked | Keshav Srinivasan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |