What is "spin" actually? Without resorting to dumb particle theories and mathematical descriptions.
I usually make my own model of the world, but in this case I have no experience to base it off.

Mass is an intrinsic property of an object to interact with and create a gravitational field

Electric charge is an intrinsic property of an object to interact with and create electric fields (in electrostatics)

Spin is an intrinsic property of an object to interact with and create magnetic fields (in magnetostatics)

All intrinsic properties of objects (such as spin) is how it interacts with and/or creates a certain field.

>>16723587 (OP)
>What is 2+2 actually?
>And don't give me any of this "4" nonsense.

>>16723589
I know it's an intrinsic property, but for anyone who has experience interacting with it, how does it work, and for anyone who has better models, what is it really?

>>16723590
Is your point that you're too dumb to answer?

>>16723593
did you not read the post?

>>16723615
I've read the posts several times.

>>16723587 (OP)
Its rotation.
The little particles rotate. How is that hard to understand?

>>16723593
>how does it work
How does rotation work
>Start spinning a basketball as a graphical description
>In english doc

>>16723587 (OP)
"It's just articles" spinning doesn't help understand it, as you correctly point out. But there is no more intuitive method to understand it than this explanation that requires undergrad math:
for some things, you need to rotate things TWICE till they are at the starting point/value of "1" again. That is because after a single rotation, they will be at the value "-1", NOT positive "1".
The spin of particles reflects that. The number corresponds to that property.

It CANNOT be dumbed down more or made more intuitive.

>>16723685
>"It's just articles" spinning
>>
"It's just spinning"

>>16723587 (OP)
>What’s X in physics? Without math of course.
That’s like asking to explain the plot of a novel by pantomime.

>>16723685
>But there is no more intuitive method to understand
>It CANNOT be dumbed down more or made more intuitive.
There is ALWAYS an intuitive method. It's just a matter of finding it. I've had people tell me something is "forever beyond science" then literally solved it myself right after that.

>you need to rotate things TWICE till they are at the starting point/value of "1" again
Either the thing isn't actually being rotated (how do you determine that an electron has been rotated?), or there is something about the world that makes that possible, either way, it's just a matter of exploring and deducing to find the "intuitive" explanation.

>>16723691
>Either the thing isn't actually being rotated (how do you determine that an electron has been rotated?)
Interaction with the magnetic field
>or there is something about the world that makes that possible
The magnetic field
>either way, it's just a matter of exploring and deducing to find the "intuitive" explanation.
The intuitive explanation is >>16723685
Just because you are stupid does not mean it's unintuitive, it just means you lack the background understanding of the math you refuse to know in order to understand. Yes, you need math for physics.

>>16723587 (OP)
Read JoJo's Bizzare Adventure Part 7 to find out.

>>16723696
Fuck off, retard.

>>16723708
I accept your concession

>>16723709
Great, have fun living in your made up reality. Now get the fuck out of my thread, retard.

>>16723716
>I can't understand the very simple explanation so it must be made up
topkek

>>16723587 (OP)
rotation matrices applied repeatedly

>>16723691

Alright, here is an attempt to be a bit more intuitive, but you still need a little bit of math -- it can't be explained without it.
Do you agree with me that negative numbers do really exist in nature? For example, you can't model opposing electrical charges without negative numbers (or a minus operation, which is the same thing as adding a negative number). As two opposing charges cancel out, you need negative numbers.
So, negative numbers are a kind of "space". But how do we explore that space if we assume we may only use rotations? If all rotations lead to a positive number (like e.g. a quarter rotation corresponding to a value of 0.25 and a full rotation to a value if 1, and it repating thereafter -- you see there is NO negative number here), you cannot explore that space. It follows, there must be some operation involving rotations that leads to that space. That space is the rotation I mentioned. You need a double rotation, because a simple rotation allows you to explore that space of negative numbers. After one-and-a-quarter rotations you are NOT back at 0.25 again, you are at NEGATIVE 0.25. And so on.
This is related to the math topic of spinors and imaginary/complex numbers. But this requires undergrad math.

Ultimately, reality is an implementation of various math facts. Isn't it the same thing as saying "reality is math", but that it behaves according to math.

>>16723733

>>16723744
ok

>>16723593
As far as I remember, spin is just a magnetic moment, or is related to a magnetic moment by a gyromagnetic ratio. All of the weirdness of spin comes from the fact that angular momentum shares units with Planck's constant, and at those scales particle behavior is heavily quantized.

>>16723751
What do you expect me to say? You call me stupid (if it was you) while wordily saying the same thing I already know, while having the arrogance to think you know better and the ignorance to think what you're saying is a sufficient explanation.

>>16723772
>sufficient explanation.
>Without resorting to dumb particle theories and mathematical descriptions.
Ask a less retarded question for less retarded answers.

>>16723773
This is not the thread for you to vent about choosing retarded things and being retarded and projecting it onto others.

What kind of a retard answers something he doesn't agree with? This is all you venting because you're wrong. Particle theories are dumb, mathematical descriptions are models that say what happen, not why. You're clearly too dumb understand what that means.

When you "measure" or make an observation, you are attaching (even temporarily)/bouncing quantities of base size quantum plank building blocks, onto other quantities of base level building blocks, and then measuring, and subtracting the difference of the total of the two together measured, from the quantity that you attached/bounced off the other quantity individually measured.
Every time.
Object + observation object, subtract the difference of the measurement of the observation object from the measurement of the two together.

"Spin" would require a physical, actual handhold point, something to actually, physically maneuver the object built from base building blocks around with.

Like a hole, or a mountain, a crater, or a pile of loose dirt, something, anything to gain leverage physically.
The object is built from the quantum level up symmetrical, it has an equal number of blocks in every direction, so any attempt to "spin" the object, or to measure it, or observe it, would require altering it by digging out an actual physical point to use leverage, up adding a mountain to it, to gain torque, force, basically add blocks to the smooth symmetrical stack of blocks.

So spin is not measurable on a symmetrical object, as it cannot be "spun". It does not have enough complexity of size building up from the plank level yet to have enough parts building gimbals for that level of movement called spin.
Now's not the time for spin.
That comes later Doctor.

That sun has more axis of movement that our planet, than our moon, but the galaxy has more than our star, and a local group has more than a galaxy.
All building larger gimbals of movement, for more complex parts, from the base plank quantum foundational level.
But it should be quantifiable by determining the number of quantum plank building blocks in it's build, and thusly its gimbal layer.

>>16723776
Why are you so triggered? You asked a question that was adequately answered within the limits you set up, then got mad when you didn't understand the answer that is incomplete because of the limits you set up. Your options now are ask a less retarded question to get a less retarded answer, or become less retarded to understand the subject you asked about better. It's clear you lack a mathematical foundation needed for this topic.
Your "why" is the existence of a magnetic field, which cannot be expanded on further without mathematics, per your request. Every time someone explains something to you in this thread, you lash out and call it stupid in some way. Either this thread is bait, or you're being genuine and you're not well enough educated about it and do this to cope with not understanding something. If EVERYONE in a thread is too retarded to explain something, it might be the case that you're too retarded to understand them.

>>16723782
>that was adequately answered within the limits you set up
Nope.
>then got mad
I haven't gotten mad at any point. I've said fuck off because it was useless and insulting.
>you didn't understand the answer
you are wildly delusional. That has never been the issue.
>Your options now are ask a less retarded question
No, my option is wait for you to go away and someone who understands and knows, to answer.

I assume you're the same person I've repeatedly told to fuck off because you're unwanted, yet you still hang around like a pest. You're clearly not mentally well.

>>16723787
>>that was adequately answered within the limits you set up
>Nope.
Yes it was, by >>16723589 >>16723685 and >>16723733
>I haven't gotten mad at any point. I've said fuck off because it was useless and insulting.
Resorting to insults is a telltale sign of anger. Happy people do not tell people to fuck off.
>>you didn't understand the answer
>you are wildly delusional. That has never been the issue.
It clearly is, because it's been adequately answered within your set limits by >>16723589 >>16723685 and >>16723733
>>16723787
>>Your options now are ask a less retarded question
>No, my option is wait for you to go away and someone who understands and knows, to answer.
I don't see what's so hard to understand about "It's an intrinsic physical property" as an explanation that doesn't involve any kind of mathematical symmetries or field theory. You can either have an answer with math in it, or you can have what you've deemed an unhelpful answer.
Given your repeated denial of the proven case, I must assume this thread is bait, because there's no way you're actually this stupid.

>>16723791
>Resorting to insults is a telltale sign of anger. Happy people do not tell people to fuck off.
i audibly laughed. i'm not gonna bother reading more from you or replying. what a waste of time

>>16723797
cool b8 m8

>>16723781
I agree, but that's actually spinning things. Which I'm guessing the people who came up with physics "spin" didn't mean. Or they might have been retarded. I have no idea, but "spin" in electrons is still a physical thing that happens however you choose to view it or name it.

>>16723807
If you draw an X on the side of a ball, you change the measurement of the ball by adding weight, literally blocks at the quantum plank level, to the ball.

But then if you moved the ball around an object in an orbit, but always kept the X pointed at the exact same direction it would have orbit, but not rotation/spin.

And if you removed the X, then the only way to measure it once again, to test if it was pointed in the same direction again, would be to add the weight back to the ball from the X marker once again.
So for all purposes, it could be spinning, but it is only detectable if it is spinning by "marking it" or, observing it, measuring it.
Thusly changing it, and then perhaps causing the measurement that we are looking for.

https://youtu.be/3_s_FKy2FFs?si=jsSrMLhnl3KEUZLw

>>16723587 (OP)
It signifies how the quantum object changes when the frame of reference is rotated around it. It's not a "thing" but more like a symmetry

>>16723781
>>16723833
You don't understand how measurement works. Can you even cite the equation for the measurement performed by a Hermitian operator?

it's a degree of freedom that encodes experimental results which showed particles having properties that are reminiscent of angular momentum. it's a two-valuedness due to wavefunctions only permitting discrete steps. so it can only be in a spin "state" rather than possess a spin "rate'.

Angular momentum
Orbital mechanics
I am sorry but I cannot afford to perform free emotional labor for you, you will simply need to educate yourself.
I do recommend you spend roughly 100+ man hours minimum gaining understanding and knowledge in "Kerbal Space Program 1" and YouTube videos of actual U.S. Astronauts explaining Kerbal Space Program 1 and how orbital mechanics works.

I would also you check out experiments involving gimbals, gimbal lock, and most importantly, Brownian motion by looking at the Oil Drop Experiment performed inside of a Brownian motion experiment.

You might be surprised at the observational results.

operators in QM are analogous to classical mechanics. you're dealing with states here, so it's not a parameter representing dynamic behavior, but probabilities for which states are valid.

>>16723847
Are you saying that if you put an electron in the center of a room and walk around it you get one result, and if you walk another 360 degrees around it you get another result?

>>16723587 (OP)
Probably the most underrated fing about spin is that it is a generic property of conservative fields, so it goes beyond quantum theory.

A consequence of this is you can formulate mathematically and then actually construct physical scenarios in a lab with spin in generic classical fields that are not electromagnetism or quantum.

They have done this for water and acoustic sound, formulating their spins mathematically and then observe in empirically in a lab.

What they find is that spin is microscopic particle orbits (like little water particles but they done it for sound as well) around points in space. You can see the actual microscopic orbits of tracer particles in my pic, from a study. They also clearly distinguish the microscopic orbits of spin angular momentum from the kind of orbiting, translational drift of orbital angular momentum.

So heres the thing. If quantum mechanics is point particles... there is absolutely no way spin is not going to be exactly the same as in my picture.

The issue is that no one thinks quantum theory is point particles.

Angular momentum is how much the phase of the wave changes with direction.

Example of extrinsic angular momentum:
>electron in a p orbital
>value of wave is 0 at the center of mass of an atom
>value of wave is 1 at 1 angstrom to the right
>value of wave is i at 1 angstrom up
>value of wave is -1 at 1 angstrom to the left
>value of wave is -i at 1 angstrom down

Example of intrinsic angular momentum (spin):
>photon
>value of wave is a vector with a horizontal component of 1 and a vertical component of i
I used a photon as an example because electron waves are weirder and have to be described with spinors which have the property >>16723685 mentioned about not going back to the original value until you rotate them 360 degrees twice. But it's the same sort of idea.

>>16723587 (OP)
It's literally just spin. Spinning. It behaves in every concievable way the same as a spinning particle.
Physicists just don't want to accept the implications of this.

>>16723972
look at the picture

>>16723925
NOT spinning
ORBITING

>>16723978
cope, seethe, dilate

>>16723978
>look at the picture
post a bigger one, it's tiny

The subatomic particles have angular momentum
While they can not spin, if they could, they would.
You can't get more simple than that.

>>16724085
ummm

search

Bliokh

Water

Fields

Spin

>>16724085
>>16723978
brainlet here. what is it orbiting?

>>16724136
i dont believe some classical field has quantized angular momentum

>>16723587 (OP)
I am pretty sure "what is" kind of questions have no answer. Spin is a fundamental property of nature, why would you expect it to be explainable in terms of anything else you are familiar with. Any such attempt at an explanation would be circular. There was an interview with Feynman where he was asked what magnetism is, and he explains why there can be no answer.

>>16724248
>why would you expect it to be explainable in terms of anything else you are familiar with
That's exactly what I expect it not to be. That doesn't mean it has no answer. It does.
I saw that Feynman interview a long time ago, I think he in a way misses the mark because he tries to explain it with other familiar things such as springs, which he himself realizes doesn't make any sense to do. I've long ago realized the world fundamentally isn't this model in our brains that we've evolved to have.

>>16723589
>intrinsic property of an object
pseudoscience

Pivoting around on 1 foot
versus
Running around a track

>>16723886
No, that's not how measurement works anyway. You measure once, and you know where the electron is, and don't need to concern yourself with the wave function anymore. When you rotate the frame of reference by 360, the wf flips its sign, but that doesn't really matter for one electron because everything you measure depends on the square of its wf. But in a system with two electrons for example, it leads to the exclusion principle, meaning they have to at least differ in their spin, otherwise the wf would be 0.

>>16724336
I have no idea what you're talking about.

>>16724150
have you heard of hydrodynamic pilot-wave models? they are toy models using bouncing droplets on a bath of oil. and they evince quantization. totally possible.

>>16724136
the little loops are the spin of particles making little orbiting motions

>>16724136
the little loops are the spin of particles making little orbiting motions

>>16724316

>>16723925
So basically, what you's be sayin' is, Euler, Stokes, and Maxwell already had the structural foundations of the GUT all figured out? Big if true.

>>16724352
I'm saying no, you're wrong. For the rest, just learn QM nigga

Why is it wrong to think of spin as a particle's rough equivalent of molecular chirality, like a vectorial "preference" for one of two possible orientations?

>>16724419
Chirality is fixed. Spin can change. You cannot apply a magnetic field to some protein and flip its chirality.

>>16724426
That's why I said "rough equivalent", like maybe it can be better than to imagine it as literally spinning, at least. For example, when a particle decays, it emits its decay products in a way that's coherent with its spin orientation, right?

>>16724429
Spin is not a conserved quantity. Angular momentum is.

>>16724435
Wait but isn't spin an intrinsic form of angular momentum?
Fuck's sake, achieving spinlightenment is harder than achieving fucking nirvana.

>>16724417
Or you could learn how conveying information works.

Here's basically you: You balance the objects using a pitch measurement device placed on the side, and by the way I did that last time I was there. So to achieve the optimal result you need to support the legs at the foundation.

It may make sense to you, but not to anyone who doesn't already know what you're talking about.

>>16724393
No, i have not heard about anything like that. I know large objects can have discrete vibration modes with associated vibration frequencies which are eigenvalues of some matrix (akin to how eigenvalues of operators, coincidence?). But these frequencies are unrelated to some constant like Plank's constant, and they are different for every system.
Also i have never seen something like that for rotation, only for vibration
Anyway, tell me more please

>>16724490
if you're asking what spin "actually" is without being willing to learn the basics of quantum mechanics, not understanding what a wave function and a quantum state is, you're not gonna get some magically enlightening answer that will make it intuitively obvious. People have been talking about spin for a hundred years and haven't come up with one. The best anyone will be able to do is: it's a characteristic of a particle that tells you what happens to its wave function under rotation transformations.
Calling it "intrinsic angular momentum" is less fundamental btw, it's just an analogy. The real deal is that classical angular momentum is about rotational symmetries too, we just have an intuition about "spinning objects" because that's how we know it from experience.

>>16724505
Wrong. QM is a theory. One that's guaranteed to not be correct. If you think you're gonna achieve anything by worshipping it as a guide to the world you are delusional.

>>16724509
>One that's guaranteed to not be correct
In that case so are all other theories, because the Standard Model is the most accurate and successful theory in the history of science when it comes to its predictive power. That's not to say that it's objectively correct about everything and contains the ultimate truth about everything, but it's literally the gigachad of theories.

>>16724510
>In that case
You're really talking like this is genuine news to you.

>>16724509
>worshipping it as a guide to the world
lmao sure, I have a whole altar at home, it's called a computer, and it works because QM is quite good actually.
Why are you asking what a quantum mechanical concept "really is" if you don't "buy" QM? How do you even know about spin? Why do you care about this particular part of QM while dismissing the whole?

>>16724509
QM will never be false

a deeper theory might come along that QM sits on top of but it wont be false. that has already happened with QM and QFT but QM wont be false

EVER

newtonian mechanics isnt false either

its 100% correct

>>16724717
based omnitheorist chad
ALL theories are equally valid even if they contradict each other

>>16724727
umm newtonian mechanics doesnt contradict quantum mechanics

thats like saying a dog contradicts a cat

they are two different fings that coexist

>>16724514
>I have a whole altar at home, it's called a computer, and it works because QM

>i made scrambled eggs this morning, thank you general relativity. *prays to lord einstine*

>>16724514
>e, I have a whole altar at home, it's called a computer, and it works because QM is quite good actually.
Kill yourself.
Kill every solid-state switch worshipper. Painfully.
Computers can be made with water valves.

>>16723587 (OP)
>turns 720 degrees and walks away

>>16725198
The process of building a modern computer fundamentally requires someone with understanding of quantum mechanical principles to have contributed to its design at some point along the way. Nobody needs to study GR at any point in the chain for you to scramble eggs.
>>16725209
Cool, mind showing me your hydrocomputer?

>>16725410
>Cool, mind showing me your hydrocomputer?
https://www.amusingplanet.com/2019/12/vladimir-lukyanovs-water-computer.html

>>16725198
>>16725209
>>16725410
it's not that a computer can't be built without QM, it's that the computers we have at home *are* built using the principles of QM, and work as predicted by it. It's quite incredible that this simple logic filters /sci/.
Anyway, can the retarded nigger who wants to know about spin answer why he's interested in what a quantum concept "really is" but disbelieves in quantum theory?

>>16723685
>you need to rotate things TWICE till they are at the starting point/value of "1" again
that just sounds like magic. I think I ran into this shit in Hellblade 1.

>>16725710
>>16725710
>can the retarded nigger who wants to know about spin answer
lmao, thinking someone would do anything for you when you talk like that. unsocialized autist.

>>16723589
just pick a date where someone dies and make the thread vanish. you need points though.

>>16725933
>unsocialized autist.
on 4chan???? Who would've guessed????????
So no answer? Just trying to be obtuse?

>>16723691
>I've had people tell me something is "forever beyond science" then literally solved it myself right after that.
Publications list plz??
. . .
Actually, I just spires'ed Anonymous and it turns out there are two articles. Did you write the erratum for the stochastic gravity waves paper, or the announcement about beam physics in Phys.Rev?

>>16725710
>that the computers we have at home *are* built using the principles of QM, a
Niggerfaggot so is a table and a chair
A chair is a quantum chair
a shower is a quantum shower
Every atom in your body is quantum
niggerfaggot fag

>>16725933
>would do anything for you when you talk like that.
I call your mom a dirty whore every night and she still makes me pancakes later, curious.
>>16726037
It's pathetic bait, but if not: nobody needs QM to build a chair or a shower, but we couldn't have understood semiconductors and designed transistors without it.

>>16724505
It is obvious that the quantum mechanic is clueless then after having no answer after a hundred years. The diagnostic is worthless anyways, because a blackbox abstraction will never tell you what anything is. You are wrong on both fronts.

>>16723587 (OP)
This but with equal size coins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN3AOMrnEUs

>>16723587 (OP)
>what is spin
circular motion. anything else you need help with?