Electron spin

@kazetnagorra said
Electron spin is thing. Is not exactly like twirly swirly. But in some ways is like twirly swirly.

LOL!
Are you trying to be funny?

@metal-brain said
the wikipedia link for "intrinsic spin" says spin is not really spin in the traditional sense.

If you mean by that it doesn't spin like a spinning top, correct.

So now we are left wondering what the traditional sense is and how intrinsic differs.

Wrong. We are not "left wondering" because all we do is just read what it says to find out in what sense. I don't know why you have a problem with that.

@metal-brain said
Intrinsic is a word with a definition. That word does nothing to describe spin. Furthermore, the wikipedia link for "intrinsic spin" says spin is not really spin in the traditional sense. So now we are left wondering what the traditional sense is and how intrinsic differs.

Has spin been measured or not? Kazet first said it could be measured and later claimed there was ...[text shortened]... really spin according to wikipedia though.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intrinsic

It's intrinsic because it can't be removed. With a spinning top one can remove the rotation by holding on to it and it stops spinning.

What the Wikipedia writers probably mean by "spin in the traditional sense" is the rotation of a rigid body about an internal axis. A simple example is a spinning top. Are you happy with this so far.

@deepthought said
It's intrinsic because it can't be removed. With a spinning top one can remove the rotation by holding on to it and it stops spinning.

I don't think it is possible to explain what 'intrinsic spin' means any more simply than that although I think it would be very slightly better if you used the word 'spin' instead of 'rotation' in the above.

@deepthought said
It's intrinsic because it can't be removed. With a spinning top one can remove the rotation by holding on to it and it stops spinning.

What the Wikipedia writers probably mean by "spin in the traditional sense" is the rotation of a rigid body about an internal axis. A simple example is a spinning top. Are you happy with this so far.

Can it be measured? If so, what is being measured and how much is it?

@humy said
If you mean by that it doesn't spin like a spinning top, correct.

So now we are left wondering what the traditional sense is and how intrinsic differs.

Wrong. We are not "left wondering" because all we do is just read what it says to find out in what sense. I don't know why you have a problem with that.

In other words, you pretend to understand what you do not. Your serious lack of explanations are noted.

@humy said
I don't think it is possible to explain what 'intrinsic spin' means any more simply than that although I think it would be very slightly better if you used the word 'spin' instead of 'rotation' in the above.

LOL!
So now spin is not rotation? LOL!

Explain this spin without rotation.

@humy said
I don't think it is possible to explain what 'intrinsic spin' means any more simply than that although I think it would be very slightly better if you used the word 'spin' instead of 'rotation' in the above.

Well, I'd then have two instances of "spinning" and one of "spin" in the same sentence and it'd read awkwardly.

@metal-brain said
Can it be measured? If so, what is being measured and how much is it?

I assume we are talking about a rigid body here. A macroscopic rigid body is amenable to direct observation. One simply counts the number of complete rotations in some time interval and divides by the time taken to rotate that number of times. This gives the angular velocity in revolutions per second, for radians per second one multiplies that result by 2π. There's an assumption in classical physics that one can put a mark on highly symmetrical objects without affecting the dynamics, which in most practical cases is true. If the rigid body is asymmetric then there is no difficulty in observing the number of revolutions.

@metal-brain said

So now spin is not rotation?

Depends on context.
The interpretation I have heard of 'spin' in the context of electrons, it would be meaningless if not simply wrong to say they 'rotate' unless you completely arbitrarily without any reason to and thus illogically define the word 'spin' as meaning exactly the same thing as 'rotate' in that context. But then you would be just arguing the toss over pointless semantics. Meanwhile, science says electrons spin but don't rotate; -and why would science not be allowed to do that just because you don't like it?

@deepthought said
I assume we are talking about a rigid body here. A macroscopic rigid body is amenable to direct observation. One simply counts the number of complete rotations in some time interval and divides by the time taken to rotate that number of times. This gives the angular velocity in revolutions per second, for radians per second one multiplies that result by 2π. There's an ...[text shortened]... If the rigid body is asymmetric then there is no difficulty in observing the number of revolutions.

"One simply counts the number of complete rotations in some time interval and divides by the time taken to rotate that number of times."

So what was the number of rotations per second?

@metal-brain said
"One simply counts the number of complete rotations in some time interval and divides by the time taken to rotate that number of times."

So what was the number of rotations per second?

That is the angular velocity. To get the angular momentum we'd need to know the moment of inertia about that axis, which we can obtain either by calculation in simple cases, or by measuring it by applying a torque and seeing what the angular acceleration is.

@deepthought said
That is the angular velocity. To get the angular momentum we'd need to know the moment of inertia about that axis, which we can obtain either by calculation in simple cases, or by measuring it by applying a torque and seeing what the angular acceleration is.

Do you have a fargin number or not?
What is being measured and what is the number?

@metal-brain said
LOL!
Are you trying to be funny?

I am mocking your idiotic insistence that you should be able to understand everything in modern physics perfectly with only primary school-level knowledge of physics and mathematics.

@kazetnagorra said
I am mocking your idiotic insistence that you should be able to understand everything in modern physics perfectly with only primary school-level knowledge of physics and mathematics.

Convenient way to avoid answering questions you are incapable of answering.

What was measured and what is the number?