Is an electron's “spin” real?

[socrat44]

Is an electron's “spin” real?
Fact.
In 1925, Samuel Goudsmit and George Uhlenbeck claimed that some
of the mischievous features of the hydrogen spectrum could be successfully
explained by assuming that electrons act as if they actually have a spin.
Opinion.
Because electron is spinning with a rotational velocity equivalent to the speed of light,
(which is practically impossible) the only conclusion is that an electron can’t spin about
its own axis, and thus, spin is just a representative term.
Result.
There was a time when we wanted to be told what an electron is.
The question was never answered. No familiar conceptions
can be woven around the electron; it belongs to the waiting list.
— Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington
#
“We know electron by what it does, not by what it is.”

[socrat44]

actors can deliberately behave like drunk,
although they are completely sober . . .
"spin" is just as good as an actor . . . he plays perfectly . . .
we cannot understand who he really is . . .
he is spinning . . . no - you are drunk

[Impenitent]

is the orbit of an electron spinning about the nucleus?

(I didn't know electrons could fish either)

-Imp

[socrat44]

Spin is not spin.
Particle is like-particle
Wave is like-wave
Wave-particle is maybe here or maybe there
Wave-ψ- collapses and it is neither here nor there
And you think those are physics?
Those are metaphysics.

[Cerveny]

The spin of the electron occurs not only in the 3D dimension as eg flywheel, but rather as a pinwheel under the wind (of the time) in the 4-D dimension.

[socrat44]

What Does An Electron’s Spin Actually Represent
And How Was It Discovered About 100 Years Ago?
Physics / By Simran Buttar / March 10, 2021

https://www.secretsofuniverse.in/electr ... FS8CDQYx8o

[Sculptor]

Is an electron's “spin” real?
Fact.
In 1925, Samuel Goudsmit and George Uhlenbeck claimed that some
of the mischievous features of the hydrogen spectrum could be successfully
explained by assuming that electrons act as if they actually have a spin.
Opinion.
Because electron is spinning with a rotational velocity equivalent to the speed of light,
(which is practically impossible) the only conclusion is that an electron can’t spin about
its own axis, and thus, spin is just a representative term.
Result.
There was a time when we wanted to be told what an electron is.
The question was never answered. No familiar conceptions
can be woven around the electron; it belongs to the waiting list.
— Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington
#
“We know electron by what it does, not by what it is.”

Discrete things that a human can know are visible and tangible. No atom, no subatomic partical and how they exist in relationship to each other are not possible obejcts of human perception. They are all models. When we invent models we refer to things that we can know. In this case when the atom was finally hit upon we used the model of the solar system to help describe what might be there. This worked well for a while. The atomic bond was a bit of a fudge and it soon became all the apparent that there was a great need for many other particles from Quarks strangness and charm and a bewildering collecion other things, sime of which seem to have no need to be there, others vital to our understanding.
When school kids first learn about all this stuff they love it that a lump of concrete is really mostly empty space. So since electrons were never exacly what we think they are, why not give them a spin if it saves the appearances. If Coprunicus can add 14 more major epicycles to put the sun in the centre then why not?

[socrat44]

Is an electron's “spin” real?
Fact.
In 1925, Samuel Goudsmit and George Uhlenbeck claimed that some
of the mischievous features of the hydrogen spectrum could be successfully
explained by assuming that electrons act as if they actually have a spin.
Opinion.
Because electron is spinning with a rotational velocity equivalent to the speed of light,
(which is practically impossible) the only conclusion is that an electron can’t spin about
its own axis, and thus, spin is just a representative term.
Result.
There was a time when we wanted to be told what an electron is.
The question was never answered. No familiar conceptions
can be woven around the electron; it belongs to the waiting list.
— Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington
#
“We know electron by what it does, not by what it is.”

Discrete things that a human can know are visible and tangible. No atom, no subatomic partical and how they exist in relationship to each other are not possible obejcts of human perception. They are all models. When we invent models we refer to things that we can know. In this case when the atom was finally hit upon we used the model of the solar system to help describe what might be there. This worked well for a while. The atomic bond was a bit of a fudge and it soon became all the apparent that there was a great need for many other particles from Quarks strangness and charm and a bewildering collecion other things, sime of which seem to have no need to be there, others vital to our understanding.
When school kids first learn about all this stuff they love it that a lump of concrete is really mostly empty space. So since electrons were never exacly what we think they are, why not give them a spin if it saves the appearances. If Coprunicus can add 14 more major epicycles to put the sun in the centre then why not?

You are right,
To understand physics needs models that we can know
Problem
All quantum particles are points
These points are dualistic
This leads to huge logic difficulties

[socrat44]

Quantum spin is an intrinsic property of quantum particles.
Quantum particles have dualistic nature and geometric forms “point”
Dualistic point particles lead to huge logic difficulties.
Real quantum particle must have a geometric form.
If quantum particle has form, then:
how quantum spin as an “intrinsic property" works?
#
Quantum spin refers to the rotation required to return the wave to original state.
There are two kinds of spinning. (angular spin and linear spin)
1 - The photon (linear spin 1) needs one rotation to return to the original orientation.
(1 wavelength - 1 rotation)
And for photon at constant speed (c) the wavelength is infinite.
2 - An electron (angular spin ½ ) needs two rotations to return to the original orientation.
(1 wavelength - 2 rotation)
----
Maybe solution can be tied with geometrical form of quantum particles.
The number (π) is constantly present in quantum physics and it belongs
to the geometric shape of a circle (disk, membrane) and sphere.
To create angular spin or linear spin, is needed different angles of momentum to influence these forms.

[Skepdick]

Is an electron's “spin” real?
Fact.
In 1925, Samuel Goudsmit and George Uhlenbeck claimed that some
of the mischievous features of the hydrogen spectrum could be successfully
explained by assuming that electrons act as if they actually have a spin.
Opinion.
Because electron is spinning with a rotational velocity equivalent to the speed of light,
(which is practically impossible) the only conclusion is that an electron can’t spin about
its own axis, and thus, spin is just a representative term.
Result.
There was a time when we wanted to be told what an electron is.
The question was never answered. No familiar conceptions
can be woven around the electron; it belongs to the waiting list.
— Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington
#
“We know electron by what it does, not by what it is.”

Your confusion arises from a far more general question: Are any properties real?

There's a theorem in computer science known as Rice's theorem.

In computability theory, Rice's theorem states that all non-trivial, semantic properties (of programs) are undecidable. A semantic property is one about (the program's) behavior.

To demonstrate this problem in practice...

THIS COLOR is Red.
THIS COLOR is Blue.

And so, your question is equivalent to "Is redness real?"; or "Is blueness real?"

It's undecidable. You can examine the implications from the lens of Property Dualism to gain better understanding of what that means in practice.

[socrat44]

Is an electron's “spin” real?
Fact.
In 1925, Samuel Goudsmit and George Uhlenbeck claimed that some
of the mischievous features of the hydrogen spectrum could be successfully
explained by assuming that electrons act as if they actually have a spin.
Opinion.
Because electron is spinning with a rotational velocity equivalent to the speed of light,
(which is practically impossible) the only conclusion is that an electron can’t spin about
its own axis, and thus, spin is just a representative term.
Result.
There was a time when we wanted to be told what an electron is.
The question was never answered. No familiar conceptions
can be woven around the electron; it belongs to the waiting list.
— Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington
#
“We know electron by what it does, not by what it is.”

Your confusion arises from a far more general question: Are any properties real?

There's a theorem in computer science known as Rice's theorem.

In computability theory, Rice's theorem states that all non-trivial, semantic properties (of programs) are undecidable. A semantic property is one about (the program's) behavior.

To demonstrate this problem in practice...

THIS COLOR is Red.
THIS COLOR is Blue.

And so, your question is equivalent to "Is redness real?"; or "Is blueness real?"

It's undecidable. You can examine the implications from the lens of Property Dualism to gain better understanding of what that means in practice.

to better understand reality, one needs to kill duality
==============

[Skepdick]

to better understand reality, one needs to kill duality

Then kill it.

Humans are part of reality.
Humans are trying to understand reality.

So a part of reality is trying to understand reality? Why doesn't reality understand itself?

Humans have no coherent notion of "understanding". We don't understand what it means "to understand".

[Sculptor]

Is an electron's “spin” real?
Fact.
In 1925, Samuel Goudsmit and George Uhlenbeck claimed that some
of the mischievous features of the hydrogen spectrum could be successfully
explained by assuming that electrons act as if they actually have a spin.
Opinion.
Because electron is spinning with a rotational velocity equivalent to the speed of light,
(which is practically impossible) the only conclusion is that an electron can’t spin about
its own axis, and thus, spin is just a representative term.
Result.
There was a time when we wanted to be told what an electron is.
The question was never answered. No familiar conceptions
can be woven around the electron; it belongs to the waiting list.
— Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington
#
“We know electron by what it does, not by what it is.”

Discrete things that a human can know are visible and tangible. No atom, no subatomic partical and how they exist in relationship to each other are not possible obejcts of human perception. They are all models. When we invent models we refer to things that we can know. In this case when the atom was finally hit upon we used the model of the solar system to help describe what might be there. This worked well for a while. The atomic bond was a bit of a fudge and it soon became all the apparent that there was a great need for many other particles from Quarks strangness and charm and a bewildering collecion other things, sime of which seem to have no need to be there, others vital to our understanding.
When school kids first learn about all this stuff they love it that a lump of concrete is really mostly empty space. So since electrons were never exacly what we think they are, why not give them a spin if it saves the appearances. If Coprunicus can add 14 more major epicycles to put the sun in the centre then why not?

You are right,
To understand physics needs models that we can know
Problem
All quantum particles are points
These points are dualistic
This leads to huge logic difficulties

The problem is more that the world is not dualistic, but we just have failed to offer a theory which accomodates everything.
Diiferent rules seem to appliy the the mundane human scale world and two different sets of rules to the macroscope and the subscopic worlds.
Since we live in middle world, we try to apply metphors that we recognise from our our perceived world, Yet we are temporarlly bound to a short time, and physically bound to a narrow earthly path.

Aroms have been conceived from the earliest times of Greek philosophy. Atom literally means a-divisible, not divisible. Since it was theoretically postulated that matter would reach a small size beyond which no further division was possible.
Obviously what we like to call atoms are not literally anything like it since the Bohr model proposed 3 types of particle, and an array of other subatomic particles are now on the table.
Out mistake is to think that matter is literally compose of little planets with a nucleus and electrons. Atoms do not "look" like that, in fact that cannot be seen since the wavelength of visible ligh do not work beyond 1200x magnification. Electron microscopes have benetrated this barrier to reveal sub-cellular structures but these are massive compared with the largest atoms.

[socrat44]

Discrete things that a human can know are visible and tangible. No atom, no subatomic partical and how they exist in relationship to each other are not possible obejcts of human perception. They are all models. When we invent models we refer to things that we can know. In this case when the atom was finally hit upon we used the model of the solar system to help describe what might be there. This worked well for a while. The atomic bond was a bit of a fudge and it soon became all the apparent that there was a great need for many other particles from Quarks strangness and charm and a bewildering collecion other things, sime of which seem to have no need to be there, others vital to our understanding.
When school kids first learn about all this stuff they love it that a lump of concrete is really mostly empty space. So since electrons were never exacly what we think they are, why not give them a spin if it saves the appearances. If Coprunicus can add 14 more major epicycles to put the sun in the centre then why not?

You are right,
To understand physics needs models that we can know
Problem
All quantum particles are points
These points are dualistic
This leads to huge logic difficulties

The problem is more that the world is not dualistic, but we just have failed to offer a theory which accomodates everything.
Diiferent rules seem to appliy the the mundane human scale world and two different sets of rules to the macroscope and the subscopic worlds.
Since we live in middle world, we try to apply metphors that we recognise from our our perceived world, Yet we are temporarlly bound to a short time, and physically bound to a narrow earthly path.

Aroms have been conceived from the earliest times of Greek philosophy. Atom literally means a-divisible, not divisible. Since it was theoretically postulated that matter would reach a small size beyond which no further division was possible.
Obviously what we like to call atoms are not literally anything like it since the Bohr model proposed 3 types of particle, and an array of other subatomic particles are now on the table.
Out mistake is to think that matter is literally compose of little planets with a nucleus and electrons. Atoms do not "look" like that, in fact that cannot be seen since the wavelength of visible ligh do not work beyond 1200x magnification. Electron microscopes have benetrated this barrier to reveal sub-cellular structures but these are massive compared with the largest atoms.

yeah, the human scale is a bridge between macro and micro worlds . . .
everything began from Planck's fundamental physical constant (h)
(a minimal element of the energy of the electromagnetic wave itself)
h = E × t, E=h*f . . .

[Sculptor]

You are right,
To understand physics needs models that we can know
Problem
All quantum particles are points
These points are dualistic
This leads to huge logic difficulties

The problem is more that the world is not dualistic, but we just have failed to offer a theory which accomodates everything.
Diiferent rules seem to appliy the the mundane human scale world and two different sets of rules to the macroscope and the subscopic worlds.
Since we live in middle world, we try to apply metphors that we recognise from our our perceived world, Yet we are temporarlly bound to a short time, and physically bound to a narrow earthly path.

Aroms have been conceived from the earliest times of Greek philosophy. Atom literally means a-divisible, not divisible. Since it was theoretically postulated that matter would reach a small size beyond which no further division was possible.
Obviously what we like to call atoms are not literally anything like it since the Bohr model proposed 3 types of particle, and an array of other subatomic particles are now on the table.
Out mistake is to think that matter is literally compose of little planets with a nucleus and electrons. Atoms do not "look" like that, in fact that cannot be seen since the wavelength of visible ligh do not work beyond 1200x magnification. Electron microscopes have benetrated this barrier to reveal sub-cellular structures but these are massive compared with the largest atoms.

yeah, the human scale is a bridge between macro and micro worlds . . .
everything began from Planck's fundamental physical constant (h)
(a minimal element of the energy of the electromagnetic wave itself)
h = E × t, E=h*f . . .

Planck is not the b all and end all.