My understanding is that the “rotation” or “turning” of fundamental particles isn’t analogous to macroscopic objects, and that’s where I start to lose things. (not seeking an explanation today, just pointing out where QM goes all fuzzy for me)
There are geometrical objects called spinors which are basically vectors with a half spin. Interestingly, they were introduced before we realized they could describe spin of electron and other particles like it. Sometimes a purely theoretical mathematical concept suddenly turns out to be describing very real things.
Not specifically Möbius strips, but the main premise is that all elementary particles are in fact strings in high dimensional space, and all of their unique properties come from the way those strings are shaped and moving.
Maybe there would be a particle that corresponds to a string tied in a Möbius loop, for all I know.
The problem here is that rotation makes only sense for objects that have a size. So you can say “this is the left side” and “now this part rotated to the right”. This concept doesn’t make sense for a particle that is a literal dot. The spin is a characteristics of particles that mathematically behaves like a rotation (freely speaking), therefore we treat it like that. That doesn’t mean it is a rotation.
The only thing to keep in mind is that although particles are dimensionless (as far as we know), the do not exist without context. Spin relates to how a particle is linked to the rest of the world.
One way of seeing it is that spin can be represented by a “rotational polarisation” of the surrounding cloud of virtual particles.
My understanding is that the “rotation” or “turning” of fundamental particles isn’t analogous to macroscopic objects, and that’s where I start to lose things. (not seeking an explanation today, just pointing out where QM goes all fuzzy for me)
There are geometrical objects called spinors which are basically vectors with a half spin. Interestingly, they were introduced before we realized they could describe spin of electron and other particles like it. Sometimes a purely theoretical mathematical concept suddenly turns out to be describing very real things.
So quarks are möbius strips? Got it. 😛
What you’ve got there is string theory
Wait, how close is that to true? Does string theory really just boil down to “quarks are möbius strips”?
I feel like it was a joke; I don’t think Moebius strips are at all relevant to string theory
Most of this stuff is really not amenable to language, and can only really be understood in the mathematics that physicists use
Not specifically Möbius strips, but the main premise is that all elementary particles are in fact strings in high dimensional space, and all of their unique properties come from the way those strings are shaped and moving.
Maybe there would be a particle that corresponds to a string tied in a Möbius loop, for all I know.
The problem here is that rotation makes only sense for objects that have a size. So you can say “this is the left side” and “now this part rotated to the right”. This concept doesn’t make sense for a particle that is a literal dot. The spin is a characteristics of particles that mathematically behaves like a rotation (freely speaking), therefore we treat it like that. That doesn’t mean it is a rotation.
The only thing to keep in mind is that although particles are dimensionless (as far as we know), the do not exist without context. Spin relates to how a particle is linked to the rest of the world.
One way of seeing it is that spin can be represented by a “rotational polarisation” of the surrounding cloud of virtual particles.