>>10316907>Then you ought to know that the representation defines the intrinsic angular momentumIf only you knew how dubious you sound. First of all angular momentum is representation independent. That's why spin can be represented in SU(2) in the first place. So I'm not sure how it can be "defined by it's representation." Second, spin angular momentum is an observable, and just like every other observable in quantum mechanics it is represented by an operator acting on a hilbert space. Hilbert spaces can represent literally anything, so the observable associated with any operator acting on such a space is as far from "intrinsic" as it gets. I feel like maybe this is what you were trying to say, but you misinterpreted it so badly that you actually thought it supported your argument when in reality it does completely the opposite.
>The fact that you don't understand this and suggest I'm just throwing out terms from wikipedia suggests that you don't really know what you're talking about.wow, sorry I doubted the credibility of someone who claims to know the intricacies of qft yet doesn't know what a generator is. It would be more believable if you would've made a single accurate statement in relation to the concepts you keep namedropping.
>It means it's not a scalar field, i.e. it has intrinsic angular momentum.>how do we know it has intrinsic angular momentum>because it rotates nontrivially>what does that mean>it means it has intrinsic angular momentum?
And yeah, I regret to inform you that not all vector fields have angular momentum. Ever heard of an electric field?
>You don't see a full spectrum of angular momentum that you'd expect from a physical object spinningWhy would you expect that? I can get back to you on exactly why not in a couple years, as it pertains to this thread it's a total strawman.
>What the hell do you think experimental upper bounds on electron radii are?...And you're aware those bounds are non-0, right?