Loved this article! I initially was confused by how this transition would work with the conservation of angular momentum (since the electron would be flipping from spin ±½ to the opposite one). But then remembered that photons are spin 1 particles, so the math works out. Neat.
that's not right. if photons were truly spin 1, there would be 3 spin eigenstates available, but in fact there are only 2 (Sz=0 is unavailable). the pithy argument invokes the absence of a stationary frame of reference. for all practical purposes, photons are behave like spin 1/2 particles (despite being bosons). see, for example, the jones algebra / calculus.
Presumably because it is very analogous. You are essentially saying Dr. Mike shouldn’t be trusted because he made a bad decision. That is extremely similar to saying you shouldn’t trust a doctor’s advice because they happen to smoke.
> Further, an ad hominem is when a person attacks someone's character without any base.
No. An ad hominem is when the person is attacked rather than the argument. A terrible person can still make a perfectly sound argument. Calling them terrible doesn’t change the argument, even if it is emotionally satisfying.
> I wrote specifically about him not being at the forefront and questioning his values, as displayed by his actions during the pandemic.
You’re attacking his actions and not his recommendations. Ad hominem.
it is not ad-hominem to try to understand a person's motivations for expressing a particular opinion, which is why the above poster referred to 'character' which is not specific to the definition of ad-hominem, but is in the spirit thereof, that is, distracting from the argument. but if the person has shown themselves to be working contradictorily to public health policy, especially in consideration of the hippocratic oath, you may ask reasonably what they are about.