Spin and Relativity.
Ken S. Tucker
"Spin is not easy to understand, but it is clear that relativistic
quantum mechanics both makes it necessary and defines its behaviour. I
do not think this is such a problem. "
To elaborate, my thinking follows...from the standpoint of GR.
Some background: Absolute motion cannot exist since one
may choose the point (or particle) as the origin of the CS, and
relative to that CS the point is stationary.
1) OTOH, there is no geometry that can transform away the relative
motion of 2 separate points, just as we cannot transform away
a length.
I follow Purcell, in that "charge" is relative, that is to say, two
charges are necessary to measure charge.
In appropriate units, charge^2 = action = h, (Plancks).
As the universe is constructed, Angular Momentum is conserved
but at the quantum level it is quantized, AM is convertible to units
of action "h", however an AM can be transformed away in GR by
adopting a rotating CS, so we need an 'intrinsic' AM to define spin,
that cannot be transformed away.
Here's what I suggest: Suppose we have a sphere, that rotates
once (360 degrees) around its equator, and in so doing, the
north and south poles reverse (turn 180), to provide an intrinsic
relativity of motion as in (1), with a ratio of 1/2 that cannot be
transformed away, and is therefore invariant in GR.
One may find a CS to transform away rotation, but I think one
cannot transform away a ratio, since a ratio is a scalar.
The ratio in this case are the rates of relative rotation.
That's my basic understanding of 'intrinsic' spin.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Jay R. Yablon
The following article is an absolutely essential prerequisite for having
any sensible discussion of intrinsic spin. It is IMHO one of the most
important yet widely-overlooked papers that exists.
http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/ohanian-what-is-spin.pdf
Best,
Jay
"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:bdba2464-6c99-4530...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Oh No
>Ken, Charles, et al.
>
>The following article is an absolutely essential prerequisite for
>having any sensible discussion of intrinsic spin. It is IMHO one of
>the most important yet widely-overlooked papers that exists.
>
>http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/ohanian-what-is-spin.pdf
>
>Best,
>
>Jay
>
an eigenstate of position.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and
braces)
Ken S. Tucker
On Nov 14, 5:55 pm, "Jay R. Yablon" <jyab...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> Ken, Charles, et al.
>
> The following article is an absolutely essential prerequisite for having
> any sensible discussion of intrinsic spin. It is IMHO one of the most
> important yet widely-overlooked papers that exists.
> http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/ohanian-what-is-spin.pdf
> Best,
> Jay
A theoretical test I perform to electron models is to combine
it with a positron, then get the 2 gamma's or whatever it may,
perhaps neutrino(s) too.
Then the gamma's would need to follow the prescription, as
in the fields Dear Ohanian used, as should the neutrino's.
That looks like a hard test.
Regards
Ken
...
Hans de Vries
>
> The following article is an absolutely essential prerequisite for having
> any sensible discussion of intrinsic spin. �It is IMHO one of the most
> important yet widely-overlooked papers that exists.
>
> http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/ohanian-what-is-spin.pdf
>
> Best,
>
> Jay
I second this one.
And this is the standard picture just using the Dirac bilinear
observables.
It's all just there in the Dirac equation. Just as the complete
mathematical
behavior of the electron's wavefunction in the elementary experiment
of
Stern-Gerlach. A mathematical treatment which is also notably absent
from the textbooks.
Regards, Hans