It is easy to draw an intuitive parallel between the classical free electromagnetic field and its corresponding quantum, the photon-a spin-1 object. The situation with a massive particle such as an electron is less clear, as a real-world analog of the classical field whose quantum is the massive particle is not available. It is concluded that the fermion particle perspective provides the best avenue for an intuitive grasp of the spin of an elementary fermion.
It is easy to draw an intuitive parallel between the classical free electromagnetic field and its corresponding quantum, the photon-a spin-1 object. The situation with a massive particle such as an electron is less clear, as a real-world analog of the classical field whose quantum is the massive particle is not available. It is concluded that the fermion particle perspective provides the best avenue for an intuitive grasp of the spin of an elementary fermion.
According to the prevailing belief, the spin of the electron or of some other particle is a mysterious internal angular momentum for which no concrete physical picture is available, and for which there is no classical analog. However, on the basis of an old calculation by Belinfante [Physica 6, 887 (1939)], it can be shown that the spin may be regarded as an angular momentum generated by a circulating flow of energy in the wave field of the electron. Likewise, the magnetic moment may be regarded as generated by a circulating flow of charge in the wave field. This provides an intuitively appealing picture and establishes that neither the spin nor the magnetic moment are ‘‘internal’’—they are not associated with the internal structure of the electron, but rather with the structure of its wave field. Furthermore, a comparison between calculations of angular momentum in the Dirac and electromagnetic fields shows that the spin of the electron is entirely analogous to the angular momentum carried by a classical circularly polarized wave.
How can we construct a picture of the photon from the wealth of observation material available to us? The photon appears to have a split personality: it is neither a wave nor a particle but something else which, depending on the experimental situation, exhibits a wave- or a particle-like behavior. In other words, in the photon (as in material particles such as the electron) the particle–wave dualism becomes manifest. Whereas classically the wave and the particle pictures are separate, quantum mechanics accomplishes a formal synthesis through a unified mathematical treatment. Let us look first at the wave aspect familiar from classical electrodynamics, which seems to be the most natural description. It makes all the different interference phenomena understandable, such as the “interference of the photon with itself” on the one hand and the appearance of spatial and temporal intensity correlations in a thermal radiation field on the other (which are obviously brought about by superposition of elementary waves emitted independently from different atoms). It might come as a surprise (at least for those having quantum mechanical preconceptions) that the classical theory is valid down to arbitrarily small intensities: the visibility of the interference pattern does not deteriorate even for very small intensities – the zero point fluctuations of the electromagnetic field advocated by quantum mechanics do not have a disturbing effect – and is valid not only for conventional interference experiments but also for interference between independently generated light beams (in the form of laser light).
According to modern quantum field theory all elementary particles are quantum excitations of an underlying quantum field. In the case of the photon the underlying field is the electromagnetic field. In photon wave mechanics the photon concept was reached by a reinterpretation of the physical meaning of the free classical electromagnetic field. Such a reinterpretation does not give us a quantum theory of light quanta because the elementary quantum of action is foreign to classical physics. Although Planck’s constant does occur in the various Schro¨dinger-like wave equations we have presented in Part III it just plays the role of a multiplicative factor, see e.g., Eq. (10.36). The “justification” for bringing ~ into the formalism is the wish to make contact to the Einstein-de Broglie relations [Eqs. (10.40) and (10.41)]. In a sense one may call the light particle appearing from classical electrodynamics the classical photon.
A classical circularly polarized electromagnetic wave carries angular momentum, and represents the classical limit of a photon, which carries quantized spin. It is shown that a very similar picture of a circularly polarized coherent wave can account for both the spin of an electron and its quantum wave function, in a Lorentz-invariant fashion. The photon-electron interaction occurs through the usual electromagnetic potentials, modulating the frequency and wavevector (energy and momentum) of this rotating spin field. Other quantum particles can also be represented either as rotating spin fields, or as composites of such fields. Taken together, this picture suggests an alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics based solely on coherent wave packets, with no point particles present.
Most students of science and engineering know that every elementary particle, such as electrons, neutrons, photons, neutrinos, etc., has a quantum mechanical property called “spin” which can be measured (perhaps not easily, but at least in principle) and has a quantized value, including zero. The vast majority of these students mentally visualize spin as the angular momentum associated with the elementary particle spinning or rotating about its own axis (like a top or a planetary object). This mental picture, although convenient and comforting, is actually somewhat crude and certainly incomplete. Landau and Lifshitz, in their classic textbook on quantum mechanics [1], wrote “[the spin] property of elementary particles is peculiar to quantum theory.. [It] has no classical interpretation... It would be wholly meaningless to imagine the ‘intrinsic’ angular momentum of an elementary particle as being the result of its rotation about its own axis”.
Most students of science and engineering know that every elementary particle, such as electrons, neutrons, photons, neutrinos, etc., has a quantum mechanical property called “spin” which can be measured (perhaps not easily, but at least in principle) and has a quantized value, including zero. The vast majority of these students mentally visualize spin as the angular momentum associated with the elementary particle spinning or rotating about its own axis (like a top or a planetary object). This mental picture, although convenient and comforting, is actually somewhat crude and certainly incomplete. Landau and Lifshitz, in their classic textbook on quantum mechanics [1], wrote “[the spin] property of elementary particles is peculiar to quantum theory. [It] has no classical interpretation... It would be wholly meaningless to imagine the ‘intrinsic’ angular momentum of an elementary particle as being the result of its rotation about its own axis.” The simplistic notion of self-rotation about an axis, shown in Fig. 1.1, can- not explain many features of spin, such as why its magnitude cannot assume continuous values and why it is quantized to certain specific values. It also causes serious problems if taken too literally. As we will see later (Problem 1.2), if we think of an electron as a solid sphere of radius equal to the Lorentz radius e2/(4πǫ0m0c 2) (where e is the electron’s charge, m0 is the mass, c is the speed of light in vacuum, and ǫ0 is the dielectric constant of vacuum), then the velocity on the surface of a rotating electron would have to be many times the velocity of light in vacuum if such a rotation were to generate an angular momentum equal to the electron’s spin. Obviously that would not be permitted by the theory of relativity. Indeed, a deep understanding of quantum mechanics is required to understand how the spin property comes about. Its origin is in relativistic quantum mechanics and really was first appreciated by Paul Andrew Maurice Dirac when he derived the Dirac equation which is the cornerstone of relativistic quantum mechanics. Richard Feynman, noted for his distaste for mysticism in physics, wrote about the notion of “spin”: “It appears to be one of the few places in physics where there is a rule which can be stated very simply, but for which no one has found a simple and easy explanation. The explanation is down deep in relativistic quantum mechanics.