Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

American Journal of Physics

Classical mechanics and the electron spin

André Heslot

Published Dec 1, 1983• 11 citations
Publisher

Abstract

It is shown by means of simple techniques how it is possible to describe the electron spin and to predict the correct value for the gyromagnetic ratio within the framework of nonrelativistic classical mechanics. The paper illustrates at an elementary level the relevance of the generator aspect of observables in classical mechanics.
DOI
10.1119/1.13343

Related papers

Classical physics and electron spin

A. G. Chirkov, Igor V. Kazinets

In the framework of classical physics, the formation of the intrinsic angular momentum of an electron is described and the correct value of the gyromagnetic ratio is obtained. The Maslov-Leray quasi-classical quantization rules result in the exact values of Landau levels obtained from the Pauli equation.

Technical Physics•Sep 1, 2000•3 citations

Magnetic Moment of an Electron, it's Spin and de Broglie Oscillations.

Bezverkhniy Volodymyr Dmytrovych, Bezverkhniy Vitaliy Volodymyrovich.

Using the idea of de Broglie oscillations in elementary particles, for example, in an electron, it is easy to obtain quantitative values of the magnetic moment of an electron and the electron spin. Based on the oscillations the gyromagnetic ratio is logically explained. The calculations presented in the work once again confirm the reality of the existence of a periodic process in elementary particles, that is, de Broglie oscillations.

•Sep 1, 2019•0 citations

Pedagogy of spin in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics

Brian Williams, Terence Robinson

The quantum-mechanical properties of electron spin are developed systematically from a nonrelativistic Hamiltonian. The correct values of the magnetic moment of the electron, the spin-orbit coupling energy of atomic electrons, the Darwin correction, and the angular momentum of the electron are obtained directly without explicitly including any relativity beyond classical electromagnetism.

American Journal of Physics•Jul 1, 1981•3 citations

Lecture 2: Spin

Giuseppe Pileio

In this lecture, I discuss the nature of spin in elementary particles as a consequence of relativistic corrections to quantum mechanics. I summarise the arguments introduced by Paul Dirac to derive the electron spin Hamiltonian and its eigenstates and eigenvalues. I then discuss the possible values of the spin quantum number of elementary particles and atomic nuclei.

Royal Society of Chemistry eBooks•Jun 13, 2022•0 citations

A reconstruction of quantum theory for spinning particles

U. Klein

As part of a probabilistic reconstruction of quantum theory (QT), we show that spin is not a purely quantum mechanical phenomenon, as has long been assumed. Rather, this phenomenon occurs before the transition to QT takes place, namely in the area of the quasi-classical (here better quasi-quantum) theory. This borderland between classical physics and QT can be reached within the framework of our reconstruction by the replacement $p \rightarrow M (q, t)$, where $p$ is the momentum variable of the particle and $M(q, t)$ is the momentum field in configuration space. The occurrence of spin, and its special value $1/2$ , is a consequence of the fact that $M(q,t)$ must have exactly three independent components $M_{k}(q,t)$ for a single particle because of the three-dimensionality of space. In the Schrödinger equation for a "particle with spin zero", the momentum field is usually represented as a gradient of a single function $S$. This implies dependencies between the components $M_{k}(q,t)$ for which no explanation exists. In reality, $M(q,t)$ needs to be represented by three functions, two of which are rotational degrees of freedom. The latter are responsible for the existence of spin. All massive structureless particles in nature must therefore be spin-one-half particles, simply because they have to be described by $4$ real fields, one of which has the physical meaning of a probability density, while the other three are required to represent the momentum field in three-dimensional space. We derive the Pauli-Schrödinger equation, the correct value $g=2$ of the gyromagnetic ratio, the classical limit of the Pauli-Schrödinger equation, and clarify some other open questions in the borderland between classical physics and QT.

arXiv:2202.13364•Feb 27, 2022•0 citations

Early History of Spin

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.

CRC Press eBooks•Sep 18, 2015•0 citations
As part of a probabilistic reconstruction of quantum theory (QT), we show that spin is not a purely quantum mechanical phenomenon, as has long been assumed. Rather, this phenomenon occurs before the transition to QT takes place, namely in the area of the quasi-classical (here better quasi-quantum) theory. This borderland between classical physics and QT can be reached within the framework of our reconstruction by the replacement p→M(q,t)p \rightarrow M (q, t)p→M(q,t), where ppp is the momentum variable of the particle and M(q,t)M(q, t)M(q,t) is the momentum field in configuration space. The occurrence of spin, and its special value 1/21/21/2 , is a consequence of the fact that M(q,t)M(q,t)M(q,t) must have exactly three independent components Mk(q,t)M_{k}(q,t)Mk​(q,t) for a single particle because of the three-dimensionality of space. In the Schrödinger equation for a "particle with spin zero", the momentum field is usually represented as a gradient of a single function SSS. This implies dependencies between the components Mk(q,t)M_{k}(q,t)Mk​(q,t) for which no explanation exists. In reality, M(q,t)M(q,t)M(q,t) needs to be represented by three functions, two of which are rotational degrees of freedom. The latter are responsible for the existence of spin. All massive structureless particles in nature must therefore be spin-one-half particles, simply because they have to be described by 444 real fields, one of which has the physical meaning of a probability density, while the other three are required to represent the momentum field in three-dimensional space. We derive the Pauli-Schrödinger equation, the correct value g=2g=2g=2 of the gyromagnetic ratio, the classical limit of the Pauli-Schrödinger equation, and clarify some other open questions in the borderland between classical physics and QT.
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.