Pauli established the standard view that the spin of the electron was a completely abstract non-classical angular momentum that could not be thought of as the rotation of anything. Here, we give a pedagogical presentation of old work by Belifante (1939), recently updated by Ohanian (1986), which shows that, contrary to Pauli’s edict, the spin of the electron can be viewed as the rotational angular momentum in the wave field of the electron.
Pauli established the standard view that the spin of the electron was a completely abstract non-classical angular momentum that could not be thought of as the rotation of anything. Here, we give a pedagogical presentation of old work by Belifante (1939), recently updated by Ohanian (1986), which shows that, contrary to Pauli’s edict, the spin of the electron can be viewed as the rotational angular momentum in the wave field of the electron.
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.
Abstract We have seen in the preceding episode that early in 1925 Pauli attributed to the electron a ‘classically not describable two-valuedness’. Within a few months this property of the electron was given a physical description which, it is true, is not satisfactory from the viewpoint of classical physics. This description is regarded as the discovery of the intrinsic angular momentum or spin of the electron. In fact the description was given twice. Already in January Kronig discussed it with Pauli who was completely opposed to the idea so that Kronig did not publish it. The concept of the electron spin was independently proposed and published [1] by Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit who thus became the discoverers of spin.
In December 1924 Wolfgang Pauli proposed the idea of an inner degree of freedom of the electron, which he insisted should be thought of as genuinely quantum mechanical in nature. Shortly thereafter Ralph Kronig and, independently, Samuel Goudsmit and George Uhlenbeck took up a less radical stance by suggesting that this degree of freedom somehow corresponded to an inner rotational motion, though it was unclear from the very beginning how literal one was actually supposed to take this picture, since it was immediately recognised (already by Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck) that it would very likely lead to serious problems with Special Relativity if the model were to reproduce the electron's values for mass, charge, angular momentum, and magnetic moment. However, probably due to the then overwhelming impression that classical concepts were generally insufficient for the proper description of microscopic phenomena, a more detailed reasoning was never given. In this contribution I shall investigate in some detail what the restrictions on the physical quantities just mentioned are, if they are to be reproduced by rather simple classical models of the electron within the framework of Special Relativity. It turns out that surface stresses play a decisive role and that the question of whether a classical model for the electron does indeed contradict Special Relativity can only be answered on the basis of an exact solution, which has hitherto not been given.
Spin is an intrinsic form of angular momentum carried by elementary particles, composite particles, and atomic nuclei. It is wildly believed that spin is a purely quantum mechanical concept and has no classical analogue. In fact, elementary particles are conceived as point objects which have no axis to “spin” around. Therefore, there is no explaining how spin arises at the fundamental level, why particles have the values they do, and what underpins the Pauli Exclusion principle and Bose-Einstein behavior. However, spin is like a vector quantity; it has a definite magnitude, and it has a “direction”, in order to spin should be composite. In this paper we propose a physical explanation for spin of the electron at the sub-particle level, relying on the vortex model of the electron. The electron is described as a superfluid frictionless vortex which has a mass, angular momentum and spin to provide a complete explanation of all properties of the electron: it composite, spinning around its own axis, produces a tiny magnetic fields independent of those from its orbital motions. The classical hydrodynamic laws are used to describe the quantum properties of the electron, such as spin, angular momentum, magnetic momentum and a magnetic dipole. The circulation in the vortex is constant, and the angular momentum of the vortex is conserved and has the same value of Planck constant. The direction of the angular momentum of a spinning electron vortex is along the axis of rotation and determined by the direction of spin. The spin quantum number 1/2 has a fixed value which represents the gap between the circulation rate of the core of the vortex and the boundaries of the vortex. The changeable values +1/2 “spin-up” or -1/2 “spin-down” indicate the direction of the magnetic dipole of the vortex. The relation between spin and Planck constant is discussed and the origin h/4pi angular momentum units are revealed.
The notion introduced by Ohanian that spin is a wave property is implemented, both in Dirac and in Schrödinger quantum mechanics. We find that half-integer spin is the consequence of azimuthal dependence in two of the four spinor components, relativistically and non-relativistically. In both cases the spinor components are free particle wavepackets; the total wavefunction is an eigenstate of the total angular momentum in the direction of net particle motion. In the non-relativistic case we make use of the Lévy-Leblond result that four coupled non-relativistic wave equations, equivalent to the Pauli-Schrödinger equation, represent particles of half-integer spin, with g-factor 2. An example of an exact Gaussian solution of the non-relativistic equations is illustrated.
Abstract Conventional methods for teaching spin at a university level generally follow four main approaches. The first introduces spin into the Schrödinger equation artificially, leaving its physical meaning unclear. The second connects spin to the representation of the rotation group, which clarifies its nature but requires knowledge of group theory. The third approach derives from field theory, separating angular momentum into orbital and intrinsic parts, the latter corresponding to spin; however, this cannot be done within quantum mechanics alone. The fourth derives electron spin from Dirac’s 1928 relativistic equation, which, though correct, has led to the misconception that spin is a purely relativistic effect. A detailed analysis of Dirac’s 1928 papers shows that the concept of spin arises from the need to construct an equation linear in both energy and momentum to preserve Born’s probabilistic interpretation. This linearization of the Klein–Gordon equation reveals that spin is conceptually independent of relativity. Historical and pedagogical perspectives can together clarify conceptual difficulties and promote a deeper understanding of fundamental ideas in physics. Drawing on selected passages from Dirac’s original work, the present discussion offers broader conceptual and cultural considerations that introduce the notion of spin with limited mathematical requirements and can be applied independently of the didactic approach adopted.