Dirac combined special relativity and quantum mechanics, deriving the existence of spin—a kind of angular momentum. That angular momentum has been regarded as intrinsic, because Dirac's derivation did not try to identify whose rotation it is—let alone explain it. Following that tradition, concerning spin's physical nature, most textbooks simply declare that it is an intrinsic property, like electric charge. That declaration, while logical, is counter-intuitive, because unlike "electric charge", the term "angular momentum" already had a meaning—the momentum of rotation—long before the discovery of spin. Left unexplained, "intrinsic" is just a polite way to say "I don't know". Claiming that angular momentum is intrinsic, without saying what rotates, is equivalent to saying "that rotational property is not about rotation", which is an oxymoron. The paper is an attempt to find that physical referent.
Dirac combined special relativity and quantum mechanics, deriving the existence of spin—a kind of angular momentum. That angular momentum has been regarded as intrinsic, because Dirac's derivation did not try to identify whose rotation it is—let alone explain it. Following that tradition, concerning spin's physical nature, most textbooks simply declare that it is an intrinsic property, like electric charge. That declaration, while logical, is counter-intuitive, because unlike "electric charge", the term "angular momentum" already had a meaning—the momentum of rotation—long before the discovery of spin. Left unexplained, "intrinsic" is just a polite way to say "I don't know". Claiming that angular momentum is intrinsic, without saying what rotates, is equivalent to saying "that rotational property is not about rotation", which is an oxymoron. The paper is an attempt to find that physical referent.
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.
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.
In Part 1, we tried to understand why spin arises. The basic conclusion was that it is linked with an intrinsic force which in turn is associated with E,p (energy momentum) and geometry (rotational symmetry and other symmetries). In practical terms, this means finding an equation linear in intrinsic force (as force appears linearly in nature), but still tied to E,p and geometry. Interestingly, this leads to two very different results for particles with rest mass (spin ½) and photons, although both satisfy the same special relativistic equations (albeit the photon with rest mass mo=0) and both have exp(-iEt+ipx) free wavefunctions. In the photon case, the Electric field El is the intrinsic force (together with the magnetic B) which gives rise to both energy and momentum density. Specifically, energy density= .5eo El dot El + .5/uo B dot B and momentum density = 1/uo El x B. In the photon case, however, there is no rest frame and so the classical vector El is directly associated with E (energy) and p (momentum) without one needing to consider special relativity. Instead one directly uses Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations in order to find a linear equation describing the classical vector El. This equation involves d/dt partial and grad partial which are linked to the quantum operators for E and p (id/dt, -igrad) and El itself is proportional on exp(-iEt+ipx) (actually cos(-wt+kx)), also from Maxwell’s equations. Given this scenario, one has a classical vector El which is perpendicular to B and both lie in a plane perpendicular to motion. For circular polarization, El moves in a circle and given that it gives rise to energy, this energy circulates like classical angular momentum. For the 3-vector for El, one says that one has spin 1, but for circular polarized light, this is classical angular momentum. As a result, spin in the photon case follows from the behaviour of the intrinsic force (a linear equation in this force as shown in Part 1), but one must also have a clear link between the intrinsic force and the consequential energy and force, because it is the energy which actually has to rotate. It is not enough to have El rotate. In the case of a particle with rest mass, we argued in Part 1 that mo (Newton’s inertia) is the intrinsic force which together with velocity gives rise to the consequential energy E and momentum p. The situation is that one actually has two physical frames, the rest frame with the intrinsic force mo and the moving frame in which one has E,p. In order to link the intrinsic force mo to E, p, one must use a Lorentz invariant. We suggested in Part 1 that -Et+px = -mocc t1 is associated with -E dt + p dx = -mocc dt1 + (p=0) * (dx1->inifite) =0. Then dx=hbar/p, dt=hbar/E and E/dx and p/dt are average forces as is mocc/dt1. Tthe idea of force is very much the cornerstone of exp(-iEt+ipx) we argue. In order to see spin arise, one needs an equation linear in mo (the intrinsic force), but linked to E,p and showing geometrical invariances, according to the recipe of Part 1. -EE + cc p dot p = -momocc ((1)) links E,p, mo and shows invariances, but is not linear in mo. One must then linearize it. This means that one compares to Lorentz frames, the rest frame containing mo and the moving containing E,p. Both mo and p are linked to forces, but mo is the intrinsic force and p, the consequential. As a result, they must somehow be separated as they are in ((1)), in particular they are perpendicular if one considers: EE = pz pz + momo (c=1, p->px). In order to linearize without using unit vectors, one cannot use numbers, but must use matrices (as Dirac showed). The operator linked with pz must anticommute with that linked with mo. The operators associated with the consequential and intrinsic forces differ and in fact anticommute in the rest mass case. One may show that one requires at least a 2x2 matrix (the full Dirac treatment uses a 4-vector made of 2 spinors), which means that there is a two vector state. This is presumably associated with motion, if exp(ipz z) is linked to motion as well. In order to analyze this 2 vector state (spinor), we first compare the situation with the photon case. There, one had a 3-vector El which means that one knows an exact position in the plane. The second piece of information must be the direction in which this vector is moving in a circle (for circularly polarized light). There are two a priori given pieces of information which together with the link between El and energy density yields classical angular motion. In the rest mass case, one again expects rotational motion in a plane perpendicular to the z axis (because pz describes all motion along z). (1,0) and (0,1), however, describe classical rotational direction, clockwise and counterclockwise, but this spin ½ case cannot be classical rotation because the physical vector in the plane is not given (as it is by El the intrinsic force). Thus, one has only the direction of rotation. We argue that if exp(ipx) means that one has p hits at different x within hbar/p with probability exp(ipx), one may imagine different x,y positions of energy in the plane (with probabilities) as long as the rotation for (1,0) for each is in the clockwise direction (for example). This means that a physical vector may appear at some x,y in the plane and then at an x1,t1 which would be considered a classical time in the past as long as the motion is clockwise. In this way, one may have an angle of 720 degrees (instead of 360 degrees) describe the motion. In terms of interaction with a B field, one has the clear two directions (spin up clockwise and spin down counterclockwise as examples). Thus, spin must exist in the rest mass case, because one must have mo perpendicular to p if special relativity is to hold. If one does not want to have spin, then one must disregard the equivalence of frames moving at constant speeds with respect to each other and that seems unphysical. (Note: There are spin 0 objects (Higgs particle), but we do not consider that here.
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”.
Spin-s systems Angular momentum is one of the fundamental quantities of Newtonian physics, and in quantum physics its importance is at least as great. In quantum mechanics we often distinguish between two types of angular momentum: orbital angular momentum , which a system of particles possesses due to particle motion through space; and spin angular momentum , which is an intrinsic property of a particle. The distinction will be important later, but for now we will ignore it. We will here refer to angular momentum of any sort as “spin” and develop general-purpose mathematical tools for its description. We have already dealt with spin systems, particularly the example of a spin-½ particle. Our approach began with the empirical observation that a measurement of any spin component of a spin-½ particle could yield only the results +ħ/2 or −ħ/2. We introduced the basis states | z ±〉 for the two-dimensional Hilbert space ℋ. We also gave other basis states such as {| x ±〉} and {| y ±〉} in terms of the | z ±〉 states. From basis states and measurement values we constructed operators for the spin components S x , S y , and S z . With the operators in hand, we could then examine the algebraic relations between them (such as the commutation relation in Exercise 3.56). Our job here is to generalize our analysis to systems of arbitrary spin. To do this, we will reverse our chain of logic.
In the introductory remarks to Chapter 5 mention was made of the 1925 proposal of Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit that to an electron there should be assigned an intrinsic angular momentum or spin S = (S x , S y , S z )—this in addition to its quantum angular momentum (or orbital angular momentum) M = (M x , M y , M z ) defined in (5.4.4). This is not to be taken to mean that an electron actually spins about an axis in some physical way. Experiments (in particular the noted Stern-Gerlach experiment) have provided adequate justification for the proposed concept of spin, a proposal also made by R. Bichowsky and H. Urey. Dirac has shown that the notion of spin is necessary if quantum mechanics and Einstein relativity are to be consistent theories. Chemical properties of atoms, and their ability to combine and form molecules, the splitting of spectral lines by a magnetic field applied to an atom (i.e., the Zeeman effect, which we discuss later), all depend on this important notion.