B Is the Velocity of Electron Spin Calculable Using Classical Models?

[Dilema]

TL;DR Summary

What is the tangent velocity, of a spinning electron?

Addressing to electron as being rigid body that precesse is probably controversial. Are there any attempts to stick to that model and to calculate its quantize tangent velocity?

 

[PeterDonis]

Addressing to electron as being rigid body that precesse is probably controversial.

It's not just "controversial", it's wrong. There is no workable model of an electron as a spinning rigid body with a definite size.

 

[HomogenousCow]

Treating the electron as a spinning top leads immediately to violent disagreements with experiment

 

[Dilema]

Please refer to the book "What is the Electron?" Publisher: C. Roy Keys Inc. Editors: Volodimir Simulik.

 

[weirdoguy]

If it says that electron spin around its axis then it's wrong and you shouldn't read it.

 

[Dilema]

It is not that simple. It is suggesting (as far as I could understated) there is a complex dynamics within a spinning elementary particle. Specifically I succeed to fish out that the charge in the electron, moves in the speed of light. However I might generalized things and it is better you will refer to this book.

 

[weirdoguy]

It is not that simple.

It is. Electron is not spinning around any axis. It is a point particle in QFT.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It doesn't sound like you are asking a question so much as promoting a book. Which is it?

 

[Dilema]

Actually it has been started as a question and then I refereed to the literature. I hoped that you will refer me to a paper instead.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I see you didn't answer my question. Are you asking us or telling us?

 

[vanhees71]

Summary: What is the tangent velocity, of a spinning electron?

Addressing to electron as being rigid body that precesse is probably controversial. Are there any attempts to stick to that model and to calculate its quantize tangent velocity?

It's not controversial but impossible, as is known since about 1909, when Born, Herglotz, and others showed that classical rigid bodies don't give reasonable models of "particles" or "extended bodies" at all.

 

[vanhees71]

It is. Electron is not spinning around any axis. It is a point particle in QFT.

One has to caution that if you say "it's a point particle in QFT" that this is slang of physicists to say, it's described by a fundamental quantum field, in this case a quantized Dirac field (describing electrons and positrons as massive fermions with spin 1/2).

 

[PeterDonis]

Actually it has been started as a question and then I refereed to the literature. I hoped that you will refer me to a paper instead.

The book you referenced already contains papers. Presumably that's why you referenced it.

However, as far as I can tell (which is not much since I don't have the book and only brief excerpts are visible online), all of the papers in the book are highly speculative, and I can't even tell if any of them were published in journals or have any connection to other literature. So I would not place a great deal of confidence in anything in the book. Particularly not since it appears to contradict everything else in the literature about the electron.

 

[Heikki Tuuri]

A big obstacle in making a spinning object model of the electron is the gyromagnetic ratio, which is approximately 2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyromagnetic_ratio

The gyromagnetic ratio is the ratio of the magnetic moment to the angular momentum of the object, times a constant.

If the electric charge of an object is distributed like its mass, then the gyromagnetic ratio is defined to be 1.

For the electron, it is hard to find an intuitive reason why the charge would reside farther from the center than the mass.

The Dirac equation predicts the gyromagnetic ratio 2, and QED corrections predict it right to 12 decimal places.

No one has found an intuitive physical model for the Dirac equation. At this stage, we must consider the Dirac electron as a quantum of a field. We cannot explain its spin and magnetic moment with any classical model of a spinning body.

 

[vanhees71]

Well, I find the modern derivation of the Dirac equation very inutitive: It's the most natural representation of a massive particle of spin 1/2 allowing for spatial reflextions to be a symmetry additionally to providing an irreducible representation of the proper orthochronous Poincare group with spin 1/2.

Of course it's true: There's no classical fully consistent model of point particles whatsoever. The best description we have is indeed relativistic QFT, and nothing else!