Not proven from my behalf. BUT IT DOESN'T NOT MAKE IT proven.

 

This is what you are getting mixed up. For instance, i know it has been proven that the electron must spin faster than light, in fact, all fermions need to spin faster than light. Want a reference? Can't give you one.

 

Does this make it a non-proven fact... come on...

 

And here I thought that spin didn't correlate to actual spinning. I'll hit google.

 

edit: Google had one hit...a PhysOrg forum thread

The intrinsic spin of fermions is NOT the particle physically spinning.

...but....it's proven... :'(

And the requirement that they spin faster than c is evidence that the spin is not physical.

Exactly. This is what i was saying.

 

The spin of the electron, cannot be a spin, because if it where in a classical sense, it would have to spin faster than light.

 

Oh sorry... you thought i was saying that was all to it. That the electron spinned faster than light, viola.

 

No, its not that simple. When i was speaking to mooey, this was the first thing that came into my head. But, afterall, i should know how obsurd it was for the electron to spin faster than light, because it would then need to have no mass.

 

But i didn't go into it with that kind of degree, because again, i was giving a really quick example, that i have no reference to.

It has all the traits of something that is spinning, i.e. angular momentum, but it isn't actually spinning.

all taht i know is taht spin on a particle level isn't really 'spin' in the sense that we know.

Like a record, baby...?

Well, to be honest... Swansont / Severin / ajb have very good insights in the way physicists see things today... But the spin is known as that simply because to begin with that is what it was proposed to be... an electron actually spinning. This was proposed because early spectrometer analysis showed small deviations between spectral lines appeared even when no magentic fields were present I think.

 

Later on 'we' thought ah come on... electron as a particle is pretty non-sensical anyway so this intrinsic angular momentum? I think it is, still had a property and remained to be called spin but definitely is not physical orbital (sorry, axial ) spin.

 

I do not know *why* it happens to have +.05/-0.5 for its values... ask the QM peeps.

 

And the requirement that they spin faster than c is evidence that the spin is not physical.

 

Knowing you Swansont I am taken it you don't mean its not physical but not physical as we would associate it to be (like the earth spinning right?)