speed of particle spin

[AntonioLao]

All known elementary particles have the unique property of quantized spin; this quantum property is extended as well to a nucleus, atom, or molecule. Spin is properly defined as an intrinsic angular momentum. It is one of two components of the total angular momentum of all elementary particles, nuclei, atoms, or molecules. The other component is known as the orbital angular momentum. Each quantized spin is further distinguished by the particular energy level of every particle, nucleus, atom or molecule. However, these distinguishing values are always certain multiples of ±ℎ/2�� where ℎ is Planck’s constant of action. Half odd multiples of ±ℎ/2�� are attributed to the spins of fermions while even or integer multiples are used to classify bosons. Although it is verified by repeated experiments that there are always only two spinning directions +ℎ/2�� and -ℎ/2��, there is never a clear understanding of what physical relation ±ℎ/2�� is to the speed of light.

Classical physics defined any arbitrary angular momentum ℒ as the product of the angular velocity �� of a thing and its moment of inertia �� about the axis of rotation: ℒ=����. Clearly, this definition implies the existence of rotational motion. If this rotation can be applied to a spacetime charge of the quantized spacetime continuum then its angular velocity is the time rate of change of angular displacement ����/����. Not surprisingly, ����/���� is equivalent to the dimensional ratio of linear velocity �� over the radius vector �� of rotation: ����/����=��/��. For a spacetime charge, as �� approaches the speed of light, �� approaches zero. This indicates that time rate of change of angular displacement approaches infinity as the maximum speed limit of particle spin.

[Bogie]

...

Classical physics defined any arbitrary angular momentum ℒ as the product of the angular velocity �� of a thing and its moment of inertia �� about the axis of rotation: ℒ=����. Clearly, this definition implies the existence of rotational motion. If this rotation can be applied to a spacetime charge of the quantized spacetime continuum then its angular velocity is the time rate of change of angular displacement ����/����[FONT=Verdana]. ...

Does this mean that particle spin is relative to the geometry of spacetime?

I am wondering because Newton's bucket comes to mind and I remember that general relativity implies that the water in Newton's spinning bucket gets its inertia to climb up the side of the bucket from its motion relative to spacetime. That was the GR view and it replaced the idea that the inertia was relative to the distant instantaneous affect of gravity as Mach had proposed.

The effects of the geometry of spacetime effectively replaced the aether concept because no luminiferous aether can be detected. Do you think that means that the geometry has a physical effect or do you think that there is an undetectable aether out there that makes spacetime geometry seem to have a physical influence?

[AntonioLao]

I never understood Mach principle as used by Einstein in his general theory of relativity (GR). But one thing for sure is the curvature of spacetime implied in GR. However, this curvature is inversely proportional to the radius of curvature, therefore as the radius of curvature approaches zero the curvature approaches infinity.

[Bogie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach's_principle
The idea is that the local motion of a rotating reference frame is determined by the large scale distribution of matter, as exemplified by this anecdote:
You are standing in a field looking at the stars. Your arms are resting freely at your side, and you see that the distant stars are not moving. Now start spinning. The stars are whirling around you and your arms are pulled away from your body. Why should your arms be pulled away when the stars are whirling? Why should they be dangling freely when the stars don't move?Mach's principle says that this is not a coincidence—that there is a physical law that relates the motion of the distant stars to the local inertial frame. If you see all the stars were whirling around you, Mach suggests that there is some physical law which would make it so you would feel a centrifugal force. There are a number of rival formulations of the principle. It s often stated in vague ways, like "mass out there influences inertia here". A very general statement of Mach's principle is "Local physical laws are determined by the large-scale structure of the universe."[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_bucket
Isaac Newton's rotating bucket argument (also known as "Newton's bucket") was designed to demonstrate that true rotational motion cannot be defined as the relative rotation of the body with respect to the immediately surrounding bodies. It is one of five arguments from the "properties, causes, and effects" of true motion and rest that support his contention that, in general, true motion and rest cannot be defined as special instances of motion or rest relative to other bodies, but instead can be defined only by reference to absolute space. Alternatively, these experiments provide an operational definition of what is meant by "absolute rotation", and do not pretend to address the question of "rotation relative to what?".[1]

When Eiinstein was preparing to write the General Theory of Relativity there were discussions of Newton's bucket. I addressed them in my thread in this post: http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...tml#post136008

[AntonioLao]

Abandoning reference frame and relativity of rotation, one can only revise an absolute existence of an infinitesimal local motion of spacetime charges describe by Hadamard matrices for the physical representation of squares of zero-point energies as the reality of quantum vacuum fluctuations.