How Electrons Spin (original) (raw)

(July 26, 2024
arXiv v.5
Published version:
Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics (2019), 68, 40–50
[This is a post-publication version of the article with a
note on further developments added at the end.])

Abstract

There are a number of reasons to think that the electron cannot truly be spinning. Given how small the electron is generally taken to be, it would have to rotate superluminally to have the right angular momentum and magnetic moment. Also, the electron’s gyromagnetic ratio is twice the value one would expect for an ordinary classical rotating charged body. These obstacles can be overcome by examining the flow of mass and charge in the Dirac field (interpreted as giving the classical state of the electron). Superluminal velocities are avoided because the electron’s mass and charge are spread over sufficiently large distances that neither the velocity of mass flow nor the velocity of charge flow need to exceed the speed of light. The electron’s gyromagnetic ratio is twice the expected value because its charge rotates twice as fast as its mass.

Contents

1. 1 Introduction
2. 2 The Obstacles
3. 3 The Electromagnetic Field
4. 4 The Dirac Field
5. 5 Restriction
6. 6 Other Accounts of Spin
7. 7 Conclusion

1 Introduction

In quantum theories, we speak of electrons as having a property called “spin.” The reason we use this term is that electrons possess an angular momentum and a magnetic moment, just as one would expect for a rotating charged body. However, textbooks frequently warn students against thinking of the electron as actually rotating, or even being in some quantum superposition of different rotating motions. There are three serious obstacles to regarding the electron as a spinning object:

1. 1. Given certain upper limits on the size of an electron, the electron’s mass would have to rotate faster than the speed of light in order for the electron to have the correct angular momentum.
2. 1. Similarly, the electron’s charge would have to rotate faster than the speed of light in order to generate the correct magnetic moment.
3. 1. A simple classical calculation of the electron’s gyromagnetic ratio yields the wrong answer—off by a factor of (approximately) 2.

These obstacles can be overcome by taking the electron’s classical state (the state which enters superpositions) to be a state of the Dirac field. The Dirac field possesses mass and charge. One can define velocities describing the flow of mass and the flow of charge. The first two obstacles are addressed by the fact that the electron’s mass and charge are spread over sufficiently large distances that the correct angular momentum and magnetic moment can be understood as resulting from rotation without either the velocity of mass flow or the velocity of charge flow exceeding the speed of light. The electron’s gyromagnetic ratio is twice the expected value because its charge rotates twice as fast as its mass.

In the next section I explain the three obstacles above in more detail. Then, I consider how the obstacles are modified by the fact that some of the electron’s mass is in the electromagnetic field that surrounds it. The mass in the electromagnetic field rotates around the electron and thus contributes to its angular momentum. Because the amount of mass in the electromagnetic field ultimately turns out to be small, this is not the dominant contribution to the electron’s angular momentum. But, the idea of mass rotating in a classical field appears again when we consider the Dirac field which describes the electron itself. After an initial examination of this flow of mass and charge in the Dirac field, I show that the three obstacles can be overcome (in the manner described above) if we restrict ourselves to positive frequency modes of the Dirac field. This restriction is imposed because negative frequency modes are associated with positrons in quantum field theory. After presenting this account of spin, I compare it to other proposals as to how one might understand the electron’s angular momentum and magnetic moment as arising from the motion of its mass and charge.

Before jumping into all of that, let me explain the focus on classical field theory in a paper about electron spin (a supposedly quantum phenomenon). When one moves from classical field theory to a quantum description of the electron within the quantum field theory of quantum electrodynamics, the classical Dirac and electromagnetic fields are quantized. Instead of representing the electron by a definite Dirac field interacting with a definite electromagnetic field, we represent the electron by a superposition of different field states—a wave functional that assigns amplitudes to different possible classical states of the fields. The dynamics of this quantum state are determined by a wave functional version of the Schrödinger equation and can be calculated using path integrals which sum contributions from different possible evolutions of the fields (different possible paths through the space of field configurations). Seeing that the three obstacles above can be surmounted for each classical state makes the nature of spin in a quantum theory of those fields much less mysterious. The electron simply enters superpositions of different states of rotation.

In the previous paragraph I assumed a “field approach” to quantum field theory where one starts from a relativistic classical theory of the Dirac field (with the Dirac equation giving the dynamics) and then quantizes this classical field theory to get a quantum theory of the Dirac field. Carroll, (2016) advocates such an approach. He writes:

“What about the Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations? These were, indeed, originally developed as ‘relativistic versions of the non-relativistic Schrödinger equation,’ but that’s not what they ended up being useful for. … The Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations are actually not quantum at all—they are classical field equations, just like Maxwell’s equations are for electromagnetism and Einstein’s equation is for the metric tensor of gravity. They aren’t usually taught that way, in part because (unlike E&M and gravity) there aren’t any macroscopic classical fields in Nature that obey those equations.”111Carroll’s point at the end of the quote is important (see also Duncan,, 2012, chapter 8). The motivation for studying the classical Dirac field in this paper is not that classical Dirac field theory emerges as an approximate description at the macroscopic level of what is happening microscopically according to quantum field theory. The motivation is that quantum field theory describes superpositions of states of the classical Dirac field. Classical Dirac field theory plays a key role in the foundations of quantum electrodynamics.

Carroll then goes on to explain that in quantum field theory the quantum state can be represented as a wave functional obeying a version of the Schrödinger equation.

There is an alternative “particle approach” to quantum field theory where one begins instead from a relativistic quantum single particle theory in which the Dirac field is interpreted as a wave function for the electron and the Dirac equation gives the dynamics for that wave function. In this theory, the electron is treated as a point particle in a superposition of different locations. From this quantum particle theory, one can move to quantum field theory by transitioning from a relativistic single particle quantum theory to a theory with a variable number of particles. Instead of having a wave function that assigns amplitudes to possible spatial locations for a single particle, one uses a wave function that assigns amplitudes to possible spatial arrangements of any number of particles (to points in the disjoint union of all N𝑁Nitalic_N-particle configuration spaces).

These two approaches are often seen as different ways of formulating the very same physical theory.222For more on the field approach, see Jackiw, (1990); Hatfield, (1992, chapters 10 and 11); Valentini, (1992, chapter 4); Holland, (1993, section 12.4); Valentini, (1996); Peskin & Schroeder, (1995, chapter 3); Ryder, (1996, chapter 4); Weinberg, (1999, pg. 241–242); Huggett, (2000); Wallace, (2001, 2006, 2021); Tong, (2006, chapters 2 and 4); Baker, (2009); Struyve, (2010); Duncan, (2012); Myrvold, (2015, section 4.3.1). For more on the particle approach, see Schweber, (1961, chapters 6–8); Bjorken & Drell, (1965, sec. 13.2); Thaller, (1992); Teller, (1995, chapter 3); Dürr et al., (2005, section 3); Deckert et al., (2019), Wallace, (2021). It is also possible to adopt a mixed approach. For example, Bohm & Hiley, (1993) take a field approach for bosons and a particle approach for fermions. However, in trying to understand what really exists in nature it is tempting to ask which approach better reflects reality. Put another way: Is quantum field theory fundamentally a theory of fields or particles? This is a tough question and I will not attempt to settle it here (or even to develop the alternatives in much detail). I seek only to display a single virtue of the first perspective: it allows us to understand electrons as truly spinning. Adopting the first perspective is compatible with a number of different strategies for interpreting quantum field theory as it leaves open many foundational questions, such as: Does the wave functional ever collapse? Is there any additional ontology beyond the wave functional? Are there many worlds or is there just one?

What follows is a project of interpretation, not modification. It is generally agreed that the equations of our best physical theories describe an electron that has “spin” but does not actually rotate. Here I present an alternative interpretation of the very same equations. There is no need to modify these equations so that they describe a rotating electron. Interpreted properly, they already do.

2 The Obstacles

The first obstacle to regarding the electron as truly spinning is that it must rotate superluminally in order to have the correct angular momentum. One estimate for the radius of the electron is the classical electron radius, e2m⁢c2≈10−13⁢cmsuperscript𝑒2𝑚superscript𝑐2superscript1013cm\frac{e^{2}}{mc^{2}}\approx 10^{-13}\mbox{cm}divide start_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_m italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ≈ 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 13 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT cm (which will be explained in the next section). If you assume that the angular momentum of the electron is due entirely to the spinning of a sphere with this radius and the mass of the electron, points on the edge of the sphere would have to be moving superluminally (Griffiths,, 2005, problem 4.25). To get an angular momentum of ℏ2Planck-constant-over-2-pi2\frac{\hbar}{2}divide start_ARG roman_ℏ end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG with subluminal rotation speeds, the electron’s radius must be greater than (roughly) the Compton radius of the electron, ℏm⁢c≈10−11⁢ cmPlanck-constant-over-2-pi𝑚𝑐superscript1011 cm\frac{\hbar}{mc}\approx 10^{-11}\mbox{ cm}divide start_ARG roman_ℏ end_ARG start_ARG italic_m italic_c end_ARG ≈ 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 11 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT cm. The relation between velocity at the equator v𝑣vitalic_v and angular momentum |L→|→𝐿|\vec{L}|| over→ start_ARG italic_L end_ARG | for a spherical shell of mass m𝑚mitalic_m and radius R𝑅Ritalic_R is

| |L→|=23⁢m⁢v⁢R.→𝐿23𝑚𝑣𝑅|\vec{L}|=\frac{2}{3}mvR\ .| over→ start_ARG italic_L end_ARG | = divide start_ARG 2 end_ARG start_ARG 3 end_ARG italic_m italic_v italic_R . | (1) | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --- |

Setting |L→|=ℏ2→𝐿Planck-constant-over-2-pi2|\vec{L}|=\frac{\hbar}{2}| over→ start_ARG italic_L end_ARG | = divide start_ARG roman_ℏ end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG and v=c𝑣𝑐v=citalic_v = italic_c then solving for R𝑅Ritalic_R yields a radius on the order of the Compton radius,

Rejecting this picture of a spinning extended electron, one might imagine the mass of the electron to be confined to a single point.333The fact that there is mass in the electromagnetic field makes this difficult to imagine (see footnote 6). If this were so, the electron’s angular momentum—as calculated from the usual definition of angular momentum in terms of the linear momentum and displacement from the body’s center of a body’s parts—would be zero (because none of the point electron’s mass is displaced from its center). One might respond that in quantum physics we are forced to revise this definition of angular momentum and allow point particles to posses angular momentum. The following sections show that there is no need to so radically revise our understanding of angular momentum.

The second obstacle is that an electron with the classical electron radius would have to spin superluminally to produce the correct magnetic moment. Assuming the magnetic moment is generated by a spinning sphere of charge imposes essentially the same minimum radius for the electron as the first obstacle—the Compton radius. The relation between velocity and magnetic moment |m→|→𝑚|\vec{m}|| over→ start_ARG italic_m end_ARG | for a spherical shell of charge −e𝑒-e- italic_e is

| |m→|=e⁢R⁢v3⁢c→𝑚𝑒𝑅𝑣3𝑐|\vec{m}|=\frac{eRv}{3c}\ | over→ start_ARG italic_m end_ARG | = divide start_ARG italic_e italic_R italic_v end_ARG start_ARG 3 italic_c end_ARG | (3) | | ------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --- |

(Rohrlich,, 2007, pg. 127). Inserting v=c𝑣𝑐v=citalic_v = italic_c and |m→|=e⁢ℏ2⁢m⁢c→𝑚𝑒Planck-constant-over-2-pi2𝑚𝑐|\vec{m}|=\frac{e\hbar}{2mc}| over→ start_ARG italic_m end_ARG | = divide start_ARG italic_e roman_ℏ end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_m italic_c end_ARG (the Bohr magneton) yields a radius of

The third obstacle to regarding the electron as spinning is that its gyromagnetic ratio (the ratio of magnetic moment to angular momentum) differs from the simplest classical estimate (Griffiths,, 1999, problem 5.56; Jackson,, 1999, pg. 187):

| |m→||L→|=e2⁢m⁢c.→𝑚→𝐿𝑒2𝑚𝑐\frac{|\vec{m}|}{|\vec{L}|}=\frac{e}{2mc}\ .divide start_ARG | over→ start_ARG italic_m end_ARG | end_ARG start_ARG | over→ start_ARG italic_L end_ARG | end_ARG = divide start_ARG italic_e end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_m italic_c end_ARG . | (5) | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------- | ------------------- | ----------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- |

I stress that this is the simplest estimate and not the classical gyromagnetic ratio because its derivation requires two important assumptions beyond axial symmetry, each of which will be called into question later: (1) the mass m𝑚mitalic_m and charge −e𝑒-e- italic_e are both distributed in the same way (i.e., mass density is proportional to charge density), and (2) the mass and charge rotate at the same rate. With these assumptions in place, the derived gyromagnetic ratio is independent of the rate of rotation and the distribution of mass and charge. The actual gyromagnetic ratio of the electron is twice this estimate,

| |m→||L→|=em⁢c,→𝑚→𝐿𝑒𝑚𝑐\frac{|\vec{m}|}{|\vec{L}|}=\frac{e}{mc}\ ,divide start_ARG | over→ start_ARG italic_m end_ARG | end_ARG start_ARG | over→ start_ARG italic_L end_ARG | end_ARG = divide start_ARG italic_e end_ARG start_ARG italic_m italic_c end_ARG , | (6) | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------- | ------------------- | ----------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- |

as its angular momentum is ℏ2Planck-constant-over-2-pi2\frac{\hbar}{2}divide start_ARG roman_ℏ end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG and its magnetic moment is the Bohr magneton, e⁢ℏ2⁢m⁢c𝑒Planck-constant-over-2-pi2𝑚𝑐\frac{e\hbar}{2mc}divide start_ARG italic_e roman_ℏ end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_m italic_c end_ARG (ignoring the anomalous magnetic moment).

The physicists who first proposed the idea of electron spin were aware of these obstacles. Ralph Kronig was the first to propose a spinning electron to explain the fine structure of atomic line spectra (in 1925), but he did not publish his results because there were too many problems with his idea. One of these problems was that the electron would have to rotate superluminally (Tomonaga,, 1997, pg. 35). Independently of Kronig, George Uhlenbeck and Samuel Goudsmit had the same idea. Uhlenbeck spoke with Hendrik Lorentz about the proposal and Lorentz brought up the problem of superluminal rotation (among others). After speaking with Lorentz, Uhlenbeck no longer wanted to publish. But, it was too late. His advisor, Paul Ehrenfest, had already sent the paper off. Uhlenbeck recalls Ehrenfest attempting to reassure the pair by saying: “You are both young enough to be able to afford a stupidity!” (Uhlenbeck,, 1976, pg. 47; see also Goudsmit,, 1998). Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit were also aware of the gyromagnetic ratio problem, but they were not so troubled by it. They understood that the classical calculation of the gyromagnetic ratio has assumptions that can be denied (e.g., the calculated gyromagnetic ratio would be different if the electron’s mass were distributed evenly throughout the volume of a sphere and its charge were distributed over the surface; Uhlenbeck,, 1976, pg. 47; Pais,, 1989, pg. 39).

3 The Electromagnetic Field

Before going on to model the electron using the Dirac field, it is worthwhile to consider how the above obstacles are altered by taking the mass of the electromagnetic field into account. By the relativistic equivalence of mass and energy, the electromagnetic field has a relativistic mass density proportional to its energy density (see Lange,, 2002; Sebens,, 2018). In Gaussian units, the density of energy is

| ρfℰ=18⁢π⁢(|E→|2+|B→|2),superscriptsubscript𝜌𝑓ℰ18𝜋superscript→𝐸2superscript→𝐵2\rho_{f}^{\mathcal{E}}=\frac{1}{8\pi}\left(|\vec{E}|^{2}+|\vec{B}|^{2}\right)\ ,italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_E end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 8 italic_π end_ARG ( | over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + | over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , | (7) | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------- | --- |

and the density of relativistic mass is

| ρf=ρfℰc2=18⁢π⁢c2⁢(|E→|2+|B→|2).subscript𝜌𝑓superscriptsubscript𝜌𝑓ℰsuperscript𝑐218𝜋superscript𝑐2superscript→𝐸2superscript→𝐵2\rho_{f}=\frac{\rho_{f}^{\mathcal{E}}}{c^{2}}=\frac{1}{8\pi c^{2}}\left(|\vec{% E}|^{2}+|\vec{B}|^{2}\right)\ .italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_E end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 8 italic_π italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( | over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + | over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) . | (8) | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------- | --- |

The f𝑓fitalic_f subscript indicates that these are properties of the electromagnetic field and the ℰℰ\mathcal{E}caligraphic_E superscript distinguishes the energy density from the relativistic mass density. The total mass of the electron is the sum of this electromagnetic mass plus any mass possessed by the electron itself.444I will use the phrase “the electron itself” to refer to the bare electron, distinct from the electromagnetic field that surrounds it. This is to be contrasted with the dressed electron, which includes both the electron itself and its electromagnetic field. The mass of the electromagnetic field moves with a velocity that can be expressed in terms of the Poynting vector, S→=c4⁢π⁢E→×B→→𝑆𝑐4𝜋→𝐸→𝐵\vec{S}=\frac{c}{4\pi}\vec{E}\times\vec{B}over→ start_ARG italic_S end_ARG = divide start_ARG italic_c end_ARG start_ARG 4 italic_π end_ARG over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG × over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG, which gives the energy flux density of the field. The field velocity555This field velocity appears in Poincaré, (1900); Holland, (1993, section 12.6.2); Lange, (2002, box 8.3); Sebens, (2018). can be found by dividing the energy flux density S→→𝑆\vec{S}over→ start_ARG italic_S end_ARG by the energy density ρfℰsuperscriptsubscript𝜌𝑓ℰ\rho_{f}^{\mathcal{E}}italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_E end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT or, equivalently, by dividing the momentum density of the field,

by its mass density (8),

Looking at the field lines around a charged magnetic dipole, like the electron, it is clear from (9) and (10) that the field mass circles the axis picked out by the dipole, as depicted in figure 1 (Feynman et al.,, 1964, chapter 27; Lange,, 2002, chapter 8).

The fact that some (or perhaps all) of the mass of the electron is located outside the bounds of the electron itself666Sometimes you see it said that a portion of the electron’s mass is electromagnetic in origin, which seems to suggest that although this portion of mass originates in the energy of the electromagnetic field it is possessed by and located at the electron itself. I have argued against such an understanding of electromagnetic mass in Sebens, (2018). The electromagnetic mass is located in the electromagnetic field. and rotating appears to be helpful for addressing the first obstacle—getting a large angular momentum without moving superluminally is easier if the mass is more spread out. Also, there is no danger of the mass in the electromagnetic field moving superluminally since the magnitude of the field velocity in (10) is maximized at c𝑐citalic_c when E→→𝐸\vec{E}over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG is perpendicular to B→→𝐵\vec{B}over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG and |E→|=|B→|→𝐸→𝐵|\vec{E}|=|\vec{B}|| over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG | = | over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG |.

Figure 1: This figure depicts the electric and magnetic fields produced by the electron’s charge and magnetic dipole moment. Also shown is the Poynting vector S→→𝑆\vec{S}over→ start_ARG italic_S end_ARG which indicates that the mass of the electromagnetic field rotates about the axis picked out by the electron’s magnetic moment.

We are now in a position to see where the classical electron radius comes from and to see why it is a completely unreasonable estimate to use in motivating the first obstacle (from section 2). Let’s work up to that slowly. First, note that the smaller the electron is, the greater the mass in the electric and magnetic fields surrounding the electron. Keeping the total mass of the electron fixed, the smaller the electron is, the less mass it itself possesses. If we imagine making the electron as small as possible,777If we were willing to make the mass of the electron itself negative, its radius could be even smaller (Pearle,, 1982, pg. 214). putting all of its mass in the electromagnetic field, we arrive at a radius for the electron that we can call the “electromagnetic radius,” on the order of888The exact number depends on the way the electron’s charge is distributed and how that charge flows. 10−12superscript101210^{-12}10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 12 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT cm (Uhlenbeck,, 1976, pg. 47; Pais,, 1989, pg. 39; MacGregor,, 1992, chapter 8). The classical electron radius was arrived at through similar reasoning applied before the electron’s magnetic moment was discovered. It was assumed that the electron’s mass comes entirely from its electric field. If we take the electron’s charge to be distributed evenly over a spherical shell, the radius calculated in this way would be

as the energy in the electric field is e22⁢Rsuperscript𝑒22𝑅\frac{e^{2}}{2R}divide start_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_R end_ARG. Ignoring the prefactor (which is dependent on the way the charge is distributed), we get the classical electron radius,999See Feynman et al., (1964, section 38-3), Rohrlich, (2007, section 6-1).

This radius is an order of magnitude smaller than the electromagnetic radius because the amount of energy in the magnetic field is much greater than the amount in the electric field. Neither of these radii should prompt worries of superluminal mass flow. If the mass of the electron resides entirely in its electromagnetic field, then the electron itself is massless and energyless. It doesn’t matter how fast it’s spinning since it itself won’t have any angular momentum. The angular momentum is entirely in the field and the mass of the field cannot move superluminally.

Understanding that the electromagnetic field possesses mass does little to alter the second obstacle. Although the electron’s mass bleeds into the field, its charge does not.

The third obstacle is complicated by the existence of mass in the electromagnetic field. The simple calculation of the gyromagnetic ratio for a spinning charged body given above (5) was the ratio of the magnetic moment produced by a spinning body to the angular momentum of that body itself. But, once we recognize that some of the mass we associate with that body is actually in its electromagnetic field, we must take the field’s angular momentum into consideration when calculating the gyromagnetic ratio. Here is one illustrative way of doing so. The electric and magnetic fields around a charged magnetic dipole located at the origin are

| E→→𝐸\displaystyle\vec{E}over→ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG | =−e⁢x→|x→|3absent𝑒→𝑥superscript→𝑥3\displaystyle=-e\frac{\vec{x}}{|\vec{x}|^{3}}= - italic_e divide start_ARG over→ start_ARG italic_x end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG | over→ start_ARG italic_x end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG | | | | | -------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------- | ---- | | B→→𝐵\displaystyle\vec{B}over→ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG | =3⁢(m→⋅x→)⁢x→|x→|5−m→|x→|3.absent3⋅→𝑚→𝑥→𝑥superscript→𝑥5→𝑚superscript→𝑥3\displaystyle=\frac{3(\vec{m}\cdot\vec{x})\vec{x}}{|\vec{x}|^{5}}-\frac{\vec{m% }}{|\vec{x}|^{3}}\ .= divide start_ARG 3 ( over→ start_ARG italic_m end_ARG ⋅ over→ start_ARG italic_x end_ARG ) over→ start_ARG italic_x end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG | over→ start_ARG italic_x end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG - divide start_ARG over→ start_ARG italic_m end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG | over→ start_ARG italic_x end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG . | (13) |

If we assume the charge −e𝑒-e- italic_e to be uniformly distributed over a spherical shell of radius R𝑅Ritalic_R, so that the above electric field is only present outside this radius, and also that the only contribution to the angular momentum comes from the fields outside this radius (because the entirety of the electron’s mass resides in its electromagnetic field), we arrive at a gyromagnetic ratio of

| |m→||L→|=3⁢R⁢c2⁢e.→𝑚→𝐿3𝑅𝑐2𝑒\frac{|\vec{m}|}{|\vec{L}|}=\frac{3Rc}{2e}\ .divide start_ARG | over→ start_ARG italic_m end_ARG | end_ARG start_ARG | over→ start_ARG italic_L end_ARG | end_ARG = divide start_ARG 3 italic_R italic_c end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_e end_ARG . | (14) | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------- | ------------------- | ----------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---- |

Unlike the simple calculation of the gyromagnetic ratio of an axially symmetric spinning charged body mentioned above (5), this result is radius dependent.101010I have only rarely seen the angular momentum of the electromagnetic field taken into account when calculating the gyromagnetic ratio of the electron (Corben,, 1961; Giulini,, 2008).

We must input a radius for the electron if we are to compare (14) to (5) and (6). One option would be to use the classical electron radius (12). However, we must be careful because the prefactors that were ignored in (12) are important in (14). In the earlier derivation of the angular momentum of the field, it was assumed that the charge was distributed uniformly over the surface of the sphere as in (11). Continuing with that assumption and plugging (11) into (14) yields a gyromagnetic ratio of

| |m→||L→|=3⁢e4⁢m⁢c,→𝑚→𝐿3𝑒4𝑚𝑐\frac{|\vec{m}|}{|\vec{L}|}=\frac{3e}{4mc}\ ,divide start_ARG | over→ start_ARG italic_m end_ARG | end_ARG start_ARG | over→ start_ARG italic_L end_ARG | end_ARG = divide start_ARG 3 italic_e end_ARG start_ARG 4 italic_m italic_c end_ARG , | (15) | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------- | ------------------- | ----------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---- |

closer to (6) than (5), but still incorrect. The classical electron radius was calculated by ignoring the magnetic field of the electron. Taking the magnetic field into consideration and using the electromagnetic radius instead of the classical radius would yield a gyromagnetic ratio which is much too large. So, the assumption that the mass of the electron is entirely in the electromagnetic field leads to trouble. Fortunately, it’s not true. In section 5 we’ll see that the electron is large enough that the mass of the electromagnetic field surrounding the electron is only a small fraction of the electron’s total mass.

4 The Dirac Field

In the previous section we examined the flow of mass in the electromagnetic field surrounding the electron. In this section we ignore the electromagnetic field and focus exclusively on the flow of mass and charge of the electron itself (assuming, contra the previous section, that little of the electron’s mass is in the electromagnetic field). We can understand this flow of mass and charge by using the Dirac field to represent the state of the electron. In this section I make heavy use of the excellent account of spin given by Ohanian, (1986).

As was discussed in the introduction, the free Dirac equation,

can either be viewed as part of a relativistic single particle quantum theory in which ψ𝜓\psiitalic_ψ is a wave function (the quantum interpretation), or, as part of a relativistic field theory in which ψ𝜓\psiitalic_ψ is a classical field (the classical interpretation).111111As the Dirac field is sometimes interpreted as a wave function and sometimes as a classical field, one might naturally wonder if it is possible to interpret the electromagnetic field as a wave function instead of a classical field (see Good,, 1957; Mignani et al.,, 1974; Bialynicki-Birula,, 1996; Sebens,, 2019). Here I adopt the second perspective and take ψ𝜓\psiitalic_ψ to be a four-component complex-valued121212Alternatively, the classical Dirac field is sometimes treated as Grassmann-valued (e.g., in textbook presentations of path integral methods for quantum field theory). I discuss the relation between complex-valued classical Dirac field theory and Grassmann-valued classical Dirac field theory in Sebens, (2020). classical field. The classical Dirac field can be quantized, along with the classical electromagnetic field, to arrive at the quantum field theory of quantum electrodynamics. In the context of quantum electrodynamics, the electron is described by a superposition of different states for the classical Dirac field (a wave functional). In this paper, we will examine the classical field states that compose this superposition and see that our three obstacles can be overcome for each such classical state. We will not need to go as far as quantizing the Dirac field. At the level of physics under consideration here, there are just two interacting classical fields—the Dirac field and the electromagnetic field.131313Weyl, (1932, pg. 216–217) explicitly considers and rejects the idea that the Dirac field should be treated as a classical field along the lines proposed here, comparing the idea to Schrödinger’s original pre-Born-rule interpretation of his eponymous equation where the amplitude-squared of the wave function is interpreted as a charge density. It is true that before quantization the classical Dirac field does not provide an adequate theory of the electron (though such a theory works better than you might expect; see Crisp & Jaynes,, 1969; Jaynes,, 1973; Barut,, 1988; Barut & Dowling,, 1990). What matters for our purposes here is not the adequacy of classical Dirac field theory itself, but just the fact that it is this classical field theory which gets quantized to arrive at our best theory of the electron: quantum electrodynamics. (It is worth noting that Weyl,, 1932 later treats the Dirac field like a classical field when quantizing it; see Pashby,, 2012, pg. 451.)

Much like the electromagnetic field, the Dirac field carries energy and momentum. The energy and momentum densities are given by:141414These two densities are components of the symmetrized stress-energy tensor for the Dirac field (Wentzel,, 1949, section 20; Heitler,, 1954, appendix 7; Weyl,, 1932, pg. 218–221).,151515Here γ0superscript𝛾0\gamma^{0}italic_γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, γ→→𝛾\vec{\gamma}over→ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG, and σ→→𝜎\vec{\sigma}over→ start_ARG italic_σ end_ARG are four-dimensional matrices, related to the two-dimensional Pauli spin matrices σ→psubscript→𝜎𝑝\vec{\sigma}_{p}over→ start_ARG italic_σ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT by γ0=(I00−I)γ→=(0σ→p−σ→p0)σ→=(σ→p00σ→p).formulae-sequencesuperscript𝛾0matrix𝐼00𝐼formulae-sequence→𝛾matrix0subscript→𝜎𝑝subscript→𝜎𝑝0→𝜎matrixsubscript→𝜎𝑝00subscript→𝜎𝑝\gamma^{0}=\left(\begin{matrix}I&0\\ 0&-I\end{matrix}\right)\quad\quad\vec{\gamma}=\left(\begin{matrix}0&\vec{% \sigma}_{p}\\ -\vec{\sigma}_{p}&0\end{matrix}\right)\quad\quad\vec{\sigma}=\left(\begin{% matrix}\vec{\sigma}_{p}&0\\ 0&\vec{\sigma}_{p}\end{matrix}\right)\ .italic_γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_I end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL - italic_I end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) over→ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG = ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL over→ start_ARG italic_σ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL - over→ start_ARG italic_σ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) over→ start_ARG italic_σ end_ARG = ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL over→ start_ARG italic_σ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL over→ start_ARG italic_σ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) . (17)

The d𝑑ditalic_d subscript indicates that these are properties of the Dirac field. The second term in the momentum density gives the contribution from spin (Wentzel,, 1949, pg. 181–182, Pauli,, 1980, pg. 168, Ohanian,, 1986, pg. 503). Because the spin contribution is a curl, it will not contribute to the total linear momentum of the electron. When the momentum density in (19) is used to calculate the angular momentum of an electron, the first term yields the orbital angular momentum and the second yields the spin angular momentum. The density of spin angular momentum derived from the second term in (19) is

As we are here concerned with understanding spin, we will focus on states where the electron is at rest and the first term in (19) is everywhere zero.

Although I have not seen it done before, we can introduce a relativistic mass density and a velocity that describes the flow of mass in just the same way as was done for the electromagnetic field in the previous section,

In contrast with the electromagnetic field, the Dirac field’s energy density can be negative and thus its mass density can be negative as well.

In addition to the mass density and its flow, we can examine the charge density of the Dirac field and the flow of charge. The charge density and charge current density are

If we were considering interaction with the electromagnetic field, these densities would act as source terms for Maxwell’s equations. From the charge and current densities, we can define the velocity of charge flow as

From this definition, it follows that the charge velocity cannot exceed the speed of light (Takabayasi,, 1957, section 2b; Bohm & Hiley,, 1993, section 10.4; Holland,, 1993, section 12.2). Because of this light-speed limit, our second obstacle is automatically averted. Superluminal charge flow is impossible.

The reason the gyromagnetic ratio of the electron differs from the simple classical estimate (5) by a factor of two can be explained straightforwardly in the context of Dirac field theory using the mass and charge velocities introduced above.161616It is generally agreed that there exists some explanation of the gyromagnetic ratio in the context of the Dirac equation. The task here is to better understand what sort of explanation is available (compare Ohanian,, 1986, pg. 504 and Bjorken & Drell,, 1964, section 1.4). In the simple estimate of the gyromagnetic ratio, we assumed that the mass and charge were rotating together at the same rate. Actually, as we are about to see, the charge of the electron rotates twice as quickly as the mass.171717How could charge move at a different velocity than mass? Imagine you’re describing a charged fluid flowing through pipes using certain mass and charge densities. On closer inspection, the fluid turns out to be made of two kinds of particles—heavy neutral particles and light positively charged particles. Sometimes the charged particles flow faster than the neutral ones and the velocity of charge flow is greater than the velocity of mass flow. Sometimes the heavy particles flow faster than the light ones and the velocity of mass flow is greater than the velocity of charge flow. So, the magnetic moment is twice as large as you’d expect given the angular momentum.

This factor of two between the mass and charge velocity is a general feature of wave functions that describe an electron at rest. But, to see how it arises it will be helpful to start with a particular illustrative example wave function. Here is a simple instantaneous state of the Dirac field which we can use as a first approximation towards representing a single electron which is (at this moment) at rest with z𝑧zitalic_z-spin up:181818This state is discussed in Huang, (1952, equation 12); Bjorken & Drell, (1964, equation 3.32); Ohanian, (1986, equation 14).

| ψ=(1π⁢d2)3/4⁢e−|x→|2/2⁢d2⁢(1000).𝜓superscript1𝜋superscript𝑑234superscript𝑒superscript→𝑥22superscript𝑑2matrix1000\psi=\left(\frac{1}{\pi d^{2}}\right)^{3/4}e^{-|\vec{x}|^{2}/2d^{2}}\left(% \begin{matrix}1\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{matrix}\right)\ .italic_ψ = ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_π italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 / 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | over→ start_ARG italic_x end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 1 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) . | (26) | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---- |

The mass and charge are both localized in a Gaussian wave packet of width d𝑑ditalic_d. The reason for calling this a single electron state is that the integral of the charge density over all of space is −e𝑒-e- italic_e.191919See Takabayasi, (1957, pg. 10).

Figure 2: These plots depict the flow of mass and charge for the state of an electron at rest given in (26). The first two plots give the momentum density (27) and mass velocity (28). The second two plots give the magnetization current density (31) and the corresponding contribution to the charge velocity (32) (for the corrected state (36), these plots give the total charge current density and charge velocity). The two velocity plots use the same scale to highlight that the charge velocity is twice the mass velocity.

The momentum density for this state is

| G→d=−ℏ2⁢(1π⁢d2)3/2⁢e−|x→|2/d2⁢x→×z^d2,subscript→𝐺𝑑Planck-constant-over-2-pi2superscript1𝜋superscript𝑑232superscript𝑒superscript→𝑥2superscript𝑑2→𝑥^𝑧superscript𝑑2\vec{G}_{d}=-\frac{\hbar}{2}\left(\frac{1}{\pi d^{2}}\right)^{3/2}e^{-|\vec{x}% | ^{2}/d^{2}}\ \frac{\vec{x}\times\hat{z}}{d^{2}}\ ,over→ start_ARG italic_G end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - divide start_ARG roman_ℏ end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_π italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | over→ start_ARG italic_x end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG over→ start_ARG italic_x end_ARG × over^ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , | (27) | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---- |

calculated via (19) where only the second term is non-zero. From this expression, it is clear that mass and energy are flowing around the z𝑧zitalic_z-axis (see figure 2). The mass velocity for this state can be calculated by dividing this momentum density by the mass density, as in (22),

The second expression gives the velocity in cylindrical coordinates. This equation shows that the mass flows everywhere about the z𝑧zitalic_z-axis at constant angular velocity. The electron’s mass appears202020I use the qualification “appears” because, as will be explained shortly, (26) is not an entirely satisfactory approximation to the state of an electron. to rotate like a solid object.

To calculate the velocity at which charge flows, it is useful to first expand the current density using the free Dirac equation as follows212121This expansion appears in Gordon, (1928); Frenkel, (1934, pg. 321–322); Huang, (1952, pg. 479); Ohanian, (1986, pg. 504).

The three terms in the expansion are the convection current density, the magnetization current density, and the polarization current density. As was the case for the momentum density (19), the first term is zero for an electron at rest. The second two terms give the contribution to the charge current from spin. For the moment, let us focus on the magnetization current density. The magnetization current density in (29) corresponds to a magnetic moment density of

where the prefactor is the Bohr magneton.222222See Jackson, (1999, section 5.6); Ohanian, (1986, pg. 504). The ratio of the magnitude of this magnetic moment density to the magnitude of the angular moment density in (20) for the state in (26) is em⁢c𝑒𝑚𝑐\frac{e}{mc}divide start_ARG italic_e end_ARG start_ARG italic_m italic_c end_ARG, the correct gyromagnetic ratio for the electron (6). The magnetization current density,

| e⁢ℏm⁢(1π⁢d2)3/2⁢e−|x→|2/d2⁢x→×z^d2,𝑒Planck-constant-over-2-pi𝑚superscript1𝜋superscript𝑑232superscript𝑒superscript→𝑥2superscript𝑑2→𝑥^𝑧superscript𝑑2\frac{e\hbar}{m}\left(\frac{1}{\pi d^{2}}\right)^{3/2}e^{-|\vec{x}|^{2}/d^{2}}% \ \frac{\vec{x}\times\hat{z}}{d^{2}}\ ,divide start_ARG italic_e roman_ℏ end_ARG start_ARG italic_m end_ARG ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_π italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | over→ start_ARG italic_x end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG over→ start_ARG italic_x end_ARG × over^ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , | (31) | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---- |

makes a contribution to the velocity of charge flow, calculated via (25), of

The contribution to the velocity of charge flow which determines the electron’s magnetic moment (32) is twice the velocity of mass flow which determines the electron’s angular momentum (28).

The factor of two between these velocities is not a peculiar feature of the chosen state, but will hold for any electron state in the non-relativistic limit. In general, the contribution to the moment density G→dsubscript→𝐺𝑑\vec{G}_{d}over→ start_ARG italic_G end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT from spin is ℏ4⁢∇→×(ψ†⁢σ→⁢ψ)Planck-constant-over-2-pi4→∇superscript𝜓†→𝜎𝜓\frac{\hbar}{4}\vec{\nabla}\times(\psi^{\dagger}\vec{\sigma}\psi)divide start_ARG roman_ℏ end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG over→ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG × ( italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_σ end_ARG italic_ψ )—the second term in (19). In the non-relativistic limit, the relativistic mass density is approximately m⁢ψ†⁢γ0⁢ψ𝑚superscript𝜓†superscript𝛾0𝜓m\psi^{\dagger}\gamma^{0}\psiitalic_m italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ψ—the first term in (21). Dividing these, as in (22), gives a contribution to the velocity of mass flow from spin of

The velocity associated with the electron’s spin magnetic moment can be derived from the magnetization current density—the second term in (29). Dividing the magnetization current density by the charge density (23), as in (25), yields a contribution to the charge velocity of

It is clear that (34) is twice (33) (up to factors of γ0superscript𝛾0\gamma^{0}italic_γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT which we will return to later).

Addressing our obstacles in the context of the Dirac equation has enabled significant progress, but there remain three serious shortcomings to the account given thus far (which will be resolved in the following section). First, we have only been able to say (somewhat awkwardly) that a certain contribution to the velocity of charge flow is twice the velocity of mass flow and not that the actual velocity of charge flow is twice the velocity of mass flow. In fact, it is easy to see that the velocity of charge flow is zero for the state in (26) as the charge current density calculated from (24) is clearly zero. The first term in the current expansion (29) is also zero. Thus, the third term in (29) (the polarization current density) must exactly cancel the second (the magnetization current density). Because of this cancellation, no magnetic field is being produced by an electron in this state. If we want to account for the magnetic field around an electron at rest, we need the electron’s charge to actually rotate.

Second, the velocities in (28) and (32) are unbounded, becoming superluminal as r𝑟ritalic_r becomes very large. The fact that (32) becomes infinite is not so troubling because, as was just discussed, it is cancelled by the contribution to the charge velocity from the polarization current. Also, as was mentioned earlier, it can be shown in general that the charge velocity cannot exceed c𝑐citalic_c. The fact that (28) becomes superluminal is a real problem.

Third, there are problems that arise if the electron is too small and as of yet we have no reason to think it’s large enough to avoid these problems. If the electron is too small, we face our first two obstacles concerning superluminal rotation. Also, if the electron is too small we will not be able to ignore the mass in the electromagnetic field when calculating the gyromagnetic ratio (as was done in this section but not the last). Looking at (26) it appears that the size of the electron is an entirely contingent matter depending on the state of the Dirac field (by decreasing d𝑑ditalic_d, the electron can be made arbitrarily small).

5 Restriction

The three problems raised at the end of the previous section can be resolved by restricting the allowed states of the Dirac field to those formed by superposing positive frequency modes. Such a restriction can be motivated by the fact that, in quantum field theory, the positive frequency modes of the Dirac field are associated with electrons and the negative frequency modes with positrons.

In this section we will continue to focus our attention on the free Dirac equation, putting aside issues of self-interaction—the electron is treated as blind to the electromagnetic field it generates—but still confronting issues of self-energy—the energies of the Dirac and electromagnetic fields are both taken into account.

The free Dirac equation admits of plane wave solutions with definite232323On a classical interpretation of the Dirac field, by saying the momentum is “definite” I mean that the momentum density (19) is uniform. momentum p→→𝑝\vec{p}over→ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG and time dependence given by either e−i⁢ℰp→⁢t/ℏsuperscript𝑒𝑖subscriptℰ→𝑝𝑡Planck-constant-over-2-pie^{-i\mathcal{E}_{\vec{p}}t/\hbar}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_i caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t / roman_ℏ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (positive frequency) or ei⁢ℰp→⁢t/ℏsuperscript𝑒𝑖subscriptℰ→𝑝𝑡Planck-constant-over-2-pie^{i\mathcal{E}_{\vec{p}}t/\hbar}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t / roman_ℏ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (negative frequency), where ℰp→subscriptℰ→𝑝\mathcal{E}_{\vec{p}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the energy associated with that momentum, ℰp→=|p→|2⁢c2+m2⁢c4subscriptℰ→𝑝superscript→𝑝2superscript𝑐2superscript𝑚2superscript𝑐4\mathcal{E}_{\vec{p}}=\sqrt{|\vec{p}|^{2}c^{2}+m^{2}c^{4}}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = square-root start_ARG | over→ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG (Bjorken & Drell,, 1964, chapter 3). From (18), it is clear that the positive frequency plane waves have uniform positive energy density and the negative frequency plane waves have uniform negative energy density.

In textbook presentations of the quantization of the classical Dirac field (such as Peskin & Schroeder,, 1995, section 3.5), one starts by expanding the Dirac field in terms of positive and negative frequency modes. Quantizing this theory in a straightforward way, one pairs creation operators with each of these modes and sees that the operators paired with the positive frequency modes create particles with negative charge and positive energy whereas the operators paired with the negative frequency modes create particles with negative energy and negative charge. Seeking to avoid negative energies, one then redefines the operators for charge and energy so that the operators associated with negative frequency modes can be reinterpreted as annihilation operators for particles with positive energy and negative charge—positrons. Bringing the lesson that negative frequency modes will ultimately be associated with positrons back to our classical Dirac field theory,242424In Sebens, (2020), I describe in more detail the procedure of field quantization and the lessons one ought to draw from it for classical Dirac field theory. we ought to revise our understanding of the electron within classical Dirac field theory. In representing the electron, we will forbid any state of the Dirac field which has a Fourier decomposition that includes negative frequency modes and permit only states that are formed entirely from positive frequency modes (reserving the negative frequency modes for the representation of positrons). We will thus focus on a restricted version of classical Dirac field theory where the negative frequency modes are removed. (As we are not considering interactions, if negative frequency modes are absent at one time they will be absent always.) Before continuing on to analyze the electron within this restricted classical Dirac field theory, let us take a brief detour to examine the way negative frequency modes were originally handled by Dirac.

On a quantum interpretation of the Dirac equation where the Dirac field is viewed as a wave function, one would say that the negative frequency plane wave solutions are energy eigenstates with negative eigenvalues. The existence of such negative energy states proved both a blessing and a curse for early applications of the Dirac equation. To retain the blessing while dispelling the curse, Dirac proposed his hole theory according to which the negative energy states are filled (Dirac,, 1930).252525See Saunders, (1991); Pashby, (2012). By Pauli exclusion, any additional electrons must sit atop this “Dirac sea.” The filled sea is taken to set the zero level for energy and charge. If any electron is excited out of the sea, the hole it leaves behind acts like a particle with equal mass and opposite charge to the electron—a positron. In this “hole theory,” the positive frequency modes (which are by default empty) are used to describe ordinary positive energy electrons and the negative frequency modes (which are by default filled) are used to describe positrons.262626Some authors use the idea of Dirac sea in presenting the quantization of the Dirac field and others emphatically renounce it (compare Schweber,, 1961, section 8a; Bjorken & Drell,, 1965, section 13.4; Hatfield,, 1992 to Duncan,, 2012, chapter 2; Schwartz,, 2014, pg. 142).

As was first examined by Weisskopf, (1934a, b, 1939), the electromagnetic energy divergence—which arises because the amount of energy in an electron’s electromagnetic field goes rapidly to infinity as its radius is decreased—is tamed in the context of hole theory (Schweber,, 1994, section 2.5.3). Weisskopf’s handling of this divergence has been incorporated into the modern understanding of mass renormalization within quantum electrodynamics.272727It is cited in relation to a modern understanding based on Feynman diagrams by Schweber, (1961, pg. 513); Bjorken & Drell, (1964, pg. 165); Gottfried & Weisskopf, (1986, section II.D.2). The crucial insight from Weisskopf’s analysis for our task at hand is expressed well by Heitler, (1954, pg. 299). He writes that the taming of the electromagnetic self-energy divergence for an electron at rest “is a consequence of the hole theory and the Pauli [exclusion] principle”:

“Consider an electron represented by a very small wave packet in coordinate space. In momentum space this would be represented by a distribution including negative energy states. The latter, however, are filled with vacuum electrons. Consequently, the negative energy contributions to the wave function must be eliminated and the electron cannot be a wave packet of infinitely small size but must have a finite extension (of the order ℏm⁢cPlanck-constant-over-2-pi𝑚𝑐\frac{\hbar}{mc}divide start_ARG roman_ℏ end_ARG start_ARG italic_m italic_c end_ARG [the Compton radius], as one easily finds). Consequently the static self-energy will be diminished also.”282828The fact that wave packets composed of positive energy modes have a minimum size is also discussed in Newton & Wigner, (1949); Bjorken & Drell, (1964, pg. 39); Chuu et al., (2007).

Although Heitler’s explanation is given from within the quantum interpretation of the Dirac field as wave function, it contains lessons that carry over to our classical interpretation. There is a limit on the minimum size wave packet that one can construct from the positive frequency modes of the Dirac field that are available in restricted Dirac field theory. The mass and charge of the electron thus cannot be confined to an arbitrarily small volume. Because the charge of the electron is spread over such a large packet, the electromagnetic contribution to the energy (and mass) of an electron at rest is small and can be ignored when calculating the gyromagnetic ratio to a first approximation (as was done in the previous section). In section 2 we saw that in order to avoid the superluminal rotation speeds forced upon us in our first two obstacles, the electron must be at least as large as the Compton radius. Restricting to positive frequency modes delivers that minimum size.

Let us return to the instantaneous electron state in (26). In restricted Dirac field theory, this state is forbidden as it includes both positive and negative frequency modes. To find a similar state that is allowed, we can simply delete the negative frequency modes from the Fourier decomposition of (26).292929This Fourier decomposition is given in Bjorken & Drell, (1964, section 3.3). This yields303030As the negative frequency modes have simply been deleted, this new state is not normalized. In our classical terms, this means that the integral of the charge density over all space will not be −e𝑒-e- italic_e. In the non-relativistic limit, the total charge will be close to −e𝑒-e- italic_e.

| ψ=12⁢(d2π⁢ℏ2)3/4⁢(12⁢π⁢ℏ)3/2⁢∫d3⁢p⁢(1+m⁢c2ℰp→)⁢e−|p→|2⁢d22⁢ℏ2+iℏ⁢p→⋅x→⁢(10pz⁢cℰp→+m⁢c2(px+i⁢py)⁢cℰp→+m⁢c2).𝜓12superscriptsuperscript𝑑2𝜋superscriptPlanck-constant-over-2-pi234superscript12𝜋Planck-constant-over-2-pi32superscript𝑑3𝑝1𝑚superscript𝑐2subscriptℰ→𝑝superscript𝑒superscript→𝑝2superscript𝑑22superscriptPlanck-constant-over-2-pi2⋅𝑖Planck-constant-over-2-pi→𝑝→𝑥matrix10subscript𝑝𝑧𝑐subscriptℰ→𝑝𝑚superscript𝑐2subscript𝑝𝑥𝑖subscript𝑝𝑦𝑐subscriptℰ→𝑝𝑚superscript𝑐2\psi=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{d^{2}}{\pi\hbar^{2}}\right)^{3/4}\left(\frac{1}{2% \pi\hbar}\right)^{3/2}\int d^{3}p\left(1+\frac{mc^{2}}{\mathcal{E}_{\vec{p}}}% \right)e^{-\frac{|\vec{p}|^{2}d^{2}}{2\hbar^{2}}+\frac{i}{\hbar}\vec{p}\cdot% \vec{x}}\left(\begin{matrix}1\\ 0\\ \frac{p_{z}c}{\mathcal{E}_{\vec{p}}+mc^{2}}\vspace*{4 pt}\\ \frac{(p_{x}+ip_{y})c}{\mathcal{E}_{\vec{p}}+mc^{2}}\end{matrix}\right)\ .italic_ψ = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( divide start_ARG italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_π roman_ℏ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 / 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_π roman_ℏ end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p ( 1 + divide start_ARG italic_m italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG | over→ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 roman_ℏ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG + divide start_ARG italic_i end_ARG start_ARG roman_ℏ end_ARG over→ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG ⋅ over→ start_ARG italic_x end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 1 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_ARG start_ARG caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_m italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG ( italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_i italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_c end_ARG start_ARG caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_m italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) . | (35) | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---- |

We can approximate this state in the non-relativistic limit by computing these integrals assuming that d≫ℏm⁢cmuch-greater-than𝑑Planck-constant-over-2-pi𝑚𝑐d\gg\frac{\hbar}{mc}italic_d ≫ divide start_ARG roman_ℏ end_ARG start_ARG italic_m italic_c end_ARG so the momentum space Gaussian in the integrand suppresses modes where |p→|2superscript→𝑝2|\vec{p}|^{2}| over→ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is not ≪m2⁢c2much-less-thanabsentsuperscript𝑚2superscript𝑐2\ll m^{2}c^{2}≪ italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT,313131The same approximation can be arrived at by trusting only the first two components of (26) and using the positive frequency non-relativistic limit of the Dirac equation in Bjorken & Drell, (1964, equation 1.31) to calculate the other two.

| ψ=(1π⁢d2)3/4⁢e−|x→|2/2⁢d2⁢(10ℏ2⁢m⁢c⁢d2⁢i⁢zℏ2⁢m⁢c⁢d2⁢(i⁢x−y)).𝜓superscript1𝜋superscript𝑑234superscript𝑒superscript→𝑥22superscript𝑑2matrix10Planck-constant-over-2-pi2𝑚𝑐superscript𝑑2𝑖𝑧Planck-constant-over-2-pi2𝑚𝑐superscript𝑑2𝑖𝑥𝑦\psi=\left(\frac{1}{\pi d^{2}}\right)^{3/4}e^{-|\vec{x}|^{2}/2d^{2}}\left(% \begin{matrix}1\\ 0\\ \frac{\hbar}{2mcd^{2}}iz\vspace*{4 pt}\\ \frac{\hbar}{2mcd^{2}}(ix-y)\end{matrix}\right)\ .italic_ψ = ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_π italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 / 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | over→ start_ARG italic_x end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / 2 italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 1 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG roman_ℏ end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_m italic_c italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG italic_i italic_z end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG roman_ℏ end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_m italic_c italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_i italic_x - italic_y ) end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) . | (36) | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---- |

The total current density for this state (36), calculated via (24), is equal to the previous magnetization current density (31). Dividing this by the charge density for (36) gives a charge velocity of

| v→dq=−ℏm⁢d2⁢x→×z^1+ℏ2m2⁢c2⁢d4⁢|x→|2.superscriptsubscript→𝑣𝑑𝑞Planck-constant-over-2-pi𝑚superscript𝑑2→𝑥^𝑧1superscriptPlanck-constant-over-2-pi2superscript𝑚2superscript𝑐2superscript𝑑4superscript→𝑥2\vec{v}_{d}^{\>q}=\frac{\frac{-\hbar}{md^{2}}\vec{x}\times\hat{z}}{1+\frac{% \hbar^{2}}{m^{2}c^{2}d^{4}}|\vec{x}|^{2}}\ .over→ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = divide start_ARG divide start_ARG - roman_ℏ end_ARG start_ARG italic_m italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG over→ start_ARG italic_x end_ARG × over^ start_ARG italic_z end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG 1 + divide start_ARG roman_ℏ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG | over→ start_ARG italic_x end_ARG | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG . | (37) | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------- | ---- |

This limits to (32) for d≫ℏm⁢cmuch-greater-than𝑑Planck-constant-over-2-pi𝑚𝑐d\gg\frac{\hbar}{mc}italic_d ≫ divide start_ARG roman_ℏ end_ARG start_ARG italic_m italic_c end_ARG. Unlike (32), this is the actual charge velocity and not merely a contribution to it. The charge is really moving. The velocity in (37) is bounded and will not exceed the speed of light—as must be the case since the definition of the charge velocity (25) ensures that it cannot be superluminal. For d≫ℏm⁢cmuch-greater-than𝑑Planck-constant-over-2-pi𝑚𝑐d\gg\frac{\hbar}{mc}italic_d ≫ divide start_ARG roman_ℏ end_ARG start_ARG italic_m italic_c end_ARG, the mass velocity derived from (36) using (22) will be as it was before (28). Thus, the charge rotates twice as fast as the mass.

This factor of two between mass and charge velocity is a general feature of states that describe electrons at rest in restricted Dirac field theory. What prevented us from reaching this conclusion in the previous section was that we had no reason to suppose the magnetization current density would be the dominant contribution to the total current density (29). The polarization current density could be significant as well. By restricting ourselves to superpositions of positive frequency modes, we have guaranteed that the polarization current density is small. To see why this is so, consider an arbitrary state of the Dirac field at t=0𝑡0t=0italic_t = 0, ψ⁢(0)𝜓0\psi(0)italic_ψ ( 0 ). This state can be written as the sum of a superposition of positive frequency modes, ψ+subscript𝜓\psi_{+}italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and a superposition of negative frequency modes, ψ−subscript𝜓\psi_{-}italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. In the non-relativistic limit, the time dependence of this state is given by

The polarization current density for this state is

If we forbid negative frequency modes, the cross terms are absent and the time derivative yields zero. Thus, in the non-relativistic limit the polarization current density is negligible.

In the previous section we were able to derive the factor of two between charge velocity and mass velocity only up to factors of γ0superscript𝛾0\gamma^{0}italic_γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The reason these factors can be ignored is that γ0superscript𝛾0\gamma^{0}italic_γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT simply flips the sign of the third and fourth components of ψ𝜓\psiitalic_ψ and these components—for a state composed of positive frequency modes in the non-relativistic limit—are much smaller than the first and second components.

At this point let us reflect on the role that the non-relativistic limit has played in the preceding analysis. This limit is not part of the general response to our first two obstacles. The fact that there is a minimum size for wave packets formed from positive frequency modes is not dependent on this limit, nor is the light-speed cap on charge velocity. The non-relativistic limit is, however, essential in explaining the electron’s gyromagnetic ratio. The reason for this is that the gyromagnetic ratio we seek to account for only holds in the non-relativistic limit.323232Standard explanations of the factor of two in the gyromagnetic ratio of the electron using the Dirac equation appeal to the non-relativistic limit (Bjorken & Drell,, 1964, section 1.4). Beyond this limit, the relationship between angular momentum and magnetic moment is more complex. In quantum mechanical terms, the relationship is given by the claim that the spin magnetic moment operator, −e⁢ℏ2⁢m⁢c⁢γ0⁢σ→𝑒Planck-constant-over-2-pi2𝑚𝑐superscript𝛾0→𝜎-\frac{e\hbar}{2mc}\gamma^{0}\vec{\sigma}- divide start_ARG italic_e roman_ℏ end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_m italic_c end_ARG italic_γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_σ end_ARG, is −e⁢γ0m⁢c𝑒superscript𝛾0𝑚𝑐-\frac{e\gamma^{0}}{mc}- divide start_ARG italic_e italic_γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_m italic_c end_ARG times the spin angular momentum operator, ℏ2⁢σ→Planck-constant-over-2-pi2→𝜎\frac{\hbar}{2}\vec{\sigma}divide start_ARG roman_ℏ end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG over→ start_ARG italic_σ end_ARG (Ohanian,, 1986, pg. 504; Frenkel,, 1934, pg. 323). Expressed in terms of local expectation values, the local ratio of spin magnetic momentum to angular momentum is the ratio of −e⁢ℏ2⁢m⁢c⁢ψ†⁢γ0⁢σ→⁢ψ𝑒Planck-constant-over-2-pi2𝑚𝑐superscript𝜓†superscript𝛾0→𝜎𝜓-\frac{e\hbar}{2mc}\psi^{\dagger}\gamma^{0}\vec{\sigma}\psi- divide start_ARG italic_e roman_ℏ end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_m italic_c end_ARG italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_σ end_ARG italic_ψ to ℏ2⁢ψ†⁢σ→⁢ψPlanck-constant-over-2-pi2superscript𝜓†→𝜎𝜓\frac{\hbar}{2}\psi^{\dagger}\vec{\sigma}\psidivide start_ARG roman_ℏ end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_σ end_ARG italic_ψ. In our classical field terminology, this is understood as the ratio of the spin magnetic moment density (30) to the spin angular momentum density (20).

6 Other Accounts of Spin

In the introduction, I distinguished between field and particle approaches to quantum field theory. In the field approach, one starts from classical Dirac field theory and then quantizes. In the particle approach, one starts from a single electron relativistic quantum theory and then extends to multiple particles. Although I am not aware of other authors who explicitly argue that the electron really rotates within the field approach, there have been a number of attempts to somehow understand the electron’s angular momentum and magnetic moment as resulting from the motion of the electron’s mass and charge within the particle approach—where one sees ψ𝜓\psiitalic_ψ as the electron’s quantum wave function.333333Ohanian, (1986) calls ψ𝜓\psiitalic_ψ a “wave field,” which is confusingly ambiguous between quantum wave function and classical field. Because of the way he uses quantum language, I have classified him as adopting a particle approach where ψ𝜓\psiitalic_ψ is seen as a quantum wave function. In this section, I will briefly compare the analysis presented here to a few of these accounts of spin. To organize the discussion, I will sort the accounts into two classes. First, there are those who—despite sometimes using quantum language—treat ψ𝜓\psiitalic_ψ as broadly similar to a classical field, putting aside the probabilistic nature of this wave function and understanding the mass and charge of the electron to be spread out and executing some rotational motion. Second, there are those who emphasize the probabilistic nature of ψ𝜓\psiitalic_ψ and think of the electron’s mass and charge as located at a point. On such an account, the angular momentum and magnetic moment of the electron are not explained by a spinning motion (as the electron is point size) but instead by a rapid circulation of the electron within its wave function.

Let us begin with the first class. The most similar account of spin to the one proposed here is that of Ohanian, (1986). He describes the flow of energy and charge in the electron’s wave function just as I describe the flow of energy and charge in the Dirac field in section 4—though he introduces neither a velocity of mass flow (22) nor a velocity of charge flow (25). Ohanian explains that the angular momentum and magnetic moment of the electron are not “internal” and “irreducible,” but instead result from these flows of energy and charge. Ohanian does not directly address the three obstacles raised in section 2 and does not make the moves in section 5 that are necessary to surmount them. Chuu et al., (2007) also give an account of spin where the electron’s mass and charge are understood to be spread over the wave function and rotating. However, their description of this flow is somewhat different from that of section 4 as they use the same current for the flows of both mass and charge. Chuu et al. note that a wave packet formed from positive energy modes has a minimum size large enough to avoid the first obstacle (as was important in section 5). This minimum size can also be used to address the second obstacle, though they do not mention that explicitly. They do not give a response to the third obstacle.

To understand the accounts that fall within the second class, let us start by examining the flow of probability. One can introduce densities of probability and probability current for the electron’s wave function that are proportional to the densities of charge and charge current from section 4, (23) and (24). The probability density is ψ†⁢ψsuperscript𝜓†𝜓\psi^{\dagger}\psiitalic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ψ and the probability current density is c⁢ψ†⁢γ0⁢γ→⁢ψ𝑐superscript𝜓†superscript𝛾0→𝛾𝜓c\psi^{\dagger}\gamma^{0}\vec{\gamma}\psiitalic_c italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG italic_ψ. This probability current density is the local expectation value of the “velocity operator” c⁢γ0⁢γ→𝑐superscript𝛾0→𝛾c\gamma^{0}\vec{\gamma}italic_c italic_γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG (or, equivalently, c⁢α→𝑐→𝛼c\vec{\alpha}italic_c over→ start_ARG italic_α end_ARG).343434This velocity operator is presented in Frenkel, (1934, sections 31 and 32); Dirac, (1958, section 69); Messiah, (1962, pg. 920–922); Bjorken & Drell, (1964, pg. 11). I did not introduce these densities earlier because I was treating ψ𝜓\psiitalic_ψ as a classical field and thus all of this quantum talk about the flow of probability would have been inappropriate. The classical Dirac field has a mass density and a charge density, but no probability density. Now that we are treating ψ𝜓\psiitalic_ψ as a quantum wave function, it is important to introduce a probability density and probability current density.

Applying a Bohmian interpretation of quantum mechanics to this single particle relativistic quantum theory, one can posit the existence of a point electron particle that is separate from the Dirac wave function and guided by it. Dividing the probability current density by the probability density yields a velocity for this particle, c⁢ψ†⁢γ0⁢γ→⁢ψψ†⁢ψ𝑐superscript𝜓†superscript𝛾0→𝛾𝜓superscript𝜓†𝜓\frac{c\psi^{\dagger}\gamma^{0}\vec{\gamma}\psi}{\psi^{\dagger}\psi}divide start_ARG italic_c italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG italic_ψ end_ARG start_ARG italic_ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ψ end_ARG, equal to the velocity of charge flow (25) introduced earlier and thus also capped at c𝑐citalic_c (Bohm,, 1953; Bohm & Hiley,, 1993, section 10.4; Holland,, 1993, equation 12.2.10). Taking the electron to be a point particle moving with this velocity leads to the possibility of understanding the electron’s angular momentum and magnetic moment as generated by the electron’s motion within its wave function. Bohm & Hiley, (1993, pg. 218) argue that: “in the Dirac theory, the magnetic moment usually attributed to the ‘spin’ can actually be attributed to a circulating movement of a point particle, and not that of an extended spinning object.”

Huang, (1952) also thinks of the electron as a point particle whose circulating motion gives rise to the observed angular momentum and magnetic moment, but he has different ideas about how it moves. He writes:

“… in the Dirac theory [velocity] is represented by the operator [c⁢γ0⁢γ→𝑐superscript𝛾0→𝛾c\gamma^{0}\vec{\gamma}italic_c italic_γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG], whose components can only have eigenvalues of ±cplus-or-minus𝑐\pm c± italic_c, where c𝑐citalic_c is the velocity of light. This means that while the average velocity of the electron is less than c𝑐citalic_c, its instantaneous velocity is always ±cplus-or-minus𝑐\pm c± italic_c. We infer from this that the motion of the electron consists of a highly oscillatory component, superimposing on the average motion. Schrödinger called this oscillatory motion ‘zitterbewegung,’ and showed that the amplitude of this oscillation is of the order of the Compton wavelength of the electron.”353535This conjectured zitterbewegung (“trembling motion”) of the electron is discussed in Dirac, (1958, section 69); Bjorken & Drell, (1964, pg. 38). Barut & Zanghì, (1984) present a way of using zitterbewegung to understand electron spin that is different from the proposals of Huang and Hestenes.

The existence of a Bohmian theory in which the electron’s velocity can be less than the speed of light shows that we are not forced to regard the electron as always traveling at the speed of light. But, we can see where that thought leads. Unlike Bohm & Hiley, (1993), Huang does not give general equations for calculating the electron’s motion. In the article, he considers the example state in (26) and shows that it can be written as a superposition of states in which the expectation value of position executes circular motion (though the expectation value of position for the actual state does not move). He takes this observation and others to suggest that in this state the electron circles the z𝑧zitalic_z-axis.

Making Huang’s picture precise, Hestenes has proposed equations of motion for a point electron according to which the electron always moves at the speed of light (see Gull et al.,, 1993; Hestenes,, 2008, 2010 and references therein). The angular momentum and magnetic moment arise from a circulating motion of the electron (depicted in figure 1 of Hestenes,, 2008). According to Hestenes, (2010, pg. 2), it may be possible to view the equations he proposes as “formulating fundamental properties of the electron that are manifested in the Dirac equation in some kind of average form.” Hestenes recognizes that his equations represent a departure from standard physics and has considered ways of empirically observing the predicted deviations (Hestenes,, 2008; Hestenes,, 2010, sections 9.1 and 11). He also acknowledges that there is work to be done in reconciling his novel approach with quantum field theory as we know it (Hestenes,, 2010, pg. 53). This kind of modificatory program is quite different from the account of spin provided here, where I’ve sought to show that our existing equations, properly interpreted, describe a spinning electron.

7 Conclusion

The consensus about electron spin, which emerged long ago, is that the electron somehow acts like a spinning object without actually spinning. As Rojansky, (1938, pg. 514) puts it in his textbook on quantum mechanics, after discussing angular momentum and magnetic moment in the context of the Dirac equation,

“In short, _Dirac’s equation automatically endows the electron with the properties that account for the phenomena previously ascribed to a hypothetical spinning motion of the electron._” (original italics)

In this paper I have argued for a different interpretation. The Dirac equation does not somehow manage to account for these properties without positing a spinning electron. Instead, it explains just how the electron spins.

The obstacles to regarding the electron as spinning presented in the introduction were addressed as follows: Old estimates of the size of the electron made under the assumption that the electron’s mass is primarily electromagnetic suggest that the electron would have to rotate superluminally in order to have the right angular momentum and magnetic moment. Actually, if the electron’s mass is primarily electromagnetic we should focus on the rotation of the electromagnetic field’s mass in calculating the electron’s angular momentum and this mass cannot move superluminally. Also, the electron’s mass is not primarily electromagnetic. When we move to better estimates of the electron’s size—using the Dirac field to represent the state of the electron—we see that its minimum size is large enough that there is no need for superluminal rotation. Further, the definition of charge velocity for the Dirac field guarantees that the electron’s charge will not move superluminally. The other obstacle was the fact that the electron’s gyromagnetic ratio differs from the simplest classical estimate by a factor of two. On the account given here, this factor does not arise from some novel quantum revision to the basic physical principles defining angular momentum and magnetic moment, but is instead attributed to a false assumption in the simple classical estimate—the electron’s mass and charge do not rotate at the same rate.

AcknowledgmentsThank you to Adam Becker, Dirk-André Deckert, Maaneli Derakhshani, John McGreevy, Lukas Nickel, Hans Ohanian, Laura Ruetsche, Roderich Tumulka, David Wallace, and anonymous referees for helpful feedback and discussion. This project was supported in part by funding from the President’s Research Fellowships in the Humanities, University of California (for research conducted while at the University of California, San Diego).

Note on Further Developments

The text above is as in the 2019 published version, except that equation 2 has been corrected and references that were not yet published have been filled in. Here I am adding a note in July, 2024.

Although I still think that the picture of electron spin as true rotation presented here is largely correct, there is a piece of the story that turned out to be incorrect and there are lingering puzzles that have yet to be fully resolved. In section 5, I quoted Heitler, (1954) (and cited other sources in footnote 28) for the claim that there is a minimum size, on the order of the Compton radius, for electron wave packets constructed from positive frequency modes. This minimum size was then used to explain why there is no need for superluminal energy or charge flow to account for the angular momentum and magnetic moment of the electron within classical Dirac field theory (addressing the first and second obstacles from section 2, supplemented by the point under (25) that the charge velocity for the Dirac field cannot exceed the speed of light). It turns out that Heitler’s claim of a minimum size can be disproven by explicit counterexamples. It is possible to have arbitrarily compact electron wave packets formed entirely from positive frequency modes. There is no minimum size.

Where does this leave us with regard to the first two obstacles from section 2? Here is how I summarize the situation in a 2022 article (omitting the footnotes that appear there), mentioning two articles in Physical Review A that further explore these issues:

“Sometimes physicists say that the electron’s angular momentum and magnetic moment cannot be generated by rotation because the electron is too small: if the electron’s radius is much smaller than the Compton radius, ℏm⁢cPlanck-constant-over-2-pi𝑚𝑐\frac{\hbar}{mc}divide start_ARG roman_ℏ end_ARG start_ARG italic_m italic_c end_ARG, there is no way to generate an angular momentum of ℏ2Planck-constant-over-2-pi2\frac{\hbar}{2}divide start_ARG roman_ℏ end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG without the electron’s mass rotating faster than the speed of light and no way to generate a magnetic moment of e⁢ℏ2⁢m⁢c𝑒Planck-constant-over-2-pi2𝑚𝑐\frac{e\hbar}{2mc}divide start_ARG italic_e roman_ℏ end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_m italic_c end_ARG without the electron’s charge rotating faster than the speed of light. In brief, I take the solution to this puzzle to be that (in ordinary circumstances) the superposition of classical Dirac field states that forms the quantum state of the field is a superposition of states where the electron’s relativistic mass (energy over c2superscript𝑐2c^{2}italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT) and charge are not so tightly confined. For example, in the hydrogen atom these might be states where the electron’s relativistic mass and charge are spread throughout the atom’s electron cloud—states where the electron is as big as the atom ([Sebens, Charles T. 2021. Electron charge density: A clue from quantum chemistry for quantum foundations. Foundations of Physics, 51, 75.], Sect. 4.4). It is possible to confine the electron’s relativistic mass and charge so that they reside primarily within a sphere much smaller than the Compton radius, but it seems that when this is done the electron’s relativistic mass becomes large and its magnetic moment becomes small, so that there is no need for either mass or charge to rotate superluminally (because there is enough relativistic mass to generate the ordinary angular momentum through rotation despite the small size of the mass distribution and because the rotation of charge does not have to yield the ordinary magnetic moment; [Sebens, Charles T. 2020. Possibility of small electron states. Physical Review A, 102(5), 052225.]). That being said, if we define the velocity of energy (or relativistic mass) flow as the energy flux density (c2superscript𝑐2c^{2}italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT times the momentum density) over the energy density, then it will exceed the speed of light in certain circumstances ([Bialynicki-Birula, Iwo & Bialynicka-Birula, Zofia. 2022. Comment on “Possibility of small electron states”. Physical Review A, 105(3), 036201.]). More research is needed to better understand the flow of energy in such situations and whether an always slower-than-light velocity of energy flow can be found. For charge flow, this problem does not arise. If we define the velocity of charge flow as the current density divided by the charge density, it cannot exceed the speed of light for any state of the classical Dirac field.”

(This quote is from section 4.2 of: Sebens, Charles T. 2022.

The fundamentality of fields. Synthese, 200(5), 380.)

Let me also take this opportunity to mention two other follow-up articles. One article analyzes Stern-Gerlach electron spin measurements within classical Dirac field theory, depicting the evolution of a spinning electron:

Sebens, Charles T. 2021. Particles, fields, and the measurement of electron spin. Synthese, 198(12), 11943–11975.

Another article examines electric self-repulsion within the electron’s charge distribution:

Sebens, Charles T. 2023. Eliminating electron self-repulsion. Foundations of Physics, 53, 65.

References

• Baker, (2009) Baker, David. 2009. Against field interpretations of quantum field theory. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 60, 585–609.
• Barut, (1988) Barut, A.O. 1988. Quantum-electrodynamics based on self-energy. Physica Scripta, T21, 18–21.
• Barut & Dowling, (1990) Barut, A.O., & Dowling, Jonathan P. 1990. Self-field quantum electrodynamics: The two-level atom. Physical Review A, 41(5), 2284–2294.
• Barut & Zanghì, (1984) Barut, A.O., & Zanghì, Nino. 1984. Classical model of the Dirac electron. Physical Review Letters, 52(23), 2009–2012.
• Bialynicki-Birula, (1996) Bialynicki-Birula, Iwo. 1996. The photon wave function. Pages 313–322 of: Eberly, Joseph H., Mandel, Leonard, & Wolf, Emil (eds), Coherence and Quantum Optics VII: Proceedings of the Seventh Rochester Conference on Coherence and Quantum Optics, held at the University of Rochester, June 7–10, 1995. Springer. An extended version of this article is available athttp://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0508202.
• Bjorken & Drell, (1964) Bjorken, James D., & Drell, Sydney D. 1964. Relativistic Quantum Mechanics. McGraw-Hill.
• Bjorken & Drell, (1965) Bjorken, James D., & Drell, Sydney D. 1965. Relativistic Quantum Fields. McGraw-Hill.
• Bohm, (1953) Bohm, David. 1953. Comments on an article of Takabayasi concerning the formulation of quantum mechanics with classical pictures. Progress of Theoretical Physics, 9(3), 273–287.
• Bohm & Hiley, (1993) Bohm, David, & Hiley, Basil J. 1993. The Undivided Universe: An ontological interpretation of quantum theory. Routledge.
• Carroll, (2016) Carroll, Sean M. 2016. You should love (or at least respect) the Schrödinger equation. http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2016/08/15/you-should-love-or-at-least-respect-the-schrodinger-equation/.
• Chuu et al., (2007) Chuu, Chih-Piao, Chang, Ming-Che, & Niu, Qian. 2007. Wave-packet view of the Dirac electron. arXiv preprint arXiv:0709.1407.
• Corben, (1961) Corben, H.C. 1961. Spin in classical and quantum theory. Physical Review, 121(6), 1833–1839.
• Crisp & Jaynes, (1969) Crisp, Michael Dennis, & Jaynes, E.T. 1969. Radiative effects in semiclassical theory. Physical Review, 179(5), 1253–1261.
• Deckert et al., (2019) Deckert, Dirk-André, Esfeld, Michael, & Oldofredi, Andrea. 2019. A Persistent Particle Ontology for Quantum Field Theory in Terms of the Dirac Sea. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 70(3), 747–770.
• Dirac, (1930) Dirac, Paul A.M. 1930. A theory of electrons and protons. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 126(801), 360–365.
• Dirac, (1958) Dirac, Paul A.M. 1958. The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. 4th edn. Oxford University Press.
• Duncan, (2012) Duncan, Anthony. 2012. The Conceptual Framework of Quantum Field Theory. Oxford University Press.
• Dürr et al., (2005) Dürr, Detlef, Goldstein, Sheldon, Tumulka, Roderich, & Zanghì, Nino. 2005. Bell-type quantum field theories. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 38(4), R1–R43.
• Feynman et al., (1964) Feynman, Richard P., Leighton, Robert B., & Sands, Matthew. 1964. The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Vol. II. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
• Frenkel, (1934) Frenkel, J. 1934. Wave Mechanics: Advanced General Theory. Oxford University Press.
• Giulini, (2008) Giulini, Domenico. 2008. Electron spin or “classically non-describable two-valuedness”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 39(3), 557–578.
• Good, (1957) Good, Roland H., Jr. 1957. Particle aspect of the electromagnetic field equations. Physical Review, 105(6), 1914–1919.
• Gordon, (1928) Gordon, Walter. 1928. Der strom der Diracschen elektronentheorie. Zeitschrift für Physik, 50, 630–632.
• Gottfried & Weisskopf, (1986) Gottfried, Kurt, & Weisskopf, Victor F. 1986. Concepts of Particle Physics. Vol. 2. Oxford University Press.
• Goudsmit, (1998) Goudsmit, Samuel A. 1998. The discovery of electron spin. Chap. 1, pages 2–12 of: Gareth R. Eaton, Sandra S. Eaton, Kev M. Salikhov (ed), Foundations Of Modern EPR. World Scientific.
• Griffiths, (1999) Griffiths, David J. 1999. Introduction to Electrodynamics. 3rd edn. Prentice Hall.
• Griffiths, (2005) Griffiths, David J. 2005. Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. 2nd edn. Pearson Prentice Hall.
• Gull et al., (1993) Gull, Stephen, Lasenby, Anthony, & Doran, Chris. 1993. Electron paths, tunnelling, and diffraction in the spacetime algebra. Foundations of Physics, 23(10), 1329–1356.
• Hatfield, (1992) Hatfield, Brian. 1992. Quantum Field Theory of Point Particles and Strings. Addison-Wesley. Frontiers in Physics, Volume 75.
• Heitler, (1954) Heitler, Walter H. 1954. The Quantum Theory of Radiation. 3rd edn. Oxford University Press.
• Hestenes, (2008) Hestenes, David. 2008. Electron time, mass and zitter. FQXi Essay. https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/339.
• Hestenes, (2010) Hestenes, David. 2010. Zitterbewegung in quantum mechanics. Foundations of Physics, 40, 1–54.
• Holland, (1993) Holland, Peter R. 1993. The Quantum Theory of Motion: An account of the de Broglie-Bohm causal interpretation of quantum mechanics. Cambridge University Press.
• Huang, (1952) Huang, Kerson. 1952. On the zitterbewegung of the Dirac electron. American Journal of Physics, 20, 479–484.
• Huggett, (2000) Huggett, Nick. 2000. Philosophical foundations of quantum field theory. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 51, 617–637.
• Jackiw, (1990) Jackiw, Roman. 1990. Analysis on infinite-dimensional manifolds—Schrödinger representation for quantized fields. Pages 78–143 of: O. J. P. Éboli, M. Gomes, & Santoro, A. (eds), Field Theory and Particle Physics. World Scientific.
• Jackson, (1999) Jackson, John D. 1999. Classical Electrodynamics. 3rd edn. Wiley.
• Jaynes, (1973) Jaynes, E.T. 1973. Survey of the present status of neoclassical radiation theory. Pages 35–81 of: Mandel, L., & Wolf, E. (eds), Coherence and Quantum Optics. Plenum Press.
• Lange, (2002) Lange, Marc. 2002. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Physics: Locality, Energy, Fields, and Mass. Blackwell.
• MacGregor, (1992) MacGregor, Malcolm H. 1992. The Enigmatic Electron. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Messiah, (1962) Messiah, Albert. 1962. Quantum Mechanics: Volume II. North-Holland Publishing Company.
• Mignani et al., (1974) Mignani, E, Recami, E, & Baldo, M. 1974. About a Dirac-like equation for the photon according to Ettore Majorana. Lettere al Nuovo Cimento (1971-1985), 11(12), 568–572.
• Myrvold, (2015) Myrvold, Wayne C. 2015. What is a wavefunction? Synthese, 192(10), 3247–3274.
• Newton & Wigner, (1949) Newton, Theodore Duddell, & Wigner, Eugene P. 1949. Localized states for elementary systems. Reviews of Modern Physics, 21(3), 400–406.
• Ohanian, (1986) Ohanian, Hans C. 1986. What is spin? American Journal of Physics, 54(6), 500–505.
• Pais, (1989) Pais, Abraham. 1989. George Uhlenbeck and the discovery of electron spin. Physics Today, 42(12), 34–40.
• Pashby, (2012) Pashby, Thomas. 2012. Dirac’s prediction of the positron: a case study for the current realism debate. Perspectives on Science, 20(4), 440–475.
• Pauli, (1980) Pauli, Wolfgang. 1980. General Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Springer-Verlag.
• Pearle, (1982) Pearle, Philip. 1982. Classical electron models. Pages 211–295 of: Teplitz, Doris (ed), Electromagnetism: Paths to Research. Plenum Press.
• Peskin & Schroeder, (1995) Peskin, Michael E., & Schroeder, Daniel V. 1995. An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory. Westview Press.
• Poincaré, (1900) Poincaré, Henri. 1900. La théorie de Lorentz et le principe de réaction. Archives néerlandaises des sciences exactes et naturelles,5, 252–278.
• Rohrlich, (2007) Rohrlich, Fritz. 2007. Classical Charged Particles. 3rd edn. World Scientific.
• Rojansky, (1938) Rojansky, Vladimir. 1938. Introductory Quantum Mechanics. Prentice-Hall.
• Ryder, (1996) Ryder, Lewis H. 1996. Quantum Field Theory. 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.
• Saunders, (1991) Saunders, Simon. 1991. The negative-energy sea. Pages 65–109 of: Saunders, Simon, & Brown, Harvey R. (eds),The Philosophy of Vacuum. Clarendon Press.
• Schwartz, (2014) Schwartz, Matthew D. 2014. Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model. Cambridge University Press.
• Schweber, (1961) Schweber, Silvan S. 1961. Introduction to Relativistic Quantum Field Theory. Harper & Row.
• Schweber, (1994) Schweber, Silvan S. 1994. QED and the Men Who Made It: Dyson, Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga. Princeton University Press.
• Sebens, (2018) Sebens, Charles T. 2018. Forces on fields. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 63, 1–11.
• Sebens, (2019) Sebens, Charles T. 2019. Electromagnetism as quantum physics. Foundations of Physics, 49(4), 365–389.
• Sebens, (2020) Sebens, Charles T. 2020. Putting Positrons into Classical Dirac Field Theory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 70, 8–18.
• Struyve, (2010) Struyve, Ward. 2010. Pilot-wave theory and quantum fields. Reports on Progress in Physics, 73(10), 106001.
• Takabayasi, (1957) Takabayasi, Takehiko. 1957. Relativistic hydrodynamics of the Dirac matter. Part 1. General theory. Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 4, 1–80.
• Teller, (1995) Teller, Paul. 1995. An interpretive introduction to quantum field theory. Princeton University Press.
• Thaller, (1992) Thaller, Bernd. 1992. The Dirac Equation. Springer-Verlag.
• Tomonaga, (1997) Tomonaga, Sin-itiro. 1997. The Story of Spin. University of Chicago Press.
• Tong, (2006) Tong, David. 2006. Lectures on Quantum Field Theory. http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qft.html.
• Uhlenbeck, (1976) Uhlenbeck, George E. 1976. Fifty years of spin: Personal reminiscences. Physics Today, 29(6), 43–48.
• Valentini, (1992) Valentini, Antony. 1992. On the pilot-wave theory of classical, quantum and subquantum physics. Ph.D. thesis, ISAS, Trieste, Italy.
• Valentini, (1996) Valentini, Antony. 1996. Pilot-wave theory of fields, gravitation, and cosmology. Pages 45–66 of: Cushing, James T., Fine, Arthur, & Goldstein, Sheldon (eds), Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: An Appraisal. Kluwer Academic.
• Wallace, (2001) Wallace, David. 2001. Emergence of particles from bosonic quantum field theory. arXiv preprint quant-ph/0112149.
• Wallace, (2006) Wallace, David. 2006. In defence of naiveté: the conceptual status of Lagrangian quantum field theory. Synthese, 151(1), 33–80.
• Wallace, (2021) Wallace, David. 2021. The Quantum Theory of Fields. Pages 275–295 of: Knox, Eleanor, & Wilson, Alastair (eds),The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Physics. Routledge.
• Weinberg, (1999) Weinberg, Steven. 1999. What is quantum field theory, and what did we think it was? Pages 241–251 of: Cao, Tian Yu (ed), Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Field Theory. Cambridge University Press.
• Weisskopf, (1934a) Weisskopf, V. 1934a. Über die selbstenergie des elektrons. Zeitschrift für Physik, 89, 27–39.
• Weisskopf, (1934b) Weisskopf, V. 1934b. Berichtigung zu der arbeit: über die selbstenergie des elektrons. Zeitschrift für Physik, 90, 817–818.
• Weisskopf, (1939) Weisskopf, Victor F. 1939. On the self-energy and the electromagnetic field of the electron. Physical Review, 56(1), 72–85.
• Wentzel, (1949) Wentzel, Gregor. 1949. Quantum Theory of Fields. Interscience Publishers.
• Weyl, (1932) Weyl, Hermann. 1932. The Theory of Groups and Quantum Mechanics. Dover.