Eric-- I think the 1/2 and –1/2 spin comes into play when a vector quantity is associated with the spin and the related angular momentum. In addition a preferred direction is implied with respect to the direction of the magnetic moment inherent in the spin designation. I think it all falls out to be –1/2 and +1/2 from the Dirac equations to make sense.
I think that classical electricity and magnetism per Maxwell does not address the issue of spin and how it relates to charge on an electron. In the classical case I think your idea of assigning a basic unit associated with an electron charge would make no difference. It would only change the quantity of electrons making up a coulomb of charge, which quantity is associated with volts and amps and their definition. Bob Cook From: Eric Walker Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 2:55 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together. On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote: The question is whether the fractional charge that is associated with some quarks actually exists as a separate entity in nature? Instead of fractional charge, it's possible the "1/3," "2/3," etc., are an artifact of our numbering system. That is to say, it might make more sense to think of the charges of quarks as being "1" or "2," and the charges of electrons and protons as being "3". There is a similar question about the amount of spin: we say that an electron has a spin of 1/2 and a photon of spin 1, but is that just a result of the starting point for a numbering system, which would make it too hard at this point to reindex the spins so that an electron is said instead to have a spin of 1 and a photon a spin of 2? Eric
