Spin As A Boson?
 

I've been wondering about this for a while, and was wondering if anyone else thought about the idea.

In quantum physics, spin is often thought of as inherent to a particle in it's own sake (for lack of a better term). In fact, when examining the Standard Model, it is the only characteristic of a particle not directly given to it by a corresponding gauge boson (charge, color, and mass all being given by the photon, gluon, and higgs, respectively....W and Z, are...well, they're on their own, a mix of all three in their interactions, tbh).

What if spin was thought of as yet another fundamental force? And that spin imparted on a particle was the result of interaction with a spin gauge boson? And part of a larger fundamental spin field. And for example, "spin up" and "spin down" are the two different "spin charges" that the field can impart.

For example it would be a good way to define charge-spin separation. The particle would separate into two particles, each interacting with either a spin or electromagnetic force gauge boson.

Is the existence of a spin boson already dis-proven, and if not, what sort of experiments could be done to discover it? I'd imagine it would probably be massively high energies, as I'm sure quantum states, and a means to separate them (thus spin), was the first quantization after the Big Bang.

Also a thought on the higgs: Would one expect to find a form of CP Violation in it? If found in a form that matches the calculations, it will be the second massive boson discovered (the first being the W/Z bosons). Now, my theory of CP Violation in that it results from the relative angular momentum of the boson vs. the particle it is interacting with (as it is traveling at less than C, it's own motion and spin relative to the particle it is interacting with matters, but the other two [photon and gluon] does not matter as they travel at C). As the higgs would also be traveling at less than C, wouldn't it's own spin and motion relative to left or right handed particles it is interacting with also come into play.

Yes, I love particle physics.:P

My first thought was, for all these "what ifs", is there any way in which your spin boson theory would help to simplify some of the wackiness of quantum, or is it just a proposition?

Maybe it's just me, but quantifying spin as a boson helps me visualize a lot of this stuff. There's already a name for the spin-component of an electron that undergoes spin-charge separation to allow it to tunnel. It's called a "spinon," while the charge-component is called the "holion." The holion is pretty easy to describe: a spin 0 particle that interacts through the exchange of virtual photons (thus the charge-component), the spinon is a 1/2 spin particle that interacts through the exchange of virtual (hypothetical) spin-bosons. It must be exchanging something for it to retain it's identity as a spin-carrying component of a separated electron.

That's one thought experiment that lead me to this hypothesis. And here's the other.

Let's look at the Standard Model.

http://naturalorder.info/images/stan..._particles.png

(I'd wrap in [img] tags but it doesn't have a real white background).

Nearly each characteristic of a fermion of the standard model (as well as the W and Z bosons), corresponds to three of the bosons on the right column (mentally add in the Higgs boson, I might be going out on a limb, but do it). The charge is a result of the photon, the mass is a result of the higgs, and in the case of the quarks, color (not shown, mentally add it in) is a result of the gluon. The W and Z are exceptions in that they sort of tie the forces together in the interactions they do. A particle is defined solely by the fields it interacts with. The only character left hanging, without a corresponding boson supplying it, is spin. Thus enters my theory of a spin-boson. It was a gap that just needed to be filled.

I also wonder if monopoles can be described using quantized spin? As magnetic fields arise by the interaction of spin and electromagnetism. Will changing the way spin is applied to a particle change how electricity and magnetism arise in said particles? Even resulting in a monopole?

I'm short of time, so I'll come back to the rest of this, but IIRC, magnetism is actually the interaction of electric charge and velocity. Electricity becomes magnetism and vice versa depending on the Lorentz boosts involved.

It could be both. IIRC there's three main factors in an atom that give rise to the magnetic moment.

The spin up/down of electrons.
The spin up/down of nuclei.
And the velocity and arrangement of electrons around the nucleus.

Here is a news story that just came to my computer from the local ABC Station in El Paso, nothing Earth shaking, but a nice update to show what everyone is up to concerning the Higgs Boson.

Scientists Say They've Cornered The Elusive 'God Particle
POSTED: 11:01 am MST March 9, 2012
AAAText Size
PrintEmail
UPDATED: 11:07 am MST March 9, 2012
WASHINGTON -- More scientists are getting closer in the search for the "God particle" of physics that would help explain the fundamentals of the universe, but they haven't found it yet.

In the hunt for the Higgs boson, which is key to understanding why matter has mass, two teams of physicists using results from a now-closed American accelerator have come up with similar findings to those announced late last year by researchers at the more powerful Large Hadron Collider in Europe. While the scientists using the two accelerators have not found the elusive subatomic particle, they both have narrowed the area where it can be found, if it exists. And they know where it isn't.

Work done in the Tevatron collider at the Fermi National Lab near Chicago provides important independent confirmation of the getting-closer announcement last year by CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research near Geneva, researchers said. The results from work by more than 800 scientists were to be announced in Italy on Wednesday.

"Globally the world is starting to see a consistent picture," said Fermi physicist Rob Roser, a spokesman for one team. "I don't think there's any place for the Higgs to hide. We'll know the answer one way or another by the end of 2012."

Roser said just because they have seen hints of the Higgs, it's not enough. "I'm not even willing to bet your house on it, let alone mine," he said Tuesday.

At Fermi, two teams independently used the accelerator in different ways. Two other teams in Europe used the Large Hadron Collider. Fermi's Tevatron collides protons and antiprotons together, while CERN smashes protons together. That means four different groups using different techniques and equipment have come to the same general conclusion.

Still, that's not certain enough for scientists to even call it evidence, Roser said.

While the results from Fermi's collider aren't as precise as CERN's, they are important because they give the European results more credence, Harvard University physicist Gary Feldman said.

The Tevatron closed in September, so it is likely that the final discovery of the Higgs will be in Europe, Roser said.

The Higgs, first hypothesized 40 years ago, is important to physics because it is crucial to the standard model theory that helps explain the six particles that make up the universe, Roser and Feldman said. Without it, there is no explanation for why the particles have mass.

"It would be a triumph of the theory to actually see that it happens," Feldman said.