There's no problem. Both the W+ and the W- bosons have spin 1. The electron, positron, electron neutrino and electron anti-neutrino all have spin 1/2. 1/2 + 1/2 = 1, so no problem.
Spin doesn't necessarily matter that much all spin is , how many times it has to turn before it will have an identical side, it doesn't matter if the spin is 1/2 or 1 or even 2, it just is a measurement of how you can turn the particle to see its "Identical side". It should not be something to base a theory off you in my opinion. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Spin is not a conserved quantity in physics and certainly does not prove the non existence of the WNF, Pure Speculation again.
I think you'll find that angular momentum is conserved in physics, in the absence of external torques on a system.
Spin is not angular momentum when refering to the spin of particles. Those spin numbers despite the name have nothing to do with angular momentum. Those spin numbers that the OP is referring to are not (l) values like in chemistry.
Spin acts just like other forms of angular momentum in lots of ways. Of course, quantum angular momentum, of which spin is one type, works a bit differently to classical angular momentum. But the basics of angular momentum still apply.
You are not understanding me Read about Bosons and Fermions, he is talking about the spinor of Particles not the Spin that you are thinking of. The Quantum State spinor. It is a easy mistake, I think you are talking about the (s) value and not an (l) value or (s) Eigenspinor Number and Not (l) Angular momentum azimuthal number.
Apparently not. I know a bit about them already. Anything specific? Who's "he"? I haven't seen the word "spinor" used in this thread before now. Isn't a spinor just a particular mathematical way of representing spin, a bit like a vector? However we represent it, we're still talking about the same thing: the intrinsic angular momentum of a particle of one type or another. Well, from what Willem said, I assumed we were talking about the "spin quantum number", often denoted s, which is what we mean when we say something like "an electron has spin 1/2" or "a photon has spin 1". That s number is like the magnitude of a spin vector, if we represent spin that way. Its projection - or eigenvalues if your prefer - in a particular direction in space, are a different matter. They determine something like the orientation of the spin vector in space - hence the term "space quantisation". Orbital angular momentum, usually denoted by l (or L, depending on what you're talking about), is completely separate from spin (intrinsic angular momentum). The current thread, as I understand it, is only concerned with spin. I repeat, though: spin, in how it behaves, works in the quantum world as a kind of angular momentum, just like orbital angular momentum in a lot of ways. One important difference is that the quantum number s of a particle has a fixed, intrinsic, value.
Nevermind I must have gotten the wrong one from what he was saying, my bad. I may have mixed my spins.
Electron spin wasn't well-understood when Einstein and deHaas did an experiment to determine spin angular momentum. Their result was wrong by a factor of two because their experiment made the same assumption (spin is single-valued), more or less, and didn't consider that a pair of electrons can be in the same orbit because a pair of fermions can have opposite spins--in fact this is demanded by the pairwise occupation of orbital states (and the mathematics of wavefunctions). Otherwise the Einstein-deHaas experiment was quite ingenious. But unfortunately the result wasn't. Nonetheless, their "mistake" was significant, so today we know why it was wrong and why electrons and fermions in general can pair up. So, science--make an assumption, test it with an experiment or two, revise the assumption if the results don't match up, wash, rinse, repeat . . .