Well, I had too much to eat for Thanksgiving. I saved up some special for dinner tonight and ate too much. So looks like I will try to eat just cereal for the next two days. I want to try to maintain my 137 lbs weight that I had in High School, so that means some days of near fasting. But enough of that, lets get to important things.
I had to make a detour into the electric motor, the rotor and thanks to Tim's responses, I am pretty sure the problem is with the Schrodinger Equation gives inaccurate descriptions of the "s" orbitals. The Schrodinger Equation gives spherical orbitals to the "s", but we all know the Dirac Equation relativizes the Schrodinger Equation. It puts the Schrodinger Equation into motion, so that the sphere is no longer a adequate description of the "s" orbital. So what happens when you put a sphere into motion? What figure comes out? Well, easily that a sphere produces when in motion is a cylinder shape.
So the "s" orbitals of chemistry should really look like a cylinder rather than a sphere. Now the Schrodinger Equation gets a lot of elongated ellipses for the p, d, f orbitals. And if we put those into the Dirac Equation, it elongates them even more so. The Dirac Equation makes orbitals more like wire loops around the nucleus of an atom.
Now I had to be sure that no electric motor or rotor thereof was a sphere shaped wire loop. Now I am not saying such a object cannot exist or is nonexistent. I am saying that the basic principle of an electric motor is based on the cylinder shape.
Now I am getting closer to my goal of relating charge with spin. I am centimetering my way there, rather than millimetering my way there.
Since the theme of New Physics is that the Maxwell Equations derives all of physics, that the concept of charge and spin must be begotten out of the Maxwell Equations. Charge and spin can be primitive notions, but then the Maxwell Equations would define charge and spin from the laws of the Maxwell Equations.
And that amounts to basically Coulomb law defining charge and the Ampere law defining spin.
And the way that works is that the Coulomb law would be a geometry effect of opposite charges fitting inside one another as the inverse square of distance, whereas like charges repel and cannot fit inside one another. So that a proton and electron are nested, concentric spheres radiating from the center of an atom, and the electron matches every concentric sphere of the proton by composing the inside of that sphere surface.
So charge is geometry, of the three types of geometry, Euclidean, Elliptic and Hyperbolic.
That leaves us with spin. Spin in essence is the Ampere law which says that parallel currents attract one another. It is this law that makes electrons pair up in suborbitals and yields the Hund's rule. It is spin that creates the 3 p suborbitals of paired electrons. When electrons flow in parallel, they attract and thus pair up and cause a suborbital of two electrons.
So the Coulomb law describes charge and the Ampere law describes spin.
The charge is geometry for the proton is elliptic and the electron is hyperbolic, where the proton is the outer surface of a sphere and the electron is the inner surface of the same sphere with its poles and equator missing.
So what is spin in terms of geometry? Well, since it is the Ampere law, the geometry involved is a choice of direction of motion of the two electrons. If the electrons are in parallel motion they attract, if antiparallel they repel.
So for charge there are 3 possible values for charge, -1,0,+1 and for spin there cannot be more values, more possibilities than charge. There can only be 3 possible spins, -1/2, 0, +1/2. If the spins are parallel they are +1/2 with -1/2 equalling 0; if they are antiparallel the spins repel and do not form a permanent structure, with a net spin overall.
Now in ferromagnetism, we have electrons of unfilled suborbitals and this large collection of electrons of unfilled suborbitals have a parallel overall spin and that yields an overall attraction force and we see it as ferromagnetism.
So what is the relationship of charge to spin? Well, it is the relationship of Coulomb's law compared to Ampere's law. In effect those two laws are independent since they are required in the Maxwell Equations. So I cannot tie or connect them any more than I can tie Coulomb's law to Ampere's law.