Alternative classical explanation of the Stern-Gerlach Experiment?The Stern Gerlach Experiment RevisitedMagnetic moment of electronStern-Gerlach and Hund's second ruleWhy does the Stern–Gerlach quantum spin experiment conflict with classical mechanics?Sequential Stern-Gerlach devices - realizable experiment or teaching aid?Stern-Gerlach experiment with BosonsParadox about the Stern-Gerlach experiment with $B=0$, $nabla Bne 0$Why aren't there two discrete infinitely narrow peaks in the Stern-Gerlach experiment?How do electrons actually move in the Stern Gerlach experiment?What are the high-gradient magnets used in the modified Stern-Gerlach apparatus?
Why wear sunglasses in indoor velodromes?
Parse a C++14 integer literal
I recently started my machine learning PhD and I have absolutely no idea what I'm doing
Why is Drogon so much better in battle than Rhaegal and Viserion?
Was Tyrion always a poor strategist?
How do I balance a campaign consisting of four kobold PCs?
How do you cope with rejection?
Quotient of Three Dimensional Torus by Permutation on Coordinates
Failing students when it might cause them economic ruin
Why does a table with a defined constant in its index compute 10X slower?
Who is frowning in the sentence "Daisy looked at Tom frowning"?
Does the usage of mathematical symbols work differently in books than in theses?
Why does Taylor’s series “work”?
Pedaling at different gear ratios on flat terrain: what's the point?
Alternative classical explanation of the Stern-Gerlach Experiment?
How do we explain the use of a software on a math paper?
What technology would Dwarves need to forge titanium?
Have the writers and actors of GOT responded to its poor reception?
In Dutch history two people are referred to as "William III"; are there any more cases where this happens?
Why does the U.S military use mercenaries?
Should I twist DC power and ground wires from a power supply?
What should I wear to go and sign an employment contract?
Windows reverting changes made by Linux to FAT32 partion
Show that the characteristic polynomial is the same as the minimal polynomial
Alternative classical explanation of the Stern-Gerlach Experiment?
The Stern Gerlach Experiment RevisitedMagnetic moment of electronStern-Gerlach and Hund's second ruleWhy does the Stern–Gerlach quantum spin experiment conflict with classical mechanics?Sequential Stern-Gerlach devices - realizable experiment or teaching aid?Stern-Gerlach experiment with BosonsParadox about the Stern-Gerlach experiment with $B=0$, $nabla Bne 0$Why aren't there two discrete infinitely narrow peaks in the Stern-Gerlach experiment?How do electrons actually move in the Stern Gerlach experiment?What are the high-gradient magnets used in the modified Stern-Gerlach apparatus?
$begingroup$
Many questions have been asked on this site about the Stern-Gerlach experiment, but as far as I can tell this one hasn't. Does the following classical explanation of the SG experiment work?
Model electrons as a finite-sized hollow sphere of rotating charge $e$. Immediately after entering the SG device, the dipole moment of the electron quickly reorients itself to align with the magnetic field of the device. This is what I would expect to happen if a small bar magnet were placed in a region of high magnetic field gradient. Suppose this happens before the electron has traveled 1% of the distance of the device. Then, for the remaining 99% of the distance in the SG device, the electron is completely oriented either "spin-up" or "spin-down," so the binary "all-or-nothing" measurement is naturally predicted by this classical picture.
This would also work to explain sending the beam through multiple differently oriented SG devices, since the previous spin orientation of the electron is completely altered (very quickly) each time the electron enters a new device.
quantum-mechanics
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Many questions have been asked on this site about the Stern-Gerlach experiment, but as far as I can tell this one hasn't. Does the following classical explanation of the SG experiment work?
Model electrons as a finite-sized hollow sphere of rotating charge $e$. Immediately after entering the SG device, the dipole moment of the electron quickly reorients itself to align with the magnetic field of the device. This is what I would expect to happen if a small bar magnet were placed in a region of high magnetic field gradient. Suppose this happens before the electron has traveled 1% of the distance of the device. Then, for the remaining 99% of the distance in the SG device, the electron is completely oriented either "spin-up" or "spin-down," so the binary "all-or-nothing" measurement is naturally predicted by this classical picture.
This would also work to explain sending the beam through multiple differently oriented SG devices, since the previous spin orientation of the electron is completely altered (very quickly) each time the electron enters a new device.
quantum-mechanics
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Your model needs some kind of friction, otherwise a classical magnet would settle its direction in an external field, but just precess.
$endgroup$
– Sebastian Riese
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Models of electrons as spinning shells of charge have been tried. They don't work.
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Sebastian Riese How about back-radiation emitted by the accelerated dipole?
$endgroup$
– WillG
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@WillG That can easily be checked by estimated the radiated power.
$endgroup$
– Sebastian Riese
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Many questions have been asked on this site about the Stern-Gerlach experiment, but as far as I can tell this one hasn't. Does the following classical explanation of the SG experiment work?
Model electrons as a finite-sized hollow sphere of rotating charge $e$. Immediately after entering the SG device, the dipole moment of the electron quickly reorients itself to align with the magnetic field of the device. This is what I would expect to happen if a small bar magnet were placed in a region of high magnetic field gradient. Suppose this happens before the electron has traveled 1% of the distance of the device. Then, for the remaining 99% of the distance in the SG device, the electron is completely oriented either "spin-up" or "spin-down," so the binary "all-or-nothing" measurement is naturally predicted by this classical picture.
This would also work to explain sending the beam through multiple differently oriented SG devices, since the previous spin orientation of the electron is completely altered (very quickly) each time the electron enters a new device.
quantum-mechanics
$endgroup$
Many questions have been asked on this site about the Stern-Gerlach experiment, but as far as I can tell this one hasn't. Does the following classical explanation of the SG experiment work?
Model electrons as a finite-sized hollow sphere of rotating charge $e$. Immediately after entering the SG device, the dipole moment of the electron quickly reorients itself to align with the magnetic field of the device. This is what I would expect to happen if a small bar magnet were placed in a region of high magnetic field gradient. Suppose this happens before the electron has traveled 1% of the distance of the device. Then, for the remaining 99% of the distance in the SG device, the electron is completely oriented either "spin-up" or "spin-down," so the binary "all-or-nothing" measurement is naturally predicted by this classical picture.
This would also work to explain sending the beam through multiple differently oriented SG devices, since the previous spin orientation of the electron is completely altered (very quickly) each time the electron enters a new device.
quantum-mechanics
quantum-mechanics
asked 6 hours ago
WillGWillG
620111
620111
1
$begingroup$
Your model needs some kind of friction, otherwise a classical magnet would settle its direction in an external field, but just precess.
$endgroup$
– Sebastian Riese
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Models of electrons as spinning shells of charge have been tried. They don't work.
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Sebastian Riese How about back-radiation emitted by the accelerated dipole?
$endgroup$
– WillG
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@WillG That can easily be checked by estimated the radiated power.
$endgroup$
– Sebastian Riese
6 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Your model needs some kind of friction, otherwise a classical magnet would settle its direction in an external field, but just precess.
$endgroup$
– Sebastian Riese
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Models of electrons as spinning shells of charge have been tried. They don't work.
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Sebastian Riese How about back-radiation emitted by the accelerated dipole?
$endgroup$
– WillG
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@WillG That can easily be checked by estimated the radiated power.
$endgroup$
– Sebastian Riese
6 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Your model needs some kind of friction, otherwise a classical magnet would settle its direction in an external field, but just precess.
$endgroup$
– Sebastian Riese
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Your model needs some kind of friction, otherwise a classical magnet would settle its direction in an external field, but just precess.
$endgroup$
– Sebastian Riese
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Models of electrons as spinning shells of charge have been tried. They don't work.
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Models of electrons as spinning shells of charge have been tried. They don't work.
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Sebastian Riese How about back-radiation emitted by the accelerated dipole?
$endgroup$
– WillG
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Sebastian Riese How about back-radiation emitted by the accelerated dipole?
$endgroup$
– WillG
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@WillG That can easily be checked by estimated the radiated power.
$endgroup$
– Sebastian Riese
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@WillG That can easily be checked by estimated the radiated power.
$endgroup$
– Sebastian Riese
6 hours ago
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It's a decent question, as many people probably thought the same when the Stern-Gerlach experiment was first released. But there are many hurdles if you try to explain it classically. To get you started:
- For spin $1$ particles, you get three spots and not two.
- There is no mechanism given to dissipate the energy, to make it stay.
- It is not simple to make a classical model where both spin up and spin down are energetically favored. In a straightforward model, if spin up has the highest energy, spin down has the lowest.
- Microscopic classical models of spin generically get the spin wrong by a factor of $2$ and, given experimental data available at the time of the Stern-Gerlach experiment, require parts of the electron to be moving faster than light.
- If you pass electrons through a vertical SG apparatus and select the spin up ones, then pass it through a horizontal SG apparatus, recombine the beams, and pass the result through a vertical SG apparatus, all of them will be spin up. This makes no sense in a model where a horizontal SG apparatus just rotates the spin to horizontal.
This is also ignoring the issue that permanent magnetic moments can't even exist in classical mechanics.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
First point is pretty interesting—has SG been performed on higher-spin particles?
$endgroup$
– WillG
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Modeling the electron as a finite-sized, spinning, charged spherical shell doesn’t work. Among a variety of problems, this model predicts the wrong value for the electron’s magnetic moment.
Consider a spherical shell of mass $m$, charge $e$, and radius $a$, spinning at angular velocity $omega$. Its moment of inertia is
$$I=frac23ma^2$$
and its magnetic moment (in Gaussian units) is
$$mu=fracea^23comega.$$
(Source: http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/rotatingshell.pdf)
The angular momentum is
$$L=Iomega$$
and we know that for an electron this is $hbar/2$.
We can then express the magnetic moment as
$$mu=fracehbar2mc.$$
But the magnetic moment is measured to be slightly greater than twice this value.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Fair, but my point isn't so much about the specific model as it is about a classical explanation of the SG experiment, specifically the binary (not continuous) output beam separation. So if you prefer, assume classical point particles with a little extra physics thrown in to allow for intrinsic angular momentum and an arbitrary parameter for gyromagnetic ratio. These could easily be features of a classical theory, in the sense of not relying on quantum states, wavefunction collapse upon measurement, etc.
$endgroup$
– WillG
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
This site is about mainstream physics. Rejecting quantum mechanics is about as far out of the mainstream as you can get.
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Asking about why alternative explanations don't work ≠ rejecting mainstream physics.
$endgroup$
– WillG
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Does that mean all questions about Bohmian mechanics should not be allowed on this site either? Bizarre, since there is a tag for it.
$endgroup$
– WillG
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
My (extremely limited) understanding of Bohmian mechanics is that it is simply an interpretation of quantum mechanics, making exactly the same predictions as standard QM. So I think you are making a false comparison.
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There has been a recent demonstration of a Stern-Gerlach atom interferometer with high accuracy control of magnetic gradient on an atom chip (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.02708.pdf). Any attempt to picture the magnetic moment as a classical dipole pointing in a certain direction will fail to explain the interference pattern observed (see Figure 2 in the paper).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
First, in the Stern-Gerlach experiment, a beam of silver atoms was used, and not a beam of electrons. Secondly, the interpretation of data at that time (1922) based on the classical equations of motion. It is assumed that the silver atom has a magnetic moment on which the force acts
$$vec F=nabla (vec mu.vec B)……(1)$$
The role of quantum mechanics is reduced to the statement that the magnetic moment in equation (1) is quantized in proportion to the angular momentum or spin. In this form, the theory of the scattering of atoms in a non-uniform magnetic field was used to solve practical problems related to the determination of the magnetic moment of atoms using the Stern-Gerlach method down to the present time. As it is known, Stern and Gerlach obtained the following figure of silver atoms (on the left without a magnetic field, on the right in a magnetic field)
The question is, can we get the right figure using equation (1) with $mu =pm mu_B$? I simulated the scattering of silver atoms in a magnetic field with a gradient as in the Stern-Gerlach experiment. All parameters of the gap and velocity of atoms were as in experiment. The result is shown in Fig. 2, where a) magnetic field lines and gap projection (red rectangle); b)magnetic field gradient (solid line) and experimental data (points) from Stern and Gerlach; c) atomic scattering pattern in a magnetic field; d) the same without a magnetic field. Comparing the scattering figures in Figs. 1 and 2, we find that Bohr’s hypothesis about quantizing the magnetic moment with projection $pmmu _B$ to the direction of the magnetic field is confirmed.
A similar result can be obtained without this hypothesis, simply using the Schrödinger–Pauli equation:
$$ihbar frac partial psipartial t=-frac hbar ^22mnabla^2psi+mu _B(vec B.vec sigma )psi $$
$vec sigma =(sigma _1,sigma _2, sigma _3)$ there is a Pauli matrix. Figure 3 shows the scatter pattern in the quantum model.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are semiclassical equations of motion that fully explain the Stern-Gerlach experiment, see e. g. Section 5 of Gat, Lein & Teufel, Annales Henri Poincaré 15, 1967 (2014). It is important, though, that in this approach it is not the individual trajectories that matter, but averages of an ensemble of initial spins (which are obtained from a generalized Wigner transform of the quantum spin state). And this is how quantum mechanics comes into play, because only states from quantum mechanics give you a consistent interpretation.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f480510%2falternative-classical-explanation-of-the-stern-gerlach-experiment%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It's a decent question, as many people probably thought the same when the Stern-Gerlach experiment was first released. But there are many hurdles if you try to explain it classically. To get you started:
- For spin $1$ particles, you get three spots and not two.
- There is no mechanism given to dissipate the energy, to make it stay.
- It is not simple to make a classical model where both spin up and spin down are energetically favored. In a straightforward model, if spin up has the highest energy, spin down has the lowest.
- Microscopic classical models of spin generically get the spin wrong by a factor of $2$ and, given experimental data available at the time of the Stern-Gerlach experiment, require parts of the electron to be moving faster than light.
- If you pass electrons through a vertical SG apparatus and select the spin up ones, then pass it through a horizontal SG apparatus, recombine the beams, and pass the result through a vertical SG apparatus, all of them will be spin up. This makes no sense in a model where a horizontal SG apparatus just rotates the spin to horizontal.
This is also ignoring the issue that permanent magnetic moments can't even exist in classical mechanics.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
First point is pretty interesting—has SG been performed on higher-spin particles?
$endgroup$
– WillG
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It's a decent question, as many people probably thought the same when the Stern-Gerlach experiment was first released. But there are many hurdles if you try to explain it classically. To get you started:
- For spin $1$ particles, you get three spots and not two.
- There is no mechanism given to dissipate the energy, to make it stay.
- It is not simple to make a classical model where both spin up and spin down are energetically favored. In a straightforward model, if spin up has the highest energy, spin down has the lowest.
- Microscopic classical models of spin generically get the spin wrong by a factor of $2$ and, given experimental data available at the time of the Stern-Gerlach experiment, require parts of the electron to be moving faster than light.
- If you pass electrons through a vertical SG apparatus and select the spin up ones, then pass it through a horizontal SG apparatus, recombine the beams, and pass the result through a vertical SG apparatus, all of them will be spin up. This makes no sense in a model where a horizontal SG apparatus just rotates the spin to horizontal.
This is also ignoring the issue that permanent magnetic moments can't even exist in classical mechanics.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
First point is pretty interesting—has SG been performed on higher-spin particles?
$endgroup$
– WillG
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It's a decent question, as many people probably thought the same when the Stern-Gerlach experiment was first released. But there are many hurdles if you try to explain it classically. To get you started:
- For spin $1$ particles, you get three spots and not two.
- There is no mechanism given to dissipate the energy, to make it stay.
- It is not simple to make a classical model where both spin up and spin down are energetically favored. In a straightforward model, if spin up has the highest energy, spin down has the lowest.
- Microscopic classical models of spin generically get the spin wrong by a factor of $2$ and, given experimental data available at the time of the Stern-Gerlach experiment, require parts of the electron to be moving faster than light.
- If you pass electrons through a vertical SG apparatus and select the spin up ones, then pass it through a horizontal SG apparatus, recombine the beams, and pass the result through a vertical SG apparatus, all of them will be spin up. This makes no sense in a model where a horizontal SG apparatus just rotates the spin to horizontal.
This is also ignoring the issue that permanent magnetic moments can't even exist in classical mechanics.
$endgroup$
It's a decent question, as many people probably thought the same when the Stern-Gerlach experiment was first released. But there are many hurdles if you try to explain it classically. To get you started:
- For spin $1$ particles, you get three spots and not two.
- There is no mechanism given to dissipate the energy, to make it stay.
- It is not simple to make a classical model where both spin up and spin down are energetically favored. In a straightforward model, if spin up has the highest energy, spin down has the lowest.
- Microscopic classical models of spin generically get the spin wrong by a factor of $2$ and, given experimental data available at the time of the Stern-Gerlach experiment, require parts of the electron to be moving faster than light.
- If you pass electrons through a vertical SG apparatus and select the spin up ones, then pass it through a horizontal SG apparatus, recombine the beams, and pass the result through a vertical SG apparatus, all of them will be spin up. This makes no sense in a model where a horizontal SG apparatus just rotates the spin to horizontal.
This is also ignoring the issue that permanent magnetic moments can't even exist in classical mechanics.
answered 5 hours ago
knzhouknzhou
49.5k12136241
49.5k12136241
$begingroup$
First point is pretty interesting—has SG been performed on higher-spin particles?
$endgroup$
– WillG
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
First point is pretty interesting—has SG been performed on higher-spin particles?
$endgroup$
– WillG
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
First point is pretty interesting—has SG been performed on higher-spin particles?
$endgroup$
– WillG
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
First point is pretty interesting—has SG been performed on higher-spin particles?
$endgroup$
– WillG
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Modeling the electron as a finite-sized, spinning, charged spherical shell doesn’t work. Among a variety of problems, this model predicts the wrong value for the electron’s magnetic moment.
Consider a spherical shell of mass $m$, charge $e$, and radius $a$, spinning at angular velocity $omega$. Its moment of inertia is
$$I=frac23ma^2$$
and its magnetic moment (in Gaussian units) is
$$mu=fracea^23comega.$$
(Source: http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/rotatingshell.pdf)
The angular momentum is
$$L=Iomega$$
and we know that for an electron this is $hbar/2$.
We can then express the magnetic moment as
$$mu=fracehbar2mc.$$
But the magnetic moment is measured to be slightly greater than twice this value.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Fair, but my point isn't so much about the specific model as it is about a classical explanation of the SG experiment, specifically the binary (not continuous) output beam separation. So if you prefer, assume classical point particles with a little extra physics thrown in to allow for intrinsic angular momentum and an arbitrary parameter for gyromagnetic ratio. These could easily be features of a classical theory, in the sense of not relying on quantum states, wavefunction collapse upon measurement, etc.
$endgroup$
– WillG
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
This site is about mainstream physics. Rejecting quantum mechanics is about as far out of the mainstream as you can get.
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Asking about why alternative explanations don't work ≠ rejecting mainstream physics.
$endgroup$
– WillG
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Does that mean all questions about Bohmian mechanics should not be allowed on this site either? Bizarre, since there is a tag for it.
$endgroup$
– WillG
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
My (extremely limited) understanding of Bohmian mechanics is that it is simply an interpretation of quantum mechanics, making exactly the same predictions as standard QM. So I think you are making a false comparison.
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Modeling the electron as a finite-sized, spinning, charged spherical shell doesn’t work. Among a variety of problems, this model predicts the wrong value for the electron’s magnetic moment.
Consider a spherical shell of mass $m$, charge $e$, and radius $a$, spinning at angular velocity $omega$. Its moment of inertia is
$$I=frac23ma^2$$
and its magnetic moment (in Gaussian units) is
$$mu=fracea^23comega.$$
(Source: http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/rotatingshell.pdf)
The angular momentum is
$$L=Iomega$$
and we know that for an electron this is $hbar/2$.
We can then express the magnetic moment as
$$mu=fracehbar2mc.$$
But the magnetic moment is measured to be slightly greater than twice this value.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Fair, but my point isn't so much about the specific model as it is about a classical explanation of the SG experiment, specifically the binary (not continuous) output beam separation. So if you prefer, assume classical point particles with a little extra physics thrown in to allow for intrinsic angular momentum and an arbitrary parameter for gyromagnetic ratio. These could easily be features of a classical theory, in the sense of not relying on quantum states, wavefunction collapse upon measurement, etc.
$endgroup$
– WillG
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
This site is about mainstream physics. Rejecting quantum mechanics is about as far out of the mainstream as you can get.
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Asking about why alternative explanations don't work ≠ rejecting mainstream physics.
$endgroup$
– WillG
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Does that mean all questions about Bohmian mechanics should not be allowed on this site either? Bizarre, since there is a tag for it.
$endgroup$
– WillG
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
My (extremely limited) understanding of Bohmian mechanics is that it is simply an interpretation of quantum mechanics, making exactly the same predictions as standard QM. So I think you are making a false comparison.
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Modeling the electron as a finite-sized, spinning, charged spherical shell doesn’t work. Among a variety of problems, this model predicts the wrong value for the electron’s magnetic moment.
Consider a spherical shell of mass $m$, charge $e$, and radius $a$, spinning at angular velocity $omega$. Its moment of inertia is
$$I=frac23ma^2$$
and its magnetic moment (in Gaussian units) is
$$mu=fracea^23comega.$$
(Source: http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/rotatingshell.pdf)
The angular momentum is
$$L=Iomega$$
and we know that for an electron this is $hbar/2$.
We can then express the magnetic moment as
$$mu=fracehbar2mc.$$
But the magnetic moment is measured to be slightly greater than twice this value.
$endgroup$
Modeling the electron as a finite-sized, spinning, charged spherical shell doesn’t work. Among a variety of problems, this model predicts the wrong value for the electron’s magnetic moment.
Consider a spherical shell of mass $m$, charge $e$, and radius $a$, spinning at angular velocity $omega$. Its moment of inertia is
$$I=frac23ma^2$$
and its magnetic moment (in Gaussian units) is
$$mu=fracea^23comega.$$
(Source: http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/rotatingshell.pdf)
The angular momentum is
$$L=Iomega$$
and we know that for an electron this is $hbar/2$.
We can then express the magnetic moment as
$$mu=fracehbar2mc.$$
But the magnetic moment is measured to be slightly greater than twice this value.
edited 5 hours ago
answered 5 hours ago
G. SmithG. Smith
13k12145
13k12145
$begingroup$
Fair, but my point isn't so much about the specific model as it is about a classical explanation of the SG experiment, specifically the binary (not continuous) output beam separation. So if you prefer, assume classical point particles with a little extra physics thrown in to allow for intrinsic angular momentum and an arbitrary parameter for gyromagnetic ratio. These could easily be features of a classical theory, in the sense of not relying on quantum states, wavefunction collapse upon measurement, etc.
$endgroup$
– WillG
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
This site is about mainstream physics. Rejecting quantum mechanics is about as far out of the mainstream as you can get.
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Asking about why alternative explanations don't work ≠ rejecting mainstream physics.
$endgroup$
– WillG
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Does that mean all questions about Bohmian mechanics should not be allowed on this site either? Bizarre, since there is a tag for it.
$endgroup$
– WillG
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
My (extremely limited) understanding of Bohmian mechanics is that it is simply an interpretation of quantum mechanics, making exactly the same predictions as standard QM. So I think you are making a false comparison.
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Fair, but my point isn't so much about the specific model as it is about a classical explanation of the SG experiment, specifically the binary (not continuous) output beam separation. So if you prefer, assume classical point particles with a little extra physics thrown in to allow for intrinsic angular momentum and an arbitrary parameter for gyromagnetic ratio. These could easily be features of a classical theory, in the sense of not relying on quantum states, wavefunction collapse upon measurement, etc.
$endgroup$
– WillG
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
This site is about mainstream physics. Rejecting quantum mechanics is about as far out of the mainstream as you can get.
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Asking about why alternative explanations don't work ≠ rejecting mainstream physics.
$endgroup$
– WillG
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Does that mean all questions about Bohmian mechanics should not be allowed on this site either? Bizarre, since there is a tag for it.
$endgroup$
– WillG
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
My (extremely limited) understanding of Bohmian mechanics is that it is simply an interpretation of quantum mechanics, making exactly the same predictions as standard QM. So I think you are making a false comparison.
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Fair, but my point isn't so much about the specific model as it is about a classical explanation of the SG experiment, specifically the binary (not continuous) output beam separation. So if you prefer, assume classical point particles with a little extra physics thrown in to allow for intrinsic angular momentum and an arbitrary parameter for gyromagnetic ratio. These could easily be features of a classical theory, in the sense of not relying on quantum states, wavefunction collapse upon measurement, etc.
$endgroup$
– WillG
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Fair, but my point isn't so much about the specific model as it is about a classical explanation of the SG experiment, specifically the binary (not continuous) output beam separation. So if you prefer, assume classical point particles with a little extra physics thrown in to allow for intrinsic angular momentum and an arbitrary parameter for gyromagnetic ratio. These could easily be features of a classical theory, in the sense of not relying on quantum states, wavefunction collapse upon measurement, etc.
$endgroup$
– WillG
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
This site is about mainstream physics. Rejecting quantum mechanics is about as far out of the mainstream as you can get.
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
This site is about mainstream physics. Rejecting quantum mechanics is about as far out of the mainstream as you can get.
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Asking about why alternative explanations don't work ≠ rejecting mainstream physics.
$endgroup$
– WillG
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Asking about why alternative explanations don't work ≠ rejecting mainstream physics.
$endgroup$
– WillG
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Does that mean all questions about Bohmian mechanics should not be allowed on this site either? Bizarre, since there is a tag for it.
$endgroup$
– WillG
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Does that mean all questions about Bohmian mechanics should not be allowed on this site either? Bizarre, since there is a tag for it.
$endgroup$
– WillG
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
My (extremely limited) understanding of Bohmian mechanics is that it is simply an interpretation of quantum mechanics, making exactly the same predictions as standard QM. So I think you are making a false comparison.
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
My (extremely limited) understanding of Bohmian mechanics is that it is simply an interpretation of quantum mechanics, making exactly the same predictions as standard QM. So I think you are making a false comparison.
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There has been a recent demonstration of a Stern-Gerlach atom interferometer with high accuracy control of magnetic gradient on an atom chip (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.02708.pdf). Any attempt to picture the magnetic moment as a classical dipole pointing in a certain direction will fail to explain the interference pattern observed (see Figure 2 in the paper).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There has been a recent demonstration of a Stern-Gerlach atom interferometer with high accuracy control of magnetic gradient on an atom chip (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.02708.pdf). Any attempt to picture the magnetic moment as a classical dipole pointing in a certain direction will fail to explain the interference pattern observed (see Figure 2 in the paper).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There has been a recent demonstration of a Stern-Gerlach atom interferometer with high accuracy control of magnetic gradient on an atom chip (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.02708.pdf). Any attempt to picture the magnetic moment as a classical dipole pointing in a certain direction will fail to explain the interference pattern observed (see Figure 2 in the paper).
$endgroup$
There has been a recent demonstration of a Stern-Gerlach atom interferometer with high accuracy control of magnetic gradient on an atom chip (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.02708.pdf). Any attempt to picture the magnetic moment as a classical dipole pointing in a certain direction will fail to explain the interference pattern observed (see Figure 2 in the paper).
answered 5 hours ago
AmIAStudentAmIAStudent
1,2221317
1,2221317
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
First, in the Stern-Gerlach experiment, a beam of silver atoms was used, and not a beam of electrons. Secondly, the interpretation of data at that time (1922) based on the classical equations of motion. It is assumed that the silver atom has a magnetic moment on which the force acts
$$vec F=nabla (vec mu.vec B)……(1)$$
The role of quantum mechanics is reduced to the statement that the magnetic moment in equation (1) is quantized in proportion to the angular momentum or spin. In this form, the theory of the scattering of atoms in a non-uniform magnetic field was used to solve practical problems related to the determination of the magnetic moment of atoms using the Stern-Gerlach method down to the present time. As it is known, Stern and Gerlach obtained the following figure of silver atoms (on the left without a magnetic field, on the right in a magnetic field)
The question is, can we get the right figure using equation (1) with $mu =pm mu_B$? I simulated the scattering of silver atoms in a magnetic field with a gradient as in the Stern-Gerlach experiment. All parameters of the gap and velocity of atoms were as in experiment. The result is shown in Fig. 2, where a) magnetic field lines and gap projection (red rectangle); b)magnetic field gradient (solid line) and experimental data (points) from Stern and Gerlach; c) atomic scattering pattern in a magnetic field; d) the same without a magnetic field. Comparing the scattering figures in Figs. 1 and 2, we find that Bohr’s hypothesis about quantizing the magnetic moment with projection $pmmu _B$ to the direction of the magnetic field is confirmed.
A similar result can be obtained without this hypothesis, simply using the Schrödinger–Pauli equation:
$$ihbar frac partial psipartial t=-frac hbar ^22mnabla^2psi+mu _B(vec B.vec sigma )psi $$
$vec sigma =(sigma _1,sigma _2, sigma _3)$ there is a Pauli matrix. Figure 3 shows the scatter pattern in the quantum model.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
First, in the Stern-Gerlach experiment, a beam of silver atoms was used, and not a beam of electrons. Secondly, the interpretation of data at that time (1922) based on the classical equations of motion. It is assumed that the silver atom has a magnetic moment on which the force acts
$$vec F=nabla (vec mu.vec B)……(1)$$
The role of quantum mechanics is reduced to the statement that the magnetic moment in equation (1) is quantized in proportion to the angular momentum or spin. In this form, the theory of the scattering of atoms in a non-uniform magnetic field was used to solve practical problems related to the determination of the magnetic moment of atoms using the Stern-Gerlach method down to the present time. As it is known, Stern and Gerlach obtained the following figure of silver atoms (on the left without a magnetic field, on the right in a magnetic field)
The question is, can we get the right figure using equation (1) with $mu =pm mu_B$? I simulated the scattering of silver atoms in a magnetic field with a gradient as in the Stern-Gerlach experiment. All parameters of the gap and velocity of atoms were as in experiment. The result is shown in Fig. 2, where a) magnetic field lines and gap projection (red rectangle); b)magnetic field gradient (solid line) and experimental data (points) from Stern and Gerlach; c) atomic scattering pattern in a magnetic field; d) the same without a magnetic field. Comparing the scattering figures in Figs. 1 and 2, we find that Bohr’s hypothesis about quantizing the magnetic moment with projection $pmmu _B$ to the direction of the magnetic field is confirmed.
A similar result can be obtained without this hypothesis, simply using the Schrödinger–Pauli equation:
$$ihbar frac partial psipartial t=-frac hbar ^22mnabla^2psi+mu _B(vec B.vec sigma )psi $$
$vec sigma =(sigma _1,sigma _2, sigma _3)$ there is a Pauli matrix. Figure 3 shows the scatter pattern in the quantum model.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
First, in the Stern-Gerlach experiment, a beam of silver atoms was used, and not a beam of electrons. Secondly, the interpretation of data at that time (1922) based on the classical equations of motion. It is assumed that the silver atom has a magnetic moment on which the force acts
$$vec F=nabla (vec mu.vec B)……(1)$$
The role of quantum mechanics is reduced to the statement that the magnetic moment in equation (1) is quantized in proportion to the angular momentum or spin. In this form, the theory of the scattering of atoms in a non-uniform magnetic field was used to solve practical problems related to the determination of the magnetic moment of atoms using the Stern-Gerlach method down to the present time. As it is known, Stern and Gerlach obtained the following figure of silver atoms (on the left without a magnetic field, on the right in a magnetic field)
The question is, can we get the right figure using equation (1) with $mu =pm mu_B$? I simulated the scattering of silver atoms in a magnetic field with a gradient as in the Stern-Gerlach experiment. All parameters of the gap and velocity of atoms were as in experiment. The result is shown in Fig. 2, where a) magnetic field lines and gap projection (red rectangle); b)magnetic field gradient (solid line) and experimental data (points) from Stern and Gerlach; c) atomic scattering pattern in a magnetic field; d) the same without a magnetic field. Comparing the scattering figures in Figs. 1 and 2, we find that Bohr’s hypothesis about quantizing the magnetic moment with projection $pmmu _B$ to the direction of the magnetic field is confirmed.
A similar result can be obtained without this hypothesis, simply using the Schrödinger–Pauli equation:
$$ihbar frac partial psipartial t=-frac hbar ^22mnabla^2psi+mu _B(vec B.vec sigma )psi $$
$vec sigma =(sigma _1,sigma _2, sigma _3)$ there is a Pauli matrix. Figure 3 shows the scatter pattern in the quantum model.
$endgroup$
First, in the Stern-Gerlach experiment, a beam of silver atoms was used, and not a beam of electrons. Secondly, the interpretation of data at that time (1922) based on the classical equations of motion. It is assumed that the silver atom has a magnetic moment on which the force acts
$$vec F=nabla (vec mu.vec B)……(1)$$
The role of quantum mechanics is reduced to the statement that the magnetic moment in equation (1) is quantized in proportion to the angular momentum or spin. In this form, the theory of the scattering of atoms in a non-uniform magnetic field was used to solve practical problems related to the determination of the magnetic moment of atoms using the Stern-Gerlach method down to the present time. As it is known, Stern and Gerlach obtained the following figure of silver atoms (on the left without a magnetic field, on the right in a magnetic field)
The question is, can we get the right figure using equation (1) with $mu =pm mu_B$? I simulated the scattering of silver atoms in a magnetic field with a gradient as in the Stern-Gerlach experiment. All parameters of the gap and velocity of atoms were as in experiment. The result is shown in Fig. 2, where a) magnetic field lines and gap projection (red rectangle); b)magnetic field gradient (solid line) and experimental data (points) from Stern and Gerlach; c) atomic scattering pattern in a magnetic field; d) the same without a magnetic field. Comparing the scattering figures in Figs. 1 and 2, we find that Bohr’s hypothesis about quantizing the magnetic moment with projection $pmmu _B$ to the direction of the magnetic field is confirmed.
A similar result can be obtained without this hypothesis, simply using the Schrödinger–Pauli equation:
$$ihbar frac partial psipartial t=-frac hbar ^22mnabla^2psi+mu _B(vec B.vec sigma )psi $$
$vec sigma =(sigma _1,sigma _2, sigma _3)$ there is a Pauli matrix. Figure 3 shows the scatter pattern in the quantum model.
answered 2 hours ago
Alex TrounevAlex Trounev
913128
913128
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are semiclassical equations of motion that fully explain the Stern-Gerlach experiment, see e. g. Section 5 of Gat, Lein & Teufel, Annales Henri Poincaré 15, 1967 (2014). It is important, though, that in this approach it is not the individual trajectories that matter, but averages of an ensemble of initial spins (which are obtained from a generalized Wigner transform of the quantum spin state). And this is how quantum mechanics comes into play, because only states from quantum mechanics give you a consistent interpretation.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are semiclassical equations of motion that fully explain the Stern-Gerlach experiment, see e. g. Section 5 of Gat, Lein & Teufel, Annales Henri Poincaré 15, 1967 (2014). It is important, though, that in this approach it is not the individual trajectories that matter, but averages of an ensemble of initial spins (which are obtained from a generalized Wigner transform of the quantum spin state). And this is how quantum mechanics comes into play, because only states from quantum mechanics give you a consistent interpretation.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are semiclassical equations of motion that fully explain the Stern-Gerlach experiment, see e. g. Section 5 of Gat, Lein & Teufel, Annales Henri Poincaré 15, 1967 (2014). It is important, though, that in this approach it is not the individual trajectories that matter, but averages of an ensemble of initial spins (which are obtained from a generalized Wigner transform of the quantum spin state). And this is how quantum mechanics comes into play, because only states from quantum mechanics give you a consistent interpretation.
$endgroup$
There are semiclassical equations of motion that fully explain the Stern-Gerlach experiment, see e. g. Section 5 of Gat, Lein & Teufel, Annales Henri Poincaré 15, 1967 (2014). It is important, though, that in this approach it is not the individual trajectories that matter, but averages of an ensemble of initial spins (which are obtained from a generalized Wigner transform of the quantum spin state). And this is how quantum mechanics comes into play, because only states from quantum mechanics give you a consistent interpretation.
answered 2 hours ago
Max LeinMax Lein
66827
66827
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f480510%2falternative-classical-explanation-of-the-stern-gerlach-experiment%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
Your model needs some kind of friction, otherwise a classical magnet would settle its direction in an external field, but just precess.
$endgroup$
– Sebastian Riese
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Models of electrons as spinning shells of charge have been tried. They don't work.
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Sebastian Riese How about back-radiation emitted by the accelerated dipole?
$endgroup$
– WillG
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@WillG That can easily be checked by estimated the radiated power.
$endgroup$
– Sebastian Riese
6 hours ago