Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:0904.0306 · Journal of the Korean Physical Society

Generalized Faraday Law Derived from Classical Forces in a Rotating Frame

Taeseung Choi

Published Jul 15, 2010• 1 citation
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We show the additional spin dependent classical force due to the rotation of an electron spin's rest frame is essential to derive a spin-Faraday law by using an analogy with the usual Faraday law. The contribution of the additional spin dependent force to the spin-Faraday law is the same as that of the spin geometric phase. With this observations, Faraday law is generalized to include both the usual Faraday and the spin-Faraday laws in a unified manner.

DOI
10.3938/jkps.57.12

Related papers

Spin Motive Force and Faraday Law for Electrons in Mesoscopic Rings

Chang‐Mo Ryu

The spin motive force and Faraday law for electrons due to the time-dependent Aharonov-Casher effect are studied by using the Goldhaber-Anandan gauge theory for a low energy spin particle. The spin motive force and Faraday law associated with the time-dependent magnetic field are also discussed based on the same gauge theory. The gauge theoretic approach provides a unified view for the various spin motive forces and spin Faraday laws.

Physical Review Letters•Feb 5, 1996•24 citations

Photon-spin-dependent contribution to the P , T -odd Faraday rotation effect for atoms

S. D. Chekhovskoi, D. V. Chubukov, Leonid V. Skripnikov +2 more

Abstract The photon-spin-dependent (PS) contribution to the ordinary Faraday effect—optical rotation in an external magnetic field H ⃗ is well known. This contribution is proportional to factor ( s ⃗ p h ⋅ H ⃗ ) where s ⃗ p h is the photon spin. Recently a P , T -odd Faraday effect—optical rotation in an external electric field E ⃗ —was discussed as a promising tool for observation of the electron electric dipole moment in the intra-cavity absorption spectroscopy. In the present paper, we introduce the PS contribution to the P , T -odd Faraday rotation effect. This contribution is proportional to ( s ⃗ p h ⋅ E ⃗ ) and has to be taken into account in the calculations of the P , T -odd Faraday effect.

Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular and Optical Physics•Jan 27, 2021•3 citations

Speculation on Quantum Spin, Intrinsic Force and Special Relativity Part 2

Francesco R. Ruggeri

In Part 1, we tried to understand why spin arises. The basic conclusion was that it is linked with an intrinsic force which in turn is associated with E,p (energy momentum) and geometry (rotational symmetry and other symmetries). In practical terms, this means finding an equation linear in intrinsic force (as force appears linearly in nature), but still tied to E,p and geometry. Interestingly, this leads to two very different results for particles with rest mass (spin ½) and photons, although both satisfy the same special relativistic equations (albeit the photon with rest mass mo=0) and both have exp(-iEt+ipx) free wavefunctions. In the photon case, the Electric field El is the intrinsic force (together with the magnetic B) which gives rise to both energy and momentum density. Specifically, energy density= .5eo El dot El + .5/uo B dot B and momentum density = 1/uo El x B. In the photon case, however, there is no rest frame and so the classical vector El is directly associated with E (energy) and p (momentum) without one needing to consider special relativity. Instead one directly uses Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations in order to find a linear equation describing the classical vector El. This equation involves d/dt partial and grad partial which are linked to the quantum operators for E and p (id/dt, -igrad) and El itself is proportional on exp(-iEt+ipx) (actually cos(-wt+kx)), also from Maxwell’s equations. Given this scenario, one has a classical vector El which is perpendicular to B and both lie in a plane perpendicular to motion. For circular polarization, El moves in a circle and given that it gives rise to energy, this energy circulates like classical angular momentum. For the 3-vector for El, one says that one has spin 1, but for circular polarized light, this is classical angular momentum. As a result, spin in the photon case follows from the behaviour of the intrinsic force (a linear equation in this force as shown in Part 1), but one must also have a clear link between the intrinsic force and the consequential energy and force, because it is the energy which actually has to rotate. It is not enough to have El rotate. In the case of a particle with rest mass, we argued in Part 1 that mo (Newton’s inertia) is the intrinsic force which together with velocity gives rise to the consequential energy E and momentum p. The situation is that one actually has two physical frames, the rest frame with the intrinsic force mo and the moving frame in which one has E,p. In order to link the intrinsic force mo to E, p, one must use a Lorentz invariant. We suggested in Part 1 that -Et+px = -mocc t1 is associated with -E dt + p dx = -mocc dt1 + (p=0) * (dx1->inifite) =0. Then dx=hbar/p, dt=hbar/E and E/dx and p/dt are average forces as is mocc/dt1. Tthe idea of force is very much the cornerstone of exp(-iEt+ipx) we argue. In order to see spin arise, one needs an equation linear in mo (the intrinsic force), but linked to E,p and showing geometrical invariances, according to the recipe of Part 1. -EE + cc p dot p = -momocc ((1)) links E,p, mo and shows invariances, but is not linear in mo. One must then linearize it. This means that one compares to Lorentz frames, the rest frame containing mo and the moving containing E,p. Both mo and p are linked to forces, but mo is the intrinsic force and p, the consequential. As a result, they must somehow be separated as they are in ((1)), in particular they are perpendicular if one considers: EE = pz pz + momo (c=1, p->px). In order to linearize without using unit vectors, one cannot use numbers, but must use matrices (as Dirac showed). The operator linked with pz must anticommute with that linked with mo. The operators associated with the consequential and intrinsic forces differ and in fact anticommute in the rest mass case. One may show that one requires at least a 2x2 matrix (the full Dirac treatment uses a 4-vector made of 2 spinors), which means that there is a two vector state. This is presumably associated with motion, if exp(ipz z) is linked to motion as well. In order to analyze this 2 vector state (spinor), we first compare the situation with the photon case. There, one had a 3-vector El which means that one knows an exact position in the plane. The second piece of information must be the direction in which this vector is moving in a circle (for circularly polarized light). There are two a priori given pieces of information which together with the link between El and energy density yields classical angular motion. In the rest mass case, one again expects rotational motion in a plane perpendicular to the z axis (because pz describes all motion along z). (1,0) and (0,1), however, describe classical rotational direction, clockwise and counterclockwise, but this spin ½ case cannot be classical rotation because the physical vector in the plane is not given (as it is by El the intrinsic force). Thus, one has only the direction of rotation. We argue that if exp(ipx) means that one has p hits at different x within hbar/p with probability exp(ipx), one may imagine different x,y positions of energy in the plane (with probabilities) as long as the rotation for (1,0) for each is in the clockwise direction (for example). This means that a physical vector may appear at some x,y in the plane and then at an x1,t1 which would be considered a classical time in the past as long as the motion is clockwise. In this way, one may have an angle of 720 degrees (instead of 360 degrees) describe the motion. In terms of interaction with a B field, one has the clear two directions (spin up clockwise and spin down counterclockwise as examples). Thus, spin must exist in the rest mass case, because one must have mo perpendicular to p if special relativity is to hold. If one does not want to have spin, then one must disregard the equivalence of frames moving at constant speeds with respect to each other and that seems unphysical. (Note: There are spin 0 objects (Higgs particle), but we do not consider that here.

•Feb 7, 2026•0 citations

Fundamental effects in a spin

Jonathan M. Robbins

Simple analogues of two fundamental physical phenomena, Faraday's law of induction, and the Aharonov–Bohm effect, have been predicted by Ady Stern of Tel Aviv University, Israel, in the behaviour of electrons in a ring in a magnetic field (Phys. Rev. Lett. (1992) 68 1022). The surprising twist is that it is the electron's spin, rather than its charge, which plays the central role. These effects are associated with the quantum geometric (or Berry) phase, a discovery in elementary quantum mechanics which has generated great excitement in the last eight years.

Physics World•May 1, 1992•0 citations

The Relativistic Stern-Gerlach Force

Ch. Tschalaer

The relativistic Lagrangian for a spinning particle in an electromagnetic field is derived from the known Lagrangian in the particle's rest frame. The resulting relativistic Stern-Gerlach and Thomas precession forces on the particle are then derived from the Lagrangian in the laboratory frame. In particular, the longitudinal component of this combined Stern-Gerlach-Thomas force does not contain a term proportional to gamma-squared as was claimed in a previous derivation [1].

arXiv:0802.0154•Feb 1, 2008•1 citation

Spin in Classical and Quantum Theory

Herbert C. Corben

The classical equations of motion of a charged point-particle with intrinsic spin under the influence of an external electromagnetic field are restated and compared with the Heisenberg equations of motion derived from the Dirac theory. The partition of angular momentum between particle and field in the classical theory is contrasted to the Dirac theory of electron spin. The analogy between the Dirac equation and the theory of parametric amplification is pointed out.A free spinning point particle moving according to the laws of classical relativistic point-particle mechanics may move along a helix. The sum of the intrinsic spin $\ensuremath{\sigma}$ and the angular momentum of the helical motion in this classical analog of zitterbewegung is an effective spin vector S which is a constant of the motion. Because of this internal motion, the effective mass $M$ of the particle differs from the mass $m$ which is ascribed to it in the equations of motion. Solutions are found in which S is parallel or antiparallel to the momentum, and the sign of $M$ is determined by the helicity. When placed in a uniform electromagnetic field, the particle behaves as if it had a rest mass $M$ and a magnetic moment $\frac{e\ensuremath{\sigma}}{\mathrm{Mc}}$, in addition to any explicit magnetic moment that may be ascribed to it.

Physical Review•Mar 15, 1961•82 citations
We show the additional spin dependent classical force due to the rotation of an electron spin's rest frame is essential to derive a spin-Faraday law by using an analogy with the usual Faraday law. The contribution of the additional spin dependent force to the spin-Faraday law is the same as that of the spin geometric phase. With this observations, Faraday law is generalized to include both the usual Faraday and the spin-Faraday laws in a unified manner.
Abstract The photon-spin-dependent (PS) contribution to the ordinary Faraday effect—optical rotation in an external magnetic field H ⃗ is well known. This contribution is proportional to factor ( s ⃗ p h ⋅ H ⃗ ) where s ⃗ p h is the photon spin. Recently a P , T -odd Faraday effect—optical rotation in an external electric field E ⃗ —was discussed as a promising tool for observation of the electron electric dipole moment in the intra-cavity absorption spectroscopy. In the present paper, we introduce the PS contribution to the P , T -odd Faraday rotation effect. This contribution is proportional to ( s ⃗ p h ⋅ E ⃗ ) and has to be taken into account in the calculations of the P , T -odd Faraday effect.
In Part 1, we tried to understand why spin arises. The basic conclusion was that it is linked with an intrinsic force which in turn is associated with E,p (energy momentum) and geometry (rotational symmetry and other symmetries). In practical terms, this means finding an equation linear in intrinsic force (as force appears linearly in nature), but still tied to E,p and geometry. Interestingly, this leads to two very different results for particles with rest mass (spin ½) and photons, although both satisfy the same special relativistic equations (albeit the photon with rest mass mo=0) and both have exp(-iEt+ipx) free wavefunctions. In the photon case, the Electric field El is the intrinsic force (together with the magnetic B) which gives rise to both energy and momentum density. Specifically, energy density= .5eo El dot El + .5/uo B dot B and momentum density = 1/uo El x B. In the photon case, however, there is no rest frame and so the classical vector El is directly associated with E (energy) and p (momentum) without one needing to consider special relativity. Instead one directly uses Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations in order to find a linear equation describing the classical vector El. This equation involves d/dt partial and grad partial which are linked to the quantum operators for E and p (id/dt, -igrad) and El itself is proportional on exp(-iEt+ipx) (actually cos(-wt+kx)), also from Maxwell’s equations. Given this scenario, one has a classical vector El which is perpendicular to B and both lie in a plane perpendicular to motion. For circular polarization, El moves in a circle and given that it gives rise to energy, this energy circulates like classical angular momentum. For the 3-vector for El, one says that one has spin 1, but for circular polarized light, this is classical angular momentum. As a result, spin in the photon case follows from the behaviour of the intrinsic force (a linear equation in this force as shown in Part 1), but one must also have a clear link between the intrinsic force and the consequential energy and force, because it is the energy which actually has to rotate. It is not enough to have El rotate. In the case of a particle with rest mass, we argued in Part 1 that mo (Newton’s inertia) is the intrinsic force which together with velocity gives rise to the consequential energy E and momentum p. The situation is that one actually has two physical frames, the rest frame with the intrinsic force mo and the moving frame in which one has E,p. In order to link the intrinsic force mo to E, p, one must use a Lorentz invariant. We suggested in Part 1 that -Et+px = -mocc t1 is associated with -E dt + p dx = -mocc dt1 + (p=0) * (dx1->inifite) =0. Then dx=hbar/p, dt=hbar/E and E/dx and p/dt are average forces as is mocc/dt1. Tthe idea of force is very much the cornerstone of exp(-iEt+ipx) we argue. In order to see spin arise, one needs an equation linear in mo (the intrinsic force), but linked to E,p and showing geometrical invariances, according to the recipe of Part 1. -EE + cc p dot p = -momocc ((1)) links E,p, mo and shows invariances, but is not linear in mo. One must then linearize it. This means that one compares to Lorentz frames, the rest frame containing mo and the moving containing E,p. Both mo and p are linked to forces, but mo is the intrinsic force and p, the consequential. As a result, they must somehow be separated as they are in ((1)), in particular they are perpendicular if one considers: EE = pz pz + momo (c=1, p->px). In order to linearize without using unit vectors, one cannot use numbers, but must use matrices (as Dirac showed). The operator linked with pz must anticommute with that linked with mo. The operators associated with the consequential and intrinsic forces differ and in fact anticommute in the rest mass case. One may show that one requires at least a 2x2 matrix (the full Dirac treatment uses a 4-vector made of 2 spinors), which means that there is a two vector state. This is presumably associated with motion, if exp(ipz z) is linked to motion as well. In order to analyze this 2 vector state (spinor), we first compare the situation with the photon case. There, one had a 3-vector El which means that one knows an exact position in the plane. The second piece of information must be the direction in which this vector is moving in a circle (for circularly polarized light). There are two a priori given pieces of information which together with the link between El and energy density yields classical angular motion. In the rest mass case, one again expects rotational motion in a plane perpendicular to the z axis (because pz describes all motion along z). (1,0) and (0,1), however, describe classical rotational direction, clockwise and counterclockwise, but this spin ½ case cannot be classical rotation because the physical vector in the plane is not given (as it is by El the intrinsic force). Thus, one has only the direction of rotation. We argue that if exp(ipx) means that one has p hits at different x within hbar/p with probability exp(ipx), one may imagine different x,y positions of energy in the plane (with probabilities) as long as the rotation for (1,0) for each is in the clockwise direction (for example). This means that a physical vector may appear at some x,y in the plane and then at an x1,t1 which would be considered a classical time in the past as long as the motion is clockwise. In this way, one may have an angle of 720 degrees (instead of 360 degrees) describe the motion. In terms of interaction with a B field, one has the clear two directions (spin up clockwise and spin down counterclockwise as examples). Thus, spin must exist in the rest mass case, because one must have mo perpendicular to p if special relativity is to hold. If one does not want to have spin, then one must disregard the equivalence of frames moving at constant speeds with respect to each other and that seems unphysical. (Note: There are spin 0 objects (Higgs particle), but we do not consider that here.
Simple analogues of two fundamental physical phenomena, Faraday's law of induction, and the Aharonov–Bohm effect, have been predicted by Ady Stern of Tel Aviv University, Israel, in the behaviour of electrons in a ring in a magnetic field (Phys. Rev. Lett. (1992) 68 1022). The surprising twist is that it is the electron's spin, rather than its charge, which plays the central role. These effects are associated with the quantum geometric (or Berry) phase, a discovery in elementary quantum mechanics which has generated great excitement in the last eight years.
The classical equations of motion of a charged point-particle with intrinsic spin under the influence of an external electromagnetic field are restated and compared with the Heisenberg equations of motion derived from the Dirac theory. The partition of angular momentum between particle and field in the classical theory is contrasted to the Dirac theory of electron spin. The analogy between the Dirac equation and the theory of parametric amplification is pointed out.A free spinning point particle moving according to the laws of classical relativistic point-particle mechanics may move along a helix. The sum of the intrinsic spin $\ensuremath{\sigma}$ and the angular momentum of the helical motion in this classical analog of zitterbewegung is an effective spin vector S which is a constant of the motion. Because of this internal motion, the effective mass MMM of the particle differs from the mass mmm which is ascribed to it in the equations of motion. Solutions are found in which S is parallel or antiparallel to the momentum, and the sign of MMM is determined by the helicity. When placed in a uniform electromagnetic field, the particle behaves as if it had a rest mass MMM and a magnetic moment $\frac{e\ensuremath{\sigma}}{\mathrm{Mc}}$, in addition to any explicit magnetic moment that may be ascribed to it.