Abstract The new quantum mechanics, when applied to the problem of the structure of the atom with point-charge electrons, does not give results in agreement with experiment. The discrepancies consist of “duplexity ” phenomena, the observed number of stationary states for an electron in an atom being twice the number given by the theory. To meet the difficulty, Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck have introduced the idea of an electron with a spin angular momentum of half a quantum and a magnetic moment of one Bohr magneton. This model for the electron has been fitted into the new mechanics by Pauli,* and Darwin,† working with an equivalent theory, has shown that it gives results in agreement with experiment for hydrogen-like spectra to the first order of accuracy. The question remains as to why Nature should have chosen this particular model for the electron instead of being satisfied with the point-charge. One would like to find some incompleteness in the previous methods of applying quantum mechanics to the point-charge electron such that, when removed, the whole of the duplexity phenomena follow without arbitrary assumptions. In the present paper it is shown that this is the case, the incompleteness of the previous theories lying in their disagreement with relativity, or, alternatetively, with the general transformation theory of quantum mechanics. It appears that the simplest Hamiltonian for a point-charge electron satisfying the requirements of both relativity and the general transformation theory leads to an explanation of all duplexity phenomena without further assumption. All the same there is a great deal of truth in the spinning electron model, at least as a first approximation. The most important failure of the model seems to be that the magnitude of the resultant orbital angular momentum of an electron moving in an orbit in a central field of force is not a constant, as the model leads one to expect.
Abstract The new quantum mechanics, when applied to the problem of the structure of the atom with point-charge electrons, does not give results in agreement with experiment. The discrepancies consist of “duplexity ” phenomena, the observed number of stationary states for an electron in an atom being twice the number given by the theory. To meet the difficulty, Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck have introduced the idea of an electron with a spin angular momentum of half a quantum and a magnetic moment of one Bohr magneton. This model for the electron has been fitted into the new mechanics by Pauli,* and Darwin,† working with an equivalent theory, has shown that it gives results in agreement with experiment for hydrogen-like spectra to the first order of accuracy. The question remains as to why Nature should have chosen this particular model for the electron instead of being satisfied with the point-charge. One would like to find some incompleteness in the previous methods of applying quantum mechanics to the point-charge electron such that, when removed, the whole of the duplexity phenomena follow without arbitrary assumptions. In the present paper it is shown that this is the case, the incompleteness of the previous theories lying in their disagreement with relativity, or, alternatetively, with the general transformation theory of quantum mechanics. It appears that the simplest Hamiltonian for a point-charge electron satisfying the requirements of both relativity and the general transformation theory leads to an explanation of all duplexity phenomena without further assumption. All the same there is a great deal of truth in the spinning electron model, at least as a first approximation. The most important failure of the model seems to be that the magnitude of the resultant orbital angular momentum of an electron moving in an orbit in a central field of force is not a constant, as the model leads one to expect.
Abstract 1. In a recent paper Dirac* has brilliantly removed the defects before existing in the mechanics of the electron, and has shown how the phenomena usually called the “ spinning electron ” fit into place in the complete theory. He applies to he problem the method of q-numbers and, using non-commutative algebra, exhibits the properties of a free electron, and of an electron in a central field of electric force. In a second paper † he also discusses the rules of combination and the Zeeman effect. There are probably readers who will share the present writer’s feeling that the methods of non-commutative algebra are harder to follow, and certainly much more difficult to invent, than are operations of types long familiar to analysis. Wherever it is possible to do so, it is surely better to present the theory in a mathematical form that dates from the time of Laplace and Legendre, if only because the details of the calculus have been so much more thoroughly explored. So the object of the present work is to take Dirac’s system and treat it by the ordinary methods of wave calculus. The chief point of interest is perhaps the solution of the problem of the central field, which can be carried out exactly and leads to Sommerfeld’s original formula for the hydrogen levels. But it is also of some interest to exhibit the relationship of the new theory to the previous equations which were derived empirically by the present writer.* It appears that those equations were an approximation to the new ones, derived by an approximate elimination of two of Dirac’s four wave functions. We shall also review a few other points connected with the free electron, the emission of radiation from an atom and its magnetic moment, and shall outline a discussion of the Zeeman effect.
First, the experimental foundations for the existence of a new dynamical variable, the spin of particles, are presented. The Pauli equation is then derived in detail, two applications are given and the energy levels of a particle with spin in a constant magnetic field are studied. This is the analysis of Landau levels, which can be performed by using the known results on the spectrum of harmonic oscillators. In this chapter we also study in detail the addition of orbital angular momentum and spin, as well as the spin–orbit interaction with the resulting Thomas precession. Stern-Gerlach experiment and electron spin The hypothesis that the electron has an intrinsic magnetic moment and an angular momentum, in short a spin , was first suggested in Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit (1926). They noticed, even before the discovery of quantum mechanics, that a complete description of spectra was not possible unless a magnetic moment and a mechanical moment were ascribed to the electron, and hence the concept of an electron as a point charge was insufficient. First, let us therefore try to understand how a magnetic moment can be associated to an atomic system. For this purpose, consider for simplicity the Bohr model of an hydrogen atom, where the electron moves along a circular orbit and rotates with orbital angular momentum L .
Abstract Although the classical electrodynamic theory meets with a considerable amount of success in the description of many atomic phenomena, it fails completely on certain fundamental points. It has long been thought that the way out of this difficulty lies in the fact that there is one basic assumption of the classical theory which is false, and that if this assumption were removed and replaced by something more general, the whole of atomic theory would follow quite naturally. Until quite recently, however, one has had no idea of what this assumption could be. A recent paper by Heisenberg* provides the clue to the solution of this question, and forms the basis of a new quantum theory. According to Heisenberg, if x and y are two functions of the co-ordinates and momenta of a dynamical system, then in general xy is not equal to yx. Instead of the commutative law of multiplication, the canonical variables qrpr (r = 1...u) of a system of u degrees of freedom satisfy the quantum conditions, which were given by the author in the form qrqs ― qsqr = 0 prps ― pspr = 0 qrps ― psqr = 0 qrpr ― prqr = ih (r ≠ s) } (1) where i is a root of — 1 and h is a real universal constant, equal to (2π)-1 times the usual Planck’s constant. These equations are just sufficient to enable one to calculate xy — yx when x and y are given functions of the p’s and q’s, and are therefore capable of replacing the classical commutative law of multiplication. They appear to be the simplest assumptions one could make which would give a workable theory.
In the 1920s, the old quantum theory was gradually being superseded by the new quantum theory. The cornerstone of the old theory was Bohr’s model of the hydrogen atom, which predicted that an electron cannot orbit the proton in the hydrogen atom in any arbitrary fashion. Orbits are “quantized,” meaning that only certain sizes, shapes, and magnetic properties are allowed. The principal quantum number n determined the allowed radii of the orbits, the orbital quantum number l determined the allowed shapes, and the magnetic quantum number m determined the magnetic behavior. Additionally, there is a fourth quantum number s which denotes the fact that the electron has an additional angular momentum, loosely associated with self rotation about its own axis, and that is quantized in units of (1/2)~. The old quantum theory was useful to infer the existence of discrete energy levels in atoms, calculate energy spacings between these levels, and therefore allowed one to interpret atomic spectra. The new quantum theory appeared to be more revolutionary and more powerful. It was triggered by Heisenberg’s discovery of matrix mechanics and Schro¨dinger’s discovery of wave mechanics. These two formalisms would not only predict the quantization of energy and provide a prescription to determine the energy difference between the levels (and thus explain the multiplicity of atomic spectra), but also allow one to calculate easily probabilities of transitions between different quantized energy states. At first, matrix mechanics and wave mechanics looked entirely different in their mathematical appearance and physical meaning. However, Schro¨dinger and Eckart [1] independently showed that the two theories are mathematically equivalent. Toward the end of 1926, Dirac unified the two theories using the concept of state vector and thus established the transformation theory of quantum mechanics. This ultimately had a profound implication for the quantum mechanical (mathematical) recipe to treat spin, as we will show in this chapter. The transformation theory is the mathematical recipe to handle modern quantum mechanics. In Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics, a physical quantity is expressed by a matrix, whereas in Schro¨dinger’s wave mechanics, a physical quantity is expressed by a linear operator. In the unified transformation theory, physical quantities are represented by abstract linear operators called Dirac’s q-numbers, which are linear operators in an infinite-dimensional linear space. Depending upon which types of orthogonal coordinate systems are used in this linear space, either matrix mechanics or wave mechanics emerges.
In the 1920s, the old quantum theory was gradually being superseded by the new quantum theory. The cornerstone of the old theory was Bohr’s model of the hydrogen atom which predicted that an electron cannot orbit the proton in the hydrogen atom in any arbitrary fashion. Orbits are “quantized”, meaning that only certain sizes, shapes and magnetic properties are allowed. The principal quantum number n determined the allowed radii of the orbits, the orbital quantum number l determined the allowed shapes, and the magnetic quantum number m determined the magnetic behavior. Additionally, there is a fourth quantum number s which denotes the fact that the electron has an additional angular momentum, loosely associated with self rotation about its own axis, and that is quantized in units of (1/2). The old quantum theory was useful to infer the existence of discrete energy levels in atoms, calculate energy spacings between these levels, and therefore allowed one to interpret atomic spectra.
In December 1924 Wolfgang Pauli proposed the idea of an inner degree of freedom of the electron, which he insisted should be thought of as genuinely quantum mechanical in nature. Shortly thereafter Ralph Kronig and a little later Samuel Goudsmit and George Uhlenbeck took up a less radical stance by suggesting that this degree of freedom somehow corresponded to an inner rotational motion, though it was unclear from the very beginning how literal one was actually supposed to take this picture, since it was immediately recognised (already by Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck) that it would very likely lead to serious problems with Special Relativity if the model were to reproduce the electron’s values for mass, charge, angular momentum, and magnetic moment. However, probably due to the then overwhelming impression that classical concepts were generally insufficient for the proper description of microscopic phenomena, a more detailed reasoning was never given. In this contribution I shall investigate in some detail what the restrictions on the physical quantities just mentioned are, if they are to be reproduced by rather simple classical models of the electron within the framework of Special Relativity. It turns out that surface stresses play a decisive role and that the question of whether a classical model for the electron does indeed contradict Special Relativity can only be answered on the basis of an exact solution, which has hitherto not been given.