Otto Stern and Walter Gerlach demonstrated in 1922 experimentally the “existence of space quantization in a magnetic field”, using their own words. The result of this experiment is later on used to introduce the so-called intrinsic spin angular momentum of elementary and other particles. This article describes what went wrong in the applied argumentation. In 1896 Zeeman and Lorentz showed experimentally and theoretically that atoms emit ‘shifted’ frequencies when exposed to an external magnetic field. This phenomenon has been used to demonstrate the existence of spinning electrons. However, it is shown that this demonstration is not convincing at all.
Otto Stern and Walter Gerlach demonstrated in 1922 experimentally the “existence of space quantization in a magnetic field”, using their own words. The result of this experiment is later on used to introduce the so-called intrinsic spin angular momentum of elementary and other particles. This article describes what went wrong in the applied argumentation. In 1896 Zeeman and Lorentz showed experimentally and theoretically that atoms emit ‘shifted’ frequencies when exposed to an external magnetic field. This phenomenon has been used to demonstrate the existence of spinning electrons. However, it is shown that this demonstration is not convincing at all.
Abstract In 1921, Otto Stern conceived the idea for an experiment that would decide between a classical and a quantum description of atomic behavior, as epitomized by the Bohr–Sommerfeld–Debye model of the atom. This model entailed not only the quantization of the magnitude of the orbital electronic angular momentum but also of the projection of the angular momentum on an external magnetic field – the so‐called space quantization. Stern recognized that space quantization would have observable consequences: namely, that the magnetic dipole moment due to the orbital angular momentum would be space quantized as well, taking two opposite values for atoms whose only unpaired electron has just one quantum of orbital angular momentum. When acted upon by a suitable inhomogeneous magnetic field, a beam of such atoms would be split into two beams consisting of deflected atoms with opposite projections of the orbital angular momentum on the magnetic field. In contradistinction, if atoms behaved classically, the atomic beam would only broaden along the field gradient and have maximum intensity at zero deflection, i. e., where there would be a minimum or no intensity for a beam split due to space quantization. Stern anticipated that, although simple in principle, the experiment would be difficult to carry out – and invited Walther Gerlach to team up with him. Gerlach's realism and experimental skills together with his sometimes stubborn determination to make things work proved invaluable for the success of the Stern–Gerlach experiment (SGE). After a long struggle, Gerlach finally saw, on 8 February 1922, the splitting of a beam of silver atoms in a magnetic field. The absence of the concept of electron spin confused and confounded the interpretation of the SGE, as the silver atoms were, in fact, in a 2S state, with zero orbital and spin angular momentum. However, a key quantum feature whose existence the SGE was designed to test – namely space quantization of electronic angular momentum – was robust enough to transpire independent of whether the electronic angular momentum was orbital or due to spin. The SGE entails other key aspects of quantum mechanics such as quantum measurement, state preparation, coherence, and entanglement. Confronted with the outcome of the SGE, Stern noted: “I still have objections to the idea of beauty of quantum mechanics. But she is correct.”
In 1925 the concept of electron spin was introduced to explain two experimental observations: the splitting of silver atom beams in an inhomogeneous magnetic field (Stern–Gerlach, 1922), and the fine structure of atomic spectra. The physical picture proposed — an electron spinning on its own axis — was immediately shown by Hendrik Lorentz to require surface velocities exceeding the speed of light. The paper was published anyway. Dirac subsequently rescued the two-valuedness mathematically, whereupon the physical question was declared irrelevant. For one hundred years the field has been unable to state what spin physically is. This paper traces the sequence of observations, inferences, and decisions that produced this situation and identifies two distinct wrong turns. The first wrong turn was publishing a model known to be physically impossible. Lorentz's calculation was correct — at the classical electron radius (2.818 fm), the required surface velocity is 274 times the speed of light. But the classical radius is not the electron's physical rotation radius. The correct rotation radius, derived from the Sagnac closure condition, is 285.5 fm — 101 times larger. At that radius, the rotation velocity is 0.822c, the bare magnetic moment is 0.608 μB, and Lorentz's objection does not arise. Both values are computed explicitly with no free parameters. The second wrong turn was a conflation. The closure geometry of the electron involves two independent numerical facts, both related to the number ½: (1) the least-work oscillation path that closes the Sagnac phase condition is a two-lobe ellipse, giving a winding number of n = ½ in the mass equation; (2) the electron's S³ closure surface presents two poles to the external field, giving a topological factor of 2 in the g-factor. In 1925, both facts were numerically present in the spectroscopic data, but they were collapsed into a single postulate: intrinsic angular momentum ℏ/2. That collapse created a half-integer angular momentum with no classical analogue, forced Dirac to construct the SU(2) spinor formalism to accommodate it, and caused the spinor to appear as a new kind of mathematical object requiring new physics — when it was always a description of closure surface topology. Every experimental result attributed to spin-½ as an intrinsic quantum property — two spots in Stern–Gerlach, the electron magnetic moment, Pauli exclusion, and fine structure — is reproduced by real rotation with two stable orientations, without superluminal motion, without abstract mathematical structure disconnected from physical content, and without the hundred-year admission of ignorance that has accompanied the standard treatment. The mathematical apparatus of quantum mechanics — the Dirac equation, the Pauli matrices, the SU(2) structure — remains valid. What changes is the interpretation. The spinor is not a mysterious new object. It is the natural representation of the two-pole topology of the S³ closure surface. The conflation of 1925 prevented this from being seen. Related work: The Sagnac closure condition and the γcause invariant used in this paper are derived in: D. J. Hallman, "The Sagnac Formula Inverted Reveals Mass, Gravity, and Particle Structure," Zenodo (2026). doi:10.5281/zenodo.20193279
In the introductory remarks to Chapter 5 mention was made of the 1925 proposal of Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit that to an electron there should be assigned an intrinsic angular momentum or spin S = (S x , S y , S z )—this in addition to its quantum angular momentum (or orbital angular momentum) M = (M x , M y , M z ) defined in (5.4.4). This is not to be taken to mean that an electron actually spins about an axis in some physical way. Experiments (in particular the noted Stern-Gerlach experiment) have provided adequate justification for the proposed concept of spin, a proposal also made by R. Bichowsky and H. Urey. Dirac has shown that the notion of spin is necessary if quantum mechanics and Einstein relativity are to be consistent theories. Chemical properties of atoms, and their ability to combine and form molecules, the splitting of spectral lines by a magnetic field applied to an atom (i.e., the Zeeman effect, which we discuss later), all depend on this important notion.
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 .
This chapter discusses the prime cause of the magnetic moment within an individual atom. In the classical model, the angular momentum of the electrons can be used to determine the magnetic moments of the electrons by invoking the concept of electrical charge in motion. There are two contributions to the electronic magnetic moment: an orbital magnetic moment due to orbital angular momentum and a spin magnetic moment due to electron spin. The component of orbital angular momentum along the axis of a magnetic field is restricted to discrete values by quantum mechanics. Electrons have spin angular momentum, which can be represented by the spin quantum number. As the magnetic field is increased and the field splitting becomes greater than the multiple splitting, the anomalous Zeeman effect changes over to a normal Zeeman effect. The chapter looks at experimental evidence confirming the quantization of magnetic moments, specifically the Zeeman effect and the Stern-Gerlach experiment.