Abstract We have seen in the preceding episode that early in 1925 Pauli attributed to the electron a ‘classically not describable two-valuedness’. Within a few months this property of the electron was given a physical description which, it is true, is not satisfactory from the viewpoint of classical physics. This description is regarded as the discovery of the intrinsic angular momentum or spin of the electron. In fact the description was given twice. Already in January Kronig discussed it with Pauli who was completely opposed to the idea so that Kronig did not publish it. The concept of the electron spin was independently proposed and published [1] by Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit who thus became the discoverers of spin.
Abstract We have seen in the preceding episode that early in 1925 Pauli attributed to the electron a ‘classically not describable two-valuedness’. Within a few months this property of the electron was given a physical description which, it is true, is not satisfactory from the viewpoint of classical physics. This description is regarded as the discovery of the intrinsic angular momentum or spin of the electron. In fact the description was given twice. Already in January Kronig discussed it with Pauli who was completely opposed to the idea so that Kronig did not publish it. The concept of the electron spin was independently proposed and published [1] by Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit who thus became the discoverers of spin.
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, independently, 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.
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.
Spin and helicityTraditionally, in textbooks on quantum mechanics, spin is introduced via an idealized Stern-Gerlach experiment in which a non-relativistic beam of silver atoms passes through an inhomogeneous magnetic field.Each atom is treated as a single valence electron of charge -e in an s-state.The subsequent splitting of the beam into two indicates the two-valuedness of Sz, which is related to the value 1/2 for s, and the magnitude of the splitting shows that the magnetic moment /l is related to s by e /l = -~s, me the proportionality factor (the gyromagnetic ratio) being twice as big as the factor that classically gives the magnetic moment due to the orbital angular momentum of a point charge.Historically, however, it seems that the early Stern-Gerlach experiments, begun in 1922, had no influence at all upon the discovery of spin, simply because they were too imprecise.Rather, the concept of spin appeared after a long and tedious battle to understand the splitting patterns and separations in line spectra.Several people had for various reasons discussed classical models of rotating charge distributions but Kronig, in 1924, was the first to show that an electron with spin 1/2 would explain the pattern of what we would today call L • S splitting, as well as anomalies in the Zeeman effect.He realized, though, that the gyromagnetic ratio ( -ejmc) needed for the latter would give L • S splittings twice as big as those observed.It is said that Pauli expressed his negative reaction to Kronig's idea with such vehemence that Kronig never published his work (Mehra and Rechenberg, 1982).Soon thereafter, in 1925, the same idea occurred to Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit (1925), who proceeded to a detailed analysis of the splittings, concluding at first that everything worked beautifully, but then becoming aware, as a consequence of a comment by Heisenberg, of the factor-of-2 inconsistency mentioned above.
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.
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 .