Does an electron actually spin around its axis?

AI Thread Summary
Electrons do not actually spin around their axes; the term "spin" is a conceptual model used to explain their intrinsic magnetic properties. This terminology originated from early 20th-century physics when scientists observed phenomena like the Zeeman effect, which indicated that electrons possess an intrinsic magnetic moment. The velocity required for an electron to physically spin and produce the observed magnetic moment would exceed the speed of light, making such a model impossible. While schools use the term "spin" to aid understanding, it does not imply that electrons are solid particles spinning like balls. Ultimately, electron spin is an intrinsic property, akin to mass and charge, rather than a literal spinning motion.
2sin54
Messages
109
Reaction score
1
I am a High School student and I was told that magnetic field appears whenever you align the electrons around the atoms (when they spin in the same direction around their axes). Is this true or do schools actually mislead people?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi gytax!

To answer your question: no, it does not.

When 'spin' was first suggested by George Uhlenbeck and Samuel Goudsmit in 1925, the name was chosen because, as I am sure you've learned, moving charges produce magnetic fields. When orbitals and energy levels of atoms (such as hydrogen and helium) were being studied, scientists observed what has become known as the Zeeman effect. There was a splitting of spectral lines occurring whenever an external magnetic field was applied on the atom. Moreover, more splitting occurred than expected, which led Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit to suggest that there is another quantum number which is responsible for hyperfine splitting to occur. They asserted that electrons in the orbitals (and ultimately other subatomic particles) have an intrinsic magnetic moment to them. It was well understood by then that current, or moving charges, induce a magnetic field. They ascertained that these electrons must be in some sort of motion, so they gave it a cute little name to convey the concept.

However, we know that an electron cannot be spinning on its axis because the velocity at which it would have to be spinning to produce the magnitude of the magnetic moment measured would have to be faster than the speed of light!

Subatomic particles are strange indeed, and there isn't a clear model for visualizing what spin actually looks like.

Schools do not mislead students. They teach students. A big part of physics is the idea of models. We try to come up with analogies or mathematical formulas to describe behavior. This is why the word 'spin' works fairly well. It trains you to associate the motion of a charge with magnetism.

When you get down to it, an electron isn't even a solid, negatively charged little ball, like most people visualize it to be. However, the picture helps in our learning process.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your reply. I guess it will be covered more deeply at the University.
 
Another reason why "spin" isn't a completely bonkers term for this is that we can verify experimentally that electrons have "intrinsic angular momentum" that contributes to the total angular momentum of an object. See the Einstein-deHaas effect. It's rather similar to the classroom demonstration in which a person sits on a stationary turntable while holding a spinning bicycle wheel. When he flips the wheel over, he and the turntable start to spin in the opposite direction to keep the total angular momentum constant. In the Einstein-deHaas effect, we flip the electron spins in a magnetized object, and the object as a whole starts to rotate.

But we can't associate the electron spin with an angular velocity of a little spinning ball-like electron or something like that. It's simply an intrinsic property of the particle, like mass and charge.
 
This is from Griffiths' Electrodynamics, 3rd edition, page 352. I am trying to calculate the divergence of the Maxwell stress tensor. The tensor is given as ##T_{ij} =\epsilon_0 (E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} E^2)+\frac 1 {\mu_0}(B_iB_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} B^2)##. To make things easier, I just want to focus on the part with the electrical field, i.e. I want to find the divergence of ##E_{ij}=E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij}E^2##. In matrix form, this tensor should look like this...
Thread 'Applying the Gauss (1835) formula for force between 2 parallel DC currents'
Please can anyone either:- (1) point me to a derivation of the perpendicular force (Fy) between two very long parallel wires carrying steady currents utilising the formula of Gauss for the force F along the line r between 2 charges? Or alternatively (2) point out where I have gone wrong in my method? I am having problems with calculating the direction and magnitude of the force as expected from modern (Biot-Savart-Maxwell-Lorentz) formula. Here is my method and results so far:- This...
Back
Top