Electron spin and conservation of angular momentum

JonoF
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi there,

This is my first post here, although I have been haunting the forums for a few weeks :smile:

I have a couple of questions regarding electron spin and conservation of angular momentum that have arisen from my research into the 'Einstein-de Haas' experiment. (Please bear with me as my knowledge of this topic area is only what I have read - not yet at university).

My understanding of this effect is that when a uniform magnetic field is applied to an unmagnetised ferromagnetic rod (suspended by a wonderful magical wire that doesn't apply any restorative torque when the rod begins to rotate, for the sake of ease :approve: ), the randomly oriented magnetic moments (which are proportional to the angular momentum of the electrons ??) align parallel to the magnetic field. Thus the angular momentum (i.e. spin) of the individual electrons has changed, and because there is no initial resultant torque on the cylinder, it gains angular momentum in order to conserve angular momentum.

The reason I have explained my own understanding is because there is a (very) good chance that I've got it all horribly wrong, and ought to return under the rock whence I came...

Now, my questions - Why is it that if you calculate the change in ang. momentum due to every single electron changing its spin, this results in a horrendously small resultant angular velocity of the rod (in the region of 1 rotation every few months or so haha). Clearly, to me anyways, this is not the right way to go about it, as I have set up the experiment myself, and it certainly looks like it rotates a little quicker than that... - but why is it that this approach doesn't work?

Secondly, it is my understanding that there would also be a magnetic moment due to the electron orbits. Everything I have read has said that the gain in ang. momentum of the rod is due purely to the electron 'spin', rather than the orbital angular momentum of the electrons. I cannot really come up with a reason/explanation for why the orbital angular momentum is not relevant, so any input would be appreciated.

Please, go easy on the newbie :smile:
Cheers,
Jono
 
Physics news on Phys.org
JonoF said:
Why is it that if you calculate the change in ang. momentum due to every single electron changing its spin, this results in a horrendously small resultant angular velocity of the rod
Error in the calculation?

JonoF said:
Secondly, it is my understanding that there would also be a magnetic moment due to the electron orbits. Everything I have read has said that the gain in ang. momentum of the rod is due purely to the electron 'spin', rather than the orbital angular momentum of the electrons.
The effect depends on the total angular momentum of the electron. It would depend on spin only if the orbital angular momentum of the electrons is zero.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript: Is that true? Caveats I see: The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might...
Back
Top