Stern-Gerlach w. normal distribution if magnets were more separated?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Stern-Gerlach experiment and the implications of varying magnetic field strengths and separations on the resulting particle distribution. Participants explore how these factors might influence the observed outcomes, particularly in relation to the expected normal distribution versus discrete results.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether a decrease in magnetic power or increased separation of magnets would lead to a normal distribution of results, suggesting a background in biology.
  • Another participant provides a link to a virtual simulation of the Stern-Gerlach experiment, allowing users to manipulate magnet strengths and observe outcomes.
  • A participant emphasizes that real experimental conditions introduce various errors, which can lead to a Gaussian distribution when the magnetic field is weak relative to these errors.
  • It is noted that a strong homogeneous magnetic field is crucial for accurately measuring spin, as it influences the deflection of particles based on their magnetic dipole moments.
  • One participant clarifies that classical electromagnetism does not predict the Stern-Gerlach results for strong magnetic fields, as the deflection is due to the magnetic dipole moment rather than Coulomb forces.
  • Another participant mentions the historical context of the Stern-Gerlach experiment, highlighting the challenges of using charged particles like electrons compared to neutral atoms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of magnetic field strength and configuration on the distribution of results in the Stern-Gerlach experiment. There is no consensus on the expected outcomes, as various factors and interpretations are discussed.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexities of experimental physics, including the influence of random noise and the need for statistical analysis to interpret results accurately. The discussion highlights the limitations of idealized models in explaining real-world phenomena.

ndvcxk123
Messages
47
Reaction score
3
TL;DR
Experim. conditions in Stern-Gerlach
Just wondered if the power of mags. is decreased, or they are more separated, don't you get a normal distribution ? (I'm in biology) - would you also not have predicted that w. reasonably strong magnets, they will either end one one side or the other ? Thx a lot!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ndvcxk123 said:
Just wondered if the power of mags. is decreased...
When you read a description of the experiment in a textbook, you are getting an idealized description - the only relevant forces are from the inhomogeneous magnetic field and everything else (your particle source won’t be emitting every particle on an exactly straight path, some of the particles will collide with stray air molecules wandering through, your magnets won’t be perfectly aligned and the power supply won’t be perfectly stable, your detectors will generate occasional false positives or even true positives from other stray particles, ...) is being ignored. If the magnetic field is strong enough to overwhelm all these sources of error, then this is a good approximation.

But as the magnetic field becomes weaker relative to everything else, the effect that we’re looking for becomes less obvious and stands out less from all this random stuff that’s going on. So the quick answer to your question is yes - if these error sources are randomly distributed, as weaken the magnetic field we’ll get something that looks more Gaussian and less like the neat two-dot picture in the books.

Experimental physics is a lot harder than it sounds when you read about it. Experimentalists need a strong background in statistics so that they have the tools to separate real effects from random noise, serious papers will always include error bars in the conclusions, and experiments are carefully designed to minimize random noise.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK and vanhees71
One should however keep in mind that a strong homogeneous piece of the magnetic field in the direction of the to-be-measured/determined spin determined is crucial too: It makes the spin rapidly precede around the so chosen direction and thus only the spin component in this direction is relevant for the deflection due to the force on the dipole moment via the gradient of the magnetic field. Only this justifies the idealized description of the experiment in the textbooks.
 
ndvcxk123 said:
Summary:: Experim. conditions in Stern-Gerlach

Just wondered if the power of mags. is decreased, or they are more separated, don't you get a normal distribution ? (I'm in biology) - would you also not have predicted that w. reasonably strong magnets, they will either end one one side or the other ? Thx a lot!

I think your question is: doesn't classical electromagnetism predict the SG result for a sufficiently strong magnetic field?

The answer is no. The deflection is due to the electron's magnetic dipole moment, not the Coulomb force for a charged particle. The deflection, classically, should vary continuously with random electron spin orientations.

One of the difficulties in doing the SG experiment is to control the potentially large Coulomb force to reveal the deflection due to the magnetic dipole moment.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
Well, that's why the SGE is usually done with uncharged "particles" (originally in 1922 in Frankfurt with Ag atoms). Bohr has quite quickly shown that it's practically impossible to do with free electrons. For the very interesting history, see

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjh/e2016-70053-2
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 94 ·
4
Replies
94
Views
16K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K