Understanding Electron Spin: The Mystery Behind a Fundamental Property

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter THE HARLEQUIN
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electron Spin
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of electron spin, exploring its nature as an intrinsic property rather than a classical rotation. Participants examine the implications of spin on electron behavior in atomic structures, questioning the relationship between spin and orbital motion, and the philosophical implications of these concepts within quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion about the nature of electron spin, questioning why an electron cannot exist without this intrinsic angular momentum.
  • Others clarify that spin is an intrinsic property of electrons, not due to physical rotation, and that it cannot be removed like mass or charge.
  • A participant suggests that introducing a magnetic field could affect the spin angular momentum without impacting orbital motion, raising questions about the independence of these two types of motion.
  • There is a discussion about the lack of a classical model for electron spin, with some arguing that the concept of spin does not imply physical rotation.
  • Participants debate the implications of quantum mechanics on the understanding of electron behavior, particularly in stationary states, and how classical analogies may not apply.
  • Some participants challenge the definitions and calculations related to angular momentum, questioning the applicability of classical mechanics to point-like particles.
  • There are differing views on whether energy is radiated by electrons in stationary states, with some asserting that classical models do not apply to quantum systems.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach consensus on the nature of electron spin and its implications. There are competing views on whether classical analogies can be applied to quantum mechanics, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the interpretation of angular momentum in quantum systems.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the understanding of electron spin and its relationship to classical mechanics, as well as the challenges in defining angular momentum for point-like particles. The philosophical implications of these concepts are also noted, indicating a need for further exploration.

THE HARLEQUIN
Messages
52
Reaction score
4
okay , this question might look a little silly .. But i have been wondering about this for a while ..
i know electrons move around the orbit because of the electrostatic force between electron and proton ..
But what what makes an electron rotate about its axis ?
i believe even without the spin motion the orbital motion is possible because they are independent of each other ... so why can't an electron moving around the atom have no spin at all ?
and what makes them spin ?

thank you ..
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Spin is not due to the electron spinning, it is an intrinsic property of an electron.
 
Orodruin said:
Spin is not due to the electron spinning, it is an intrinsic property of an electron.
define this " intrinsic property " ... so are you saying that spin isn't due to the angular momentum w.r.t. the axis passing through the electron itself ?
 
Yes it is the angular momentum, but the electron is not a rotating object per se. The angular momentum of the electron is intrinsic, it is simply a property that electrons have, like their mass or electric charge. Asking for a deeper explanation within QFT is not a physics question but a philosophical one.
 
Orodruin said:
Yes it is the angular momentum, but the electron is not a rotating object per se. The angular momentum of the electron is intrinsic, it is simply a property that electrons have, like their mass or electric charge. Asking for a deeper explanation within QFT is not a physics question but a philosophical one.
so this basically means that .. electron around an atom can't exist without this angular momentum.. right ?
what if a magnetic field is introduced which only affects the "spin angular momentum " of the electron and forces it to stop spinning , won't the electron still continue to rotate around the atom like it would before (as the orbital motion is independent of its spin motion)?
basically , u can't vanish mass like this but for the case of angular momentum u can .
so just because this angular momentum is intrinsic , i can't get why its origin should be a mystery or something .. or something that should be related to philosophy rather than physics..
 
THE HARLEQUIN said:
so this basically means that .. electron around an atom can't exist without this angular momentum.. right ?
The electron has that property whether it is in "orbit" around an atom or not... even the word "orbit" is not intuitively correct when you go in QuantumMechanics.
The spin is in fact the "angular momentum" the electron would have if you went to a frame where the electron is seen at rest...(check relativistic angular momenta).
So you cannot stop it from spinning because it does not spin. There is no way to define a classical spin (rotate around its own axis) for something that is considered pointlike in the first place...because there is no way to define such an axis (in fact you have infinite such axis).
 
You cannot remove an electron's intrinsic angular momentum ("spin"), just like you cannot remove its mass or charge.
 
"it does not spin"
There is no model of an electron that explains its intrinsic angular momentum.
We can in this sense not say that it spins, but without such a model it makes even less sense to state that it does not.
There is also no model of hydrogen in a 2P state in which the electron rotates about the proton,
yet it seems fair to say that it does.
 
"There is no way to define a classical spin (rotate around its own axis) for something that is considered pointlike in the first place"
YJust take the limit to a point of a rotating sphere (for example). Since J=mr^2w=h and m are constant , w has to be taken to infinity.
I do not see that as a problem as the mass density is infinite as well for a massive point particle.
 
  • #10
my2cts said:
"There is no way to define a classical spin (rotate around its own axis) for something that is considered pointlike in the first place"
YJust take the limit to a point of a rotating sphere (for example). Since J=mr^2w=h and m are constant , w has to be taken to infinity.
I do not see that as a problem as the mass density is infinite as well for a massive point particle.

That limit would be 0... I don't understand why you'd let w reach infinity...and how is the mass density->infinite connected to w?
But nevertheless... even in that case I don't see how this can help you (you have already taken J= non zero const).
 
  • #11
my2cts said:
There is also no model of hydrogen in a 2P state in which the electron rotates about the proton,

The electron does not "rotate" around the proton... The states, where the electron exists in when it's bound to an atom, are stationary... as a result, the average momentum of the electrons are zero.
Since the average quantities of quantum mechanics show a classical behavior, you cannot make the classical picture of an electron going around the nucleus.

Also the well known example of that a rotating charged particle should radiate energy...
 
  • #12
"does not "rotate""
Please state the model leading to this conclusion.
"the average momentum of the electrons are zero"
The orbital momentum of for example a 2P(3/2) state is 2h, not zero.
"a rotating charged particle should radiate energy"
Are you arguing that no energy is radiated because the charges do not move?
I do not claim to know why no energy is radiated, but I do not subscribe to that.
 
  • #13
ChrisVer said:
That limit would be 0... I don't understand why you'd let w reach infinity...and how is the mass density->infinite connected to w?
But nevertheless... even in that case I don't see how this can help you (you have already taken J= non zero const).
J=Iw. J=h. I=mr^2.
Letting r go to zero, at fixed J, requires letting w go to infinity.
Just like letting r go to zero, at fixed mass, requires letting the mass density going to infinity.
 
  • #14
my2cts said:
Please state the model leading to this conclusion.

It's called Quantum mechanics...As I already noted it is wrong to picture the rotation classically... and the only thing I used is a fact for most (if not all) stationary states...

my2cts said:
The orbital momentum of for example a 2P(3/2) state is 2h, not zero.

First of all I spoke about momentum...and not angular momentum.
Even that "orbital" angular momentum has little to do with an orbit...

my2cts said:
Are you arguing that no energy is radiated because the charges do not move?

Because the charges are not accelerated as would be the case for a rotating charged particle.
I don't care if you subscribe to that- it is plain logic... if energy would be radiated, then the electron would classically fall into the nucleus...
These and many other examples were the problems of what is known as semi-classical quantum mechanics, the QM of the time when we started approaching the QM accuracy in our experiments.
 
  • #15
my2cts said:
J=Iw. J=h. I=mr^2.
Letting r go to zero, at fixed J, requires letting w go to infinity.
Just like letting r go to zero, at fixed mass, requires letting the mass density going to infinity.

So far so good... but the J that you've written does not apply for r->0.
How would you compute the moment of inertia I (and what would that even mean) for a point particle (and not a solid extended object)?
And in what way did you choose its value mr^2?
In fact, through such a logic, any kind of a weird geometrical structure could be sent equivalently to a "point"...changing the I that you were using.
 
  • #16
"it's call QM"
That is wrong. You are confusing QM with some interpretation of QM that you adhere to.
QM says that atomic states can have orbital and total angular momentum.
ChrisVer said:
the average momentum of the electrons are zero.
I interpreted this as meaning _orbital_ momentum.
Since you actually mean linear momentum, you are trivially right.
ChrisVer said:
As I already noted it is wrong to picture the rotation classically
It is also wrong to picture it in any other way. All we know is that there can be non-zero angular momentum.
 
  • #17
ChrisVer said:
So far so good... but the J that you've written does not apply for r->0.
How would you compute the moment of inertia I (and what would that even mean) for a point particle (and not a solid extended object)?
And in what way did you choose its value mr^2?
In fact, through such a logic, any kind of a weird geometrical structure could be sent equivalently to a "point"...changing the I that you were using.
It is a mathematical technique called "taking the limit". You can take r to zero if you take w to infinity, taking care that J=mr^2w remains equal to h.
I am surprised that I have to explain this.
 
  • #18
my2cts said:
That is wrong. You are confusing QM with some interpretation of QM that you adhere to.

Nope... but there's not point in extending this here...

my2cts said:
Since you actually mean linear momentum, you are trivially right.

Is the classical momentum of an object that orbits around a center equal to zero?

my2cts said:
It is also wrong to picture it in any other way. All we know is that there can be non-zero angular momentum.

Why are you mixing in your head the angular momentum with some orbital motion?
 
  • #19
my2cts said:
It is a mathematical technique called "taking the limit". You can take r to zero if you take w to infinity, taking care that J=mr^2w remains equal to h.
I am surprised that I have to explain this.

You cannot take the limit to zero... What's the angular momentum when you are at point zero around which you rotate?
L \propto r \times p
 
  • #20
my2cts said:
Are you arguing that no energy is radiated because the charges do not move?
I do not claim to know why no energy is radiated, but I do not subscribe to that.
even if we choose classical model , it can be explained why electron doesn't radiate energy .. if the the path the electron chooses to rotate is taken as it has same potential (v) everywhere then the net work for movin an electron will be ( w = dvxI = 0xi=0 ) so therefore no energy is lost ..

ChrisVer said:
So you cannot stop it from spinning because it does not spin. There is no way to define a classical spin (rotate around its own axis) for something that is considered pointlike in the first place...because there is no way to define such an axis (in fact you have infinite such axis).
so we can stop the angular momentum about its own axis( if not the 'spin') ?
 
  • #21
"nope"
That is a infantile way to argue. I expect a little more depth here.
From QM you cannot draw the conclusion that the electron does not rotate.
It only tells you that it may have angular (orbital, spin) momentum.
ChrisVer said:
Is the classical momentum of an object that orbits around a center equal to zero?
On average, yes. I am surprised again to have to explain trivialities here. Please crank up the level.
Note that the operator p locally gives a nonzero result when operated on an atomic orbital. It is the integral over the volume that ends up to be zero.
The average is zero, just as in the classical case but the local value is not.
 
  • #22
if we put aside the spin ( that is the net vector because of the forces acting on the electron ) , and work with the " spin angular momentum"
, now what actually makes it spin ? and is this spin also intrinsic ? ( i mean even if electron is stopped does it keep spinning ?
like a cathode ray burst into a powerful magnetic field construct that makes the net vector of the velocity of electron 0 )
 
Last edited:
  • #23
ChrisVer said:
You cannot take the limit to zero... What's the angular momentum when you are at point zero around which you rotate?
L \propto r \times p
Of course I can. This is getting silly.
 
  • #24
THE HARLEQUIN said:
so we can stop the angular momentum about its own axis( if not the 'spin') ?
Have a look here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relat..._total_angular_momentum_in_special_relativity...

THE HARLEQUIN said:
even if we choose classical model , it can be explained why electron doesn't radiate energy .. if the the path the electron chooses to rotate is taken as it has same potential (v) everywhere then the net work for movin an electron will be ( w = dvxI = 0xi=0 ) so therefore no energy is lost ..

The radiation comes about because you have an accelerating charged particle (if you want it to keep orbiting you have to keep it accelerating)...
Then it's just Larmor's formula.
 
  • #25
my2cts said:
The average is zero, just as in the classical case but the local value is not.

In the classical case the momentum should at least be "periodic"...

my2cts said:
Of course I can. This is getting silly.

OK, keep dreaming...
 
  • #26
THE HARLEQUIN said:
if we put aside the spin ( that is the net vector because of the forces acting on the electron ) , and work with the " spin angular momentum"
, now what actually makes it spin ? and is this spin also intrinsic ? ( i mean even if electron is stopped does it keep spinning ? )

I am confused by this question...
let's see, in general you can have orbital + spin angular momentum, alright so far?

The orbital is somehow connected to a "rotation" of the electron around the nucleus...in reality it just reflects the fact that the energies can be altered by the orbiting (-->it affects the potential).
The spin is totally different. It's an intrinsic property of the electron, and so doesn't come from some "spinning". That means that even if your electron did not rotate, it would still have that spin...it doesn't come by any spinning or so what...

Sometimes we call "spin" the combination of orbital and spin momentum (so the total angular momentum), but that's another thing...
 
  • #27
ChrisVer said:
The spin is totally different. It's an intrinsic property of the electron, and so doesn't come from some "spinning". That means that even if your electron did not rotate, it would still have that spin...it doesn't come by any spinning or so what...
ok .. i agree with that ..
but won't the electron magnetic moment be zero if the electron stops rotating ? or am i wrong ? or can't we do the reverse ( like by forcing the magnetic moment to be zero can't we stop the rotation ?) ?
 
  • #28
@ChrisVer
Additional note: In the limit r must remain larger than the compton wavelength.
 
  • #29
THE HARLEQUIN said:
but won't the electron magnetic moment be zero if the electron stops rotating ? or am i wrong ? or can't we do the reverse ( like by forcing the magnetic moment to be zero can't we stop the rotation ?) ?

it won't... there will be some magnetic moment left due to its spin...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_magnetic_moment
 
  • #30
ChrisVer said:
it won't... there will be some magnetic moment left due to its spin...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_magnetic_moment
have read this article several times .. it doesn't say why ... and moreover how can we visualize something to have magnetic moment which is not rotating at all .. ?
 

Similar threads

High School Symmetry of parity: Mistake in the experiment?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Generating Entangled Electron Pairs
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Undergrad Trying to understand why electrons fill orbitals the way they do
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Graduate Is positronium really an orbiting pair of electron/positron ?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
7K
Undergrad Total spin from atomic spectroscopy term symbols, e.g. neon's excited states
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
740
Undergrad Local mechanism for nonlocal anticorrelations inside spin theory
  • · Replies 74 ·
3
Replies
74
Views
5K
Undergrad Does a free electron have an orbital magnetic moment?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Fundamental - Magnetic fields generated by moving electrons
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
Undergrad Does spin orbit coupling cause the split in the energy level of the electron?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Undergrad Amount of electrons in nuclei
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K