📝 Original Info
- Title: Electron Spin or ‘Classically Non-Describable Two-Valuedness’
- ArXiv ID: 0710.3128
- Date: 2008-11-26
- Authors: Researchers from original ArXiv paper
📝 Abstract
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 \emph{exact} solution, which has hitherto not been given.
💡 Deep Analysis
Deep Dive into Electron Spin or "Classically Non-Describable Two-Valuedness".
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 investigat
📄 Full Content
The discovery of electron spin is one of the most interesting stories in the history of Quantum Mechanics; told e.g. in van der Waerden's contribution to the Pauli Memorial Volume ( [10], pp. 199-244), in Tomonaga's book [38], and also in various first-hand reports [39][16] [24]. This story also bears fascinating relations to the history of understanding Special Relativity. One such relation is given by Thomas' discovery of what we now call "Thomas precession" [36] [37], which explained for the first time the correct magnitude of spin-orbit coupling and hence the correct magnitude of the fine-structure split of spectral lines, and whose mathematical origin can be traced to precisely that point which marks the central difference between the Galilei and the Lorentz group (this is e.g. explained in detail in Sects. 4.3-4.6 of [14]). In the present paper I will dwell a little on another such connection to Special Relativity.
As is widely appreciated, Wolfgang Pauli is a central figure, perhaps the most central figure, in the story of spin . Being the inventor of the idea of an inner (quantum mechanical) degree of freedom of the electron, he was at the same time the strongest opponent to attempts to relate it to any kind of interpretation in terms of kinematical concepts that derive from the picture of an extended material object in a state of rotation. To my knowledge, Pauli’s hypothesis of this new intrinsic feature of the electron, which he cautiously called “a classical non-describable two valuedness”, was the first instance where a quantum-mechanical degree of freedom was claimed to exist without a corresponding classical one. This seems to be an early attempt to walk without the crutches of some ‘correspondence principle’. Even though the ensuing developments seem to have re-installed -mentally at least -the more classical notion of a spinning electron through the ideas of Ralph Kronig (compare section 4 of van der Waerden’s contribution to [10], pp. 209-216) and, independently, Samuel Goudsmit and George Uhlenbeck [17] [18], Pauli was never convinced, despite the fact that he lost the battle against Thomas 1 and declared “total surrender” in a letter to Bohr written on March 12. 1926 ([22], Vol. I, Doc. 127, pp. 310). For Pauli the spin of the electron remained an abstract property which receives its ultimate and irreducible explanation in terms of group theory, as applied to the subgroup 2 of spatial rotations (or its double cover) within the full symmetry group of space-time, may it be the Galilei or the Lorentz group (or their double cover). 3 In this respect, Pauli’s 1946 Nobel Lecture contains the following instructive passage (here and throughout this paper I enclose my annotations to quotes within square brackets):
Although at first I strongly doubted the correctness of this idea [of the electron spin in the sense of Kronig, Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck] because of its classical-mechanical character, I was finally converted to it by Thomas’ 1 At this point Frenkel’s remarkable contribution [11] should also be mentioned, which definitely improves on Thomas’ presentation and which was motivated by Pauli sending Frenkel Thomas’ manuscript, as Frenkel acknowledges in footnote 1 on p. 244 of [11]. A more modern account of Frenkel’s work is given in [35]. 2 It is more correct to speak of the conjugacy class of subgroups of spatial rotations, since there is no (and cannot be) a single distinguished subgroup group of ‘spatial’ rotations in Special Relativity. 3 Half-integer spin representations only arise either as proper ray-representations (sometimes called ‘double-valued’ representations) of spatial rotations SO(3) or as faithful true representations (i.e. ‘single-valued’) of its double-cover group SU (2), which are subgroups of the Galilei and Lorentz groups or their double-cover groups respectively.
calculations on the magnitude of doublet splitting. On the other hand, my earlier doubts as well as the cautions expression ≪classically nondescribable two-valuedness≫ experienced a certain verification during later developments, since Bohr was able to show on the basis of wave mechanics that the electron spin cannot be measured by classically describable experiments (as, for instance, deflection of molecular beams in external electromagnetic fields) and must therefore be considered as an essential quantum-mechanical property of the electron. 4 ( [25], p. 30)
Figure 1: Part of a letter by L.H. Thomas to S. Goudsmit dated March 25th 1926, taken from [15] This should clearly not be misunderstood as saying that under the impression of Thomas’ calculations Pauli accepted spin in its ‘classical-mechanical’ interpretation. In fact, he kept on arguing fiercely against what in a letter to Sommerfeld from December 1924 he called “model prejudices” ( [22], Vol. I, Doc. 72, p. 182) and did not refrain from ridiculing the upcoming idea of spin from the very first moment (cf. Fig. 1). What Pauli accepted was the idea of
…(Full text truncated)…
📸 Image Gallery
Reference
This content is AI-processed based on ArXiv data.
