Timeline for Classical proof of the gyromagnetic ratio $g=2$
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
31 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Mar 30, 2022 at 20:25 | history | bounty ended | AccidentalFourierTransform | ||
| S Mar 30, 2022 at 20:25 | history | notice removed | AccidentalFourierTransform | ||
| S Mar 24, 2022 at 10:33 | history | bounty started | AccidentalFourierTransform | ||
| S Mar 24, 2022 at 10:33 | history | notice added | AccidentalFourierTransform | Reward existing answer | |
| S Mar 24, 2022 at 10:32 | vote | accept | AccidentalFourierTransform | ||
| Mar 22, 2022 at 17:01 | answer | added | Robin Ekman | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jul 11, 2017 at 17:54 | answer | added | torgny | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 15, 2017 at 16:05 | history | edited | AccidentalFourierTransform | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 48 characters in body
|
| May 9, 2016 at 20:40 | vote | accept | AccidentalFourierTransform | ||
| S Mar 24, 2022 at 10:32 | |||||
| S May 9, 2016 at 20:38 | history | bounty ended | Ms. Molly Stewart-Gallus | ||
| S May 9, 2016 at 20:38 | history | notice removed | Ms. Molly Stewart-Gallus | ||
| May 4, 2016 at 17:19 | answer | added | AccidentalFourierTransform | timeline score: 14 | |
| May 3, 2016 at 2:00 | answer | added | Anubhav Goel | timeline score: 1 | |
| S May 3, 2016 at 1:01 | history | bounty started | Ms. Molly Stewart-Gallus | ||
| S May 3, 2016 at 1:01 | history | notice added | Ms. Molly Stewart-Gallus | Canonical answer required | |
| Apr 4, 2016 at 21:03 | answer | added | Ilja | timeline score: 13 | |
| Mar 25, 2016 at 20:36 | comment | added | AccidentalFourierTransform | @ACuriousMind yay, three years studying German and I didn't even realise those papers were not the same :/ Thank you very much anyway, I'll try to read the original one - with much help from my Lehrerin - or try to find the proper translation somewhere else. Bis dann :-) | |
| Mar 24, 2016 at 22:12 | comment | added | ACuriousMind♦ | If I read it correctly, it says that the torque due to an external homogeneous magnetic field $\vec B$ for a surface charge is given by $\frac{e a^2}{3 c}\vec \omega\times\vec B$ where the electron rotates with angular velocity $\vec \omega$ and $a$ is the electron radius, where the 3 is a 5 if one assumes volume charge instead. | |
| Mar 24, 2016 at 22:07 | comment | added | ACuriousMind♦ | What you linked there is not a translation of the original German. I think the original article computes the gyromagnetic ratio in §11. Rotierendes Elektron. Elektromagnetisches Trägheitsmoment., but I find the archaic notation quite hard to read/follow. The article also never settles on whether the electron carries a surface or volume charge, it computes all expressions for both cases. | |
| Mar 24, 2016 at 21:50 | history | edited | AccidentalFourierTransform | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Mar 24, 2016 at 21:43 | comment | added | AccidentalFourierTransform | @rob The paper supposedly is Prinzipien der Dynamik des Elektrons (1903) (in germal), which I believe is translated here (though I'm not sure, because they are tagged with different years). I couldn't find any reference to $g$ in that paper (nor can I deduce it from anything there), which brings more confusion into this... | |
| Mar 24, 2016 at 21:33 | comment | added | rob♦ | Have you found the Uhlenbeck paper that Pais and Arabatzis are referring to? Papers from that era are a real pleasure to read, since so many of them are now standard problems. You might also look at Galison's "How Experiments End" which discusses the evolution of the electron's measured $g$ from approximately one to approximately two over several decades. | |
| Mar 24, 2016 at 21:26 | history | edited | AccidentalFourierTransform | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 412 characters in body
|
| Dec 23, 2015 at 0:38 | comment | added | Ján Lalinský | "the concept of a rigid body is not valid in SR (so there is no relativistic generalisation of Iω)" it is true body cannot be rigid(non-deformable) in SR, but you only need assumption of rigid stationary rotation, which does not contradict SR. Or you can try to make and analyze non-rigid model of the particle, but that gets hard real quick. | |
| Dec 23, 2015 at 0:08 | comment | added | Vladimir | Do you use hollow sphere, or sphere filled with uniformly distributed mass & charge? From your description, it seems that you mix it, mass being distributed and charge being entirely on surface. | |
| Dec 22, 2015 at 23:19 | comment | added | AccidentalFourierTransform | @JánLalinský thank you for your response. "redo the calculation with relativistic formula for angular momentum" is not possible (I believe), because the concept of a rigid body is not valid in SR (so there is no relativistic generalisation of $I\omega$). If we (as Uhlenbeck suposedly did) want to calculate the gyromagnetic ratio of the electron as if it were a solid sphere, we must settle for non-relativistic mechanics (the fact that $v>c$ probably means that the problem is ill-posed to begin with. Is perhaps the author's claim inexact?). | |
| Dec 22, 2015 at 22:22 | comment | added | Ján Lalinský | Your first calculation uses non-relativistic formula for angular momentum $I\omega$. Since the second calculation shows that required sphere size $r_e$ and angular momentum $\hbar$ imply superluminal speed of the surface of the sphere, you have set of assumptions in violation of special relativity. You can recover either by increasing $r_e$ so that non-relativistic formula gets applicable, or redo the calculation with relativistic formula for angular momentum. You should be able to get arbitrarily high angular momentum while all parts of the sphere have subluminal speeds. | |
| Dec 22, 2015 at 21:35 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/679414864817819648 | ||
| Dec 22, 2015 at 18:27 | history | edited | AccidentalFourierTransform | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 322 characters in body
|
| Dec 17, 2015 at 23:00 | comment | added | AccidentalFourierTransform | Note: I already know that $g=2$ is very well explained by Quantum Mechanics; my question is: can it also be explained, as the author sais, by classical mechanics? I found it cannot be explained by a solid sphere, but I believe the author must be right, so at which point did my analysis break down? | |
| Dec 17, 2015 at 21:21 | history | asked | AccidentalFourierTransform | CC BY-SA 3.0 |