Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
May 2001
Herman Batelaan
University of Nebraska - Lincoln, hbatelaan@unl.edu
Timothy J. Gay
University of Nebraska - Lincoln, tgay1@unl.edu
Gallup, Gordon A.; Batelaan, Herman; and Gay, Timothy J. , "Quantum-Mechanical Analysis of a Longitudinal Stern-Gerlach Effect"
(2001). Gordon Gallup Publications. 39.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/physicsgallup/39
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Research Papers in Physics and Astronomy at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska -
Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Gordon Gallup Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska
- Lincoln.
VOLUME 86, NUMBER 20 PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 14 MAY 2001
The Stern-Gerlach experiment is one of the most impor- spin separations in some static situations [10,11]. For the
tant in the history of physics and is often used to illustrate beam configuration considered by Pauli et al., however, the
the nature of spin in quantum mechanics [1]. Curiously, situation is more ambiguous. Adler [12] and Garroway
a magnet of the type used by Stern and Gerlach does not and Stenholm [13] verified Pauli’s analysis of the trans-
work with beams of electrons because of the combined ef- verse-field geometry. More importantly for this discussion,
fects of the Lorentz force and the Heisenberg uncertainty Bloch [14] and Dehmelt [9] sketched quantum arguments
principle. This was shown first by Mott and Bohr in 1928 for longitudinal-field geometries and suggested that com-
[2]. Pauli subsequently made a more general argument that plete isolation of the lowest energy “spin-backward” state
no device based on the concept of classical particle trajec- should be possible. They did not, however, consider the
tories and macroscopic magnetic fields could be used to nondestructive case of full transmission of both spin com-
separate an electron beam by spin or to measure the elec- ponents in a beam. An experiment of the “Bloch-Dehmelt”
tron’s magnetic moment [3]. The Bohr/Mott/Pauli argu- type was performed by Knight and his colleagues in the
ment is codified in numerous textbooks [4]. mid 1960s, and observation of a low energy 共,1028 eV兲
In this Letter we show that, in fact, it is possible to ob- tail of (presumably) spin-polarized electrons was reported
serve spin splitting of a beam of electrons using a longitu- [15]. This work was never formally published, and, ap-
dinal magnetic-field configuration instead of the standard parently, could not be reproduced [9]. Sannikov [16] and
transverse geometry of Stern and Gerlach. The longitudi- Conte et al. [17] considered the problem we take up here,
nal configuration has the advantage that the electrons ex- i.e., longitudinal spatial spin separation of a fully trans-
perience only off-axis Lorentz forces that are significantly mitted beam, but did not use electron wave packets hav-
smaller than the on-axis forces in the transverse geome- ing extended transverse dimensions. This precludes any
try. Such an idea was first proposed by Brillouin [5], but elimination of the splitting due to blurring of the separate
was specifically rejected by Pauli. Recently, however, we spin states.
discovered an error in the reasoning Pauli used against Our calculation begins with the full nonrelativistic Ham-
Brillouin’s idea, and analyzed a counterexample using
iltonian for an electron in the magnetic field B共r, f, z兲 of
classical particle trajectories in which spin splitting of elec- a simple current ring. The ring lies in the x-y plane, has
trons could be achieved equal to the blurring caused by the radius R, and is centered at the origin. Thus,
Lorentz forces [6–8]. Although these results are intrigu-
ing, they do not take into account the wave nature of the 1 dB共z兲
electron, and thus do not address the central question: Can B共r, f, z兲 苷 2 r 关cos共f兲x̂ 1 sin共f兲ŷ兴
2 dz
a spin separation really be expected? In this article we re-
1 B共z兲ẑ , (1)
port the results of a rigorous quantum-mechanical analysis
of the longitudinal Stern-Gerlach problem, which corre-
where
sponds to physical reality. We obtain the surprising result
that complete separation can be achieved, an improvement √ !3
R
over the semiclassical situation. Complete spin splitting is B共z兲 苷 B0 p , (2)
thus shown to be, fundamentally, a quantum-mechanical R 1 z2
2
effect.
It is clear that the magnetic moment of individual elec- and B0 . 0 is the field at the origin assuming r兾R ø
trons can be measured; Dehmelt and his colleagues accom- 1. Schrödinger’s equation for this problem in cylindrical
plished this with a modified Penning trap [9]. Separation coordinates about the z axis is
of electrons by spin does not follow from these experi-
ments, however, even though Pauli used the same general ≠c
关HL 共z兲 1 Hz 兴c 苷 i h̄ , (3)
argument against both. Quantum calculations have shown ≠t
µ ∂ where
h̄2 1 ≠ ≠ Lz2
HL 共z兲 苷 2 r 1
2me r ≠r ≠r 2me r 2 Enml ms 苷 h̄vL 共z兲 共2n 1 jml j 1 ml 1 gms 1 1兲 . (12)
1
1 vL 共z兲 共Lz 1 gSz 兲 1 me 关vL 共z兲兴2 r 2 , In order to leave ml as an explicit quantum number, we
2
(4) have not followed the common practice of denoting 2n 1
jml j as another single integer.
Substituting (6) into (3) and using (7), we obtain a set of
h̄2 ≠2 dvL
Hz 苷 2 2
1g 共xSx 1 ySy 兲 , (5) coupled equations for the anml ms . The coupling terms in
2me ≠z dz these equations determine how nonadiabatic the electron
jeB共z兲j transmission process is, i.e., how likely it is for an electron
where vL 共z兲 is the Larmor frequency 共 2me c 兲, Lz is the op-
in a given Landau uniform-field eigenstate to depart from
erator for the canonical angular momentum of the electron
that state over the course of its passage through the mag-
about the z axis, Sx , Sy , and Sz are the Cartesian spin op-
netic field. We estimate these terms by using the physi-
erators, me is the electron mass, and g 苷 2共1 1 ae 兲 is the
cal quantities considered in the semiclassical calculation
anomalous electron gyromagnetic ratio. Equations (4) and
of Ref. [6]. The electrons follow a 2 m path length that
(5) bear some discussion. The first two terms of (4) and
has a midpoint at the center of a 2 cm radius current ring,
the first term of (5) correspond to the electron’s kinetic en-
where the field magnitude B0 is 10 T. Their initial speed
ergy. In (4), both the fourth term and the part of the third
is taken to be 105 m兾s 共苷 28 meV兲. These values yield a
term involving Lz correspond to the classical 2m orb ? B
reasonable splitting 共631 mm兲 of the spin in a semiclassi-
potential of an electron with orbital angular momentum cal model for on-axis trajectories. From the point of view
about z. The latter part of the third term in (4) and the sec- of this paper, the 10 T maximum field means that magnetic
ond term in (5) are the equivalent terms for the magnetic potential energies for the electron along the trajectory will
potential associated with electron spin. If B were uniform, always be ø28 meV for the lowest Landau levels.
the last term of (5) would vanish, and both ml and ms , the The above experimental conditions justify two ap-
quantum numbers associated with Lz and Sz , would sepa- proximations. First, the z dependence of the Landau
rately be good. Generally, for the Hamiltonian of (3), only Hamiltonian [Eq. (4)] could cause transitions between
mj 苷 ml 1 ms is a good quantum number. uniform-field Landau eigenstates. We find that these
We now construct complete wave packet solutions of the off-diagonal coupling terms can be neglected with one ex-
form ception: those associated with the magnetic-field gradient
X X X that arise from the second term on the right of Eq. (5),
c 苷 Rn共ml 兲 共r, f兲hms anml ms 共z, t兲 , (6) corresponding to electron spin flip. Second, given that
n ml ms
the magnetic potential energies are much smaller than the
where h is a spinor, the anml ms 共z, t兲 are functions that electron kinetic energy, the WKB approximation is valid
contain all of the explicit z and t dependence of c as the for the longitudinal wave function propagation.
electrons move along the magnetic field, and The spin-flip probability can be characterized by the
ratio of coupling terms U:
HL Rn共ml 兲 hms 苷 Enml ms Rn共ml 兲 hms . (7) Ç Ç
共m 兲 Uij 3共z兾R兲
Note that the Rn l 共r, f兲 have a parametric dependence 苷 p , (13)
Uii 2 Ujj 4ae a0 R关1 1 共z兾R兲2 兴1兾4
upon z, but otherwise are solutions to the standard Landau
problem. They span x-y space and can be written as where i and j label states connected by the transverse spin
p operator. Although not negligible, this quantity is ,1022
Rn共ml 兲 共r, f兲 苷 Nnjml j 共 a r兲jml j L共jm
n
l j兲
共ar 2 兲 at all values of z, and corresponds to spin-flip probabilities
1 of the same order of magnitude. Thus the electrons traverse
3 exp共2 2 ar 2 兲eiml f , (8)
the magnetic field almost completely adiabatically; if a
wave packet that corresponds to a Landau eigenfunction
共21兲n x d n n1jml j 2x
Ln共jml j兲 共x兲 苷 e 关x e 兴, (9) can be inserted into the field, the probability is high that
n! x jml j dx n it will emerge in the same state. It is interesting to note
that the small amount of spin flipping that does occur is
mv共z兲 inversely proportional to the electron g-factor anomaly.
a 苷 a共z兲 苷 , (10)
h̄ We now consider the transmission of the two Landau
wave packets with n, ml , ms 苷 0, 0, 61兾2. These states
and are most strongly coupled to the 0, 61, 71兾2 states, re-
s spectively, but this coupling is negligible, as discussed
n! a above. The packets are superpositions of plane waves such
Nnjml j 苷 , (11)
p共n 1 jml j兲! that
4509
VOLUME 86, NUMBER 20 PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 14 MAY 2001
Z
苷 共2p h̄兲21兾2 f共pz 兲 0.8
0,0,+1/2 0,0,-1/2
Probability Density
where f共pz 兲 is taken to be Gaussian-like with a spatialp
0.6
4510
VOLUME 86, NUMBER 20 PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 14 MAY 2001
4511