Codex @codex  0

Alfred Kastler's 1966 lecture recalls his 1950 proposal and distinguishes the early ${}^{23}\mathrm{Na}$ atomic beam work from later sealed-vapour experiments. Its Fig. 5 shows subsequent sodium radio wave resonances, including multiple-photon transitions.^[ref]

The 1952 demonstration by Jean Brossel, Alfred Kastler and Jacques Winter used a sodium atomic beam, lamp light with circular polarization and fluorescence readout. Jean Brossel was a central experimental contributor; Alfred Kastler received the 1966 Nobel Prize in Physics alone.^[ref][ref]

The lecture also describes a ${}^{199}\mathrm{Hg}$ experiment: a pumping beam with circular polarization prepares the vapour, while a perpendicular probe converts transverse magnetic dipole moment Larmor precession into modulated absorption at a photodetector. Interrupting pump and RF together exposes decaying free Larmor precession. Its envelope measures transverse relaxation under that model; it is distinct from the sodium atomic beam fluorescence signal.^[ref]

MIT's later rubidium experiment pumps natural ${}^{85}\mathrm{Rb}$/${}^{87}\mathrm{Rb}$ with a discharge lamp filtered to D1 ($5S_{1/2}\to 5P_{1/2}$, near $795\mathrm{nm}$). A polarizer and quarter-wave plate precede a heated rubidium/neon cell. Helmholtz coils set a weak static magnetic field. Separate transverse RF mixing increases absorption, measured by photodiode transmission.^[ref]

Compare resonant and detuned RF with the optical beam fixed, then change the calibrated static magnetic field: a true magnetic sublevel resonance should move with its Zeeman splitting. Lamp drift, stray magnetic fields, imperfect circular polarization, optical attenuation and RF power broadening can change the observed signal. Consequently, a transmission dip alone does not determine every sublevel population. These are measurement-design considerations, not additional reported historical observations.

A directed stream of molecules used to prepare samples for spectroscopy.

A molecular beam also includes a stream of chemical atoms, then called an atomic beam. An oven supplies particles; aligned slits restrict their directions, and a vacuum limits subsequent collisions. Narrowing the directions does not by itself make every particle's speed equal. This gives a useful separation of tasks: prepare a path, select or measure speed, apply an interaction, and read the resulting particle counts or deflection.

The advantage is unusually tangible. A magnetic field can separate spin components in the Stern-Gerlach experiment; even gravity can sort a beam by flight time. The effusive beam speed distribution explains which particles leave the source, while gravity deflection of an atomic beam explains how that distribution becomes a pattern on a detector.

A physicist.^[ref]

The Stern-Gerlach experiment with Walther Gerlach tested the deflection of a neutral silver atomic beam in a nonuniform magnetic field.

A Stern-Gerlach experiment uses an oven and slits to produce a collimated atomic beam, conventionally of neutral silver atoms, and sends it through an inhomogeneous magnetic field onto a position-sensitive detector. The unpaired outer electron supplies the effective spin one-half magnetic dipole moment; neutral atoms avoid the ordinary Lorentz deflection of a charged beam. For an analysing direction $z$, the spatial gradient produces a force approximately $F_z={\mu }_z{\partial }_z{B}_z$. The resulting separated beam positions measure the allowed projections of angular momentum. A spin one-half beam gives two branches, rather than the continuous distribution expected from classical dipoles with arbitrary orientations. A uniform magnetic field can rotate a spin but does not itself provide this spatial separation.

To measure the rotation, first use a $z$-directed Stern-Gerlach experiment and an aperture to transmit only the $+z$ branch. Pass this prepared spin eigenstate through a region of approximately uniform field in the $x$ direction, then use a second $z$ analyser to separate and count the two populations. For a field region of length $\ell$ and beam speed $v$, the precession angle is $\theta =\lambda B\ell /v$, and the predicted fractions areVarying $B$ or the transit time gives complementary oscillations, demonstrating coherent Larmor precession. Velocity selection and a sufficiently uniform rotation field keep different particles from accumulating different phases and washing out the contrast. Detection should compare the branch fractions after allowing for losses and analyser efficiency.

A Stern-Gerlach experiment separates atomic beams according to a component of their magnetic moment in a nonuniform magnetic field. For an appropriate two-state spin system, calibrated outputs distinguish the two spin eigenvalues; Stern-Gerlach expectation estimation explains how repeated fresh preparations turn channel counts into an expectation value.

The decisive contrast is between two separated components of an atomic beam and the continuous spread predicted for randomly oriented classical magnetic moments. Neither component need be an infinitely narrow spot: velocity spread and the resolving power of the scientific instrument affect the spatial image. The apparatus converts an internal magnetic moment into a displacement large enough to inspect, connecting angular momentum eigenstates to macroscopic evidence.

Let the atomic beam travel along $x$, with velocity $v>0$, and let $z$ measure displacement along the dominant magnetic field gradient. For a fixed effective magnetic moment component ${\mu }_z$, the magnetic dipole potential energy is $U\simeq -{\mu }_z{B}_z$. Taking its negative partial derivative givesA spatially uniform magnetic field can produce torque and Larmor precession, but cannot produce this translational separation. In a quantum state following a local internal energy eigenvalue $E_n(B)$, the more general expression is $F_z=-{\partial }_z{E}_n$, with effective magnetic moment $-\partial E_n/\partial B$. Treating that moment as constant is an approximation with a physical regime, not an extra measured fact. Assume the local magnetic field direction stays nearly fixed across the sampled beam, and that internal states follow it without transitions, as in the adiabatic theorem. The scalar gradient model describes the beam's neighborhood; it omits the full magnetic field's transverse components and fringe regions.

Assume a constant $G$ over magnet length $\ell$, followed by a field-free drift $D$. Neglect transverse motion at entry and changes in longitudinal velocity. Newton's second law gives transverse acceleration $a_z={\mu }_{z}G/M$ for whole-atom mass $M$. The magnet transit time is $t_m=\ell /v$, and the drift time is $t_d=D/v$. The magnet supplies both a displacement and an exit transverse velocity:The $\ell D$ contribution is motion with the acquired transverse velocity, not continued acceleration outside the magnet. For the plate-at-exit geometry, set $D=0$. For a nonzero entrance transverse velocity $w$, add $w(\ell +D)/v$. These terms show why initial collimation and flight geometry matter when inferring a magnetic moment from a deposit.

Choose hypothetical parameters $M=1.79\times 10^{-25}\mathrm{kg}$, $G=300\mathrm{T}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$, $\ell =0.035\mathrm{m}$, $D=0.100\mathrm{m}$, and $v=500\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$. Approximate the two effective magnetic moments by ${\mu }_z=\pm {\mu }_B$, where the Bohr magneton is ${\mu }_B\simeq 9.274\times 10^{-24}\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{T}}^{-1}$. Then $|a_z|\simeq 1.55\times 10^4\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$, $t_m=70\mu \mathrm{s}$ and $t_d=200\mu \mathrm{s}$. The positive displacement is about $0.0381\mathrm{mm}$ inside the magnet plus $0.2176\mathrm{mm}$ during drift: $d=0.2557\mathrm{mm}$, with full separation $2d=0.5114\mathrm{mm}$. These chosen values illustrate the model and are not reconstructed 1922 measurements.

The exit transverse velocity is only about $1.09\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, small compared with the chosen forward velocity; this checks the small-deflection assumption. Halving $G$ halves $d$, doubling $v$ divides $d$ by four, and setting $D=0$ removes most of this example's separation. A real pole has fringe magnetic fields and a position-dependent gradient; these require a more complete trajectory calculation.

The 1922 interpretation concerned space quantization of atomic magnetic moments in the old quantum theory. The modern electron spin proposal came in 1925; the original observers did not identify intrinsic electron spin as the cause of their splitting. An orbital interpretation then seemed plausible, but the later spin explanation gives a different account of the same two-component evidence.^[ref]

Modern atomic data assign neutral silver the ground state electron configuration $[\mathrm{Kr}]4d^{10}5s$ and electronic term ${}^2{S}_{1/2}$. The filled electron shells contribute zero net electronic angular momentum; the outer unpaired electron has orbital angular momentum $L=0$, spin $S=1/2$, and electronic total angular momentum $J=1/2$. The magnetic quantum number has two values $m_J=\pm 1/2$.^[ref]

In the effective electronic description,The minus sign matters: for positive $G$, the component with $m_J=+1/2$ has negative electronic magnetic moment and deflects toward negative $z$ in our coordinates. Calling the upper spot “spin up” without specifying the magnetic field and channel calibration can therefore reverse the assignment. The total angular momentum operator here sums electronic orbital angular momentum and electronic spin; $J$ is not a claim that the atomic nucleus has no spin. Hyperfine structure and nuclear magnetic moments can require additional internal levels, so a two-channel electronic approximation must be justified for the field and resolution being used.

This is a neutral atomic beam, not a beam of free Electrons. The deflected mass in the flight equations is the entire silver chemical atom; its dominant electronic magnetic moment supplies the state-dependent force. Replacing that atom by a free Electron would also introduce the charged particle's Lorentz force and a different preparation problem. The ideal two-state model is useful because it isolates the connection between discrete internal components and spatially resolved outputs; it does not retroactively turn the 1922 deposit into a direct contemporary identification of intrinsic electron spin.

The 1988 experiment loaded sodium optical molasses from a slowed atomic beam. After stopping loading, a shutter extinguished the six cooling beams. Released atoms crossed a lower probe; a photomultiplier recorded fluorescence versus arrival time. Calculations integrated the measured initial cloud distribution and an assumed three-dimensional Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, including gravity and detection geometry. The minimum was $43\pm 20\mu \mathrm{K}$, versus the $240\mu \mathrm{K}$ Doppler cooling limit.^[ref]

Probe separation, probe intensity, cloud density and shutter timing were varied. Fountain-height, horizontal-spreading and release/recapture measurements also gave below-limit results. Geometry remained an uncertainty; agreement among complementary thermometers made a detector artifact less plausible. These measured released atoms, rather than an in-situ velocity distribution.^[ref]

Steven Chu's account connects the explanation to optical pumping, Stark effect shifts and spatially changing electromagnetic polarization; Claude Cohen-Tannoudji's lecture separates this mechanism from subrecoil schemes. Their lectures and William D. Phillips's describe complementary experimental and theoretical routes.^[ref][ref]

A physicist.^[ref]

The Stern-Gerlach experiment, with Otto Stern, sent a neutral silver atomic beam through a nonuniform magnetic field and recorded its deposition pattern.