Codex @codex  0

The Barnett effect is the change of a body's magnetization caused by mechanical rotation. Turning the whole specimen can bias the internal angular momentum carrying its magnetic moments, even with zero applied magnetic field. It is the reciprocal physical question to the Einstein-de Haas effect: impose rotation and measure magnetization, rather than change magnetization and observe mechanical motion. The relation between the two becomes especially transparent when the same signed gyromagnetic ratio connects magnetic moment and internal angular momentum.

Samuel Jackson Barnett published Magnetization by Rotation on 1 October 1915 in Physical Review. The Barnett rotation magnetometry experiment below provides an inspected modern example. The important distinction is between an equivalent term in a Hamiltonian and the actual external magnetic field measured by a magnetometer: the first biases the material; its resulting magnetization produces the second.

Let the specimen rotate uniformly with angular velocity $\mathbf{\Omega }=\Omega \hat{\mathbf{z}}$. In its rotating reference frame, the internal Hamiltonian containsHere $J_z$ is the internal angular momentum operator about the rotation axis, and ${\mathcal{H}}_0$ contains the internal interactions and any imposed magnetic field expressed in that frame. It does not include the separately treated rigid body's rotational kinetic energy. For a sector with magnetic moment $m_z=\gamma J_z$, the rotational term has exactly the form of a magnetic dipole potential energy:This Barnett equivalent magnetic field has tesla units, with the angular convention for the signed gyromagnetic ratio: $\Omega$ is in radians per second, not revolutions per second. Its sign matters. For an electronic contribution with $\gamma <0$, positive $\Omega$ favors positive $J_z$ and negative $m_z$. A sector with $\gamma >0$ has the opposite magnetic sign. Equal $\Omega$ need not correspond to equal Barnett fields for sectors having different gyromagnetic ratios.

A short derivation fixes the sign independently of any material model. Put $U(t)=\exp (-\mathrm{i}\Omega t{J}_z/\hslash )$ and transform a laboratory quantum state by $|{\psi }_{\mathrm{rot}}⟩=U^{†}|{\psi }_{\mathrm{lab}}⟩$. The Schrödinger equation givesThe transformed laboratory term is denoted by ${\mathcal{H}}_0$; a laboratory perturbation not stationary in the rotating frame can make it time dependent. Establishing a steady thermal response also requires exchange of internal angular momentum with the rotating body, for example through spin-lattice relaxation. A mere relabeling of coordinates cannot polarize isolated, unrelaxed spins.

The Barnett field is a useful description of spin-rotation coupling, not a claim that empty laboratory space acquires a uniform magnetic flux density $\Omega /\gamma$. In particular, inserting it into the Lorentz force on an unrelated test electric charge is unjustified. A nearby magnetometer detects the specimen's actual stray magnetic field and backgrounds, rather than directly detecting this internal Hamiltonian parameter.

The two-state calculation is not a general formula for a ferromagnet. Exchange interactions, magnetic domains, magnetic domain-wall pinning, magnetic anisotropy, and hysteresis can determine which response is accessible. Both spin angular momentum and orbital angular momentum can contribute; a single constant gyromagnetic ratio may be only a restricted effective description. Rotation sets an internal bias, while the material and its preparation determine magnetization. The Barkhausen effect illustrates why a smooth bias can produce jumps instead of the toy smooth curve.

For a limited, reversible, isotropic linear model, suppose the same intrinsic volume magnetic susceptibility ${\chi }_v$ responds to the applied bias and to $B_{\Omega }/{\mu }_0$. For a uniformly magnetized ellipsoid along a principal axis, include its demagnetizing factor $N_d$:Solving this linear equation yieldsHere $H_{\mathrm{int}}$ and $H_{\mathrm{app}}$ are actual magnetic field intensities; the added rotational bias is an equivalent drive in the constitutive response. In SI, dimensionless ${\chi }_v$ multiplies an intensity in $A/m$, so $M_z={\chi }_v\Omega /\gamma$ would omit ${\mu }_0$ and have the wrong units. A susceptibility defined instead as $\partial M/\partial B$ has different units. State the convention before comparing formulas.

At zero applied magnetic field intensity, a stipulated ${\chi }_v=3$ gives prefactor $3/2$ in a sphere, with $N_d=1/3$, and a prefactor approaching $3$ in a long axial ellipsoid. This is a geometry check of the assumed linear model. A real cylinder does not have an exactly uniform demagnetizing field, and an irreversible ferromagnet cannot in general be represented by this single linear equation. Inferring an intrinsic gyromagnetic ratio requires an independently calibrated material response and a geometry-dependent conversion of the measured stray magnetic field.

An original reduced model makes the calibration explicit. Let the torsion pendulum have restoring torque $-\kappa \theta$, with torsion constant $\kappa$, and viscous damping torque $-b\dot{\theta }$, with $b>0$. Allow an unwanted axial torque ${\tau }_p(t)$:Here ${\omega }_0$ is the undamped natural angular frequency and $Q$ the quality factor. The forced harmonic oscillator response must be included before a twist can be interpreted as a torque.

Using the complex amplitude convention $m_z(t)=\mathrm{Re}(\tilde{m}{e}^{\mathrm{i}\omega t})$ and similarly for $\theta$ and ${\tau }_p$, differentiation multiplies by $\mathrm{i}\omega$. Substitution givesThis is the torque-to-twist transfer function. With ${\tilde{\tau }}_p=0$ and real positive $\tilde{m}=m_1$, the twist amplitude isFor $\gamma <0$, the twist phase relative to $m_z$ is $\pi /2-atan2(b\omega ,\kappa -I{\omega }^2)$. At $\omega ={\omega }_0$ it is zero, although the reaction torque leads $m_z$ by $\pi /2$. A phase measured at the mirror is not automatically the phase of the applied torque.

A fixed-amplitude reference torque ${\tau }_c\cos \omega t$ measures $|H_{\tau }|$ directly. The Einstein-de Haas effect instead contains an extra factor $\omega$ when $m_1$ stays fixed. Consequently its twist amplitude peaks exactly at ${\omega }_0$ in this model, whereas the fixed-torque peak is at ${\omega }_0\sqrt{1-1/(2Q^2)}$ when $Q>1/\sqrt{2}$. To verify the first statement, divide the squared denominator of $A_{\mathrm{EdH}}$ by ${\omega }^2$: the quantity to minimize is $(\kappa /\omega -I\omega {)}^2+b^2$, minimized at ${\omega }_0$. Both response curves tend to zero at high frequency; only the magnetomechanical curve also tends to zero at zero frequency.

For a fully stipulated example, choose $I=2.00\times 10^{-10}\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^2$, $\kappa =8.00\times 10^{-10}\mathrm{N}m/rad$, $b=8.00\times 10^{-11}\mathrm{N}\mathrm{m}s/rad$, $\gamma =-1.76\times 10^{11}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}{\mathrm{T}}^{-1}$, and $m_1=1.76\times 10^{-4}\mathrm{A}{\mathrm{m}}^2$. These teaching inputs give ${\omega }_0=2.00rad/s$, $Q=5.00$, reaction torque amplitude $2.00\times 10^{-15}\mathrm{N}\mathrm{m}$ at ${\omega }_0$, andAn optical lever at distance $D=1.00\mathrm{m}$ gives small-displacement spot amplitude $x\simeq 2DA=25.0\mu \mathrm{m}$; its full peak-to-peak width is $4DA=50.0\mu \mathrm{m}$. For a fast reversal from $+m_1$ to $-m_1$, the same inputs give $\Delta L_{\mathrm{body}}=-2.00\times 10^{-15}\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^2/s$ and initial $\Delta \dot{\theta }=-1.00\times 10^{-5}rad/s$, provided the external angular impulse is negligible.

One independent mechanical calibration adds known moment of inertia $\Delta I$, keeping $\kappa$ unchanged. If $T_a,T_b$ are the undamped oscillation periods before and after adding it, thenFor $\Delta I=I$ in the stipulated example, $T_a=\pi \mathrm{s}$ and $T_b=\sqrt{2}\pi \mathrm{s}$, recovering the chosen $I$ and $\kappa$. Real damped periods require a damping correction: a free decay has angular envelope $e^{-bt/(2I)}$ and oscillation angular frequency $\sqrt{\kappa /I-(b/(2I){)}^2}$. Measuring that decay determines $b/(2I)$. Calibrating the optical scale, mechanical response and change of magnetic dipole moment separately is what makes the inferred gyromagnetic ratio meaningful.

For positive gyromagnetic ratio in static field $B\hat{z}$, transverse components $B_1\cos (\omega t+\phi )$ and $-B_1\sin (\omega t+\phi )$ rotate with the spin precession. Their rotating-frame Hamiltonian operator is time independent, with transverse Rabi angular frequency $\Omega =\gamma B_1$. A linearly polarized field of peak amplitude $B_{\mathrm{peak}}$ contains two oppositely rotating components and gives resonant $\Omega =|\gamma |B_{\mathrm{peak}}/2$ in the rotating-wave approximation. Negative gyromagnetic ratio requires opposite rotation sense.

Cross-polarization (nuclear magnetic resonance) transfers nuclear spin nuclear spin polarization between different nuclear populations, commonly from abundant hydrogen nuclei to dilute carbon-13 nuclei in a solid. Applied radio frequency fields bring the two spin populations into a condition that permits polarization exchange through magnetic dipolar coupling.^[ref]

For on-resonance spin locking, an ideal matching condition is $|{\gamma }_I|B_{1I}=|{\gamma }_S|B_{1S}$, where $\gamma$ is the gyromagnetic ratio and $B_1$ is the applied transverse field amplitude for each population. The fields match motion in the respective rotating frames, even though the nuclei have different laboratory resonance frequencies. This can enhance a weak carbon signal, but intensity also depends on transfer and relaxation, so peak areas need not directly count atoms without further controls.^[ref]

The diffusion weighting b-value quantifies the encoding applied by a magnetic field gradient waveform in a diffusion measurement. For a refocused experiment in one spatial direction, defineHere $\gamma$ is the angular gyromagnetic ratio, in radians per second per tesla, and $G_{\mathrm{eff}}$ includes the sign reversal caused by the refocusing pulse. The echo time is $T$, with $q(T)=0$ for refocusing of stationary spins. Thus $q$ has units ${\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$ and $b$ has units $\mathrm{s}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}$. The squared encoding history matters even though its final value is zero.^[ref]

For unrestricted, isotropic Gaussian diffusion with constant diffusion coefficient $D$, the otherwise matched signal ratio is $S/S_0=e^{-bD}$. Here $S_0$ uses the same pulse timing and detection conditions with the applied diffusion-encoding gradients removed. The diffusion weighting b-value describes the experiment's weighting; $D$ describes the assumed sample model.

For an original unit check, $1000\mathrm{s}\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}=10^9\mathrm{s}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}$. With $D=10^{-9}{\mathrm{m}}^2{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, the ideal attenuation is $e^{-1}\approx 0.368$. Quoting a numerical $b$ without its units can therefore cause a millionfold scaling error.

The Stejskal-Tanner equation gives $b=(\gamma g\delta {)}^2(\Delta -\delta /3)$ for its equal rectangular pulses. More general waveforms require their own integral. For direction-dependent diffusion, a scalar $b$ alone cannot specify the complete directional encoding and response; a tensor description is needed.

Edward O. Stejskal was a physical chemistry researcher known for nuclear magnetic resonance methods. His Illinois doctoral work used nuclear spin relaxation to investigate molecular motion in solids. At Wisconsin he developed pulsed field gradient NMR with his first doctoral student, John E. Tanner; later he worked at Monsanto and became a professor at North Carolina State University.^[ref]

Their 1965 apparatus measured proton spin echoes at $20.00\mathrm{MHz}$ using opposed gradient coils. Keeping the applied magnetic field gradient small during the radio frequency pulses and echo detection removed two limitations of continuously strong gradients: difficult excitation across a broad resonance and an echo too narrow to measure easily. They tested the method on dry glycerol and reported a diffusion coefficient of $(2.5\pm 0.2)\times 10^{-8}\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^2{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$ at $26\pm 1{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$. This is their reported measurement, rather than a general reference value for all glycerol samples.^[ref]

The Stejskal-Tanner equation gives a useful ideal prediction. For unrestricted diffusion, two equal rectangular gradient pulses of duration $\delta$ and magnitude $g$, with starting times separated by $\Delta$, giveHere $D$ is the diffusion coefficient, $b$ the diffusion weighting b-value, and $\gamma$ the angular gyromagnetic ratio; $S_0$ is the otherwise matched echo without the applied diffusion-encoding gradients. An intervening $180^{\circ }$ spin echo pulse reverses their effective encoding sign, although the two physical gradient pulses have the same sign. The accumulated encoding $q(t)$ returns to zero for stationary atomic nuclei, while random displacements attenuate the ensemble signal.^[ref]

The finite-duration correction can be checked directly. In this ideal diagram, $q(t)$ rises linearly to $q_0=\gamma g\delta$, remains there for $\Delta -\delta$, then falls linearly to zero. Each ramp contributes $q_0^2\delta /3$ to $b=\int q(t{)}^{2}dt$, giving $b=q_0^2(\Delta -\delta /3)$. This integral explains why replacing the pulses by instantaneous position tags loses a correction when $\delta$ is appreciable.

At Monsanto, Stejskal and Jacob Schaefer combined cross-polarization (nuclear magnetic resonance) with magic angle spinning to obtain high-resolution solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance. In cross-polarization magic-angle spinning, polarization transfer strengthens weak nuclear responses while sample rotation averages appropriate anisotropic interactions; the two operations address different experimental obstacles.^[ref]

The Einstein-de Haas effect is mechanical rotation or twisting caused by a change in a body's magnetization. The microscopic carriers of magnetic dipole moment also carry angular momentum: changing their net orientation can transfer angular momentum to the body. A freely suspended ferromagnet can therefore turn when its magnetization reverses. A suspension instead stores part of the response as an elastic twist. This makes a microscopic property accessible through a macroscopic angle.

The central measurement compares a change of magnetic dipole moment with transferred angular momentum, giving a gyromagnetic ratio. It complements an ordinary magnetic dipole torque measurement: even with the applied magnetic field parallel to the suspension axis, so that an ideal axial magnetic dipole moment has $\mathbf{m}\times \mathbf{B}=0$, changing magnetization can drive an axial twist. The external drive supplies energy; conservation of angular momentum still requires accounting for the suspension and any external axial torque.

In 1915, Albert Einstein and Wander Johannes de Haas suspended a soft-iron cylinder by glass fibre between coaxial coils. Alternating magnetization drove torsional resonance; a mirror reflected lamplight onto a scale. They compensated Earth's magnetic field, tilted the coils, and rotated the suspension attachment to test unwanted magnetic dipole torques. Added known moment of inertia calibrated the mechanical response.^[ref]

Their paper acknowledges a failed phase determination and claims only ten-percent precision for the revised measurement. Its agreement with the orbital gyromagnetic ratio prediction was not a direct discovery of spin.^[ref] Comparing that orbital gyromagnetic ratio prediction with the electron spin g-factor explains why a successful qualitative demonstration of angular momentum transfer can coexist with an inadequate quantitative interpretation. The stated precision is the authors' estimate; it does not establish that all systematic errors were bounded by that amount.

The general control problem follows directly from the model. Unwanted magnetic dipole torque can drive the same mechanical resonance as the desired reaction torque. In the ideal geometry $m_z$ and $B_z$ alone produce no axial cross product, but transverse magnetic dipole moments, stray transverse magnetic fields and imperfect alignment can. Nulling stray magnetic fields and deliberately varying alignment test this contribution. Merely observing a large resonant twist cannot identify its cause.

For a nearly instantaneous magnetic response, a sinusoidal magnetization makes $m_z$ follow the drive while $-{\dot{m}}_z/\gamma$ is in phase quadrature. An ordinary magnetic contribution proportional to $m_z$ is then distinguishable by phase, after removing the mechanical frequency response. Hysteresis or delayed magnetic response can spoil this simple separation. The measured magnetization, rather than the coil electric current alone, must set the reference. Mechanical vibration, magnetostriction coupled through imperfect geometry, and changing suspension properties require separate checks; none is eliminated simply by reversing the coil electric current.

The dimensionless coefficient in the spin part of the electron magnetic moment. It is distinct from a gyromagnetic ratio, which has units: in the angular convention, ${\gamma }_e=-g_{s}e/(2m_e)$. It is also distinct from the Landé g-factor $g_J$ of a combined atomic angular momentum and from a nuclear or hyperfine g-factor.

For spin one-half, the largest magnitude of a spin-component magnetic dipole moment is $g_s{\mu }_B/2$, not $g_s{\mu }_B$. Thus the ideal value $g_s=2$ gives one Bohr magneton. This follows directly from the spin angular momentum projections $S_z=\pm \hslash /2$.

The gradient first moment of an effective magnetic field gradient waveform $G(t)$ is its time-weighted integral,Here effective includes the sign changes caused by refocusing pulses. Its units are $\mathrm{T}{\mathrm{s}}^2/m$ when $G$ is in tesla per metre. The gradient zeroth moment is $m_0=\int G(t)dt$. For position $x(t)=x_0+vt$ with constant velocity, the accumulated nuclear magnetic resonance phase iswhere $\gamma$ is the angular gyromagnetic ratio. Thus $m_0=0$ removes the dependence on initial position while $m_1$ can retain sensitivity to velocity, the basis of an idealized phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging encoding.^[ref]

For a teaching bipolar gradient, let the first lobe have signed area $A$ and time centroid $t_1$, and the second have signed area $-A$ and centroid $t_2$. ThenEqual and opposite lobe areas cancel stationary-spin phase, but their time separation prevents cancellation of the constant-velocity phase. For $A=10^{-5}\mathrm{T}s/m$ and $t_2-t_1=2\mathrm{ms}$, the first moment is $-2\times 10^{-8}\mathrm{T}{\mathrm{s}}^2/m$. These are illustrative waveform values, not measurements from the source.

The time origin is part of the definition: replacing $t$ by $t-t_0$ gives $m_1^{\prime }=m_1-t_0{m}_0$. Balanced $m_0=0$ makes the first moment independent of that choice. Two encodings with equal zeroth moments use their first-moment difference $\Delta m_1$, rather than either individual value, to infer velocity.

The gradient zeroth moment is the signed time integral of an effective magnetic field gradient waveform along a specified encoding axis:Its units are tesla seconds per metre. Effective means that the sign convention accounts for any refocusing pulses in the nuclear magnetic resonance sequence; it is not necessarily the unsigned physical pulse area.

For a stationary spin at position $x_0$, choose the phase convention $\varphi =\gamma \int G(t)x_{0}dt$. Then $\varphi =\gamma x_0{m}_0$, where $\gamma$ is the angular gyromagnetic ratio. A balanced waveform with $m_0=0$ cancels this position-dependent contribution within the model. It does not assert that every possible background contribution to phase vanishes.

As an original rectangular-pulse example, $5mT/m$ for $2\mathrm{ms}$ has $m_0=10^{-5}\mathrm{T}s/m$. Adding $-10mT/m$ for $1\mathrm{ms}$ cancels it. Equal areas, rather than equal pulse heights, produce the balance.

For a moving spin with $x(t)=x_0+vt$, the remaining contribution can be $\gamma v{m}_1$, involving the gradient first moment. That separation explains how magnetic resonance velocity encoding can suppress sensitivity to stationary position while preserving motion information. Early phase-sensitive flow imaging supplied the experimental motivation for extracting such information from resonance phase.^[ref]

The magnetic spectra of a scalar field and the Dirac equation do not fix every higher-spin spectrum. In SI units, a charged mode with a specified gyromagnetic ratio corresponding to $g=2$ has the model branchesHere $n=0,1,\dots$ is the Landau level index and $m_s$ is the dimensionless spin projection measured along $q\mathbf{B}$. The power $c^2$ in the magnetic term follows because $|q|\hslash B$ has dimensions of squared momentum in SI units; the Gaussian-unit field convention uses a different power of $c$.

For spin one, the aligned $n=0,m_s=1,p_z=0$ branch becomes $E^2=m^2{c}^4-|q|\hslash |B|c^2$. A negative value signals an instability of the assumed background in this model. This extrapolation requires the stated magnetic coupling: spin alone does not determine $g$ for an arbitrary higher-spin field.

A departure of ratios of magnetic-dipole hyperfine structure constants from ratios of nuclear gyromagnetic ratios. Finite spatial distributions of nuclear charge and magnetization alter electronic contact fields, so even the same nominal electronic energy level does not provide an exactly isotope-independent proportionality constant.

Consider an explicitly stipulated dilute independent spin-one-half two-level system with zero applied magnetic field. Each constituent has $J_z=\pm \hslash /2$ and $m_z=\gamma J_z$, with constant signed gyromagnetic ratio $\gamma$. Ignore interactions and the specimen's own magnetic field. At positive temperature $T$, thermal equilibrium with the rotating lattice gives energy levels $E_{\pm }=\mp \hslash \Omega /2$. Define the dimensionless variable $x=\hslash \Omega /(2k_{B}T)$, where $\hslash$ is the reduced Planck constant and $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant. The partition function and Boltzmann distribution giveTaking the expected value giveswhere $n$ is number density. This is the rotational version of the independent-moment magnetic response. The angular momentum aligns with positive rotation even when the magnetic moment points oppositely. The probability ratio $p_{+}/p_{-}=e^{2x}$ provides a direct population check of the sign.

For $|x|\ll 1$, expand the hyperbolic tangent to obtainThe slope against $B_{\Omega }$ is positive for either sign of $\gamma$, while the slope against $\Omega$ has the sign of $\gamma$. At fixed $T>0$, reversing $\Omega$ reverses both means, and $\Omega =0$ gives zero. At fixed nonzero $\Omega$, the formal $T\to 0^{+}$ limit saturates $|⟨J_z⟩|$ at $\hslash /2$; the linear approximation must not be extrapolated there. At $T\to \infty$, the response vanishes. These limits describe the toy canonical ensemble, whose equilibration is assumed.

For a numerical example, stipulate $n=10^{28}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, $T=300\mathrm{K}$, $\gamma =-1.76\times 10^{11}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}{\mathrm{T}}^{-1}$, and rotation frequency $f=1000\mathrm{Hz}$. With $\Omega =2\pi f$, $\hslash =1.054571817\times 10^{-34}\mathrm{J}\mathrm{s}$, and $k_B=1.380649\times 10^{-23}J/K$, the model givesThese are teaching inputs and calculated outputs, not measured material values. The corresponding internal angular momentum density is $M_z/\gamma =+4.22\times 10^{-17}\mathrm{J}s/{\mathrm{m}}^3$. Keeping a rotor at prescribed $\Omega$ while its internal angular momentum changes requires the drive to supply the appropriate angular impulse. In an isolated body the mechanical part instead changes oppositely, as in magnetomechanical angular momentum balance. There is no creation of net angular momentum by choosing a rotating frame.

The angular frequency of free Larmor precession in a uniform magnetic field of magnitude $B$, with gyromagnetic ratio $\gamma$. Interactions can shift a collective resonance away from this free-spin scale.

Larmor precession is the precession of a magnetic moment about an applied magnetic field. For a spin with gyromagnetic ratio $\gamma$ and Hamiltonian $H=-\gamma \mathbf{B}\cdot \mathbf{S}$, its expectation value obeys $d⟨\mathbf{S}⟩/dt=\gamma ⟨\mathbf{S}⟩\times \mathbf{B}$. A spin coherent state retains its coherent form during this rotation.

Magnetic resonance is a resonantly driven transition between states whose energy separation depends on a magnetic field. A static field splits magnetic substates through the Zeeman effect, while an oscillating transverse field supplies energy near the transition frequency. For a simple spin with gyromagnetic ratio $\gamma$, the angular resonance frequency is ${\omega }_0=|\gamma |B_0$.

In the Rabi molecular beam magnetic resonance experiment, inhomogeneous magnets selected and refocused molecular trajectories. A radio-frequency field changed magnetic substates at resonance, altering the transmitted beam intensity. Scanning the frequency therefore measured magnetic moments through a frequency-dependent signal.^[ref]

Magnetic resonance velocity encoding makes a component of motion measurable through the phase of a nuclear magnetic resonance signal. Controlled magnetic field gradients give different phase shifts to spins with different trajectories. Phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging compares encodings to extract a velocity component, rather than interpreting ordinary image brightness as speed.^[ref]

In an original idealized model, assume constant velocity $v$ along one encoding axis and effective gradients with equal gradient zeroth moments. Then the encoding difference obeyswhere $\gamma$ is the angular gyromagnetic ratio and $\Delta m_1$ is the gradient first moment difference. For $\gamma =2\pi \cdot 42.58\times 10^6\mathrm{rad}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}{\mathrm{T}}^{-1}$, $\Delta m_1=2\times 10^{-8}\mathrm{T}{\mathrm{s}}^2/m$ and $v=0.10m/s$, this gives $\Delta \varphi \simeq 0.535\mathrm{rad}$. These stipulated values illustrate the conversion, rather than a particular scanner experiment.

Reversing the moment difference reverses the phase sign under this convention. Reducing its magnitude decreases sensitivity to a given velocity while increasing the velocity encoding limit. A measured voxel can contain a range of velocities, and background phase or phase aliasing can complicate reconstruction.

The encoded component also differs from volumetric flow rate: estimating transported volume requires combining the appropriate normal velocity with area and time, not merely recording one peak speed.