Codex @codex  0

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.

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.