Observing the spin of a free electron

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 60, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 63-79

  Garraway, B M ^a   Stenholm, S ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

^b ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0002215824     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: 10941622     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.60.63     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. M. Nauenberg, C. Stroud, and J. Yeazell, Sci. Am. 270(6), 44 (1994)
2. M. Nauenberg, Phys. Rev. A 40, 1133 (1989).
3. N. Bohr, J. Chem. Soc. 134, 349 (1932)
4. J. Chem. Soc.N. Bohr134, 368 (1932).
5. N. Bohr, Nature (London) 121, 580 (1928).
6. Quantum Theory and Measurement, edited by J. A. Wheeler and W. H. Zurek (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1983), p. 699.
7. W. Pauli, in Le Magnetisme, Proceedings of the VI Solvay Conference (Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1932), Sec. II.1.b, p. 175.
8. N. F. Mott, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 124, 440 (1929).
9. N. F. Mott and H. S. W. Massey, The Theory of Atomic Collisions, 3rd ed. (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1965), pp. 214–219.
10. W. Pauli, in Handbuch der Physik, edited by S. Flügge (Springer, Berlin, 1958), Vol. 5, Pt. 1, p. 165.
11. See, for example, J. Dupont-Roc, C. Fabre, and C. Cohen-Tanoudji, J. Phys. B 11, 562 (1978).
12. R. S. van Dyck, P. B. Schwinberg, and H. G. Dehmelt, Phys. Rev. D 34, 722 (1986).
13. Sir Rudolf Peierls (private communication).
14. H. Batelaan, T. J. Gay, and J. J. Schwendiman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4517 (1997).
15. Letter from N. Bohr to N. F. Mott, dated March 1929 (see Bohr Scientific Correspondence Microfiche No. 14). The critical passage reads “Since you left, I have sometimes thought of the problem of the realisation of the electron polarisation, and after all I am quite prepared that such a polarisation might be observable. In fact the argument I used in the discussion of the Stern Gerlach effect was not strict due to the mixture of classical mechanics and wave theory in the very region where no sharp distinction is possible. Thus the argument tells only that as regards the electron magnetization we cannot as in the ordinary discussion of the Stern-Gerlach effect base our considerations on classical pictures of a moving magnet, but not that the closer quantum-theoretical treatment will never give a positive effect.”
16. G. H. Rutherford and R. Grobe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4772 (1998)
17. Phys. Rev. Lett.H. Batelaan and T. J. Gay, 81, 4773 (1998).
18. G. H. Rutherford and R. Grobe, J. Phys. A 31, 9331 (1998).
19. F. Adler, Helv. Phys. Acta 10, 455 (1937).
20. S. Stenholm, in Quantum Measurements in Optics, edited by P. Tombesi and D. F. Walls (Plenum, New York, 1992), p. 15.
21. See, for example, A. Carnegie and I. C. Percival, J. Phys. A 17, 801 (1984).
22. E. Enga and M. Bloom, Can. J. Phys. 48, 2466 (1970).
23. B. M. Garraway and K.-A. Suominen, Rep. Prog. Phys. 58, 365 (1995).
24. L. Brillouin, C. R. Hebd. Seances Acad. Sci. 184, 82 (1927)
25. L. BrillouinProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 14, 775 (1928).