Talk:Einstein–de Haas effect

Comments by IP

who wrote this page? why aren't any of the papers linked to freely available to be read?

Does this imply that electrons have a mechanical angular momentum? Special:Contributions/24.80.86.98

I wrote the entry. As for the papers, (1) the Physical Review paper (by Richardson) can be accessed only by those who have either a personal subscription for Physical Review or have a computer account at a university or a research institute (provided that these institutes have a campus subscription for Physical Review); in other cases, one has to pay for it (I have just checked it, it costs 20 US dollars), upon which one can download the text (this is not invariably the case: recently, American Physical Society, which owns Physical Review, has decided to make some landmark papers, published in amongst others Physical Review, freely available to the general public); (2) to my best knowledge, the paper by Einstein and de Haas published by Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam is freely available to the general public — importantly, the paper is in English; (3) the paper by Frenkel in Soviet Physics Uspekhi can be downloaded under similar conditions as those applying to Physical Review.

As for your other question, electron spin is an angular momentum, however one whose origin is quantum-mechanical (as I indicate in the main text): it is described by an operator whose various components do not commute. The nature of your question (your emphasis on "mechanical") suggests that perhaps you should consult some elementary book on quantum mechanics. In such case, the book by David J. Griffiths (Introduction to Quantum Mechanics) would be a very appropriate choice (Chapter 4, Section 3, gives a brief account of angular momentum in quantum mechanics and Chapter 4, Section 4, introduces spin; in this section it is nicely shown how spin is algebraically related to angular momentum in quantum mechanics: the components of the corresponding operator satisfy the same Lie algebra as the components of the operator that one obtains on quantising the classical angular momentum in accordance with the correspondence principle). My remark that the origin of electron spin is quantum mechanical refers to the fact that the quantum-mechanical operator for electron spin cannot be directly deduced by quantising a classical counterpart (such counterpart does not exist); it can only be introduced through using the Lie algebra satisfied by the components of the quantum-mechanical angular momentum operator as the starting point.

Kind regards, --BF 08:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Spin

Here in wikipedia is an article on spin of elementary particles. I says that the idea of spin was developed between 1925 and 1928. So there is a big nonsense in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.213.76 (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

A remark from a new reader

I found that this article is accurate and contain appropriate references. As usual, some details both on the history and on the specifics of the measurements could be added. The first description of the effect was done by O.Richardson in 1908, probably followed by S.Barnett in 1909. At that times the magnetization was attributed to the orbital motion of electrons (the spin was discovered later). For the orbital motion the expected gyromagnetic ratio is e/2m. For spin it is about 2×e/2m. EugenR55 (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

New update of the article

I significantly expanded the article adding details on the physics of effect and on the history of the subject. I believe I have addressed previous concerns on the article's neutrality. EugenR55 (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

EugenR55, you've removed the important point about the Einstein-de Haas effect, which is that it demonstrates that spin angular momentum is of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies. No citation is needed for this, you flick the switch and the magnet turns. They did the experiment to test Ampere's hypothesis. It’s not unlike the impulse that makes your wall-mounted garden hose reel rotate a little when you turn the water on. When you turn the water off, the reel jerks back to its original position. See The Quirky Side of Scientists where David Topper talks about this on page 11. Also see the Einstein digital papers for some background. JohnDuffield (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Reaction torque?

In reading about this, the torque on the slug of magnetic material seems to "come from nowhere". An article should address whether it is a dreamed-of "reactionless torque" (helpful for satellites), or else show where the "equal and opposite reaction" torque is applied. (I looked, but I must not be asking the right question.) Someone must have measured the torque on the coil with the same sensitivity. If the coil experiences an equal-and-opposite counter-torque, it looks like a form of "coupling". If the coil experiences no reaction torque, something is different; the next test would be to vary the current without the core. If the coil then experiences a torque, it seems sensible (reaction against a flywheel made of electrons?); if the coil still experiences no torque, it's harder to explain the "reactionless torque" on the core. Flipping octillions of tiny gyroscopes from random to aligned could exert a torque, but only as an "impulse" while they align, not on a continuing basis; the core can only rearrange the angular momentum that it is already carrying.(?) If I turn on the current, stop the core from rotating, and then turn off the current, I suppose the core starts rotating the other way.(?) Does the effect still happen if the coil, battery, and switch are attached to the core?? I didn't find an RS (though maybe some crackpot sources), and I don't have the equipment to do OR. (I can study the hose-reel reaction. If I suspend a core in the middle of the hose reel, it better not start spinning when I turn the water on.) - A876 (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 6 February 2021

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for a move at this time. BD2412 T 06:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Einstein–de Haas effect → Einstein–De Haas effect – Dutch family name affixes are always capitalized when not preceded by a subject's given name or initial. In isolation, a Dutch family name is treated as a proper name and is capitalized as such.

1. Capitalization#Special cases
2. Tussenvoegsel#Usage
3. Van (Dutch)#Collation and capitalisation
4. Talk:Van Gogh Museum#Capitalization
5. Talk:Vincent van Gogh/Archive 4#Name
6. Talk:Le Bel–Van 't Hoff rule#Requested move 29 March 2018
7. Talk:Seifert–Van Kampen theorem#Name (inconclusive)
8. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive576#"van" or "Van"?
9. Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2016 March 7#De Ruyt way to capitalize the admiral's name? Jay D. Easy (t • c) 18:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH. While it seems to be the case that Dutch grammar rules say that it should be capitalized, English-language sources seem to prefer the lower case "de" for this particular topic.[1]. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose this is the English Wikipedia, not the Dutch Wikipedia. And in English, it's Einstein–de Haas the vast majority of the time [2]. See e.g. [3], [4], [5]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly, even the article on the Dutch Wikipedia uses a lowercase "de". Rreagan007 (talk) 03:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Move: for consistency, this is not a matter of notability but of Wikistyle.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikistyle is to follow what the sources do. In this case, sources use de Haas, not De Haas. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.