What is the position dependent magnetic field for a Stern-Gerlach experiment?

AI Thread Summary
In the discussion about the position-dependent magnetic field for a Stern-Gerlach experiment, the focus is on deriving the magnetic field from first principles, specifically using Gauss's Law for Magnetism. The setup involves a dipole magnet with specified radii and a surface magnetic field of 2 T on the convex pole. Participants express confusion over the prohibition of using imaginary wires for calculations and seek guidance on applying Gauss's Law effectively. The relationship between the magnetic field and the geometry of the apparatus is emphasized, likening the problem to electrostatics. Understanding these principles is crucial for solving the separation of the two beams in the experiment.
M Demov
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



For a Stern-Gerlach experiment, there is a apparatus designed to create a magnetic gradient. There is a dipole magnet. The radius of the convex pole is 5 cm, the radius of the concave pole is 10 cm. The convex pole as a 2 T magnetic field along its surface. (The apparatus is depicted in the attached image)

I need to find the position dependent magnetic field to solve for the separation of the two beams. I know how to proceed once I have the position dependent magnetic field. But I need help with finding the position dependent magnetic field. I found it by placing two imaginary wires at the foci of the pole curves. However, my professor told us we are not allowed to do this and we have to solve for the magnetic field from first principles (maybe Gauss's Law for Magnetism?...) I don't know how to proceed from there and thus don't have any equations to share.

Homework Equations



None thus far, given that I cannot use a two imaginary wire method.

The Attempt at a Solution



My attempt at the solution was using a two imaginary wire method, until I was told I could not use this.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2016-02-06 at 9.31.01 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2016-02-06 at 9.31.01 AM.png
    3.7 KB · Views: 506
Physics news on Phys.org
Gauß' law is fine.
I don't understand where you want to add imaginary wires.
 
mfb said:
Gauß' law is fine.
I don't understand where you want to add imaginary wires.

But how do I use Gauss's Law?
 
There is an integral that gives the same value for different surfaces. Or 0 for a suitable closed volume.
The problem in the gap is similar to electrostatics.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top