Atomic Paramagnetism: Understanding m_j Sublevels

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mooglue
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Atomic Paramagnetism
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the treatment of atomic paramagnetism within statistical mechanics, specifically focusing on the role of m_j sublevels in the partition function. Participants explore why only these sublevels are considered while the broader n and j level distributions appear to be neglected in the analysis.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that in deriving paramagnetism, only the energy levels of the perturbation are considered, specifically the m_j sublevels resulting from the weak Zeeman effect.
  • Another participant suggests that the focus on m_j sublevels may be due to the low temperature conditions where the energy splitting due to n and j levels is significantly larger than thermal energy (Δ >> kT), making those excitations negligible.
  • A different viewpoint indicates that the energy splitting caused by m_j is relatively small compared to the energy associated with n and j, allowing the latter to be treated as a constant in the partition function.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about the exclusion of the entire energy spectrum and seeks clarification on this aspect.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the significance of n and j level distributions in the context of low-temperature magnetism, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved regarding the necessity of including these levels in the partition function.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about temperature effects and the treatment of energy levels, which may influence the conclusions drawn about the partition function.

mooglue
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Hey everyone,

I've noticed that when paramagnetism is derived in the context of stat mech, we only consider the energy levels of the perturbation. Essentially, we take the fine structure of hydrogen, and we perturb it with a B-field, causing the weak zeeman effect to split the energy levels into m_j sublevels.

When we derive the partition function, we only take into account these levels. So, we weight the energies with bolzmann factors based on m_j.

My question is why don't we have to consider the n,j level distribtions. The energy levels in hydrogen as split by large gaps for various orbital quantum number n; yet, our partition function only accounts for the splitting of the j'th level into m_j sublevels. I've seen these derived many times, so I'm really not understanding why we don't consider the entire energy spectrum, and can only focus on the m_j sublevels.

Anyway help would be great.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Actually, I think I may have a convincing argument for myself; however, if anyone still has anything to add, I'd of course still appreciate it.
 
I would guess the reason is that you're only interested in the low temperature magnetism, in which case you have the large splitting \Delta >> kT so the effects of those excitations won't be apparent at the temperature scale you're interested in.
 
compared with the energy caused by n and j, the energy split caused by m_j is very small. In the partition function, the former one can be treated as a constant: exp(-E(n,j)/kT). However, the key of partition function is the energy distribution probability. If added a constant in front of this probability means nothing, due to normalize.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 156 ·
6
Replies
156
Views
12K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K