B Derivation of g Factor and Missing Basic Steps in Calculation

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter TheCanadian
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivation G factor
TheCanadian
Messages
361
Reaction score
13
Screen Shot 2016-06-12 at 10.42.58 PM.png


I was just going through the calculation to go from the top line to the bottom and was just not arriving at the same result. Working backwards and just looking at the first term (i.e. the one with coefficient ##g_L## I get):

## \frac {J^2 + J + L^2 + L - S^2 - S}{2(J^2 + J)} = \frac {L^2 + S^2 + 2LS + L + S + L^2 + L - S^2 - S}{2(L^2 + S^2 + 2LS + L + S)} = \frac{L^2 + LS + L}{J(J + 1)} ## (assuming L and S commute)

Although this is not equivalent to the above expression and it appears I am missing something very basic. Any help with this would be great.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
These angular momentum operators behave in a somewhat odd fashion, e.g. ## \vec{L}^2=(L+1)(L) (\hbar)^2 ## and ##\vec{S}^2=(S+1)(S)(\hbar)^2 ## and ## \vec{J}^2= (\vec{L}+\vec{S})^2=\vec{L}^2+2 \vec{L} \cdot \vec{S}+\vec{S}^2 ##. From this last expression, one can solve for ## \vec{L} \cdot \vec{S} ##. The ## g_J ## factor is found by computing the component of ## \vec{L} ## along ## \vec{J} ## by taking ## \vec{L} \cdot \vec{J}/|\vec{J}| ## and putting it in the ## \vec{J}/|\vec{J}| ## direction. The result is a ## |\vec{J}^2|=(J+1)(J)(\hbar)^2 ## in the denominator. (Similarly for the ## S ## term, with a ## g_L ## on the ## L ## term and a ## g_S ## on the ## S ## term.)
 
Last edited:
Charles Link said:
These angular momentum operators behave in a somewhat odd fashion, e.g. ## \vec{L}^2=(L+1)(L) (\hbar)^2 ## and ##\vec{S}^2=(S+1)(S)(\hbar)^2 ## and ## \vec{J}^2= (\vec{L}+\vec{S})^2=\vec{L}^2+2 \vec{L} \cdot \vec{S}+\vec{S}^2 ##. From this last expression, one can solve for ## \vec{L} \cdot \vec{S} ##. The ## g_J ## factor is found by computing the component of ## \vec{L} ## along ## \vec{J} ## by taking ## \vec{L} \cdot \vec{J}/|\vec{J}| ## and putting it in the ## \vec{J}/|\vec{J}| ## direction. The result is a ## |\vec{J}^2|=(J+1)(J)(\hbar)^2 ## in the denominator. (Similarly for the ## S ## term, with a ## g_L ## on the ## L ## term and a ## g_S ## on the ## S ## term.)

Thank you for the explanation. It appears in this link (towards the end, above the equations I posted above) that they mistakenly include the magnitude of ## \vec{J}##and did not only consider its direction.
 
TheCanadian said:
Thank you for the explanation. It appears in this link (towards the end, above the equations I posted above) that they mistakenly include the magnitude of ## \vec{J}##and did not only consider its direction.
I think I see what they did. They take ## \vec{\mu_J}=g_J \mu_B \vec{J} ## and dot both sides with ## \vec{J} ##. They then solve for ## g_J ##. The ## \vec{J}^2 ## winds up in the denominator. (Note ## \vec{\mu_J}=\vec{\mu_L} +\vec{\mu_S} ##). Their summation is a somewhat clumsy, but perhaps necessary step. In any case, I think you are starting to get a handle on the topic.
 
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
I am reading WHAT IS A QUANTUM FIELD THEORY?" A First Introduction for Mathematicians. The author states (2.4 Finite versus Continuous Models) that the use of continuity causes the infinities in QFT: 'Mathematicians are trained to think of physical space as R3. But our continuous model of physical space as R3 is of course an idealization, both at the scale of the very large and at the scale of the very small. This idealization has proved to be very powerful, but in the case of Quantum...
Back
Top