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.
 
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
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript: Is that true? Caveats I see: The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might...
Back
Top