Different values of g factor (gyromagnetic ratio) of nuclei

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the varying g factors of nuclei, specifically for lithium isotopes (Li-6 and Li-7) and fluorine (F-19), with values of 0.820, 2.167, and 5.243 respectively. These discrepancies are attributed to intrinsic atomic properties and the complexities of quantum chromodynamics (QCD). The conversation references Rabi's paper on Rabi Oscillation and highlights the importance of lattice QCD simulations in understanding nuclear magnetic moments. The state-of-the-art results from lattice QCD are beginning to align with phenomenological observations, although the satisfaction of these results remains subjective.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of nuclear magnetic moments
  • Familiarity with quantum chromodynamics (QCD)
  • Knowledge of Rabi Oscillation principles
  • Experience with lattice QCD simulations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of lattice QCD and its applications
  • Explore Rabi's original paper on the Molecular Beam Resonance Method
  • Investigate the implications of nuclear magnetic moments on atomic structure
  • Review recent advancements in QCD simulations and their results
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, researchers in nuclear physics, and students studying quantum mechanics and atomic structure will benefit from this discussion.

mimocs
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Hi, last week I read Rabi's paper "The Molcular Beam Resonance Method".
This paper contains the basic idea of the oscillation which we call "Rabi Oscillation" as many of you guys know.
However, at the end of this paper, Rabi calculates nuclear magnetic moments of Li (atomic mass 6), Li (atomic mass 7), F (atomic mass 19) by measuring the g factor of the atoms above.
Here's my Question.
g factor for Li (atomic mass 6) is 0.820,
Li (atomic mass 7) is 2.167
F (atomic mass 19) is 5.243
These values differ greatly. Are there any logical reasons to explain the differences of g factor?
Or is it just an intrinsic property of each atoms (just like the spin of electron is 1/2)?
Have a nice day
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In principle, one can derive all of these results from QCD, the fundamental theory of strong interactions.

In principle, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're different.

The only way predictions about hadrons and nuclei from QCD is by numerically simulating it on a lattice (lattice QCD). After nearly half a century, the state-of-the-art is finally yielding sensible result. I refer you here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.1131 **

It also depends on what you mean by "logical reasons." Lattice QCD seems to be in agreement with phenomenology...it's comforting to know it works, but is it satisfying? Depends on who you ask.

Suppose we have a computer that we tell about QCD and then ask it to spit out answers, e.g. about the spectrum of hadrons. The computer gives results that we extrapolate to the physical world and we find that the computer was right (its results are in agreement with the spectrum we observe in nature). Have we understood anything?

***the paper has also been published in Phys. Rev. D81 054502 (2010) )
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mimocs

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
10K