Do All Images with Applied Current Show the Normal Zeeman Effect?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the normal Zeeman effect observed in laboratory images after applying current. It clarifies that all images taken with a current greater than zero exhibit the normal Zeeman effect, but the visibility of line-splitting increases with higher current values. The user is tasked with providing three specific images corresponding to different orientations of the effect. Additionally, there is a query about measuring the diameters of rings in the images to calculate areal ratios, with the realization that consistent units will suffice for accurate calculations. The conversation concludes with an acknowledgment of the importance of understanding measurement scaling in the context of the experiment.
Athenian
Messages
143
Reaction score
33
Homework Statement
N/A (Refer below for more details)
Relevant Equations
N/A
*Data Location:

Recently, I have been working on a lab project on the Zeeman effect. After conducting the laboratory work necessary to produce the Zeeman effect, the results were saved as a photo and pasted together as a PDF file. To view the images (in PDF format), please refer to the Google drive shared link here.

Note that the PDFs above can be previewed easily, so downloading the files should be unnecessary.

Question 1:

In the lab, I was asked to show three images (with the ones I have already available in the PDFs) that correspond to the normal Zeeman effect. Each image with the normal Zeeman effect should correspond to the 1. longitudinal unpolarized, 2. transverse ##\sigma##-polarized, and 3. transverse unpolarized. In other words, 1 image (i.e. with normal Zeeman effect) for each PDF file - totaling to 3 images for 3 PDF files as each PDF file corresponds to a different orientation.

However, my question is, don't all the images (after a current ##I## is applied) in all the PDFs correspond to the normal Zeeman effect? Or, do only the last images (i.e. ##I \approx 8 A##) in all the PDFs correspond to the normal Zeeman effect instead?

Question 2:

I am supposed to graph the areal ratios (##\delta / \Delta##) as a function of the magnetic field (##B##) for all 3 given orientations. To find the areal ratios, I need the diameter of each ring in my given images. I have been asked to use a ruler to get the diameter of each ring. While capturing the diameters of each ring is easy, how do I ensure that I measure the rings to scale? In other words, I may measure the diameters in centimeters when the diameter (scaled properly) ought to be in the micrometers. I have seen some use a software called Motic Images Plus. But, as I do not have said software, are there any ways around the measurement issue?

Those are all the questions I have for the time being. Thank you for reading through this post!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Athenian said:
Homework Statement:: N/A (Refer below for more details)
Relevant Equations:: N/A

*Data Location:

Recently, I have been working on a lab project on the Zeeman effect. After conducting the laboratory work necessary to produce the Zeeman effect, the results were saved as a photo and pasted together as a PDF file. To view the images (in PDF format), please refer to the Google drive shared link here.

Note that the PDFs above can be previewed easily, so downloading the files should be unnecessary.

Question 1:

In the lab, I was asked to show three images (with the ones I have already available in the PDFs) that correspond to the normal Zeeman effect. Each image with the normal Zeeman effect should correspond to the 1. longitudinal unpolarized, 2. transverse ##\sigma##-polarized, and 3. transverse unpolarized. In other words, 1 image (i.e. with normal Zeeman effect) for each PDF file - totaling to 3 images for 3 PDF files as each PDF file corresponds to a different orientation.

However, my question is, don't all the images (after a current ##I## is applied) in all the PDFs correspond to the normal Zeeman effect? Or, do only the last images (i.e. ##I \approx 8 A##) in all the PDFs correspond to the normal Zeeman effect instead?

Question 2:

I am supposed to graph the areal ratios (##\delta / \Delta##) as a function of the magnetic field (##B##) for all 3 given orientations. To find the areal ratios, I need the diameter of each ring in my given images. I have been asked to use a ruler to get the diameter of each ring. While capturing the diameters of each ring is easy, how do I ensure that I measure the rings to scale? In other words, I may measure the diameters in centimeters when the diameter (scaled properly) ought to be in the micrometers. I have seen some use a software called Motic Images Plus. But, as I do not have said software, are there any ways around the measurement issue?

Those are all the questions I have for the time being. Thank you for reading through this post!
If I understand correctly...

Q1. The normal Zeeman Effect (NZE) was occurring during all your photos with I>0. But the amount of 'line-splitting' is proportional the the magnetic field, so it is proportional to I. Therefore the NZE became more clearly visible as the current increased. It is most clearly seen for the largest values of current.

Q2. You haven't stated what ##\delta \text { and } \Delta## are. If they are areas of rings, then it doesn''t matter what units are used to measure the diameters - providing the same units are used. Can you see why?

Hope that's what you meant.
 
Steve4Physics said:
Q1. The normal Zeeman Effect (NZE) was occurring during all your photos with I>0. But the amount of 'line-splitting' is proportional the the magnetic field, so it is proportional to I. Therefore the NZE became more clearly visible as the current increased. It is most clearly seen for the largest values of current.
To my best understanding, this is correct. Or, at the very least, that's my line of thought too. However, it just seems odd that the instructor wants me to provide three images of the normal Zeeman effect when nearly all of them fit the given criteria. Then again, perhaps I am overanalyzing the task.

Steve4Physics said:
Q2. You haven't stated what δ and Δ are. If they are areas of rings, then it doesn''t matter what units are used to measure the diameters - providing the same units are used. Can you see why?
Yes, they are the areas of the rings. I just realized that the units would simply cancel out and thus the units here would not have possessed any significance in the calculation process. Beyond that, the hint is in the name (i.e. areal ratio). Thus, my calculation would definitely be "scaled" correctly.

Thank you for your help!
 
  • Like
Likes Steve4Physics
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
Thread 'Minimum mass of a block'
Here we know that if block B is going to move up or just be at the verge of moving up ##Mg \sin \theta ## will act downwards and maximum static friction will act downwards ## \mu Mg \cos \theta ## Now what im confused by is how will we know " how quickly" block B reaches its maximum static friction value without any numbers, the suggested solution says that when block A is at its maximum extension, then block B will start to move up but with a certain set of values couldn't block A reach...
Back
Top