I Is my interpretation of the g-factor correct?

Frigorifico9
Messages
21
Reaction score
9
TL;DR Summary
Can the electron g factor be understood as electrons having roughly twice as much momentum as the Bohr Mageton?
I'm trying to make sure I understand the g-factor of the electron, so if my question is flawed please don't just point out my flaws, but help me correct my understanding

If I understand correctly the magnetic moment of an object depends on it charge, its mass and its momentum

$$
\mu = \frac{q}{2m} L
$$

Now, given that charge and angular momentum are quantized, you'd think the smallest magnetic moment would correspond to the smallest charge and the smallest momentum it is possible to have, this is Bohr's magneton

$$
\mu = \frac{e}{2m_e} \hbar
$$

But then it turns out electrons in the hydrogen atom have twice that much magnetic moment, and (this is the part where I think I may be wrong) this is due to the fact that electrons have $\hbar$ momentum around the nucleus AND $\hbar$ intrinsic momentum (spin)

$$
\mu = \frac{e}{2m_e} (\hbar+\hbar)=\frac{e}{m_e} \hbar
$$

So it makes sense it would be twice as much... But of course it then turns out they have slightly more than that because of self interactions in QED and this is still an active area of research

Did I say everything right? Could you correct me on my misunderstandings?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
An electron has a gyro-factor of about ##2##. That means that its intrinsic magnetic moment is
$$\hat{\vec{\mu}}=g \frac{-e}{2m} \hat{\vec{s}}.$$
since the electron has spin 1/2 this means with ##g \simeq 2## that its magnetic moment is about 1 Bohr magneton.

The gyro-factor of 2 follows from using the "minimal-coupling principle", i.e., to get a gauge invariant theory you substitute ##\partial_{\mu}## by the gauge-covariant derivative ##D_{\mu}=\partial_{\mu} +\mathrm{i} q A_{\mu}##. For the electron, ##q=-e##. In leading order perturbation theory ("tree level") this leads to a gyro-factor of 2 when applied to the Dirac equation.

Then there are radiative corrections, i.e., higher-order corrections in QED, involving Feynman diagrams with loops. The predicted "anomalous magnetic moment" of the electron is among the most accurate values ever calculated.
 
Frigorifico9 said:
Can the electron g factor be understood as electrons having roughly twice as much momentum as the Bohr Mageton?
Thr Bohr Magnetron is not a unit of momentum, or even angular momentum. It's like comparing gallons to volts.
 
Frigorifico9 said:
TL;DR Summary: Can the electron g factor be understood as electrons having roughly twice as much momentum as the Bohr Mageton?

due to the fact that electrons have $\hbar$ momentum around the nucleus
No. The fact that g =2 has nothing to do with orbital angular momentum. The 2 comes out of the Dirac equation, which surprised everyone at the time. (1929?)
 
Vanadium 50 said:
Thr Bohr Magnetron is not a unit of momentum, or even angular momentum. It's like comparing gallons to volts.
I agree, that's why I said that it DEPENDS on angular momentum not that it was angular momentum
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top