A Secular Approximation of Dipole-Dipole Hamiltonian

TeamMate
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
Derivation of the secular approximation of the dipole-dipole-Hamiltonian
Hey folks,

I'm looking for a derivation of the secular approximation of the dipole-dipole Hamiltonian at high magnetic fields. Does anybody know a reference with a comprehensive derivation or can even provide it here?

Given we have the dipolar alphabet, I'd like to understand (in the best case using equations), why only the term A is relevant in every case, term B is relevant for like-spins (and can be dropped for unlike spins), while terms C-F can be always dropped. I know that there are qualitative descriptions of the approximation, I couldn't find but any rigorous derivation (e.g. showing that only I_z commutes with the Zeeman-Hamiltonian).

I'm looking fowrads to your suggestions and your help!
Thanks a lot!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First of all you have to formulate your problem in a concise way. That's often more than half towards its solution. How do you think should we know, what you mean by terms A-F if you don't clearly define them? Which book/paper are you looking at?
 
Dear vanhees71,

Thanks for the quick answer, and sorry for the brevity. I thought my question was just trivial for the experts out here^^ Please find some more details below. The infos that I have so far have been taken from (see page 63 therein): https://www.google.de/books/edition...ance+and+its+applications&printsec=frontcover

The dipolar Hamiltonian for two electrons given in the form of the dipolar alphabet with the terms A-F is
DipolarAlphabet.png

Therein, SA and SB are the spin operators of electrons A and B; x, y, and z refer to the cartesian coordinates; S+ and S- are the raising and lowering operators, respectively. gA and gB are the g-factors of electrons A and B, βe is Bohr's magneton, µ0 is the magnetic field constant, and ħ is the reduced Planck-constant. A complete derivation of these equations can be found, e.g., here:

A is called the secular term, B the pseudo-secular term, and C-F are non-secular terms. The following considerations hold true at high magnetic fields, i.e. if the Zeeman-interaction energy is much larger than the dipolar coupling energy. According to the literature (for reference, see above), A is always of relevance as it commutes with the Zeeman Hamiltonian (that's what I'd like to show somehow). B is of relevance for "like"-spins (i.e. electrons with identical g-values) but can be dropped for "unlike"-spins (i.e. different g-values); also here, B seems to commute with the Zeeman-Hamiltonian for "like"-spins, but not for "unlike"-spins. C-F are non-secular and thus do not commute with the Zeeman-Hamiltonian.

Any help in showing that A is secular, B is pseudo-secular, and C-F are non-secular is very much appreciated!
Thank you!
 
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!

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
0
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top