5
$\begingroup$

I have a problem with the calculus of magnetic moment of Li-6.

The configuration of protons is $1p_{3/2}$, and the neutrons' one is the same.

I have to add the magnetic moment of uncoupled proton and uncoupled neutron.

I use the following formula for $J=l+\frac{1}{2}$ (J is the particle spin): $$ \frac{\mu}{\mu_N}=g_lJ+\frac{g_s-g_l}{2}$$

For the proton I have: $g_l=1; g_s=5.58 \rightarrow \frac{\mu}{\mu_N}=J+2.29=3.79$

For the neutron I have: $g_l=0; g_s=-3.82 \rightarrow \frac{\mu}{\mu_N}=-1.91$

So the total $\frac{\mu}{\mu_N}=3.79-1.91=1.88$, exactly 1 more than the correct value, 0.88! What's wrong?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Possibly related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/118518/44126 $\endgroup$ – rob Jun 26 '14 at 1:45
  • $\begingroup$ @rob very interesting, thanks. So the Li-6 is a special case and I don't use the formula to determine the magnetic moment of the nucleus, isn't it? I can't understand why the only way to obtain the correct result is simply add the proton magnetic moment (2,79 $\mu_N$) and the neutron's one (-1,91 $\mu_N$). If I do it, I don't consider the Js particles... $\endgroup$ – sunrise Jun 26 '14 at 6:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm actually not sure. It doesn't make sense for the shell model to fail on light nuclei. One interpretation is that the $2s$ nuclear shell fills before the $1p$ shell, but that gives the wrong parity for lithium-7. I'm looking forward to a real answer to your question. $\endgroup$ – rob Jun 26 '14 at 12:28
  • $\begingroup$ Oops, after offering the bounty I realized that this duplicated another question from a week earlier in 2014 physics.stackexchange.com/questions/118518/… , and I also realized that I think I know the part of the answer about the spin. So I'll add an answer to that question. $\endgroup$ – Ben Crowell May 26 at 18:22
2
$\begingroup$

The static magnetic moment of Li-6

$$\mu_{6Li} = 0.822 \mu_N$$

comes from its nuclear spin $I^\pi = 1^+$, with positive parity $\pi$, so in the ground state of Li-6, only even values of $l = 0, 2, ..$ would be allowed, neglecting the paired $2p$ plus $2n$ in the $s_{1/2}$-state core with net $I=0$.

The nuclear spin then comes from $L$-$S$ coupling of the two unpaired $p$ and $n$, which have to be in a spin triplet ($S = 1$) state, since $I=1$ requires the combined $p$ + $n$ orbital $L=0$ (there is a small admixture of $L=2$). For the $L=0$ level, for each particle outside the closed shell, $I = 0 +1/2$ in the formula (using $I$ for nuclear spin, instead of the atomic notation $J$) $$ \frac{\mu}{\mu_N}=g_lI+\frac{g_s-g_l}{2}$$

$p$: $1 \frac{1}{2} + \frac{5.58 - 1}{2} = 2.79$

$n$: $\frac{-3.82}{2} = -1.91$

$p + n = 0.88$, close to $0.822$ (most of the difference comes from the $L=2$ level that was ignored above).

The value $1.88$ is the Schmidt line assuming $i$-$i$ coupling (independent combination of each particle's $l$ and $s$). But parity and the measured moment rule out $i$-$i$ coupling. The Schmidt lines just give the magnetic moments in the limit of the extreme shell model.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Unless I'm misunderstanding, this answer doesn't explain why the wavefunction is what it is. It just assumes that it is a certain wavefunction (L=0, spin triplet) and goes on to explain the magnetic moment based on that. $\endgroup$ – Ben Crowell May 25 at 23:47
  • $\begingroup$ @BenCrowell I think the way to see it is that from the experimental measure of the parity, $P$, you get $P = +1$ and therefore $L$ even. But the higher $L$ is, more energy your nuclous has. So if taking $L = 0$ you can find a solution to the problem, then this is the most likely value for $L$. If you wouldn't have obtained the correct result for $L = 0$, you would have proposed $L = 2$ or higher $\endgroup$ – Vicky May 26 at 0:29
  • $\begingroup$ @Vicky: But the higher L is, more energy your nuclous has. No, this is not true in general. $\endgroup$ – Ben Crowell May 26 at 18:23
  • $\begingroup$ @BenCrowell So more $L$, which means more rotational energy, suppose no more energy? How is that? $\endgroup$ – Vicky May 26 at 23:24
0
$\begingroup$

You can't determine the magnetic moment of the Li-6 since there are two un-coupled nucleons in the nucleus. The answer from @OscarRondon seems incorrect to me. Of course, if the experimental value is $I=1^+$, the total spin of both particles $S$ has to be $S=0$, but you can't theoretically exclude the $L=2$. Even if you neglect it and take $L=0$, you can't say that this is the angular momentum of the separate particles as his eq. ($I=0+\frac{1}{2}$) implies. That is in complete disagreement with the fact that the particles are both in $1p_\frac{3}{2}$ state which, since their spin is $s=1/2$, allows only for $l=1, 2$. On top of that, the equation that both the question and the answer from @OscarRondon use to calculate the magnetic moment is wrong, because it can only be used for a nucleus with only one un-coupled nucleon.

Take what I said with a grain of salt; I'm only a undergraduate student.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.