6
$\begingroup$

We know that nuclear magnetic moment can be expressed in terms of the expected value for nuclear spin as:

$$\langle\mu\rangle =[g_lj+(g_s-g_l)\langle s_z\rangle]\frac{\mu_N}{\hbar}$$

(Cf. Krane), where $\vec{j}$ is the total angular momentum, $\vec{l}+\vec{s}$.

How does the expected $\langle s_z\rangle$ value relate to the $\vec{j}$-component of spin, $\langle s_j\rangle$? Krane mentions that only that value is needed, given that it remains constant.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It would be helpful if you give more more details about your source (so far define just as "Krane"). I'm puzzled by "$\vec{j}$-component of spin $\langle s_j \rangle$" -- what do you mean? $\endgroup$
    – Slaviks
    Mar 12, 2012 at 20:15
  • $\begingroup$ The source is Kenneth Krane's book 'Introductory Nuclear Physics'. $\langle s_j \rangle$ is the expected value for the $\vec{j}$-component of the spin vector, $\vec{s}$. We assume a fixed $z$ axis around which $\vec{j}$ -the sum of angular and spin momentum- rotates. In the book, it is said that if we want to measure $\langle s_z \rangle$, it suffices to know $\langle s_j \rangle$. Why? $\endgroup$
    – crimson_sprite
    Mar 12, 2012 at 20:40
  • $\begingroup$ I have not access to the book now, but I remember that In Krane's book the terminology is a bit sloppy. He calls spin to total angular momentum, can this be the source of your doubt? $\endgroup$
    – Dani
    Mar 12, 2012 at 20:47
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think so, total angular momentum is clearly defined as the sum of angular momentum and spin. $\endgroup$
    – crimson_sprite
    Mar 12, 2012 at 20:52
  • $\begingroup$ OK, I found the book. It seems that he´s applying the Wigner-Eckart theorem although it does not say it explicitly. Also, if I remember correctly there was an error in one of the formulas 5.9 although I do not remember in which one. I will try to elaborate later... $\endgroup$
    – Dani
    Mar 13, 2012 at 20:36

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
5
$\begingroup$

From the magnetic moment $$\mathbf{\mu}=\mathbf{\mu_L}+ \mathbf{\mu_S}=(g_l \mathbf{L}+g_s\mathbf{S})\frac{\mu_N}{\hbar}\tag1$$ take the scalar product with $\bf{J}$ $$\mathbf{\mu_J} ·\mathbf{J}=(1/2(g_l +g_s)\mathbf J^2+1/2(g_l -g_s)(\mathbf L^2-\mathbf S^2))\frac{\mu_N}{\hbar} \tag2$$ so with commutator relation $$\mu=(1/2(g_l +g_s)j+1/2(g_l -g_s)\frac{(l-s)(l+s+1)}{j+1}) \mu_N \tag3$$

since $s=1/2$ and $j= l\pm1/2$ you end with two possible values for $\mu$ $$\mu=(jg_l-1/2(g_l -g_s)) \mu_N \quad\text{for }j= l+1/2\\ \mu=(jg_l+(g_l -g_s)\frac{j}{2j+1}) \mu_N \quad\text{for }j= l-1/2 \tag4$$

this is your $⟨s⟩$ projection in the $j$ direction.

For $s\neq 1/2$ equation, $(3)$ still holds. But for $s>l$ the factor must be changed to the general form $$\frac{l(l+1)- s (s+1)}{j+1}.$$

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Nuclei usually have more than one nucleon in them, so you cannot assume s=1/2. The spin operator S in question is presumably S_1 + S_2 + ..., i.e. the sum of the spin operators for each nucleon. $\endgroup$
    – Steve Byrnes
    Mar 17, 2012 at 12:37
  • $\begingroup$ Edited answer. I was thinking on an odd unpaired nucleus. However without proper quantum chromodynamics all classical answers are approximations. I am not a specialist on particle physics. $\endgroup$
    – Alex1167623
    Mar 17, 2012 at 22:54
  • $\begingroup$ What is the relation between $\mu_\mathbf{J}$ and $\mu$ in equation (2) and (3)? It seems that you have divided both sides by $(j+1)$ to get (3) from (2). Could you explain why? $\endgroup$
    – Archisman Panigrahi
    Aug 22, 2021 at 20:40
  • $\begingroup$ so with commutator relation -- Which commutator relation are you referring to? $\endgroup$
    – Archisman Panigrahi
    Aug 22, 2021 at 20:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

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