Talk:Spin–orbit interaction/Archive 1

Archive 1

Suggestions

I removed the following comment from the section: "Spin–orbit interaction in atomic energy levels"

[please provide the reference so that I can study it].

I have put it here instead as a suggestion for improvements.

Chibibrain (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Question:

Does the last equation in the text refer to "any singly-ionized atom which has Z protons

" , as is written in the text, or to "any hydrogenic atom which has Z protons"?

• • • —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luzluz1 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thomas precession

The relativistic effect Thomas precession only occurs when you have frames whose relative motion is not colinear. A particle accelerating in a straight line has a non-inertial rest frame without there being any Thomas precession, so the article is misleading where it says "taken into account the non-inertiality of the electron rest frame". So, I have changed it to "taken into account the special relativistic correction for the electron's curved trajectory". Charvest (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

Isn't "spin-orbit interaction" the same thing as "exchange interaction"?

No. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I was confused about the connection between spin-orbit coupling and exchange interactions too. Both spin-orbit coupling and exchange interactions are known to cause spin alignment in ferromagnetic materials i.e. spin-orbit coupling enables Neodymium and Samarium f-orbital electron spins to align in both Neodymium magnets and Samarium-cobalt magnets due to the large nuclear magnetic moment inherent in a high atomic number (Z). Moreover, spin-orbit coupling from heavy elements is known to stabilize triplet (S = 1) states over singlet states (S = 0) i.e. in luminescent and phosphorescent materials like europium-doped Strontium aluminate found in glow-in-the-dark stars.

Heavier elements have been shown to increase the zero-field splitting of the triplet state as suggested by Long et al(2) which stabilizes the triplet relative to the singlet, Zero-field splitting has been described pictorially (1). However, exchange interactions are dominated by wavefunction and orbital antisymmetry arguments, for example, in ferromagnetic Cu(II)/V(IV) complexes the partially occupied molecular orbital of Cu(II) is of π symmetry (d_xy) and the partially occupied molecular orbital of V(IV) is of σ symmetry (d_x²-y²), therefore the orbitals together are antisymmetric with respect to the shared mirror plane parallel to the z-xis between the ions which allows the unpaired spins in copper and vanadium to ferromagnetically couple (1). Exchange interactions are also claimed to be responsible for ferromagnetism observed in oxo-bridged mixed valent Mn(II)/Mn(III) compounds as well as many others, see Single-molecule magnets.

All in all, I am still a bit confused about the usage of exchange interactions, it appears to be used generally to describe the alignment or antialignment of spins.

(1) Kahn, O. Dinuclear Complexes with Predictable Magnetic Properties. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 1985 24, 834.

(2) Shores, M.P.; Sokol, J.J; Long, J.R. Nickel(II)-Molybdenum(III)-Cyanide Clusters: Synthesis and Magnetic Behavior of Species Incorporating [(Me3tacn)Mo(CN)3]. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002 124, 2279. (Jessetjenkins (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC))

?

In the derivation:

"there is [a B field] in the rest frame of the electron. [..] we end up with the equation

   \boldsymbol{B} = -{ \boldsymbol{v} \times \boldsymbol{E} \over c^2},

where v is the velocity of the electron"

Ok, but in the rest frame of the electron the electron velocity is zero, no? It could be more clear which frame the quantities are defined in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.41.90.244 (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The text states:

"It can be shown that the five operators H0, J², L², S², and Jz all commute with each other and with ΔH."

Can someone show this, please? I thought that L and S stop being good quantum numbers when they couple.

L and S are not, but L² and S² do (you can see this intuitively if you remember that two magnetic moments act on each other with a torque but don't change their respective lengths). --omsharan (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(Question originally posted in the main article. )

Question: I was advised by "Jac16888 left a message on your talk page in "September 2013"." that I failed by signing my contribution. I don't understand what was wrong. Should I not use the pencil (third from right to complete my contribution? If Yes, what it is standing for, and what should I do? Can I use TeX for contributions including equations? Thank you for your time.--TooOldMan (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC) References: Cardona and Winkler books (see below).

@TooOldMan: Wikipedia itself consists of multiple namespaces - groups of pages with a common function. Spin–orbit interaction for example is in the so-called article space - the area where all article's are present. Among others there is also the talk name space - this page is an example. The pages in the talk namespace are discussion pages used for communication between editors.

A fairly long introduction, so lets get to the original question. If you are working in an article such as Spin–orbit interaction, you should not use the pen tool to sign your contribution as the edit itself is automatically recorded in the page history. Besides this signatures would show up in the prose of the article (Just image what an article would look like after 100 edits, if everyone placed a signature). Instead the signature button is used to sign messages on talk pages such as this one for ease of communication. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Next question: Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, I didn't completely understand it. (I) Do you say that I shouldn't sign by pen tool, and pressing "Save" will be enough? (ii) Can TeX be used for texts including equations? I know no other effective way for writhing them. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.29.64 (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

too far off

LS coupling has more information. and this spin-orbit interaction is different from the electron configuration the mangentic quantum number (orientation) & azimuth quantum number(shape) interaction. Jackzhp (talk) 06:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

No magnetic field in the frame of the nucleus?

According to the article, "Although in the rest frame of the nucleus, there is no magnetic field, there is one in the rest frame of the electron." But the electrons are moving with respect to the nucleus and should produce a magnetic field equal to qvxr/r^3. In fact, this is part of the hyperfine coupling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpalenik (talk • contribs) 04:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"Imagine the electron in orbit about the nucleus; from the electron's point of view, the proton is circling around it. This orbiting positive charge sets up a magnetic field B, in the electron's frame, which exerts a torque on the spinning electron, tending to align its magnetic moment (mu) along the direction of the field." -Griffiths

I would think, in the protons frame, the orbiting electron would also create a magnetic field! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewalsterda (talk • contribs) 02:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Spin–orbit interaction/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

No explicit mention has been made of the fact that the treatment given is specifically for a circular Bohr orbit. Actually, the treatment is in terms of a classical circular Bohr orbit, up until the "Evaluating the energy shift" section, when suddenly the discussion switches to using results from a QM treatment of an atom. This would be terribly confusing for a reader new to the subject. It needs to be much clearer.

Last edited at 01:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 06:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Dirac?

There is room for some change. I would try to work it out as possible but some help is needed. First: It is necessary to avoid the idea of the electron magnetic field, the electron magnetic field can interact with the nuclear spin giving rise to Hyperfine structure not spin orbit. Second: Spin orbit is a relativistic effect and has three components: an electric field or potential, a moving electron and a magnetic moment. This is not clear in the article. The heuristic view of determining the electron interaction from its point of view is ok, but the final result does not depend on anyone magnetic field. Also a particle with spin but no magnetic moment cannot have spin orbit. Third: Spin orbit is derived from Dirac equation, this derivation should appear in the article. Fourth: Spin orbit in solids can be more clear and less technical. Some of the results can be migrated to Rashba effect and Dresselhaus effect. Fifth: I dont see in this page that the spin-orbit interaction is of the same order in correction than the relativistic correction to the kinetic energy. MaoGo (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I just fixed some wording. Additionally, the third section of the article with inhomogeneous field is not spin-orbit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaoGo (talk • contribs) 23:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

En dash vs hyphen

In the article, a hyphen (-) is used few times instead of an en dash (–) in spin–orbit interaction, coupling, or effect. Is this a typo or is there some other reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by En odveč (talk • contribs) 23:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)