| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"David Macmanus" |
| Date: |
24 Feb 2005 09:41:00 AM |
| Object: |
Pauli equation |
Can anyone please tell me if the original 'Pauli equation' put forward
by the man himself included a term for the interaction of the internal
magnetic field with the electron. Quite often this term is missing in
versions of the Pauli equation, but in Tomonaga's book 'The Story of
Spin' it is included. Just wanted to know which is the correct
(original) Pauli equation.
Thanks,
David.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
| User: "Puppet_Sock" |
|
| Title: Re: Pauli equation |
24 Feb 2005 10:40:41 AM |
|
|
David Macmanus wrote:
Can anyone please tell me if the original 'Pauli equation' put
forward
by the man himself included a term for the interaction of the
internal
magnetic field with the electron. Quite often this term is missing in
versions of the Pauli equation, but in Tomonaga's book 'The Story of
Spin' it is included. Just wanted to know which is the correct
(original) Pauli equation.
What do you mean by "internal magnetic field with the electron?"
For example, look here:
http://www.phys.ualberta.ca/~gingrich/phys512/latex2html/node46.html
In (5.38), do you mean the B term? If so, then it has to be there.
Things absolutely do not work out sensibly without it. Is that
what you mean?
Socks
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Macmanus" |
|
| Title: Re: Pauli equation |
24 Feb 2005 10:51:33 AM |
|
|
"Puppet_Sock" <puppet_sock@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109263241.327870.45100@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
What do you mean by "internal magnetic field with the electron?"
For example, look here:
http://www.phys.ualberta.ca/~gingrich/phys512/latex2html/node46.html
In (5.38), do you mean the B term? If so, then it has to be there.
Things absolutely do not work out sensibly without it. Is that
what you mean?
Socks
By internal magnetic field I mean the field experienced by the electron
due to it moving in the electric field of the nucleus. The B in the
(5.38) you mention is due to the external (applied) magnetic field isn't
it? So there should be another term due to the internal magnetic field
experienced by the electron, I think. So what was Pauli's orignal
equation - with or without this term?
Thanks,
David.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Pauli equation |
24 Feb 2005 11:44:12 PM |
|
|
"David Macmanus" <macmanus@tripos.com> wrote in message
news:c71271754045adac3ecdc2987839040a.35661@mygate.mailgate.org...
"Puppet_Sock" <puppet_sock@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109263241.327870.45100@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
What do you mean by "internal magnetic field with the electron?"
For example, look here:
http://www.phys.ualberta.ca/~gingrich/phys512/latex2html/node46.html
In (5.38), do you mean the B term? If so, then it has to be there.
Things absolutely do not work out sensibly without it. Is that
what you mean?
Socks
By internal magnetic field I mean the field experienced by the
electron
due to it moving in the electric field of the nucleus.
There is no magnetic field which the electron experiences due to its
motion. It is moving in an electric field only.
(Disregarding the minute magnetic field due to a possible nuclear
magnetic moment.)
[snip]
--
Franz
"The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact."
T.H. Huxley
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Macmanus" |
|
| Title: Re: Pauli equation |
14 Mar 2005 04:47:30 AM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cvmdvb$nsg$3@titan.btinternet.com
By internal magnetic field I mean the field experienced by the
electron
due to it moving in the electric field of the nucleus.
There is no magnetic field which the electron experiences due to its
motion. It is moving in an electric field only.
(Disregarding the minute magnetic field due to a possible nuclear
magnetic moment.)
This is confusing me a bit. Here:
hitoshi.berkeley.edu/221A/hyperfine.pdf
on page 2 it says:
"The Coulomb field of the proton (or nucleus) appears partially as a
magnetic field in the moving reference frame of the electron...."
And here:
cua.mit.edu/8.421/Chapter_3.pdf
page 3 it says:
"As the electron moves through the electric field of th proton it "sees"
a motional magnetic field..."
Is the same or different to what you are saying?
Thnks,
David.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Pauli equation |
14 Mar 2005 04:57:02 PM |
|
|
"David Macmanus" <macmanus@tripos.com> wrote in message
news:06a73b78b3f6733ddb89b233dd6e29ce.35661@mygate.mailgate.org...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cvmdvb$nsg$3@titan.btinternet.com
By internal magnetic field I mean the field experienced by the
electron
due to it moving in the electric field of the nucleus.
There is no magnetic field which the electron experiences due to
its
motion. It is moving in an electric field only.
(Disregarding the minute magnetic field due to a possible nuclear
magnetic moment.)
This is confusing me a bit. Here:
hitoshi.berkeley.edu/221A/hyperfine.pdf
on page 2 it says:
"The Coulomb field of the proton (or nucleus) appears partially as a
magnetic field in the moving reference frame of the electron...."
One invariably does calculations of the interaction between the
electron and the nucleus in the lab frame, not the frame of the
electron. In the frame of the electron, it is itself stationary, so
whatever magnetic field it experiences due to the transformed Coulomb
field would not interact with it. My understanding of hyperfine
structure is that it is a result of the interaction between the
magnetic moment of the electron and the magnetic moment of the
nucleus. That is a very different matter.
And here:
cua.mit.edu/8.421/Chapter_3.pdf
page 3 it says:
"As the electron moves through the electric field of th proton it
"sees"
a motional magnetic field..."
Is the same or different to what you are saying?
I cannot get to the url's you quoted, because both of them are
unclickable.
If you will correct them, I'll have a look at them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Pauli equation |
14 Mar 2005 06:59:08 PM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in news:d154ru$ps5$4
@hercules.btinternet.com:
One invariably does calculations of the interaction between the
electron and the nucleus in the lab frame, not the frame of the
electron. In the frame of the electron, it is itself stationary, so
whatever magnetic field it experiences due to the transformed Coulomb
field would not interact with it.
I am certinly not an expert about these things, but would not the magnetic
field be seen as moving by the electron?
Shouldn't the results have to be identical no matter which framework is used?
Wouldn't the frame of reference be best chosen to give the simplest math?
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+se@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Puppet_Sock" |
|
| Title: Re: Pauli equation |
14 Mar 2005 09:31:22 AM |
|
|
David Macmanus wrote:
[snip]
Recipe A)
Step 1: Discuss physics on usenet news groups.
Step 2: Plan to learn physics "some day."
Result: Endless series of useless posts, frustration, and
eventually, degradation into name calling.
Recipe B)
Step 1: Learn physics.
Step 2: Discuss physics on usenet news groups.
Result: Everybody is happy.
In other words, usenet is possibly the worst possible place
to learn physics. If you want to learn physics then what you
need to do is go get the textbooks used in physics courses
at universities. If you are still having problems with such
things as the Pauli equn, and you are, then you do *NOT* want
to be browsing the net and quibbling over wording. All you
will do is get yourself marked down as a nutbar. What you do
want to do is get yourself some good textbooks, read them,
and do the homework assignments.
Socks
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Macmanus" |
|
| Title: Re: Pauli equation |
14 Mar 2005 10:43:15 AM |
|
|
"Puppet_Sock" <puppet_sock@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110814282.621072.138840@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
<snip personal opinions about what this newsgroup is for/how it should
be used and bold categorisations of what my approach to physics might
be>
In other words, usenet is possibly the worst possible place
to learn physics.
Actually I've learnt quite a bit here, as well as from text books.
If you want to learn physics then what you
need to do is go get the textbooks used in physics courses
at universities.
Yes, been doing that. Thanks for the tip.
If you are still having problems with such
things as the Pauli equn, and you are, then you do *NOT* want
to be browsing the net and quibbling over wording.
Sounds like you too are having a few problems. How can it be right that
the electron doesn't experience a magnetic field? The way it's usually
presented is by thinking of the electron at rest and
the nucleus going round it. What do you think the spin-orbit interaction
is down to, exactly? If you have a look at Tomonaga's book you could
learn quite a bit. I didn't respond to your other post about what you
see the B in the Pauli equation as being.
What stops you, surely, from amalgamating the internal and external
magnetic fields is that the external field is dotted into the sum of
both l and s, whereas the internal field is dotted only into s.
So I dont see how you can write the whole thing as
(H_ext + H_int) dot (l + g_0 s). You get a piece you dont want, namely
H^int dot l.
But you're not going to answer anyway, are you.........?
David.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Puppet_Sock" |
|
| Title: Re: Pauli equation |
14 Mar 2005 12:14:54 PM |
|
|
David Macmanus wrote:
[snip]
Actually I've learnt quite a bit here, as well as from text books.
Apparently wrong, on both counts. Go and quibble some more
over wording in disjoint web articles. Stubbornly refuse to
move on and learn something.
You are good at that.
Socks
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Macmanus" |
|
| Title: Re: Pauli equation |
15 Mar 2005 06:02:34 AM |
|
|
"Puppet_Sock" <puppet_sock@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110824094.169770.111790@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
David Macmanus wrote:
[snip]
Actually I've learnt quite a bit here, as well as from text books.
Apparently wrong, on both counts. Go and quibble some more
over wording in disjoint web articles. Stubbornly refuse to
move on and learn something.
You are good at that.
Socks
Keep the insults coming. You join all those others who resort to this
when they are being found out. You didn't come back on any of my
last comments. You need to take a good look in the mirror and ask
yourself why not. You accuse me of quibbling over wording. Think
about it! Does the electron experience an internal magnetic field
or not? Do you actually know the answer to this question? What is the
answer? If you *really* know the answer to this question then you
might be able to work out why I 'quibbled' over what Franz said. If
you don't know the answer then you reallyshouldn't be presenting
your opinions on physics to this newsgroup, or, for that matter, just
about anybody.
Sorry, but you've slipped up here.
David.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Pauli equation |
15 Mar 2005 10:01:55 AM |
|
|
"David Macmanus" <macmanus@tripos.com> wrote in message
news:fbae59b32736331da18dd0c595956f66.35661@mygate.mailgate.org...
"Puppet_Sock" <puppet_sock@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110824094.169770.111790@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
David Macmanus wrote:
[snip]
Actually I've learnt quite a bit here, as well as from text
books.
Apparently wrong, on both counts. Go and quibble some more
over wording in disjoint web articles. Stubbornly refuse to
move on and learn something.
You are good at that.
Socks
Keep the insults coming. You join all those others who resort to
this
when they are being found out. You didn't come back on any of my
last comments. You need to take a good look in the mirror and ask
yourself why not. You accuse me of quibbling over wording. Think
about it! Does the electron experience an internal magnetic field
or not? Do you actually know the answer to this question? What is
the
answer? If you *really* know the answer to this question then you
might be able to work out why I 'quibbled' over what Franz said.
There is no sign on my computer to the effect that you quibbled about
something I said.
Did you forget to post it?
[snip]
--
Franz
"One Galileo in 2000 years is enough."
Pope Pius XII
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Macmanus" |
|
| Title: Re: Pauli equation |
15 Mar 2005 10:35:48 AM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:d170tj$378$1@hercules.btinternet.com
"David Macmanus" <macmanus@tripos.com> wrote in message
news:fbae59b32736331da18dd0c595956f66.35661@mygate.mailgate.org...
"Puppet_Sock" <puppet_sock@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110824094.169770.111790@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
David Macmanus wrote:
[snip]
Actually I've learnt quite a bit here, as well as from text
books.
Apparently wrong, on both counts. Go and quibble some more
over wording in disjoint web articles. Stubbornly refuse to
move on and learn something.
You are good at that.
Socks
Keep the insults coming. You join all those others who resort to
this
when they are being found out. You didn't come back on any of my
last comments. You need to take a good look in the mirror and ask
yourself why not. You accuse me of quibbling over wording. Think
about it! Does the electron experience an internal magnetic field
or not? Do you actually know the answer to this question? What is
the
answer? If you *really* know the answer to this question then you
might be able to work out why I 'quibbled' over what Franz said.
There is no sign on my computer to the effect that you quibbled about
something I said.
Did you forget to post it?
Hi Franz,
There is a quibble, but it's disguised! In the web-sites I quoted
(which you haven't been able to pick up on yet) it is quite clear that
the electron experiences an internal magnetic field.
It seemed to me that you were saying that that the
hyperfine interaction (which is due to the interaction between the
nuclear magnetic moment and the electronic magnetic moment)
is the same as the spin-orbit interaction, which is incorrect.
It's not right that all the electron feels is the Coulomb interaction.
The 'internal magnetic field' it feels as a result of its motion round
the nucleus (or that's caused by the nucleus moving round it) has
got to be there - it's not as strong as the Coulomb, of course, being a
relativistic effect (v^2/c^2).
So yes, I don't agree with what you say, though I haven't formally come
out and said it yet. But my disagreement is more than "quibbling over
words"!
You can easily find some web-sites which discuss this - plug in
*electron "magnetic field" spin-orbit* into Google
and they will come up. I was waiting to get some book references
which might be more convincing before posting a reply to you. And I will
try to do this.
I don't know why 'Socks' has decided to get out of hs box on this one.
Each to his own I suppose.
Thanks,
David.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Pauli equation |
15 Mar 2005 04:01:32 PM |
|
|
"David Macmanus" <macmanus@tripos.com> wrote in message
news:a2dc60733c35098edda64d963a31266e.35661@mygate.mailgate.org...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:d170tj$378$1@hercules.btinternet.com
"David Macmanus" <macmanus@tripos.com> wrote in message
news:fbae59b32736331da18dd0c595956f66.35661@mygate.mailgate.org...
"Puppet_Sock" <puppet_sock@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110824094.169770.111790@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
David Macmanus wrote:
[snip]
Actually I've learnt quite a bit here, as well as from text
books.
Apparently wrong, on both counts. Go and quibble some more
over wording in disjoint web articles. Stubbornly refuse to
move on and learn something.
You are good at that.
Socks
Keep the insults coming. You join all those others who resort
to
this
when they are being found out. You didn't come back on any of my
last comments. You need to take a good look in the mirror and
ask
yourself why not. You accuse me of quibbling over wording. Think
about it! Does the electron experience an internal magnetic
field
or not? Do you actually know the answer to this question? What
is
the
answer? If you *really* know the answer to this question then
you
might be able to work out why I 'quibbled' over what Franz said.
There is no sign on my computer to the effect that you quibbled
about
something I said.
Did you forget to post it?
Hi Franz,
There is a quibble, but it's disguised! In the web-sites I quoted
(which you haven't been able to pick up on yet) it is quite clear
that
the electron experiences an internal magnetic field.
If you are talking about the magnetic moment of the electron, I have
no difference with you. If you don't, then I don't know what you mean
by your statement.
And the electron does not "experience" an internal magnetic field. It
*possesses* one.
It seemed to me that you were saying that that the
hyperfine interaction (which is due to the interaction between the
nuclear magnetic moment and the electronic magnetic moment)
is the same as the spin-orbit interaction, which is incorrect.
I did most certainly not. I spoke specifically about the interaction
between the magnetic moment of the electron and that of the nucleus.
It's not right that all the electron feels is the Coulomb
interaction.
I have already said what the origin of hyperfine splitting is.
The 'internal magnetic field' it feels as a result of its motion
round
the nucleus (or that's caused by the nucleus moving round it) has
got to be there - it's not as strong as the Coulomb, of course,
being a
relativistic effect (v^2/c^2).
Now you appear to be back to talking about spin-orbit interaction.
Make up your mind. A little higher up you said you were *not* talking
about this.
So yes, I don't agree with what you say, though I haven't formally
come
out and said it yet. But my disagreement is more than "quibbling
over
words"!
You can easily find some web-sites which discuss this - plug in
*electron "magnetic field" spin-orbit* into Google
and they will come up.
Make up your mind what you are talking about. Spin-orbit coupling or
spin-spin coupling?
..
I was waiting to get some book references
which might be more convincing before posting a reply to you. And I
will
try to do this.
I don't know why 'Socks' has decided to get out of hs box on this
one.
Each to his own I suppose.
May I suggest that this thread is now so full of misunderstandings on
all
sides that we should abandon it entirely and start anew, if there are
actually real differences between us.
Here is the correct situation:
There is a spin-orbit interaction in the case of states other than
s-states.
There is a spin-spin interaction, which is much weaker than the
spin-orbit interaction, but it exists for all electron states.
If you agree with that, we might as well end the interchange now.
--
Franz
"One Galileo in 2000 years is enough."
Pope Pius XII
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Macmanus" |
|
| Title: Re: Pauli equation |
16 Mar 2005 04:20:56 AM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:d17lvr$esj$1@hercules.btinternet.com
If you agree with that, we might as well end the interchange now.
What I originally said was: "By internal magnetic field I mean the field
experienced by the electron due to it moving in the electric field of
the nucleus."
What you said was: "There is no magnetic field which the electron
experiences due to its motion. It is moving in an electric field only."
I take issue with what you say here. The electron does experience a
magnetic field (what I am calling the *internal magnetic field*) as a
result of its motion in the nucleus' Coulomb field. You cannot argue
with this.
This is the origin of the spin-orbit interaction. {Forget about
spin-spin interactions}.
That's what we are arguing about. If you still don't think the electron
experiences a magnetic field then we should discuss further and I
will provide references.
David.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Pauli equation |
16 Mar 2005 06:21:55 AM |
|
|
"David Macmanus" <macmanus@tripos.com> wrote in message
news:3e89619017d03e3067b9a3c699c1eb6f.35661@mygate.mailgate.org...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:d17lvr$esj$1@hercules.btinternet.com
If you agree with that, we might as well end the interchange now.
Do you agree with my statement which you surreptitiously snipped, or
do you not?
If not, please indicate the flaw in it.
[snip]
--
Franz
"One Galileo in 2000 years is enough."
Pope Pius XII
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Macmanus" |
|
| Title: Re: Pauli equation |
16 Mar 2005 06:36:19 AM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:d198d2$bqq$1@titan.btinternet.com
"David Macmanus" <macmanus@tripos.com> wrote in message
news:3e89619017d03e3067b9a3c699c1eb6f.35661@mygate.mailgate.org...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:d17lvr$esj$1@hercules.btinternet.com
If you agree with that, we might as well end the interchange now.
Do you agree with my statement which you surreptitiously snipped, or
do you not?
If not, please indicate the flaw in it.
[snip]
Which statement in particular?
You haven't said whether you agree with me that the electron experiences
a magnetic field as a result of its motion through the Coulomb field. Do
you agree with this?
This (for me) is at the heart of the debate.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Pauli equation |
16 Mar 2005 10:05:54 AM |
|
|
"David Macmanus" <macmanus@tripos.com> wrote in message
news:5bd9c1afb23bda6bac84dea59390d2b8.35661@mygate.mailgate.org...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:d198d2$bqq$1@titan.btinternet.com
"David Macmanus" <macmanus@tripos.com> wrote in message
news:3e89619017d03e3067b9a3c699c1eb6f.35661@mygate.mailgate.org...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in
message
news:d17lvr$esj$1@hercules.btinternet.com
If you agree with that, we might as well end the interchange
now.
Do you agree with my statement which you surreptitiously snipped,
or
do you not?
If not, please indicate the flaw in it.
[snip]
Which statement in particular?
Quit playing dumb. You know perfectly well what I was referring to.
Here it is, in its entirety.
Quote
"May I suggest that this thread is now so full of misunderstandings on
all
sides that we should abandon it entirely and start anew, if there are
actually real differences between us.
Here is the correct situation:
There is a spin-orbit interaction in the case of states other than
s-states.
There is a spin-spin interaction, which is much weaker than the
spin-orbit interaction, but it exists for all electron states.
If you agree with that, we might as well end the interchange now."
Unquote
[snip]
--
Franz
"One Galileo in 2000 years is enough."
Pope Pius XII
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Macmanus" |
|
| Title: Re: Pauli equation |
17 Mar 2005 03:21:05 AM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:d19lh1$b5i$1@hercules.btinternet.com
Quote
"May I suggest that this thread is now so full of misunderstandings on
all
sides that we should abandon it entirely and start anew, if there are
actually real differences between us.
Here is the correct situation:
There is a spin-orbit interaction in the case of states other than
s-states.
There is a spin-spin interaction, which is much weaker than the
spin-orbit interaction, but it exists for all electron states.
If you agree with that
Okay, I agree with you there.....
we might as well end the interchange now."
Happy to end the exchange if I can get answer to my question which you
seem to be steadfastly trying to avoid:
Do you agree with that the electron experiences a magnetic field as a
result of its motion through the Coulomb field. Do
you agree this is different to what you said originally. Do you
understand now why I questioned what you said?
A response to these questions and this thread can be concluded.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Puppet_Sock" |
|
| Title: Re: Pauli equation |
24 Feb 2005 04:41:47 PM |
|
|
David Macmanus wrote:
"Puppet_Sock" <puppet_sock@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109263241.327870.45100@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
What do you mean by "internal magnetic field with the electron?"
For example, look here:
http://www.phys.ualberta.ca/~gingrich/phys512/latex2html/node46.html
In (5.38), do you mean the B term? If so, then it has to be there.
Things absolutely do not work out sensibly without it. Is that
what you mean?
Socks
By internal magnetic field I mean the field experienced by the
electron
due to it moving in the electric field of the nucleus. The B in the
(5.38) you mention is due to the external (applied) magnetic field
isn't
it? So there should be another term due to the internal magnetic
field
experienced by the electron, I think. So what was Pauli's orignal
equation - with or without this term?
You are confusing two different things.
First, there's the Pauli equation, which is as given in the reference,
and has the B term. Has to do, always does, or it isn't the Pauli eqn.
Second, there's the particular case of solving the Pauli equation
for a particular situation, in this case an atom. The field an
electron will "see" in an atom has the part you mention, and this
is included in the Pauli equation by setting the B in the equation
to the correct form.
So, you've got the generic form in terms of an unspecified general
electromagnetic field, and that is given in the reference. Then
you've got specific cases where specific forms of the fields are
supplied. And that is what you are talking about.
There is no extra term in the case of the atom. There is a specific
form of an already existing term.
Or, to put it another way: In the reference there's an equation
that has something (in "cartoon" schematic form) like so.
derivatives and combinations of A's, B's, and Psi's = 0
Then, to solve in an atom, you give the A's and B's specific
form (as functions of position, for example) and put boundary
conditions on the Psi's. Then you solve the resulting equation
for the Psi's.
There's no new term, there's just B(x,y,z) = stuff, and
A(x,y,z) = other stuff, and shove that in the equation.
Better?
Socks
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Macmanus" |
|
| Title: Re: Pauli equation |
28 Feb 2005 04:33:12 AM |
|
|
"Puppet_Sock" <puppet_sock@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109284907.560025.66390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
So, you've got the generic form in terms of an unspecified general
electromagnetic field, and that is given in the reference. Then
you've got specific cases where specific forms of the fields are
supplied. And that is what you are talking about.
Better?
Hmm, maybe........I'll have a think.
Thanks.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
