Talk:Zeeman effect

Untitled[edit]

Why do levels d,e,f in the first diagram become d,f,g in the second diagram? Is this what the writer intended, or just a typo? -- Heron

It was a typo, now fixed. -- Tim Starling 06:09 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

Is there a mathematical discription of the Zeeman effect on Wikipedia yet? Something along the lines of: a hydrogen atom in the presense of a 1 1 T magnetic field will have its various energy states shifted by x amount for quantum numbers of n=_, l=_, m=_, etc. -A. O.

It might be worth mentioning that the split Zeeman lines are also polarised - the pi bands are polarised parallel to the magnetic field direction, and the sigma bands are at right angles to the field. Steve Morton.

I'd like to see that too. Pulu (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Paschen-Back there[edit]

What is described in the strong case should be named "normal Zeeman", not Paschen Back. This one should include the spin orbit as a pertubation. Let me know if I'm wrong.

The strong-field Zeeman effect is also known as the Paschen-Back effect, according to Griffiths, "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics", footnote on p.279 of the 2nd edition. Indeed the spin-orbit correction is still there as a perturbation. HEL 21:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! In short:

Paschen-Back: medium B-field, spin-orbit coupling still appreciable. Perturbation next to B-field interactions.
Normal Zeeman: strong B-field, spin-orbit coupling broken. m_j and m_s decoupled quantum numbers.

Source e.g. Bransden & Joachain: Physics of atoms and molecules. Hopefully I will find the time to correct the article shortly. Ressiehcsgulk 19. May 2007

Disagreed! Or rather, Schiff writes "The Zeeman effect usually refers to the weak-field case, and the Paschen-Back effect to the strong-field case, although the term Zeeman effect is sometimes used to include all magnetic effects". Quantum Mechanics (McGraw-Hill, 3rd edition, 1968), p. 441. 212.242.115.68 17:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading "Experiments in Modern Physics" by Melissanos, (a rather old book from the 50s) one gets the feeling that the "Paschen-Back effect" refers to (or at least, used to refer to) something more particular - the fact that classically one expects only certain lines, "normal Zeeman lines" but at low fields, one observes more lines ("anomalous Zeeman lines"). But at high fields, (remarkably), the lines start to shift and merge towards the classical expectation. (see http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/zeeman.html#c4), which Melissanos calls the Paschen-Back effect. I'm sorry this is a bit vague. Later I will try to add a bit about the history and the meaning of the terms "normal" and "anomolous", since those terms are still be thrown around today, even though the lines are now completely understood. Danski14^(talk) 05:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IPA name[edit]

Maybe [ze:mɑn], as it is reported here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.7.241.204 (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

It would be nice to see a little piece on the importance of measuring the Zeeman line splitting in the solar spectrum to measure magnetic field directions and intensities. I came here looking for more information and so I can not elucidate it better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.17.11 (talk) 04:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion2[edit]

How about a nice picture? I remember the undergrad lab, taking turns with my partner observing the split lines, which looked beautiful, but the darn magnet heated up so much and so fast we had to be very quick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.229.112.98 (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice images at university of florida[edit]

http://www.chem.ufl.edu/~itl/4412_aa/zeem.html

Just granpa (talk) 07:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.chemgapedia.de/vsengine/vlu/vsc/de/ch/13/vlu/analytik/aas/zeeman.vlu/Page/vsc/de/ch/13/pc/analytik/aas/aas4_ze4.vscml.html

http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full/2007/01/aa6030-06/Timg23.gif

The Paschen-Back effect in the doublet level with N=5 for the B²Σ v = 0 state of CN.

http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/full/2005/48/aa3806-05/aa3806-05.html

http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full/2005/48/aa3806-05/img92.gif

Just granpa (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on a laboratory report which will feature very nice picture of the splitting, (produced myself with MATLAB) similar to your last link, for Rb. Expect the picture soon, after I turn in my report. Danski14^(talk) 05:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Small correction for "Intermediate field for j = 1/2"[edit]

I corrected small mistake in the Breit-Rabi formula replacing $A$ by hyperfine splitting $\Delta W$ in accordance with original paper of Breit and Rabi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jora0 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does this have anything to do with "Zeeman atomic graphite furnaces"?[edit]

Several companies, notably Perkin Elmer, make atomic absorption spectrometers and calling them "graphite furnaces". Most of these instruments I have came across carry the name "Zeeman atomic absorption" on them. Since I have never operated such an instrument, does the Zeeman effect have anything to do with these instruments? If so, one should somehow include this in the "Applications" section --173.178.17.48 (talk) 02:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Yeah, someone should edit that in.

The introduction makes no sense[edit]

It refers to levels 'a', 'b', 'c' etc. but does not say what those are. Somebody should write a better introduction. --avkulkarni —Preceding undated comment added 08:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear article[edit]

This article currently seems made for mathematicians only. It pretty doesn't explain to common mortals what the Zeeman effect is, maybe also using an illustrating sketch. It starts as one already knew of the effect giving only quantitative formulas and no qualitative descriptions. What said is intended to be a constructive criticism to improve understandability of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.122.48 (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of it seems to be written in 'four-vector' notation. This is very hard if you have never had the room to study four-vectors. The german version is written in vector-notation, which is more common in the times when i was growing up. Is it possible for someone to put the vectors back so that one does not have to have a degree in advanced physics to understand what is going on? I mean, even Zeeman did not use four-vectors. Wendy.krieger (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J = L+S or J = g_l L + g_s S?[edit]

Under »Theoretical presentation«, the total electronic angular momentum ${\vec {J}}$ is implicitly given as $g_{l}{\vec {L}}+g_{s}{\vec {S}}$ . Together with the preceding formula ${\vec {\mu }}=-{\frac {\mu _{B}g{\vec {J}}}{\hbar }}$ , this gives the correct expression ${\vec {\mu }}=-{\frac {\mu _{B}(g_{l}{\vec {L}}+g_{s}{\vec {S}})}{\hbar }},$ for the magnetic moment of the electron. However, it is usually the fact that ${\vec {J}}={\vec {L}}+{\vec {S}}$ , which is also used under »Weak field (Zeeman effect)«. So, one of the J's must be wrong, and I suspect it's the first one. I don't know what led to its inclusion, but I think the magnetic moment should directly be presented in the final form, ${\vec {\mu }}=-{\frac {\mu _{B}(g_{l}{\vec {L}}+g_{s}{\vec {S}})}{\hbar }}$ . Please correct me and elucidate if I'm mistaken! --Xjs. (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Figure[edit]

There is two issues with the diagram showing the magnetic field induced shifts for 87Rb:

The y-Axis is wrong by a factor of 10000. The field-free hyerpfine-splitting of the groundstate it 6.834 GHz in 87Rb. In the diagram it reads as 0.68MHz.
The high-field quantum numbers in the diagram should read "m_J" and "m_I" rather than "m_F" and "m_I". This is the essence of the Paschen-Back Regime: hyerpfine coupling breaks open and F,m_F seize to be good quantum numbers. ^SaerdnA (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... the y-axis is actually OK, because if you look at the top of the axis it says the values are multiplied by 10^4. Sorry if that is unclear. I think you are right about your second point though, I will try to fix it soon. Danski14^(talk) 00:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre flaw in article[edit]

No history, experiments, or dates !

From Zeeman article:

In 1896, three years after submitting his thesis on the Kerr effect, he disobeyed the direct orders of his supervisor and used laboratory equipment to measure the splitting of spectral lines by a strong magnetic field. He was fired for his efforts,^[1]^{[verification needed]} but he was later vindicated: he won the 1902 Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of what has now become known as the Zeeman effect. As an extension of his thesis research, he began investigating the effect of magnetic fields on a light source. He discovered that a spectral line is split into several components in the presence of a magnetic field. Lorentz first heard about Zeeman's observations on Saturday 31 October 1896 at the meeting of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences in Amsterdam, where these results were communicated by Kamerlingh Onnes. The next Monday, Lorentz called Zeeman into his office and presented him with an explanation of his observations, based on Lorentz's theory of electromagnetic radiation.

178.38.125.245 (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ Schmelz, J. T. (2003). "Why stellar astronomers should be interested in the sun". Advances in Space Research. 32 (6): 895–904. doi:10.1016/S0273-1177(03)80064-9.

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Zeeman effect/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.

The gyromagnetic-ratio and the g-factor are not the same. The sentence where it says that the gyromagnetic ratio is usually called the g-factor is therefore wrong.

Last edited at 00:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 11:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussing possible External Link[edit]

I added

Youtube video of demonstration of the Zeeman Effect

It was removed due to 'wp:ELNO item #11: "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. ")'.

The thing is, in my opinion it isn't a blog/personal website/fansite. It's a video of a demonstration of the Zeeman effect. It looks useful to me. Is consensus that this link should not be added? RJFJR (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was made by someone who is not a recognized authority, so i.m.o. it clearly qualifies as a schoolbook example of item #11. - DVdm (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lyman alpha transitions in Strong Field[edit]

I will add a section detailing the n=2 to n=1 transitions in the presence of the strong field. I also find the lyman alpha transition descriptions quite confusing in the weak field and I will fix this. Landmark ni (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum numbers[edit]

The numbers in the image correspond perfectly to:

$n$	$ℓ$	$m ℓ$	$m s$	$m j$	$j$
				$m ℓ + m s$
5	1.5	1.5	+0.5	2	2
5	1.5	0.5	+0.5	1	2
5	1.5	−0.5	+0.5	0	2
5	1.5	-1.5	+0.5	-1	2
5	1.5	-1.5	−0.5	−2	2
5	1.5	-0.5	−0.5	-1	1
5	1.5	0.5	−0.5	0	1
5	1.5	1.5	−0.5	1	1

Just granpa (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is wrong. ℓ (the orbital number), as well as its projection m_ℓ, are always integer... The figure is for the hyperfine structure, the fine-structure approximation becomes valid at the high (in this scale) field, near the right end of the figure. Evgeny (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another good reference.[edit]

This book available online has two great short sections on the Zeeman effect:

Leighton, Robert B., and Robert B. Leighton. Principles of modern physics. Vol. 795. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.

Johnjbarton (talk) 16:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zeeman demo references[edit]

I removed some of the tags on the Zeeman demo videos on the grounds that they are reliable for content they reference, that is the construction of a demo. I think the video is clearly not faked and I take the extensive comments on the videos as a kind of evidence.

The tags on the explanation remain. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Zeeman effect[edit]

IMO, it deserves a separate article or at least a dedicated section here. Evgeny (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[fired-1] Schmelz, J. T. (2003). "Why stellar astronomers should be interested in the sun". Advances in Space Research. 32 (6): 895–904. doi:10.1016/S0273-1177(03)80064-9.

[1]