![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
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
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)
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.
Agreed! In short:
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)
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).
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)
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)
http://www.chem.ufl.edu/~itl/4412_aa/zeem.html
Just granpa ( talk) 07:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
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/articles/aa/full/2005/48/aa3806-05/img92.gif
Just granpa ( talk) 02:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I corrected small mistake in the Breit-Rabi formula replacing by hyperfine splitting in accordance with original paper of Breit and Rabi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jora0 ( talk • contribs) 07:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
Yeah, someone should edit that in.
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)
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)
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)
Under »Theoretical presentation«, the total electronic angular momentum is implicitly given as . Together with the preceding formula , this gives the correct expression for the magnetic moment of the electron. However, it is usually the fact that , 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, . Please correct me and elucidate if I'm mistaken! -- Xjs. ( talk) 20:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
There is two issues with the diagram showing the magnetic field induced shifts for 87Rb:
No history, experiments, or dates !
From Zeeman article:
178.38.125.245 ( talk) 00:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
I added
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)
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)
The numbers in the image correspond perfectly to:
n | ℓ | mℓ | ms | mj | j |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
mℓ + ms | |||||
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)
This book available online has two great short sections on the Zeeman effect:
Johnjbarton ( talk) 16:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
IMO, it deserves a separate article or at least a dedicated section here. Evgeny ( talk) 12:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)