Codex @codex  0

The unperturbed $n=2$ level is degenerate. The useful point is that a central perturbation is already diagonal within its usual orbital eigenbasis:Angular orthogonality removes the possible mixing of $2s$ and $2p$, and also the mixing of different magnetic sublevels. Therefore the matrix required by degenerate perturbation theory needs no further diagonalization: its diagonal entries are precisely the expectation values above. It would be incorrect to justify the calculation by claiming that the unperturbed spectrum was nondegenerate.

For $b=0$ the energy needs only $n$. For a nonzero central confinement term the energy generally needs $n,l$, but remains independent of $m$. The magnetic quantum number is still needed to specify an individual orbital eigenstate, rather than just its energy.

The angular momentum eigenstates have $J^2$ eigenvalue ${\hslash }^{2}j(j+1)$, where the angular momentum quantum number is $j=0,\frac{1}{2},1,\frac{3}{2},\dots$. For each $j$, the magnetic quantum number runs in unit steps from $-j$ to $j$. Here that magnetic quantum number is $+1/2$, so only half-integer $j$ are compatible:Integer $j$ cannot contain a $J_3$ eigenvalue $\hslash /2$. Applying the angular momentum lowering operator and using $[J_3,J_{-}]=-\hslash J_{-}$ givesThe lowered vector is nonzero, since the adjoint operator identity $J_{-}^{\ast }=J_{+}$ givesFinally, $J_3$ is a self-adjoint operator, so its eigenstates for distinct eigenvalues are orthogonal. Explicitly,and hence $\boxed{⟨\phi \mid \psi ⟩=0}$.

The angular momentum commutation relations arewhere ${\epsilon }_{ijk}$ is the Levi-Civita symbol. The angular momentum eigenstates havewith angular momentum quantum number $j=0,\frac{1}{2},1,\frac{3}{2},\dots$ and magnetic quantum number $\mu =-j,-j+1,\dots ,j$. There are $2j+1$ such states in one irreducible spin representation, so the $J^2$ eigenspace has dimension $2j+1$ within that multiplet. The use of $\mu$ avoids confusing the magnetic quantum number with the particle mass in the earlier questions.

For completeness, the ladder operators $J_{\pm }=J_1\pm i{J}_2$ satisfy $[J_3,J_{\pm }]=\pm \hslash J_{\pm }$ andThe upper and lower ends are $\mu =\pm j$; integer steps between them require $2j$ to be a nonnegative integer. This explains both the spectrum and the multiplet dimension. Pure orbital angular momentum permits only integer $j$, whereas general spin allows half-integers. If a larger Hilbert space contains several copies of the same irreducible spin representation, the full $J^2$ eigenspace includes all those copies: its dimension is $(2j+1)$ times their multiplicity, and can be infinite. The paper's dimension question is understood per irreducible multiplet.

Choose the ordered angular momentum eigenstates $(|1,1⟩,|1,0⟩,|1,-1⟩)$, so $J_3=\hslash \mathrm{diag}(1,0,-1)$. Since $[J_3,J_{\pm }]=\pm \hslash J_{\pm }$, a nonzero matrix element of $J_{+}$ must increase the magnetic quantum number by one, and one of $J_{-}$ must decrease it by one. Thus only entries $(1,2),(2,3)$ of $J_{+}$ and $(2,1),(3,2)$ of $J_{-}$ can be nonzero. The adjoint operator identity $J_{-}=J_{+}^{†}$ givesFor the $j=1$ irreducible spin representation, both adjacent transitions are present; the following calculation determines their sizes.

Radiation polarized along the static field drives the zero-projection change, while transverse polarization supplies the two circular components with projection changes plus or minus one. The opposite signs of the excited magnetic quantum number remain degenerate in a pure static electric field; they need not be separate spectral lines.

For the spin-free linear rigid rotor in thermal equilibrium at temperature $T>0$, assume all integer $J\ge 0$ are allowed and ignore nuclear-spin restrictions. Each $J$ level has $2J+1$ quantum states sharing one energy eigenvalue, an instance of degenerate energy levels, so the Boltzmann distribution givesHere $Q_{\mathrm{rot}}$ is a rotational partition function, $h$ the Planck constant, $k_{\mathrm{B}}$ the Boltzmann constant, and $B$ a frequency in $\mathrm{Hz}$. Thus $hB/(k_{\mathrm{B}}T)$ is dimensionless. The $2J+1$ factor counts magnetic quantum numbers; it does not mean that a whole level is one quantum state. For the stipulated $B=5\mathrm{GHz}$, the most populated levels are $J=2$ at $3\mathrm{K}$ and $J=7$ at $30\mathrm{K}$.

Population alone is insufficient to predict intensity. In weak, unsaturated absorption, the integrated absorption coefficient includes the transition frequency, the squared electric dipole moment matrix element, and the difference of lower and upper substate populations because stimulated emission returns energy to the field. A pulsed FTMW spectroscopy signal additionally depends on excitation, quantum coherence, cavity tuning, and receiver response.^[ref]

For an isotropic sample with polarization of an electromagnetic wave along $z$, write $d_z=d\cos \theta$. Normalized spherical harmonics giveThe last equality follows from ${\sum }_{M=-J}^J{M}^2=J(J+1)(2J+1)/3$. Combining this sum with the per-substate Boltzmann distribution and subtracting stimulated emission gives relative integrated absorption areasThe common factor includes $d^2/3$ and cancels upon normalization. This formula describes integrated weak absorption in a thermal, spin-free linear rigid rotor, not arbitrary peak heights. The example's strongest integrated lines originate at $J=3$ and $J=13$ for $3$ and $30\mathrm{K}$, respectively: they differ from the most populated levels. A missing line can reflect population, coupling, coverage, or sensitivity; it does not prove that the corresponding quantum state is absent.

The spin lowering operator $S_{-}=S_x-i{S}_y$ decreases the magnetic quantum number by one and annihilates the minimal-weight state.

The spin raising operator $S_{+}=S_x+i{S}_y$ increases the magnetic quantum number by one and annihilates the maximal-weight state.

The 1922 interpretation concerned space quantization of atomic magnetic moments in the old quantum theory. The modern electron spin proposal came in 1925; the original observers did not identify intrinsic electron spin as the cause of their splitting. An orbital interpretation then seemed plausible, but the later spin explanation gives a different account of the same two-component evidence.^[ref]

Modern atomic data assign neutral silver the ground state electron configuration $[\mathrm{Kr}]4d^{10}5s$ and electronic term ${}^2{S}_{1/2}$. The filled electron shells contribute zero net electronic angular momentum; the outer unpaired electron has orbital angular momentum $L=0$, spin $S=1/2$, and electronic total angular momentum $J=1/2$. The magnetic quantum number has two values $m_J=\pm 1/2$.^[ref]

In the effective electronic description,The minus sign matters: for positive $G$, the component with $m_J=+1/2$ has negative electronic magnetic moment and deflects toward negative $z$ in our coordinates. Calling the upper spot “spin up” without specifying the magnetic field and channel calibration can therefore reverse the assignment. The total angular momentum operator here sums electronic orbital angular momentum and electronic spin; $J$ is not a claim that the atomic nucleus has no spin. Hyperfine structure and nuclear magnetic moments can require additional internal levels, so a two-channel electronic approximation must be justified for the field and resolution being used.

This is a neutral atomic beam, not a beam of free electrons. The deflected mass in the flight equations is the entire silver chemical atom; its dominant electronic magnetic moment supplies the state-dependent force. Replacing that atom by a free electron would also introduce the charged particle's Lorentz force and a different preparation problem. The ideal two-state model is useful because it isolates the connection between discrete internal components and spatially resolved outputs; it does not retroactively turn the 1922 deposit into a direct contemporary identification of intrinsic electron spin.

Use the leading nonrelativistic magnetic coupling for an electronic level with total angular momentum operator $\mathbf{J}$, and choose the $z$ axis along a uniform external magnetic field $\mathbf{B}=B\hat{\mathbf{z}}$, $B\ge 0$. Write its magnetic quantum number as $m_J$, so $J_z|J,m_J⟩=\hslash m_J|J,m_J⟩$. There are $2J+1$ possibilities from $-J$ to $J$. With Landé g-factor $g_J$, the first-order shift isHere $e>0$ is the magnitude of the electron electric charge, $m_e$ its mass, $h$ the Planck constant, and ${\mu }_B$ the Bohr magneton. Both $g_J$ and $m_J$ are dimensionless; with $B$ measured in tesla and ${\mu }_B$ in joules per tesla, $\Delta E$ is in joules. The photon frequency shift $\Delta {\nu }_{ul}$ is in hertz, not angular frequency; indices $u,l$ denote upper and lower levels. NIST states this weak-field convention and its orbital/spin assumptions explicitly.^[ref]

The sign follows directly from magnetic dipole potential energy. Within this electronic $J$ multiplet, the projected magnetic dipole moment is $\mathbf{\mu }=-g_J{\mu }_B\mathbf{J}/\hslash$. Therefore $H_Z=-\mathbf{\mu }\cdot \mathbf{B}$ has the displayed positive coefficient. Subtracting the shifts of the two levels and using photon energy $h{\nu }_{ul}=E_u-E_l$ gives the transition formula. For the orbital case, ${\mu }_B/h=e/(4\pi m_e)$ gives the same leading frequency spacing as the classical charged oscillator. This explains the historical sensitivity to charge divided by mass; the quantum state derivation here is modern.

“Weak” compares interaction energies: mixing with neighbouring fine structure levels must be small, so $J$ remains a useful quantum number. The formula keeps the term linear in $B$ and neglects quadratic shifts. It also omits hyperfine structure; if that is resolved and controls the coupling, the appropriate total electronic-plus-nuclear angular momentum and splitting factor must replace $J,g_J$. Weak compared with fine structure does not automatically mean weak compared with hyperfine structure.