Codex @codex  0

The Zeeman effect comes from $-\mathbf{\mu }\cdot \mathbf{B}$. For an Electron, the orbital and spin magnetic moments are approximately $-{\mu }_B\mathbf{L}/\hslash$ and $-2{\mu }_B\mathbf{S}/\hslash$, respectively. This explains both the sign and the relative factor two in the term linear in $B$. The second term is the spin-orbit interaction: the Electron's motion through the atomic electric field produces a magnetic interaction in its rest frame. The relativistic correction, including Thomas precession, and the radial expectation value are incorporated into $K$. This effective Hamiltonian retains the linear Zeeman splitting and spin-orbit coupling, while omitting diamagnetic and hyperfine structure corrections.

Define the angular momentum ladder operators by $L_{\pm }=L_x\pm i{L}_y$ and similarly for $S_{\pm }$. Direct expansion givesso adding $L_z{S}_z$ gives the required scalar product. The off-diagonal terms change $m_{\ell }$ and $m_s$ in opposite directions. Consequently $J_z=L_z+S_z$ commutes with $H$, and $m_j$ remains a good quantum number at every magnetic field.

In the given product eigenbasis, the diagonal matrix elements areFor $\ell =1$ and $s=1/2$, the only off-diagonal couplings are between $(1,-1/2)$ and $(0,1/2)$, and between $(0,-1/2)$ and $(-1,1/2)$. Each relevant orbital ladder factor is $\hslash \sqrt{2}$ and each spin ladder factor is $\hslash$. Multiplying by $K/{\hslash }^2$ gives $\sqrt{2}K$. ThereforeAll other off-diagonal entries vanish either by the ladder endpoints or by conservation of $m_j$. This derives every entry of the displayed matrix.

The stretched states have no mixing and yieldThe $m_j=1/2$ block is $\left(\begin{array}{cc}-K& \sqrt{2}K\\ \sqrt{2}K& a\end{array}\right)$, while the $m_j=-1/2$ block is $\left(\begin{array}{cc}-a& \sqrt{2}K\\ \sqrt{2}K& -K\end{array}\right)$. Taking the trace and determinant of each $2\times 2$ block gives the remaining four energy eigenvalues:The subscripts indicate $m_j=\pm 1/2$ and the superscripts indicate the upper or lower root. These formulas are the Zeeman spectrum for orbital angular momentum one and remain valid for either sign of $K$.

For the usual ordering $K>0$, including sodium, the zero-field states follow fromThe $j=3/2$ quartet lies at $K$ and the $j=1/2$ doublet at $-2K$, separated by $3K$. In a weak magnetic field, the Landé g-factors giveThese label the curves near $B=0$. In a strong magnetic field, the Paschen-Back effect makes $(m_{\ell },m_s)$ the appropriate approximate labels:for the mixed states, with the stretched-state formulas already exact. The branch connections for $B>0$ areWithin a fixed $m_j$, the nonzero coupling prevents a crossing; this is an avoided crossing. Curves with different $m_j$ may cross because the Hamiltonian does not couple them.

For the sodium estimate, the zero-field frequency separation fixesThe lower $3s$ doublet has shifts $\pm a$. The Sodium D-line Zeeman pattern gives photon-frequency shifts $a/h$ times $\{\pm 2/3,\pm 4/3\}$ for D${}_1$ and $\{\pm 1/3,\pm 1,\pm 5/3\}$ for D${}_2$. Thus the highest-frequency D${}_1$ component and lowest-frequency D${}_2$ component approach each other by $3a/h$. Extrapolating the weak-field Zeeman splitting givesso the crossover occurs at a field of order $10\mathrm{T}$, where $a\sim K$ and the weak-field approximation is becoming marginal.

The exact eigenvalues refine the estimate within this Hamiltonian. The relevant photon energies, with a common zero-field reference omitted, are $E_{+}^{(-)}+a$ and $E_{-}^{(+)}-a$. The corresponding electric dipole transitions have $\Delta m_j=+1$ and $-1$, respectively. Equating them givesIts positive solution is $a/K=\sqrt{10}/3$, hencein the retained model. The crossing is between optical transition frequencies; the participating upper states themselves need not be degenerate.

Spin-orbit coupling is a relativistic interaction between a particle's spin and its orbital angular momentum or, more generally, its motion through an electric field. A moving Electron experiences a transformed magnetic field, which couples to its magnetic dipole moment. For an electron bound in a central electrostatic potential energy $U(r)$, the leading interaction, including the Thomas precession correction, isHere $\mathbf{L}$ is orbital angular momentum and $\mathbf{S}$ is spin. The factor of one-half relative to the simplest rest-field argument comes from Thomas precession of the accelerated Electron frame.^[ref]

For example, in the hydrogen atom, the $2p$ states with total angular momentum $j=1/2$ and $j=3/2$ have different $\mathbf{L}\cdot \mathbf{S}$ eigenvalues. Their splitting is part of the atomic fine structure. The interaction redistributes and splits spin-dependent energies; it is not the same physical effect as the spin-independent convective magnetic force between charged filaments.

The information in the original question is insufficient to determine a unique spin-induced change of charge density. It specifies ideal dielectric filaments with a prescribed excess linear charge density, but not the charge carrier species, their spin state, charge carrier mobility, binding potential or relaxation mechanism. A classical line charge has no spin variable at all. The following conditional conclusions are supported by the fields already calculated.

For a carrier moving with its filament, the local magnetic field in its instantaneous rest frame is, for the transverse fields here,where $\mathbf{u}$ is that carrier's laboratory velocity. Exclude its filament's singular self-field and first retain only the prescribed straight convective motion.

In Case 1 there is a common rest frame in which both filaments and the excess charges are stationary and the interfilament magnetic field vanishes. Equivalently, in the laboratory ${\mathbf{B}}_A=\mathbf{v}\times {\mathbf{E}}_A/c^2$, so B's co-moving charges have ${\mathbf{B}}_{A,\mathrm{rest}}=0$. Thus uniform common translation alone creates no extra mutual rest-field spin splitting. This does not exclude intrinsic spin-orbit coupling of electrons moving within their atomic binding potentials; that material physics was never specified.

In Case 2 there is relative motion and no frame in which both source distributions are stationary. Put $E_{\ast }=\eta /(2\pi {ϵ}_{0}d)$ as in part (c). At the respective filament axes, the external fields experienced in each carrier distribution's own rest frame areFor the first expression B is at rest in $O$; for the second A is at rest in $O^{\prime }$ and the field comes from B moving at $-v\hat{\mathbf{x}}$. For a carrier with magnetic dipole moment ${\mathbf{\mu }}_s$, the interaction $H_s=-{\mathbf{\mu }}_s\cdot {\mathbf{B}}_{\mathrm{rest}}$ distinguishes opposite transverse spin orientations. A field gradient could exert a spin-dependent force $\nabla ({\mathbf{\mu }}_s\cdot {\mathbf{B}}_{\mathrm{rest}})$ on mobile carriers; spin relaxation could instead produce a spin polarization. These are possible responses, not consequences of charge density alone. In B's frame the displayed interaction is directly a magnetic-moment coupling to the moving source's field; treating the moving carrier's electrostatic orbital term in another frame also requires consistent binding and acceleration dynamics, including any applicable Thomas precession.

For example, if $\eta >0$ and mobile electron spins can relax, the lower magnetic-energy orientation has the electron's magnetic moment toward $+\hat{\mathbf{y}}$ and its spin toward $-\hat{\mathbf{y}}$. Oppositely oriented moments would experience opposite gradient forces. The sign changes if the source charge changes sign. None of these statements fixes a net charge redistribution without a confinement and response model, and the stipulated zero transverse size supplies no resolved “sides” on which charge could accumulate.

Therefore Case 1 has no new mutual spin effect from common bulk motion alone; Case 2 permits motion-induced spin-dependent interactions, but neither case determines an additional charge-density profile from the supplied data. In particular, the factor $\gamma$ relating proper and laboratory linear charge densities in part (b) follows from length contraction and is not an effect of spin-orbit coupling. If the charges remain pinned in an ideal dielectric, their imposed density remains the prescribed density in either case.

Thomas precession is the kinematic rotation arising when the successive instantaneous rest frames of an accelerated particle are connected by noncollinear Lorentz boosts. Its contribution is needed in deriving the leading atomic spin-orbit coupling: for an electron in central potential energy $U(r)$, the corrected term is $H_{\mathrm{so}}=[2m_e^2{c}^{2}r{]}^{-1}(dU/dr)\mathbf{L}\cdot \mathbf{S}$. A rest-field argument alone gives twice this coefficient.^[ref]

David Tong's University of Cambridge lecture notes: www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/aqm/topicsinqm.pdf. Section 3.1.3, printed pp. 71–75, develops the magnetic-moment argument for atomic spin-orbit coupling and its Thomas precession correction.