![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I can not think of an instance where the Bohr magneton is called a Landé ratio. In the books I learned from, eigenvalues of the effective z-component of magnetic moment are equal to the product of the Bohr magneton, the Landé factor and the magnetic quantum number:
-- Peterlin 16:48, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The page doesn't discuss the significance of the magneton. (I unfortunately don't consider myself knowledgeable enough to add more to the page.) Anarchic Fox 06:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
In older books you'll sometimes find this represented by β rather than μB. 128.253.229.12 ( talk) 23:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Are there any scholarly references for this? / Pieter Kuiper ( talk) 20:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Removing the reference to the original article of Procopiu and inserting instead the biographical work of A Pais about Bohr (who was Bohr's assistent) is POV-atitude. A link to the original work of Bohr is useful. 86.125.160.110 ( talk) 12:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The prominence given to Procopiu in this article is still a matter of undue weight. The claims of priority are not supported by any evidence. In their study "The Genesis of the Bohr Atom" (1969), Heilbron and Kuhn wrote about this kind of expression for a magneton: "Bohr could either have produced this association himself or discovered it in the literature; it was in fact made by several people in the fall of 1911." (231-232). / Pieter Kuiper ( talk) 15:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Wholesale replacement of "Bohr magneton" by "Bohr-Procopiu magneton" is not supported by any common - or even rare - usage in English. Wikipedia does not publish original thought, so this is not the appropriate venue for renaming a fundamental constant. David C Bailey ( talk) 23:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
The Bohr magneton constant x c x Planck length = 5e-67. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seb-Gibbs ( talk • contribs) 12:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
I am new to editing the Wikipedia, so I will just post my comment here in case someone with more experience knows how to edit the text properly. My point is that I believe the definition for Bohr's magneton is wrong. It should read: \mu_{\rm B} = \frac{e \hbar}{2 m_{\rm e}}.
In other words, the current version contains an extra 2\pi in the denominator. I suppose the author intended \mu_{\rm B} = \frac{e h}{4\pi m_{\rm e}} but the h was mistyped as an h bar.
Josep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.77.74.138 ( talk) 17:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The numerical value given in ref. 1 ( https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mub) has changed from 2012 to 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayano2 ( talk • contribs) 08:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:Eric Kvaalen:
Concerning [1], Gaussian units are weird, and there is a difference between these two unit systems, which makes it important to stipulate which system is used for which equations, because the dimensions aren't preserved from one system to another. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 12:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I've been reverted by Evgeny with the comment that the orbital angular momentum of hydrogen in its ground state is zero. It isn't. As one can contemplate Heisenberg's uncertainty relation with zero angular momentum! I believe it is worthwhile including the comment that the Bohr magneton refers to the angular momentum of the electron in its ground state of the hydrogen atom. Bdushaw ( talk) 15:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
"Edit warring"??? No. You said: "You're welcome to add whatever you think is relevant to the article about the (one-century-as-obsolete) old Bohr model."??? and we discussed what the issues with your objections were. I corrected my original text per those discussions, as I said. "Spin resulting in the Bohr magneton" was not my statement, but in the previous text. I'll stand down; I am not perceiving "good faith" here - others can sort out the issues and the valid points that I've made and tried to correct. Bdushaw ( talk) 14:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I can not think of an instance where the Bohr magneton is called a Landé ratio. In the books I learned from, eigenvalues of the effective z-component of magnetic moment are equal to the product of the Bohr magneton, the Landé factor and the magnetic quantum number:
-- Peterlin 16:48, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The page doesn't discuss the significance of the magneton. (I unfortunately don't consider myself knowledgeable enough to add more to the page.) Anarchic Fox 06:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
In older books you'll sometimes find this represented by β rather than μB. 128.253.229.12 ( talk) 23:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Are there any scholarly references for this? / Pieter Kuiper ( talk) 20:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Removing the reference to the original article of Procopiu and inserting instead the biographical work of A Pais about Bohr (who was Bohr's assistent) is POV-atitude. A link to the original work of Bohr is useful. 86.125.160.110 ( talk) 12:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The prominence given to Procopiu in this article is still a matter of undue weight. The claims of priority are not supported by any evidence. In their study "The Genesis of the Bohr Atom" (1969), Heilbron and Kuhn wrote about this kind of expression for a magneton: "Bohr could either have produced this association himself or discovered it in the literature; it was in fact made by several people in the fall of 1911." (231-232). / Pieter Kuiper ( talk) 15:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Wholesale replacement of "Bohr magneton" by "Bohr-Procopiu magneton" is not supported by any common - or even rare - usage in English. Wikipedia does not publish original thought, so this is not the appropriate venue for renaming a fundamental constant. David C Bailey ( talk) 23:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
The Bohr magneton constant x c x Planck length = 5e-67. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seb-Gibbs ( talk • contribs) 12:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
I am new to editing the Wikipedia, so I will just post my comment here in case someone with more experience knows how to edit the text properly. My point is that I believe the definition for Bohr's magneton is wrong. It should read: \mu_{\rm B} = \frac{e \hbar}{2 m_{\rm e}}.
In other words, the current version contains an extra 2\pi in the denominator. I suppose the author intended \mu_{\rm B} = \frac{e h}{4\pi m_{\rm e}} but the h was mistyped as an h bar.
Josep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.77.74.138 ( talk) 17:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The numerical value given in ref. 1 ( https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mub) has changed from 2012 to 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayano2 ( talk • contribs) 08:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:Eric Kvaalen:
Concerning [1], Gaussian units are weird, and there is a difference between these two unit systems, which makes it important to stipulate which system is used for which equations, because the dimensions aren't preserved from one system to another. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 12:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I've been reverted by Evgeny with the comment that the orbital angular momentum of hydrogen in its ground state is zero. It isn't. As one can contemplate Heisenberg's uncertainty relation with zero angular momentum! I believe it is worthwhile including the comment that the Bohr magneton refers to the angular momentum of the electron in its ground state of the hydrogen atom. Bdushaw ( talk) 15:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
"Edit warring"??? No. You said: "You're welcome to add whatever you think is relevant to the article about the (one-century-as-obsolete) old Bohr model."??? and we discussed what the issues with your objections were. I corrected my original text per those discussions, as I said. "Spin resulting in the Bohr magneton" was not my statement, but in the previous text. I'll stand down; I am not perceiving "good faith" here - others can sort out the issues and the valid points that I've made and tried to correct. Bdushaw ( talk) 14:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)