0 Up votes0 Down votes

7 views5 pagesfiz

Aug 31, 2017

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

fiz

© All Rights Reserved

7 views

fiz

© All Rights Reserved

- Chaos: Making a New Science
- The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics
- Why Science Does Not Disprove God
- Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman
- The Making of the Atomic Bomb
- The Universe in a Nutshell
- The Order of Time
- A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing
- The Physics of Everyday Things: The Extraordinary Science Behind an Ordinary Day
- University Physics
- The Edge of Physics: A Journey to Earth's Extremes to Unlock the Secrets of the Universe
- The Nature of Space and Time
- This Is Gonna Hurt: Music, Photography, and Life Through the Distorted Lens of Nikki Sixx
- The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality
- Gravitation
- Polar Shift
- Timecaster Supersymmetry
- Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos
- Greatest Secret of All
- QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter

You are on page 1of 5

A. L. Kholmetskii

Department of Physics, Belarus State University, 4 Nezavisimosti Avenue, 220030 Minsk, Belarus and Okan

University, Akfirat 34959, Istanbul, Turkey

O. V. Missevitch

Institute for Nuclear Problems, Belarus State University, 11 Bobruiskaya Street, 220030 Minsk, Belarus

T. Yarman

Department of Engineering, Okan University, Akfirat, Istanbul, Turkey and Savronik, Organize

Sanayi 26100, Eskisehir, Turkey

Received 11 September 2009; accepted 3 December 2009

We reanalyze the usual classical derivation of spin-orbit coupling in hydrogenlike atoms. We point

out the presence of an additional force exerted on a spinning electron due to the appearance of its

electric dipole moment in the rest frame of the nucleus. This force has been ignored, although its

inclusion in the electrons equation of motion influences the energy level of an orbiting electron on

an equal footing with other effects in the usual analysis of spin-orbit coupling. A fortuitous

cancellation between two terms leaves the overall energy level unaffected, which explains in part

why this effect has been overlooked. An account of this effect in the Bohr model produces the usual

expression for the spin-orbit coupling but with different radii of the electrons orbit for different

spatial orientations of the electrons spin. This result is in qualitative agreement with the solution of

the DiracCoulomb equation for hydrogenlike atoms. 2010 American Association of Physics Teachers.

DOI: 10.1119/1.3277052

motion of a particle with spin. An unambiguous solution of

The classical analysis of spin-orbit coupling in hydrogen- this equation of motion is obtained with a constraint given by

like atoms by Thomas1 played an important role in support- the second Bohr postulate. This solution shows that the cor-

ing the hypothesis of electron spin as advanced by Uhlen- rections to the energy of spin-orbit interaction, although sig-

beck and Goudsmit2 in 1925. The latter successfully nificant in magnitude, cancel fortuitously. This cancellation

explained the multiplet structure of atom spectra and the yields the standard expression for the spin-orbit coupling but

anomalous Zeeman effect based on an assumption about the also gives a correction to the radius of the electrons orbit for

different spatial orientations of the electrons spin see Sec.

proper magnetic moment of the electron, which is associated

III. This result is in qualitative agreement with the solution

with the self-rotational motion of the electron spin. How-

of the DiracCoulomb equation for hydrogenlike atoms, for

ever, their prediction of a spin-orbit coupling in the hydrogen which the radial part of the wave function depends on the

atom was twice the measured value. This discrepancy was spin projection.

removed by Thomas1 in 1926 by applying a classical relativ-

istic approach. He pointed out that successive Lorentz trans-

formations with noncollinear relative velocities entail an ad- II. CLASSICAL APPROACH TO SPIN-ORBIT

ditional spatial rotation of the coordinate axes of the INTERACTION

reference frames involved. In this way he showed that the

doublet separation due to spin-orbit coupling is half the value In this section we present the common classical approach

derived by Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit2 see Sec. II. Later the for deriving the energy of spin-orbit coupling following

problem of spin-orbit interaction was solved by the relativ- Refs. 1 and 9 and their presentation in modern form10,11 and

istic quantum electron theory of Dirac.3 Nonetheless, it is indicate the missing points in this analysis.

comforting that this effect has a classical explanation espe- In Refs. 1 and 9 the spin-orbit coupling was understood as

cially because the account of Thomas precession in the spin- a perturbation to the energy of hydrogenlike atoms, and the

orbit coupling of the hydrogen atom is often considered a validity of the second Bohr postulate was tacitly implied.

confirmation of special relativity,4,5 which is still of current The Bohr model assumes that the electron orbits the nucleus,

interest see Ref. 6 and references therein and Ref. 7. which is at rest in the laboratory frame K. In this frame the

However, there remain some missing points in the classi- equation of motion for the electron with rest mass m and

cal treatment of spin-orbit interaction. In particular, the ap- charge e is

plication of the equation of motion for a spinless particle d Ze2r

commonly adopted in such an analysis is incomplete because mv = 3 , 1

dt r

the corrections to the energy of the electron have the same

order of magnitude as the spin-orbit splitting. Such a situa- where v is the velocity of the electron, and Ze is the charge

tion has a historical explanation: The classical electrodynam- of the nucleus. Equation 1 yields the well known result

ics treatment of the motion of polarized particles in a non-

mv2 = Ze2/r, 2

homogeneous electromagnetic field had been completed only

in the 1960s.8 from which we can determine the total energy of the system,

428 Am. J. Phys. 78 4, April 2010 http://aapt.org/ajp 2010 American Association of Physics Teachers 428

mv2 Ze2 Ze2 Ke. In the nucleus rest frame laboratory frame K, Thomas

U= = . 3 found that the precession frequency is half of e. To deter-

2 r 2r

mine this result, Thomas used the definition of the angular

The radius of the electrons orbit can be found by the addi- rotation frequency

tion of the second Bohr postulate to the purely classical treat-

ment, t + dt t d

= = 12

dt dt

r = n/mv , 4

where n in the principal quantum number and is Plancks is the rotation angle and pointed out that the electron in

constant. We combine Eqs. 3 and 4 and obtain the hydrogen atom experiences an acceleration and its veloc-

ity varies with time. We can still apply special relativity by

U = Ze2/2rn , 5 introducing a set of instantaneously comoving Lorentz

where rn = n2rB and rB = 2 / mZe2 is the Bohr radius. Equation frames of the electron Ke. Thomas noted that the angles t

5 is well known and determines the gross structure of the and t + dt are measured in different Lorentz frames Ket

energy levels for hydrogenic atoms. and Ket + dt, moving with a relative velocity in the radial

In the usual classical treatment of spin-orbit coupling, its direction. Because successive Lorentz transformations

contribution is considered as a perturbation to the energy in K Ket Ket + dt with noncollinear relative velocities

Eq. 5, with the radius of the electrons orbit fixed. Follow- involve additional spatial rotations of the coordinate axes of

ing this approach, Thomas suggested writing the energy Us-o Ket + dt with respect to the axes of K, the coordinate axes of

of the spin-orbit coupling as the sum the rest frame of the electron rotate about the axes of the

Us-o = U p + UT , 6 laboratory frame K at the angular frequency1

T = v v, 13

moment of the electron in an electromagnetic field. The term 2c2

UT was first found by Thomas and emerges due to the slow

precession of the electrons spin Thomas precession. We which is the Thomas precession frequency.

emphasize that both energy terms in Eq. 6 must be evalu- This approximate equation is valid within the accuracy of

ated in the same reference frame. Thomas started the analysis the calculations, c2. We add that many publications give

in the electron rest frame Ke, wherein the apparent circular different expressions for the frequency of Thomas preces-

motion of the nucleus induces the magnetic field sion. In particular, a recent review6 presented ten expressions

for T. The problem partially issues from the fact that vari-

E v Ze ous authors use different inertial frames of observation ei-

B= = 2 3 r v 7

c2 cr ther the frame comoving with the rotating particle or the

laboratory frame but do not indicate explicitly the frame

at the location of the electron to accuracy c2, where c is the chosen. In addition, we should be alert to the correct succes-

velocity of light in vacuum. We combine Eqs. 1 and 7 sion of transformations between different Lorentz frames be-

and obtain cause Lorentz transformations are not commutative. To avoid

B=

1 d

ec dt

mv v . 8

these problems, which fall outside of the scope of this paper,

we restrict ourselves our calculations to the order v / c2 for

which all agree with the value of T in Eq. 13.

In agreement with the existence of the electrons spin s, the By analogy with Eqs. 10 and 11, the energy associated

magnetic moment of the electron takes the form with the precession of the electrons spin is

ge e B

= s = s, 9 UT = . 14

2m m 2

where we have set the g-factor equal to 2 and neglected the The energy of spin-orbit coupling becomes see Eqs. 6,

small anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. Thus, in 10, and 14

the proper electron frame, the additional potential energy is

equal to B

Us-o = U p + UT = , 15

U p = B, 10 2

which causes the Larmor precession of the electrons mag- which agrees with experimental observations.

netic moment with angular frequency The meaning of Eq. 14 is clearer when we transform it to

the form6,9

eB 1

e = = v v. 11

mc c2 UT = s T 16

The subscript e indicates that this angular frequency is mea- using Eqs. 7, 9, and 13. Equation 16 describes the

sured in the electron rest frame. change of kinetic energy of gyroscope s due to precession of

Note that the energy of spin-orbit interaction calculated its axis with the angular frequency T.

with frequency 11 is twice the measured value. This con- Soon after Thomas,1 Frenkel9 suggested another classical

tradiction was removed by Thomas,1 who emphasized that approach to the derivation of spin-orbit coupling, where both

the frequency in Eq. 11 does not determine the measured terms on the right-hand side of Eq. 6 are evaluated in the

energy, because it was defined in the electrons proper frame laboratory frame K. He pointed out that due to the relativistic

429 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 78, No. 4, April 2010 Kholmetskii, Missevitch, and Yarman 429

polarization of a moving electron in the laboratory reference However, there is another inconsistency in the analysis by

frame, it acquires the electric dipole moment9 Thomas and Frenkel, which cannot be ignored a priori. This

inconsistency appears in the definition of the energy of spin-

v orbit coupling Us-o. Equation 6 is incomplete because it

p= . 17

c2 lacks an energy term, with the same order of magnitude as

U p and UT. Such a term derives from the relativistic polar-

Equation 17 follows from the transformation of the ization of the moving electron in the laboratory reference

polarization-magnetization tensor1113 and implies that a par- frame Eq. 17, which implies the appearance of an addi-

ticle with the proper magnetic moment exhibits the electric tional force p E on the orbiting electron. This force has

dipole moment p in the frame of observation in which it to be included in Eq. 1. The modified equation of motion

moves at the velocity v. requires the sum of kinetic and potential energy of the orbit-

The additional potential energy of an electron in the elec- ing electron U to be shifted by a value U in comparison

tric field E of the stationary nucleus becomes with energy 5 derived from Eq. 1,

U p = p E, 18 U = U U, 24

as evaluated in the laboratory frame. From Eq. 17 we ob- where U depends on p. Thus the correct definition of the

tain total energy of spin-orbit coupling is

Us-o = U p + UT + Up. 25

v Ev

Up = E= , 19

c 2

c2 Each of the energy terms on the right-hand side of Eq. 25

should be evaluated in the same Lorentz frame. To determine

where we have used the vector identity a b c Up it is convenient to choose the laboratory frame of

= c a b. We see via Eq. 7 that to the order v / c2, Eqs. reference; U p and UT have already been found in forms 19

10 and 18 for U p are equivalent. If we combine Eqs. 9 and 22, respectively.

and 19, we further find that

e

Up = E v s. 20 III. SPIN-ORBIT COUPLING WITH THE EQUATION

mc2

OF MOTION FOR A POLARIZED PARTICLE

We again need to take into account the change of rota-

tional kinetic energy of the electron UT due to the Thomas We determine the energy Up with the modified equa-

precession given by Eq. 16. It is convenient to present it in tion of motion of the electron

the form

d Ze2r Zer

mv = 3 + p 3 26

1 dt r r

UT = s v v, 21

2c2 in the rest frame of the nucleus laboratory frame. In Eq.

where we have used Eq. 13. In the laboratory frame the 26 we have used the electron rest mass m for simplicity. We

acceleration of the electron is determined by its Coulomb can show that the substitution m m in Eq. 26 makes the

attraction to the nucleus, and v = eE / m. The substitution of analysis more complicated but does not change the spin-orbit

this value into Eq. 21 yields splitting to the order v / c2. This result is consistent with the

solution of the DiracCoulomb equation, where the presence

e of the factor in the relativistic momentum of the electron

UT = v E s. 22 produces a relativistic shift of the energy levels without in-

2mc2

fluencing the spin-orbit splitting.14

If we substitute the U p from Eq. 20 and UT from Eq. 22 The vector p is orthogonal to v see Eq. 17 and the

into Eq. 6, we obtain second term on the right-hand side of Eq. 26 is a maximum

when p is in the radial direction, that is, p = pr / r with either

e positive or negative value of p. This behavior implies that the

Us-o = U p + UT = v E s. 23 spin s is orthogonal to the rotation plane. Hence

2mc2

p Zer / r3 = 2p Er / r2 = 2pZer / r4, and Eq. 26

By applying Eqs. 7 and 9, we can check that Eqs. 15 becomes

and 23 for the spin-orbit coupling are identical, as they

should be from the relativistic viewpoint. d Ze2r 2pZer

mv = 3 . 27

Both ways of deriving Us-o suggested by Thomas1 and dt r r4

Frenkel9 are given in most textbooks. However, there are

Equation 27 defines the circular motion of an electron

some missing points in the calculations that have not been

around the nucleus, which yields

discussed. In particular, we mention that the nonrelativistic

equation of motion, Eq. 1, continues to be applied in the Ze2 2pZe

analysis of spin-orbit splitting, which involves the relativistic mv2 = + 2 . 28

r r

effect Thomas precession. This logical inconsistency is not

usually mentioned because the replacement of the rest mass Therefore, the sum of the kinetic energy of the orbiting elec-

of electron m by m being the Lorentz factor does not tron and the Coulomb potential energy of the electron plus

affect the value of spin-orbit splitting to the order v / c2. the nucleus becomes

430 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 78, No. 4, April 2010 Kholmetskii, Missevitch, and Yarman 430

mv2 Ze2 Ze2 pZe that the relative change of the radius of the electron orbit for

U = = + 2 . 29 different signs of s is proportional to Z2. This change

2 r 2r r

agrees qualitatively with the solution of the DiracCoulomb

According to definition 24 for Up, the latter is equal equation, which shows that the value of the maximum of the

to radial part of the wave function is sensitive to the electrons

spin through the quantum number of the total angular mo-

Ze2 Ze2 pZe

Up = U U = + 2 , 30 mentum j, and the relative variation of this value has the

2rn 2r r order of magnitude Z2 see, for example, Ref. 14.

where we have used Eq. 5.

Further unambiguous determination of Up is impos-

sible within a purely classical approach because there are IV. CONCLUSION

two vector variables v and r for the single vector equation of

motion 26. Thus we are free, for example, to set r = rn with- We have summarized the approaches to the classical deri-

out violating Eq. 26. Alternatively, we can equate the or- vation of the spin-orbit coupling in hydrogenic atoms sug-

bital velocities v in Eqs. 1 and 26. We can easily check gested by Thomas1 and Frenkel9 and showed that both ap-

that both these choices yield the energy of spin-orbit cou- proaches systematically ignore the additional force acting

pling in disagreement with Eq. 23 and with experiment. between the electron and nucleus due to the relativistic po-

To remove this ambiguity we adopt the second Bohr pos- larization of the orbiting electron. This force causes the ap-

tulate for the allowed stationary orbits of the electron. Hence, pearance of the additional energy term Up in Eq. 25 for

the variables r and v in Eq. 26 obey constraint 4. If we the energy of spin-orbit coupling. The value of Up cannot

combine the expression for the modified kinetic energy of be determined unambiguously within a purely classical ap-

the electron, Eq. 28, with Eq. 4, we obtain a new set of proach. The additional constraint given by the second Bohr

stationary electron orbit radii, postulate yields the equality Up = 0 and recovers the usual

expression 23 for the spin-orbit coupling at least to the

r = n2rB 2p/e. 31

order v / c2. The vanishing of Up occurs due to the

We substitute this equality into Eq. 30 and find proper variation of the radius of the electrons orbit as a

function of the spatial orientation of s see Eq. 36. This

Ze2 Ze2 pZe

Up = + 2 . 32 result agrees qualitatively with the solution of the Dirac

2n rB 2n rB1 2p/en rB

2 2 2

r Coulomb equation, where the positions of the maximum of

To the order v / c2 we have the radial part of the electrons wave function differ from

each other for different values of the quantum number j and

Ze2 Ze2 2p the relative variation of the position of the maximum has the

= 2 1+ 2 same order of magnitude Z2, as in the semiclassical ex-

2n rB1 2p/en rB 2n rB

2 2

en rB

pression 36. Such an extension of a Bohr atom model can

Ze2 pZe also serve as a semiclassical explanation of the Pauli prin-

= + 2 2 33

2n rB n rB

2 ciple: Two electrons with different orientations of spin oc-

cupy two different suborbits.

and

pZe pZe

= 4 2. 34

r2 n rB ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Hence we obtain the additional energy The authors thank an anonymous referee for his/her re-

marks, which were very helpful for improving this paper.

Up = 0 35

to the order v / c2. We can show that Eq. 35, which was 1

L. H. Thomas, The motion of the spinning electron, Nature London

derived for the radial orientation of the electric dipole mo- 117, 514 1926.

2

ment p, holds for any other spatial orientation. G. E. Uhlenbeck and S. Goudsmit, Spinning electrons and the structure

If we proceed from equality 35 and the old Eq. 6 or the 3

of spectra, Nature London 117, 264265 1926.

new Eq. 25, we find identical results for the energy of P. A. M. Dirac, The quantum theory of the electron, Proc. R. Soc.

London, Ser. A 117, 610624 1928.

spin-orbit coupling. However, the vanishing of Up occurs 4

A. Sommerfeld, Wave-Mechanics: Supplementary Volume to Atomic

only at values of the radii of the stationary electron orbits in Structure and Spectral Lines, translated by N. L. Brose Dutton, New

Eq. 31, which are different for two opposite spatial orien- York, 1929 Atombau und Spektrallinien Vieweg, Braunschweing,

tations of electron spin, determined by either the positive or 1929.

5

negative value of p. C. Mller, Theory of Relativity Clarendon, Oxford, 1972.

6

We can express the radius of the stationary orbit through G. B. Malykin, Thomas precession: Correct and incorrect solutions,

Phys. Usp. 49, 837853 2006.

the projection of the electrons spin s on the rotational axis. 7

J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd ed. Wiley, New York,

From Eqs. 4, 9, and 17 we obtain 1998.

8

s Z2 R. H. Good, Jr. Classical equations of motion for a polarized particle in

r = n 2r B 1 , 36 an electromagnetic field, Phys. Rev. 125, 21122115 1962.

n3 9

J. Frenkel, Die Elektrodynamik des Rotierenden Elektrons, Z. Phys.

37, 243262 1926.

where the sign indicates the corresponding projection of 10

L. Belloni and C. Reina, Sommerfelds way to the Thomas precession,

s and is the fine structure constant. Equation 36 shows Eur. J. Phys. 7, 5561 1986.

431 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 78, No. 4, April 2010 Kholmetskii, Missevitch, and Yarman 431

11 13

G. P. Fisher, The electric dipole moment of a moving magnetic dipole, W. G. V. Rosser, An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity Butter-

Am. J. Phys. 39, 15281533 1971. worths, London, 1964.

12 14

W. K. H. Panofskii and M. Phillips, Classical Electricity and Magnetism, V. B. Berestetskii, E. M. Lifshits, and L. P. Pitaevskii, Quantum Electro-

2nd ed. Wiley, New York, 1962. dynamics, 2nd ed. Pergamon, Oxford, 1982.

Capillary Rise Demonstrator. The vertical rise of a liquid in a narrow glass tube is inversely proportional to the

diameter of the tube. This apparatus has capillary tubes with internal diameters ranging from 0.5 mm to 3 mm. It was

in the Welch Scientific Company catalogue as early as 1922. In 1928 its price was $2.00; five years later, during the

Great Depression, the price had fallen to $1.50. In a recent end-of-the-year demonstration lecture I used a video

system to make the device, which has tubes only 11 cm high, large enough for a big audience to see the effect. Shadow

projection, using a bright point source, ought to work well. Photograph and Notes by Thomas B. Greenslade, Jr.,

Kenyon College

432 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 78, No. 4, April 2010 Kholmetskii, Missevitch, and Yarman 432

- Spin Hall EffectUploaded bySantak Kumar Mohanty
- PhysicsUploaded byJohn Paul Rodriguez
- PhysicsUploaded byJames Mc Hugh
- Detecting Spin-Polarized Currents in Ballistic NanostructuresUploaded byachintjain
- Week 1 - Charge, Conductors, Insulators, And InductionUploaded byHeloel Hernández
- Penelope 2008Uploaded byAnonymous faRVVGN
- 09_SpintronicsUploaded bySaurabh Kumar Pandey
- National Science Foundation: ar 1971 sec2Uploaded byNSF
- Does conscious creates our realityUploaded byAnirban Banerjee
- Sucess Study CircleUploaded byAshok Pradhan
- elementaryparticles-120216212203-phpapp01.pdfUploaded byFabrizioCortés
- PhysRevA.83.023613Uploaded bygenhyin
- Phys8B Fall2016 Lec1 Final CbUploaded byMeg Majumder
- Calculation Algorithms TPSUploaded byFrancisco Hernandez
- Allargentum Mineral Data1Uploaded byBlacksacerdote
- Chemistry in Atomic theoriesUploaded byHedrei Anne Castroverde
- Proposal for Long Range EVO ProgramUploaded byduplolaser
- Mathematical Methods for PhysicistsUploaded byMuhammad HasSan
- II 3 MagnetronUploaded byNicolae Coman
- 9781441981813-c1.pdfUploaded byJack Liu
- Moray SecretUploaded byOvidiu Fratu
- Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation of the generalized Dirac Hamiltonian in a gravitational-wave backgroundUploaded byJamesQuach
- Experimental Evidence for Quantum MechanicsUploaded byAnonymous tp9Xatf3U
- Microscopy and Micro Analysis 11 764 2005Uploaded byAna Violeta Girão
- Module 2 Part 66Uploaded byadi
- Causes of Color scientificamerican1080-124.pdfUploaded byTommy Chente Martinez
- Type of BondsUploaded bynabilla
- Magnetricity and MonopolesUploaded byj_rooke
- Introduction to QMUploaded byRafael Lopes de Sa
- magneticUploaded bynallimini

- Amath101-1Uploaded bydanhem
- b 4 Exemplary SolutionUploaded bydanhem
- Problem Set bUploaded bydanhem
- Themelis5Uploaded bysundari_murali
- lecture4.1Uploaded byRoshan Shrestha
- Lecture 15Uploaded bydanhem
- Lecture 14Uploaded bydanhem
- 313_E_book2.pdfUploaded bydanhem
- 3parcvjezbeUploaded bydanhem
- DodatakPovrsiJednacine.pdfUploaded bydanhem
- DodatakTaylor.pdfUploaded bydanhem
- Class Bfs 12090325531508Uploaded bydanhem
- Class Bfs 12090317477656Uploaded bydanhem
- Calculus II - Sequences and SeriesUploaded byZeljko theFluxmeister Stevanovic

- AtomicUploaded byJanith
- NotingsUploaded bySmiling Person
- Atkins CH13 Atomic StructureUploaded byAdarsh Ramesh
- quantum mechanicsUploaded byrandima fernando
- CHE10047 - Electrons in AtomsUploaded byAndreas Neophytou
- AtomicStrucure_2Uploaded byMohit Vijayvergiya
- BS 5th + MSC 1stUploaded byJamil
- Chemistry Problem Set 2Uploaded byhydrazine23
- Perturbation TheoryUploaded byAlanPrice
- 2017 Atomic PhysicsUploaded byFranco Krog
- Elementary Quantum Physics 20160926Uploaded byAruna Kumarasiri
- Aaa a New Type of Quantum Interferometer for GravitationalUploaded byJorge Alberto Venzor Valdivia
- 591-Notes-v2_19Uploaded byMichael Fralaide
- PKB IIT JEE 2010 Chemistry Paper 2 n solutionUploaded byPawan Babel
- 28 - Helium and Helium-like Atoms.pdfUploaded byUltrazord
- Atomic StructureUploaded byNishan Agarwal
- Visscher 1Uploaded bypepitoman212
- CH2422 KariukiUploaded byJohn
- Química Cuántica 7 edición.pdfUploaded byCarlos Giraldo
- Sample Chapter 5Uploaded byanuragworld
- Hydrogenic OrbitalsUploaded byRohan Rao
- m215Uploaded byEpic Win
- Harvard Chem 106 Lecture 1Uploaded bymkoutroulis
- olympiad.docxUploaded byRajeev Gangwar
- PHYS 212.pdfUploaded byAnonymous Okqd3jK
- Exact analytical solutions for shallow impurity states in symmetrical paraboloidal and hemiparaboloidal quantum dotsUploaded byhhakim32
- (the M.I.T. Introductory Physics Series) Anthony Philip French Edwin F.taylor-An Introduction to Quantum Physics-W. W. Norton & Company (1978)Uploaded byLuisSanabria
- Qp HydrogenUploaded byOzan Yakar
- IIT Class XI Chem Structure of AtomsUploaded byVinay Kewalramani
- Chemistry PG 2015 Admn On05sept2015Uploaded byZiyad

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.