Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

Lamb shift

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Effect in quantum electrodynamics
Quantum field theory
History
Scientists


Fine structure of energy levels in hydrogen – relativistic corrections to theBohr model

Inphysics, theLamb shift, named afterWillis Lamb, is an anomalous difference in energy between two electron orbitals in ahydrogen atom. The difference was not predicted by theory and it cannot be derived from theDirac equation, which predicts identical energies. Hence the Lambshift is a deviation from theory seen in the differingenergies contained by the2S1/2 and2P1/2orbitals of the hydrogen atom.

The Lamb shift is caused by interactions between thevirtual photons created throughvacuum energy fluctuations and the electron as it moves around the hydrogen nucleus in each of these two orbitals. The Lamb shift has since played a significant role through vacuum energy fluctuations in theoretical prediction ofHawking radiation fromblack holes.

Early experimental observations

[edit]

In the early 1930s, several experimental groups observed discrepancies in the fine structure of hydrogen that hinted at what would later be called the Lamb shift, though these findings were initially controversial and not widely accepted.

In 1933,William V. Houston andYu-Ming Hsieh at theCalifornia Institute of Technology conducted experiments examining the fine structure of theBalmer lines of hydrogen. They found that the measured line separations were "far too small to agree with the ordinary theory" based on the Dirac equation, with discrepancies of approximately 3%. Houston and Hsieh concluded that "the discrepancy may lie in the neglect of the radiation reaction in the calculation of the energy levels"[1] an early suggestion of what would later be understood as the self-energy correction underlying the Lamb shift. Their work was inspired by remarks fromJ. Robert Oppenheimer andNiels Bohr concerning theoretical gaps in understanding radiation field effects.[2]

Two weeks after Houston and Hsieh's publication,R. C. Gibbs andRobley Williams atCornell University published similar findings. They identified that the discrepancy was specifically associated with a shift in the2S1/2 energy level, though Gibbs was not theoretically minded and hesitated to explain the physical origin of the shift.[3]

The experimental findings generated controversy within the spectroscopy community. Some experimenters, includingFrank Spedding,C. D. Shane, and Norman Grace at Caltech, initially reported similar discrepancies but later retracted their results in 1935, citing concerns about experimental methodology and statistical analysis.[3] The small magnitude of the effect and the technical challenges of the measurements contributed to uncertainty about whether the observations were real or artifacts.

The phenomenon was theorized bySimon Pasternack in 1938,[4] who had discussed the experimental results with Houston at Caltech and reached conclusions similar to those of Gibbs and Williams regarding the2S1/2 level.[3] Thus the phenomenon became known as thePasternack effect before its experimental confirmation.[5] However, the early experimental work of Houston, Hsieh, Gibbs, and Williams received little attention for more than a decade and the theoretical implications were not fully developed at the time.[2][3] The historical significance of these early observations, particularly the pioneering work of Houston and Hsieh, was not widely recognized until historians of science reexamined the experimental record in the 1980s and later.[3][6][7][8]

This effect was precisely measured in 1947 in theLamb–Retherford experiment on the hydrogen microwave spectrum[9] and this measurement provided the stimulus forrenormalization theory to handle the divergences. The calculation of the Lamb shift byHans Bethe in 1947 revolutionizedquantum electrodynamics.[10] The effect was the harbinger of modern quantum electrodynamics later developed byJulian Schwinger,Richard Feynman,Ernst Stueckelberg,Sin-Itiro Tomonaga andFreeman Dyson. Lamb won theNobel Prize in Physics in 1955 for his discoveries related to the Lamb shift.Victor Weisskopf regretted that his insecurity about his mathematical abilities may have cost him a Nobel Prize when he did not publish results (which turned out to be correct) about what is now known as the Lamb shift.[11]

Importance

[edit]

In 1978, on Lamb's 65th birthday,Freeman Dyson addressed him as follows: "Those years, when the Lamb shift was the central theme of physics, were golden years for all the physicists of my generation. You were the first to see that this tiny shift, so elusive and hard to measure, would clarify our thinking about particles and fields."[12]

Derivation

[edit]

This heuristic derivation of the electrodynamic level shift followsTheodore A. Welton's approach.[13][14]

The fluctuations in the electric and magnetic fields associated with theQED vacuum perturbs theelectric potential due to theatomic nucleus. Thisperturbation causes a fluctuation in the position of theelectron, which explains the energy shift. The difference ofpotential energy is given by

ΔV=V(r+δr)V(r)=δrV(r)+12(δr)2V(r)+{\displaystyle \Delta V=V({\vec {r}}+\delta {\vec {r}})-V({\vec {r}})=\delta {\vec {r}}\cdot \nabla V({\vec {r}})+{\frac {1}{2}}(\delta {\vec {r}}\cdot \nabla )^{2}V({\vec {r}})+\cdots }

Since the fluctuations areisotropic,

δrvac=0,{\displaystyle \langle \delta {\vec {r}}\rangle _{\rm {vac}}=0,}
(δr)2vac=13(δr)2vac2.{\displaystyle \langle (\delta {\vec {r}}\cdot \nabla )^{2}\rangle _{\rm {vac}}={\frac {1}{3}}\langle (\delta {\vec {r}})^{2}\rangle _{\rm {vac}}\nabla ^{2}.}

So one can obtain

ΔV=16(δr)2vac2(e24πϵ0r)at.{\displaystyle \langle \Delta V\rangle ={\frac {1}{6}}\langle (\delta {\vec {r}})^{2}\rangle _{\rm {vac}}\left\langle \nabla ^{2}\left({\frac {-e^{2}}{4\pi \epsilon _{0}r}}\right)\right\rangle _{\rm {at}}.}

The classicalequation of motion for the electron displacement (δr)k induced by a single mode of the field ofwave vectork andfrequencyν is

md2dt2(δr)k=eEk,{\displaystyle m{\frac {d^{2}}{dt^{2}}}(\delta r)_{\vec {k}}=-eE_{\vec {k}},}

and this is valid only when thefrequencyν is greater thanν0 in the Bohr orbit,ν>πc/a0{\displaystyle \nu >\pi c/a_{0}}. The electron is unable to respond to the fluctuating field if the fluctuations are smaller than the natural orbital frequency in the atom.

For the field oscillating atν,

δr(t)δr(0)(eiνt+eiνt),{\displaystyle \delta r(t)\cong \delta r(0)(e^{-i\nu t}+e^{i\nu t}),}

therefore

(δr)kemc2k2Ek=emc2k2Ek(akeiνt+ikr+h.c.)withEk=(ck/2ϵ0Ω)1/2,{\displaystyle (\delta r)_{\vec {k}}\cong {\frac {e}{mc^{2}k^{2}}}E_{\vec {k}}={\frac {e}{mc^{2}k^{2}}}{\mathcal {E}}_{\vec {k}}\left(a_{\vec {k}}e^{-i\nu t+i{\vec {k}}\cdot {\vec {r}}}+h.c.\right)\qquad {\text{with}}\qquad {\mathcal {E}}_{\vec {k}}=\left({\frac {\hbar ck/2}{\epsilon _{0}\Omega }}\right)^{1/2},}

whereΩ{\displaystyle \Omega } is some large normalization volume (the volume of the hypothetical "box" containing the hydrogen atom), andh.c.{\displaystyle h.c.} denotes the hermitian conjugate of the preceding term. By the summation over allk,{\displaystyle {\vec {k}},}

(δr)2vac=k(emc2k2)20|(Ek)2|0=k(emc2k2)2(ck2ϵ0Ω)=2Ω(2π)34πdkk2(emc2k2)2(ck2ϵ0Ω)since continuity of k implies k2Ω(2π)3d3k=12ϵ0π2(e2c)(mc)2dkk{\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\langle (\delta {\vec {r}})^{2}\rangle _{\rm {vac}}&=\sum _{\vec {k}}\left({\frac {e}{mc^{2}k^{2}}}\right)^{2}\left\langle 0\left|(E_{\vec {k}})^{2}\right|0\right\rangle \\&=\sum _{\vec {k}}\left({\frac {e}{mc^{2}k^{2}}}\right)^{2}\left({\frac {\hbar ck}{2\epsilon _{0}\Omega }}\right)\\&=2{\frac {\Omega }{(2\pi )^{3}}}4\pi \int dkk^{2}\left({\frac {e}{mc^{2}k^{2}}}\right)^{2}\left({\frac {\hbar ck}{2\epsilon _{0}\Omega }}\right)&&{\text{since continuity of }}{\vec {k}}{\text{ implies }}\sum _{\vec {k}}\to 2{\frac {\Omega }{(2\pi )^{3}}}\int d^{3}k\\&={\frac {1}{2\epsilon _{0}\pi ^{2}}}\left({\frac {e^{2}}{\hbar c}}\right)\left({\frac {\hbar }{mc}}\right)^{2}\int {\frac {dk}{k}}\end{aligned}}}

This integral diverges as the wave number approaches zero or infinity. As mentioned above, this method is expected to be valid only whenν>πc/a0{\displaystyle \nu >\pi c/a_{0}}, or equivalentlyk>π/a0{\displaystyle k>\pi /a_{0}}. It is also valid only for wavelengths longer than theCompton wavelength, or equivalentlyk<mc/{\displaystyle k<mc/\hbar }. Therefore, one can choose the upper and lower limit of the integral and these limits make the result converge.

(δr)2vac12ϵ0π2(e2c)(mc)2ln4ϵ0ce2{\displaystyle \langle (\delta {\vec {r}})^{2}\rangle _{\rm {vac}}\cong {\frac {1}{2\epsilon _{0}\pi ^{2}}}\left({\frac {e^{2}}{\hbar c}}\right)\left({\frac {\hbar }{mc}}\right)^{2}\ln {\frac {4\epsilon _{0}\hbar c}{e^{2}}}}.

For theatomic orbital and theCoulomb potential,

2(e24πϵ0r)at=e24πϵ0drψ(r)2(1r)ψ(r)=e2ϵ0|ψ(0)|2,{\displaystyle \left\langle \nabla ^{2}\left({\frac {-e^{2}}{4\pi \epsilon _{0}r}}\right)\right\rangle _{\rm {at}}={\frac {-e^{2}}{4\pi \epsilon _{0}}}\int d{\vec {r}}\psi ^{*}({\vec {r}})\nabla ^{2}\left({\frac {1}{r}}\right)\psi ({\vec {r}})={\frac {e^{2}}{\epsilon _{0}}}|\psi (0)|^{2},}

since it is known that

2(1r)=4πδ(r).{\displaystyle \nabla ^{2}\left({\frac {1}{r}}\right)=-4\pi \delta ({\vec {r}}).}

Forp orbitals, the nonrelativisticwave function vanishes at the origin (at the nucleus), so there is no energy shift. But fors orbitals there is some finite value at the origin,

ψ2S(0)=1(8πa03)1/2,{\displaystyle \psi _{2S}(0)={\frac {1}{(8\pi a_{0}^{3})^{1/2}}},}

where theBohr radius is

a0=4πϵ02me2.{\displaystyle a_{0}={\frac {4\pi \epsilon _{0}\hbar ^{2}}{me^{2}}}.}

Therefore,

2(e24πϵ0r)at=e2ϵ0|ψ2S(0)|2=e28πϵ0a03{\displaystyle \left\langle \nabla ^{2}\left({\frac {-e^{2}}{4\pi \epsilon _{0}r}}\right)\right\rangle _{\rm {at}}={\frac {e^{2}}{\epsilon _{0}}}|\psi _{2S}(0)|^{2}={\frac {e^{2}}{8\pi \epsilon _{0}a_{0}^{3}}}}.

Finally, the difference of the potential energy becomes:

ΔV=43e24πϵ0e24πϵ0c(mc)218πa03ln4ϵ0ce2=α5mc216πln1πα,{\displaystyle \langle \Delta V\rangle ={\frac {4}{3}}{\frac {e^{2}}{4\pi \epsilon _{0}}}{\frac {e^{2}}{4\pi \epsilon _{0}\hbar c}}\left({\frac {\hbar }{mc}}\right)^{2}{\frac {1}{8\pi a_{0}^{3}}}\ln {\frac {4\epsilon _{0}\hbar c}{e^{2}}}=\alpha ^{5}mc^{2}{\frac {1}{6\pi }}\ln {\frac {1}{\pi \alpha }},}

whereα{\displaystyle \alpha } is thefine-structure constant. This shift is about 500 MHz, within an order of magnitude of the observed shift of 1057 MHz. This is equal to an energy of only 7.00×10−25 J (4.37×10−6 eV).

Welton's heuristic derivation of the Lamb shift is similar to, but distinct from, the calculation of theDarwin term usingZitterbewegung, a contribution to thefine structure that is of lower order inα{\displaystyle \alpha } than the Lamb shift.[15]: 80–81 

Lamb–Retherford experiment

[edit]

In 1947 Willis Lamb andRobert Retherford carried out an experiment usingmicrowave techniques to stimulate radio-frequency transitions between2S1/2 and2P1/2 levels of hydrogen.[16] By using lower frequencies than for optical transitions theDoppler broadening could be neglected (Doppler broadening is proportional to the frequency). The energy difference Lamb and Retherford found was a rise of about 1000 MHz (0.03 cm−1) of the2S1/2 level above the2P1/2 level.

This particular difference is aone-loop effect ofquantum electrodynamics, and can be interpreted as the influence of virtualphotons that have been emitted and re-absorbed by the atom. In quantum electrodynamics the electromagnetic field is quantized and, like theharmonic oscillator inquantum mechanics, its lowest state is not zero. Thus, there exist smallzero-point oscillations that cause theelectron to execute rapid oscillatory motions. The electron is "smeared out" and each radius value is changed fromr tor +δr (a small but finite perturbation).

The Coulomb potential is therefore perturbed by a small amount and the degeneracy of the two energy levels is removed. The new potential can be approximated (usingatomic units) as follows:

Epot=Ze24πϵ01r+δr.{\displaystyle \langle E_{\mathrm {pot} }\rangle =-{\frac {Ze^{2}}{4\pi \epsilon _{0}}}\left\langle {\frac {1}{r+\delta r}}\right\rangle .}

The Lamb shift itself is given by

ΔELamb=α5mec2k(n,0)4n3 for =0{\displaystyle \Delta E_{\mathrm {Lamb} }=\alpha ^{5}m_{e}c^{2}{\frac {k(n,0)}{4n^{3}}}\ \mathrm {for} \ \ell =0\,}

withk(n, 0) around 13 varying slightly withn, and

ΔELamb=α5mec214n3[k(n,)±1π(j+12)(+12)] for 0 and j=±12,{\displaystyle \Delta E_{\mathrm {Lamb} }=\alpha ^{5}m_{e}c^{2}{\frac {1}{4n^{3}}}\left[k(n,\ell )\pm {\frac {1}{\pi (j+{\frac {1}{2}})(\ell +{\frac {1}{2}})}}\right]\ \mathrm {for} \ \ell \neq 0\ \mathrm {and} \ j=\ell \pm {\frac {1}{2}},}

with log(k(n,ℓ)) a small number (approx. −0.05) makingk(n,ℓ) close to unity.

For a derivation of ΔELamb see for example:[17]

In the hydrogen spectrum

[edit]
Main article:Lyman series

In 1947,Hans Bethe was the first to explain the Lamb shift in thehydrogen spectrum, and he thus laid the foundation for the modern development ofquantum electrodynamics. Bethe was able to derive the Lamb shift by implementing the idea of mass renormalization, which allowed him to calculate the observed energy shift as the difference between the shift of a bound electron and the shift of a free electron.[18] The Lamb shift currently provides a measurement of thefine-structure constant α to better than one part in a million, allowing aprecision test of quantum electrodynamics.

His calculation of the Lamb shift has been stated to have revolutionized quantum electrodynamics and having "opened the way to the modern era ofparticle physics".[10]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^Houston, W. V.; Hsieh, Y. M. (1934-02-15)."The Fine Structure of the Balmer Lines".Physical Review.45 (4):263–272.Bibcode:1934PhRv...45..263H.doi:10.1103/PhysRev.45.263.ISSN 0031-899X.
  2. ^ab"The Measurement of the Specific Charge of an Electron".Science.79 (2038): 6. 1934-01-19.doi:10.1126/science.79.2038.6.s.ISSN 0036-8075.
  3. ^abcdeCrease, Robert P.; Mann, Charles C. (1986).The Second Creation: Makers of the Revolution in Twentieth-Century Physics. Internet Archive. MacMillan. pp. 112–117.ISBN 978-0813521770.
  4. ^Pasternack, Simon (1938-12-15)."Note on the Fine Structure of H α and D α".Physical Review.54 (12): 1113.Bibcode:1938PhRv...54.1113P.doi:10.1103/PhysRev.54.1113.ISSN 0031-899X.
  5. ^Milton, K. A.; Mehra, Jagdish (2000).Climbing the Mountain: The Scientific Biography of Julian Schwinger. Oxford University Press.ISBN 978-0-19-852745-9.
  6. ^Hu, Danian (2021-07-22), Chang, Ku-ming (Kevin); Rocke, Alan (eds.),"A Cradle of Chinese Physics Researchers: The Master of Science Program in the Physics Department of Yenching University, 1927–1941",History of Universities: Volume XXXIV/1 (1 ed.), Oxford University PressOxford, pp. 282–303,doi:10.1093/oso/9780192844774.003.0014,ISBN 978-0-19-284477-4, retrieved2025-10-01{{citation}}: CS1 maint: work parameter with ISBN (link)
  7. ^杨, 振宁; 翁, 帆 (2008-01-01).曙光集 [Dawn Collection](PDF) (in Chinese). 八方文化创作室. p. 146.doi:10.1142/g209.ISBN 9787108028365.
  8. ^Liu, Yinmei (2012)."杨振宁与中国近现代物理学史研究" [Yang Zhenning's Research on Modern and Contemporary Chinese Physics History].Academic Forum (学术论坛) (in Chinese).35 (12):105–108.ISSN 1004-4434.
  9. ^G Aruldhas (2009)."§15.15 Lamb Shift".Quantum Mechanics (2nd ed.). Prentice-Hall of India Pvt. Ltd. p. 404.ISBN 978-81-203-3635-3.
  10. ^abBrown, Gerald E.; Lee, Chang-Hwan (2006).Hans Bethe and His Physics.World Scientific Publishing. pp. 15–16,116–118, 161.ISBN 978-981-256-609-6.
  11. ^Gottfried, Kurt; Jackson, J. David."Victor Frederick Weisskopf, 1908–2002, A Biographical Memoir"(PDF). p. 16.I might even have shared the Nobel Prize with Lamb
  12. ^"Willis E. Lamb, Jr. 1913—2008"(PDF).Biographical Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences: 6. 2009.
  13. ^Marlan Orvil Scully; Muhammad Suhail Zubairy (1997).Quantum Optics. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 13–16.ISBN 0-521-43595-1.
  14. ^Welton, Theodore A. (1948-11-01)."Some Observable Effects of the Quantum-Mechanical Fluctuations of the Electromagnetic Field".Physical Review.74 (9):1157–1167.Bibcode:1948PhRv...74.1157W.doi:10.1103/PhysRev.74.1157.ISSN 0031-899X.
  15. ^Itzykson, Claude;Zuber, Jean-Bernard (2012).Quantum Field Theory. Dover Publications.ISBN 9780486134697.OCLC 868270376.
  16. ^Lamb, Willis E.; Retherford, Robert C. (1947)."Fine Structure of the Hydrogen Atom by a Microwave Method".Physical Review.72 (3):241–243.Bibcode:1947PhRv...72..241L.doi:10.1103/PhysRev.72.241.
  17. ^Bethe, H.A.; Salpeter, E.E. (2013) [1957]."c) Radiative and other corrections §21. Fine structure and the Lamb shift".Quantum Mechanics of One- and Two-Electron Atoms. Springer. p. 103.ISBN 978-3-662-12869-5.
  18. ^Bethe, H. A. (1947)."The Electromagnetic Shift of Energy Levels".Phys. Rev.72 (4):339–341.Bibcode:1947PhRv...72..339B.doi:10.1103/PhysRev.72.339.S2CID 120434909.

Further reading

[edit]

External links

[edit]
Formalism
Particles
Concepts
Processes
Theories
Models
Regular
Low dimensional
Conformal
Supersymmetric
Superconformal
Supergravity
Topological
Particle theory
Related
Elementary
Fermions
Quarks
Leptons
Bosons
Gauge
Scalar
Ghost fields
Hypothetical
Superpartners
Gauginos
Others
Others
Composite
Hadrons
Baryons
Mesons
Exotic hadrons
Others
Hypothetical
Baryons
Mesons
Others
Quasiparticles
Lists
Related
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lamb_shift&oldid=1338552908"
Categories:
Hidden categories:

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2026 Movatter.jp