Talk:Electron magnetic moment

message: I'm by no means an expert, but according to my class notes,
\vec{\mu}_L=-\frac{e}{2m_e}\hat{\vec{L}}=-\frac{\mu_b}{\hbar}\sqrt{l(l+1)}.
Can someone take a look at this? Confuted —Preceding undated comment added 02:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:    Just for the record protection of innocent bystanders, i mention that " confuted" would accurately describe an editor who realizes that their own idea has been proven wrong, while "Confused" might reasonably be a pseudonym chosen by a person presenting a question to an advice columnist whose work is published by a periodical. (But "Confuted" might instead be considered a riddling pseudonym of an admirer of Kung Fu-tse!)--Jerzy•t 03:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

text: That's the moment due to the orbital angular momentum. The electron also has an intrinsic moment, due to its spin. linas 02:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This is indeed incorrect and should be changed, but I would prefer to leave the job to somebody else who knows better than me. I'd just like to note that there is a similar inaccuracy in the last sentence of Bohr magneton. Yongrenjie (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I see written " the electron is a spin one-half particle: " quoting the magnitude of S (large S denotes electron spin) to be hbar/2.  
I think this should be sqrt(s*(s+1))hbar = 
|\vec{S}| = S = \sqrt{s(s+1)}\hbar = \sqrt{\frac{1}{2} \frac{3}{2}}\hbar where small s is the spin quantum number = 1/2.
(Mark, 2011-11-21)
I have same idea. Value in the text (hbar/2) is just for z-component of spin vector. Someone mishmashed two thinks together. The last two formulas are wrong. total (spin) mag. moment = g-factor * bohr_magnetron * sqrt(3/4). z-component = g-factor * bohr_magnetron /2 =approx.= bohr_magnetron  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.60.126 (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is indeed incorrect and should be changed, but I would prefer to leave the job to somebody else who knows better than me. I'd just like to note that there is a similar inaccuracy in the last sentence of Bohr magneton. Yongrenjie (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar Question 

message: About two thirds of the way down the page is the sentence "Where gs = 2 in Dirac mechanics, but is slightly larger due to Quantum Electrodynamic effects and where B is the magnetic field, μB is the Bohr magneton." which pertains to the equation immediately before it. B doesn't appear in this equation, whereas s (I presume spin) does. Does the fact that gs is about two and s is a half mean that prior to the advent of QED and the deviation of gs from 2 the magnetic moment of the electron was the Bohr magneton?--Chris 21:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another question

message: This article incorrectly states that the g-factor and the gyromagnetic ratio are one and the same. This is not correct. The g-factor is dimensionless, while the gyromagnetic ratio is not. 131.162.134.11 17:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Correction needs to be made

message: :It would be nice if the article would consider more than a single electron e.g. by briefly discussing atoms/ions with more than one unpaired electron, because the article would then make more sense for people who are interested in articles like Curie constant, paramagnetism etc.
Jcwf (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Relation to magnetism

message: Dear Editor, Would you please write down the actual magnetic energy due to electron spin? In addition, please write down the predicted magnetic energy due to electron spin based on classical mechanics. And, would you please give me some references about how classical mechanics derives magnetic energy for electron spin? Thank you very much.
Sincerely, Wanchung  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanchung Hu (talk • contribs) 09:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about electron spin energy

message: The value given for the spin g-factor in this article (2.00231930419922) differs from that shown in the article on the g-factor  (−2.0023193043622).  Why the difference?  Also, the NIST references yield a blank page. Parveson (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Numerical discrepancy

message: See here, thanks. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 10:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  new section on Pauli + dirac theories 

message: Just as a point of consistency, I've noticed that the title of this article seems to be
inconsistent with the title for neutron magnetic moment, proton magnetic moment.  I don't
think I know enough about the nuances to have a strong opinion as to whether anything should
be changed, but it seems inconsistent.  Should this article be retitled "Electron magnetic moment"?  Or the other articles changed (which I'd oppose...)?  Presumably the issue is just one of short hand/common usage, with
"magnetic dipole moment" being formally correct, but shortened over time to just "magnetic moment".  (Which likely risks possible confusion with quadrupole moments at some point.) Bdushaw (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support the name change to Electron magnetic moment.  Anomalous magnetic dipole moment could similarly drop the "dipole" part. I'd take the argument a bit further: while the articles currently address dipole moment, the most natural place to mention nonzero higher-order (or even toroidal) magnetic moments of specific particles would be in these articles. —Quondum 00:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I took it upon myself to make the change...apologies if I've overstretched my authority or followed the improper method...  Bdushaw (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm ... no issues of authority (we're supposed to be bold), but you appear to have used cut-and-paste to move the article content.  This has the unfortunate effect of leaving the edit history behind, as well as the talk page and its edit history.  It is preferred to use the 'Move' tab at the top of the article, which automatically moves these as well (which works if the destination page is nonexistent or a "clean" redirect).  —Quondum 01:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

text: I undid your "renaming", but the move procedure does not work (probably because the redirect page has now developed some history).  It seems we'll have to request a move (see WP:RM).  Which means we'll have to motivate it properly. —Quondum 01:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that...I should learn the proper procedures.   Merely motivated by the "dive in" philosophy of wikipedia.  Bdushaw (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No harm done.  This seems to be the standard way of learning the "proper procedures" on WP: you stumble onto them by trying.  Now we simply wait for comment, and hopefully the rename will happen in a week or so.  —Quondum 05:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title? 

message: There are two unspecified notations in this section of the article: N_e and N_m in 
:\rho_\text{e}(r) = e N_\text{e} e^{-\frac{r^2}{r_\text{e}^2}}
and 
:\rho_\text{m}(r) = m_\text{e} N_\text{m} e^{-\frac{r^2}{r_\text{m}^2}}
Which is signficance of these quantities? (From where do these 2 formulae derive?)--5.2.200.163 (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Electron magnetic moment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120718231440/http://jmp.aip.org/resource/1/jmapaq/v52/i8/p082303_s1 to http://jmp.aip.org/resource/1/jmapaq/v52/i8/p082303_s1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please don't revert edits without contentual explanation. 11:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The reverted removal of „The classical theory of the g-factor“ 

message: E.g. in the section "Spin magnetic dipole moment", the non-image math renderer displays a ħ in a fraction () as h – on my KDE setup, in any case. Unless I'm a total exception, I would say this is suboptimal. --2A02:8071:195:2C00:0:0:0:4AF5 (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text math renderer displays ħ as h