On the splitting of the Roentgen and optical terms caused by the electron rotation and on the intensity of the cesium lines

  • G. Gentile
  • E. Majorana
  • Ennio Arimondo

Abstract

1. The purpose of this paper is to show that FERMI’s potential allows one to determine a priori and with very good approximation all the energy levels of heavy atoms. This also allows one to calculate with remarkable accuracy, considering its statistical character, the splitting of the various terms. This is of great importance considering that one could not apply SOMMERFELD’s relativistic formula to these splittings, as the phenomenon goes well beyond the scheme of the fine-structure theory. Indeed it is well known that one has to use the assumption of the rotating electron which by now has lost its hypothetical character and appears to be well founded on a solid theoretical basis as Dirac’s last paper(1) has shown. Our calculations will be applied to the Roentgen levels of the 3M term of gadolinium (Z = 64) and of uranium (Z = 92) and, in the optical case, to the P terms of cesium (Z = 55).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. (1).
    Dirac, “Proc. Roy. Soc. (London)”, A 117, 610; 118, 351 (1928).Google Scholar
  2. (2).
    Fermi, “Z. Physik”, 48, 73 (1928).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  3. (3).
    Fermi, “Rend. Acc. Lincei”, 7, 726 (1928).Google Scholar
  4. (4).
    In general in the classical model there is a normal rosetta-like motion both for non-excited and for excited levels with small azimuth quantum. On the contrary, for certain highly excited levels with large azimuth quantum the Bohr-Sommerfeld orbit splits into two different orbits. One of these reaches the interior of the atom, the other instead is mostly exterior. The model then loses its intuitive meaning.Google Scholar

References

  1. (1).
    E. Fermi, Rend. Lincei 6 (1927) 602; 7 (1928) 342, 726; Z. Phys. 48 (1928) 73; 49 (1928) 550.Google Scholar
  2. (2).
    L. H. Thomas, Proc. Camb. Phylos. Soc. 23 (1927) 542.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. (3).
    G. E. Uhlenbeck and S. Goudsmit, Naturwiss. 13 (1925) 953; Nature (London) 117 (1926) 264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. (4).
    E. Fermi, Z. Phys. 59 (1930) 680.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  5. (5).
    E. Fermi, in Quantentheorie und Chemie, edited by H. Falkenhagen (Leipzig) 1928; reprinted in Collected Papers, Vol. 1 (The University of Chicago Press) 1961.Google Scholar
  6. (6).
    T.-Y. Wu, Phys. Rev. 44 (1933) 727.MATHCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  7. (7).
    P. S. Lee and T.-Y. Wu, Chin. J. Phys. 35 (1997) 742.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Società Italiana di Fisica 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Gentile
  • E. Majorana
  • Ennio Arimondo
    • 1
  1. 1.NISTGaithersburgUSA

Personalised recommendations