See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/230993509

The electron inside the nucleus: An almost classical derivation of the isotropic
hyperfine interaction

Article  in  European Journal of Physics · January 2000

DOI: 10.1088/0143-0807/21/1/303

CITATIONS READS

12 471

1 author:

Manfred Bucher
California State University, Fresno
66 PUBLICATIONS   369 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Physics education View project

Thermodynamics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Manfred Bucher on 20 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

The electron inside the nucleus: an almost classical derivation of the isotropic hyperfine

interaction

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.

2000 Eur. J. Phys. 21 19

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0143-0807/21/1/303)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:

IP Address: 129.8.216.24
This content was downloaded on 20/06/2016 at 07:08

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

Eur. J. Phys. 21 (2000) 19–22. Printed in the UK PII: S0143-0807(00)02480-6

The electron inside the nucleus: an

almost classical derivation of the
isotropic hyperfine interaction
Manfred Bucher
Physics Department, California State University, Fresno, CA 93740-8031, USA

Received 8 March 1999, in final form 7 September 1999

Abstract. The Fermi contact term of the hyperfine interaction is derived with a minimum of
quantum mechanical assumptions and the use of two different length scales. The latter approach
clarifies the mechanism, which has traditionally been subsumed by the term ‘contact’.

1. Introduction

The interaction between the magnetic dipole moments µn and µe associated with nuclear
and electron spin, respectively, gives rise to a hyperfine (HF) structure in the nuclear and
electron energy levels. The teaching of the HF interaction, requiring both quantum mechanics
and electromagnetism, is an important topic in modern physics education, as it provides a
foundation for the powerful research tools of nuclear and electron spin resonance and for
the medical technique of magnetic resonance imaging. Historically, the first theory of HF
interaction was derived by Fermi [1] from Dirac’s quantum mechanics of the spinning electron.
A special, but important case concerns the ground state of atoms with one outermost ‘s’ electron,
such as hydrogen or the alkali-metal atoms, which is affected by only the isotropic part of the
HF interaction, traditionally labelled the ‘Fermi contact term’:
U = − 83 πhµn · µe i9 2 (0). (1)
Here 9 is the spatial wavefunction of the ‘s’ electron, 9(0) is its value at the nucleus, and h· · ·i
denotes the quantum mechanical spin coupling. The occurence of 9 in equation (1) and the
spin coupling rules [2] give the impression that the HF interaction is a quantum mechanical
effect. A more appropriate view, however, is that the HF interaction is a classical magnetostatic
interaction of quantum mechanical entities. In this vein the theory of HF interaction is often
already covered in classical electrodynamics texts [3], assuming only some basic knowledge
of quantum mechanics.
While the interaction of the spin-associated magnetic moments of the nucleus and electron,
µn and µe , poses no conceptual difficulty (the magnitude of µe is the Bohr magneton,
|µe | = µB = eh̄/(2mc), and µn can be determined independently from molecular beam
resonance [4]), the occurence of the electron probability density at only the nucleus, 9 2 (0), in
equation (1) is hard to understand. This conceptual difficulty may have given rise to the term
‘Fermi contact interaction’ which in turn could possibly be regarded (erroneously) as a special
quantum mechanical effect. Invoking the standard quantum mechanical knowledge that an
‘s’ electron has a non-zero probability density at the nucleus, conventional electrodynamical
0143-0807/00/010019+04$30.00 © 2000 IOP Publishing Ltd 19
20 M Bucher

derivations of the HF interaction [3] merely engage in mathematical techniques (integration

over a Dirac delta function) which, however, does not clarify the underlying physics to any
great degree.
The purpose of this paper is to point out that the isotropic HF interaction arises from
the probability density of an ‘s’ electron inside the nucleus. This important distinction has
attracted little attention in the past, because on the subatomic scale employed, denoted by
positions R (upper case), no distinction can be made between locations of an electron ‘at
the nucleus’, R = 0, or ‘inside the nucleus’. However, the presence of an electron inside
the nucleus is easily described on a finer, subnuclear scale, denoted by positions r (lower
case). Here we explicitly invoke both these scales to gain, with a minimum of quantum
mechanical assumptions, a conceptually enhanced, classical derivation of the Fermi contact
term, equation (1). A similar scale distinction has proved fruitful in an alternative derivation
of the local field in dielectric matter [5]. The present treatment complements the derivations of
the HF interaction by Griffiths [6], who carefully elucidates the magnetic self-field of µn , and
by Parker [7], who presents a quantum mechanical treatment of the simulation current density
for the spinning electron.

2. Formalism

The concepts, whose origins go beyond the scope of classical electromagnetism, are (i) the
magnetic spin moments µn and µe and their quantum mechanical coupling hµn · µe i, and
(ii) the spatial wavefunction 9(R) of the ‘s’ electron under consideration. The latter is given
by the solution of the Schrödinger equation with the Coulomb potential of the nucleus and all
other (core) electrons of the atom.
In deriving the HF interaction, we start on the subatomic scale and express the
magnetostatic interaction energy [3] of µn in the magnetic field Be of the spinning electron at
the nucleus:
U = − µ n · Be . (2)
The field at the nucleus Be can be divided into contributions from the spinning electron at
source points outside the nucleus and at (inside) the nucleus:
Be = Be,out + Be,in . (3)
3
The contribution from the spinning electron within a subatomic volume element d R at
position R is
3(dme · N )N − dme
dBe,out = − (4)
R3
where N is the radial unit vector, N = R/R. The magnetic dipole moment of the volume
element is
dme = µe |9(R)|2 d3 R (5)
with a probability density |9(R)| of finding the electron within the volume element d R at
2 3

position R. The negative sign in front of the familiar formula for the field from a dipole,
equation (4), takes into account that the location of the dipole dme at R is a source point
whereas the field point is at the origin [3].
The field Be,out is the integral over all source elements from equation (5) inserted into
equation (4). Using the spherical symmetry of the real-valued wavefunction of an ‘s’ electron,
9(R) = 9(R), we can express the volume integral as an integral over concentric shells
ranging from infinitesimally outside the nucleus, R = 0 + dR, to infinity:
Z
9 2 (R)
Be,out = S (R) dR (6)
R3
 The electron inside the nucleus 21

with shell contributions in terms of integrals over elements of the solid angle, d:
Z
 
S (R) = µe − 3(µe · N )N d. (7)

The truncation at the nucleus avoids a singularity [6] in the radial integrand in equation (6). The
angular integration is straightforward [6] and yields S (R) = 0. Thus the spinning ‘s’ electron
outside the nucleus gives rise to a vanishing field at the nucleus, Be,out = 0.
The remaining contribution to Be of equation (3) from the spinning ‘s’ electron at (i.e.
inside) the nucleus originates from the magnetic moment me,in ≡ dme (0) given by equation (5)
for R = 0. Now expressing the subatomic volume element d3 R at the nucleus through the
nuclear volume
R v, which in turn is given by the integral over subnuclear volume elements,
d3 R = v = v d3 r, we obtain
me,in = µe 9 2 (0)v. (8)
Although the angular momentum and magnetic moment of the electron spin cannot consistently
be expressed with classical physics [3], we can simulate me,in classically [3] by a localized,
intranuclear electron current density distribution je,in (r 0 ) at subnuclear source points r 0 :
Z
1
me,in = r 0 × je,in (r 0 ) d3 r 0 . (9)
2c v
Such a simulation permits a determination of the self-field of me,in which is obtained [5, 3]
from the average over the subnuclear magnetic field:
Z Z
1 3 0 4π
Be,in ≡ be,in d r = r 0 × je,in (r 0 ) d3 r 0 . (10)
v v 3cv v
Substitution of equation (9) gives
1 8π
Be,in = me,in . (11)
v 3
Inserting Be = Be,in from equation (11), and thereby µe from equation (8), for the interaction
with µn in equation (2) and replacing the dot product of the magnetic moments by the quantum
mechanical expression hµn · µe i yields the Fermi contact term of the isotropic HF interaction,
equation (1).

3. Conclusion

Given the magnetic moments of the nucleus and electron, µn and µe , and their quantum
mechanical coupling, the HF interaction between a nucleus and an ‘s’ electron with probability
density 9 2 (R) is fully determined by the classical magnetostatic interaction of these moments.
According to magnetostatics, only the field of the ‘s’ electron’s magnetic dipole moment inside
the nucleus yields a contribution. Evaluation of this contribution requires a change from the
scale of subatomic positions R to a finer scale of subnuclear positions r . It is thus the magnetic
field contribution from me inside the nucleus that gives rise to the occurence of 9 2 (0) in
equation (1).
Both the word ‘contact’, used in the expression ‘Fermi contact term’, and possibly the
phrase ‘wavefunction at the nucleus’ can give rise to a misconception by (erroneously) implying
a magnetic interaction between the nucleus and an outside ‘s’ electron. First, the word
‘contact’ conjures an image of the ‘s’ electron touching the nucleus – somewhat like touching
steel balls. There is no reason to assume that nuclei and electrons behave like macroscopic,
impenetrable balls. Second, the phrase ‘wavefunction at the nucleus’ could be misconstrued
as a wavefunction near the nucleus, albeit outside.
The traditional use of only a subatomic scale, where the nuclear volume is merely a
mathematical point, cannot provide the fine distinction between ‘at the nucleus’ and ‘inside
 22 M Bucher

the nucleus’. The present refinement to a subnuclear scale permits, however, such a distinction
and makes the origin of HF interaction transparent. While an expression like ‘penetration
term’ would express the isotropic HF interaction, equation (1), more accurately, the expression
‘contact term’ seems solidly established and is likely to stay. The vagueness concerning the
electron probability density at the nucleus is easily remedied, though, by regarding 9 2 (0) as
the average over a finer scaled, intranuclear electron probability density taken over the nucleus.

Acknowledgment

The author would like to thank Ernst Mohler for valuable discussions.

References
[1] Fermi E 1930 Z. Phys. 60 320
[2] Park D 1974 Introduction to the Quantum Theory 2nd edn (New York: McGraw-Hill) sec 6.4
[3] Jackson J D 1962 Classical Electrodynamics 2nd edn (New York: Wiley) secs 5.6 and 5.7, pp 180–7
[4] Ramsey N F 1956 Molecular Beams (New York: Oxford University Press)
[5] Bucher M 1990 J. Phys. Chem. Solids 51 1241
[6] Griffiths J D 1982 Am. J. Phys. 50 698
[7] Parker G W 1984 Am. J. Phys. 52 36

View publication stats