Advertisement

The hydrogen atom without external fields

  • Hans A. Bethe
  • Edwin E. Salpeter

Abstract

Schrödinger’s equation3 in c.g.s. units for an electron in the field of a nucleus of charge Ze and of infinite mass is
$$\Delta u + \frac{{2m}}{{{\hbar ^2}}}(E + \frac{{Z{e^2}}}{r})u = 0$$
(1.1)
and in Hartree’s atomic units (see Introductory Remarks) is
$$\Delta u + 2(E + \frac{Z}{r})u = 0$$
(1.1’)

Keywords

Wave Function DIRAC Equation Radiative Correction Principal Quantum Number Lamb Shift 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J. W. DuMoxn and E. R. COHEN: In this volume and private communication.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Numerical values, found in older theoretical references (including ref. [10] of our bibliography), which are based on the atomic constants, should be treated with great caution: The older values of some atomic constants were in error by much more than the statistical errors in the older experiments (due to systematic errors not expected at the time).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    We shall use throughout the symbol d for the LAPLACE operator (axz -}- ayz -~- ôz2), instead of the symbol V2 which is more commonly used in English and American texts.Google Scholar
  4. 1.
    x, and y are measured in atomic units.Google Scholar
  5. 2.
    Cf. Theory of the ZEEMAN effect, Sect. 45.Google Scholar
  6. 1.
    Compare, for example, ref. 171, A. SOMMERFELD, Wellenmechanischer Ergänzungsband, p. 70 and the original work of E. SCHRÖDINGER, Abhandlungen zur Wellenmechanik, p. 1.Google Scholar
  7. 1.
    The alkali atoms which are more closely related to hydrogen than any other atoms do not show this degeneracy. To be sure, the discrete energy levels of the alkali atoms can be calculated to a good approximation by considering only the motion of the valence electron in the field arising from a charge distribution of closed shells, but this field is a non-Coulomb central field and levels of like n and different l have entirely different energies.Google Scholar
  8. 2.
    It should be noted that the atomic unit of action is h = h/22r and not h. The frequency of the spectral line may be obtained in c.g.s. units by dividing the energy difference (in c.g.s. units) between the initial and final states by h; or, if the energy difference is expressed in atomic units, by dividing by 27r.Google Scholar
  9. 1.
    E. R. COHEN: Phys. Rev. 88, 353 (1952).Google Scholar
  10. 2.
    We shall often use simply the symbol Ry for this quantity although, strictly speaking, we have defined Ry as a frequency, e Roe.Google Scholar
  11. 3.
    For a list of observed wave numbers of spectral lines in light atoms and ions see: Atomic Energy Levels, Vol. 1, U.S. National Bureau of Standards, Circular 467, 1949.Google Scholar
  12. 4.
    Cf. W. GORDON: Ann. d. Phys. 2, 1031 (1929).Google Scholar
  13. 5.
    The numerical factor (2 e)1 is included only for the sake of convenience in later calculations.Google Scholar
  14. 6.
    For properties of the confluent hypergeometric function see ref. [8], Chap. 16 or the article of J. MEIXNER, Vol. I of this Encyclopedia. We shall in general omit the word “confluent ”. We shall use the more general function F (a, ß, y, x) very rarely and will call it the “general hypergeometric function ”.Google Scholar
  15. 1.
    Cf. A. SOMMERFELD: Wellenmechanischer Ergänzungsband, p. 292, ref. [7]; see also our Sect. 36e.Google Scholar
  16. 1.
    Cf. JAHNKE-EMDE: Tables of Functions, especially p. 166 (differential equation), p. 98 (asymptotic formula), p. 90 (series expansion).Google Scholar
  17. 2.
    See Sect. 53.Google Scholar
  18. 3.
    The asymptotic formula for the BESSEL function can thus be looked upon as a special case of the WKB procedure.Google Scholar
  19. 1.
    See, for example, E. SCHRSDINGER, Ann. d. Phys. 80, 131 (1926).Google Scholar
  20. 2.
    Cf. Sec. 63 and particularly W. GORDON, Ann. d. Phys. 2, 1031 (1929).Google Scholar
  21. 1.
    See also M. STOBBE: Ann. d. Phys. 7, 661 (1930).Google Scholar
  22. 1.
    For details, see the work by MOTT and MASSEY, ref. [7] of the bibliography. For tables of COULOMB wave functions see N.B.S. Appl. Math. Circ. No. 17, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C. 1952.Google Scholar
  23. 1.
    UREY, BRICEWEDDE and MURPHY: Phys. Rev. 40, 1, 464 (1932).Google Scholar
  24. 2.
    For a detailed analysis see E. R. COHEN, Phys. Rev. 88, 353 (1952).Google Scholar
  25. 3.
    J. W. DuMoND and E. R. COHEN: Rev. Mod. Phys. 25, 691 (1953). — Cf. the preceding article in this volume.Google Scholar
  26. 1.
    Cf. J. FISCHER, Ann. d. Phys. 8, 821 (1931) paragraph 1; G. WENTZEL, Z. Physik 58, 348 (1929).Google Scholar
  27. 1.
    Cf. e. g., G. WENTZEL, Z. Physik 58. 348 (1929), Eq. (22). More precisely, u falls off as 0,2—z2)—gGoogle Scholar
  28. 2.
    W. GORDON: Z. Physik 48, 180 (1928), cf. also G. TEMPLE, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., Ser. A 121, 673 (1928); A. SOMMERFELD, Ann. d. Phys. 11, 257 (1931), paragraph 6. See also p. 47 of ref. [9]Google Scholar
  29. 3.
    See also ref. [9], p. 47.Google Scholar
  30. 1.
    To make the system uk complete, the eigenfunctions of the discrete spectrum must, of course, be included.Google Scholar
  31. 2.
    G. BREIT and H. A. BETHE: Phys. Rev. 93, 888 (1954).Google Scholar
  32. 3.
    W. GORDON: Z. Physik 48, 180 (1928).Google Scholar
  33. 1.
    For a potential falling off more rapidly than r-1 at large distances.Google Scholar
  34. 2.
    With 61 replaced by — a1, where a1 is defined in (4.10). With this substitution (7.2) and (6.30) are identical except for a change in sign [see normalization of Rw, Eq. (4.19)]. W. GORDON: Z. Physik 48, 180 (1928).Google Scholar
  35. 1.
    YENNIE, RAVENHALL and WILSON: Phys. Rev. 95, 500 (1954).Google Scholar
  36. 1.
    See Sect. 9 and 70, also ref. [9], pp. 116–119.Google Scholar
  37. 1.
    This method has, however, been used to obtain the momentum space wave functions for the discrete spectrum of hydrogen, E. A. HYLLERAAS, Z. Physik 74, 216 (1932).Google Scholar
  38. 2.
    H. WEYL: Z. Physik 46, 1 (1928). — V. Focx: Z. Physik 98, 145 (1935).Google Scholar
  39. 1.
    More generally, let f (r) and g(r) be two functions, which are complex conjugates of each other, f* (r) = g (r). If F(p) and G (p) are the FOURIER transforms of f and g, respectively, one finds that F* (p) =G(—p).Google Scholar
  40. 1.
    N. SVARTHOLM: Thesis, Lund 1%5. — R. MCWEENY and C. A. CouLSON: Proc. Phys. Soc. Lond. A 62, 509 (1949). — M. L:vY: Proc. R.y. Soc. Lond. 204, 145 (1950). — E. E. SALPETER: Phys. Rev. 84, 1226 (1951).Google Scholar
  41. 2.
    See, for instance, JAHNKE and ENDE, Funktionentafeln, 4th Ed., p. 109. Berlin: Springer 1945.Google Scholar
  42. 1.
    B. A. LIPPMANN and J. SCHWINGER: Phys. Rev. 79, 469 (1950). — M. L. GOLDBERGER: Phys. Rev. 82, 757; 84, 929 (1951). — E. E. SALPETER: Phys. Rev. 84, 1226 (1951).Google Scholar
  43. 1.
    Eq. (9.2) has been used recently, however, as the starting point of calculations in meson field theory. See, e.g., G. F. CHEW and F. E. Low, Phys. Rev. 101, 1570 (1956).Google Scholar
  44. 2.
    Actually, the bound states must be included to complete the set.Google Scholar
  45. 1.
    For a COULOMB potential, f+ still has a singularity at p =k.Google Scholar
  46. 2.
    Bethe and Salpeter, Quantum Mechanics. 4Google Scholar
  47. 1.
    See references at the beginning of Sect. 9.Google Scholar
  48. 2.
    A necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the validity of BORN approximation is tan Si F.s Si s 1.Google Scholar
  49. 3.
    See references [1], [2], [3] and [12] of the bibliography.Google Scholar
  50. 4.
    A detailed discussion of the properties of the DIRAC operators is given by R. H. GooD, Rev. Mod. Phys. 27, 187 (1955).Google Scholar
  51. 1.
    See ref. [3], [12], and [13] of the bibliography.Google Scholar
  52. 1.
    See ref. [1], Ch. VI; ref. [5], Ch. III and G. PARE and E. FEExnERG, Quantum Theory of Angular Momentum. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley Co. 1953.Google Scholar
  53. 1.
    Ref. [1], p. 144 or ref. [5], p. 46.Google Scholar
  54. 1.
    In older books and in ref. [9] the large components are labelled 3, 4 and the small components 1, 2. In these references the term in the HAMILTOxian which involves p differs from ours by a change in sign.Google Scholar
  55. 1.
    See ref. [2], Sect. 65.Google Scholar
  56. 2.
    It should also be remembered that (12.7) only holds for a wave function u, which satisfies the DIRAC equation. Consider, for instance, the expression (al (r) u)A where f (r) is an arbitrary function of position, not involving DIRAC operators. Although a commutes with f, p does not, and a valid approximation for (a f u)A is obtained from (12.7) only if we write f (r) to the left of p.Google Scholar
  57. 1.
    W. PAULI: Z. Physik 43, 601 (1927).Google Scholar
  58. 1.
    Regarding this factor of two, see L. H. THOMAS, Nature, Lond. 107, 514 (1926).Google Scholar
  59. 1.
    Unlike the HAMILTONian in the nonrelativistic SCHRÖDINGER theory, H not only involves the spin operator, but also depends explicitly on the eigenvalue. We shall only consider cases where WI «mc2 and shall not encounter any difficulty from the dependence of Hon W.Google Scholar
  60. 1.
    The expansion parameter in the PAULI approximation scheme, roughly speaking, is (Vic)2, not Vic.Google Scholar
  61. 2.
    Bethe and Salpeter, Quantum Mechanics.Google Scholar
  62. 1.
    The statement that j = l f z is merely a specific case of a more general theorem on the eigenvalues j (j +1) of the square of the sum of two commuting angular momentum operators, ka + kb: If the eigenvalues of kâ, kb are la (la I) and lb (lb + 1), then j = I la — lb I • I la — bbl +1,—, la + lb . j is defined as the positive root of j (j + 1) = const.Google Scholar
  63. 2.
    We can, of course, find a linear superposition of the two solutions, + and —, for fixed l and m, for which a or b vanishes. Such wave functions are eigenstates of ks and s, but not of the HAMILTOxian (13.2), since the eigenvalues X+ and X_ are different. If a is considered very small, the two eigenvalues of the total HAMILTOxian are approximately the same and such a wave function is “almost a stationary state”.Google Scholar
  64. 3.
    Ref. [1], p. 151.Google Scholar
  65. 4.
    Ref. [10], p. 310.Google Scholar
  66. 1.
    These expressions are taken from W. B. PAYNE, Ph. D. Thesis, Louisiana State University 1955 (unpublished). Payne has also tabulated the radial wave functions for the M and N shells. See also E. H. B.RHOP and H. S. MASSEY, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., Ser. A 153, 661 (1935). Graphs of the DIRAC wave functions are given by H. E. WHITE, Phys. Rev. 38, 513 (1931). Expressions for the DIRAC wave functions in terms of generalized LAGUERRE polynomials are given by L. DAVIS, Phys. Rev. 56, 186 (1939).Google Scholar
  67. 1.
    C. G. DARWIN: Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., Ser. A 118, 654 (1928).Google Scholar
  68. 2.
    L. K. ACHESON: Phys. Rev. 82, 488 (1951). — L. R. ELTON: Proc. Phys. Soc. Lond. A 66, 806 (1953). — YENNIE, RAVENHALL and WILSON: Phys. Rev. 95, 500 (1954). See also ref. [9], p. 79.Google Scholar
  69. 1.
    In this section k is linear momentum, not angular momentum. Phys. Rev. 103, 1601 (1956).Google Scholar
  70. 2.
    YENNIE, RAVENHALL and WILSON: Phys. Rev. 95, 500 (1954). Bethe and Salpeter, Quantum Mechanics.Google Scholar
  71. 1.
    For a discussion of double scattering and expressions for the “assymetry factor” see ref. [9], p. 78 and 82.Google Scholar
  72. 2.
    J. H. BARTLETT and R. E. WATSON: Phys. Rev. 56, 612 (1939). — H. FESHBACH: Pbys. Rev. 84, 1206 (1951); 88, 295 (1953). — G. PARZEN and T. WAINWRIGHT: Phys. Rev. 96, 188 (1954). — J. DOGGETT and L. SPENCER: Phys. Rev. 103, 1597 (1956). — N. SHERMAN:Google Scholar
  73. 1.
    Such an expression was first derived by N. F. MOTT, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., Ser. A 124, 425 (1929) but his term in Za was incorrect. The expression quoted in ref. [9] is also wrong. The correct expression was obtained by W. A. MCKINLEY and H. FESHBACH, Phys. Rev. 74, 1759 (1948).Google Scholar
  74. 1.
    R. H. DALITZ: Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., Ser. A 206, 509 (1951).Google Scholar
  75. 2.
    P. A. M. DIRAC: Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., Ser. A 133, 80 (1931).Google Scholar
  76. 1.
    In fact, these corrections can be calculated in a consistent manner only according to hole theory.Google Scholar
  77. 2.
    A. Rusi Nowi Tz: Phys. Rev. 73, 1330 (1948).Google Scholar
  78. 3.
    M. LEvv: Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., Ser. A 204, 145 (1950).Google Scholar
  79. 1.
    We shall simply write 6 for 6P.Google Scholar
  80. 2.
    H. A. BETHE: Z. Naturforsch. 3a, 470 (1948). — E. E. SALPETER: Phys. Rev. 87, 328 (1952).Google Scholar
  81. 1.
    Although the operator p • e+e • p is not zero itself, its expectation value with any real and bounded wave function u is — i f dr div (eu2) = 0. It then also follows that the expectation value of 2e • p equals that of e • p — p • e = i div ~.Google Scholar
  82. 2.
    In carrying out the FOURIER transforms it is useful to write e= - grad 9 _ — i (p — 9’ p) and = curl A = i (p X A +A x p). Note also that, for time-independent potentials satisfying the LORENTZ gauge condition, div A (r) = kA (k) = o.Google Scholar
  83. 1.
    For a historical survey see ref. PO], p. 317, and A. SOMMERFELD, Naturwiss. 28, 417 (1940) .Google Scholar
  84. 2.
    Except that there is no splitting for n 1 (j = z only). Nevertheless the energy shift W1 is larger for n = 1 than for any other level.Google Scholar
  85. 1.
    See ref. [10], p. 319 and W. E. LAMB, Rep. Progr. Physics 14, 19 (1951).Google Scholar
  86. 2.
    For details on this voluminous subject see ref. [5] or A. SOMMERFELD, Atombau and Spektrallinien, 5th Ed.; or ref. [4], Ch. 6; or Vol. XXXVI of this Encyclopedia.Google Scholar
  87. 3.
    D. R. HARTREE: Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 24, 111 (1928).Google Scholar
  88. 4.
    BETHE and SALPETER: Quantum Mechanics of One-and Two-Electron Systems. Sect. 17.Google Scholar
  89. 1.
    E. FERMI: Z. Physik 48, 73 (1928). — L. H. THOMAS: Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 23, 542 (1927). See also P. GoMSAs, Statistische Theorie des Atoms, Vienna: Springer 1949. and Vol. XXXVI of this Encyclopedia.Google Scholar
  90. 2.
    L. PAULING: Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., Ser. A 114 (1927). — J. C. SLATER: Phys. Rev. 36, 57 (1930).Google Scholar
  91. 1.
    LANDOLT and BÖRNSTEIN: Zahlenwerte und Funktionen, 6. Ed., Vol. I/1 Berlin: Springer 1950.Google Scholar
  92. 2.
    R. CHRISTY and J. KELLER: Phys. Rev. 61, 147 (1942).Google Scholar
  93. 3.
    Small remaining discrepancies, due to the finite nuclear size, are discussed by A. SCHAWLOW and C. TOWNES, Science, Lancaster, Pa. 115, 284 (1952) and Phys. Rev. 100, 1273 (1955).Google Scholar
  94. 2.
    S. BRENNER and G. E. BROWN: Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., Ser. A 218, 422 (1953).Google Scholar
  95. 3.
    For a more detailed comparison of theory with the latest experimental data see D. SAXON Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. of Wisconsin and J. E. MACK, Phys. Rev. 87, 225 (1952).Google Scholar
  96. 4.
    S. COHEN: Ph. D. Thesis, Cornell 1955.Google Scholar
  97. 5.
    Recent experimental work by D. SAXON indicates a slightly smaller value for the K — LI difference, which would increase the discrepancy by a few Ry.Google Scholar
  98. 6.
    For treatments of quantum electrodynamics see, for instance, refs. [3], [6] and [11] to [14] of the bibliography.Google Scholar
  99. 1.
    R. P. FEYNMAN: Phys. Rev. 76, 749, 769 (1949).Google Scholar
  100. 1.
    H. A. BETHE: Phys. Rev. 72, 339 (1947). See also our Sect. 19ß.Google Scholar
  101. 2.
    For a list of the classic papers of these authors on quantum electrodynamics see refs. [6], [12], [13] and [14].Google Scholar
  102. 3.
    N. KROLL and W. LAMB: Phys. Rev. 75, 388 (1949). — J. FRENCH and V. WEissxoPF: Phys. Rev. 75, 1240 (1949). — J. SCHWINGER: Phys. Rev. 76, 790 (1949). — R. P. FEYNMAN: Phys. Rev. 76, 769 (1949).Google Scholar
  103. 4.
    The expression (18.1) holds only for a nonrelativistic change in momentum, q2,’ (In c)2, but expressions have been evaluated which hold for all values of qv.Google Scholar
  104. 1.
    R. KARPLUS and N. KROLL: Phys. Rev. 77, 536 (1950).Google Scholar
  105. 1.
    F. BLOCH and A. NORDSIECK: Phys. Rev. 52, 54 (1937). — W. PAULI and M. FIERZ: Nuovo Cim. 15, 167 (1938).Google Scholar
  106. 2.
    J. JAUCH and F. ROHRLICH: Phys. Rev. 98, 181 (1955) and Heiv. phys. Acta 27, 613 (1954). — E. L. LoMON: Nuclear Physics 1, 101 (1956).Google Scholar
  107. 1.
    In (18.4), for instance, the term in g2 is proportional to the charge distribution producing the field, which is a point charge Ze â() (r) for a COULOMB potential.Google Scholar
  108. 1.
    R. KARPLUS, A. KLEIN and J. SCHWINGER: Phys. Rev. 86, 288 (1952). — M. BARANGER, H. BETHE and R. FEYNMAN: Phys. Rev. 92, 482 (1953).Google Scholar
  109. 2.
    E. WICHMAN and N. M. KROLL: Phys. Rev. 101, 843 (1956).Google Scholar
  110. 3.
    H. A. BETHE: Phys. Rev. 72, 339 (1947).Google Scholar
  111. 1.
    This follows from (19.7) as a special case. For a free electron, the momentum changes by k upon emission or absorption of a quantum. If retardation is neglected, this means that k is negligible compared with p, and therefore the energy En after emission of the quantum, is the same as that before, E0. Then the second term in (19.7) vanishes, q.e.d.Google Scholar
  112. 1.
    In the covariant evaluation of JET, great care must be taken that the definition of d is equivalent to that in the nonrelativistic calculation of LE.; see footnote 13 of R. P. FEYNMAN, Phys. Rev. 76, 769 (1949).Google Scholar
  113. 1.
    E. E. SALPETER: Phys. Rev. 89, 92 (1953).Google Scholar
  114. 2.
    For P-states a term in (19.16), connected with the electron’s anomalous magnetic moment, is multiplied by (1 — 2m/M); see W. BARKER and F. GLOVER, Phys. Rev. 99, 317 (1955).Google Scholar
  115. 1.
    E. E. SALPETER: Phys. Rev. 87, 328 (1952). A small term in this paper, called d Ecc should be doubled.Google Scholar
  116. 2.
    No nuclei are known which have a finite electric dipole moment, see ref. [16], Chap. 2. 2 E. E. SALPETER: Phys. Rev. 89, 92 (1953).Google Scholar
  117. 4.
    A. SCHAWLOW and C. TOWNES: Science, Lancaster, Pa. 115, 284 (1952) and Phys. Rev. 100, 1273 (1955).Google Scholar
  118. 1.
    L. L. FOLDY: Phys. Rev. 83, 688 (1951).Google Scholar
  119. 2.
    BETRE, BROWN and STERN: Phys. Rev. 77, 370 (1950)Google Scholar
  120. 1.
    W. E. LAMB: Phys. Rev. 85, 259 (1952).Google Scholar
  121. 2.
    E. DAYHOFF, S. TRIEBWASSER and W. LAMB: Phys. Rev. 89, 106 (1953).Google Scholar
  122. 1.
    J. DUMOND and E. COHEN: This volume. - J. BEARDEN and J. THOMSEN: Atomic Constants. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University 1955.Google Scholar
  123. 2.
    E. E. SALPETER: Phys. Rev. 89, 92 (1953). In this paper the notation used in this section is explained more fully.Google Scholar
  124. 3.
    J. M. HARRIMAN: Phys. Rev. 101, 594 (1956).Google Scholar
  125. 4.
    M. BARANGER, H. BETHE and R. FEYNMAN: Phys. Rev. 92, 482 (1953). - KARPLUS, KLEIN and SCHWINGER: Phys. Rev. 86, 288 (1952).Google Scholar
  126. 8.
    R. KARPLUS and N. KROLL: Phys. Rev. 77, 536 (1950). - M. BARANGER, F. DYSON and E. SALPETER: Phys. Rev. 88, 680 (1952). - BERSOHN, WENESER and KROLL: Phys. Rev. 91, 1257 (1953).Google Scholar
  127. 6.
    S. TRIEBWASSER, E. DAYHOFF and W. LAMB: Phys. Rev. 89, 98 (1953).Google Scholar
  128. 7.
    R. NOVICE, E. LIPWORTH and P. YERGIN: Phys. Rev. 100, 1153 (1955).Google Scholar
  129. 1.
    See ref. [16), Chap. 4.Google Scholar
  130. 2.
    Classically speaking, s and k precess rapidly about the direction of M. In turn, M precesses about the direction of f, but much more slowly, and only the components of s and k parallel to M are important.Google Scholar
  131. 1.
    S. ToLANSxl: Fine Structure In Line Spectra. London: Methuen and Co. 1935.Google Scholar
  132. 2.
    G. BREIT: Phys. Rev. 35, 1447 (1930).Google Scholar
  133. 3.
    In fact, the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron was first inferred from a discrepancy between (22.14) and experiment. G. BREIT: Phys. Rev. 72, 984 (1947).Google Scholar
  134. 4.
    R. KARPLUS and A. KLEIN: Phys. Rev. 85, 972 (1952). — N. M. KROLL and F. POLL0cK: Phys. Rev. 86, 876 (1952).Google Scholar
  135. 1.
    G. BREIT and R. MEYEROTT: Phys. Rev. 72, 1023 (1947).Google Scholar
  136. 2.
    R. ARNOWITT: Phys. Rev. 92, 1002 (1953). — W. NEWCOMB and E. SALPETER: Phys. Rev. 97, 1146 (1955).Google Scholar
  137. 1.
    A. PRODELL and P. KuscH: Phys. Rev. 88, 184 (1952) and 100, 1183 (1955). — J. WITKE and R. DICKE: Phys. Rev. 96, 530 (1954).Google Scholar
  138. 2.
    S. KOENIG, A. PRODELL and P. KuscH: Phys. Rev. 88, 191 (1952). — R. BERINGER and M. HEALD: Phys. Rev. 95, 1474 (1954).Google Scholar
  139. 3.
    The internal structure of the proton also contributes (unknown) corrections to the fine structure separation energy of the same absolute order of magnitude as to hyperfine structure. But, since the fine structure itself is very much larger than hyperfine structure, these corrections have a negligible effect on (21.6), but an appreciable one on (22.20). On the other hand, the purely experimental errors are larger in the experiments leading to (21.6) than in those leading to (22.20).Google Scholar
  140. 1.
    A. BOHR: Phys. Rev. 73, 1109 (1948). — F. E. Low: Phys. Rev. 77, 361 (1950). — F. Low and E. SALPETER: Phys. Rev. 83, 478 (1951).Google Scholar
  141. 2.
    C. GREIFINGER: Ph. D. Thesis, Cornell 1954.Google Scholar
  142. 3.
    For a more detailed account and a bibliography see a review article by S. DEBENEDETTI and H. C. CORBEN, Ann. Rev. Nuc. Sci. 4, 191 (1954). Cf. also L. SIMONS in Vol. XXXIV of this Encyclopedia.Google Scholar
  143. 1.
    A. ORE and J. POWELL: Phys. Rev. 75, 1696, 1963 (1953).Google Scholar
  144. 1.
    All terms of order as Ry were first calculated by J. PIRENNE, Arch. Sci. phys. nat. 29, 121, 207, 265 (1947); V. BERESTETSKI and L. LANDAU, J. exp. theor. Phys. USSR. 19, 673, 1130 (1949). Some errors in these papers were corrected by R. A. FERRELL, Phys. Rev. 84, 858 (1951).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1957

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans A. Bethe
    • 1
  • Edwin E. Salpeter
    • 1
  1. 1.Cornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations