Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 27 references

Resolution of the hyperfine puzzle and its significance for two fermion Dirac atoms

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a bound fermion's effective magnetic moment shrinks to eR/2 once an atom's assumed radius R falls below the Compton wavelength, softening the hyperfine attraction from 1/R^3 to at most 1/R and resolving why hydrogen a

desk verdict A plausible variational resolution of the hyperfine collapse puzzle, clean for the electron and positronium, but the proton part and the small-R regime need more work. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.02300 v2 pith:PIA45M5K submitted 2026-01-05 physics.atom-ph hep-phnucl-th

Gordon Baym , Glennys Farrar This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phhep-phnucl-th PACS 31.30.jf32.10.Fn
keywords hyperfinepuzzleDiracequationminimaxvariationalmethodeffectivemagneticmomentComptonwavelengthpositroniumtwo-fermionboundstatesdiquarks
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that the apparent 1/R^3 hyperfine attraction that would naively make hydrogen and positronium collapse is an artifact of treating the fermions' magnetic moments as fixed. In a full Dirac treatment, the effective magnetic moment of an electron (or proton) in a trial state of radius R is not e/2m but eR/(2√((mRγ)²+1)); once R drops below the Compton wavelength, the moment itself shrinks to about eR/2. As a result the hyperfine term scales at worst as -1/R, never outrunning the +1/R kinetic energy, so the atom is stable. The same mechanism is shown to apply to positronium and to any two-fermion Coulombic bound state, and the authors give simple variational energy formulas for these systems.

What carries the argument

The engine is the minimax variational principle applied to the Dirac equation: for the hydrogenic trial state (φ,χ) ∝ (1, iX σ·r̂) r^{γ-1} e^{-r/R}, one first extremizes the energy with respect to the lower-component mixing parameter X—which yields a maximum, not a minimum—and then minimizes with respect to the radius. This reproduces the exact hydrogenic ground state at the physical radius. When a magnetic field is added, the same X controls the magnetic response, and the identity X/(1+X²) = 1/(2√((mRγ)²+1)) converts the expectation value of the electron's magnetic coupling into the R-dependent effective moment of Eq. (39).

What would settle it

Solve the two-body Dirac or Salpeter equation for a hydrogenic or positronium-like state constrained to R = 0.1 ħ/mc and compute the magnetic response: if the effective moment remains e/2m rather than falling to roughly eR/2, the predicted softening is an artifact of the trial family. A scan of alternative trial wavefunctions (e.g., r^ν e^{-r/R} with ν ≠ γ-1) would reveal whether the small-R scaling is robust.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is that the effective magnetic moment of a fermion in a Coulombic bound state of assumed radius R is μ_eff/e = R/(2√((mRγ)²+1)) (with γ=√(1-α²) for hydrogen), so that for R ≪ 1/m the moment tends to eR/2 instead of its free-field value e/2m. When the radius is at its energy minimum the moment returns to e/2m, but for smaller R the 1/R^3 divergence of the hyperfine energy is replaced by at most a 1/R interaction. Applied to the proton (g_p=5.58), the same suppression gives an effective proton moment of g_p eR/4, so the hyperfine energy stays below the electron kinetic energy at all R. For positronium, the hyperfine energy becomes approximately 2α/(3((mRγ)²+1)R), likewise bo

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the minimax variational trial states with R smaller than the Compton wavelength faithfully represent the Dirac dynamics of the bound fermions; the paper states that in this regime the method does not in general provide an exact upper bound, so the predicted softening rests on variational states rather than a proven bound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Hydrogen, muonium, and positronium are stable against hyperfine collapse at all scales: the hyperfine energy is bounded by kinetic energy even as R→0.
  • The missing delta-function bound states of the contact hyperfine pseudopotential are explained: at sub-Compton radii the effective moment shrinks, removing the singular attraction.
  • The Dirac variational method gives analytic positronium ground-state energies in agreement with existing numerical variational Coulomb two-body calculations.
  • The same formalism extends to arbitrary-mass two-fermion Coulombic atoms, yielding E = √(m_1²-1/R²)+√(m_2²-1/R²).
  • For diquarks modeled as relativistic Coulombic systems with color-electric and color-magnetic interactions, the analogous boundedness suggests that spin-singlet diquark configurations do not collapse at small size.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the mechanism generalizes to any Coulomb-like confining interaction, it predicts that tightly bound color-electric diquarks do not collapse in spin-singlet states even for large effective α; the paper's stability criterion, 2 > α(1 - 2⟨σ₁·σ₂⟩/(3(2γ-1))), could be tested in lattice QCD for (qq) diquarks.
  • One could test the claim experimentally by probing the hyperfine splitting of hydrogen under strong external compression or in a cavity that restricts the effective radius: the prediction is a strong suppression of the hyperfine coefficient once the confinement scale drops below the electron Compton wavelength.
  • Because the minimax method lacks a rigorous upper bound for R<1/m, the effective-moment scaling is a property of the chosen variational family rather than a proven operator identity; a direct Bethe-Salpeter or lattice calculation of the magnetic response of a Coulombic pair at R<1/m would settle whether the eR/2 softening is exact.
  • The same R-dependent moment suppression could influence interpretations of the proton-radius puzzle: in very compact states the Dirac proton moment would be suppressed, making the hyperfine contribution to the Lamb shift smaller than the naive Fermi estimate.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper addresses the 'hyperfine puzzle': why the attractive −1/R³ hyperfine interaction does not cause collapse of hydrogen or positronium. Using the Gordon solution of the Dirac–Coulomb problem and a minimax variational trial function with parameters (R, X, γ), the authors derive the energy of hydrogen (Eq. 21) and positronium (Eq. 30), recovering the known ground-state energies. For the magnetic response, they compute the expectation value of γ⁰γ·eA in the variational state and obtain an effective electron magnetic moment μ_eff/e = R/(2√((mRγ)²+1)) (Eq. 39), which approaches eR/2 as R→0 instead of the free-field e/2m. They argue that this softens the hyperfine interaction from 1/R³ to 1/R, so that the kinetic energy always dominates at small R, preventing collapse. A similar suppression is claimed for the proton (Eq. 47), and the framework is extended to two fermions of arbitrary masses in Appendix C.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, it resolves a long-standing apparent instability in the Dirac–Coulomb description of hydrogen and positronium and provides a new variational tool for relativistic two-body Coulomb systems, with possible applications to diquarks. The paper contains several genuine strengths: it builds on the exact Gordon solution; the variational calculation reproduces the exact hydrogen ground-state energy (Eq. 23) and the known positronium hyperfine result (Eq. 45); and the derivation is analytic and transparent, with no fitted constants. The proposed R-dependent magnetic moment is a concrete, falsifiable prediction. However, the small-R softening result rests on the minimax procedure in a regime the paper itself concedes is not a rigorous upper bound, and the proton effective moment is asserted without derivation. These load-bearing points need independent checks before the collapse-avoidance claim can be considered secure.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II and Eq. (39)] The central result μ_eff/e = R/(2√((mRγ)²+1)) is obtained by substituting the energy-extremization condition (19) into the magnetic moment matrix element (33). But in the regime R < 1/m, where the softening matters, the trial state has X→1 and contains an O(1) admixture of lower components, and the paper states in Sec. II that the minimax method 'does not in general necessarily provide an exact upper bound.' The energy functional (21) is evaluated at a saddle point in X, not a variational minimum. A different trial family—for example, allowing independent radial profiles for upper and lower components, or using a no-pair projected basis—could alter the R-scaling of μ_eff. Since the collapse-avoidance claim depends quantitatively on this scaling in the window 1/M_p < R < 1/m (and for positronium, 0 < R < 1/m), an independent fixed-R Dirac calculation or a different variational ansatz is n
  2. [Sec. IV, Eq. (47)] The proton effective magnetic moment, μ_eff^p = (g_p/2) e X_p R/(1+X_p²), is introduced with 'one readily finds' and no derivation. This is a load-bearing element for hydrogen stability: the claim that the hyperfine energy is bounded by the electron kinetic energy for all R down to the proton scale requires the proton moment to be suppressed as ~eR for R < 1/M_p. The proton, however, is a composite object with an anomalous magnetic moment, and treating it as a point Dirac fermion down to R ≈ 0.05 fm is not justified. The derivation should be supplied, and the validity of the point-Dirac treatment in this regime should be discussed, including possible form-factor or compositeness effects.
  3. [Appendix C, Eq. (C13)] The extension to two fermions of arbitrary masses rests on the factorized trial wavefunction (C2) with a common spatial factor r^{γ−1}e^{−r/R}. The paper itself notes in Sec. C2 that the presence of a common exponent γ 'has been argued against in a detailed analysis in Ref. [14].' Yet the proton moment and the equal-mass positronium results are tied to this factorization. The heuristic nature of the factorization should be acknowledged in the main text, and the relation to Ref. [14] should be clarified. If Ref. [14] shows that the factorized form is not reliable, that directly undermines the quantitative small-R predictions for hydrogen and positronium.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] Several typos and corrupted symbols appear: 'minumum' (Abstract), 'proceduce' (Sec. II), 'groiund' (Sec. VI), and '⣨1/r⟩' in Eq. (14) should be ⟨1/r⟩. The reference in the bibliography appears corrupted ('Ko/suppress lakowska').
  2. [Sec. IV] The Breit factors B_o (Eq. 36) and B_i (Eq. 42) are introduced and then set to unity in the subsequent equations; the order of the approximation should be stated more precisely. Also, Eq. (41) for the hyperfine interaction in hydrogen contains an explicit 1/R³ factor before the X-dependent suppression, which is clear but would benefit from a sentence emphasizing that the R³ divergence is cancelled by the R in Eq. (47).
  3. [Sec. V] The comparison with the Landau–Lifshitz bound for an r^{-2} potential is used to argue that the hyperfine potential has no bound states; however, the condition μ_f < μ_e/8 is quoted without derivation. A brief derivation or reference to the exact condition would improve self-containedness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No central claim reduces to its inputs: the small-R magnetic-moment softening is a variational consequence, not a fitted prediction, and the only self-citation is non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The trial state (10)-(13) is a parameterized form of the Gordon solution; X is fixed by extremizing the energy (Eq. 19), and the effective moment (Eqs. 37-39) is the expectation value of the same state in a magnetic field. This is a standard variational computation of an observable, not a parameter fitted to the predicted quantity. No empirical constants are fitted; the proton gp is an external input. The small-R limiting form μ_eff→eR/2 follows algebraically from X→1 as mRγ→0 in Eq. (20), so the claimed 1/R softening is not imposed by hand. The positronium energy and hyperfine results are checked against external numerical results [13,14] and the standard Karplus-Klein result [3]. The only self-citation, Ref. [6], is to the authors' forthcoming diquark paper and appears only as a future application or motivation, not as evidence for the hyperfine result. The paper's own caveat that the minimax method 'does not in general necessarily provide an exact upper bound' (Sec. II) is a limitation on rigor, not a circularity; it does not make the output an input. No circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. It relies on the Dirac equation, the minimax method, the Gordon trial family, and a point-proton description. The main modeling burden is the variational family's validity at R<1/m and the proton treatment.

free parameters (1)
  • γ (common exponent in two-fermion trial wavefunction) = solved from (C19)-(C21); for hydrogen γ=√(1−α²)
    In the unequal-mass extension, γ is not fixed by the Dirac equation but solved from two equations; the paper acknowledges Ref. [14] questioned this common-exponent assumption. This is a variational modeling choice.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Dirac equation with Coulomb potential is the correct description of hydrogenic atoms and positronium at all R down to R→0.
    Used throughout; assumes no QED radiative corrections, which the paper acknowledges are omitted.
  • ad hoc to paper The minimax variational principle gives reliable energies and magnetic moments for trial states, including R<1/m.
    Paper admits minimax 'does not in general necessarily provide an exact upper bound' (Sec. II); the small-R results rest on this.
  • domain assumption The trial wavefunction (10) with r^{γ−1} e^{−r/R} remains a valid variational family for all R.
    Used to compute E(R) and μ_eff(R); a different trial family could change the small-R behavior.
  • domain assumption The proton can be treated as a point Dirac fermion with the free-space g_p=5.58 down to R∼0.05 fm.
    Eq. (47) extends the Dirac treatment to the proton inside its own Compton radius; proton compositeness is neglected.
  • domain assumption For unequal masses, the two-particle wavefunction factorizes as (C2) with a common spatial wavefunction e^{−r/R} at large r.
    Appendix C; the paper notes Ref. [14] argues against a common exponent γ.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Resolution of the hyperfine puzzle and its significance for two fermion Dirac atoms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PIA45M5K

@misc{pith2026260102300,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Resolution of the hyperfine puzzle and its significance for two fermion Dirac atoms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PIA45M5K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.02300}
}
abstract

The hyperfine interaction in the ground state of a hydrogen atom of assumed radius $R$ is proportional to $-1/R^3$, raising the question of why the hyperfine interaction does not lead to collapse of hydrogen, or positronium. We approach the problem in terms of a minimax variational calculation based on the exact Gordon solution of the Dirac equation for the hydrogen atom ground state. The full Dirac treatment leads to the result that in an assumed variational state of size $R$, when $R$ minimizes the total energy the magnetic moment of the electron assumes its usual value, $e\hbar/2mc$, but when $R<\hbar/mc$, the effective electron magnetic moment becomes essentially $eR/2$, softening the hyperfine interaction and eliminating an energy minumum at small $R$. The magnetic moment of the proton is similarly suppressed, and the hyperfine interaction of a small size atom becomes bounded by the kinetic energy, thus assuring stability. We extend the Dirac variational calculation to positronium where we find simple results for the ground state energy and hyperfiine interaction, and then extend this variational calculation to Coulombic atoms of two fermions of arbitrary masses. This paper also lays out a framework for treating diquarks as relativistic Coulombic systems, in the presence of color electric and magnetic interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.02300 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. , a plot of E vs. X, illustrates the maximum at positive X, corresponding to a positive energy free particle solution, and the minimum at negative X, cor￾responding to a negative energy free particle solution. Appendix C: Fermions of different masses, with Coulomb attraction The Dirac Coulomb problem for two fermions with fi￾nite masses, m1 and m2, with Hamiltonian, H = γ 0 1 ~γ1 · ~p1 + γ 0 1m1 + γ 0 2 ~γ2 · ~p2 + … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references

  1. [14]

    ¨Uber die magnetischen Momente der Atom- kerne,

    E. Fermi , “ ¨Uber die magnetischen Momente der Atom- kerne,” Z. Phys. 60, 320 (1930)

    1930

  2. [1]

    By contrast, in an external magnetic field H, the electron g factor receives a Breit correction (2 γ + 1)/3

    For radii R > 1/m: The magnetic response of the electron, in a state that minimizes the energy with re- spect to radius, is governed by µe = e/2m, with the Breit correction 1/γ(2γ − 1) to the hyperfine energy, where the spatial wavefunction is ∼ rγ−1e−r/R. By contrast, in an external magnetic field H, the electron g factor receives a Breit correction (2 γ + 1)/3

  3. [2]

    At small R < 1/m: There is no minimum in the vari- ational energy as a function of R, and the effective elec- tron magnetic moment scales as R instead of 1 /m, soft- ening the naive singular behavior. With the proton mag- netic moment treated within the Dirac framework, the hyperfine interaction behaves as ±1/R, for R < 1/Mp; the hyperfine interaction is not...

  4. [3]

    The hyperfine interaction in positronium is simi- larly softened for configurations smaller than the electron Compton wavelength. In studying this problem we have introduced a varia- tional approach to calculating the ground state of hydro- gen, and extended it to the Coulomb groiund state for 5 To see the origin of the Fermi form of the hyperfine interactio...

  5. [4]

    (48) 6 Stability as R → 0 requires, 2 > α ( 1 − 2 3(2γ − 1) ⟨⃗ σe+ · ⃗ σe− ⟩ )

    The total energy of positronium in its spatial ground state, including the hyperfine interaction, behaves as E → 1 Rγ ( 2 − α + 2α 3 ⟨⃗ σe+ · ⃗ σe− ⟩ (2γ − 1) ) . (48) 6 Stability as R → 0 requires, 2 > α ( 1 − 2 3(2γ − 1) ⟨⃗ σe+ · ⃗ σe− ⟩ ) . (49) The singlet state (where ⟨⃗ σ1 · ⃗ σ2⟩ = −3) has a stronger negative contribution than the triplet state, and...

  6. [5]

    Relativistic Treatment of the Shielding of the Electron and Proton Magnetic Dipole Moments in Atomic Hydrogen,

    R. A. Hegstrom “Relativistic Treatment of the Shielding of the Electron and Proton Magnetic Dipole Moments in Atomic Hydrogen,” Phys. Rev. 184, 17 (1969)

    1969

  7. [6]

    Relativistic hydrogenic model of diquarks in hadrons,

    G. Baym and G. R. Farrar, “Relativistic hydrogenic model of diquarks in hadrons,” to be published

  8. [7]

    Die Energieniveaus des Wasserstoffatoms nach der Diracschen Quantentheorie des Elektrons,

    W. Gordon, “Die Energieniveaus des Wasserstoffatoms nach der Diracschen Quantentheorie des Elektrons,” Z, f. Physik, 48, 11 (1928)

    1928

Show all 27 references
  1. [8]

    Bethe and E.E

    H.A. Bethe and E.E. Salpeter, Quantum mechanics of one- and two-electron atoms , Springer-Verlag, Heidel- berg, 1957

    1957

  2. [9]

    (A2) Matching term by term in r, we have from Eq

    to, ( EH − m + α r ) ˜ϕ = ( −i⃗ σ· ⃗∇)(i⃗ σ· ˆr) ˜ϕX = X ( − 1 R + γ + 1 r ) ˜ϕ, (A1) since ⃗∇ · ˆr = 2/r; and in addition, ( EH + m + α r ) X = ( 1 R + 1 − γ r ) . (A2) Matching term by term in r, we have from Eq. ( A2), X = 1 (EH + m)R = 1 − γ α . (A3) while Eq. ( A1) implie...

  3. [10]

    By symmetry X1 = X2 ≡ X

    for hydrogen, Ψps(r) = ( 1√ 1 + X 2 1 (ζ1, iX1⃗ σ· ˆrζ1) ⊗ 1√ 1 + X 2 2 (ζ2, −iX2⃗ σ· ˆrζ2) ) ˜ϕ(r), (28) where ζ1 and ζ2 are the two component spinors of parti- cles 1 and 2, ⃗ r= ⃗ r1 − ⃗ r2, and ˜ϕ(r) ∼ rγ−1e−r/R. By symmetry X1 = X2 ≡ X. Then the variational ground state e...

  4. [11]

    We also assume that for r much larger than the size, R, of the bound state, that d ¯φ/dr = − ¯φ/R plus terms that fall off faster in r and can thus be neglected asymptotically

    Total energy in terms of masses and radius Nonetheless we can get important information about the energy of the ground state if we assume that for large r the two particle 4 × 4 Dirac wave function is a product of individual wave functions of the form ( 10), Ψ = { 1√ 1 + X 2 1...

  5. [12]

    [ 14]; even so a trial spatial wave function of the form ˜ϕ(r) ∼ rγ−1e−r/R remains a useful starting point

    Variational calculation The presence of a common exponent γ in the spatial behavior of all components of the exact Coulomb wave function has been argued against in a detailed analysis in Ref. [ 14]; even so a trial spatial wave function of the form ˜ϕ(r) ∼ rγ−1e−r/R remains a ...

  6. [13]

    we can max- imize the energy with respect to X for all R. However, 2 An alternative procedure to matching coefficients in the Dira c equation is to make the ansatz – useful for positronium as wel l – that in the regime R > 1/m, γ = √ 1 − 1/(mR)2, so that Rγ = √ R2 − 1/m2. 4 the ...

  7. [15]

    Possible Effects of Nuclear Spin on X-Ray Terms,

    G. Breit, “Possible Effects of Nuclear Spin on X-Ray Terms,” Phys. Rev. 35, 1447 (1930)

    1930

  8. [16]

    Electrodynamic Displacement of Atomic Energy Levels. III. The Hyperfine Structure of Positronium,

    R. Karplus and A. Klein, “Electrodynamic Displacement of Atomic Energy Levels. III. The Hyperfine Structure of Positronium,” Phys. Rev. 87, 848 (1952)

    1952

  9. [17]

    Bound States in Delta Function Poten- tials,

    S. Geltman, “Bound States in Delta Function Poten- tials,” J. Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 573179 (2011)

    2011

  10. [20]

    Minimax Principle for the Dirac Equa- tion,

    J. D. Talman. “Minimax Principle for the Dirac Equa- tion,” Phys. Rev. Letters 57, 1091 (1986)

    1986

  11. [21]

    Kalf, U.-W

    H. Kalf, U.-W. Schmincke, J. Walter, and R. W¨ ust. ”On the Spectral Theory of Schr¨ odinger and Dirac opera- tors with Strongly Singular Potentials,” in W. N. Everitt (ed), Spectral Theory and Differential Equations , Lecture Notes in Mathematics 448 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelb...

    1975 doi

  12. [22]

    Application of the minimax principleto the Dirac-Coulomb problem,

    A. Ko/suppress lakowska, “Application of the minimax principleto the Dirac-Coulomb problem,” J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 29, 4515 (1996)

    1996

  13. [23]

    High-accuracy solution of the Dirac equation for three-dimensional hydrogen atom using a variation- ally optimized diagonalization method,

    S. Wu “High-accuracy solution of the Dirac equation for three-dimensional hydrogen atom using a variation- ally optimized diagonalization method,” Chem. Physics, Chemical Physics 579, 112192 (2024)

    2024

  14. [24]

    The relativistic two- body Coulomb system,

    J. W. Darewych and M. Horbatsch, “The relativistic two- body Coulomb system,” J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 22, 973 (1989)

    1989

  15. [25]

    Two-fermion Dirac-like eigenstates of the Coulomb QED Hamiltonian,

    J. W. Darewych and L. Di Leo, “Two-fermion Dirac-like eigenstates of the Coulomb QED Hamiltonian,” J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 29, 6817 (1996)

    1996

  16. [26]

    S. M. Blinder, The Hyperfine Interaction Hamiltonian,” J. Molecular Spectroscopy 6, 17 (1960)

    1960

  17. [27]

    L. D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, Quantum Mechanics , 3rd ed, 1981; §35

    1981

  18. [35]

    5 As we discuss below, the explicit factor R softens the divergence of the hyperfine energy as R → 0

    becomes simply the value of the field at the center of the atom. 5 As we discuss below, the explicit factor R softens the divergence of the hyperfine energy as R → 0. The fac- tor Bo, which differs from unity because of the higher order corrections to γ = 1 appearing in ˜φ, gives...

  19. [53]

    vanishes, while e⃗ σ· ⃗∇Q(r) × ⃗A(r) → −2e µp r2 dQ dr . (55) Altogether, ( ǫ − m + α r ) φ = (−i⃗∇ + e ⃗A(r)) Q ǫ + m · (−i⃗∇ + e ⃗A(r))φ + Vhf,0(r)φ, (56) where Vhf,0(r) = − 2eµp ǫ + m 1 r2 dQ dr = − 2eµp r2 α ((ǫ + m)r + α)2 (57) is the effective potential an electron in a s...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.