Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 October 2008
The interaction between an external electromagnetic field and a nuclear system can be expressed in terms of the multipole moments. The electric quadripole and the magnetic dipole moments of the deuteron have been calculated, taking into account the exchange forces as given by the meson theory. The cross-section of the photomagnetic effect of the deuteron has been calculated.
This work was carried out under the guidance of Dr Heitler and Dr Fröhlich. The writer wishes to express his sincerest thanks to them for suggesting the problem and many valuable comments. The writer is also indebted to Dr Kahn for discussions during the early stages of this work.
† Fröhlich, , Heitler, and Kahn, , Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 174 (1940), 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‡ Fermi, , Phys. Rev. 48 (1935), 570CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bethe, and Bacher, , Rev. Mod. Phys. 8 (1936), 82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
† Siegert, , Phys. Rev. 52 (1937), 787CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lamb, and Schiff, , Phys. Rev. 53 (1938), 651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‡ See, for example, Condon, and Shortley, , Theory of atomic spectra (Cambridge, 1935), p. 86Google Scholar; we use the dyadic notation given there.
† Fröhlich, , Heitler, and Kemmer, , Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 166 (1938), 154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
† Fröhlich, Heitler and Kahn, loc. cit.
‡ Proca, , J. Phys. Radium, 7 (1936), 347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
† In (20) we consider only processes of a type where the meson emitted by particle 1 is reabsorbed by the other particle 2. There are, of course, also processes where the meson is reabsorbed by the same particle 1. Processes of the latter type lead just to the anomalous magnetic moments and give rise to what we have called above the second part of μ.
† Alvarez, and Bloch, , Phys. Rev. 57 (1940), 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
† loc. cit. p. 128.
† Massey, and Buckingham, , Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 163 (1937), 281CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Motz, and Rarita, , Phys. Rev. 52 (1937), 271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‡ Wilson, , Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 34 (1938), 365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar