Research ArticleOpen AccessGoogle Scholar indexed
Future Theoretical Approaches in Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Physics, Center for Advanced Medical Imaging Sciences, Harvard Medical School, and Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
- 1 Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Physics, Center for Advanced Medical Imaging Sciences, Harvard Medical School, and Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Journal of Modern Physics·Volume 05 (2014)·Pages 145–148·Published 21 February 2014·DOI10.4236/jmp.2014.54024
Copy link · social · email
Abstract
Solving a time-dependent linear differential equation towards obtaining evolution operators is a central problem in solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance. To this end, average Hamiltonian theory and Floquet theory have been the two commonly used theoretically methods in spin dynamics of NMR. We recently introduced the Floquet-Magnus expansion approach and here, we present the methodology of potentials future theoretical approaches such as the Fer expansion, Chebyshev expansion and Cayley transformation that could be useful tools for numerical integrators and simulations of spin dynamics in NMR.
KeywordsSolid-State NMRAverage Hamiltonian TheoryFloquet TheoryFloquet Magnus TheoryFer Expansion
- E. Schrodinger, Physical Review, Vol. 28, 1926, pp. 1049-1070. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.28.1049
- W. Magnus, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 7, 1954, p. 649.
- U. Haeberlen and J. S. Waugh, Physical Review, Vol. 175, 1968, p. 453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.175.453
- M. G. Floquet, Ann. Econ. Norm, Suppl. 12, 1883, p. 47.
- J. H. Shirley, Physical Review B, Vol. 138, 1965, p. 979. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.138.B979
- Y. Zur, M. H. Levitt and S. Vega, Journal of Chemical Physics, Vol. 78, 1983, p. 5293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.445483
- M. M. Maricq, Physical Review B, Vol. 25, 1982, p. 6622. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.25.6622
- E. S. Mananga and T. Charpentier, Journal of Chemical Physics, Vol. 135, 2011, Article ID: 044109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3610943
- S. Blanes, F. Casas, J. A. Oteo and J. Ros, Physics Reports, Vol. 470, 2009, p. 151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2008.11.001
- E. S. Mananga, A. E. Reid and T. Charpentier, Solid State Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, Vol. 41, 2012, p. 32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssnmr.2011.11.004
- E. S. Mananga and A. E. Reid, Molecular Physics, Vol. 111, 2013, pp. 243-257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00268976.2012.718379
- F. Fer, Bulletin de la Classe des Sciences, Academie Royale de Belgique, Vol. 44, 1958, p. 818.
- P. K. Madhu and N. D. Kurur, Chemical Physics Letters, Vol. 418, 2006, p. 235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cplett.2005.10.134
- H. Tal-Ezer and R. Kosloff, Journal of Chemical Physics, Vol. 81, 1984, p. 3967. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.448136
- T. J. Rivlin, “Chebychev Polynomials,” 2nd Edition, Wiley, New York, 1990, p. 188.
- C. B. Moler and C. F. Van Loan, SIAM Review, Vol. 45, 2003, p. 49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/S00361445024180
- A. Iserles, Foundations of Computational Mathematics, Vol. 1, 2001, pp. 129-160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s102080010003
- E. Süli and D. Mayers, “An Introduction to Numerical Analysis,” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801181
- E. M. Purcell, H. C. Torrey and R. V. Pound, Physical Review, Vol. 69, 1946, p. 37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.69.37