Nuclear magnetic resonance and electron paramagnetic resonance: Basics
25 Aug 2024 - tsp Last update 11 Jan 2026 44 mins
Introduction
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) and Electron Paramagnetic Resonance (EPR) are powerful
and versatile techniques that have revolutionized the fields of chemistry, physics,
and medicine. These techniques exploit the intrinsic magnetic properties of atomic
nuclei and unpaired electrons, respectively, to reveal detailed information about
the structure, dynamics, and electronic environment of molecules.
When placed in an external magnetic field, certain nucleiâsuch as hydrogen or carbon
in NMRâor unpaired electrons in EPR, behave like tiny gyroscopes, precessing
around the magnetic field at a characteristic frequency known as the Larmor
frequency. This frequency is directly related to the magnetic field strength and
the specific particle being observed, whether it be a nucleus or an electron.
In NMR, the interaction between spinning nuclei and an applied external magnetic
field leads to Zeeman splitting, where the energy levels of the nuclei split
according to their spin states. Similarly, in EPR, unpaired electrons
experience energy level splitting in a magnetic field. By introducing a
radio frequency (RF) pulse (in NMR) or a microwave pulse (in EPR), we can
perturb these spin systems, leading to a rich array of resonance phenomena
that can be detected and analyzed.
This article delves deep into both the classical and quantum mechanical
descriptions of NMR, beginning with the phenomenological Bloch equations,
which govern the time evolution of nuclear magnetization under the influence
of static and oscillating magnetic fields. We explore the concepts of
longitudinal ($T_1$) and transverse ($T_2$) relaxation times, which
characterize how the system returns to equilibrium after being disturbed,
as well as the effects of a classical driving field on spin polarization.
Building on the classical foundation, we then transition to the quantum
mechanical description of NMR and EPR, examining the system dynamics through
the lens of quantum operators, the density matrix formalism, and the
Lindblad master equation. This comprehensive approach allows us to
recover the classical Bloch equations from the quantum mechanical model,
providing a deep understanding of the microscopic origins of macroscopic
observations.
Through a combination of theoretical models and simulations, this article
aims to provide a thorough understanding of how NMR and EPR work and why
these techniques remain cornerstones in both research and industry.
The energy splitting in nuclear states exploited by NMR is caused by the coupling
of the nuclear spins to an external magnetic field. Depending on their orientation
they have different energy states. From a quantum mechanical view this is in itâs
most simple configuration a simple two level system
with all of itâs consequences - the quantum mechanical view will predict and explain
effects like Rabi oscillations and provide a more in depth view of NMR. In this article
weâre going to focus on the classical phenomenological view that utilizes the classical
coupling of a magnetic gyroscope to the polarizing field - depending on itâs orientation
there can be different energy states.
In thermal equilibrium the population imbalance by the two states (the ground state $<\alpha\mid$
and the excited state $<\beta\mid$ is determined by the temperature of the system according
to the Boltzmann law:
[
\begin{aligned}
\Delta E &= \hbar \gamma B \\
\frac{N_1}{N_2} &= e^{-\frac{\Delta E}{k_B T}}
\end{aligned}
]
The net magnetization caused by the difference between higher and lower state
that can be detected is thus described by:
[
\begin{aligned}
\Delta N &= N_{lower} - N_{upper} \\
&= N \left( 1 - e^{-\frac{\Delta E}{k_B T}} \right)
\end{aligned}
]
As one can see one can influence the population difference either by increasing
the energy gap (and thus going to higher magnetic fields - which also yields higher
resonance frequencies as weâre going to see shortly) or by massively decreasing
the temperature - which is the reason why one sees many NMR and EPR spectrometers in
science operating at cryogenic temperatures of liquid nitrogen (77K), liquid
helium (4K) or even below.
Phenomenological Bloch equations
In the following sections weâre going to look at a phenomenological non quantum
mechanical description of NMR. This view is described by the phenomenological
Bloch equations.
They describe the net magnetization in a sample when applying an external
magnetic field. The idea starts off with looking at a single spin precessing
around a quantization axis set by the external static polarizing magnetic
field $B_0$, usually assumed along the $z$ axis Since there is no
net force acting on the dipole itâs assumed that the torque will be of
interest:
First letâs take a look at the steady state solution without
relaxation in a static external magnetic field along the $z$
axis without applying any driving fields. Weâre going to see
the spins are precessing around the quantization axis.
The last equation shows that without relaxation effects $M_z$
is time independent - the spin precesses around the axis.
The remaining two differential equations are simple to solve assuming
that $\partial_t B_z = 0$ (and also assuming the gyromagnetic ratio
is constant over time). We do this by introducing the quantity
[
M_{xy} = M_{x} + i M_{y}
]
This will introduce a transversal co-rotating field component. Weâll
see this shortly. Adding the two equations with an additional $i$ term:
As we can see for the steady state solution without relaxation
the $M_{xy}$ component precesses with the so called Larmor
frequency $\omega = \gamma B_z$ around the bias / quantization ($z$)
axis keeping a constant amplitude - and the amplitude of the
magnetization in the quantization axis $M_z(t)$ also stays constant.
Longitudinal relaxation ($T_1$) and constant external field
Out of experimental data one can assume that net magnetization will
return to rest if perturbed. Assuming that one has oriented all spins
along the $z$ axis at rest and then has kicked them towards the $xy$
plane one can assume that the spins will relax into their steady state
orientation with a velocity thatâs proportional to the difference of
the current magnetization $M_z(t)$ and the steady state magnetization $M_z(0)$
since itâs a stochastic process:
Now lets search a particular solution. Since our inhomogeneity is
constant ($M_0$) and not time dependent we assume that our homogeneous
term will also be constant. We can insert this Ansatz into our
differential equation:
As usual assume that our complete solution is formed by a combination
of the homogeneous solution that captures the dynamics and the particular
solution that captures the initial condition:
Transversal relaxation ($T_2$) and constant external field
For transversal relaxation one can assume a decay rate of $\frac{1}{T_2}$
that is proportional to the transversal field. The steady state should
approach zero so the equations are simpler than for longitudinal relaxation:
As one can see the second term yields relaxation back into the
polarizing field direction. When one waits indefinitely this should yield
a zero field in the transversal direction:
Up until now we only looked at the Bloch equations in a steady state - with
only an static external $B_z$ bias field. To drive the system one usually
applies an classical radio frequency (RF) drive field in an orthogonal
direction. This is usually modeled in the $xy$ plane. Under
realistic circumstances one also gets components in $B_z$ direction.
Then it gets even harder to solve since decoupling of the equations does
not work any more.
Transforming vectors into rotating fields, differentials of rotation matrices
Now letâs first recapitulate a little math on rotation matrices. This
will help in solving the equation massively. Letâs assume we rotate a
vector around the $z$ axis on the $xy$ plane. We can do this by
applying the rotation matrix
Bloch equation without relaxation with driving field
First lets take a look at the Bloch equations when adding a driving
field when neglecting the relaxation processes. This is a reasonable
approximation for many pulsed experiments since the driving pulse
durations are often very short compared to relaxation times.
Assume the driving field is operating with a frequency $\omega_{RF}$
in the $x$ plane. Thus our driving field vector in the laboratory
frame is
We can now model our system again using the Bloch equation in the
laboratory frame. In the following section all components in the
laboratory frame are denoted by the $L$ index, all in the rotating frame
by the $R$ label (i.e. $M_L$ and $M_R$).
As we will see later itâs way easier to move into a co-rotating frame
that is rotating around our quantization axis $z$ with the Lamour frequency. In the
following we assume the rotation frequency of our co-rotating frame is
described by $\Omega$. Thus our Bloch equation in the co-rotating frame
can be derived by transforming our Magnetization vector into the
co-rotating frame:
Since the rotation matrix is acting on the whole term $\frac{\partial M_L}{\partial t}$
in the laboratory frame and itâs just composed of two vector components we can
transform each of the vectors by the rotation matrix into the rotating
frame. We first take a look at the magnetic field components:
As a last step lets now add relaxation again. Recall that in the
laboratory frame the phenomenological relaxation is described by the
last term in the following expression:
This shows we can simply apply the prefactors $\frac{1}{T_2}$
and the structure $\frac{M_0 - M_{L,z}}{T_1}$ to the
transformed vector as one could have expected:
Thus we have our set of the 3 coupled differential equations that
model a simple system with quantization or polarization axis $z$
and an perpendicular RF field in the XY plane:
What do these equations actually mean? Keep in mind those are
classical phenomenological equations - they donât describe effects
as Rabi oscillations - so for example you will only see saturation of
the excited state with longer and longer pulse times. This does not
fit the experiment where the largest population of the excited state
will be achieved using $\frac{\pi}{2}$ pulses.
The following simulations have been calculated with the following
parameters:
Time range over 25 ms
Initial magnetization along the $z$ axis
$B_0$ field of 7 T
$B_1$ field strength of 1 mT
$\omega_{RF}$ of 42 MHz
$\Omega$ of 42 MHz
$\gamma$ - the gyromagnetic ratio - of $42 \frac{MHz}{T}$
The $T_1$ and $T_2$ times have been chosen way shorter than
real values to keep the simulation time span short - theyâve been
shorted by a factor of about 1 million for a free proton
$T_1 = 650ns$
$T_2 = 150ns$
Driving with an on resonant field
To simulate the driving the initial state is a single spin polarized
completely parallel to the quantization axis - into $z$ direction.
The driving field, relaxation and the bias field are enabled.
As one can see the driving field in rotational frame is constant while
oscillating in the lab frame (plots in the lower rows). This is due
to the rotating frame rotating with the Lamour frequency. This slowly
tilts the spin from the $z$ plane (the magnetization shown in the
right upper plot) into the $xy$ plane (the magnetization shown in the
left upper plot). As one can see this yields two oscillating components.
One in phase with the driving field (i.e. along the co-rotating $x$
axis) - this is called the absorptive component since it counteracts
the effective field that also drives the system. The second signal
along the $y$ axis is shifted with respect to the drive signal - this
is called dispersive signal due to this phase shift.
Decay due to relaxation effects
Illustrating the decay effect due to relaxation effects is done by
doing the same simulation, initially polarizing the spins in the $xy$ plane
and disabling the drive field.
As one can see the magnetization along the $xy$ plane decays exponentially
while the magnetization relaxes back to itâs initial value along the $z$
plane as expected. Again there is an absorptive and dispersive component
in the co-rotating $xy$ plane that yields an exponentially decaying
absorptive and dispersive signal.
The quantum mechanical description
As we can see above the description of relaxation matches what we would expect
and what we will see later in experimental data - but it fails to describe some
well known effects like Rabi oscillations (that we would expect for any
quantum mechanical two level system and it
does not tell us how the system really behaves on microscopic scale but delivers
only a macroscopic phenomenological description of the effects. To dive further
into the microscopic behavior we have to move on to the quantum mechanical
description of our spins. To do this we first look at a single spin. To do this lets
first recall the notation of spin operators and Pauli matrices that weâre going to
use to describe spins in our $SU(2)$:
A short reminder on spin operators and Pauli matrices
Letâs recall the spin operators in quantum mechanics. They are designed to behave
like angular momentum operators. We usually use Pauli matrices as one of the
representations of the generators of the $SU(2)$ Lie group that contains our spin
state:
Our Hamiltonian and its Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors
Now that we recalled how spin operators work lets set up a Hamiltonian for
our system. This will model the coupling between a single spin and an
external magnetic field:
As one can see we have assumed again that the external bias field $B_0$ is
oriented along the z Axis - so the inner product of $\vec{B}_0$ and the spin
operator $\hat{S}$ only yields a $z$ component.
The Eigenstates $\mid \uparrow >$ and $\mid \downarrow >$ of the $\hat{S}_z$
operator can be derived when solving the Eigenstates of the Hamiltonian:
Since we are going to use density matrices to model our system later on letâs
quickly recall the formalism used. A density matrix describes all states of
a system and their population probability - as well as the overlap between
non orthogonal states in the off diagonal terms.
The time evolution of a density matrix is described by the Liouville-von Neumann equation.
This equation can be derived from the time dependent Schrödinger equation. First we
reorder the Schrödinger equation:
As one can see the dynamics of the density matrix is fully described by the commutator between
the Hamiltonian and the density matrix - as usual the quantum mechanical description arises
from the fact that the operators do not commute.
Initial state of our system
In thermal equilibrium the initial density matrix can be constructed by taking into
account for the population probability of a state that is described by the Boltzmann
distribution:
In contrast to our treatment of the phenomenological Bloch equations we are
adding the drive term before taking a look at the solution of the equation.
The driving field is modeled in a classical way (i.e. weâre not modeling
the exchange of photons but just assume the presence of the field that is coupling
to the spin system):
Weâve chosen to orient the drive field in $\hat{x}$ direction - this is an
arbitrary choice in the $xy$ plane that does not limit validity of our
model (i.e. we can just rotate each other system around the $z$ axis so our
model fits any driving field in the $xy$ plane - assuming dipole radiation).
Moving to the rotating frame, rotating frame approximation
As in the classical description solving the actual time dependent equations
gets simpler when we move into a co-rotating frame. To model our rotation
weâre utilizing a Unitarian transformation (recall that unitarity preserves
length of state vectors - so normalization and also total energy is conserved).
[
\hat{U}(t) = e^{i \omega t \hat{S}_z}
]
This yields the Hamiltonian in the co-rotating field:
Now we perform the rotating wave approximation. We assume that terms $\omega_{RF} + \omega$
are oscillating very fast compared to our systems dynamic so they are assumed to average out
over time. The detuning is now labeled $\Delta \omega = \omega - \omega_{RF}$ so we can simplify
our Hamiltonian in the rotating frame to:
To get a first impression of the equation and itâs implication we assume driving the system
on resonance, i.e. $\omega_{RF} = \omega$ and thus $\Delta \omega = 0$:
The prefactors $c_1, c_3, c_4$ and $c_5$ have to be determined by initial conditions. As we can see
the states are oscillating between up and down state.
The probability of locating a system in states $\mid \uparrow >$ and $\mid \downarrow >$
can be determined by taking the absolute values:
As for the electric dipole this shows
oscillations between excited and ground state due to coherent exchange of energy between the driving
field $B_1$ and the spin system.
The oscillation between ground and excited state and back is called Rabi oscillation, the
frequency $\Omega$ is the Rabi frequency
Again one can define $\frac{\pi}{2}$ and $\pi$ pulses which are the extrema - for a $\pi$ pulse the
system is transitioned fully from ground to excited state, for a $\frac{\pi}{2}$ pulse the system
is kicked into the $xy$ plane.
Introducing relaxation processes
Introducing relaxation processes is a little bit harder. Up until now we modeled a
unitary system (which means energy is conserved). To model the dynamic using the density
matrix formalism one uses the commutator with the Hamiltonian (also called the von Neumann
equation):
This equation works well for closed systems (due to itâs unitarity) - when coupling the
system to a bath or reservoir one needs to introduce some non Unitarian terms. This is
usually done in the context of the Lindblad master equation (see the Gorini-Kossakowski-Sudarshan
and Linblad theorem)
The Lindblad operators $L_j$ describe the interaction with the environment.
Longitudinal relaxation T1
To introduce longitudinal relaxation one has to account for the relaxation of the $z$
component back into equilibrium state by dissipation of energy to the environment (the bath).
This is done by decaying from the excited state to the ground state with a decay
rate $\frac{1}{T_1}$. This can be modeled with the ladder operator $\hat{\sigma_{-}}$:
The introduction of transverse relaxation works similar - this is the loss
of coherence in the $xy$ plane (i.e. the decay of off diagonal elements in
the density matrix - dephasing).
To determine the magnetization of the whole system - this is the quantity we have also
described phenomenological before - we apply our spin operators and trace out the density
matrix:
This is consistent with the phenomenological model in the rotating frame (note that it has been
assumed to drive on resonant - this is the reason why we only see the driving field acting onto
the $y$ components derivative).
As we can see this influences the $z$ component via the ladder operators $\hat{\sigma}_{+}$
and $\hat{\sigma}_{-}$ which indirectly influences of course the absorptive and
dispersive components $M_x$ and $M_y$ via the unitary interactions.
Another interesting property is the expected (minimum) width of the signal as well
as the expected minimum lifetime of the excited state. For an spin system that is
only affected by the longitudinal and transversal relaxation processes this is
mainly limited by the relaxation time $T_2$ (i.e. transversal relaxation).
Keep in mind that for practical systems effects like magnetic field inhomogenity
can quickly yield way larger contributions.
Limits by transversal relaxation
Taking a look at the spectral function of the transversal magnetization
In the last line we moved to a line width in angular frequency instead of Hz.
Associated lifetime limit by transversal relaxation
The lower lifetime boundary associated with the relaxation time $T_2$
can be derived from the energy-time uncertainty relation (and recalling
that $E = h \nu$ and $\hbar = \frac{h}{2 \pi}$):
[
\begin{aligned}
\Delta E \Delta t &\geq \frac{\hbar}{2} \\
h \Delta \nu \Delta t &\geq \frac{\hbar}{2} \\
\Delta \nu \Delta t &\geq \frac{1}{4 \pi} \\
\frac{1}{\pi T_2} \tau &\geq \frac{1}{4 \pi} \\
\tau &\geq \frac{T_2}{4}
\end{aligned}
]