Can someone explain the idea of degeneracy of orbitals?

Click For Summary
Degeneracy in quantum mechanics refers to multiple eigenstates having the same energy level. In atomic orbitals, for example, the hydrogen atom's ground state (n=1) is non-degenerate, as it has only one eigenstate, the s orbital. However, at the n=2 energy level, both the s and p orbitals can exist at the same energy, making it degenerate. The discussion highlights the difference between atomic and molecular orbitals but does not delve into molecular systems. For further understanding, participants seek references for deeper exploration of the topic.
eccles1214
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
This is a confusing topic. What does it mean to be degenerate?
How does this apply to atomic orbitals versus molecular orbitals?
Can you point me to a good reference book on the subject?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The concept of degeneracy is related to the energies of the different quantum states of a system. A given system is said to be degenerate if more than one eigenstate has the same energy as an eigenvalue. Take the hydrogen atom as an example:

In the H atom there are different energy levels and within each energy level you have an orbital corresponding to different allowed values for the electron's angular momentum. These orbitals are the eigenstates for the electron bound to the proton.

There is only one orbital(eigenstate) which has the ground energy as an eigenvalue. This is the S orbital for n=1. Thus, the n=1 energy is non degenerate since there is only one eigenstate the electron can be in (the s orbital) and have that energy.

Now, consider the n=2 energy for hydrogen. Any electron in the s orbital state or one of the p-orbital states will have this energy. Thus, the n=2 energy is said to be degenerate since an electron can have this energy and be in a multitude of different eigenstates of the system.

That is an example of degeneracy in an atomic system. As for a molecular system, I think it is best if i left that to someone else. I have not yet covered that in any class, so I would not be the person to ask.
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
First, I need to check that I have the 3 notations correct for an inner product in finite vector spaces over a complex field; v* means: given the isomorphism V to V* then: (a) physicists and others: (u,v)=v*u ; linear in the second argument (b) some mathematicians: (u,v)=u*v; linear in the first argument. (c) bra-ket: <v|u>= (u,v) from (a), so v*u . <v|u> is linear in the second argument. If these are correct, then it would seem that <v|u> being linear in the second...