Calculating Theoretical Landé Factor for Dy_2O_3 and Er_2O_3

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter kuengb
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theoretical
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the theoretical Landé factor for the paramagnetic atoms in Dy2O3 and Er2O3, focusing on the determination of quantum numbers for orbital momentum (l) and electron spin (s) in the context of magnetic susceptibility experiments.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Bruno outlines a method for calculating l and s based on the electron configurations of Erbium, suggesting that l is derived from the sum of l values for non-filled orbitals and s from unpaired electrons.
  • Bruno proposes that for Erbium with the configuration (Xe)4f12 6s2, l would be calculated as 12*3 and s as 2*1/2.
  • Another participant clarifies that Er3+ has 11 electrons in its 4f shell, indicating that only these electrons should be considered for the calculation.
  • Bruno seeks confirmation on whether his understanding of l and s is correct after the clarification, suggesting l=11*3 and s=3/2.
  • A later reply states that understanding the electron configuration of Er3+ requires computer calculations and notes that the calculation of total l should involve vector addition of orbital moments, specifically referencing the lz components of the 4f-holes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the calculation of l and s, with some agreeing on the need to consider only the electrons in the 4f shell while others challenge the method of calculating total l. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the correct approach to determining these quantum numbers.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the assumptions made about the electron configurations and the methods for calculating angular momentum, particularly regarding the treatment of ionic bonding and the vector addition of orbital moments.

kuengb
Messages
106
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone

I did an experiment about magnetic susceptibility of Dy_2O_3 and Er_2O_3. For data evaluation I have to calculate the theoretical Landé factor for the paramagnetic atoms in these salts which is defined as
g_j=1+\frac{j(j+1)+s(s+1)-l(l+1)}{2j(j+1)}
where l and s are the net quantum numbers for orbital momentum and electron spin respectively, j=l+s total angular momentum. The factor gives the relation between angular momentum and magnetic momentum.

The problem is: I don't completely understand how to find the correct values for l and s. That's how I understood it:

1)l is the sum of the l values for all electrons in non-filled orbitals, and s is the sum of the spin numbers (i.e. 1/2) of all unpaired electrons. For Erbium with configuration (Xe)4f^{12} 6s^2 this would then be:12 electrons in the 4f orbital, hence l=12*3, and two unpaired electrons in that orbital, i.e. s=2*1/2. Does this make sense?

2)In the crystal structure of Er_2O_3, Erbium gives away three elecrons to Oxygen. Is it then reasonable to take the electron configuration of Terbium, which is three numbers below, for the above calculation? If not, how do I have to deal with this ionic bindings?

Thanks
Bruno
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Er3+ has 11 electrons in its 4f shell (3 holes). These are the only ones you need to consider.
 
Thank you. So, what I've written in 1) is correct, i.e. in this case l=11*3 and s=3/2 ?

Is there an easy way to understand why Er3+ has this particular configuration and not 4f9-6s2?

Regards
Bruno
 
kuengb said:
Is there an easy way to understand why Er3+ has this particular configuration and not 4f9-6s2?
No, that requires computer calculations. But it is what the rare Earth's do (similar to the transition metals).

Your result for the total l is wrong, because one needs to add orbital moments vectorially. It is easiest to add the l_z components of the 4f-holes, and then one can see that l = maximum l_z = 3 + 2 + 1.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
737
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
11K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K