Confusion about selection rules

AlonsoMcLaren
Messages
89
Reaction score
2
While I am reviewing my undergrad physics for qualifying exam, I became confused about the numerous selection rules.

(1) We have the selection rules for spontaneous emission in a hydrogen atom: Δl=±1 ,Δml=0,±1. This rule is the easiest to understand by evaluating <n'l'm'|z|nlm>

(2) We have the selection rules for Zeeman effect.
Δj=0,±1 ,Δmj=0,±1. I don't understand the reasons for these rules.

(3) We also have the selections rules for a helium atom where one of its electron is excited: (Modern Physics by Randy Harris, Section 8.9): Δl_total=±1, Δs_total=0, Δj_total=0,±1 (0->0 forbidden). I am totally no clue on this one.

(4) What about a hydrogen atom, without external magnetic field, but in contrast to (1), we are now considering fine structure so the good quantum numbers are n,l,j,mj?
 
  • Like
Likes C_Pu
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure what kind of answer you are looking for. Electric dipole selection rules are always based on whether ##\langle i | \hat{\mu} | f \rangle##, where ##\hat{\mu}## is the dipole operator, is zero or not. Or by "reason" do you mean the physical explanation behind the rule?
 
Last edited:
For 2, you need to know that a photon is a spin 1 particle and some basic rules of angular momentum addition. The total angular momentum of the atom and photon has to equal the total angular momentum of the excited atom.
An electric dipole only operates on the spatial (orbital) part of the wavefunction and not the spin part. When fine structure is involved, you have to consider that an eigenfunction is a superposition of up to two spatial wavefunctions (of n, l, m_l). That is,
##\psi_{nljm_j} = a \psi(x)_{nl,m_l=m_j-1/2} \psi_{m_s=+1/2} + b \psi(x)_{nl,m_l=m_j+1/2} \psi_{m_s=-1/2}##
So the problem including fine structure just reduces to the sum of some calculations with no fine structure (approximately).
 
Last edited:
DrClaude said:
I'm not sure what kind of answer you are looking for. Electric dipole selection rules are always based on whether ##\langle i | \hat{mu} | f \rangle##, where ##\hat{mu}## is the dipole operator, is zero or not. Or by "reason" do you mean the physical explanation behind the rule?

Yes I do mean the physical reasons behind these rules
 
The photon is a spin-1 particle, meaning that it has ħ angular momentum. Conservation of angular momentum is responsible for the selection rule Δl = ±1, and conservation of the projection of angular momentum for Δml = 0, ±1 (corresponding to π, σ+, and σ- polarized light).

Δs = 0 because the EM field doesn't couple to spin.

The rules for Δj and Δmj follow from the above rules for orbital angular momentum and spin. Δj = 0 is a bit more complicated to explain, but it comes from the fact that even though Δl = ±1, you can modify the orientations of l and s such that the resulting j vector is the same length, but this does not work if j = 0, so no 0 → 0 transition.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
I asked a question related to a table levitating but I am going to try to be specific about my question after one of the forum mentors stated I should make my question more specific (although I'm still not sure why one couldn't have asked if a table levitating is possible according to physics). Specifically, I am interested in knowing how much justification we have for an extreme low probability thermal fluctuation that results in a "miraculous" event compared to, say, a dice roll. Does a...

Similar threads

Back
Top