Ground state of Phosphorus Problem

r_tea
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
This problem is 1.1b out of "Atomic Physics" by Budker, Kimball, and Demille. There are solutions in the book, but I am confused:

I'm asked to find the ground state configuration of Phosphorus, which is has 3 P-state valence electrons. Following Hund's rule, we want to find a state with largest total spin (S) and largest total angular momentum (L) (I use little l and s to refer to single particle states). So for 3 electrons, picking the largest S state is easy: we get S=3/2 (i.e. |m_s=1/2 \rangle|m_s=1/2 \rangle|m_s=1/2 \rangle).

Since the spin part is chosen to be symmetric, we must construct an antisymmetric spatial wavefunction. We know all electrons are in the P manifold, so our choices of states for each particle are
l_i=1, m_{l_i}=1,0,-1

The authors go on to use a Slater determinant to find a totally anti-symmetric combination of these states for 3 particles, which coincides with the total angular momentum state |L=0, m_L=0\rangle. Great! So then the ground state will be
|S=3/2, m_S= \text{4 possible values}\rangle|L=0, m_L=0\rangle.

But what the authors don't address is the total angular momentum L=2 state, which should also be anti-symmetric (since symmetry alternates between L=3,2,1,0). And also, since L=2>L=0, it should have a lower energy according to Hund's rules, no? That is my confusion.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Actually, I think I solved my own problem. It is true that for two identical spins the total angular momentum states follow the symmetry pattern:
L_\text{total,max} \rightarrow \text {Symmetric}
L_\text{total,max}-1 \rightarrow \text {Antisymmetric}
L_\text{total,max}-2 \rightarrow \text {Symmetric}
\text{etc.}

However, for three particles, I'm pretty sure this statement is not true. For example, in my problem I had the addition of three l=1 particles. I think the states actually look like...
L_\text{tot}=3 \rightarrow \text {Symmetric}
L_\text{tot}=2 \rightarrow \text {No def symmetry}
L_\text{tot}=1 \rightarrow \text {No def symmetry}
L_\text{tot}=0 \rightarrow \text {Antisymmetric}

Hence, only the Ltot=0 case would work for my problem.

Does anyone know any more about this many-particle addition of angular momentum? E.g., maybe the alternating symmetry works for addition of even numbers of identical particles?
 
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...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Back
Top