Hund's rules and Pauli's principle

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of Hund's rules and Pauli's exclusion principle to determine the ground state of electron configurations. It explores two methods for applying these rules, examining their equivalence and the implications for angular momentum and spin in quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One method involves determining all possible states using Pauli's principle and angular momentum addition rules, selecting the state with the highest total spin (S) and orbital angular momentum (L).
  • The second method fills possible magnetic quantum number states (m_l) starting from the highest, assigning spins (m_s) in a specific order to calculate total m_L and m_S, leading to a proposed ground state.
  • A participant questions the equivalence of the two methods, specifically why L equals m_L, suggesting a need for a general property or proof of equivalence.
  • Another participant clarifies that the construction of microstates in the second method respects Pauli's principle and leads to the highest L compatible with the highest S.
  • There is a discussion about the maximum value of M_L and its relation to L, with references to the triangle rule in angular momentum.
  • One participant expresses confusion about how L equals m_L is determined to be the highest L compatible with S, indicating that this is not trivial.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding the equivalence of the two methods and the implications of angular momentum calculations. Some participants seem to reach a better understanding, but no consensus is established on the equivalence or the reasoning behind it.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific quantum mechanical principles and rules, but there are unresolved questions about the generalization of the methods and the assumptions underlying the equivalence of the two approaches.

Reignbeaux
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
Question on Hund's rule to determine ground sate of electron configuration.
So as I can see from the literature there are two "methods" on how to apply Hund's rules to determine the ground state of an electron configuration.

Method 1: One determines all possible states due to Pauli's principle (wave function must be totally antisymmetric) using angular momentum addition rules. Then one can select the sate with highest total S and L and can then also select J according to the 3rd rule.

So far, so good. This is quite lengthy, especially when one has to add multiple spins together, but it works and is plausible.
But one can also find this approach, for example on wikipedia:

Method 2: One fills up the possible m_l states beginning with the highest m_l. First, spins with m_s = \frac{1}{2} are assigned; when all m_l are occupied once, m_s = -\frac{1}{2} are assigned again beginning with the highest m_l. Now one can calculate m_L = \sum{m_l} and m_S = \sum{m_s}. Now comes the confusing part:
The ground state simply has L=m_L, S=m_S.

I don't really get why the two methods are equal. Why is L=m_L? According to angular momentum addition rules, L could also take higher values than that.

I may have found a hint on the solution to this, but I'm not sure if I'm on the right track and also I don't know how to generalize this and kind of proof the equivalence of the two methods: When for example one looks at the Clebsch Gordan coefficients for 1/2x1/2 and 1x1 one can see that L=m_L=1+1=2 is antisymmetric and S=m_S=\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2}=1 is symmetric. So maybe this is due to a general property and the method works because it satisfies Pauli's principle?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Reignbeaux said:
But one can also find this approach, for example on wikipedia:
I've never seen this before. Could you please give a link to the Wikipedia page?
 
Ok, I see now.

Basically, instead of listing all microstates to find all the term symbols, and then extracting out the one with highest S and highest L, the method gets you to construct the microstate with highest S (since you are putting the electrons one at a time maximizing spin while respecting the Pauli exclusion principle), and the build up of the ##m_l## from high to low allows to figure out what is the highest ##L## compatible with that highest ##S##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Reignbeaux
DrClaude said:
[..] and the build up of the ##m_l## from high to low allows to figure out what is the highest ##L## compatible with that highest ##S##.
Thank you for your reply. But how can one see that ## L = m_L = \sum{m_l} ## of all is the highest L compatible (yielding totally asymmetric wave function) with S? This doesn't seem trivial, at least not to me.
 
Reignbeaux said:
Thank you for your reply. But how can one see that ## L = m_L = \sum{m_l} ## of all is the highest L compatible (yielding totally asymmetric wave function) with S? This doesn't seem trivial, at least not to me.
That actual equation to consider is ##M_L = \sum m_l## (triangle rule). The corresponding ##L## is then maximum value of ##M_L##, since ##L = -M_L, -M_L +1, \ldots, M_L##.

This is not different from the procedure you use when you list out all the microstates. For a given maximum ##M_S##, you have a corresponding value of ##S##, then, for that value of ##S##, you find the possible value of ##L## by taking the maximum ##M_L##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Reignbeaux
Thank you so much, I can see the connection now. Perfect!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K