Molecular material ground state

hokhani
Messages
556
Reaction score
17
Why the ground state HOMO level of a molecule with two opposite-spin electrons, is singlet while we know that a level with two opposite-spin electrons may be singlet(s=0,m=0) or triplet(s=1,m=0)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The total wavefunction has to be antisymmetric. For two electrons in one orbital ##\phi## the Slater determinant can be written as
##\begin{vmatrix} \phi(1)s_+(1)& \phi(1) s_-(1)\\ \phi(2)s_+(2) &\phi(2) s_-(2) \end{vmatrix}= N\phi(1)\phi(2)(s_+(1)s_-(2)-s_-(1)s_+(2))##
where N is a normalization constant and s_+ and s_- are up or down spin eigenfunctions.
So as the orbital part of the wavefunction can only be symmetric, the spin function has to be antisymmetric.
With two orbital functions, you can form two Slater determinants and also create triplet eigenfunctions, e.g.
##N(\phi_a(1)\phi_b(2)-\phi_b(1)\phi_a(2))(s_+(1)s_-(2)+s_-(1)s_+(2))##
 
DrDu said:
The total wavefunction has to be antisymmetric. For two electrons in one orbital ##\phi## the Slater determinant can be written as
##\begin{vmatrix} \phi(1)s_+(1)& \phi(1) s_-(1)\\ \phi(2)s_+(2) &\phi(2) s_-(2) \end{vmatrix}= N\phi(1)\phi(2)(s_+(1)s_-(2)-s_-(1)s_+(2))##
where N is a normalization constant and s_+ and s_- are up or down spin eigenfunctions.
So as the orbital part of the wavefunction can only be symmetric, the spin function has to be antisymmetric.
With two orbital functions, you can form two Slater determinants and also create triplet eigenfunctions, e.g.
##N(\phi_a(1)\phi_b(2)-\phi_b(1)\phi_a(2))(s_+(1)s_-(2)+s_-(1)s_+(2))##

Thanks for your excellent and exact answer. But it remains another question;
writing the slater determinant this way:
##\begin{vmatrix} \phi_a(1)s_+(1)& \phi_b(1) s_-(1)\\ \phi_a(2)s_+(2) &\phi_b(2) s_-(2) \end{vmatrix}##
how can you separate spin and orbital parts as
##N(\phi_a(1)\phi_b(2)-\phi_b(1)\phi_a(2))(s_+(1)s_-(2)+s_-(1)s_+(2))##?
 
As I said with two orbitals you can form two different Slater determinants. The wavefunction with definite spins I have written down are combinations of the two.
The second one being
##
\begin{vmatrix} \phi_a(1)s_-(1)& \phi_b(1) s_+(1)\\ \phi_a(2)s_-(2) &\phi_b(2) s_+(2) \end{vmatrix}
##
 
DrDu said:
As I said with two orbitals you can form two different Slater determinants. The wavefunction with definite spins I have written down are combinations of the two.
The second one being
##
\begin{vmatrix} \phi_a(1)s_-(1)& \phi_b(1) s_+(1)\\ \phi_a(2)s_-(2) &\phi_b(2) s_+(2) \end{vmatrix}
##
Excuse me. I didn't underestand what you mean by "with two orbitals you can form two different Slater determinants". Do you mean that
##
\begin{vmatrix} \phi_a(1)s_-(1)& \phi_b(1) s_+(1)\\ \phi_a(2)s_-(2) &\phi_b(2) s_+(2) \end{vmatrix}
##=##
\begin{vmatrix} \phi_a(1)& \phi_b(1)\\ \phi_a(2) &\phi_b(2) \end{vmatrix}
####
\begin{vmatrix} s_-(1)& \ s_+(1)\\ s_-(2) &\ s_+(2) \end{vmatrix}
##?
 
No. In post #3 you wrote down one of the two possible Slater determinants. In post #4 I posted the second one.
You should try to convince yourself that from these two determinants you can construct both the singlet and the triplet state.
 
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
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
Back
Top