I'm a chemist trying to understand atomic term symbol.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

If we list all the micro-states of certain multi-electron configuration, these micro-states can be grouped into several certain terms characterized by L and S. In other words, when we compute the M_{L}and M_{S}for each of the micro-state, they should belong to certain (L, S) configuration, much analogous to the single electron case wherelsets boundary for m_{l},sfor m_{s}. It is legitimate to do so because the operator L and S commute with H, so L and S are good quantum numbers describing the states. After deriving L and S, we use RS coupling scheme to calculate J.

If my understanding is correct, then this point should follow: certain micro-state can arbitrarily belong to several terms. For example, 3d^{2}contains terms 1D and 3P. A micro-state with M_{L}=1, M_{S}=0 can be either 1D or 3P, right? In that sense, it seems pointless talking about specific term of a micro-state, right?

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Pointless in talking about atomic term for a certain micro-state?

Tags:

Loading...

Similar Threads - Pointless talking atomic | Date |
---|---|

B Do atomic nuclei transfer momentum to electron orbitals? | Mar 8, 2018 |

A Sean Carroll's Talk about Everett Many Worlds | Oct 20, 2016 |

How to talk about interpretations | Oct 13, 2014 |

Let's talk true vacuums | Jan 14, 2014 |

Worm Hole Idea: Electron talk at Great Distance | Nov 23, 2010 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**