I Total spin from atomic spectroscopy term symbols, e.g. neon's excited states

Yuli
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
Deducing total spin from atomic spectra with unusual term symbols, like in Ne. What do these term symbols specify, and do they have a well-defined total spin, S^2?
I'm interested in deducing spin-flip energies of various atoms from the NIST atomic spectra database:

https://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/ASD/levels_form.html

These are the minimal energies required to go from the ground state to a state with some given total spin S (such that the eigenvalue of the spin operator \hat{S}^2 is S(S+1)).

This entails interpreting term symbols of excited states. For example, these are the excited levels of B⁺:

https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/AS...t=on&lande_out=on&perc_out=on&biblio=on&temp=

In LS coupling, terms like all those in the link above give S explicitly (as well as L and J). For jj coupling terms, my understanding is that these arise in large atoms where relativistic effects become significant, and S is no longer a good quantum number, so the spin-flip energy is ill-defined.

My question is about other terms, like these in the excited levels of neutral neon:

https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/AS...t=on&lande_out=on&perc_out=on&biblio=on&temp=

I believe these might be J_1 L_2 coupling terms, which separate the outermost electron from the rest and specify quantities like L_2 (orbital angular momentum of the outer electron) and J_1 (angular momentum of the other electrons). However, this seems strange, because properties of a single electron in a many-electron system, like L_2, are typically bad quantum numbers. So,

- Which quantum numbers *are* specified by term symbols like those in the excited states of Ne?
- If L_1, L_2, J_1 or J_2 are specified, aren't these bad quantum numbers? How is this reconciled?
- Do the excited states of Ne have well-defined values of S? If so, how is it deduced? That is, how are the spin-flip energies of Ne obtained from the NIST data?
 
From the BCS theory of superconductivity is well known that the superfluid density smoothly decreases with increasing temperature. Annihilated superfluid carriers become normal and lose their momenta on lattice atoms. So if we induce a persistent supercurrent in a ring below Tc and after that slowly increase the temperature, we must observe a decrease in the actual supercurrent, because the density of electron pairs and total supercurrent momentum decrease. However, this supercurrent...
Hi. I have got question as in title. How can idea of instantaneous dipole moment for atoms like, for example hydrogen be consistent with idea of orbitals? At my level of knowledge London dispersion forces are derived taking into account Bohr model of atom. But we know today that this model is not correct. If it would be correct I understand that at each time electron is at some point at radius at some angle and there is dipole moment at this time from nucleus to electron at orbit. But how...
Back
Top