Weakly interacting electrons in an atom

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Isaac0427
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Atom Electrons
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the structure of wavefunctions in multi-electron atoms, specifically addressing the role of Slater determinants and their relation to the Pauli exclusion principle. It clarifies that while individual Slater determinants satisfy the exclusion principle, the overall wavefunction is a superposition of these determinants. The conversation also highlights the complexity of determining the quantum numbers L, S, and J for Slater determinants and the potential contradictions in various sources regarding term symbols that violate the Pauli exclusion principle.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics and atomic structure
  • Familiarity with Slater determinants and their applications
  • Knowledge of the Pauli exclusion principle
  • Basic concepts of angular momentum in quantum systems
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the mathematical formulation of Slater determinants in quantum mechanics
  • Study the derivation of term symbols and their relation to quantum numbers
  • Explore the implications of the Pauli exclusion principle in multi-electron systems
  • Investigate the role of superpositions in quantum states and their physical interpretations
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, quantum chemists, and students of quantum mechanics who are exploring the complexities of electron configurations and wavefunctions in multi-electron atoms.

Isaac0427
Insights Author
Gold Member
Messages
718
Reaction score
163
TL;DR
What is the structure of the wavefunction in multi-electron atoms? Are they slater determinants? If so, how do we determine its angular momentum and spin? And how do we know what term symbols violate Pauli exclusion?
Consider electrons in atom, and let's mostly ignore interactions between the electrons for now. What I mean by that is that the lowest energy level is the doubly degenerate 1s, then the doubly degenerate 2s, then the 6-fold degenerate 2p, etc.

Textbooks like Griffiths use term symbols ##^{2S+1}L_J## to describe the wavefunction. Then, to determine what is disallowed by the Pauli exclusion principle, it says that the wavefunction is a spatial part times a spin part; if the spatial part is symmetric under exchange, the spin part is antisymmetric under exchange, and vice versa. Also, even L is symmetric and odd L is antisymmetric, and for two particles even S is antisymmetric and odd S is symmetric.

I see how this works for two electrons. However, this breaks down quickly when you consider more than two particles. For instance, you can't have a three-particle purely spin state with a spin-1/2 electron. It seems like the full shells are often ignored, but I have yet to see rigorous justification for this; after all, the total wavefunction must be antisymmetric upon exchange of any two electrons in the atom.

So, I was thinking that the states could be, in general, slater determinants. That's what those electron configuration diagrams seem to show. But, if that is the case, is there a general formula for the L, S, and J quantum numbers for a slater determinant? Are those slater determinants even eigenstates of those operators? And, how do we know what term symbols violate Pauli exclusion?

The video below gives a very hand-wavy argument for what term symbols are forbidden by the Pauli exclusion principle, but seems to use slater determinants. This is why I am confused; different sources seem to contradict each other on the precise form of the wavefunction and how we determine which term symbols violate Pauli exclusion.

Thank you in advance!

 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: curious_mind and dextercioby
Physics news on Phys.org
Isaac0427 said:
What is the structure of the wavefunction in multi-electron atoms? Are they slater determinants?
No, they are superpositions (i.e. linear combinations) of slater determinants.
Isaac0427 said:
If so, how do we determine its angular momentum and spin? And how do we know what term symbols violate Pauli exclusion?
Each slater derminant in the superposition individually satisfies Pauli's exclusion principle. So you may restrict your attention to slater determinants. Griffiths and the video you linked probably tell you more about the details than I would be willing to write here.

Isaac0427 said:
So, I was thinking that the states could be, in general, slater determinants. That's what those electron configuration diagrams seem to show. But, if that is the case, is there a general formula for the L, S, and J quantum numbers for a slater determinant? Are those slater determinants even eigenstates of those operators?
Those configuration diagrams focus on single slater determinants. Those are typically not eigenstates of the Hamiltonian, but can still be eigenstates of suitable quantum number operators. (I am too lazy at the moment to lookup some of the more subtle details, maybe L, S, and J are all just fine, I am just not sure.)

There is also a

Atomic and Condensed Matter

forum here, where people might be less lazy when it comes to details.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK, malawi_glenn and vanhees71
gentzen said:
Each slater derminant in the superposition individually satisfies Pauli's exclusion principle. So you may restrict your attention to slater determinants. Griffiths and the video you linked probably tell you more about the details than I would be willing to write here.
Right, I am talking about the term symbols -- i.e., for carbon ##^3D## is forbidden, since #L# is even and #S# is odd. I don't know how that works.
gentzen said:
There is also a

Atomic and Condensed Matter

forum here, where people might be less lazy when it comes to details.
Perhaps a mentor can move this post there, if it is appropriate.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
986
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
897
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K