Why can't values of M for J=2 contain values of M for J=1 in np2 configuration?

  • Thread starter Thread starter proton4ik
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the quantum mechanical states of an np2 configuration, specifically addressing the relationship between the total angular momentum quantum number J and the magnetic quantum number M. Participants are exploring why certain values of M for J=2 do not overlap with values of M for J=1.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are examining the counting of states associated with different values of J and M, questioning the implications of having a maximum value of M and how it relates to the existence of states for J=1 after accounting for J=2.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided reasoning regarding the accounting of states and the implications of the maximum value of M. There is an ongoing inquiry into the properties of M and J that prevent overlap between the two angular momentum states.

Contextual Notes

Participants are discussing the constraints imposed by the number of available states and the requirements for different J values, indicating a need for clarity on the transformation between bases of states in quantum mechanics.

proton4ik
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone! I'm trying to understand how to determine states within the different configuration

Homework Statement


The question is, why we don't consider Max M=1 -> J=1 while identifying the states for np2 configuration? (http://www.nat.vu.nl/~wimu/JJCoup.html)
9b5bd41a9f958754594ab9385cb474ff-full.png


Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution

 

Attachments

  • 9b5bd41a9f958754594ab9385cb474ff-full.png
    9b5bd41a9f958754594ab9385cb474ff-full.png
    8.6 KB · Views: 561
Physics news on Phys.org
proton4ik said:
The question is, why we don't consider Max M=1 -> J=1 while identifying the states for np2 configuration? (http://www.nat.vu.nl/~wimu/JJCoup.html)
Because there is no such state left once those for J=2 have been counted.

There are six possible values of M: 2, 1, 0, 0, -1, -2. The fact that the maximum value of M is 2, there must be a J=2 in there. That J=2 is made up of M=-2,-1,0,1,2, meaning that 5 of those states make up J=2. What you have left is a single state with M=0, hence J=0.

In the hypothetical case where you would have found 9 possible values of M, 2, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, -1, -1, -2, then after having accounted for J=2, you would be left with
M=1, 0, 0, -1, so now you would have gotten a J=1 as well.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: proton4ik
DrClaude said:
Because there is no such state left once those for J=2 have been counted.

There are six possible values of M: 2, 1, 0, 0, -1, -2. The fact that the maximum value of M is 2, there must be a J=2 in there. That J=2 is made up of M=-2,-1,0,1,2, meaning that 5 of those states make up J=2. What you have left is a single state with M=0, hence J=0.

In the hypothetical case where you would have found 9 possible values of M, 2, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, -1, -1, -2, then after having accounted for J=2, you would be left with
M=1, 0, 0, -1, so now you would have gotten a J=1 as well.
Thank you very much for your answer! But still I have a very stupid question left. Why can't values of M for J=2 contain values of M for J=1? What are the properties of M, J that don't allow this?
 
proton4ik said:
Thank you very much for your answer! But still I have a very stupid question left. Why can't values of M for J=2 contain values of M for J=1? What are the properties of M, J that don't allow this?
I'm not sure I understand your question.

The procedure used here is an accounting procedure, and the books must balance. If you have 6 states and can determine that there is a J=2 component, that component accounts for 5 of the states. You are left with 1 state, which mean you can't have a J=1 component, since that would require an additional 3 states.

More technically, this is a basis transformation: you are going from a basis of states characterised by ##j_1## and ##j_2## and transforming to a basis of states characterised by ##J## and ##M##, and this is done because the latter are eigenstates in the presence of spin-orbit coupling. The two bases must be the same size.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K