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
In the np2 configuration, the maximum value of M is 2, which necessitates the presence of a J=2 state that accounts for five of the six possible M values. After accounting for J=2, only one state remains, which corresponds to J=0, leaving no room for a J=1 state that would require additional states. The discussion emphasizes that the transformation between bases of states must maintain balance, as the total number of states must match. Consequently, values of M for J=2 cannot include those for J=1 due to the limitations imposed by the accounting of states. Understanding these properties is crucial for analyzing the configuration accurately.
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: 528
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 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.
 
At first, I derived that: $$\nabla \frac 1{\mu}=-\frac 1{{\mu}^3}\left((1-\beta^2)+\frac{\dot{\vec\beta}\cdot\vec R}c\right)\vec R$$ (dot means differentiation with respect to ##t'##). I assume this result is true because it gives valid result for magnetic field. To find electric field one should also derive partial derivative of ##\vec A## with respect to ##t##. I've used chain rule, substituted ##\vec A## and used derivative of product formula. $$\frac {\partial \vec A}{\partial t}=\frac...
Thread 'Conducting Sphere and Dipole Problem'
Hi, I'm stuck at this question, please help. Attempt to the Conducting Sphere and Dipole Problem (a) Electric Field and Potential at O due to Induced Charges $$V_O = 0$$ This potential is the sum of the potentials due to the real charges (##+q, -q##) and the induced charges on the sphere. $$V_O = V_{\text{real}} + V_{\text{induced}} = 0$$ - Electric Field at O, ##\vec{E}_O##: Since point O is inside a conductor in electrostatic equilibrium, the electric field there must be zero...

Similar threads